JDL 4-2-1 EL header

[Goingnowherefast]

Originally Posted by Plumbus

I have an ace setup currently and am saving up for a PTuning flex fuel kit, and will tune again with Zach when that happens, but I'm all the way here in miami. if someone has the jdl with FF around here and we could crowdfund a dyno session I'd be willing to test this out. Just throwing that out there lol.

Super curious what a head to head duel between these two headers with E85 would yield, the JDL EL was on my radar when cross shopping the ace and I'm sure people in the market would be interested in it as well.

If you guys can find two dynojets then I'd call that good enough. The benefit of a dynojet is that you can more easily compared numbers from dyno to dyno given that the only factor is the constant inertia of the rollers, unlike a Mustang dyno which has road load co-efficients and more to take into account.

[jflogerzi]

Originally Posted by Goingnowherefast

If you guys can find two dynojets then I'd call that good enough. The benefit of a dynojet is that you can more easily compared numbers from dyno to dyno given that the only factor is the constant inertia of the rollers, unlike a Mustang dyno which has road load co-efficients and more to take into account.

I rather do back to back on the same day. Let's see if we can get someone in the socal region to get this done.

Sent from my GM1915 using Tapatalk

[x808drifter]

The only decent way to get even semi legit numbers for comparing the headers would be to run everything off the same car and dyno and tune for each setup.
Anything less is a useless comparison beyond knowing what your car in particular is doing. It'd be a single data point.

You would need lots of cars with both setups to do dynos to build a useful comparison otherwise.

[PulsarBeeerz]

Originally Posted by x808drifter

The only decent way to get even semi legit numbers for comparing the headers would be to run everything off the same car and dyno and tune for each setup.

Already done by 949 Racing. They said they perform very similar. The JDL had slightly less falloff after 7000rpm than the 350.. Had they had a 250 or 150 overpipe section it may have been different.

[Goingnowherefast]

Originally Posted by PulsarBeeerz

Already done by 949 Racing. They said they perform very similar. The JDL had slightly less falloff after 7000rpm than the 350.. Had they had a 250 or 150 overpipe section it may have been different.

Here's the quote for that, if anyone is wondering. I definitely take 949 at their word, but it would be nice to see actual data on this.

Originally Posted by 949 Racing

Never got a clean graph. Issues with ignition pickup. Even the ones I posted are missing data and spiky. JDL basically same as ACE 350 but didn't fall off as much after 7100, some of that due to the changes we requested to a certain table.

From what I have seen, having many days dynoing our 86, is that weather has a significant effect on readings even when SAE corrected. Same set up would fluctuate about 8whp depending on heat, humidity and barometric pressure. Even wider swings if we turned SAE correction off. Lesson is that direct and precise comparisons can only be made on the same day/dyno/car. Outside of that you are looking more for relative numbers, trends, etc.

[949 Racing]

Just added Crawford BPB to the OEM 2013 manifold. Otherwise same as described earlier in this thread. Last time we dynoed about a year ago, we had coils that were on their way out. Ignition Projects coils now. We plan to dyno again in a few weeks and post results here with all specs. Would be nice to hit 210whp with a cat. Not sure if its possible. We'll see.

[Goingnowherefast]

Originally Posted by 949 Racing

Just added Crawford BPB to the OEM 2013 manifold. Otherwise same as described earlier in this thread. Last time we dynoed about a year ago, we had coils that were on their way out. Ignition Projects coils now. We plan to dyno again in a few weeks and post results here with all specs. Would be nice to hit 210whp with a cat. Not sure if its possible. We'll see.

Definitely looking forward to seeing how the BPB's work with a 4-2-1 long tube setup like JDL's. Have you considered jumping to a 2017 intake manifold yet?

[jflogerzi]

Originally Posted by Goingnowherefast

Definitely looking forward to seeing how the BPB's work with a 4-2-1 long tube setup like JDL's. Have you considered jumping to a 2017 intake manifold yet?

2017 is not gonna help much plus ppl say it can heat soak faster..

Sent from my GM1915 using Tapatalk

[PulsarBeeerz]

Originally Posted by 949 Racing

Just added Crawford BPB to the OEM 2013 manifold. Otherwise same as described earlier in this thread. Last time we dynoed about a year ago, we had coils that were on their way out. Ignition Projects coils now. We plan to dyno again in a few weeks and post results here with all specs. Would be nice to hit 210whp with a cat. Not sure if its possible. We'll see.

Maybe time to consider sending a TB off to Maxbore.com? A +2mm over bore can deliver a bit more mid range.

Originally Posted by jflogerzi

2017 is not gonna help much plus ppl say it can heat soak faster..

Sent from my GM1915 using Tapatalk

Eh, I've ran both. Assuming you have some form of exhaust manifold heat management it isn't an issue... However, the swap isn't worth it unless you extrude hone the IM. Interestingly the MY17 plenum is only half the size of the MY13's.

[Mike_ZN6]

I am interested to see what 949 does with the Crawford BPB and Ignition Project coils. I have been lead to believe that neither of these mods should make a measurable difference.

[jflogerzi]

Originally Posted by Mike_ZN6

I am interested to see what 949 does with the Crawford BPB and Ignition Project coils. I have been lead to believe that neither of these mods should make a measurable difference.

The BPB is for only pump gas. E85 cars need not apply right?

Sent from my GM1915 using Tapatalk

[949 Racing]

The coils don't add power. They simply don't fail like the OEM ones do. BPB change the flow characteristics of the intake manifold. Fuel is irrelevant. There is a significant amount of data under controlled conditions indicating the BPB do make a difference. And the data all correlate, which further validates the conclusion.

What we are aiming for is peak power at a lower RPM and more total area under the curve. If it loses a bit of power on the top end, that's fine as we don't spend a lot of time there on track anyway. So yeah, we'll see what happens and post the dyno. William at delicious tuning sent us a starting map for the BPB. We'll do some dyno pulls, send the logs back so De can fine tune.

[jflogerzi]

Originally Posted by 949 Racing

The coils don't add power. They simply don't fail like the OEM ones do. BPB change the flow characteristics of the intake manifold. Fuel is irrelevant.

When the BPBs came out it showed a loss of power when using with e85 in the higher rpm compared to without. Maybe early tuning issue IDK...

Sent from my GM1915 using Tapatalk

[PulsarBeeerz]

Originally Posted by 949 Racing

The coils don't add power. They simply don't fail like the OEM ones do. BPB change the flow characteristics of the intake manifold. Fuel is irrelevant. There is a significant amount of data under controlled conditions indicating the BPB do make a difference. And the data all correlate, which further validates the conclusion.

What we are aiming for is peak power at a lower RPM and more total area under the curve. If it loses a bit of power on the top end, that's fine as we don't spend a lot of time there on track anyway. So yeah, we'll see what happens and post the dyno. William at delicious tuning sent us a starting map for the BPB. We'll do some dyno pulls, send the logs back so De can fine tune.

Should be interesting. I've only seen one person make them work with E85 thus far. BUT he did have a dyno chart to proved his claim and yeah the there was literally a mountain of TQ from 5500-6500.