BTW, 20 rwhp for just an exhaust mod is pretty damn good, no matter what anybody tells you!

 

I don't know what hotrodsix is talking about, but until the 2001's showed up, it was RARE that any Lightning dyno'd at over 325rwhp stock.

My truck (2000) dyno'd at 310.1rwhp/383.1rwtq stock.

With my Kooks headers, car sound cats, magnaflow x-pipe and twin magnaflow muffs, I now dyno 337.8rwhp/412.8rwtq

I got 27.8 out of my headers/exhaust kit, and almost 30 rwtq...my kit cost ~$2000 installed. So its the same price as the Bassani. Is the Bassani long tubes or shorties? I don't remember anymore.

Daniel

 

The Bassani's are shorties, Daniel.I really don't see the big difference in the L.T.'s vs. the shorties. What, maybe 4-5 h.p. If the L.T.'s are the same or less $$ than the Bassani( and they may be) then the only barrier would be the cab noise, which I have heard is much louder with the long tubes. Anybody go from a full bassani system to a long tube sytem and see a significant gains?? Lets be honest here.

 

For a catback yes....for a full system that runs almost 2k....not in my opinion.

 

You'd be hard pressed to find any exhaust system ,full or not, to exceed 20-22 h.p., at any price, Wesman. Its the cost that you can't justify.I agree that as well made the Bassani system is, that it is overpriced.Hell, I used to think Borla was out of their minds 5 years ago when I was shopping for an exhaust for my cobra.Now they seem to be "in line" with everyone else.And they didn't lower their prices!

 

For me, LT's were more of a waste because I'm stock otherwise. For others, pushing more boost, the LT's are a definate plus.

If you are going to run more boost, buy LT's over shorties if you can still pass inspection in your state.

Daniel

 

Do you have any hard data to back up this assertion? Example: engine dynoed on a calibrated dyno, then placed in a Lightning body and dynoed again on a calibrated dyno?

Thanks,

TLS
(the original skeptic)

 

Guys, you have to remember that this post dates back to 1999. I just resurrected it.

 

This quote was from Dec. 30th, 1999:

Now on to July 16, 2002:

Remember, it was the full system he was talking about above and these #'s above were #'s published by Bassani. It's apparent that they dynoed in 2nd. How else to explain the low stock hp #'s?

Also, by dynoing in 2nd the driveline friction is more, plus back in the past before the latest update to the dynojet software someone online swore that a gentleman from dynojet told them that the dyno didn't compute correctly if the tested gear is not a 1:1. They could be full of it, but most likely this is true.

Anyhoo, if they would have tested this in 3rd (D, which is 1:1), they would have seen MORE of a gain than 20 rwhp as the percentages would have all raised via the less friction by using a 1:1 gear. Also, since these are Bassani's #'s, take it w/ a grain of salt.

 

If it is a 99/00 truck, 304 isn't exactly "low" for a stock truck. Mine was only 310.8.

Daniel

 

I don't think 20hp from a full exhaust is good at all. In fact it sucks. Maybe that's normal for the domestic world, but not what I am use to, hence my opinion.

On my Z, swapping out just the main cats alone got me 20hp..that cost $300....catback is good for 10 rwhp..not to mention the headers and the pre-cats.....if I went headers all the way back I would get ~40-50hp.

20hp for 2k just doesn't seem good at all...but it's not really about the money. I spend money when i think something is worth the dollar I work for...a 2k exhuast for only 20hp doesn;t quite make the list. If it were say 40-50hp i could justify it....just not a good enough bang for the buck ratio IMO

I will probably get some LT's sooner or later...it willl probably be right before or after I swap out the SC and have some head work, but I will buy them....I think the gains will be a bit better with a little more air flow.

--wes

 

for what its worth... this is from Factory_Tech, someone i would believe on this matter:

"The drivetrain loss on a S/C 5.4 with a 4R100 is 11.2% at peak torque, and I know you're all gonna say I'm stoned, but that's the number, I checked it myself and it's right. Anyone with access to about $70 Mill worth of diagnostic equipment, electronics lab and torque corrected test stands can feel free to argue with me, the rest of you just don't know any better. "

https://www.f150online.com/forums/sh...y&pagenumber=2

-Mike

 

Not to make this post a pissing match, you won't ever get more than 20-22 rwhp out of ANY exhaust on the Lightning,period. So what I'm saying is you have to figure on what you want to spend on an ehaust and what you want out of it. The way i see it if all of these aftermarket parts make about 20 h.p. then Ford must have did a pretty decent job with the factory set-up...not that it can't be improved, but the improvement is minimal. Thats what I meant by 20 h.p. being pretty good.Where talking Ford here, not a "Z".

 

Wes, as I stated earlier:

...going on...

Factory_Tech's #'s are at PEAK TORQUE on a '99/'00 (I'm sure his measurements will not change much on an '01/'02). Where is that? Approx. 3000. Where will our vehicles be most efficient at? DING DING DING!!! Yes, you got it! What have they won, Johnny? (efficiency will start to degrade rapidly after maximum torque has been acheived) I'm not doubting his #'s, and never have when realizing the testing methods used. But even he knows what I'm referring to because of this earlier comment he made:

Notice he says "torque loss".

Now, since this measurement wasn't done across the WHOLE entire sweeping curve of a Lightning, that would be WOT from idle to shifting, then you can't use the 11.2% varible for deduction.

Believing that our drivetrain is 11.2% efficient at nearly 5000 is totally wrong. And the "others" who keep throwing up this "11.2%" # need to realize that it is ONLY at torque peak like Factory_Tech said. You "others" are confusing the newbies, and even some veterans, into believing that # is a set point for the entire curve.

With that said, stating that, "I make 335 rwhp STOCK measured by a Dynojet, and if you take the 380 - 11.2% you'll get this #, just proves that this 11.2% measurement is right!" is complete and udder BS. Think about it, your 380 is at NEARLY 5000! That is totally not an efficient rpm at WOT in this truck.

...and going...

Wes Tarbox, aka WA 2 FST made a GREAT statement here:

https://www.f150online.com/forums/sh...threadid=26135

 

Actually, my peak HP was between 3600-3800 on my 3rd gear dyno pulls, so the 11.2% is closer to realtiy for my numbers.

Who the hell's lightning makes peak hp at 5000rpm?

Daniel