The Top DSM Community on the Web

For 1990-1999 Mitsubishi Eclipse, Eagle Talon, Plymouth Laser, and Galant VR-4 Owners. Log in to remove most ads.

Please Support Fuel Injector Clinic
Please Support Morrison Fabrication

Does Size Matter? 2.5" vs. 3" Exhaust discussions. [merged]

This site may earn a commission from merchant
affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Boostin18

15+ Year Contributor
53
1
May 5, 2004
Chicago, Illinois
2.5" vs. 3" exhaust discussions are merged here.

I have a 90 GSX and when i bought it the guy said it was full 3" turbo back with a EVO3 O2 housing (ported), now here is my question. When I took the exhaust down, it had a 2.5" exhaust flange at the top of the down pipe and then flares for about a half inch out to 3", if that makes any sense. This is my first 3" exhaust and I was wondering if this is right? I was thinking of porting the o2 housing because it is 2.5", making it 3". Then bringing the exhaust to a shop and having them weld a 3" flange to about a half inch long peice of 3" ehxaust pipe and then welding it on to the whole exhaust. So basically getting rid of the 2.5" flange and the half inch long flare and just welding on the 3" flange with the new piece. Would this make a diffrence if i do this or not. I don't know if this would make any diffrence or not, but when i put a boost controller on, i would try and get it to set at 15psi, but never would it would just spike and go down to like 12 or 13, but never above 15, but never at 15. I also have a ported 2G manifold (havent had it off to make sure it really is ported). Any help would be great!
 
turbo testing in my yellow car. the first turbo that was on the car was a turbonetics 57trim/ stage3/ .63. I made three one part only changes on that turbo and learned some things.. the first turbo died an early death. during the rebuild I was offered an upgrade to an E cover. the original was built with a B cover. I was disappointed with that change. the b cover made a good bit (~20ft/lbs ) in the low end. My thoughts were I wish I didnt make that change. It wasnt like the E cover was an improvement it was more like moving the power band later in the RPM. The next change was a conversion to BB center section. while many on the internet will tell you BB turbo spools faster they would be wrong. going full throttle at 3500 and hitting 25 psi at 4200 did not change between the two turbos.

Then there was the last change. swapping in an .82 a/r to replace the .63. no other changes. now i did research and made phone calls. everyone i spoke to said I would pick -up some lag and gain 40-50hp up top. a couple even said it would spool the same. well everyone was right about the lag. the turbo spooled 300rpm later lost 25ft/lbs of torque, but made ZERO additional hp. this was not but dyno estimating but verified on the dyno. (all changes were)

I wish I had sensors in the exhaust and pre turbine but I didnt. so I can only guess there was both a reduction. pre turbine and post turbine switching to the .82. this resulted in a reduction torque and spool because of less pressure before turbine. and there was no HP gain from the freer flow because the .63 wasnt yet a restriction.

I give this above example because that is likely what is happening when you switch to a larger exhaust. you are reducing the pressure aft turbine but also pre turbine. and if the pressure in the 2.5 exhaust wasent yet at a restricted level. then you can loose enough drive pressure pre turbine resulting in a loss of torque that is very significant. I didnt ever dyno my 89 mirage turbo. but the loss of tq in 5th gear on the highway had to be in the 40-50ft lbs range. it was as I stated earlier a MASSIVE loss of tq. extremely disappointing. I cant estimate the HP gain (if there even was one) there was such a large loss in low end tq that your but dyno will lie when you have a big change in the tq curve at lower rpm. it makes the power when it does hit feel bigger when its actually not. this happen to me when I switched from the 57trim to the a 30r turbo. my first butt dyno first impression was disappointing. it ddidnt feel like it gained the 25hp i was promosed. . but then after driving it for three weeks i was certain it gained power. felt really good. maybe a 20hp gain was my estimate at that point. but on the dyno it showed a loss of 200 rpm spool and loss of 10hp up top. my butt dyno had lyed to me because of the shape change of the tq curve.



when people quote exhaust back pressure numbers they are always referring to peak numbers. if you look at a graph of back pressure it is climbing with RPM. it is the high RPM high back pressure numbers that create "too much'' back pressure. the lower RPM figures is not the "problem area" so adding back pressure in an area that isnt yet a problem can end u spooling the turbo harder and faster creating more TQ.

the other area of concern when talking about difference between 2.5 and 3.0 is the transition from 02 housing to the downpipe. all the 3 inch downpipes on the market are 3 inch right from the start. so bolting a 3 inch pipe to an 02 housing that has a 2.25 outlet creates terrible disturbance in flow. this is right where flow from wastegate is rejoining the main flow. 2.25 into 2.35 doesnt have a transition problem. so how much of an effect this is having is anybodies guess.
You must be logged in to view this image or video.
 
Last edited:
Full exhaust vs a cutout right at the down pipe. More power everywhere. In a turbo car, sometimes a smaller exhaust makes the car feel torquier, because it smoothes out boost onset, and spool. A large exhaust makes more torque, but can feel softer down low because the boost onset is much more violent, and you get a huge change in torque, very fast.
You must be logged in to view this image or video.

The proof is within the pudding. This graph, hands down, proves everything Landspeed and I have been trying to say. No exhaust is better for turbos, at least for our engines. Looks like if you have a VW, you're screwed.


I give this above example because that is likely what is happening when you switch to a larger exhaust. you are reducing the pressure aft turbine but also pre turbine. and if the pressure in the 2.5 exhaust wasent yet at a restricted level. then you can loose enough drive pressure pre turbine resulting in a loss of torque that is very significant. I didnt ever dyno my 89 mirage turbo. but the loss of tq in 5th gear on the highway had to be in the 40-50ft lbs range. it was as I stated earlier a MASSIVE loss of tq. extremely disappointing. I cant estimate the HP gain (if there even was one) there was such a large loss in low end tq that your but dyno will lie when you have a big change in the tq curve at lower rpm. it makes the power when it does hit feel bigger when its actually not. this happen to me when I switched from the 57trim to the a 30r turbo. my first butt dyno first impression was disappointing. it ddidnt feel like it gained the 25hp i was promosed. . but then after driving it for three weeks i was certain it gained power. felt really good. maybe a 20hp gain was my estimate at that point. but on the dyno it showed a loss of 200 rpm spool and loss of 10hp up top. my butt dyno had lyed to me because of the shape change of the tq curve.

when people quote exhaust back pressure numbers they are always referring to peak numbers. if you look at a graph of back pressure it is climbing with RPM. it is the high RPM high back pressure numbers that create "too much'' back pressure. the lower RPM figures is not the "problem area" so adding back pressure in an area that isnt yet a problem can end u spooling the turbo harder and faster creating more TQ.

the other area of concern when talking about difference between 2.5 and 3.0 is the transition from 02 housing to the downpipe. all the 3 inch downpipes on the market are 3 inch right from the start. so bolting a 3 inch pipe to an 02 housing that has a 2.25 outlet creates terrible disturbance in flow. this is right where flow from wastegate is rejoining the main flow. 2.25 into 2.35 doesnt have a transition problem. so how much of an effect this is having is anybodies guess.

Just to start, the underlined portion of your quote is complete BS and guessing. Its just like mechanics that dont use torque wrenches and can feel about 50 ft lbs. Its all BS.

2, all of this crap about backpressure and spooling turbos is just wrong. Flow is not difficult to understand, and can in fact be modeled with decent accuracy. The 2.25" to 3" transition is known as a sudden expansion, and is available in any decent simulation program. Overall, these expansions and turns in the pipe prove to be minor when compared to overall pressure drop in the pipe vs the flow through it.

Either way, this entire quote is completely disproved by the one above it, with the graph showing an increase in power with a cutout vs no cutout.
 
Full exhaust vs a cutout right at the down pipe. More power everywhere. In a turbo car, sometimes a smaller exhaust makes the car feel torquier, because it smoothes out boost onset, and spool. A large exhaust makes more torque, but can feel softer down low because the boost onset is much more violent, and you get a huge change in torque, very fast.
You must be logged in to view this image or video.

This graph proves nothing. there isnt enough data to comment on it. . if this was done on a stock downpipe there are gains across the board with both 2.5 and 3.0 downpipes. but depending on turbo size one might be better than the other. plus cutouts have to be opened with boost. we dont know at what boost level the cutout was opened at. and if the boost curve was same between red and blue lines.

for example with a .48 exhaust housing on the 57 trim turbo. switching to the .63 produced gains everywhere. faster spool and better power and torque everywhere. but the switch to 82 netted nothing but lag and loss of torque. all dyno verified.

here is a quiz for you guys that dont agree with anything I say:

before I switched to the 3.0 inch exhaust on the 89 mirage I tried a home made cutout. On the 2.5 exhaust about in the CAT position I drilled a 1.5 inch hole on the side of the pipe and made a spring loaded flapper. the spring was light like maybe .5 psi pressure in exhaust would open it. I wanted the exhaust pressure to open the flapper when the pressure in the exhaust got too high. but I didnt want the noise before boost hit.

would this work ? will it ad power everywhere like the graph above? will it be noisy under boost? will it be quite at idle and cruise? I have the results from trying it. but I want to hear what people who know everything about exhausts have to say before i expose the results. There is enough info given to answer the questions correctly.
 
Last edited:
"if the pressure in the 2.5 exhaust wasent yet at a restricted level. then you can loose enough drive pressure pre turbine resulting in a loss of torque that is very significant. I didnt ever dyno my 89 mirage turbo."

"adding back pressure in an area that isnt yet a problem can end u spooling the turbo harder and faster creating more TQ."

You must be logged in to view this image or video.


This is unequivocally false. You could run a 15" ID exhaust behind your 16G turbine and a 90mm gate.. neither of which are going to negate the fact that you have 122+ CID upstream exhaling fire into a 7cm^2 scroll case.

There will be plenty of drive pressure available. Post turbine back-pressure is multiplied across the wheel by the ER and ADDED to existing drive pressure.

Drive pressure is absolutely not dependent on backpressure. There are no circumstances under which backpressure is beneficial when it comes to turbines.

Zero. Zip. Nada.

You guys need to stop making sh*t up.
 
everybody but you knows switching exhaust housing sizes IS changing the drive pressure. there are .63 vs. 82 swaps all over the internet. by yours theory bigger is always better. How did you get to be a proven member? very strange.
 
I thought this discussion was for best exhaust size for turbo not what the best turbine house.
 
the turbine housing size is relevant because when you change turbine housing sizes going bigger comes at a cost. bigger housing produces less torque. there is less drive pressure at low rpm. if they dont buy that then they will NEVER get exhaust changes also reflect drive pressure pre turbine. funny thing is the quotes they hold gospel are from "Jay Kavanaugh" "turbo exhaust theory" he actually gives some numerical numbers on back pressure changes:
"
Say you have a turbo operating at a turbine pressure ratio (aka expansion ratio) of 1.8:1. You have a small turboback exhaust that contributes, say, 10 psig backpressure at the turbine discharge at redline. The total backpressure seen by the engine (upstream of the turbine) in this case is:

(14.5 +10)*1.8 = 44.1 psia = 29.6 psig total backpressure

o here, the turbine contributed 19.6 psig of backpressure to the total.

Now you slap on a proper low-backpressure, big turboback exhaust. Same turbo, same boost, etc. You measure 3 psig backpressure at the turbine discharge. In this case the engine sees just 17 psig total backpressure! And the turbine's contribution to the total backpressure is reduced to 14 psig (note: this is 5.6 psig lower than its contribution in the "small turboback" case).

His figures are very clearly whats happing at redline. And you have to infer this conversion was about making power and not about turbine response. smaller exhaust pipes are well known to contribute to better low rpm turbine response. if you dont believe me call any well known turbo shop and ask if "bigger is better" when it comes to turbo exhaust. or "can smaller exhaust produce better turbo response" they all give the same answer.

I will give you a hint. no turbo shop will agree with landspeed. it really shouldnt be a debate.
 
I will give you a hint. no turbo shop will agree with landspeed.

Quoted for truth. awdcoupe, I can't believe you've been so patient. Where the hell are the knowledgable moderators? 6 yrs ago this thread would've turned out completely different.

Also I love how no one has commented on the link to the shop dyno testing exhaust differences. Although I'm sure they came to those results because there were, "other issues with the setup" LOL. We all know if landspeed had been there the results would've been different, he'd beat it like :beatentodeath: With a google link until the moment when they finally couldn't take it anymore and just agreed.

You should give up this argument though, I think nearly everyone here is flaming with book knowledge rather than actual real world experience, and arguing just to argue. So landspeed I surrender, you win. I will always recommend the fattest/shortest exhaust possible for any future builds
 
This is nuts fellas!

You must be logged in to view this image or video.


This is unequivocally false. You could run a 15" ID exhaust behind your 16G turbine and a 90mm gate.. neither of which are going to negate the fact that you have 122+ CID upstream exhaling fire into a 7cm^2 scroll case.

There will be plenty of drive pressure available. Post turbine back-pressure is multiplied across the wheel by the ER and ADDED to existing drive pressure.

Drive pressure is absolutely not dependent on backpressure. There are no circumstances under which backpressure is beneficial when it comes to turbines.

Zero. Zip. Nada.

You guys need to stop making sh*t up.

Okay, here we have LandSpeed talking about exhaust size (NOT TURBINE HOUSING size) which is what the thread started as. :thumb:


everybody but you knows switching exhaust housing sizes IS changing the drive pressure. there are .63 vs. 82 swaps all over the internet. by yours theory bigger is always better. How did you get to be a proven member? very strange.

We then have 94awdcoupe talking about turbine housing size which is not even being talked about and he is calling out LandSpeed for not making sense. :hmm: Makes no sense to me. But I'm probably just another proven member who has no real world experience. :rolleyes:


I thought this discussion was for best exhaust size for turbo not what the best turbine house.

I thought so too, but what do I know? :(
 
"You measure 3 psig backpressure at the turbine discharge. In this case the engine sees just 17 psig total backpressure"

No, in this example the engine sees an additional 17psig on top of the drive pressure.

Again.. Backpressure is multiplied by the expansion ratio and added to the drive pressure.

And for those of us who actually pay attention to the drive pressure gauge.. my worst drive:boost ratios are during spool currently.

Boost/vac only dips below drive between the period where it's making 1-3psi boost up till the low 20s depending on conditions.

My drive pressure is less than boost on the HX52 by redline, which is what you would expect on a large turbo in a large housing and an appropriate exhaust system. Conveniently this is what matched I matched it all to do.

My old S200sx in the .55A/R DSM bolt-on housing I first ran it in (with a 3" open downpipe and dumped O2) on the other hand would peg the original 100psi drive gauge before I was fully spooled to target boost of 37-38psi and stated pegged.

Eventually I switched up to a 1.22 T4 divided which brought it back into the high 70s - low 80s, which is a more sane 2.x:1 (Drive:Boost) ratio.

The housing is important, and the only reason it became a part of this discussion is because you tried to tell us 'an exhaust that's too big will drop drive too low' or some such nonsense and started to go on a tangent.

Guess what? That's just not going to occur on a TD05H turbine, or with a 74mm turbine, nor my current 86mm turbine wheel with a 4" pipe through the hood and twin 38mm gates.

It's just not going to happen in any practical single stage radial turbine example and definitely not in a single or multi-stage axial turbine.

Maybe in a compound setup with a >90mm primary stage turbine in a 1.x T6 housing with heavy priority from the second stage's 60-66mm wastegate.

Which might just "snuff out" a small secondary.. and do so intentionally to let the big snail do the heavy lifting once it's lit and rolling.

That's great that some shops won't agree with me. I've been to several reputable shops that have next to no knowledge of this stuff in the first place and when the topic comes up they typically have more questions then skepticism.

You know, like rational business owners looking for any edge on the competition.
 
Last edited:
LOL

To whom? Certainly not you.

You made it clear that you've chosen team "Bullsh!t and Gut Feelings."

One test subject, producing results no one else seems to have repeated and directly conflicts with an entire field of established practical understanding is not exactly the earth-shattering "gotcha" you're hoping for.
 
I'd like to hear your explanation on why 'boost creep' many of us encounter after switching to a larger exhaust.
 
This thread is sad. A larger ar housing increases the nozzle size before the turbine, letting gasses flow easier, but creating less torque on the turbine per lb/min of flow. Less restriction, but slower spool. Any, I repeat, any loss of restriction after the turbine creates faster spool, and more power on a turbo engine. Delta t across the turbine is what drives it. Less pressure after the turbine, means less flow is required out of the engine to spin the turbine to the same rpm (for idiots, this means faster spool). Also because less exhaust pressure is needed to spin the turbine, the engine runs more efficiently, with less exhaust gas reversion.
 
Athlete,

I get their point and not being afool I agree with them. But I don't see the point in going nuts with physics over a guy who just wants to burn up trannys around town with a 16g and have fun.

The point is, we (humans) need to get smarter. All of us. Let's say we didn't have Landspeed spending his time injecting math and physics into these discussions. What would we have then? A thread filled with empirical evidence that provides no value to ascertain what is "true".

The next time you're driving over a bridge, be thankful there was an engineer who was involved in the selection of materials, geometrical design and load analysis.

Otherwise, you may have Bob leading the bridge build that is sure the bridge will hold because one time he designed and built a car trailer that didn't fall apart.

Do not take the scientific process lightly. It's still sad to see theory used when someone has an "idea" about something.

Look them up:

Hypothesis
Theory
Law
 
so..I get the arguements here, but at what point do you decide to just recommend size by purpose? I.e. street, drag, rally, roadrace, etc. I mean isnt that what we do when someone asks about engine building? I wouldnt disagree that bigger is better. However, Im believer of the fact there is such a thing as too much of anything. I can agree that if a 2.5in sized exhaust seems to suit a 16g better, then maybe it hasnt been pushed to the point of restriction yet. Provided that all other improvements have been exhausted, :) at some point the 3 in exhaust will alleviate that restriction and become beneficial.


Mello said:
I'd like to hear your explanation on why 'boost creep' many of us encounter after switching to a larger exhaust.

Just like craig said...the smaller exhaust is enough of a restriction that the wastegate can bypass the extra exhaust in enough time to prevent boost creep. The freer flowing exhaust relieves the restriction and allows the turbine to force the exhaust out so fast that the wastegate cant bypass the extra exhaust fast enough. Since the turbine is spinning that much faster, so is the compressor wheel. Now you get the extra boost...
 
Craig3g53,

I'm not against sound science and engineering. Our world is literally built with it and this hobby is 100% based on it. I like to think through experience and research I have a sound grasp on the applicable conceptz as they relate to turbocharging etc. But I cannot stand bos land speed with his 20,000 posts must go into every thread and bring up his ugly ass car and explain why everybody should run a giant as turbo with clown car pipes sticking out of the hood. He is that fare combination of extreme narcissism and very low self esteem. Be actually thinks he is agenius and some ggreat gift to these forums but at the same time he obviously lives a life of so little substance that all his self worth derives from that giant under performing hunk of metal hanging off his stock engine. Be actually ended a post yesterday with something along the lines of "I will qualify that my unique setup has created exceptionalresults". I laughed so hard I couldn't even respond. He acts lime he is the first person to design a custom turbo system. Or the first to make mediocre power. Or the first to have a shitty power band. Of course he thinks his car is "exceptional". What is even funnier is that he try believes it and that his world is so small that it never even occurs to himthat most of the truely exceptional who were true pioneers or are truely innovating don't read or post on automotive forums.
 
Just like craig said...the smaller exhaust is enough of a restriction that the wastegate can bypass the extra exhaust in enough time to prevent boost creep. The freer flowing exhaust relieves the restriction and allows the turbine to force the exhaust out so fast that the wastegate cant bypass the extra exhaust fast enough. Since the turbine is spinning that much faster, so is the compressor wheel. Now you get the extra boost...

Since you are such a fan of the science behind all this I would hope that you understood it before you spread misinformation on the forums. According to this paragraph you don't understand the most basic operation and function of a turbocharger.
 
hold on man. I obviously know a miniscule amount compared to the guys who have been around the block. Im definitely scrolling through to learn as much as I can. The science isnt the half of it. If I dont know..ill ask. If i Think that i can add something without spreading misinformation, I will. While im at it, ill even try to stay on topic.

According to the paragraph, I dont care to "understand the most basic operation and function of a turbocharger." I would be on another thread for that. The guy asked about boost creep. So obviously I took a stab at painting another picture for just that. Its not always the way that it seamus..
 
Quick and dirty:

The turbo no longer has a restriction that was aiding it's inability to spin freely. The smaller exhaust in a way is acting like a Wastegate.

The small exhaust provides a larger pressure drop. The WG is nothing more than a pressure controller. If the WG is too small, it will be unable to control large pressures down to the target pressure. By having a smaller exhaust, you are increasing the pressure drop in the system, which allows the WG to control correctly.


so..I get the arguements here, but at what point do you decide to just recommend size by purpose? I.e. street, drag, rally, roadrace, etc. I mean isnt that what we do when someone asks about engine building? I wouldnt disagree that bigger is better. However, Im believer of the fact there is such a thing as too much of anything. I can agree that if a 2.5in sized exhaust seems to suit a 16g better, then maybe it hasnt been pushed to the point of restriction yet. Provided that all other improvements have been exhausted, :) at some point the 3 in exhaust will alleviate that restriction and become beneficial.

Mello said:
I'd like to hear your explanation on why 'boost creep' many of us encounter after switching to a larger exhaust.

Just like craig said...the smaller exhaust is enough of a restriction that the wastegate can bypass the extra exhaust in enough time to prevent boost creep. The freer flowing exhaust relieves the restriction and allows the turbine to force the exhaust out so fast that the wastegate cant bypass the extra exhaust fast enough. Since the turbine is spinning that much faster, so is the compressor wheel. Now you get the extra boost...

See my explanation above about boost creep and system pressure.

At any point, for an turbo, the largest and shortest route possible is recommended. No other arguments, no other scenarios, just what you are able to physically fit under your car (or out the side of the bumper).


Craig3g53,

I'm not against sound science and engineering. Our world is literally built with it and this hobby is 100% based on it. I like to think through experience and research I have a sound grasp on the applicable conceptz as they relate to turbocharging etc. But I cannot stand bos land speed with his 20,000 posts must go into every thread and bring up his ugly ass car and explain why everybody should run a giant as turbo with clown car pipes sticking out of the hood. He is that fare combination of extreme narcissism and very low self esteem. Be actually thinks he is agenius and some ggreat gift to these forums but at the same time he obviously lives a life of so little substance that all his self worth derives from that giant under performing hunk of metal hanging off his stock engine. Be actually ended a post yesterday with something along the lines of "I will qualify that my unique setup has created exceptionalresults". I laughed so hard I couldn't even respond. He acts lime he is the first person to design a custom turbo system. Or the first to make mediocre power. Or the first to have a shitty power band. Of course he thinks his car is "exceptional". What is even funnier is that he try believes it and that his world is so small that it never even occurs to himthat most of the truely exceptional who were true pioneers or are truely innovating don't read or post on automotive forums.

Seamus, why do you bring up his car in every post of this thread? I mean, on the first page, LS was simply giving advice, using extreme examples to make a simple point. The largest and shortest exhaust route from a turbo will net the greatest gains. I think LS just really loves these cars and tinkering with these motors.
 
"You measure 3 psig backpressure at the turbine discharge. In this case the engine sees just 17 psig total backpressure"

No, in this example the engine sees an additional 17psig on top of the drive pressure.

Again.. Backpressure is multiplied by the expansion ratio and added to the drive pressure.

And for those of us who actually pay attention to the drive pressure gauge.. my worst drive:boost ratios are during spool currently.
.



Say you have a turbo operating at a turbine pressure ratio (aka expansion ratio) of 1.8:1. You have a small turboback exhaust that contributes, say, 10 psig backpressure at the turbine discharge at redline. The total backpressure seen by the engine (upstream of the turbine) in this case is:

(14.5 +10)*1.8 = 44.1 psia = 29.6 psig total backpressure

o here, the turbine contributed 19.6 psig of backpressure to the total.

Now you slap on a proper low-backpressure, big turboback exhaust. Same turbo, same boost, etc. You measure 3 psig backpressure at the turbine discharge. In this case the engine sees just 17 psig total backpressure! And the turbine's contribution to the total backpressure is reduced to 14 psig (note: this is 5.6 psig lower than its contribution in the "small turboback" case).

the above quote was straight from jay kavanaugh. so now he doesnt know what he is talking about?
I only posted the quote because it clearly shows aft turbo pressure effects pre turbo pressure. the part you cant wrap your head around is that raising pre turbine pressure is ever a good thing. and that is where you are wrong. all the other data you posted is nice. but that is all from very big race turbos that have no use for extra response.

Now look again at the graph i posted. This graph is from a BBK turbo. which is similar in size to a red turbo. intake manifold pressure is higher than exhaust manifold pressure all the way to 5000 rpm. there are not yet any reversion issues. if you were to install a smaller exhaust on this car and raise the entire exhaust manifold pressure curve by 10psi between 3500-5000rpm the turbo would be responding faster from those higher pressures, but still not adversely affecting HP since reversion is not yet at high levels.

You are just wrong to think a higher exhaust manifold pressure is always bad. that is what makes a turbo spool. when you post it really just looks like you have no experience with small turbos. and certainly no good back to back data from one.

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

 
Thanks^

I most definitely did not inject my car (I call it ugly LOL) into this discussion, it's on page one. In fact, through the last couple discussions this guy tried to crap on for his bizarre little vendetta had him bringing my shit up. You'll never find me inferring that my car is good looking, often just the opposite. Besides, function > form.

And if we're going to put things in quotes.. you should actually quote me dude. Otherwise it's just a pathetic strawman you've built to knock down. So please, continue to project whatever internal frustrations you have on me if that's what gets you through your day. Sales (retail?) is a stressful world to be stuck in at your age...

Nowhere do I pretend to be anything of a pioneer. It's a pretty big stretch to try and take me endorsing Theory that's long been established as some sort of personal accomplishment. I'm literally appealing to the work of others. Must be that Alzheimers.

I notice that the few people who get rubbed the wrong way by this stuff and make it personal grudge are typically the type that have a problem being told anything they believe or do or of habit is just that: a belief.

The only reasons I do get involved like this is to stamp out these silly "common sense" circle jerks so in the future when new folks are looking for technical advice they have sound scientific principles and math to base choices on. I also collect a ton of data on my projects and those of others that I design/tune that is directly relatable to these things.

If you can't argue the content, maybe you just shouldn't argue?

FYI - If you have some caricature of me as this waifish bookworm in your head, you couldn't be father from reality. I'm a 6'4 270lb whiskey drinking, cigar smoking bearded motherf*cker that cranks out 60+ hours a week in the field, updating and repairing the infrastructure that allows you to do your "business" and talk shit to strangers on the Internet from the anonymity of your computer.

I've benefitted from many others who take the time to contribute to the community, so when I have breaks like these, I'll take a few minutes to put a post together. Simple as that.
 
Support Vendors who Support the DSM Community
Boosted Fabrication ECM Tuning ExtremePSI Fuel Injector Clinic Innovation Products Jacks Transmissions JNZ Tuning Kiggly Racing Morrison Fabrications MyMitsubishiStore.com RixRacing RockAuto RTM Racing STM Tuned

Latest posts

Build Thread Updates

Vendor Updates

Latest Classifieds

Back
Top