Modded Mustang Forums banner

1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I have a 93 mustang lx just replaced the exhaust system and i have wanted to add a header for it because i just saw that my exhaust manifold has a crack. Ive read that a 93-96 ranger header will fit.the only thing i dont understand is the egr valve . Do i just need the piping from the ranger or will i have to do some work to make it fit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,275 Posts
Hi Tony. welcome to the forums. As a veteran engine builder, I have run many dyno tests on 2.3's and I have always seen a HP loss with the Ranger headers when compared to the factory iron manifolds. There are a lot of reasons why, but without focusing on those, I would recommend a factory 2.5 iron manifold if you can find one, if not a 2.3 one will do just fine, but weighs a pound more.

If you're looking for more HP from a header, I might suggest a long tube header. If your keeping the car relatively stock, you'd be best off with a header with 1.5" primary tubes.

I found one on Ebay that might work.

For Ford 2 3L Pinto Mustang II Stainless Exhaust Manifold Header 3" Collector | eBay

If you are looking for more HP still, then there's a whole host of items you'll want to consider.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Does that longtube header bolt on straight into a 93? N how much hp gain will i see? I have already changed my exhaust by removing the cat and putting a flowmaster 40 as well as the ranger header already installed. Also will it make my exhaust any louder?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,131 Posts
Power gains with a longtube won't be good until you get a new cam, and see some higher rpm. Also the long tube hurts low end torque.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
I run a 2.3L in a mustang dirt track car & I like the ranger header on the bigger track I race at, using just a short turndown, pipe ends at the trans crossmember. It was about the same RPMs as the OEM manifold I used to use there but a lot lighter. I run the schoenfeld FV239 tubular header on the bullrings & it has a lot more power on corner exit. Just curious how much of a HP drop the dyno showed?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,131 Posts
Dirt racer, I had the opposite opinion of ranger header, I thought it was worse than my cast manifold, it seemed to have ok bottom end, but he power up top was less than my slightly worked cast iron manifold. Then on the bigger tracks where we were constantly at it over 7000rpm the long tube had a noticeable difference. With a stock cam, the stock manifold works best, but the higher performance you make the engine the more it needs the long tube.

The ranger header only loses a hp or two on a stock motor, but the farther from stock the motor is, and higher it revs, the worse it performs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
mikel89,
I had to restrict exhaust flow on the big track (Kankakee IL) since I run stock rod/crank bottom ends and I don't like to twist them over 7500 RPMs. Rather change exhaust than ring/pinion. My head (before I broke yet another lifter) is a D9 ovalport milled .100, oversize valves, was running comp .461 lift hyd. cam. turning 7200 on small tracks (Lasalle & Sycamore IL)
If you don't mind me asking, who built your dirt engines?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,131 Posts
We built them, had the machine work done at a local shop, and I did the head work/ assembly. My last car, which I raced at Kankakee, love that track btw, was a bone stock bottom end, pistons included with 80k miles on it out of a friends street car. We turned 8300 at the end of the straights. I went to UNOH and built my head there, milled it .150", port work, and combustion chamber reshaping, and a solid cam, low lift but high duration can't remember exactly what it was. And used a flow bench to test it. The ranger header is a horrible piece of equipment, if you needed to limit power, the stock cast manifold is awesome, even for a bit higher power. But if you are trying to keep the rpms down on a big track, without going slow, a rear gear change is necessary. We ran a 3.73 at shady hill speedway, tight turns longer straights. Turned about 7500. We ran a 3.45 (had a whole rear end to swap out) and 8000-8300 at Kankakee.. If we had a 3.27 at the time, we would have run that.

---------- Post added at 06:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:00 PM ----------

If you go to a bigger track and restrict the exhaust, you aren't going.to make the power you need to be fast. And if you were still fast, you should buy a second rear end and do the swap before going to a bigger track. We got it down to about a two hour job after a couple swaps.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
I was trying to keep the RPMs down with the stock exhaust as I always had done. We had a big race last year @ Kankakee, I used the stock exhaust manifold, 20 cars 20 laps $300 to win, started 19th finished 3rd. So I know its good for there.

What car did you run at K3, I probably raced with you a time or two...

I need to rebuild my D9 ovalport head again this winter, any advice for an economical build? Im thinking of trying a roller setup using OEM rollers. Any past experience with that? I appreciate any advice you can give me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,131 Posts
I only raced there two or three times, it was a green and orange number 3L. Totaled it on the front stretch wall about 4 or 5 years ago at the end if the year race.

Just imagine if you.re geared the car how fast it would be! You would have won probably.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,275 Posts
The issues with the 2.3 factory header start with the unequal length tubes, which were likely the result of cost cutting measures at Ford, not the result of careful dyno tuning.

If you keep in mind that a large portion of exhaust energy (read momentum) registers in the form of heat, it becomes more understandable why gas velocities are a bit lower with thin wall headers. The insulation properties of the factory iron manifolds are usually more apparent when comparing torque values at the same RPM. I guess you could even some of this out, by using thermal coatings on your header and wrapping those with thermal tape, but then again if you are going to do that anyway, why not start off with the better insulator in the first place, one that has equal tube lengths and a very well designed collector.

I understand that the iron manifolds are kind of tough to port without extrude honing them and the expense of that puts a nice header on the car. But given the choice between the 2. I'll take the extra 1-2 HP and 10 lb/ft in trade for the few extra pounds of weight with the iron header. I've never seen the numbers work the other way round, no matter what cam is used.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,131 Posts
^ where I get my info, engineer in the house!
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top