Maximo

iTrader: (11)

So today I dyno tested a modified Paloma Ltd.... I decided to try 4 different pipes and 4 different manifolds.. 2096, 9901, 9853, 9886, 41021, 41033, 41001, 41032 .... SO what I found was the manifold has more effect then the tuned pipe, there is far more change in the engines performance by changing manifold then there is in changing pipes... quite amazing really but the 9901,9853,2096 and 9886 run nearly identical to each other on the 41033..yet take the 9901 and put it on the different manifolds and the differences are massive.. Also learned this Modifed Paloma limited is a badass engine with a crazy broad powerband... On 2 of the graphs i am showing both peak power as well as average power.... as sometimes the combo with the biggest peak has the smallest average power

Vintageguy

iTrader: (63)

Completely agree on the Paloma's power curve. It is very broad and smooth. I have modified 7 of them with different timing and flow patterns. I finished up another one tonight for a friend of mine.

When I ran my personal Paloma limited (mod) I found two pipe set up's that worked best for the track size and condition I was running on. The first pipe / manifold combo was the 9901 / 41030 and the other pipe / manifold was the ultimate 2123 combo. As we all know the clutch plays a crucial role with nitro (especially with modified engines due to changing timing specs and power curve). I tried a few different clutch set up's (Losi, Nova, Buku & Ultimate). I ended up "personally" liking the Ultimate clutch (2 aluminum / 1 composite with #11 springs).

I have been doing a lot of the Elite 5 engines lately. However, I haven't had the opportunity to do any personal testing with pipes & clutches.

NitroVein

As you know, the crowd is never completely happy...
So, any test on the 41031?
It would be nice to see how it compares to the non-conical but curved manifolds.

HaulinBass

iTrader: (16)

look at that power on the meat and potatoes, yeah im excited to see how she runs

bash bros

iTrader: (2)

Wow... I never would have guessed the header would make that huge of a difference.

Maximo

iTrader: (11)

Sadly I don't have one here... but I Plan to get one here sometime next week..... sadly this Paloma won't be here but I will do this test again ... my guess is its going to perform very well probably better then the 41033... would be a sweet combo with any of these pipes on this engine..

bash bros

iTrader: (2)

Is the 41033 is pretty similar to the Werks manifold?

Maximo

iTrader: (11)

41033 is a conical version of the 41021

Maximo

iTrader: (11)

I know, isn't that crazy !

on a 41021 the 2096 outperforms the 9901, yet on the 41033 the 9901 outperforms the 2096...on a 41021 the 2096 seems the most well rounded, and on the 41033 the 9901 and on the 41001 seems the 9853.....

Maximo

iTrader: (11)

So I have been very careful when I do my modifications to not diminish the bottom end..In fact this version here has more bottom oomph then the stock version so it can run a lower clutch stall..... This is where having the dyno plays a big role in my engine development as its fairly straightforward to mess with timing and make a engine faster but its so much harder to alter the engine and make it faster without diminishing the bottom end. I have had to work very hard and do a pile of testing to solve this puzzle.....Even past modified engines of my own that felt amazing on the ground ended up having diminished bottom ends once they were put on the dyno and of course when that happens and the bottom is diminished the engine ends up being much more sensitive to clutching ... Anyways this modified Paloma has more bottom then stock and a whole pile more peak power as well as RPM, the average power stock vs modified is nearly a 80% gain

NitroVein

I believe the 41033 is the same as 41021 just 3mm shorter.
41031 is about the same length as the 41021 but conical.

Enough numbers to be confusing for anyone...

http://www.novarossi.it/2012/index.p...-5-4-66cc.html

Maximo

iTrader: (11)

Yep....I got my numbers confused....

I Must have a 41031 here somewhere then, as I did have a curved conical LOL

NitroVein

A dyno really is a great tool, you can do the same development in week that it would normally take a year to do. All the little things wouldn't even be noticed without a dyno and it still makes a difference.

A conical manifold should make a difference if the pipe inlet is large, but theory and practice doesn't always go hand in hand...
All the books written in these subjects, and still it's most of the time best to go with what has been Used before, it shows how crude the theory really is. lol

Vintageguy

iTrader: (63)

My Dyno is fairly old and sadly software updates are not available. I will be purchasing a new system sometime in the near future. The ultimate clutches are a bit on the soft side. The #8 springs dang near allow clutch engagement at idle. The #12 springs are a bit too much. I prefer the #10 & #11 springs (depending on track conditions).

As with any engine (stock or modified) if the bottom end is soft you then rely on a later and harder clutch engagement. However, track conditions always play a role. I as well do not sacrifice bottom end when modifying engines. Back in the early 2000's when drag racing was hot on the scene I was overwhelmed with engine work. The drag racers back then wanted their engines to be gutted, highly advanced timing and have over rev to reach the moon. With their trans brake set up and extremely tight clutch I can see why.

My ST-RR EVO

iTrader: (5)

Wow 80% more is crazy. Any chance you can put up a video so we can see what 80% more looks like on the track?