Long Tube Diffrences?

R

RoadconeTuning

New Member
Apr 4, 2006
458
0
0
Upstate, SC
#1
im seriously looking into getting me a set of longtubes for my car... now i cant find anything that shows why you would buy the kooks over the cheapo macs... they all seem to be within 5hp of each other and if you took the stainless versus mild steel part out of the equation... whats better about any brand over another?

BBK
MAC
SLP
Kooks
HOOKER

thats all i can think of but im sure there are more REAL long tubes, i dont want the bassani mid-lengths, too many chances for leaks.


im leaning toward the MAC long tubes just so i can get a prochamber for them as that is what i have now with my stock shorty's
 
#2
Make sure they are ceramic coated. Not only for rust protection, but also to keep the heat in the pipe. If you have deep pockets grab the kooks and get them coated; if not get the BBKs. I got kooks because everyone said they fit up perfectly and were easy to install- but I had slight fit problems that irritated me. I had to make a spacer between the k member and the g brace for one- the pass header was an 1/8" away from it. However, the quality is far superior.

If you do get the BBK's (or MACs) Check the clearence between the header and the motor mount. When I had the BBKs my header would hit the motor mount and dented the primary pretty bad. You can fix this by grinding down the mount a bit.
 
#6
im trying to do this for a little as possible, just like every cheap person on the planet... and i LOVE the sound of my prochamber so im probably going to get the MAC longtubes, non coated, and have them coated locally because that crap they usually put on there sucks... and ill get the prochamber with it.
 
#9
I have heard many stories of castings from crappy Mac LTs getting drawn back up into the combustion chamber and destroying the engine.

Headers suck because:
-they reduce low end torque
-they cost approx $1200 installed
-they leak
-they melt your rag joint
-etc
 
#10
I'm happy that I have longtubes, but I can't recommend the Hookers I've got on mine. They perform fine, but are highly prone to leaking, mainly at the slip joint that goes around the steering shaft. I recently took that header off and resealed it with copper RTV which did the trick. When I installed them there was no noticable drop in low-end torque. Another problem with the Hookers is that the passenger side on mine bang against the K-member in 2 places. I recently dropped the K-member and used a side grinder to remove some of the metal where they were hitting, and it's all good now. They sound amazing.
 
#11
Kilgore Trout said:
I have heard many stories of castings from crappy Mac LTs getting drawn back up into the combustion chamber and destroying the engine.

Headers suck because:
-they reduce low end torque
-they cost approx $1200 installed
-they leak
-they melt your rag joint
-etc
Click to expand...

You're a "glass half empty" guy, aren't you? :D

Headers don't suck because:
-the loss in low end torque is made up for in our high-reving top end
-they give a great sound
-they improve gass mileage

When installed correctly, there should be no problems with melting, or leaking whatsoever.
 
#12
Kilgore Trout said:
I have heard many stories of castings from crappy Mac LTs getting drawn back up into the combustion chamber and destroying the engine.

Headers suck because:
-they reduce low end torque
-they cost approx $1200 installed
-they leak
-they melt your rag joint
-etc
Click to expand...

everything you just said is totally wrong..

and as a MAC Ceramic LT owner.. i can say a few things..

they fit perfect, clearing everything with room to spare. They look great, as does the ceramic coating, and definatly increase power dramatically. Get some quality gaskets, as MAC must of understood how crappy theirs were and didnt send me any, but i had the percey seal for good and there is no leaks. Cost me $500 installed, which also included a clutch/flywheel install, and new motor and trans mounts. The install was done the best way too.. which is by pulling the motor to get everything bolted down in proper sequence. I love the headers, and am suffering NO negative things from them, and dont see why i ever will. Get the right info, and get the MAC's. I was told they fit better than any other pair this guys ever seen also, and he only does mustangs. so with that said, all the crappy MAC statements have no backbone to them. unless u buy the header oil cunsumption bs.. and by reading that guys posts, he had no idea what he was talking about anyways.
 
#14
i think i want to go with the BBK's now because one of my co-workers has a set of BBK Longtubes on his 93 Coupe with a off-road H and flows... it sounds great, and after looking up the same setup for other 5.0 cars but with mac longtubes and h i have a feelingg that the junctions are made pretty crappy in the mac parts....

but when i looked up the same stuff for the 99-04 cars i found that the mac + prochamber had MUCH less rasp than the BBK + H-pipe setup had...

i want the BBK quality but i want a prochamber... i think im pretty much screwed haha...

here are the videos i was using to compare.

Mac Longtubes, Prochamber, Flows
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MhLChRQW08

BBK Longtubes, O/R H, Flows
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjPFvuzUzOs




Kilgore Trout said:
I have heard many stories of castings from crappy Mac LTs getting drawn back up into the combustion chamber and destroying the engine.

Headers suck because:
-they reduce low end torque
-they cost approx $1200 installed
-they leak
-they melt your rag joint
-etc
Click to expand...

-Headers should never REDUCE low end tq, if anything they would increase it... part of the reason for the long primary tubes
-having a friend with a lift means free install
-my prochamber leaks, so im used to that crap
-one wrap with some header wrap fixes that
-etc...

just because you do not enjoy putting aftermarket parts on your car doest mean you should "walk" into a thread that was asking the diffrence between diffrent headers and say THEY SUCK DONT BUY THEM!!!

with that said, i can understand where you are coming from but please be helpful nexttime.
 
#15
Headers reduce low end torque.

Not sure where you are getting "you do not enjoy putting aftermarket parts on your car" perhaps you are thinking of GT owning Kilgore... Cobra owning Kilgore does not have that problem :nice: See sig for details...
 
#20
steveb24 said:
I was told they fit better than any other pair this guys ever seen also, and he only does mustangs. so with that said, all the crappy MAC statements have no backbone to them. unless u buy the header oil cunsumption bs.. and by reading that guys posts, he had no idea what he was talking about anyways.
Click to expand...

hmm so you mean the ceramic coating that falls off in no time, and allows the headers to rust is in our heads?


the price difference is the quality difference. btw, those longtubes make no more powerthan bassani/jba midlength headers. as long as the primary tubes are x(forgot the length) inches long, they provide no more additional scavaging benefits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

6
Hey all,I’m putting together a 302 for my 1968 Mustang and wanted to post the combo + some questions to make sure I’m not missing crucial
Replies
3
Views
638
1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
Noobz347
Noobz347
S
Requesting Guidance for 306 motor swap - Fuel? - SD? MAF?
Replies
32
Views
1K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Mcmahst
Mcmahst
B
Fox Phenolic spacer on Systemax intake. Are long tube headers worth it?
Replies
16
Views
3K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Noobz347
Noobz347
WhiteCobra95
SN95 Desktop 363 Engine Combination - Looking for input
Replies
11
Views
1K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Habu135
Habu135
NotchedGarage
Progress Thread 88 Notched Fox
Replies
12
Views
2K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Flyboy60
F
Top Bottom
Back
Forums
Menu