Originally Posted by Tilikum Turbo (Post 8056102)

Your lead-in to the question "are wrong" and then proposing a "view" is a disconnect in logic.

Originally Posted by Robbbyg (Post 8057058)

HAHAHA bugger ive been found out :rolleyes::D

Actually its not too bad ive actually inadvertently installed a 4 point floaing suspension system for my relay panel, its completely unaffected by bumps.. :D

Originally Posted by Robbbyg (Post 8057071)

yeah theyre all jealous of my inventiveness :)

Originally Posted by Tippy (Post 8057094)

I can't simplify this enough for my logic that equal is better.

If 2 or more cylinders exhaust pulses/energy with unequal length primaries roughly arrive at the same time in a collector or T flange, how can the energy NOT be negated?

Both or more pulses are trying to occupy the same area reducing gas energy. With perfect cadence, the pulses would have an easier time passing through the tubes/collector.

Not saying I'm right, it's just my logic with zero fluid dynamics background. :)

Originally Posted by quattrorunner (Post 8055677)

It's not the same time if the engine has a fireing order.

Originally Posted by Maltese Falcon (Post 8055704)

Everybody buy some u-bends, j-bends, and straight sections from Jegs or Summit.
Start putting together some various headers like;
equal length, pulse tuned length, 180° , tri-y, 6 into 1. Then build all of these one more time, but in step-tube sizes.
Then lets install and run on the dyno for comparisons of rwhp/Tq.
Keep in mind that forced induction engines push exhaust gasses around different from n/a engines, yet another variable in the design criteria.
Lots of work ahead of us !
Marty

Originally Posted by Robbbyg (Post 8057146)

Im another that cant weld , something ill have to learn when i get a roof DAM

Originally Posted by RarlyL8 (Post 8056849)

I did a fair amount of header research when designing our equal length 930 headers. Conventional wisdom at the time was the shorter the better. Turned out that was only half the story. The full story was the shorter the equal length the better. What true equal length primaries and secondaries do for you in a turbo application is allow the engine to produce more torque off boost and then to produce more peak power on boost. This is in a street application mind you, racing is a whole different ballgame. I dyno tested every system I could get my hands on using the same engine. The equal length system is magic. The tuned sound alone was worth the effort. The key is for each pulse to reach the turbo in the same timing as the firing order, not a mish mash of odd fire pulses. Each pulse hits the turbine in a coordinated efficient beat.
Building short tube headers is easy and gives you a high percentage of gain over standard heat exchangers. I would not have gone to all the effort and expense to build a tuned system if it had no added benefit. This is not a new or unique idea.

Originally Posted by Robbbyg (Post 8057139)

On this Logic At the point of gases arriving in that area the collecter should be very large ? that would allow all he gases to pass without slowing down to where they go to?
If they were tapered down (in morphed cube shape ,Maybe?) to match the size of the Turbo opening, If the least disruption is ideal then header shape can be improved (note if anyone does this it was my idea )



Good thinking, sort of like this? Norwood build, circa 2002. Also I think the 935 header was very similar. So i think a patent is out of the question.:)

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1399745804.jpg

Originally Posted by Robbbyg (Post 8057139)

That sounds logical to me , its what i was trying to say in original post when i mentioned firing order, but it is more of the order (sequence)? of gases that arrive at the collector T Flange thing,

On this Logic At the point of gases arriving in that area the collecter should be very large ? that would allow all he gases to pass without slowing down to where they go to?

After the collector If they were tapered down (in morphed cube shape ,Maybe?) to match the size of the Turbo opening, If the least disruption is ideal then header shape can be improved ie: round to Square?? (note if anyone does this it was my idea )

Not discounting I think Mr Rarly has done great work (your welcome)and studies and he has many facts to back it up, i think however there are areas that could be changed to make a better system or are we at the point of 100 percent perfecton already?
I did a drawing to show what happens as Tippy says see below

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1399700531.jpg

Originally Posted by Jim2 (Post 8057881)

This topic is exhausting.