Shorty Header??
05-21-12, 01:14 PM
#1
Unconventional
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Visalia, CA
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shorty Header??
1. Does anyone make one?
2. Has anyone tried one?
I'm thinking a shorty header that takes up little more room than the stock manifold. Google didn't return anything for a 2-rotor, so I'm just asking here.
2. Has anyone tried one?
I'm thinking a shorty header that takes up little more room than the stock manifold. Google didn't return anything for a 2-rotor, so I'm just asking here.
05-22-12, 10:02 AM
#4
Given the lengths that racers have gone to over the 30+ years in order to maximize the performance of this engine, I'm sure somebody tried a shorty header. It probably didn't work, so they threw it away. You probably haven't heard of it because nobody would you post a "check out my shorty header that loses power" thread. I certainly wouldn't.
05-22-12, 10:33 AM
#5
Moderator
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: https://www2.mazda.com/en/100th/
Posts: 30,816
Received 2,586 Likes
on
1,837 Posts
the shortest i've seen numbers on is in an SAE paper, on a PP engine. they tried 500mm, which seems to work really well, 1m, 1.5m etc etc
the mid engine cars, and some of the PP cars end up around 18", but that might be more due to space that tuning...
actually i like the stock exhaust manifold, it matches the port well and is actually designed to have some anti reversion built in, when you switch to headers you actually loose this, because the port match gets fugly
the mid engine cars, and some of the PP cars end up around 18", but that might be more due to space that tuning...
actually i like the stock exhaust manifold, it matches the port well and is actually designed to have some anti reversion built in, when you switch to headers you actually loose this, because the port match gets fugly
05-22-12, 11:03 AM
#6
Unconventional
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Visalia, CA
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess RB just kinda has the market cornered.
I'm just the kind of guy that thinks outside the box and out of the norm; I'm the one that puts a programmable ignition for a big twin on a small single, along with my own header and experimental cams and have land speed record holders asking how the f**k I made it work. There's peeps here on RX7club that have seen and heard that bike in person, 3 days ago.
Maybe we can get some of the real engineering/pioneering minds to come forward and discuss the theory and technicalities of why a shorty header may or may not be a good idea for those that don't want to drop the dime for a long-tube that won't pass Cali smog.
A shorty that could fit within the manifold heat shield would separate the exhaust pulses so they're not pumping into a common plenum, bouncing off the opposite wall and dampening the flow. It would also allow some scavaging effect seeing as they're not pumping into, again, a pressurized plenum. Keeping it all within the heat shield would make it almost impossible for anyone but a well trained eye to notice it's not stock at a smog check station. Some power benefit for the cost-conscious without the need to swap your exhaust back and forth every two years.
Believe it or not, not every person in the world is building the fastest car possible. Some would just like a little more umph. Throw on a shorty under the heat shield and go on their way with a few more horses and no labor to pass smog every other year.
Last edited by Jet-Lee; 05-22-12 at 11:10 AM.
Trending Topics
05-22-12, 12:35 PM
#10
Moderator
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: https://www2.mazda.com/en/100th/
Posts: 30,816
Received 2,586 Likes
on
1,837 Posts
05-22-12, 12:39 PM
#11
Unconventional
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Visalia, CA
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know where the forum is, but I can't find this subject covered in there anywhere. Since it's been "done before", I assume there's a thread or information somewhere...that's the link I'm asking for.
Search function has turned up nothing.
Google has turned up nothing.
Search function has turned up nothing.
Google has turned up nothing.
05-22-12, 12:44 PM
#12
Moderator
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: https://www2.mazda.com/en/100th/
Posts: 30,816
Received 2,586 Likes
on
1,837 Posts
A shorty that could fit within the manifold heat shield would separate the exhaust pulses so they're not pumping into a common plenum, bouncing off the opposite wall and dampening the flow. It would also allow some scavaging effect seeing as they're not pumping into, again, a pressurized plenum. Keeping it all within the heat shield would make it almost impossible for anyone but a well trained eye to notice it's not stock at a smog check station. Some power benefit for the cost-conscious without the need to swap your exhaust back and forth every two years..
05-22-12, 12:51 PM
#13
Unconventional
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Visalia, CA
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RB headers are 48mm or 43mm?
You say the pipe should be 43mm, maybe extend the header pipe into the port a little to help smooth out the 5mm transition and increase the flow. That 5mm lip can be quite detrimental.
...Or just make the flange at 48mm on the engine side and 43mm on the pipe side, so it's a quick-but-smooth transition down to proper size.
...Or flare the 43mm pipe to 48mm at/in the flange.
You say the pipe should be 43mm, maybe extend the header pipe into the port a little to help smooth out the 5mm transition and increase the flow. That 5mm lip can be quite detrimental.
...Or just make the flange at 48mm on the engine side and 43mm on the pipe side, so it's a quick-but-smooth transition down to proper size.
...Or flare the 43mm pipe to 48mm at/in the flange.
Last edited by Jet-Lee; 05-22-12 at 12:54 PM.
05-22-12, 12:57 PM
#14
Unconventional
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Visalia, CA
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did you play MMOWGLI? That's kinda what I'm trying to get going on here...bounce ideas, improves on ideas, counter thoughts and build the design right here in the thread, in a friendly/professional manner . Then move on to actually putting metal to metal and see how it pans out.
05-22-12, 01:07 PM
#16
Unconventional
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Visalia, CA
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Everything is Corksport, Pacesetter or Racing Beat; all long-tube except for the dune buggy exhaust. You have yet to point me to any thread relating to a SHORTY header thread, especially one documenting any sort of loss over the stock cube-manifold.
Last edited by Jet-Lee; 05-22-12 at 01:11 PM.
05-22-12, 01:07 PM
#17
Think of how much of a market there is for this part:
-California people that want to legitimately pass smog with a non-CARB approved header
-Unwilling to swap exhaust components every 2 years, but will swap a header once.
-Something that is just as expensive as a long-tube header since all the labor and flanges are the same
-Header that is inferior to other long-tube systems that are legal outside california
It's no surprise nobody sells one.
05-22-12, 01:19 PM
#18
Unconventional
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Visalia, CA
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Think of how much of a market there is for this part:
-California people that want to legitimately pass smog with a non-CARB approved header
-Unwilling to swap exhaust components every 2 years, but will swap a header once.
-Something that is just as expensive as a long-tube header since all the labor and flanges are the same
-Header that is inferior to other long-tube systems that are legal outside california
-California people that want to legitimately pass smog with a non-CARB approved header
-Unwilling to swap exhaust components every 2 years, but will swap a header once.
-Something that is just as expensive as a long-tube header since all the labor and flanges are the same
-Header that is inferior to other long-tube systems that are legal outside california
All your above points for NOT making one, apply as well to piston-engine vehicles, yet that market seems to fair pretty well.
Who says cost has to be the same? Less material required already lowers the cost of a shorty.
*Probably* because people are lemmings and rather than innovate, they just follow the crowd.
Last edited by Jet-Lee; 05-22-12 at 01:22 PM.
05-22-12, 01:26 PM
#19
Unconventional
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Visalia, CA
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why are you guys so adamant that it's a bad idea? You have nothing to show me that confirms your claims.
Furthermore, if one person failed, why can't their system be analyzed for its shortcomings to see if it can be modified or optimized to work better?
This is called R&D guys.
Furthermore, if one person failed, why can't their system be analyzed for its shortcomings to see if it can be modified or optimized to work better?
This is called R&D guys.
05-22-12, 01:53 PM
#20
Well, it's pretty much just me so far. And I'm just discussing as well. If you think it's a good idea, go ahead and make one.
Rotaries are more sensitive to exhaust back pressure. So, the designs that cost a 'couple horses' on a piston engine could be double digits on a rotary. And there have been setups that improve on RB systems, but they have all been long-tube designs. Since the stock manifold is essentially a 0 length header, everything is longer than that.
I am not doubting your ability. It's probably more than my own. It's the amount of time you've spent pondering the rotary compared to the decades that racers have dissected every single detail of these engines looking for an edge. The resultant trickle down of racing tricks have evolved into the street vehicle components we have now.
UCDavis says I'm an engineer 
The stock header has a large volume, so the gas escaping the exhaust port has plenty of room to expand. This provides a small scavenging effect. The long-tube headers use exhaust gas pulse resonance to create a scavenging effect. A shorty header doesn't work on either of these principles.
It would have higher velocity at the exit of the manifold, but then it runs into 3 cats.
I understand the purpose of the shorty header is to mate up with the rest of a stock exhaust system. But the cat section of the NA exhaust sucks, plain and simple. Would you put a 1" pipe exhaust on the back of a GT35R turbo? No, it has to work as a system.
I'm pretty sure I know everyone and we all said the same thing. I just think it's a lot of time and effort for a very little amount of umph.
I'm just the kind of guy that thinks outside the box and out of the norm; I'm the one that puts a programmable ignition for a big twin on a small single, along with my own header and experimental cams and have land speed record holders asking how the f**k I made it work. There's peeps here on RX7club that have seen and heard that bike in person, 3 days ago.
Maybe we can get some of the real engineering/pioneering minds to come forward and discuss the theory and technicalities of why a shorty header may or may not be a good idea for those that don't want to drop the dime for a long-tube that won't pass Cali smog.
A shorty that could fit within the manifold heat shield would separate the exhaust pulses so they're not pumping into a common plenum, bouncing off the opposite wall and dampening the flow. It would also allow some scavaging effect seeing as they're not pumping into, again, a pressurized plenum. Keeping it all within the heat shield would make it almost impossible for anyone but a well trained eye to notice it's not stock at a smog check station. Some power benefit for the cost-conscious without the need to swap your exhaust back and forth every two years.
A shorty that could fit within the manifold heat shield would separate the exhaust pulses so they're not pumping into a common plenum, bouncing off the opposite wall and dampening the flow. It would also allow some scavaging effect seeing as they're not pumping into, again, a pressurized plenum. Keeping it all within the heat shield would make it almost impossible for anyone but a well trained eye to notice it's not stock at a smog check station. Some power benefit for the cost-conscious without the need to swap your exhaust back and forth every two years.
The stock header has a large volume, so the gas escaping the exhaust port has plenty of room to expand. This provides a small scavenging effect. The long-tube headers use exhaust gas pulse resonance to create a scavenging effect. A shorty header doesn't work on either of these principles.
It would have higher velocity at the exit of the manifold, but then it runs into 3 cats.
I understand the purpose of the shorty header is to mate up with the rest of a stock exhaust system. But the cat section of the NA exhaust sucks, plain and simple. Would you put a 1" pipe exhaust on the back of a GT35R turbo? No, it has to work as a system.
I'm pretty sure I know everyone and we all said the same thing. I just think it's a lot of time and effort for a very little amount of umph.
05-22-12, 02:02 PM
#21
Yet people still buy shorty headers for their piston engine cars.
All your above points for NOT making one, apply as well to piston-engine vehicles, yet that market seems to fair pretty well.
Who says cost has to be the same? Less material required already lowers the cost of a shorty.
All your above points for NOT making one, apply as well to piston-engine vehicles, yet that market seems to fair pretty well.
Who says cost has to be the same? Less material required already lowers the cost of a shorty.
As for manufacturing cost, you have to look at everything that goes into a product:
Long-tube : engine flange, 5' header piping, collector, exhaust flange, welding materials, welder labor, overhead, insurance, advertising, shipping
Short-tube: engine flange, 2' header piping, collector, exhaust flange, welding materials, welder labor, overhead, insurance, advertising, shipping
The piping is minimal.
05-22-12, 02:31 PM
#23
Unconventional
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Visalia, CA
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do intend to make one, but if others had already tried, I could see what things to avoid or what obstacles I might encounter; pull from their experience so as to not start at square one if I don't have to, ya know.
Rotaries are more sensitive to exhaust back pressure. So, the designs that cost a 'couple horses' on a piston engine could be double digits on a rotary. And there have been setups that improve on RB systems, but they have all been long-tube designs. Since the stock manifold is essentially a 0 length header, everything is longer than that.
I am not doubting your ability. It's probably more than my own. It's the amount of time you've spent pondering the rotary compared to the decades that racers have dissected every single detail of these engines looking for an edge. The resultant trickle down of racing tricks have evolved into the street vehicle components we have now.
Like I've said, and is common knowledge, long-tubes make more power than short tubes. It only makes sense that if race-tech trickles down to the street level, long-tube is the obvious buy-in. Again for those that are looking for a little, not the whole nine yards, I'm trying for an alternative. Not debating what is already out there, just trying to put other alternatives (or thoughts for others to expand on) into the mix.
UCDavis says I'm an engineer
The stock header has a large volume, so the gas escaping the exhaust port has plenty of room to expand. This provides a small scavenging effect. The long-tube headers use exhaust gas pulse resonance to create a scavenging effect. A shorty header doesn't work on either of these principles.
It would have higher velocity at the exit of the manifold, but then it runs into 3 cats.
The stock header has a large volume, so the gas escaping the exhaust port has plenty of room to expand. This provides a small scavenging effect. The long-tube headers use exhaust gas pulse resonance to create a scavenging effect. A shorty header doesn't work on either of these principles.
It would have higher velocity at the exit of the manifold, but then it runs into 3 cats.
I understand it has room to expand and cool (minutely), but it's exhausting into, essentially, a wall. How much gain is made from the 5th/6th port inserts? That's diverting the air from the wall into the port. Shorty's would essentially be doing the same thing, redirecting the exhaust from blowing against a wall, into the ready-to-go exhaust. It's not scavenging as much as a long-tube, but it's not blowing into a wall either.
Sheer volume keeps a lot of piston powered items and they probably don't have the same packaging and downstream exhaust issues to worry about.
As for manufacturing cost, you have to look at everything that goes into a product:
Long-tube : engine flange, 5' header piping, collector, exhaust flange, welding materials, welder labor, overhead, insurance, advertising, shipping
Short-tube: engine flange, 2' header piping, collector, exhaust flange, welding materials, welder labor, overhead, insurance, advertising, shipping
The piping is minimal.
As for manufacturing cost, you have to look at everything that goes into a product:
Long-tube : engine flange, 5' header piping, collector, exhaust flange, welding materials, welder labor, overhead, insurance, advertising, shipping
Short-tube: engine flange, 2' header piping, collector, exhaust flange, welding materials, welder labor, overhead, insurance, advertising, shipping
The piping is minimal.
Regarding cost, one of the largest factors is welding and shaping labor. If you reduce the length of the pipe, you're not having to work with as much metal. Time saved, penny earned.
Last edited by Jet-Lee; 05-22-12 at 02:34 PM.
05-22-12, 05:05 PM
#24
That's kinda where I'm coming from, it's zero-length already. Some length to separate and redirect the exhaust has got to be better than the horrible resonance of the stock manifold. I agree not the potential of a long-tube, but better than the manifold...
I understand it has room to expand and cool (minutely), but it's exhausting into, essentially, a wall. How much gain is made from the 5th/6th port inserts? That's diverting the air from the wall into the port. Shorty's would essentially be doing the same thing, redirecting the exhaust from blowing against a wall, into the ready-to-go exhaust. It's not scavenging as much as a long-tube, but it's not blowing into a wall either.
I understand it has room to expand and cool (minutely), but it's exhausting into, essentially, a wall. How much gain is made from the 5th/6th port inserts? That's diverting the air from the wall into the port. Shorty's would essentially be doing the same thing, redirecting the exhaust from blowing against a wall, into the ready-to-go exhaust. It's not scavenging as much as a long-tube, but it's not blowing into a wall either.
I can't find it right now, but there's a picture of a header someone made with cast iron piping and fittings welded to a exhaust flange. With the exception of the materials used, it's pretty much the only design that will fit under the heat shield. It reeks of Lemons tech. Maybe someone has it bookmarked.
05-22-12, 05:39 PM
#25
Moderator
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: https://www2.mazda.com/en/100th/
Posts: 30,816
Received 2,586 Likes
on
1,837 Posts
RB headers are 48mm or 43mm?
You say the pipe should be 43mm, maybe extend the header pipe into the port a little to help smooth out the 5mm transition and increase the flow. That 5mm lip can be quite detrimental.
...Or just make the flange at 48mm on the engine side and 43mm on the pipe side, so it's a quick-but-smooth transition down to proper size.
...Or flare the 43mm pipe to 48mm at/in the flange.
You say the pipe should be 43mm, maybe extend the header pipe into the port a little to help smooth out the 5mm transition and increase the flow. That 5mm lip can be quite detrimental.
...Or just make the flange at 48mm on the engine side and 43mm on the pipe side, so it's a quick-but-smooth transition down to proper size.
...Or flare the 43mm pipe to 48mm at/in the flange.
the FC engine has a 48mm port outlet, and 50mm inlet to the manifold, which gives an anti reversion property.
the RB header is 2" thickwall, which is a 43.9mm ID, so the RB pipe size is fine, it just doesn't match well with an FC port. the real fix would be a new rotor housing sleeve, but adding a bellmouth to the pipe seems to work well too, and its easier.
however to do the port match, AND squeeze the bend in under the stock heat shield isn't gonna be easy!