C.A.T. Stainless Headers

[sandy]

I don't see a lot of comments here, but I'll toss my thoughts in -

Skip the ball collector, no reason to have it. Anyone that is going to put headers on their car should be expecting to have someone do the welding to make it fit. No need for this.
Merge collectors. Not much reason to go with these on most folks cars, regular collectors should do the trick for most everyone and simplify the process.
Header length offset, can go either way on this, looks nice to have them symmetrical on the bottom of the car, but not really needed. The only thing I could think of that might be a problem is if the slightly longer collector would have a fitment problem, otherwise let them be offset, again, muffler shop will be doing exhaust anyways so only really an aesthetic thing
Fitment should override most of the other features I would say, and the rest of the features should be secondary.
These are not RACE headers, so if those that are looking for that, have a set made to meet your needs, the application is really different.

Also I think the expectation should be made that many cars are not dimensional as they were from the factory, or the many years of driving, abuse, accidents, etc., so while the optimal set may fit 95% of the cars, some will for sure need a ding or two. That's headers. It doesn't impact flow or performance to do this, just not everyone's car is going to be the same. Don't forget cylinder heads make a difference as well, aftermarket often do not have the same height for exhaust ports so be aware of this as well.

Keep the momentum!

 

[spmdr]

My biggest concern going forward is making headers

that people want to buy.

For over 2 Decades, CAT sold headers that were fairly well

regarded and sold quite well ( S&S Designed 1 5/8 tube).

Those headers had their issues, but they sold well.

This recent batch of Repo Side-out Headers is not selling

as expected.


So there are questions:

1) What is the REAL market for Tiger Headers Today?

2) Do we change/improve the Headers or make them as they were?

3) Is the market big enough for CAT to sell more types of Headers?


Based on the sales of the Side-out Headers and the number of the

minimum Build, We may want to come up with a proposed header

design and Pre-sell them Before building them.

If there is not enough interest, we change the design, and send it up the flag pole, again?


Do we do more Market Research?

...it's not working out very well...


Do we throw in the towel and just Go to Disneyland?

DW

 

[at the beach]

CAT made one recent run of LAT style Side-Out headers. They were built on the original Belanger tooling. I coordinated that project.

That batch was aimed at providing a product aimed at a need that only a small percentage of our membership has - a relatively affordable improved exhaust that would not cause deductions to those entering Tiger Stock Class concours competitions. (We also priced reproducing LAT Tri-Ys, but those would have had to sell at over quadruple the price Side-Outs are now selling for.) About half that batch have been sold and we have no plans to build more as the manufacturer is retiring and closing his business.

The concept behind offering the LAT Side-Outs was to compliment the existing CAT Headers, not to replace them. The absence of having the traditional SS CAT headers available for sale has not been intentional. It has been caused by numerous delays, many out of our control but including the passing of the owner of the company that manufactured them for us and its subsequent sale and move. CAT is actively working to secure a new manufacturer and has bee actively seeking bids.
Buck,
CAT board member,
but speaking unofficially and only for myself

 

[sandy]

So we are all in agreement, lets make some nice fitting simple stainless header for those in need.

 

[Ash31479]

Looking forward to picking up a set for my new motor 😁

 

[0neoffive]

KISS. Just my humble 2 Pennie’s .

 

[spmdr]

Just a little bit of History:

When S&S finished the fixtures,

they offered two types of collectors,

The one piece and the multi-tube Merged.

It was found that the Merged tube collector

was the better seller and the one piece collector was dropped.

We have been making the merged tube collector since.

DW

 

[Hoghead]

I have both the CAT S&S headers on a modified car, and the new repro side out Balengers on a stockish car.
Horses for courses, and as noted, the 2 styles complement each other.

Balenger LAT ones have the stock look and decent performance with the small primary tubes for a relatively stock motor.
One drawback is limited ground clearance, but that did not bother me in the early 70's with original Balengers. My front springs were 1" shorter + dropped spindles - I changed back to stock spindles and the same clearance as I had in the 70's. The other drawback is access for an aftermarket remote oil filter, but as I am after the stock look, I have the stock remote set up so looks the part
If you want these, buy them now as they may not be available in the future.

The larger tube CAT ones are more suitable for my modified car, and better ground clearance.

Over the decades I have also used Cannon, Sanderson, and Balenger without the side take off. - Cannon were nice due to the generous room for the oil filter block fitting

I would buy another set of S&S style just to have them..................

 

[Jeff F]

Timely that this has come up again. I'm resurrecting a stalled project, which is an Alpine that (previous to my ownership) had a Tiger tunnel and crossmember/rack put in it. In November of 2014 I bought a set of CAT headers for it. If I recall, this was the first batch of a new design/supplier/something and I thought that there were changes made after this batch. Perhaps someone else knows the history.

My first attempt to fit them up, it was clear that the weren't going to fit around the engine mounts. I think I tried to do some clearance work on the headers but realized that I'd be better off making new engine mounts that had more clearance. I wasn't really a fan of the original mount setup with the angled interface anyway. The mounts have plenty of clearance except are tight to some of the bolts that hold them to the frame, but I don't think there is any getting around that.

Fast forward to now. I just stuck the engine and trans in the car so I can work on the headers among other things. There are still some clearance issues to the frame. Being an Alpine it doesn't have the frame rail "dents", so using the Tiger as reference I made some modifications to the frame in that area, but more is probably needed. It seems like it is tighter on the LH/Driver side than the RH/Passenger. It is possible that the engine is not centered right now, although my mounts don't have a lot of adjustment side-to-side.

What I'm wondering is if these headers are particularly poorly fitting, and if I would be better off with a newer set of CAT headers or something else? Anyone have pictures of the current headers installed? Here are a few pics for reference. You can see where I've cut the frame near the front tube on both sides, and once I'm done I will fill them in with sheet metal.

 

[64#31Tiger]

Clearance for a billet adapter or short filter would be really nice. I currently have a set of older LAT style headers and there is no space for either.
I vote to keep it simple as well (less chance of creating other issues) and stay with the 3 bolt connection.
I don't want to reinstall the remote oil filter setup after completing a front suspension overhaul this winter.

Put me on the buy list!

 

[64#31Tiger]

Front cross member and other pieces are cleaned and powder coated. Starting suspension assembly next week with many new bits. Any word yet on new SS header availability? Ready to buy!

 

[spmdr]

I don't want to get anyone's hopes Too high,

BUT, the prototype headers HAVE been delivered

to the future Manufacturer for consideration.

The expected sequence of events is a mild steel

first article set will be made and evaluated before

the next batch is made.

DW