RE: New Manifolds... - Dodge Dakota Forum

Subject: RE: New Manifolds...
IP: Logged

Message:
July '03 Mopar Muscle, exh man comparo. The base factroy manifold: old style 318, the best: 340 magnum (looks almost like a max wedge piece, and even I would think would make more HP just from looking at it) the difference? 4hp on a 300hp/360ci crate engine. It took tti headers (considered to be the current best on the market) to make 15HP over the 318 manifold! You would never see anything near 10hp on a stock, or modified for that matter, 5.2L by changing to those manifolds. Period.
You answered his question, yes, but you are wrong.

Sephiroth
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE

5/25/2004
11:14:24

RE: New Manifolds...
IP: Logged

Message:
Yeah I had to buy a water-pump yesterday, and a clutch-remover for the fan. I am about to go swap my water-pumps right now. I appologize Don, but if they're still for sale after I swallow the bullet that hit my pocket yesterday, I'll probably buy them, and just wait to find an older y-pipe before putting them on. It'll be a month at least, however.

don
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE

5/25/2004
12:08:36

RE: New Manifolds...
IP: Logged

Message:
no appology needed........peace

gen1dak
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE

5/25/2004
19:13:15

RE: New Manifolds...
IP: Logged

Message:
A crate 360 with open exhaust (24-inch collector extensions) and a carb. Yeah, that's gonna respond the same way a MPI 318 with a bigger cam (.432 in the 5.2 vs the 360's .385/.410), and a full exhaust would. You're mixing apples and oranges. There wasn't a Magnum exhaust in the comparison, for comparison's sake. On an engine with such a mild cam as the one in the article, how much hp are you expecting to gain, even with open headers? There isn't enough cam to take FULL advantage of the better manifolds and headers. Also, if you'd step back and think, you would understand that the open exhaust (anyone else running 24-inch collector extensions...no catalytic converters or mufflers?)....anyway, this would help the more restrictive manifolds produce more power, thus narrowing the margins on performance headers. With a full exhaust, the margins would widen considerably, especially if the cat. and muffler are high-flow.

Does anyone else know why 00R/T has a hard-on for me?

00R/T, your enthusiasm is almost enviable, but you continue to fly off with incomplete information. If you would pursue actually LEARNING how it all works instead of just running with bits and pieces, we wouldn't be at odds.
And one other thing. Where do you get off criticizing my knowledge of laminar flow in that you were the only one talking about it? Do you have some magic crystal ball that allows you to peer into my brain? I could see your comments being valid if I'd even made one iota of a comment, and it'd been wrong. But I didn't. It's essentially impossible to assess knowledge online, because there would always be a question as to the quality of the search engine one might use. However, there is a fluency with which I speak about such things. You do not, and that gives away so much....as if you're reading, then typing, but not fully understanding. You need experience, and a little humility wouldn't hurt.

00R/T CC
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE

5/26/2004
00:15:05

RE: New Manifolds...
IP: Logged

Message:
You can read!(and have that issue!)
First, no hard on. Second, I don't think were at odds, just because of a difference in opinion. That's what this forun is for, I thought. Thrid, no crystal ball, just experience. Fourth, if you had knowledge of flow theory, you'd have pulled that out long ago. Your idea that bigger is better just does not hold water, back it up with results or an idea or something, anything. The article actualy makes my point, that 340 man. is quite a bit bigger, for certain. I doubt Seph would see 10HP even with that on his combo.
Think what you will, cut me down etc., it doesn't bother me. As I stated, it says more about you. I know that type of response maddens you, though it shouldn't.
The comparison is valid. A 300hp (roughly) sm.blk, swap mans, see the gains. Rant and rave all you want. I am correct (not just based on that article)in saying that you will not see 10hp, or near that, from those mans.
Attack me all you want, it's sad, but obviously one of your favorite outlets. Get your facts before you get your back up, next time perhaps. At least I could point to that article to help my argument. The origin of the argument is the 10HP thing, it's been settled, and as far as I can see you are not willing to, or cannot prove me wrong. If he's got so much cam, (and making so much more pwr than that 360 is) that those mans. will give him that gain then I don't belive that they would be his first choice for a better flowing exhaust sys.
I do not intend to feed your p-ing match here. My knowledge and experince does not come from 'online' as you imply. My search engine sits on my shoulders. If you wish to impugn that, be my guest. But try to do it without insensate remarks, which only serve to drag you down. Comment as you like about experince, mine or yours, truth be told I'm sure you've got alot, as do I. As for learning, try hard to learn somethin here, you might thank yourself.
Bottom line, last time, show me the money; show the 10HP gain and prove me wrong!Please!
Goodnight.

don parks
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE

5/26/2004
02:54:44

RE: New Manifolds...
IP: Logged

Message:
00rt is right about a cam being the most important part to manage flows and using what all it can. so would 1.7 rrockers help alot in this equation,without a cam upgrade ?

00R/T CC
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE

5/26/2004
10:02:10

RE: New Manifolds...
IP: Logged

Message:
Of course the 1.7's would help. It's also important to consider static vs. dynamic compression. When moving to a larger lift, longer duration cam the dynamic CR is lowered, the result can be a decrease in engine efficiency, an idicator of which is the typical decrease in vacuum. This does not specificaly mean you've decreased performance, though. Most engines will benift from a cam change without increasing sCR. If the static CR is increased along with the cam change, efficiency can be increased and a comensuate performance increase is the result.

gen1dak
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE

5/26/2004
18:45:32

RE: New Manifolds...
IP: Logged

Message:
Okay, first of all, I did not say bigger is ALWAYS better. This would go along much better if you would stop interjecting things I didn't say, and claim I did. Now, side-by-side, all else being equal, the first rendition of the 318/360 Magnum exhausts outflow the later (smaller inside diameter) manifolds. Can you at least partially nullify this advantage by cleaning up the smaller/later units? Yes, you're a real-world example with the ExtrudeHoning. This whole thing is about swapping the older, larger ID units unmodified, in place of the later units. I typically get ragged for going on-and-on about something, and a dissertation on boundary layer flow and overall laminar flow theory was not required. By the way, do you know the origins of said theory. Here's a hint. NACA. Can you quickly fill in the blanks? You accuse me of not knowing anything about it, but I've yet to be amazed by any brilliance on your part. You toss the term out there, but that's all I'm seeing.

Regarding the cam. I did not say the 318 was making more power than the crate 360. Where are you getting all this? Do you think that just because it has a bigger cam, it makes more power? I said, a smaller engine with full exhaust and a larger cam will not respond at the same degree as a crate 360 with 24 inch extensions on the manifolds, no other exhaust...which would tend to affect the flow of the exhausts....backpressure = compressed boundary layer in manifolds....which uncovers irregularities which cause turbulence, which impedes flow.

Don. What? (00rt is right about a cam being the most important part to manage flows and using what all it can.) Doesn't make sense.

00, you certainly seem to have a chip on your shoulder. I did not say you didn't know anything. My remark regarding "search engines" was simply intended to point out that there's no way to prove actual knowledge of either of us since there's no way to know if we're not both feverishly scanning the web for answers to our respective questions. If you choose to take it personally, have at it.

Comensuate? What? I believe you mean, commensurate. Regarding your reply for the 1.7's, again, you have part of the answer, but not completely. With the cam you mentioned, low-speed dynamic CR is reduced, but high speed cylinder-filling, and thus, cylinder pressure, is improved, and while efficiency is reduced at low rpm, it improves at higher rpm. You are correct, however, that an increase in static CR will recover lost low-speed efficiency.

Look back at your responses 00. You frequently state that you "believe" this, or you don't "believe" that. Speaks volumes. It's not what you know, it's what you think you know. You state I cannot prove you wrong. Gee, didn't know I was trying to do that. It seems you have a lot going on in your head, and you're projecting it onto me.

I'm not attacking you 00. I am, however, trying to get you to open your eyes. Experience teaches that what works on paper, or static models for that matter, doesn't always work the same in the real world. As I recall, and it just happens to be in this thread, I made a statement to answer a question, not referencing you or anyone else, and you chimed in on me, and in fact, quoted my statement. So now, who started this whole deal? As for my being mad at you. Wrong again. I do enjoy an energetic discussion, but so much is lost in the electronic medium. Actually, I find it emotionally reassuring that there are people like you out there.

Just proves the old proverb. You can lead a horse to water, but even when they need a knock in the head with a 2X4, you still can't make him drink.

Don, what's the deal on those manifolds? Are they the 2 1/8 ID models (....17, and ....19)? Is the Y-pipe included? $?
Don't try to talk me out of it 00, let me laugh all the way to the finish line.

gen1dak
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE

5/26/2004
23:41:04

RE: New Manifolds...
IP: Logged

Message:
In honor of your statement, "Get your facts before you get your back up, next time perhaps. At least I could point to that article to help my argument," I have pulled out a couple for you to choke on. These are written as they appear in the magazines. Exact quotes. Nothing added or deleted by me.
1. High Performance Mopar November 1993.
"Loada Dakota"....Mods to a 1989 Shelby Dakota. Goes somethin' like this.....
"To further enhance exhaust efficiency, nodular-iron exhaust manifolds from a '92 5.2L Magnum were installed. In testing by Chrysler engineers, it was determined that these manifolds outflowed any currently available headers. At $85 apiece, these manifolds are quite a performance bargain."
Now, notice the vintage...1992 manifolds. Don't BELIEVE it? Take it up with Bart R. Orlans, he wrote it. The truck was owned and modded by Marko Radielovic.

Another little tidbit:
Mopar Muscle, June 1999. "Dakota Power Secrets"
"Pipe Dreams: All '92 and initial-production '93 Magnum engines had larger diameter, better breathing, exhaust manifolds (2 1/8-inch id) than did the later-production units from the mid-'93-and-up (1 7/8-inch id). This accounts for the higher horsepower ratings of the earlier engines. Finding a set of the earlier manifolds would up your horsepower about 10 ponies (and look 100 percent stock!) Additionally, they will need to be accompanied with the '92 Y-pipe."-E.F.Nowak

Note the info there. "Better breathing....10 ponies...performance bargain."

Game. Set. Match.
Ouch, that stings, doesn't it?

But I don't know what I'm talking about, do I?
You asked for it, ya little turd.

don
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE

5/27/2004
02:54:49

RE: New Manifolds...
IP: Logged

Message:
i'll get back with some some I.D. #'s but the casting #'s, as said, are '92/'93. i'm drunk again, maybe i'll go get another dak to put on those manifolds.........

Sephiroth
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE

5/27/2004
13:28:42

RE: New Manifolds...
IP: Logged

Message:
Don, I have to get caught up with this paycheck, but if you have those manifolds next Friday, you got a deal. Water-pump installed and working GOOD!

gen1dak
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE

5/27/2004
17:00:09

RE: New Manifolds...
IP: Logged

Message:
Not trying to horn in on your deal Sephiroth. Just getting my name in the hat in case you decide to pass on it.

don
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE

5/28/2004
09:55:00

RE: New Manifolds...
IP: Logged

Message:
good morning, exhaust flange is 2 1/8" i.d.,sorry no y-pipe. thanks to Gen1 and 00rt for the info and entertainment. you all have a good/safe weekend...

Sephiroth
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE

5/28/2004
19:03:13

RE: New Manifolds...
IP: Logged

Message:
Get them if you can, gen1. If I miss out I'm not gonna' be all that upset considering I'd need a Y-pipe anyway. Besides, that'd just push me into getting headers, har har!

<<Oringinal Post <<Previous Page P 2

Post a reply to this message:

Username Registration: Optional
All visitors are allowed to post messages

Name:
Email:
	Notify me when I get a reply to my message:Yes No
Icons:
Subject:
Message:

Home | Forums | Members | Pictures | Contact Us

This site is in no way affiliated with Chrysler or any of its subsidiaries.