I have had long tubes that were a lotta fun to install as well...... not even thin wall sockets would work. My solution to that was allen-head bolts. Those actually worked fairly well.

There are dyno charts that show smaller diameter tubes produce more torque down low. (article) Smaller tubes promote flow at lower RPM, so, torque builds faster. (article.)

Of course, there are charts that show the long tubes as being better as well.

For a truck motor, the goals are dramatically different than what you want from your mustang. (or challenger, or camaro, etc.) Shorties are easier, with less hassle with pipe routing, fewer interference issues, smaller pipes promote low-end torque, where you actually want it in a truck.... Sure, the smaller tubes are going to limit you in the upper end, but, these engines weren't designed for that anyway.

Can you get more power from long tubes? Probably, but, will it be USEFUL power? My truck rarely goes above 3K RPM. What's the point of setting up an exhaust designed to promote higher RPM power then?

 

Did you read anything i posted? Yes small diameter tubes promote velocity.Yes large ones hurt that. We're not arguing that. However short length tubes hurt velocity as well and long promote.

the PROBLEM with the shorty vs long debate is in the application. These trucks that tiny primary is too small be effective and you're not removing a restriction. For our cubes and output that 1.5" primary is no longer a benefit before you're even til 2200rpm. Dynos of these engines show the longtubes producing more everywhere. And the install, in these trucks, is way way easier than a shorty. Whether you've put them in other vehicles and it sucked is irrelevant. How they affected other vehicles is also irrelevant. You have to look at the specific aspects of the header and a specific application.

The ideal low to mid range tq booster header for these engines would be a longtube with a 1-5/8 primarily. That would have a tube just large enough to not be a hindrance and the longer tube to also promote scavenging. Problem is there isn't one that will fit in these trucks. The pacesetter design, though using a larger 1-3/4" primary, features a longer tube length than you generally see in most longtubes. The extra length promotes velocity off idle here the 1-3/4 are a little lacking. By 2000ish when the shorties are dying off the long show no hint of slowing.

Also, if you need any more proof look at Marty Fletchers recent dyno of this very subject, shorty vs long. His big thing is using stock intake and heads and building as much tq as he possibly can. Yeah he's already sold his shorties and the longtubes were so effective at scavenging that he only saw a 4hp difference between a full 3" single exhaust and open header

 

Got a link?

The trouble with long tubes, at least, for me, was trying to route pipes around various crossmembers, and the t-case. On a 2wd, sure, it would be easy, a lot less stuff in the way. Still and all, shorties ARE easier to install, as you can bolt them right up to the stock Y-pipe. (which, on the 97 and older trucks is a really **** poor design.) You don't have to modify anything. May need to lever some pipes around, but, I would MUCH rather be doing that, than rebuilding the entire front half of my exhaust system for the long tubes. If I wanted to get that involved, sure, true duals (with an x pipe) all the way out the back. But, finding long tubes for my v-10 that I can actually afford, is an entirely separate issue. (not to mention that it already has a good set of shorties on it...)

Still and all, even shorties are MUCH better than the stock manifolds.

 

They are NOT easier at all in THESE trucks. To get around the tcase and crossmembers.... the matching y pipe does just that. The longtubes you can actually get your hands on the flange bolts too. Shorties on these are the biggest pain in the *** because you can't hardly get the bolt threaded in let alone tq'd. Allen heads don't necessarily fix that issue either. I have an ARP pn i use and recommend to others because it has a smaller head on it that's easier to get on and get a proper tq on.

and that's the easy part. If you live anywhere where it even hints at getting cold in the winter, the hot/cold cycles that y pipe sees cause it to spread apart. Levering that pipe is an utter nightmare to do without cutting and re-welding or buying a replacement y pipe. It's a weird and dangerous combination of ratchet straps, jacks, wedges and hammers to get it moved over. The longtubes and matching y pipe will cost the same and are plug and play.
The 98+ y pipe is still a joke too. Yeah the bends are better but it's still tiny and makes anything before it useless.

your v10 is a different story because your only options are modifying srt10 pieces or custom building. The v10 guys only have shorties. And for them i recommend cutting off the **** ball collector and running 2.5" 3 bolt or 2 bolt flanges into a matching custom y pipe. Otherwise you'll see the same problems ive outlined on the v8s.

shorties aren't much better than stock manifolds though. That's what im trying to get you to understand. It's a negligible difference that is not at all worth the 400+ for brand name. They don't really offer any power increase that's noticeable and it doesn't even carry through the 2k range. How is that still much better than stock?

 

Difficulty of installation seems to be a personal opinion thing. I have installed shorties, and it really wasn't that much of a problem. I have installed long tubes as well, and it does tend to be a bit more involved. Of course, when I was doing that kind of thing, I had a fully equipped shop, and a rack to work on. I never really had any problems getting shorties to line up with stock y-pipes. Sure, sometimes I had to lever the y-pipes around, but it really wasn't that difficult.

You aren't going to convince me that shorties aren't worth the effort, when I can look at dyno charts, and see that they are indeed better than stock. Due to the now limited selection of long tubes for these trucks, In My Opinion, they are a better option than long tubes, simply due to the compromise of the larger diameter tubes sacrificing low end torque, and ease of installation. These are NOT high RPM motors. Most folks rarely see a need for power much above about 3500 rpm, unless they regularly do mud runs. In which case, yeah, long-tubes would be a better option.

It isn't about JUST peak numbers, it's area under the curve. Shorties are better than stock, that can be proven.

I suspect you and I just have different philosophies about what constitutes 'worth while'.

 

Here's the thing: you're wrong.

You're using generalities in your arguments, not THESE TRUCKS as the specific application. The dyno graphs you speak of dont exist for these. Have you installed either ON THESE TRUCKS? Shorties are much more involved.

And you're right it's the area under the curve. That's what ive been arguing the entire time. Longtubes on these trucks are better everywhere. I shared a screenshot of the dyno i mentioned as well. Stock intake manifold and heads. The gap grows from there with the more you do. The larger tubes aren't sacrificing much of anything when they're in reality a much better pipe size for these engines as a whole. Spintech midlength headers that the dakota guys run have basically the same tube length as shorties but a larger 1-3/4 primary and better collector. The results show the same pattern as what ive shared here. Our shortys are too small to be a benefit. You're right the aren't high rpm motors but the cubes also affect things. Your 1.5" shorty is best suited to a sub 300 cube engine, even at low rpm. You're so focused on the diameter of idea of a big primary that you forget how much tube length actually plays a role in scavenging and tq production.

my definition of worthwhile is something that actually shows any gain or benefit. Shorties do not do that. And there isn't anything to back up your claims.

 

Your screenshot is worthless without context.

I am going to agree to disagree with you, and call it a day. I will not return to this subject with you.

 

BS. I gave you context. Marty Fletcher, formerly of KRC and current owner/operator of Utahesome Performance is who posted this. One of the 3 most popular tuners for these engines. It's a stock intake manifold, stock headed motor and the longtubes made 10+ whp/tq minimum EVERYWHERE.

You can "disagree" with a fact all you want, it doesn't change that it's a fact.

 

I don't believe I am actually doing this.......

What facts? That long tubes made good power? I don't dispute that. What you HAVEN'T proven, is that shorties don't do anything. The screenshot IS meaningless, as that is all it is, a screenshot. Zero information on what it's all about. I can see the same screenshot on his site, talking about a cam. No mention of headers at all. The only thing I see here, are your claims. Anyone can search the internet, and see that shorties do indeed 'do something', and are actually RECOMMENDED by a number of engine builders, if low end torque is what you want.

I've been doing this a long time, it is my experience that ANYTHING you can do to improve breathing, is going to improve power. WHERE you get that power varies according to just what, exactly, it is you do. It is a fact that smaller primaries on the headers promote velocity, which is what you want on the bottom end, to get the most torque. Sure, the gains may not be much for any one particular item, but, that is also the point, the engine is not just one part, it is a SYSTEM, and ALL the parts combine to produce power. A deficiency in any one area, affects the whole. Stock manifolds simply aren't that good. Better than some, sure, but, they simply do not flow as well as even shorty headers.

You can tell me I am wrong, I can tell you that you are wrong. That doesn't prove anything either way. I appreciate you have a great deal of knowledge, and we appreciate you contributing that to this site. In this instance, however, you still haven't convinced me, and you aren't going to. There is too much evidence out there in the world saying otherwise.

And on that note, I am not interested in continuing this argument, or dragging this thread even further away from what it originally started as, so, I am closing it.