1st gen:4.7 Long tube headers interest thread

We’ve made the shielding you’re referring to. It’s very very time consuming. I think it would be worth doing, but hard to justify the time it takes depending on how busy your daily life schedule is.

 

The stock ecu actually runs the engine at a more favorable afr WITH long tube headers than it does with shorties or stock manifolds

 

The header collector on long tubes is way under the truck, where stock manifolds have their ‘collector’ up by the engine.

The stock mid pipes being physically made for the stock manifolds would occupy much of the same space that the long tubes reside in. It would be impossible to run stock mid pipes with long tube headers.

there’s two popular choices:

1. Modify your stock mid pipes. This is less $$ but much less desirable. Stock mid pipes are only 1 7/8” diameter. Your engine paired with long tubes benefits best with 2.5” tubing. I’ve Dyno tested 2”. 2 1/4”. 3”. By far, 2.5” mid pipes and exhaust system makes the best power!!

2. Fabricated 2.5” mid pipes paired with fully mandrel bent 2.5” exhaust which exits out the back on the stock location. If you keep everything equal length with a proper X pipe maximum performance is realized thru the entire rpm band of the engine.

 

What codes are stored?

 

To the contrary, the stock manifolds rob tundra owners of a massive amount of low end torque, top end power and just power everywhere across the board.

The 05-06 intake on a 00-04 truck is a slight upgrade over stock, I’ve even tried a 500hp carby intake. There’s very little gains realized on these motors thru the intake. Tons realized on the exhaust side.

to realize gains thru intake modifications you’d have to see 1-2k rpm above current redline. This is not realistic for the majority of tundra owners, headers and a good exhaust is much more within grasp for the average guy.

 

JBA shorties lose tons of low end torque and gain zero horsepower. Stock manifolds are a better option.

there’s a little top end power with the plastic manifold. No low end. It’s not a bigger manifolds nor is it bigger runners. But going ‘short runner’ under load give the truck slightly better acceleration than the stock manifold does. It’s worth the $$ only because they can be found for cheap at the junk yard.

 

Welp

 

@dirtydeeds have you done any experimenting with cam timing?

 

I’ve played with the vvti tables a bit. But I’ve yet to get the truck on a dyno… the mr2 keeps taking priority.
If it’s like the GR, the vvti motors at least can gain a bit from mapping changes and removing catalyst protections

 

No. I wish!! Toyota already did the work for us with their vvti engine. We get a great idea of what’ll happen and at what phasing of timing since they make an 05-06 automatically change phasing!! It would be really fun.

 

Hey Glad dirtydeeds is chiming in. We are still on to produce 8 sets all non vvti so far. The fabricator basically said same thing. Long tubes to get mosy benefit from firing order/pulse waves. I have not had time to pester them but I sm on his calender to drop off week of Dec 18 . There is a shop next door with a dynojet so might see if we can get before or after. Honestly. If they were still being sold I would not go through this. But my exhaust is getting rusty snd i need to do a bunch of front end work so what better time to do it. ( north east truck)

Dirtydeeds, if your not msking anymore snd pics would br cool to see.


Thanks


JW

 

I’d love to see actual dyno numbers. Up ‘til now, nobody has been able to provide any real-world dyno numbers I’ve seen, despite me and several others asking. I find that suspicious as hell. Lots of talk, zero proof. And sorry, but that’s shady af. Show the consumer what they’re buying or don’t make the claim.

 

We have a ton of long tubes. You didnt know?

 

Cool. Let’s see some real dyno results for those and the injectors….

 

I’ve been posting Dyno numbers on long tube headers for Tundras for nearly 2 decades. Look up my name on this forum and on tundratalk.net

I still have the Dyno sheets in my office. I’ll dig them up

 

Thanks - would love to see them. I keep dibs on the last 3-4 years of posts here, and want to support forum vendors. I haven’t yet found real-world dyno results for the 12-hole injectors, and haven’t seen anything for the long tubes yet. I’m not doubting you, but money is hard to let go of these days so I’d love to make a calculated purchase decision, see how many HP/TQ per dollar I’d be getting.

 

this is before and after with Pacesetters on a non VVTi truck. It also included our dual race exhaust system. 2.5” stainless steel mandrel bent, similar to the system I’ve posted in a previous pic.

 

210 baseline
228 with single 2.5” exhaust
242 with dual 2.5”
I apologize but I don’t have time slips from back then. But the dual exhaust with headers was good for 1/2 second in the 1/8 mile.

 

Injectors don’t have a gain in HP. You won’t ever find a claim stating they by themselves gain Hp.

12 hole injectors are for low end torque. You will find yourself driving around stepping on the gas pedal LESS in every circumstance in driving conditions below about half throttle. Above half throttle they’re the same as stock, the air velocity is high enough you don’t need 12hole injectors.

unfortunately, there’s no way to Dyno test that. It’s enough of a difference in low end torque that you can actually feel it.

If that’s not good enough reason to buy them, I understand… but you’re shorting yourself of a great product for your truck by not getting them because you don’t trust me or the hundreds of others running them.

 

Here’s one of the Dyno runs:

https://youtu.be/KlUOaYUpPxc?si=KNHoKV-0IZfA-IZ3

 

I’m sure you can find a ton of stuff if you dig back looking at tundratalk.net

my name there is DirtyDeeds

also check out tundrasolutions my name is escondidotundra

also search a thread I wrote: how a properly built exhaust system works


You’ll see I’ve been creating exhaust systems for tundras for a long time. I have prototyped literally thousands of systems for tundras. I’ve built tens of thousands of systems for tundras.

 

To piggy back off Dirty Deeds and give comparison tri-y vs long tube:

2006 DC Tundra SR5
Stan's Tri-Y headers, Dirty Deeds 12 hole injectors, dual 2.5 cats, custom Y pipe, and single 2.5" cat back. Blue line stock, red line w/mods.

 

We Dyno tested Stan’s too. I would’ve thought it would be less power with the shorter primaries. But same exact gains as the S&S headers and Pacssetter

thanks for posting!! Glad you’re happy with your set up. Looks very strong!!

 

She's plenty quick for street use and built to emphasize low-end torque. It's a beast for passing power at highway speeds. A re-gear to 4.30:1 would be perfect. There's little improvement at the top end but the truck being an automatic it spends more time below 3,000RPM.

 

Couldn't you do this on an eddy brake dyno? Partial throttle and the dyno will hold the RPM constant for you. That should be able to show a difference, if there is one.
I used to do performance/emission testing on small engines with a little eddy brake engine dyno.

I can understand how it would be difficult to get meaningful results on a standard inertia dyno for something like this though.

 

I always thought that it would show some type of consistency if I was to create a stopper on the gas pedal only allowing 10-20% throttle. That’s literally where the difference is. The 98% of the time that you’re part throttle, that’s where the difference is.

on a part with pretty much zero mark up, I just can’t justify taking the time. Also, The difference isn’t “I think I can feel it” you can definitely feel a difference. And there’s better fuel economy. These facts take away the motivation to do any Dyno testing.

 

Haha. No obviously thought they were no longer in production. Ill call you tmrw. Glad you saw my post ill buy a pair tmrw. It will save me time I really dont have.

Thanks,

JW

 

Sending PM