Ford Muscle Cars Tech Forum banner

1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
596 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Ok I have a 289 w/ cearmic coated tri-y's I've been running for a few years now. They seem to work great and I noticed a power increase from the exhaust manifolds i was running both in seat of pants and et's at track. Fast forward and now I'm getting more into racing the car from time to time at local dragstrip... I've got some upcoming mod's i'm looking to make, AFR 165's, ram air and battery relocate. I've seen where many folks run the long tubes for pure performance it seems. What would be the advantages to switching to long tubes if any? Also can anyone confirm or deny the statement I've heard several times that "tri-y's are better down low for torque and long tubes make more power up top"? Would the probably $500 bucks i'd have to spend for good coated long tubes(hooker's) really add to my et? My motor is mild 289 right now, weiand single plane, holley 600dp, about 10:1cr w/ flat tops, roller rockers, stock heads now but have the 165's
to go on, mild race cam not sure spec's...runs 14.2 @98+ so far..or are the long tubes for more radically build up's, thanks for any comments...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,609 Posts
I run tri-y's on mine and I run in the 11's. I would stay with them for now until after you do your head swap and then see if you still want to switch headers. The tri-y's are a great street header, but for all out racing, the long tubes are probably better.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,153 Posts
You guys are talking as if Tri-Y's are NOT long tube headers? Doug Thorley makes a nice set of Tri-Y long tube. What am I missing here?Long tube headers are for more low end torque, Shortie Headers are for High RPM.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,662 Posts
There are many different versions of the tri-Y header...There are a lot of low performance units out there sold by mustang resto places....These are much better than exhaust manifolds but don't compare to a good tuned long tube header...There are exceptions but in general the tri-y is better down low and in the mid range....I would look at the ports on your new afr heads and see if the openings in the header flange are going to match up well...They might be too small and kill the flow on your new heads.....If they are close I would try them but it seems to me you are really after every last tenth you can get out of your combo..I think a good set of longtubes will be better for you...Shop around I think you can get a good set for less than $500 bucks..I've heard that flowtech headers are the same as some hooker headers..I've installed a set on a 66 mustang and they looked very good although the ground clearance was a little low..

_________________

J-code 306 [email protected] build underway

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: frdnut on 10/22/06 12:07am ]</font>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,487 Posts
frdnut mentioned the biggest problem you will face if you have a low cost tri-y...they will probably not match up to the AFR exhaust ports very well. I tried one or two other headers before settling on Dougs stepped tube tri-ys (not Doug Thorley). The Dougs had inlets as large as my exhaust ports (1.48 x 1.25). In case your interested, the Dougs tri-y design has been tested against long tubes and the results were similiar.

_________________
Tracy Blackford: Corona, Ca
'65 FB Mustang 331, 282S cam, ported 351W heads. T5z, 3.50 9" posi.
346 [email protected] on a warm spring day (335 RWHP SAE corr.)




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: blkfrd on 10/22/06 6:31am ]</font>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,520 Posts
On 2006-10-21 06:41, FATNFAST wrote:
You guys are talking as if Tri-Y's are NOT long tube headers? Doug Thorley makes a nice set of Tri-Y long tube. What am I missing here?Long tube headers are for more low end torque, Shortie Headers are for High RPM.
I'll agree that eveyone that wants them or buys them don't necessarily need long tube headers.

But I'll have to disagree that shorty are superior to long tube headers at higher rpm. I'm not going to argue against your personal expereince, that seldom proves anything or is convincing. Half joking...I 'll ask, if shorties are better, then wouldn't no header at all be the ultimate?

Shorties have their place, as do Tri-y's - the reason most guys go with short tube, headers is it's just too hard to get all those pipes in some cars...I figure its more of a packaging reason than a performance reason. Given all the room needed, properly designed long tube are at the top of most class racing I've every seen or heard about...'cept when using Turbos.

If your expereince is different, you have a secret that most of the formulas haven't figured out yet.

There are conditions that may make it better for a particular combination to go against the conventional wisdom. If your result give proven result, great.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
865 Posts
Long tube headers always make more power at low to mid range. but often do NOT make any more top end power.I tested tri- Y s and 4 into one designs for thorley years ago, and there was almost NO differance at all on a 350 HP SB Chevy engine. As I recall, the 4 tube beat out the tri Y s by a few HP. On a loe HP engine, you will never notice any differance. JOE SHERMAN RACING
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
596 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
On 2006-10-21 09:24, blkfrd wrote:
frdnut mentioned the biggest problem you will face...the tri-y's you have now will probably not match up to the AFR exhaust ports very well. I tried one or two other headers before settling on Dougs stepped tube tri-ys (not Doug Thorley). The Dougs had inlets as large as my exhaust ports (1.48 x 1.25). In case your interested, the Dougs tri-y design has been tested against long tubes and the results were similiar.
Question then? If my current Tri-y's don't match up to the AFR's , would it be a good idea to try and massage the tri-y's w/ some tools to open them up? If i did that i guess the cearmic coating i had put on them would be messed up though. ????
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,520 Posts
On 2006-10-21 10:02, BIGJOE wrote:
Long tube headers always make more power at low to mid range. but often do NOT make any more top end power.I tested tri- Y s and 4 into one designs for thorley years ago, and there was almost NO differance at all on a 350 HP SB Chevy engine. As I recall, the 4 tube beat out the tri Y s by a few HP. On a loe HP engine, you will never notice any differance. JOE SHERMAN RACING
Just like its possible to put too much carburator, too much intake manifold or heads too "big" for the engine (cam, springs, rpm potential, weight, gears ... etc). Its not to hard to beleive people can put the wrong headers on an engine. I guess I could put some 2 1/4 in. primary, 4 tube headers on a 2-barrel 289 and see it not make any more horsepower...matter of fact, it may end up making less than the factory cast iron exhaust manifold.

I'm not trying to butt heads with you on whether someone could screw up a combination. I see too many credit card engine builders that have bought every thing that can be bolted on an engine, but they failed to "buy a clue". Like people have preached for years...its the combination, not just the parts.

Top fuel use straight pipes (Zoomies?), but thats not the hot ticket for every car.

Pardom me it if you are serious about this opinion,...but sometimes I get the feeling there are guys in this forum that just need a good cause to fight for or against.

I will agree, that the combination, whatever works, is what you look for. Bell buttons are for people, not engines....'cept NASCAR
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,662 Posts
On 2006-10-21 11:26, ga289stocker wrote:
On 2006-10-21 09:24, blkfrd wrote:
frdnut mentioned the biggest problem you will face...the tri-y's you have now will probably not match up to the AFR exhaust ports very well. I tried one or two other headers before settling on Dougs stepped tube tri-ys (not Doug Thorley). The Dougs had inlets as large as my exhaust ports (1.48 x 1.25). In case your interested, the Dougs tri-y design has been tested against long tubes and the results were similiar.
Question then? If my current Tri-y's don't match up to the AFR's , would it be a good idea to try and massage the tri-y's w/ some tools to open them up? If i did that i guess the cearmic coating i had put on them would be messed up though. ????
It would really depend how much meat they left you around the ports to work with.I would guess probably not....It's funny how because the shortie header may be close to some long tubes at high rpm but not at low or mid range that alot of people seem to think they are a superior high rpm piece...Why wouldn't you want the whole package as long as it will fit on the car?......I did see a header comparison in a mustang magazine where a set of tri-ys actually outperformed a set of conventional long tube headers..I believe they were made by dearborn classics and were meant for an early 60s falcon..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,497 Posts
Most of the 'generic' $159 tri-y's that most mustang vendors sell are pieces of sh*t. They don't work very well at all for horsepower. They are for the guy who has a stock vehicle, but wants to say he has 'tri-y' SHELBY headers on it.

Not all tri-y headers are created equal.

You can do MUCH better with FPA, Doug Thorley, Hooker, Hedman, etc.

Good Luck!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,287 Posts
Beo, what I think Joe was saying is that the longtubes ARE better, across the board, but on a low hp motor, say less than 350, it's not worth the effort to change the tri y's, as they made similar power. Now, as you climb the horsepower ladder...the longtubes will pull away from the tri y's and it becomes more reasonable to do a swap.

My advice by the way, is wait for your heads etc, if they match up, and you have a QUALITY tri y, keep using them. If they don't match or your existing headers are 'marginal' as far as quality...by all means make the switch to longtubes. I've always said (and read) that if a person bolts on longtubes and loses power, he most definately used the wrong size for his application.

Cris
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,233 Posts
Check to see how wide the port opening is on the Tri-y's you have now. the AFR ports are 1.300 wide, I could only open up my longtubes to 1.150. If your willing to do some welding and get serious you could open them up more. My FPA's are on the way, but even Stan said that there is somewhat of a compromise given the bolt width is so friggin small to begin with. AFR should have an option to buy the 165/185 with the wider 205 bolt pattern. Makes no sense to design a head that has no header that really matches up.
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top