In the latest Chevy Hi Performance is an interesting Dyno comparison about headers.

While first, a good part of it is null and void in my book, since no tuning was done to optimise the HP numbers.

In the second part, seeing the HP and TQ move around like it did just further goes to show, what a minor change like headers can mean. They actually moved Max TQ, and HP some. Hmm, I guess this could be taken as further ammo., about how different two seemingly similiar engines really are. Or how far off tuning over the phone really will be. You just have to spend the time to get things optimised if you want things right. There were a number of places the changes were like 8%. While the average numbers in some of the tests were close, changing the power numbers that much IMO would call for otimising things to REALLY see what the differences are.

 

...no mention of the incredibly informative article in the same issue on how to paint stripes on a third gen?

J/K...I just got through reading over the header comp article myself...it's a shame they didn't test a set of SLP 1-5/8" shorty headers like so many of us have on this board.

 

its funny being as i corespond with a writer involved with a magazine occasionally. im surpirsed hes not rollowing his eyes over this. i love comparisons test. they never stop to retune the eigne. but lets be honest. there nto a huge ve change. from header to header. once youve got decent hardware its pretty much maxed out.

 

No computer models were harmed during the length of this test...

< inside joke >

Did anyone glance at the truck style rear suspension swap?

BW

 

LOL, or gray matter used/ exercised.

Ya.
Stepping right up to 60s suspension. For some reason thou, I was just never impressed with Grain Truck handling. For all that work I'd go with the Herb Adams Reese bar, and that's (was) a bolt in for 3rd Gens..

Back to the ecm bench............

 

Hey did anyone catch the mega squirt article in last month's car craft. It looked like a neat project. All the code comes with it and it's all supposed to be pretty well commented. I thought it would be cool to get and try to bring the code up to date with the gm blm routines and tcc controls and the like. I like the idea of it handling any kind of injectors and almost any number of injectors as well. Seems to me like it would be a good way to get ones feet wet in code without jumping into GM's complicated emisions filled stuff. What do you guys think?

 

I thought the exact same thing. No tuning for each set of headers. Those guys are retarded. Go back to the HSR install article. They installed the cold start valve switch on the HSR and called it the CTS(in the pic),

 

Having played a little with an ecm with no self diagnostics, I'll take a pass.
And it takes a fairly high level of sophistication to get good drivibility. Please note how complex the Accel Vii is compared to the VI, and how much Holley has changed.
The emissions end of the code seems to be an easy thing to defeat.

 

It's to be expected when you have English Majors employed to write tech articles.
Sad that after all these decades, they're still pretty much clueless.

 

counterpoint,
It was good to see a header comparo. But to seasoned tuners, the results was not exact. If they would have done some fuel/spark tuning the result would have been more acurate. Funny part is that we still buy the magazines. I guess nobody is perfect. And through the crap we can still extract usefull information,yes?

 

Which was of the same caliber as the last ones.

In the age of EFI, there's no reason to repeat the poor information that they've been rehashing for decades. With just a few keystrokes they could have done a much better job.

By letting your subscription elapse, you can get them cheap enough that they're cost effective for using for lining bird cages.

Far cry from perfection, to repeating the same mistakes they've been making for decades.

But, only a slight amount compared to what it may have been. And, what about the guys that just take it all at face value?. If all they see is the couple % difference, and it's off by a factor of 2-3, they might ignore the how really important the info is.

You can settle for complacency, or be an advocate for perfection.