Thread: tri -y headers

Cool.

Interested to see what it does. At that point I will have 5 headers to test total.

if you want those itb'd 2.0VE test results with one of these headers step up and put your money where your keyboard is and make it happen, and jamie's results you mention are more to do with the inlet side than the exhaust , also if memory serves the budget (which is a misnomer of a name) header didn't do to well on stock inlet engines even compared to the ebay headers? it's also worth remembering that the highest powered n/a sr20's ever used tri-y's, along with itb's, and you know why, because with an rpm limit of less than 8500rpm you can't fully utilise a 4>1, that's advice from a very successful engine building and motorsports team running company.


as already mentioned my big tube tri-y is, and most all of the ebay tri-y's that people are buying to modify are triple stepped, and with the small tube being sized for a 1.6-1.8 it's no real surprise it starts to struggle up the rev range.

Big tube choke its 2.25in for reference I think that's the main reason why it makes more power than small tube lengths on the original header are the same at least visually all that changes its piping diameter and choke

my one ended up at roughly about 1055mm flange to flange, these are very rough measurements but i'll get better ones next time i'm at the garage and i have the micrometer with me

the primaries are
42mm i/d for 255mm (1.65" for 10")
45mm i/d for 195mm ( 1.77" for 7.67"]
48mm i/d for 205mm ( 1.88" for 8.07")
first merge is 110mm long (4.33")
secondaries
51mm i/d for 210mm ( 2.0" for 8.26")
merge is 80mm long (3.14")
flange is 65mm i/d which is 2.5"



edited to add approximate imperial measurements

I don't have to step up and prove anything. All I did was ask a question. You replied to my post, then followed up with that 99% post, so that's what made me reply to you in the first place. I don't own a 4-1 and the two 4-2-1 headers I have will do me justice for my goals. I just simply asked how the tri-y would do on a ITB setup(based on your post), that's all. Again, I hope the guy from post #289 gets good results on his setup.

This looks pretty good to me

Reese isn't afraid to put his money up. Neither am I. Why is it about money? I could drop 20k in a damn Sentra if I wanted to, however saving for retirement etc paying off the house sooner is higher on the list.

He was just curious about the setup.

all i did was tell you how to get the answer to the question you asked me (i didn't ask you to prove anything) because i personally haven't tested my tri-y on an itb'd ve yet, but as already mentioned the btcc primera's ran a tri-y along with itb's, and they are undoubtedly the highest powered n/a sr20's ever. as for the 99% i was getting at the point of if your not revving well above 8.5-9krpm then a 4-1 is not the optimal setup.

also there are more than one tri-y manifolds in this thread, and they are performing well with what i've read

Thank you, someone else gets my point.



The full merge ASP 4-2-1 budget header is one header. Comparing 20 different variations of the tri-y headers against it to find one that out performs it seems a bit much to me. That's why replied when you said 99% of the sr20's should run one, but which variation to one fits all lol smh?



^If I had this engine, I would probably put a 4-1 on it, but again which tri-y variation would go on this motor?

All this talk bout this bttc motor,was it ever dynod? I know it made 300hp,300 years ago, but your saying it outclasses our 2.4 high comp, big valve, race header,better cam, better itb setup?