Does anyone have any expirience with the Castle Autos headers? In particular part no CH-12A which are tri-ys and 1 3/4" primeries? I don't recall them offering these in the past, I sware I looked through their catelogue when I was originally looking for extractors.
$900 is pretty pricey, but if they fit correctly and are really 1 3/4", then I'll go for them... unless someone has a reason not to.
Cheers
Marty
Castle Autos Extractors?
Started by
_UDLOSE_
, Nov 07 2007 12:18 PM
15 replies to this topic
#2
ls2lxhatch
-
- Members
-
- 5,335 posts
- Location:Perth
- Car:LX Hatch
- Joined: 29-May 06
Posted 07 November 2007 - 01:38 PM
Some of the CAE extractors will only fit with their reduction gear starter motor. It would be worth a call to check if these extractors fit with your starter.
To fit CAE LX/LH/UC LS1 extractors you have to use their engine mounts, sump and starter motor.
To fit CAE LX/LH/UC LS1 extractors you have to use their engine mounts, sump and starter motor.
Edited by ls2lxhatch, 07 November 2007 - 01:40 PM.
#3
_UDLOSE_
_UDLOSE_
-
- Guests
Posted 07 November 2007 - 02:26 PM
Ouch! Thanks for the heads up. I have a small gear reduction starter (not sure on the brand but i don't think it's one of theirs). I'll have to give them a call I think.Some of the CAE extractors will only fit with their reduction gear starter motor. It would be worth a call to check if these extractors fit with your starter.
To fit CAE LX/LH/UC LS1 extractors you have to use their engine mounts, sump and starter motor.
Cheers
Marty
Edited by UDLOSE, 07 November 2007 - 02:26 PM.
#4
_the gts_
_the gts_
-
- Guests
Posted 07 November 2007 - 07:32 PM
would also be interesting to find out how they are routed through the front end
#5
_UDLOSE_
_UDLOSE_
-
- Guests
Posted 07 November 2007 - 07:36 PM
They reckon that they are exactly the same as these pipes (CH-12), but with 1 3/4 primeries.would also be interesting to find out how they are routed through the front end
Looks pretty standard for torry pipes.
The guy from CAE wrote back to me saying that they will fit my application but I will need to run one of their starters. Thats a real shame if I have to because I've already got a good high torque starter that I scored for a bargain on ebay.
#6
ls2lxhatch
-
- Members
-
- 5,335 posts
- Location:Perth
- Car:LX Hatch
- Joined: 29-May 06
Posted 07 November 2007 - 08:01 PM
They look similar to the LS1 extractors. If you can setup your starter motor with the solenoid facing down then it should fit.
This is a photo of the CAE starter upside down.
This is a photo of the CAE starter upside down.
Edited by ls2lxhatch, 07 November 2007 - 08:04 PM.
#7
_the gts_
_the gts_
-
- Guests
Posted 08 November 2007 - 09:59 AM
Would be interesting to see the drivers side one from the top to see if it goes through the steering components or not. i dont like them like that. are they 3" final size? and for $900 are they already coated?
I just put my motor back in and found that with the new Vic Jnr heads my exhaust now hits on the chasis rail with the pipe at the back (closest to firewall). so i am going to try swapping sides with the engine mount spacers. Yes they are the right way around at the moment.
If that does not work i was thinking of buying all the bends and merge pipes from pacemaker or di fillipo etc and tiging them up myself.
a lot of work but at least you get everything spot on.
is the CAE starter adjustable? looks like it from the pic, might need to have a custom adjustable starter for their pipes
Marty if you do buy them pipes let me know how you go
I just put my motor back in and found that with the new Vic Jnr heads my exhaust now hits on the chasis rail with the pipe at the back (closest to firewall). so i am going to try swapping sides with the engine mount spacers. Yes they are the right way around at the moment.
If that does not work i was thinking of buying all the bends and merge pipes from pacemaker or di fillipo etc and tiging them up myself.
a lot of work but at least you get everything spot on.
is the CAE starter adjustable? looks like it from the pic, might need to have a custom adjustable starter for their pipes
Marty if you do buy them pipes let me know how you go
#8
Struggler
-
- Members
-
- 2,426 posts
Forum Fixture
- Name:Andrew or AJ
- Location:Canberra A.C.T.
- Car:UC Sedan
- Joined: 08-November 05
Posted 08 November 2007 - 01:11 PM
Marty, firstly I wouldn't buy anything off CAE. I once got some exhaust flanges etc to build a set of pipes off them and the header plates were not even close. They sent me another set and they were identical, then they wouldn't take them back.
If it was me I would touch up your existing pipes for plug clearance and use those. They don't look that bad.
TheGTS, the reason your pipes hit the floor is because the Vic Jnr heads have a raised exhaust port. Swapping the engine mount adapters will NOT work. This will move the engine over to the drivers side and everything will hit everything else.
JMHO.
If it was me I would touch up your existing pipes for plug clearance and use those. They don't look that bad.
TheGTS, the reason your pipes hit the floor is because the Vic Jnr heads have a raised exhaust port. Swapping the engine mount adapters will NOT work. This will move the engine over to the drivers side and everything will hit everything else.
JMHO.
#9
_UDLOSE_
_UDLOSE_
-
- Guests
Posted 08 November 2007 - 01:55 PM
the gts:
They are 900 un-coated. They look like they go around the steering linkage, like my current ones.
Ahh, I see what you mean about the starter. Here's a pic of mine:
It actually looks like it could be the right way around, what do u guys reckon?
strungler:
The problem with my existing ones are that they are only 1 5/8" not 3/4 (which is what they were sold to me as). I know the work is beyond my ability, but I guess it could be worth a shot taking them down to my local exhaust shop with a few photos and markings and seeing if they can make them work?
They are 900 un-coated. They look like they go around the steering linkage, like my current ones.
Ahh, I see what you mean about the starter. Here's a pic of mine:
It actually looks like it could be the right way around, what do u guys reckon?
strungler:
The problem with my existing ones are that they are only 1 5/8" not 3/4 (which is what they were sold to me as). I know the work is beyond my ability, but I guess it could be worth a shot taking them down to my local exhaust shop with a few photos and markings and seeing if they can make them work?
#10
Struggler
-
- Members
-
- 2,426 posts
Forum Fixture
- Name:Andrew or AJ
- Location:Canberra A.C.T.
- Car:UC Sedan
- Joined: 08-November 05
Posted 08 November 2007 - 07:07 PM
Your engine is only a 350 isn't it ?
You will make more torque with 1 5/8th pipes. There are no shortage of 10 sec SBC's with 1 5/8" pipes. Ask LXCHEV his opinion of larger pipes on his 383. Sure dinging up the pipes isn't optimum but it will get you going until you can afford to buy/build something better.
JMHO
You will make more torque with 1 5/8th pipes. There are no shortage of 10 sec SBC's with 1 5/8" pipes. Ask LXCHEV his opinion of larger pipes on his 383. Sure dinging up the pipes isn't optimum but it will get you going until you can afford to buy/build something better.
JMHO
#11
_the gts_
_the gts_
-
- Guests
Posted 08 November 2007 - 08:18 PM
Yes struggler you are right and i did know about the difference in port height but i did have a lot of clearence to start with. Maybe i have had the spacers the wrong way around ever since my conversion was done as i have the thick one on the drivers side so it will help my problem, i just hope it doesnt effect the other passenger side too much.the reason your pipes hit the floor is because the Vic Jnr heads have a raised exhaust port.
You will not gain much more HP either. i have put all my info into an engine dyno sim and found that i will gain about 13hp. My reason for the bigger pipes is sound.You will make more torque with 1 5/8th pipes
UDLOSE - send me all your engine info and i will put it into the sim for ya if you like.
#12
LXCHEV
-
- Members
-
- 3,636 posts
Lotsa Posts!
- Name:Brett
- Location:Melbourne
- Car:'76 LX - 383 Chev
- Joined: 08-November 05
Posted 08 November 2007 - 10:34 PM
Marty... those are definitely new pipes from CAE... in the past they only offered the CH-12 (1-5/8) ones. These are actually the exact pipes I was originally running on mine.
It's funny timing cos I jumped onto the CAE website myself earlier today and also noticed the newer CH-12A's (1-3/4's)... they sound good, but yeah very pricey.
FYI: When I was using the CH-12's, I didn't use the CAE starter... I was using a mini high torque gear reduction unit, but a different brand (can't remember what it was), but it did fit. So there's every chance your current starter might just work ok, esp if it has the adjustable body.
But is it worth all the extra cash????? As Struggler mentioned, I certainly have some experience in this field (some expensive experience).... the only reason I ever got rid of my original CH-12's was because I was absolutely, totally convinced they were holding me back and robbing me of serious power and 1/4 mile times..... (those CH-12's even have tiny 2" collectors!!!).... yet my 383 ran awesome with them... I even cracked an 11.99 with those pipes and full exhaust fitted...
Since then, I've been through a full custom set of 4-into-1's with huge pipe sizes (1-7/8 to 3")... I did improve my 1/4 mile time by 2 tenths, but I put that down to diff gear change from 3.5's to 3.7's, not the pipes!! They did make slightly more HP at the top end (great for dyno graph printouts)... but I'm sure they actually made less torque, esp in the lower rpm range..
After those pipes, I'm now back to Tri-Y's again (custom built)... with the pipe sizes I originally wanted (1-3/4 -> 2 -> 2-1/2).... (sounds very similar to these new CH-12A's, which obviously weren't available at the time, I did ask too!!).... I'm very happy with these current pipes. If I was buying pipes for the first time again, I'd probably try the CH-12A's.. but as you already have pipes..... personally I don't think the cash outlay is worth it..... from my experience there would be very, very minimal gain if any!
It's funny timing cos I jumped onto the CAE website myself earlier today and also noticed the newer CH-12A's (1-3/4's)... they sound good, but yeah very pricey.
FYI: When I was using the CH-12's, I didn't use the CAE starter... I was using a mini high torque gear reduction unit, but a different brand (can't remember what it was), but it did fit. So there's every chance your current starter might just work ok, esp if it has the adjustable body.
But is it worth all the extra cash????? As Struggler mentioned, I certainly have some experience in this field (some expensive experience).... the only reason I ever got rid of my original CH-12's was because I was absolutely, totally convinced they were holding me back and robbing me of serious power and 1/4 mile times..... (those CH-12's even have tiny 2" collectors!!!).... yet my 383 ran awesome with them... I even cracked an 11.99 with those pipes and full exhaust fitted...
Since then, I've been through a full custom set of 4-into-1's with huge pipe sizes (1-7/8 to 3")... I did improve my 1/4 mile time by 2 tenths, but I put that down to diff gear change from 3.5's to 3.7's, not the pipes!! They did make slightly more HP at the top end (great for dyno graph printouts)... but I'm sure they actually made less torque, esp in the lower rpm range..
After those pipes, I'm now back to Tri-Y's again (custom built)... with the pipe sizes I originally wanted (1-3/4 -> 2 -> 2-1/2).... (sounds very similar to these new CH-12A's, which obviously weren't available at the time, I did ask too!!).... I'm very happy with these current pipes. If I was buying pipes for the first time again, I'd probably try the CH-12A's.. but as you already have pipes..... personally I don't think the cash outlay is worth it..... from my experience there would be very, very minimal gain if any!
#13
ls2lxhatch
-
- Members
-
- 5,335 posts
- Location:Perth
- Car:LX Hatch
- Joined: 29-May 06
Posted 08 November 2007 - 11:45 PM
The thicker 40 mm holden/Chev adaptor is the low adaptor and the thinner 30 mm is the high adaptor.Maybe i have had the spacers the wrong way around ever since my conversion was done as i have the thick one on the drivers side so it will help my problem, i just hope it doesn't effect the other passenger side too much.
See this thread for pictures. It the picture the adaptors are on the wrong side.
http://www.gmh-toran...showtopic=20395
It is my understanding that the high adaptor is intended for the drivers side to provide extra clearance for the steering.
#14
_UDLOSE_
_UDLOSE_
-
- Guests
Posted 09 November 2007 - 09:51 AM
Hey guys, I think you're right. My engine builder was saying that I will gain more torque from the 5/8s aswell and it could work out better.
I don't have all the specs with me, but off the top of my head:
- 350, bored .030
- solid cam, advertised duration 296x296, i think its around 236x236 at .050". I think its around 560 lift (i think thats max lift). Lobe seperation is 110 i think. Cam is 2 deg advanced.
- heads are fuellies, flowed to 460hp with 90% efficiency. valves are the usual 2.02 & 1.65 or there abouts.
- carb is a Holley 750DP built to engine specs by a carb speciallist
am I missing anything?
It made 350hp @ the wheels in his old car with 1 3/4 4 into 1s.
Ok, this weekend I'm going to rip these mongrols out of the car and see what I can get done. I'd be much happier with the $900, because funds are real low right now.
Cheers
Marty
I don't have all the specs with me, but off the top of my head:
- 350, bored .030
- solid cam, advertised duration 296x296, i think its around 236x236 at .050". I think its around 560 lift (i think thats max lift). Lobe seperation is 110 i think. Cam is 2 deg advanced.
- heads are fuellies, flowed to 460hp with 90% efficiency. valves are the usual 2.02 & 1.65 or there abouts.
- carb is a Holley 750DP built to engine specs by a carb speciallist
am I missing anything?
It made 350hp @ the wheels in his old car with 1 3/4 4 into 1s.
Ok, this weekend I'm going to rip these mongrols out of the car and see what I can get done. I'd be much happier with the $900, because funds are real low right now.
Cheers
Marty
Edited by UDLOSE, 09 November 2007 - 09:53 AM.
#15
_the gts_
_the gts_
-
- Guests
Posted 09 November 2007 - 05:48 PM
Yea LS2 I have the mounts the right way around. I just need to lower the driver side exhaust a bit. passenger side is not so much of a worry. so if i swap them around all might be good.
UDLOSE
I would need head flow rates at .100",.200" etc up to the lift of your cam. or i could guess but that is not too accurate.
also manifold type - single plane?
full cam valve timing if possible.
I just did a similar engine to give you an idea
small tube 1.5/8 max power 497@6500 TQ 434@5000
Large Tube 1.7/8 max power 509@6500 TQ 440@5500
so not much difference for $900
UDLOSE
I would need head flow rates at .100",.200" etc up to the lift of your cam. or i could guess but that is not too accurate.
also manifold type - single plane?
full cam valve timing if possible.
I just did a similar engine to give you an idea
small tube 1.5/8 max power 497@6500 TQ 434@5000
Large Tube 1.7/8 max power 509@6500 TQ 440@5500
so not much difference for $900
#16
_UDLOSE_
_UDLOSE_
-
- Guests
Posted 13 November 2007 - 07:16 PM
Here's some more specs:
Compression ratio: 11.1:1
Combustion space: 72.02cc
Bore: 4.030
Cam rev range: 3000-7000
Deck height: -10 thou
Port eff of intake to exhaust: 90%
Total CFM flow: in 216 ex 193
Duration @ 50: in 262 ex 262
Lobe seperation: 110
Advertised duration: in 296 ex 296
Lift @ TDC: in 126 ex 99
Max Lift: in 366 ex 366
Lifter: solid
Valve overlap: 42
Manifold type: single plane with 2 inch spacer
Carby: 750CFM (double pumper)
Head flow rates @ 25in of water:
Flow range: 297.3
.100 = 62.60
.200 = 120.90
.300 = 168.00
.400 = 205.00
.500 = 206.30
.600 = 216.00
Cheers
Marty
Compression ratio: 11.1:1
Combustion space: 72.02cc
Bore: 4.030
Cam rev range: 3000-7000
Deck height: -10 thou
Port eff of intake to exhaust: 90%
Total CFM flow: in 216 ex 193
Duration @ 50: in 262 ex 262
Lobe seperation: 110
Advertised duration: in 296 ex 296
Lift @ TDC: in 126 ex 99
Max Lift: in 366 ex 366
Lifter: solid
Valve overlap: 42
Manifold type: single plane with 2 inch spacer
Carby: 750CFM (double pumper)
Head flow rates @ 25in of water:
Flow range: 297.3
.100 = 62.60
.200 = 120.90
.300 = 168.00
.400 = 205.00
.500 = 206.30
.600 = 216.00
Cheers
Marty
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
