dmagnum@ccs.netside.com wrote:
>
> Hey Scott and the DML guys,
>
> My intention was not to start a pissin contest. Only to tell you what I have
> clearly tested at the track. I wish I had 500.00 to spend on a guess.
> I have seen and read about 92-93 dakota's running low 13's without headers. The stock
> manifolds flow better than most other production types. I have used Jacobs and MSD
> and they both slowed my truck down 2 tenths. This might be due to fact of retarded
> static timing because of inherant delays of the cicuitry in the ignition boxes.
> These delays cannot be compensated for by merely turning the distributor.
First of all guys I don't think we should get so worked up over
different oppinions. I for one like to hear all sides of it. If
someone believes that I wasted my money on the headers, fine. I don't
get all mad, I just know they are working out fine for me. Everyone is
going to have a different oppinion and that's that. Let's try to keep
it light-hearted like the auto/stick Bill/Sean debate. If you
dissagree with someone try and do it gently.....;-) The last thing I
want to do is start a pissin' contest... I'm just trying to learn
here.....
Now, dmagnum, in the above quote are you talking about the headers or
the ignition? I would make no claims as to what an ignition will do, as
I still have the stock iginition. But honestly, the DT's have increased
my low - mid range torque. When I can get enough money saved up I am
going to do another dyno run. Since the last one the only modifications
have been the Flowmaster dual cat-back and now the headers. If it
weren't so expensive I'd dynoed after the cat-back, and then again with
headers......that would have helped out this argument... ;^)
My observations is this: (this is just my opinions and I might be
wrong) With the cat-back you gain hp, but loose a little low end
torque. With the headers you gain a *little* hp, but you get all your
torque back and then some. Does this sound right to any of the DT &
cat-back people?
> I have used Pc desktop dyno and a Drag Analyzer which showed an increase in HP but
> lost bottom end(ET) because of not enough back pressure. These programs did not ask
> me the configuration type(full length,Tri-Y), so there may be an argument here. If
> any one on the DML can honestly confirm before and after testing at the track or with
> a Vericom I am more than willing to give them A try.
>
Like I said when I get some more $$$ saved up I'm going to do another
dyno run. I'll be sure to post the print outs for everyone.....
--
Michael Clark mike@snakebite.com
'93 Mark III 4X2 V-8 SWB RC auto
MP SBEC, K&N FIPK, Flowmaster cat-back dual
Doug Thorley Headers
http://userv.wt.net/~mclark/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:07:50 EDT