JDL 4-2-1 EL header

[solidONE]

Originally Posted by Code Monkey

@TMF, are you still on this exhaust? My tune is a road racing tune as well.

IT is odd that the torqu tapers off sharply on that dyno. Maybe timing is being pulled at 6400rpms.

[JBezugs]

Originally Posted by solidONE

IT is odd that the torqu tapers off sharply on that dyno. Maybe timing is being pulled at 6400rpms.

It’s certainly possible. For reference; here’s my dyno from earlier in the thread. Unfortunately this was only a 7100rpm run but the torque holds on pretty well, with a slight taper past 6750 but not as steep of a fall-off.



OnPoint Dyno’s Dynapack reads very similarly to the CSG Dynapack (that is to say, low) based on the numbers I’ve seen from both.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by Code Monkey

@TMF, are you still on this exhaust? My tune is a road racing tune as well.

Originally Posted by solidONE

IT is odd that the torqu tapers off sharply on that dyno. Maybe timing is being pulled at 6400rpms.

Now ya'll have me concerned, I don't know why I didn't see the torque completely falling off on the graph. That was a 5th gear pull, not sure that should make a difference though, although it is a lot of strain on the engine.

And yes, I'm still on the same exhaust setup (JDL 4-2-1 EL header, JDL overpipe, JDL catless frontpipe w/ single resonator, Tanabe Concept G catback).

Might need to follow up with my tuner on that.

Originally Posted by Celica00

Jeez @TMF when you went into that turn going 125MPH, I just about had a heart attack vicariously. What brakes are you using?

Haha yea, that turn is a hair raiser.

OEM brakes, Carbotech XP12 pads in the front, XP8 in the rear. I don't see a reason to upgrade brakes on this car other than reducing consumables. I am on Hoosier R7's as well, so that helps too

[TMF]

Originally Posted by JBezugs

It’s certainly possible. For reference; here’s my dyno from earlier in the thread. Unfortunately this was only a 7100rpm run but the torque holds on pretty well, with a slight taper past 6750 but not as steep of a fall-off.



OnPoint Dyno’s Dynapack reads very similarly to the CSG Dynapack (that is to say, low) based on the numbers I’ve seen from both.

I'm assuming that is on pump gas and not E85, right? My torque curve looks similar on my pump gas dyno. https://www.ft86club.com/forums/show...&postcount=162

Still curious what is going on with the E85 graph though.

[JBezugs]

Originally Posted by TMF

I'm assuming that is on pump gas and not E85, right? My torque curve looks similar on my pump gas dyno. https://www.ft86club.com/forums/show...&postcount=162

Still curious what is going on with the E85 graph though.

Yep, that dyno graph is on 94 octane. I'm also running the stock over pipe and front pipe.

I'd be curious as well, the torque fall off is earlier than normal and quite significant.

[Hades]

Originally Posted by TMF

I don't recall if I posted my dyno numbers after I went to E85, but here are my numbers.

You'll probably say, "these look low!" and "there's no comparison!", which are both accurate statements. But the one constant here is that these dyno runs were conducted in compliance with NASA's dyno testing procedures, which usually read low.

Nice torque curve!


I'm assuming that is the 93 dyno. I'm thinking with these headers I can get to ~190whp avg. with e85. This would give me more WHP for competition and not need to run a wing (I'm not sure which way would be faster, but I've read a lot saying > HP is better than the aero in these classes).

[TMF]

Originally Posted by Hades

Nice torque curve!


I'm assuming that is the 93 dyno. I'm thinking with these headers I can get to ~190whp avg. with e85. This would give me more WHP for competition and not need to run a wing (I'm not sure which way would be faster, but I've read a lot saying > HP is better than the aero in these classes).

Mine latest graph was E85. Are you looking at classing with NASA? If so, with E85, full exhaust, etc you'll end up around 183 avg hp.

[Hades]

Originally Posted by TMF

Mine latest graph was E85. Are you looking at classing with NASA? If so, with E85, full exhaust, etc you'll end up around 183 avg hp.

Ah, thanks. So similar to all the other headers on the market. The torque curve is still good, though. It sounds like there's really not any headers that can do ~180whp avg. on 91/93 with NASA corrections (maybe ace but doubtful).

[PulsarBeeerz]

Originally Posted by Hades

Ah, thanks. So similar to all the other headers on the market. The torque curve is still good, though. It sounds like there's really not any headers that can do ~180whp avg. on 91/93 with NASA corrections (maybe ace but doubtful).

949 Racing ran the Ace 350 and the JDL 4-2-1, but stuck with the JDL because it had a similar power band to ACE with less drop off at 7000+.

[CSG Mike]

Originally Posted by PulsarBeeerz

949 Racing ran the Ace 350 and the JDL 4-2-1, but stuck with the JDL because it had a similar power band to ACE with less drop off at 7000+.

They also spent a lot more time tuning the JDL!

Solid header.

[Goingnowherefast]

Originally Posted by CSG Mike

They also spent a lot more time tuning the JDL!

Solid header.

Let's say they spent a lot more time tuning the ACE and got it within the margin of error of the JDL, is there any reason to buy the now way more expensive ACE350 over the JDL 4-2-1?

This is a genuine question, because between the higher price, the near requirement of buying motor mounts, and the need for some clearancing, it doesn’t make too much sense to me.

[CSG Mike]

Originally Posted by Goingnowherefast

Let's say they spent a lot more time tuning the ACE and got it within the margin of error of the JDL, is there any reason to buy the now way more expensive ACE350 over the JDL 4-2-1?

This is a genuine question, because between the higher price, the near requirement of buying motor mounts, and the need for some clearancing, it doesn’t make too much sense to me.

With equally top shelf tunes, the Ace still makes more power over a wider powerband, and also weighs less, so when you want the absolute best, yes.

Many folks will spend the difference on the JDL 4-2-1 and call it a day, and still have fantastic results.

I believe 949 already had a pre-existing relationship with JDL (JDL makes fantastic Miata headers as well), and used the Ace as a stop-gap until their 4-2-1 arrived.


CSG has both the JDL 4-2-1 and Ace in their catalog, and *tries* to stock both, but both are almost always backordered.

[PulsarBeeerz]

Originally Posted by CSG Mike

With equally top shelf tunes, the Ace still makes more power over a wider powerband, and also weighs less, so when you want the absolute best, yes.

So I wouldn't be doing my due diligence without asking for proof of that claim. I remember a JDL 4-1 vs 350 dyno and confusion of a JDL UEL as a 4-2-1 dyno. Still hoping to see a comparison of the JDL vs ACE. Not trying to press you or anything but as neither header is what this community would consider inexpensive at $1400-2K gotta know all the info. lol

[Goingnowherefast]

Originally Posted by CSG Mike

With equally top shelf tunes, the Ace still makes more power over a wider powerband, and also weighs less, so when you want the absolute best, yes.

Many folks will spend the difference on the JDL 4-2-1 and call it a day, and still have fantastic results.

I believe 949 already had a pre-existing relationship with JDL (JDL makes fantastic Miata headers as well), and used the Ace as a stop-gap until their 4-2-1 arrived.

Gotcha. Thanks for the reply. It's definitely an interesting conversation to have since I think most will agree that the ACE and the JDL are probably the best headers on the market today.

Originally Posted by PulsarBeeerz

So I wouldn't be doing my due diligence without asking for proof of that claim. I remember a JDL 4-1 vs 350 dyno and confusion of a JDL UEL as a 4-2-1 dyno. Still hoping to see a comparison of the JDL vs ACE.

The engineer in me also says we could use some data to substantiate this claims.