Re: Manifold/header comparisons PART of the answer

[Chris Davis <pngkid@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I looked back:

June 2001 Mopar Muscle Exhaust Research

Hedman Full length Elite, Hedman Shortie, 440 Magnum iron stockers peak=20
horse power with all three came at 5400 rpm

440 with iron manifolds @ 5400 RPM 422.2 Hpower
440 with shorties @ 5400 RPM 478.8 Hpower
440 with Elite Full Length @4=3D5400 RPM 492.3 Hpower

I know they also did a test at one point with truck manifolds and the MW .

C Davis

Doug Jacobsma wrote:
> =20
> =20
> Well, if there isn't an article out there, or it  is not informative=20
> enough, perhaps you guys searching and contacting the magazines will=20
> prompt one.  It would certainly be of great interest to all Mopar=20
> enthusiats.
> I remember years ago, installing headers on 2 different 383 RoadRunners=
=20
> and seeing nice gains in 1/4 mile times.  Then another time I put a set=
=20
> of Hookers on my GTX with a then stock 440 which replaced the H-pipe as=
=20
> well.  The gain was much smaller.  Cant remember the numbers anymore but=
=20
> I'm thinking the drop in ET was less than half it was with the stock=20
> 383s, which had no H pipe in original config.  Suppose the H pipe made=
=20
> that much difference ?  These were all '69s btw, which is what sits in=
=20
> my '63 now, with stock manifolds and exhaust that needs replacing, so=20
> I'm very interested in the comparisons also.
> =20
> Jake
> '63 Sport Fury 'vert
> =20
> =20
> =20
> =20
> =20
> =20
> =20
> =20
> > From: Tom Duross <tduross1@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Reply-To: 1962to1965mopars@
> > To: 1962to1965mopars@
> > Subject: RE: Racer brown cam and exhausting situation
> > Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 08:06:56 -0500
> >
> >
> > Seems to me it was a Rick Ehrenberg article.
> > I remember that article I think.  You can search on Mopar Action for the=

> > story.
> > I think Rick's a list member here too.
> >
> > Good luck and keep us posted.
> > Tom Duross
> > Boston
> > 14 degrees
> > Go Pats!!!
> >
> >
> > Hi George, Happy New Year to you!
> >
> > I've sent an email to my old mate Randy Bolig at Mopar Muscle, asking if=

> > they've done such an article.
> > Well, I say 'mate', we've had some previous email contact since he=20
> > included
> > our car in their mag and he usually answers my emails, so fingers crosse=
d
> > > > If it wasnt MM, I doubt it would have been MCG (do they do tests?), so=
=20
> > maybe
> > it was Mopar Action? Or High Performance Mopar before it disappeared?
> >
> > I'll let you know as soon as I hear back.
> >
> > Robert
> > 63 Polara 500
> > England
> >
> > >
> > > I hadn't brought this up before,my memory being what
> > > is now. Within the last 4-5 yrs. one of the Mopar
> > > mags,I believe,did a comparison test between headers
> > > and MW manifolds. I wish I could recall the
> > > results.I'm going to make it my mission to find out
> > > which one,if possible.
> > > --- Joeydahook9@xxxxxxx wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Brian - that's a lot of cash, but if it's what you
> > >> want, go for it.   I'm
> > >> taking so long building my motor/drivetrain because
> > >> I have to save up to get  the
> > >> parts, as most of us do.  I want my motor to look
> > >> bone stock, but I  have the
> > >> MW manifolds and an old 383 factory 2x4 inline on
> > >> it.  No chrome,  factory
> > >> turquoise paint.  I'm still hoping to find a set of
> > >> those football  shaped air
> > >> cleaners for a reasonable price someday.  The motor
> > >> is a "Old  Reliable"  type
> > >> 451 stroker.  Headers as well as a modern intake
> > >> would  surely make more
> > >> power, but I'm hoping those Mopar engineers from the
> > >> 60's had a  reason for those
> > >> MW manifolds.  Then again, with today's technology,
> > >> small  blocks make 60's big
> > >> block power.  They just cover the motors up with
> > >> plastic shielding now.
> > >> Today's WOW factor is how many TV screens are in
> > >> the car.   Joe
> > >>
> >
> >
> > ----
> > Please address private mail -- mail of interest to only one person --=
=20
> > directly to that person.  I.e., send parts/car transactions and=20
> > negotiations as well as other personal messages only to the intended=20
> > recipient, not to the Clubhouse public address. This practice will=20
> > protect your privacy, reduce the total volume of mail and fine tune=20
> > the content signal to Mopar topic.  Thanks!
> >
> > '62 to '65 Mopar Clubhouse Discussion Guidelines:
> > http://www.1962to1965mopar.ornocar.org/mletiq.html.
> =20
> _________________________________________________________________
> Valentine=92s Day -- Shop for gifts that spell L-O-V-E at MSN Shopping=
=20
> http://shopping.msn.com/content/shp/?ctId=3D8323,ptnrid=3D37,ptnrdata=3D2=
4095&tcode=3Dwlmtagline=20
> =20
> =20
> =20
> ----
> Please address private mail -- mail of interest to only one person --=20
> directly to that person.  I.e., send parts/car transactions and=20
> negotiations as well as other personal messages only to the intended=20
> recipient, not to the Clubhouse public address. This practice will=20
> protect your privacy, reduce the total volume of mail and fine tune the=
=20
> content signal to Mopar topic.  Thanks!
> =20
> '62 to '65 Mopar Clubhouse Discussion Guidelines:
> http://www.1962to1965mopar.ornocar.org/mletiq.html.=20
> =20
> =20
> =20
> =20


----
Please address private mail -- mail of interest to only one person -- direc=
tly to that person.  I.e., send parts/car transactions and negotiations as =
well as other personal messages only to the intended recipient, not to the =
Clubhouse public address. This practice will protect your privacy, reduce t=
he total volume of mail and fine tune the content signal to Mopar topic.  T=
hanks!

'62 to '65 Mopar Clubhouse Discussion Guidelines:
http://www.1962to1965mopar.ornocar.org/mletiq.html.=20

This email was sent to: =
arc.6265@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

=
.=

Or send an email to: 1962to1965mopars-unsubscribe@


http:///?p=3D