Author Topic: Jay likely has answer, but question to anyone  (Read 2946 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

My427stang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3918
    • View Profile
Jay likely has answer, but question to anyone
« on: December 02, 2018, 09:34:27 AM »
I have a 461 I am building for an original 68.5 Cobra Jet Mustang.  We are going to go with headers, but otherwise externally stock

I have had good luck with 6114 Hooker fitment, but they tend to be on the small side for a healthy stroker.

Assuming 4 speed and already restored body making installation very careful, do you think the FPAs are an advantage over the 6114s?  How do they fit compared to the Hookers?

Did anyone ever run a set of JBAs in a Mustang? 

Is there another option that won't hang too low for use on the street?  Likely have some tolerance for low pipes, more than me anyway, but once he starts driving it, the car will be a real clean "day 2" resto and likely will not want to drag a pipe.  I'd hate to set it up with him and then have him park it because of low hanging parts

Thinking 500 HP range, and looking at Jay's book looks like JBA tri-Y is a bit better and FPA slightly better than 6114s, assuming fitment is as good as the 6114s

Thanks!
---------------------------------
Ross
Bullock's Power Service, LLC
- 70 Fastback Mustang, 489 cid FE, Victor, SEFI, Erson SFT cam, TKO-600 5 speed, 4.11 9 inch.
- 71 F100 shortbed 4x4, 461 cid FE, headers, Victor Pro-flo EFI, Comp Custom HFT cam, 3.50 9 inch

Tommy-T

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 313
    • View Profile
Re: Jay likely has answer, but question to anyone
« Reply #1 on: December 02, 2018, 12:09:28 PM »
Not Jay, not an engine builder, and have no dyno...but I can tell you I have run DEEP into the 11's with regular 6114 1 3/4" Hookers with a 454 incher.

Changed to a 2" header that had the 3/7 cylinder pipes swap under the motor and the performance change was negligible.

All of this through mufflers.

My427stang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3918
    • View Profile
Re: Jay likely has answer, but question to anyone
« Reply #2 on: December 02, 2018, 12:12:16 PM »
Not Jay, not an engine builder, and have no dyno...but I can tell you I have run DEEP into the 11's with regular 6114 1 3/4" Hookers with a 454 incher.

Changed to a 2" header that had the 3/7 cylinder pipes swap under the motor and the performance change was negligible.

All of this through mufflers.

Thanks Tommy, I have never had any issues with the 6114s either and it looks like a Tri-Y switch at best will be a 5-10 hp gain, but since the guy didn't buy yet, looking at options.  I think the JBA are out due to the price, FPA may still be in the ballpark
---------------------------------
Ross
Bullock's Power Service, LLC
- 70 Fastback Mustang, 489 cid FE, Victor, SEFI, Erson SFT cam, TKO-600 5 speed, 4.11 9 inch.
- 71 F100 shortbed 4x4, 461 cid FE, headers, Victor Pro-flo EFI, Comp Custom HFT cam, 3.50 9 inch

jmlay

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 199
    • View Profile
Re: Jay likely has answer, but question to anyone
« Reply #3 on: December 02, 2018, 01:37:52 PM »
I have the fpa headers in a box in the garage so no performance data. However, I think the jba tri y exhaust flanges will get in the way of the shocktower supports. Any header does but the jba are 3/8”. Id love to have a a thick flange but I’m not willing to cut up the car to make them fit. I’m assuming the car has the extra supports
Mike

427LX

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 258
    • View Profile
Re: Jay likely has answer, but question to anyone
« Reply #4 on: December 03, 2018, 07:07:54 PM »
Why not run the CJ exhaust manifolds if mostly street use. The F.A.S.T Ford guys run well with them.

My427stang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3918
    • View Profile
Re: Jay likely has answer, but question to anyone
« Reply #5 on: December 03, 2018, 09:41:38 PM »
Because we like headers :)
---------------------------------
Ross
Bullock's Power Service, LLC
- 70 Fastback Mustang, 489 cid FE, Victor, SEFI, Erson SFT cam, TKO-600 5 speed, 4.11 9 inch.
- 71 F100 shortbed 4x4, 461 cid FE, headers, Victor Pro-flo EFI, Comp Custom HFT cam, 3.50 9 inch

Joe-JDC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1489
  • Truth stands on its own merit.
    • View Profile
Re: Jay likely has answer, but question to anyone
« Reply #6 on: December 03, 2018, 10:57:28 PM »
A little different perspective for you to consider.  I have a Y Block 292 style Ford that was Runner-up at this year's Engine Masters Challenge, and I was able to make 561 lbft of torque, and 595 horsepower, and had eleven dyno pulls over 590 hp--all with a 1 5/8" into 1 3/4" long tubes into a 3" collector.  We did a dyno shoot-out with five different sets of headers, different tube diameters, and even Jon Kaase's 2015 EMC winning set of headers.  My little '55 Thunderbird headers made more average torque and more average horsepower as well as highest horsepower reading of all five sets of headers.  My point is that I ran the 6113/6114 headers on my CJs for the better part of 40 years and never experienced a lack of torque or horsepower in my mustangs.  I don't think at the horsepower level you are making that you are hurting with either pair of headers, and it simply comes down to fitment and cost that you are willing to live with.  Joe-JDC 
Joe-JDC '70GT-500

My427stang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3918
    • View Profile
Re: Jay likely has answer, but question to anyone
« Reply #7 on: December 04, 2018, 07:42:30 AM »
A little different perspective for you to consider.  I have a Y Block 292 style Ford that was Runner-up at this year's Engine Masters Challenge, and I was able to make 561 lbft of torque, and 595 horsepower, and had eleven dyno pulls over 590 hp--all with a 1 5/8" into 1 3/4" long tubes into a 3" collector.  We did a dyno shoot-out with five different sets of headers, different tube diameters, and even Jon Kaase's 2015 EMC winning set of headers.  My little '55 Thunderbird headers made more average torque and more average horsepower as well as highest horsepower reading of all five sets of headers.  My point is that I ran the 6113/6114 headers on my CJs for the better part of 40 years and never experienced a lack of torque or horsepower in my mustangs.  I don't think at the horsepower level you are making that you are hurting with either pair of headers, and it simply comes down to fitment and cost that you are willing to live with.  Joe-JDC

Thanks Joe, I am a 6114 fan, and have run a set on my 489 for years, and continue to run them but always assumed it could use more primary pipe.  Thin engine has less cubes, less compression and less cam than mine, so likely will go that route as I know they fit

I did use a set of FPA on a 68 Montego, they fit OK too, but I remember fighting them a little in terms of clearance here and there and the big ball type collectors

Appreciate it
---------------------------------
Ross
Bullock's Power Service, LLC
- 70 Fastback Mustang, 489 cid FE, Victor, SEFI, Erson SFT cam, TKO-600 5 speed, 4.11 9 inch.
- 71 F100 shortbed 4x4, 461 cid FE, headers, Victor Pro-flo EFI, Comp Custom HFT cam, 3.50 9 inch

jayb

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7400
    • View Profile
    • FE Power
Re: Jay likely has answer, but question to anyone
« Reply #8 on: December 05, 2018, 11:31:23 PM »
Ross, I think the FPAs will make a little more horsepower than the Hookers, but I also think they will be down somewhat in midrange torque.  To me, the ground clearance advantages of the FPAs trump the minor HP and torque differences, though.  It's really nice not to have to worry about dragging the header pipes.

An even better solution, from a HP perspective, would be to get a set of 2" or 2-1/8" adjustable race headers and modify them to get the ground clearance you need.  I did that on my Mach 1 with excellent results, although it was a lot of work.  The third picture down gives an idea of how much ground clearance I picked up compared to the stock Hooker adjustable race headers.  In these photos the modified headers are coated:













Jay Brown
- 1969 Mach 1, Drag Week 2005 Winner NA/BB, 511" FE (10.60s @ 129); Drag Week 2007 Runner-Up PA/BB, 490" Supercharged FE (9.35 @ 151)
- 1964 Ford Galaxie, Drag Week 2009 Winner Modified NA (9.50s @ 143), 585" SOHC
- 1969 Shelby Clone, Drag Week 2015 Winner Modified NA (Average 8.98 @ 149), 585" SOHC

   

My427stang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3918
    • View Profile
Re: Jay likely has answer, but question to anyone
« Reply #9 on: December 06, 2018, 07:20:00 AM »
Wow, what a difference and beautiful work.

I am not sure this build will warrant it, but that sure looks like something I'd like to do next time around on mine.  Thanks!
---------------------------------
Ross
Bullock's Power Service, LLC
- 70 Fastback Mustang, 489 cid FE, Victor, SEFI, Erson SFT cam, TKO-600 5 speed, 4.11 9 inch.
- 71 F100 shortbed 4x4, 461 cid FE, headers, Victor Pro-flo EFI, Comp Custom HFT cam, 3.50 9 inch