• Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech

mac headers

  • Thread starter Thread starter stang2841
  • Start date Start date Jul 2, 2004
S

stang2841

New Member
Jun 12, 2004
708
0
0
palm harbor florida
Jul 2, 2004
#1
  • Jul 2, 2004
  • #1
ok i want to go mac but ive heard alot of ****ty stuff from them like , there built in mexico there headers are junk etc....

i want to go the combo with there long tube headers to there prochamber to there 2.5 in exhaust what do you guys think anybody have experience with these parts? how does it sound? whats the power gain? im guessing a honest 20rwhp


Bronson
 

stangbear427

Active Member
Nov 11, 2002
2,401
1
49
New England
Jul 2, 2004
#2
  • Jul 2, 2004
  • #2
Depends. What else have you done to the engine? A stock 5.0 with a full 2.5" performance exhaust may actually lose power. As for the parts, I've had pretty good luck with MAC (exhaust) products. I've used two of thier catback systems on my GT, and one on my wifes LX. They install easier than any other brand I've used, sound good, and hold up well and I live in New England where there really is a winter season. They get driven every day. I also had the Prochamber, and loved it. Fantastic sound and lots of grunt. It survived more physical abuse than any midpipe should have to, and was still usable when I took it out. I've since had a custom H pipe made, since it was getting tight under there with my mods and it didn't fit anymore. Kept dragging on stuff. I miss it, this H doesn't sound anywhere near as good and I definately felt a loss in power. Oh well. I've heard a lot of crap about MAC headers too, and for the life of me I don't know why. I bought a set of thier shorties from a friend who needed money, and I was hesitant because of thier reputation. It was a good deal and I couldn't pass it up, so they went on the wife's car. I don't know what everybody else did wrong, these things installed like a breeze and have held up great so far- almost a year under the hood. Maybe I just got a good pair, I don't know. I've heard some real installation horror stories, but mine were a piece of cake. Good luck.
 
S

stang2841

New Member
Jun 12, 2004
708
0
0
palm harbor florida
Jul 2, 2004
#3
  • Jul 2, 2004
  • #3
oh im really really glad to hear that yeah its almost all stock im rebuilding my engine now and im putting all stock components back on until i get the money. im building it with forged pistons and .30 over so a 306 with just a K&N cone filter. glad to hear that about the headers and the prochamber im diffenetly going with it then w/ the 2.5 catback
 

saleenx029

New Member
Jun 10, 2004
117
0
0
Cincinnati, Ohio
Jul 2, 2004
#4
  • Jul 2, 2004
  • #4
I use almost exclusively Mac exhaust. First off I love the sound, provided by the combo of Mac headers, Offroad pipe and tailpipes my old 93 lx is the coolest sound I have ever heard from a car (the 10.5:1 compression and F-cam helped I'm sure) and No other car I have ever heard was as beautiful IMO. It just had a tone to it I will never forget. I have heard a few other stangs that sound almost as beautiful, and all have mac exhaust. Secondly I like mac exhaust because the tailpipes especially are the easiest to install because the pipes seperated above the axle. This is a BIG deal to me since I have to work on the ground all the time, no access to a lift. IMO Mac offers good quality equipment at a competitive price. The quality control MAY not be the best, even tho I have not seen any bad quality mac stuff yet I am sure it gets out there, but if the quality control was extreme then the prices would not be as competative. I don't mind having to wrestle with some parts as long as it is not too crazy, and usually the extra effort is worth saving the extra cash it would cost to buy the more expensive stuff. I use almost Mac anything, from pulleys to C.A.I. to control arms to exhaust.
 

stangbear427

Active Member
Nov 11, 2002
2,401
1
49
New England
Jul 2, 2004
#5
  • Jul 2, 2004
  • #5
Just an observation: I've had both the 2.5 and 3.5 inch tailpipes with my 2.5" catbacks, and on both my wife's relatively stock 302 and my mildly warmed over 302 the 3.5" tips sounded WAY better. The tone is incredible, not to mention they look killer too; if you don't mind forking over a little more cash. I say, when you're spendind $1000, what's another $40 or so?

*edit: ok, more like $60...
 
S

stang2841

New Member
Jun 12, 2004
708
0
0
palm harbor florida
Jul 2, 2004
#6
  • Jul 2, 2004
  • #6
idk for some reason i dont like big tail pipes out of exhaust like 2.5 and stock looking is the way for me, yeah alot of ppl wont agree but its personal preference and what does IMO mean i see it everywhere and i never figured out what it meant
 

stangbear427

Active Member
Nov 11, 2002
2,401
1
49
New England
Jul 2, 2004
#7
  • Jul 2, 2004
  • #7
In My Opinion.
 

stangbear427

Active Member
Nov 11, 2002
2,401
1
49
New England
Jul 2, 2004
#8
  • Jul 2, 2004
  • #8
Variant: IMHO In My Honest Opinion.
 
S

stang2841

New Member
Jun 12, 2004
708
0
0
palm harbor florida
Jul 2, 2004
#9
  • Jul 2, 2004
  • #9
nice dude thanx
 

85_SS_302_Coupe

it sucks (I know) to be on the receiving end
15 Year Member
Nov 11, 2003
6,945
1,598
223
Northern KY
Jul 2, 2004
#10
  • Jul 2, 2004
  • #10
Well, i've always stayed true to MAC, i've seriously done close to 20 header installs on different 'stangs, and untill this current set i've never had a problem....But...these LTs arent even a year old AND THEY'RE ALREADY RUSTING!!


So...probably the last set of their headers i'll ever buy. Other than that, the Pro Chamber is the sweetest mid pipe on the market, and their catbacks sound sweet. My next set of headers are getting Jet Hot coated.
 

saleenx029

New Member
Jun 10, 2004
117
0
0
Cincinnati, Ohio
Jul 2, 2004
#11
  • Jul 2, 2004
  • #11
Jet-hot coating is the shall we say, the good-stuff, definately the way to go
 

MadMatt5oh

Member
Jan 10, 2003
441
0
16
St Paul, MN
Jul 2, 2004
#12
  • Jul 2, 2004
  • #12
I just bought a set of 1500 degree temp coated LTs for my stocker lx. They were used but look great! looks true on the flanges and doesnt look like anywhere near as much of a hassle to install as the flowtechs I was going to use
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
Discussion on mild budget build/ top end
  • Acesario
  • Feb 21, 2026
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 2
Replies
20
Views
789
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Feb 23, 2026
General karthief
Progress Thread The Mach Returns - Update/build thread
  • squeak93
  • Feb 20, 2026
  • 1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk-
Replies
8
Views
422
1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk- Aug 3, 2026
squeak93
R
94’ SN95 - Intermittent lope & bogging at moderate rpm
  • Red5.0ho
  • Nov 2, 2025
  • 1994 - 1995 Specific Tech
Replies
5
Views
484
1994 - 1995 Specific Tech Nov 3, 2025
General karthief
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
  • 68_Disgustang
  • Feb 22, 2026
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
Replies
4
Views
1K
1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk- Jun 20, 2026
gray owl
G
B
Where to go from here on my build…
  • B0udreaux
  • Jul 14, 2026
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
8
Views
237
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Jul 18, 2026
AeroCoupe
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Forums
  • What's new
  • Media
  • Resources
  • Contact
  • Sponsor
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?