LAB tests for B16 Headers
For those who are wondering what is the best dyno proven headers for your B16 VTEC engines then you must read below.
Thanks to TPR - Tuner Performance Reports who has dynoed some of the well branded headers available in the market USDM. though some may not be available in AUSDM but getting a hold of these puppies will satisfy your performance needs :thumbsup: :
Please Read on:
***DISCLOSURES**
Many of our pundits were quick to point out that the Dyno Dynamics dynamometer used for the first set of tests was not considered an "industry standard" piece, simply because its presence is outnumbered here in the States by other dyno manufacturers. However, we would like to point out that other tests conducted on the Dyno Dynamics dyno during the same time frame show baseline and power gain numbers that are consistent with the Dynojet numbers quoted by the manufacturers of those particular products. Additionally, our test of a particular part (documented in this issue) on the Dyno Dynamics unit mirror the power production numbers shown by the same part on a similar platform, as tested on a Dynojet by our sister publication, DSport. So, for our detractors, we say - if a wooden yardstick is three feet long, then a steel yardstick should be, too.
Hi guys,
was bored at work so i decided to surfs up!
i found this interesting review from " TPR - Tuner Performance Reports " from U.S. <-- thanks TPR!
The Players
5Zigen - 4-2-1 configuration
DC Sports - 4-2-1 configuration
DC Sports - 4-1 configuration
Greddy - 4-2-1 configuration
HyTech Exhaust - 4-1 configuration
Spoon Sports - 4-2-1 configuration
Weapon R - 4-1 configuration
TC Sportline - 4-2-1 configuration
** Due to scheduling and parts acquisition mix-ups (entirely on our part) we weren't able to get an appropriate test header from TC Sportline in time for the first test. In the interest of not skewing the results further, we decided against testing them only in the second batch of tests and left them out completely. **
In our last issue, we displayed the first of a set of dyno graphs from The Lab tests with the disclaimer that we would refrain from commenting on the results until we collected all the data from the participating headers. This meant that the two DC Sports headers and the Greddy header results were - by some estimations - printed prematurely. We thought (and still think) that breaking up The LAB into two sections would allow for more "room" to analyze peak power gains and delta area under the curve, with a translation of both of these measurements into real-world scenarios. After all, we know that not everyone in the market for a header is looking for the all-out, all-race, all-the-time peak horsepower header that most people like to market. Apparently, many of our peers thought we were wrong to do that, and subsequently took us to task.
The first thing we have to point out is that our industry is heavily marketed as a "peak horsepower" world. That is, regardless of what changes happen along the power curve, the final result that most people would have you look for is "maximum horsepower gain." We think this is folly; with just a little bit of common sense, one would realize that the most peak horsepower is not necessarily the best horsepower. In fact, the "best" product for anyone - especially where horsepower gains are concerned - is relative to what he or she is looking to achieve with that product. Using our testbed as an example; if you know that your high-revving B16A engine lacks bottom-end torque, and that you would much rather see a sizeable gain in the lower RPM range than a large gain just before redline (where your engine rarely spends any time because it's strictly a street car) then maybe a header that produces 15 peak horsepower at the expense of bottom-end torque wouldn't be as good for you as a header that makes a solid 10 additional horsepower from 2500-5000 RPMs, even if that same header hovers at or around the same peak horsepower point at redline.
Subsequently, the opposite also holds true. Let's say that you're building a motor strictly for the track, a motor that would never run on a city street or highway. In that case, you might choose a header that produces tremendous amounts of power in the higher-RPM regions while sacrificing your power steering pump, air conditioning compressor, and a CARB number for passing smog requirements. As Albert Einstein would have said, "It's all relative."
When checking out the graphs on the following pages, realize that there are two sets of dyno numbers. The first set is from our tests on a Dyno Dynamics eddy current dynamometer. The second set is from a Dynojet fixed roller dynamometer. We'll explain why both tests were used as we walk you through our interpretation of the graphs. You'll see there are some anomalies, and that by the end of the first test, we knew that we were going to have to re-test the headers. You'll also see that re-testing may have posed more questions than it answered.
THE FIRST TEST
This set comes to us from the Dyno Dynamics dynamometer at Pann Auto Performance in San Diego, CA. Remember that both of the DC Sports headers and the Greddy header were tested on one evening and the remaining headers were tested on a second evening a few days later. According to the dynamometer weather station, the temperature and relative humidity on both days were close enough to substantiate calling these conditions "same day" conditions, although we're making it clear that they were tested on two different days as a matter of disclosure. We also need to disclose that the headers were run through a "test" pipe, a 2.5in dia X 3 ft length tube bolted to the exit flange of the header; we did this because we didn't want the choice of mufflers to be a factor in the power production, but we still recognized that some of the header designs might require an additonal length of tubing in order to fully exploit the scavenging affect of their respective designs by equalizing exhaust gas pulsation. We tested the headers in random order and the following is an interpretation of the results we received, displayed in the order we tested them.
Greddy (4-2-1)
Test 01
http://www.tprmag.com/issue/10/images/001-Greddy.gif
DYNO RESULTS
BASELINE
Test 01
http://www.tprmag.com/issue/10/images/000-Baseline.gif
5Zigen - TEST SET 01
The 5Zigen header showed a substantial gain in the 3000-4700 range, due mostly to the header's ability to smooth out the power curve before VTEC kicked in. Gains in this region were as large as 14hp to the wheel. Since horsepower ratings are extrapolated from torque, a corresponding increase in low to midrange torque was expected and seen, with a large majority of that increase right around the 10 lb/ft range. Because the entire powerband was shifted upwards and made more linear, peak horsepower topped out at 147.7hp - a median gain of 9.6hp.
5Zigen (4-2-1)
Test 01
http://www.tprmag.com/issue/10/images/002-5Zigen.gif
DC Sports : 4-2-1 - TEST SET 01
The first of the DC headers - the tri-y configuration - also showed a large increase in power in the 3000-4700 range, again with peak gains of about 12-14hp. Like the 5Zigen header, the DC Sports unit smoothed the powerband and removed the dip in the "street driving" range below VTEC. For a daily driven car, this is where the power is most evident, and most useful.
DC Sports (4-2-1)
Test 01
http://www.tprmag.com/issue/10/image...ports-TriY.gif
DC Sports : 4-1 - TEST SET 01
The second of the two DC headers tested - the 4-1 configuration, performed differently than expected. Normally, a 4-1 header on a VTEC engine like this shows a slight drop-off in low end power, a shift of the powerband to later (higher) RPMs, and a marked increase in power after VTEC. Our particular unit did shift the powerband toward the higher RPM range (causing what appears to be a loss of mid to high end power) but leveled at the same peak number - 138.1hp. Strangely, this makes the powerband come in later, increases low-end power, and maintains the same top-end performance. Again, this is not what was expected of this type of header, but it could have something to do with the test pipe vs. full exhaust system scenario; Only DC's engineers know for sure.
DC Sports (4-1)
Test 01
http://www.tprmag.com/issue/10/image...Sports-4_1.gif
Something's out of line
At that point, we ended that day's testing. Upon our return a few days later (again, under similar weather conditions) we noticed that the car had somehow gone out of alignment far enough to make the scrub friction with the dyno rollers produce smoke at the wheels. We corrected the toe geometry until it was within spec again and strapped the car on the dyno. We have to admit that this may have skewed the results of the first three headers tested (or the remaining header tests, however you want to look at it) but we also have to note that this smoke-producing condition wasn't present at any time during those initial tests.
Weapon R - TEST SET 01
Next up was the WeaponR header. As we mentioned before, we expected a 4-1 configuration like this to produce top-end power at the expense of low-end torque. What we found from this unit was a smoothing of the graph into a more linear power curve, with a peak output rating of 151.3hp. Incidentally, the low--end power did not suffer but actually increased, showing gains of as much as 10-15hp. The mid to high-end powerband, smoothened and shifted higher up in the RPM range, shows power "losses" of 3-5hp from4000-7000RPM, with the remainder of the power increasing until redline where the factory unit fell off.
Weapon R (4-1)
Test 01
http://www.tprmag.com/issue/10/images/005-WeaponR.gif
Spoon Sports - TEST SET 01
The Spoon header marked a return to the 4-2-1 configuration and the beginning of where things got interesting. Here we see that the entire powerband was shifted up drastically, especially in the areas after the VTEC actuation point. From there, the graph shows gains of as much as 25-30hp over the original baseline - especially at the peak RPM point around 7500rpm. The Spoon header showed a maximum peak gain of 35.4hp and a consistent increase in horsepower throughout the entire powerband; this also includes that area below VTEC which all the headers up to this point seemed to address. Examining the torque curves (from which horsepower numbers are extrapolated by the dyno computer) shows a large spike in the lower RPM range where once there was a dip, and a steadily increasing rate of torque production in the powerband after that. While the spike in torque does look suspicious, even to our eyes, remember that the graph shown here is the median result of three samples; the other two samples were consistent enough with this third one to eliminate the possibility of one-time surges or other physically occuring anomalies. Considering the base platform (a 1.6L twin cam engine) and the part being tested (a header) we knew that this number was unusually high - not impossible, just unusually high.
Spoon Sports (4-2-1)
Test 01
http://www.tprmag.com/issue/10/images/006-Spoon.gif
HyTech Exhaust - TEST SET 01
At this point, you've already seen the graph on the previous page, and you've probably already done the math. Yes - we're showing a 51.1hp increase. Yes, that's highly unlikely and it made everyone... uncomfortable. We have to note that the HyTech unit is marketed as a "racing" header and will not fit with the power steering and air conditioning compressor intact; these were removed for our testing of the header. Still, our test procedure stayed the same, our test platform stayed the same, and the multiple runs we did were all repeatable to within 3 horsepower of each other, with power curves following the same lines each time. Like the other headers, the HyTech unit increased low-end torque production to such a point as to negate the effects of the "pre-VTEC" dip in the powerband, and it also straightened the graph to make the powerband more linear after that point. Like the other headers, the standard test procedure was followed, with the same extension pipe mounted onto the header. DISCLOSURE: The pipe was provided to us by HyTech as they were concerned about the possibility of a loss of power due to the relatively short runner length from the collector to the header's exhaust gas exit point. Now, one could easily conjecture that the pipe benefited HyTech the most because they designed it, and that would be true. However, that fact doesn't prove that this was an act of collusion; it rather suggests that HyTech might know a little something about header design that we don't know - hence, their polite suggestion that we use the pipe on all the header tests. Given the design of the pipe (essentially a long test pipe or straightpipe) and the fact that the tests were conducted pragmatically and without bias, we wondered if it might be possible that the header wouldn't make as much power if attached to a complete exhaust system. When we brought all of this information and the dyno charts to our peers and a few industry tuners, however, they all had different opinions...
HyTech Exhaust (4-1)
Test 01
http://www.tprmag.com/issue/10/images/007-HyTech.gif
LAB tests for B16 Headers - Part 2
Part 2 Continued...
The industry standard
During our discussion of the initial test results, we were given a number of explanations, ranging from "You guys are just idiots" to "Those numbers don't matter if they aren't on a Dynojet." We have to admit that the Dynojet legacy has become somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy. In the early stages of our industry, the Dynojet was the least expensive way to get repeatable results; it was subsequently used by many as a "standard" by which all other dynos were measured. The more the industry quoted it, the more it became a number to quote. We didn't want to continue the circular argument of which dyno was right or wrong (see our "D'You Know Your Dyno" story in Issue 08) and with our deadline fast approaching, it was discouraging that almost everyone asked failed to respond to our requests for an interpretation of the results (or simply responded that we were idiots, without any additional edification.) In the end, we resigned ourselves to retesting the headers on an available Dynojet that was "accepted" by our peers, simply to corroborate the graphs with those acquired from the Dyno Dynamics dynamometer. So, off we went to AEBS in Miramar, Calif. to hold another, one-day, header shootout. Only by this time, 5Zigen had required us to return their sample header, so we were one header short. Also, we knew that the car was now in alignment and that all headers re-tested would be done so without the power steering and air conditioning belts running off the engine; this was sure to have some effect on power production. Our industry peers agreed upon a rough estimate of +3 to +5 change in power freed up by the removal of the units and the belts that drove them.
ON TO THE SECOND TEST
Again, we tested the headers in a random order (although we must admit that getting the HyTech test out of the way first eased a lot of tensions - sort of) under the watchful eye of the techs at AEBS who, as a matter of disclosure, didn't have a participating header in the test and who don't (to our knowledge) have authorized distributor agreements with any of the manufacturers listed. Also, the graphs shown are the median from the runs conducted on each header as compared to the median baseline reading found. (To extract the median run, we first insured that all the power curves were overlapped to within 1hp, then picked the graph showing the median peak power gain.)
BASELINE - TEST SET 02
This is noteworthy because the baseline power rating achieved on the Dyno Dynamics dyno is almost 15% percent lower than the rating we achieved on the Dynojet. We note this only because, mathematically speaking, if both dynos are accurately measuring power gains then the percentage gain (or loss) at any particular RPM point should be relatively close between both graphs.
Test 02
http://www.tprmag.com/issue/10/images/100-Baseline.gif
HyTech - Test Set 02
This time around, the HyTech unit made about 3-5 additional horsepower between 3400-4300rpm, then slowly produced more power over stock from about 6300rpm to redline. In all other areas of the graph, the power gain was negligible. Peak power production rose from 160.4hp to 168.5hp.
Test 02
http://www.tprmag.com/issue/10/images/101-HyTech.gif
Spoon - Test Set 02
The Spoon header made the powerband react much in the same way as the HyTech; a small increase around 4000rpm, followed by negligible gains until 6000rpm, where it produced an increasing amount of power all the way through redline. No other area under the curve was affected significantly, and the peak power rating rose 5.7hp to top off at 166.1hp.
Test 02
http://www.tprmag.com/issue/10/images/102-Spoon.gif
Greddy - TEST SET 02
Greddy's offering also showed little to no change under the curve, with the exception of a small dip (1-2hp) between 5000-6000rpm. The entire powerband seems to have stayed the same with the exception of the increase of maximum horsepower, topping the graph out at for an increase of 2.9hp. peak horsepower, raising the maximum rating to 163.3hp.
Test 02
http://www.tprmag.com/issue/10/images/103-Greddy.gif
WeaponR - TEST SET 02
From the start of the sample to the VTEC actuation point around 5600rpm, the WeaponR powerband remained unchanged from the baseline. At VTEC actuation, there was a 2-3 hp loss that steadily decreased until about 6500rpm. From there, the WeaponR unit made increasingly more power until it's peak rating at 164.9hp.
Test 02
http://www.tprmag.com/issue/10/images/104-WeaponR.gif
DC Sports : 4-2-1 - TEST SET 02
The first of the DC units showed negligible change to the power curve until about 7000rpm. From there until redline, the unit managed an additional 2-3hp over the baseline, ending with a 163.9hp max rating.
Test 02
http://www.tprmag.com/issue/10/image...ports-TriY.gif
DC Sports : 4-1 - TEST SET 02
The DC 4-1 unit showed negligible changes from the start of the sample until about 4800rpm. There, a slight dip occured (but we should note that it was only evident on this median graph; other graphs showed an essential overlay from the baseline run.) Just after VTEC, the power curve dipped slightly and then picked up from about 6700rpm to redline, for a final peak horsepower gain of 4.6hp.
Test 02
http://www.tprmag.com/issue/10/image...Sports-4_1.gif
SO WHICH IS THE ULTIMATE HEADER?
Well, that's hard to say. "Ultimate" as we mentioned before, is relative to exactly where and how you're going to use the product. It is a peak horsepower industry that we live in; at least, it's a peak power industry that has been marketed to you - the consumer - for well over a decade now. And while increasing peak horsepower numbers is a sure sign that something is happening when you bolt on your new header or aftermarket part, it's not necessarily the best thing to happen. Take the DC Sports 4-2-1 header, for example. In both test sets - Test 01 and Test 02 - this particular header wasn't the maximum horsepower producer. It did, however, display a sizeable amount of low-end power in one test and a decent gain in another test. Does that make DC Sports the loser? We think not. Of all the headers tested, the DC headers counted for two of the three tested that had CARB approval. That may seem unimportant right now, but it sure will make a world of difference when your car comes up for mandatory emissions testing and you no longer have access to your stock piece. It takes a great deal of engineering, testing, and re-testing to gain CARB approval AND still make usable horsepower and of all the headers tested, DC Sports was the only one up to that task. On the other hand, a full-race engine builder could care less about CARB approval and may be willing to sacrifice some parts for others in the search for the header that best compliments his/her setup. The power steering pump and air conditioning compressor, among other things, are some of the first things to go in cases like this. So, with all the graphs and numbers and interpretations, what exactly did we learn about our headers?
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
We're convinced that we've proven something, but it's not directly related to which header fared best in our tests. Essentially, what we uncovered is a complete and utter lack of a certifiable standard in the industry. It's not a battle of which dyno manfucturer makes the best product (and therefore which parts manufacturer can make "honest" horsepower claims.) It's actually a call to arms for our industry, as a whole, to establish a set of rules, procedures, and equipment from which we can all extrapolate meaningful data about the condition of our engines and the benefit of the modifications we are making to them. Independent groups like the Society of Automotive Engineers have already established a system like this; our industry needs to whole-heartedly adopt those standards, or put its collective minds together to establish our own so that, once and for all, any one of us can say, "My car made X horsepower from Y modification," without having to qualify it with excuses about altitude, temperature, and the brand of dynamometer used.
BUT JUST TELL ME - WHO WON?
Aside from the revelations we had about "standardized" testing procedures, we also amassed a mountain of data. And, in our current "peak horsepower" world, if a winner was to be chosen from that data by maximum peak horsepower gain alone, the winner in both test sets - as clearly identified by the graphs - is HyTech Exhaust. We welcome and look forward to your comments and suggestions.
"Just remember this is ONLY a guide" further homework and advises maybe required to satify your performance needs :p
