Which header? - Page 2 - Ranger-Forums - The Ultimate Ford Ranger Resource


4.0L OHV & SOHC V6 Tech General discussion of 4.0L OHV and SOHC V6 Ford Ranger engines.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #26  
Old 05-20-2009
robert ray69's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: columbia,sc
Posts: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by graniteguy View Post
Is it possible a body lift will allow it to clear the firewall? If there's a 50/50 chance I will probably try and see what happens. I can always sell them if it doesn;t work.

With the bosy lift, and the fact that I removed my spare tire carrier, I think i can fit the exhaust up high. In the bed area I can darn near put it above the frame.
I say go for it then if you think it will work. Keep us posted...
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 05-20-2009
TrePaul86's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (8)
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Gresham, OR
Posts: 1,369
Wow... What a good thread guys!

I'm thinking about picking up a set of stock manifolds and modifying them... So how much work is really involved in that?

Anyone have a write up or pics?

It really helps that much?
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 05-20-2009
ringer4x4's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: upstate ny
Posts: 544
Quote:
Originally Posted by fddriver02 View Post
207 is at the flywheel. You lose power going through the drivetrain. You have to remember it takes power to turn everything. Also an auto will soak up more power than a manual tranny.
anyone know when factories went back to quoting flywheel hp instead of rear wheel hp? thought in 1972 factories started quoting rear wheel hp...1 of the reasons hp ratings from 1971 were way down?
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 05-20-2009
graniteguy's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by ringer4x4 View Post
anyone know when factories went back to quoting flywheel hp instead of rear wheel hp? thought in 1972 factories started quoting rear wheel hp...1 of the reasons hp ratings from 1971 were way down?

Who knows what they did in the 70's. They had clout as well as a backbone back then. lol. They put whatever numbers worked for them to sell vehicles. They underrated for insurance purposes is what I remember.

Today's world is a standard measurement that is real. I say that cause they got caught a couple of times which is pretty interesting. One of the reasons there wasn't a 2000 Cobra was the 1999 fell short of advertised HP. They cancelled production as they swapped out manifolds in all the ones they had sold. To keep the Cobra name going, they produced a limited number of cobra R's so there would still be one for that year.

Thats my understanding anyways. I think the same thing happened with the RX8. Not sure. The neat thing is it takes someone removing from the car- separate from the tranny- to get the flywheel HP. You can usually slide if your off a little cause few people are gonne tear apart their car to prove something.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 05-20-2009
karrbass4life's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 3,072
SAE explained...

Quote:
SAE horsepower


SAE gross horsepower

Prior to the 1972 model year, American automakers rated and advertised their engines in brake horsepower (bhp), frequently referred to as SAE gross horsepower, because it was measured in accord with the protocols defined in SAE standards J245 and J1995. As with other brake horsepower test protocols, SAE gross hp was measured using a stock test engine, generally running with few belt-driven accessories and sometimes fitted with long tube (test headers) in lieu of the OEM exhaust manifolds. The atmospheric correction standards for barometric pressure, humidity and temperature for testing were relatively idealistic.


SAE net horsepower

In the United States the term "bhp" fell into disuse in 1971-72, as automakers began to quote power in terms of SAE net horsepower in accord with SAE standard J1349. Like SAE gross and other brake horsepower protocols, SAE Net hp is measured at the engine's crankshaft, and so does not account for transmission losses. However, the SAE net hp testing protocol calls for standard production-type belt-driven accessories, air cleaner, emission controls, exhaust system, and other power-consuming accessories. This produces ratings in closer alignment with the power produced by the engine as it is actually configured and sold. The change to net hp effectively deflated power ratings to assuage the auto insurance industry and environmental and safety lobbies.


SAE certified horsepower

In 2005, the SAE introduced a new test protocol for engine horsepower and torque.[12] The new protocol eliminates some of the flexibility in power measurement, and requires an independent observer present when engines are measured. The test is voluntary, but engines completing it can be advertised as "SAE-certified".

Many manufacturers began switching to the new rating immediately, with multi-directional results; the rated output of Cadillac's supercharged Northstar V8 jumped from 440 horsepower (330 kW) to 469 horsepower (350 kW) under the new tests, while the rating for Toyota's Camry 3.0 L 1MZ-FE V6 fell from 210 horsepower (160 kW) to 190 horsepower (140 kW). The first engine certified under the new program was the 7.0 L LS7 used in the 2006 Chevrolet Corvette Z06. Certified power rose slightly from 500 horsepower (370 kW) to 505 horsepower (377 kW).
Quote:
Brake horsepower

Brake horsepower (abbreviated bhp) is the measure of an engine's horsepower without the loss in power caused by the gearbox, generator, differential, water pump, and other auxiliary components such as alternator, power steering pump, muffled exhaust system, etc. "Brake" refers to a device which was used to load an engine and hold it at a desired RPM. During testing, the output torque and rotational speed were measured to determine the "brake horsepower". Horsepower was originally measured and calculated by use of the indicator (a James Watt invention of the late 18th century), and later by means of a De Prony brake connected to the engine's output shaft. More recently, an engine dynamometer is used instead of a De Prony brake. The output delivered to the driving wheels is less than that obtainable at the engine's crankshaft.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 05-20-2009
graniteguy's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrePaul86 View Post
Wow... What a good thread guys!

I'm thinking about picking up a set of stock manifolds and modifying them... So how much work is really involved in that?

Anyone have a write up or pics?

It really helps that much?
Port matching to the gasket. Take the gasket and line it up on the cylinder head. Get a marker and trace the opening. Wherever there is ink- dremel it away until it tapers into the old hole. Do the same thing on the exhaust manifold. If there are any burrs or humps in either- smooth them down to aid in air flow.

You have to be carefull. You don't want to expose a water jacket in your cylinder heads.

Here is something I read which I thought was interesting. The air leaves the exhaust port from the top. The air wants to "curl" down and head back into the engine. If you could take your stock exhaust manifold and move it up 1/4 to 3/8 of an inch it would create a wall on the bottom. The curled air would hit that wall and stop. So you didn't decrease the flow, the top of the cylinder port would have to be ported taller to match the new location of the exhaust manifold. never tried it, don;t know if is doable, don;t know if there are any gains. It sounded interesting though.

My personal belief is gains are limited unless you deal with the large number of cats in the system. Any increased flow is limited to the weakest link. I don;t believe the weakest link is the exhaust manifold.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 05-20-2009
Johnbaum13's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 2,343
In the 70's they "measured" flywheel horsepower with no accessories, no a/c, alternator, water pump, nothing. In '72 I think, They started rating flywheel HP with all accessories, thus the drastic drop. Now all testing is done in "as installed in car" configuration, at the flywheel. The drivetrain is still a variable in the real world.

So basically, the numbers now are realistically what the motor puts out. Chassis dynos will still show different numbers depending on transmission and gear ratio.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 05-20-2009
kymudder08's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Owensboro, KY
Posts: 838
so which of the JBAs on summits site would you guys reccomend? theres like 3 or 4. heres the link if it works: JBA on summit
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 05-20-2009
graniteguy's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,221
theres really only one model that will fit your engine. The only choice is whether you have an egr and if so, which side of the motor it is on.

After that you can get stainless which is least expensive
or ceramic coated in silver or titanium. The ceramic will hold in the heat better and look better. It comes with an added price though.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 05-20-2009
whippersnapper02's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Earth, Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 7,415
I would personally get the ceramic coated ones. They will reduce underhood temps dramatically.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 05-20-2009
kymudder08's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Owensboro, KY
Posts: 838
so how do you know if you have the egr?
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 05-20-2009
graniteguy's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,221
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 05-20-2009
kymudder08's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Owensboro, KY
Posts: 838
ok, i understand now. only thing i dont get is that all the ones i look at on summit are shortys..
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 05-20-2009
whippersnapper02's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Earth, Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 7,415
Quote:
Originally Posted by kymudder08 View Post
ok, i understand now. only thing i dont get is that all the ones i look at on summit are shortys..
All headers for Ranger's are shortys. There is no room for long tube and its a truck so why make long tubes for it.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 05-20-2009
graniteguy's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,221
thats all there is except the 4.0 mustang has a long tube available from mac performance. It was discussed previously in this thread. Its cheaper but it is chrome plated mild steel vs jba's stainless steel. Plus its not made for a ranger so it may not fit.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 05-20-2009
kymudder08's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Owensboro, KY
Posts: 838
ok, ic. someone on here was sayin that long tubes bring the best numbers so thats what i was lookin for. so is there a performance difference between all the JBAs? i rele dont wanna spend 500 on a set of headers. i was thinkn 3-350. so if i dont wanna spend the money on the ceramic ones (its not like im racin or nething and nethings better than stock i guess) which ones would you reccomend. and thoughts on gibson/
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 05-20-2009
Off-roadranger04's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Newark, Delaware
Posts: 1,751
yeah i was lookin at the JBA's also for my ranger... is the listed price as a set or per header?

Ha nevermind i just looked it up they are sold as a pair...
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 05-20-2009
graniteguy's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,221
zach, the Gibson is gonna be mild steel with a chrome plate. The chrome will discolor after time. You will eventually get some rust on them.

Unless you are saving a lot of money i would stick with the stainless steel. Last I looked the price was relatively the same.

for the 4.0 guys, JBA dropped the price a few months ago on one model only for Explorers. By one model I mean the same egr configuration that the explorers have. Can't remember if it with the egr, without it, or which side it is on. If you can make that one work on your Ranger it will save about $100. The egr can be capped of easily, but it can't be added onto the headers.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 05-21-2009
wydopnthrtl's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SE, Mi
Posts: 2,342
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Mac View Post
will that really work? i don't know if i could see that adding almost as much power as headers... basically does anyone have proof?
Proof? Your young aren't cha.
Man guys have been doing this for well over 50yrs.

I've been doing this for over 20yrs.. have even done this to my Lightning.
The biggest restriction is not the iron manifolds. It's the cats.

Here is a pic from my Lightnings Fox lake ported heads and the manifolds.

Rich








Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 05-21-2009
wydopnthrtl's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SE, Mi
Posts: 2,342
Quote:
Originally Posted by graniteguy View Post
The air wants to "curl" down and head back into the engine.

This is most likely not a rule of thumb. W/O doing a thermal and computational fluid dynamic study.. there is no way to know what a particular combustion chamber, port, and exhaust manifold will do.

The "shade tree" way to maximize this is to make the exhaust manifold slightly bigger in crossection than the port.

Also, the crosectional area of the manifold should remain equal until it reaches the open plenum area.

In reality though guys.. I'm talking about very small details that pale in comparision to mid pipe/cat restrictions.



btw, on my Lighting (when it was stock) I switched the stock cats for a cat-less mid pipe. Manifolds were untouched.. my trap speeds went up by nearly 2.5mph.

Bang for the buck.. it's the cats that need attention.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 05-21-2009
graniteguy's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by wydopnthrtl View Post
This is most likely not a rule of thumb. W/O doing a thermal and computational fluid dynamic study.. there is no way to know what a particular combustion chamber, port, and exhaust manifold will do.

The "shade tree" way to maximize this is to make the exhaust manifold slightly bigger in crossection than the port.

Also, the crosectional area of the manifold should remain equal until it reaches the open plenum area.

Your description of oversizing the exhaust manifold port makes sense. The neat thing is it is much more attainable than trying to relocate the exhaust manifold on the cylinder head.

For all of us guys with more time than money- it could be a perfect weekend- bloody greasy knuckles and money for beer instead of parts.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 05-21-2009
N20-3.0's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Orlando,FL
Posts: 147
Not trying to be negative.But don't headers provide more efficient scavenging of the exhaust gasses?
I thought that was the main reason the primaries are all different lengths to time the exhaust pulse.
This is something a stock log manifold can not do.

Each primary on my JBA's are as big as the main portion of my stockers.

Excluding your Lighting Rich.
I also made great power on my Cobra with stock manifolds[585 WHP].But I gained a touch over 26 WHP when I installed the Kooks long tubes and catted X-pipe.

Tony
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 05-21-2009
WowMike2001's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Stevenson, WA
Posts: 2,583
Well - The biggest ease on installment - is a body lift. I -really- wish I had my body lift on BEFORE I went to do the headers - Pulling the old manifold out was easy.. its trying to get the new JBA in thats the ***** lol. IKts a maze, and you have to go from the top of the engine down to the side - no way you can fit it in from the side or anywhere. As mentioned above - if you are good with your tools and get a little bit of penetrating oil to the situation, anywhere from 5-10 hours will cover you; 5-10 giving room for breaks, lunch/dinner, and some beer


Edit: Remember to keep an extra handful of Ouch tools on hand nearby; you dont want to go throwing away the tool you need every time you feel the need to throw one after banging your knuckles real good
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 05-21-2009
02oregonedge+'s Avatar
Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: OR!
Posts: 1,086
I had this install done at a shop in town for 50$ and it only took the guy an hour. He said it took that long because he needed to cut a longer tube for the EGR, otherwise it's a 30 min. swap....BTW I have no body lift...
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 05-22-2009
wydopnthrtl's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SE, Mi
Posts: 2,342
Quote:
Originally Posted by N20-3.0 View Post
Not trying to be negative.But don't headers provide more efficient scavenging of the exhaust gasses?
Yes this is true. The increased length of the primaries adds volume to the manifold. That increased volume reduces delta P across the exhaust valve. (aka scavaging)

Quote:
Originally Posted by N20-3.0 View Post
I thought that was the main reason the primaries are all different lengths to time the exhaust pulse.
If your talking about the stock manifold.. no it's because of packaging space within the engine room. (or family of engine rooms)
They take an educated guess at the shape that'll fit all the engine rooms. Then they do CFD (computational fluid dynamic) studies and tweak the interior surfaces to equalize the pressures (delta P) across the exhaust valves.

Basicly it's more a result of other criteria than it is in making the best power.
One small thing they can do with castings that you can't with headers.. is to make each primary and collector have a ever increasing crossectional area. Cut one apart and you'll see what I mean. This is a small way to help create that volume. (the same principal works for nearly any pumps exhaust side. Water, fuel, air, ect..)



Quote:
Originally Posted by N20-3.0 View Post
Each primary on my JBA's are as big as the main portion of my stockers.
And accordingly you should see less pressure change across the exhaust valves. (scavaging)

Quote:
Originally Posted by N20-3.0 View Post
Excluding your Lighting Rich.
I also made great power on my Cobra with stock manifolds[585 WHP].But I gained a touch over 26 WHP when I installed the Kooks long tubes and catted X-pipe.
I absoultely agree. All I'm trying to point out is that on a ranger with a *stock engine*.. there are some pretty good shade tree bang for the buck ways to increase power. The stock cats being number one on the list for replacement. An anaolgy.. if you have a water bucket with two holes in it. Which would you try to "fix" first. The larger hole.. or the smaller one?
If a feller has the funds to do both.. then more power to ya. (pun intended)

btw, I had a set of 3" LT headers for my Lightning. But I'm laid off and needed the cash. So I sold them and did the best I could with my stock iron manifolds. If I ever again have the spare cash.. I'd love to have a set of Kook LT and high flow cats. But as you know.. those puppies are not cheap.

Regards, Rich
Reply With Quote
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
question about the different between 2.3 header and 2.5 header FixOrRepairDaily SOHC - 2.3L & 2.5L Lima Engines 2 11-28-2010 09:47 PM
Which tire and Which size? Redrider11 Wheels & Tires Semi-Tech 16 01-17-2010 09:47 PM
Header information!!! (read if you want a header) kenscivic 2.3L & 2.5L I4 Tech 2 08-09-2007 11:19 PM
need to know which wire is which RedPowerRanger General Technical & Electrical 3 01-28-2007 06:25 PM
PM's in header/footer? blacknight Ranger-Forums Office 14 09-26-2004 10:25 PM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:02 PM.


We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.