Sweetest exhuast I've ever seen!

[defrag010]

also, it's funny you say the muffler is proven to have less pressure drop than a straight through pipe. that might be a good thing if we were discussing intercoolers. the best exhaust for a route that short would be the biggest megaphone or straight pipe you can fit on it. you want the HIGHEST pressure drop you can get after the turbine. the larger the pressure differential, the faster the gas moves.

My bad. I meant more of a drop.

 

[defrag010]

I don't think the point of many posters here is to say that your idea is stupid

As far a the "clone" thing goes, a full turboback exhaust has been tried, tested and PROVEN on a DSM. This muffler/passenger side exit has not. So, if you truly feel it is better, prove it. I am yet to decide on my own personal exhaust and would be very interested in ANY suggestion. But, I unfortuanately don't follow blindly.

--Kyle

haha... I think you need to go back and read the post again on the calling the idea stupid thing...


Wouldn't that be something, though, if this exhaust actually did turn out to be pretty good, since it's not tried/proven? No one can really say if it will or won't.

 

[lewroe59]

The manifold was designed not knowing about the exhuast system. therefore the turbo wont fit flipped. In order to make it work we went over the turbo, which happens to be the only way to fit the muffler in there anyway. I'm not selling these mufflers so I dont care about you guys argueing about that. It's a straight thru style, which is what I wanted. I will hopefully dyno the car within the next few weeks. I will post the results. I cant compare it to anything but others on the same turbo because I have no dyno befoe the exhuast since it was all done at the same time. Thats why I asked for some other GT3251 dyno result so we can compare the 2 systems. I probably wont post anymore til I have dyno results so its yalls job to give me a # to beat. See you in a couple weeks with dyno #'s.

 

[Stapl3]

Well no doubt it will make power, don't even bother with a dyno slip. A 3" downpipe with a muffler welded on the end will flow better, period. Only if you would dyno the difference there.

Just sell that damn thing on Ebay. There's a few dozen people on to0ners telling you it's garbage, and this thread has like 6000 hits, so you know how many forums out there are linked to this just laughing.

I just can't see one good thing about it.

 

[Mirage2LTurbo]

My offers still out there for someone to ship me one and I'll dyno test it.

 

[pboglio]

Alright. Now I see how the interior of this thing works. My apologies to you guys that actually own this muffler for not believing you about it being straight thru. I see the straight thru portion of it now. Looks like your standard straight thru core with a twist. It looks like the perforated tube is not a straight tube in a regular muffler but a cone diffuser shaped tube with perf holes. Second, part of the flow is bypassed to the outside and flows back thru the perforated holes (straight thru core mufflers would have their packing material in this area) and hits the main flow in the center, this must be how they are reducing noise. They are using one flow to impact with the other for sound control.

Its nothing more than a glorified straight thru muffler with some flow interference for sound control. This is just a second cousin to a straight thru core. I already know there's no scavenging involved, the website never mentions it, dead issue. You know, this thing just might flow as good as a 3" dia straight thru. Anybody own a flow bench wanna pressure drop test these babies.

 

[Stapl3]

. You know, this thing just might flow as good as a 3" dia straight thru.

No way in hell. Did you miss the 180 bend right off the turbo?

 

[92redman]

why not? normal 1g exhausts already have about 3 90 degree bends

 

[pboglio]

No way in hell. Did you miss the 180 bend right off the turbo?

No, No. I'm containing my comments to just the muffler canister now. I know that 180* bend sucks. I also know that manifold sucks rocks too . The muffler, after real close scrutiny looks like a slight twist on the straight thru core style muffler, just without the packing material. I defer to a flow bench at this point, its not clear cut which would flow more. You'd need to flow it against an appropriate sized straight thru core muffler. Which size do you use, 3" or 3.5" or 4" dia muffler? Hard to say and makes a direct comparison test difficult and pointless at this point.

 

[Stapl3]

why not? normal 1g exhausts already have about 3 90 degree bends

Maybe on yours, but not the ones I've seen. Ususally is a 90, 90, then straight shot.

Five spaced out 90's is a million times better than a hard 180 right off the turbo.

 

[Morphius]

Five spaced out 90's is a million times better than a hard 180 right off the turbo.

Really? How do you come to that conclusion?

 

[Stapl3]

Well don't take me too literally now.

 

[gigahz95]

No, the website claimed that, I didn't. I'm no muffler designer, so I'm not about to make a claim like that. I just know it works good and sounds good, that's all I'm claiming.

Blow thru a GT32 turbo then dump into a 3" stainless pipe thats only like 2' long into a 3" aeroturbine muffler which is the only muffler I know increases power compared to open exaust.

Wait wtf, are you two the same person? Where in the hell is this argument going. Consider me unsubscribed.

 

[swordfish]

I'm still waiting for some evidence that this manifold design put 600+ to the wheels on a DSM.

Hi Hal. I know you know me and that I dont BS. I have Josh's honda at 620 whp dyno sheet and and David's 58? sheets. They arent the best manifold's in the world, but with 2 inch ID runners, they make power and on Don's flow bench they out flow the mitsu, SFP and turbonetics manifolds by a longshot.

Here is josh's. I'm still looking for David's, and will post as soon as I find it.

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

Not trying to stir the pot or anything with this post, just to throw out some hard data.

jeff

 

[Morphius]

50% of performance engineering is improving reliability and reducing failure points.

How is this based? Can you give an example or expand upon that? I can see what you're saying, but I'd suspect some will miss the point.

The way I see that........
an example: connecting rod.
Reason for performance part: Increased hp of engine now exceeds the limits of the OEM design.
Result: To get the reliability back up, now a stronger rod is needed.

But, this wouldn't mean that the reliability of the system is now higher than when it was stock?

Look at it this way, how many 500+hp DSM have logged over 100K?

 

[Hal]

Can you give an example or expand upon that? I can see what you're saying, but I'd suspect some will miss the point.

In order to win a race, you have to be able to finish.

In order to finish and win, your performance modifications must not only enhance performance but also be done in such a way that you don't introduce new failure points or exagerate existing ones..

Example:

Build a killer motor, capable of 600 whp, but use a stock transmission. You then can't use the full potential of the motor without destroying the transmission.

In the case of this exhaust system, the high levels of radiant heat from the large surfaces pose an increased risk of failure for the following (regardless of heat shielding):

radiator hoses
radiator
transmission shifter end bushings
underhood electrial harnesses under the front cross member as well as other locations
increased heating of the cooling system
increased heating of the transmission

It would have been a much smarter idea to relocate the alternator and route the exhaust to the drivers side. That even has the benefit of removing the alternator from the area near the exhaust.

Now, let's talk heat shielding.

Examine the OEM exhaust manifold shield.

Notice that it's not a single piece of metal.

Even with that, there is still a shield under the hood to help deflect the radiant heat.

Compare the surface area of the traditional DSM downpipe to the surface are of this setup.

The amount of heat put under the hood, and put in at a higher location, is huge by comparison.

So, instead of making the modification as "reliable" as possible, additional points of failure have been added when they could have easily been avoided.

A 500 h/p DSM doesn't have to be less reliable than a stock DSM.

In fact, because it's not making 500hp 100% of the time, the upgrades to support 500hp should cause it to be less failure prone.

Hal

 

[ljasonl]

Wait wtf, are you two the same person? Where in the hell is this argument going. Consider me unsubscribed.

How in the world do you draw that conclusion from those posts? He says "It makes more power than open exhaust" I say "I don't claim it does or doesn't make more power, just that it works good". 2 completely different things.

Christ, some of you guys are just looking for something to bi*** about

 

[Morphius]

In order to win a race, you have to be able to finish.

In order to finish and win, your performance modifications must not only enhance performance but also be done in such a way that you don't introduce new failure points or exagerate existing ones..

Example:

Build a killer motor, capable of 600 whp, but use a stock transmission. You then can't use the full potential of the motor without destroying the transmission.

In the case of this exhaust system, the high levels of radiant heat from the large surfaces pose an increased risk of failure for the following (regardless of heat shielding):

radiator hoses
radiator
transmission shifter end bushings
underhood electrial harnesses under the front cross member as well as other locations
increased heating of the cooling system
increased heating of the transmission

It would have been a much smarter idea to relocate the alternator and route the exhaust to the drivers side. That even has the benefit of removing the alternator from the area near the exhaust.

Now, let's talk heat shielding.

Examine the OEM exhaust manifold shield.

Notice that it's not a single piece of metal.

Even with that, there is still a shield under the hood to help deflect the radiant heat.

Compare the surface area of the traditional DSM downpipe to the surface are of this setup.

The amount of heat put under the hood, and put in at a higher location, is huge by comparison.

So, instead of making the modification as "reliable" as possible, additional points of failure have been added when they could have easily been avoided.

Very good points, and I'll agree as it's how I interpreted it.

But, I'll ask this (in general to all). Has anyone thermocoupled the exhaust to know how much hotter the system is? Say stock-vs-3"? You've got less restriction in the exhaust with more surface area to dissipate the heat. Why wouldn't it run cooler?

On another note (assuming I'm thinking clearly here.... been a long day ), stock-vs-3", given equal temp on the exhaust and material properties, the energy release per unit area(Radiative flux) is now less. So, is the radiation worse? It would depend upon the relation of the potential affected part to the exhaust.

A 500 h/p DSM doesn't have to be less reliable than a stock DSM.

In fact, because it's not making 500hp 100% of the time, the upgrades to support 500hp should cause it to be less failure prone.

Hal

I agree but disagree. A typical powertrain reliability curve is based on many test cycles. Dyno testing, which will include WOT pulls 24/7 or full WOT runs and vehicle testing which includes accelerated customer driving habits. Not just 100% WOT. It's still the 'customer driving habits' that will still cause failure. It's a never ending upgrade. As you bump power up, you are continuing to affect the 'vehicle system'. It might start with a killer engine. Then it's:Upgrade trans, half shafts, driveshafts, t-case, cups/axle, rear diff, while at the same time..... engine mounts, electronics, etc.... it never ends and the weak link is pushed to another point. That point may be more prone to issues.

 

[lewroe59]

Why call Polk, they aren't making the claims... you are.

You're not going to waste your time trying to prove something you can't.

Hal

:laugh:

 

[92redman]

Maybe on yours, but not the ones I've seen. Ususally is a 90, 90, then straight shot.

Five spaced out 90's is a million times better than a hard 180 right off the turbo.

I don't know, a 90 at the downpipe, a 90 after the axle to bring it to the other side of the car and a 90 to turn it to the rear. Not to mention the O2 housing, that's how my RNR is anyway...

 

[Jehu]

Very good points, and I'll agree as it's how I interpreted it.

But, I'll ask this (in general to all). Has anyone thermocoupled the exhaust to know how much hotter the system is? Say stock-vs-3"? You've got less restriction in the exhaust with more surface area to dissipate the heat. Why wouldn't it run cooler?

That's a great point. It will run cooler. It will dissipate more of it's heat, the exhaust gases will lose more energy. So guess where all the heat is going? Into the engine compartment! Wait...isn't that what Hal was trying to say? Hmmm...

On another note (assuming I'm thinking clearly here.... been a long day ), stock-vs-3", given equal temp on the exhaust and material properties, the energy release per unit area(Radiative flux) is now less. So, is the radiation worse? It would depend upon the relation of the potential affected part to the exhaust.

Sure, the flux is less, but the total energy loss is still the same if the exhaust temperature is the same. So the engine compartment receives the same amount of energy from the exhaust, heats up just as much.

 

[Morphius]

That's a great point. It will run cooler. It will dissipate more of it's heat, the exhaust gases will lose more energy. So guess where all the heat is going? Into the engine compartment! Wait...isn't that what Hal was trying to say? Hmmm...

You will be dissipate more heat into the material(pipe). Ever held a torch to a nail vs a 3 foot stick of pipe? Granted, there is more surface area, but that doesn't mean more of the heat is reaching the engine bay. Hmmm...

 

[Hal]

On another note (assuming I'm thinking clearly here.... been a long day ), stock-vs-3", given equal temp on the exhaust and material properties, the energy release per unit area(Radiative flux) is now less. So, is the radiation worse? It would depend upon the relation of the potential affected part to the exhaust.

There was a video floating around the web a couple of years ago.

It was a camera looking at the underside of a turbo car (Porsche, I think) being run on the dyno.

It was amazing how much of the exhaust turned cherry red.

Not just a little bit either. It could be measured in feet.

The radiant heat is worse, because there is a much larger radiant area under the hood.

It doesn't go down under the motor and into the under car air stream like the stock exhaust.

It curves up, goes across, and then back down.

I'm willing to bet that the entire pipe from turbo outlet to muffler turns red hot.

Modding a car is a process of chasing weak points, your are correct, but if a 500hp car is built properly, there is no reason it can't be reliable. Will it last 100k miles, sure.. if you don't abuse it to the point of failure. Just like a stock motor. The difference is that the 500hp motor will take more abuse before it fails.

 

[pboglio]

The problem people have with that manifold is not runner diameters or collector diameter. Everybody here knows a larger diameter pipe or runner has a higher flow rate at the same pressure drop. Its the fact that individual cylinders are not separated from each other, there's no protection against back flow into a cylinder thats in the process of opening. This being much more important than any minor head loss differences between 2 fairly close sized runners. I've not seen on ANY serious car (WRC, NASCAR, NHRA) have a manifold that looked anything like a log. All were individual runner designs.

For instance I ran an otherwise stock DSM manifold with the flow divider removed. The spool up went from 3000 rpm to 4500 rpm on a 14b. That manifold made driving miserable. I had no exhaust leaks or anything else. Replacing it with a properly ported exhaust manifold brought my spool back down to 3000 rpm. That log manifold looks like it has no provision for keeping individual cylinders from interfering with each other. I'm not sure a flow bench accurately mimics this. Please post a dyno run, before and after, between that log manifold against even a well ported stocker, or that Turbonetics individual cast manifold, that would be a scientific comparison that would be credible.

Gene

 

[lewroe59]

[OUOTE]Please post a dyno run, before and after, between that log manifold against even a well ported stocker, or that Turbonetics individual cast manifold, that would be a scientific comparison that would be credible.

Gene[/QUOTE]

yEAH, OK. Send me all of the above manifolds, and create a way to mount them to a garret housing on a gt32. and pay a shop to install all of the above and for dyno time. I guess the dyno sheets a wiseman posted on here arent good enough for you? You nguys are redicoulous. Stick to your old ways and be original thru stickers. :laugh: