Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

a couple of months ago i switched my standard 2 1/4 inch cat to an xforce highflow 3inch cat.

exhaust is 3 inch turbo back, no mufflers, no restrictions, just a cannon at the end.

standard 25det, running 9-10psi

the car feels less responsive, although i dont think it's making less power overall.

does a more free flowing exhaust trade off response for top end? or is it just my imagination.

its definately louder now, and i'm more reluctant to give it a boot full, maybe that's the problem?

Um, if you have what I call a hi-flow cat (600-700CFM) with ur bmeter properly installed on the cat and there isnt any pieces of turbo fin stuck in it, then you should be getting an increase in response and a slight increase in power.

I mean the ideal working conditions for a turbo is no pipes running off it at all but that would be highly impractical.

What brand of 'hiflow' cat have you got?

This topic has been a matter of contention before. You should gain power from increasing flow but in some cases you will lose some responsiveness in the trade - by this I mean the car will not feel as quick to respond to your throttle inputs but will pull harder once it does. Is this how it feels or are you saying it just feels worse all round?

In my old car I described the sensation as feeling the engine was not as 'tight' - as a stock RB25DET feels quite tight and zippy on the throttle response but you lose some of that feeling with a full turbo back exhaust with the obvious benefit being more pulling power (especially at higher revs).

I got a Nismo 3" high flow from Japan

Increased kw by about 20 and improved response. Maybe it comes down to what Highlow brand you get. eg. some are designed for holden's and fords and don't operate as well in a forced induction car say compared to a HKS or a JUN.

Not to sound disrespectful but 20kw's flywheel or atw's sounds like a mighty gain from just a new CAT, I'd be inclined to think that might be a mistake. If you're referring to a full Nismo 3" Turbo back exhaust the numbers make more sense.

No offence I have dyno prints to prove it.

before high flow with ADR compliant restrictor 154.7 @ all 4 wheels

After Nismo high flow installed 175kw @ all 4 wheels (plus this is a high flow I improted from Japan the brand is Welidin which is NISMO)

BTW I am running a stock GTR exhaust systems.

Edited by fuzzy_scuz

Didn't realise you were talking GTR sorry as the car we're discussing here is RB25DET - my bad ^_^

Munkyb0y: There's a bit to be gained from using a genuine jap high flow compared to locally produced units. BATMBL has some decent group buy items also that may be worth considering. The JustJap item comes in the $699 Turbo back system so you can imagine it's quality and flow rates given a really good cat generally costs 300+ on its own. Not to say it's not better than stock but just to point out there are better options.

In my old car I described the sensation as feeling the engine was not as 'tight' - as a stock RB25DET feels quite tight and zippy on the throttle response but you lose some of that feeling with a full turbo back exhaust with the obvious benefit being more pulling power (especially at higher revs).

that's exactly it. doesnt feel as tight/zippy. but once it starts winding out, the power feels fine.

i'm using the xforce 3 inch cat. i know its a cheap option, but better than having the standard cat restricting the system.

Edited by Munkyb0y

Changing to another Cat might get you some more power but as far as giving the car back it's response there are no cheap or easy ways that don't involve reducing total power output. The nature of turbo cars is essentially lag, run more boost, get a FMIC, get a full exhaust, all reduces initial response or give more lag but increased power/torque everywhere else. You could try borrowing a mates Cat to experiment with how they affect the car if you're that concerned.

fuzzy_scuz, what do you mean by 100% learn mode? do you mean reset the ecu?

Trust33, i didnt add anymore boost. the only change was the cat. it gained an extra ~1psi after the install.

edit: i should add that there is a unichip piggy back on the stock ecu. it was there when i got the car, i havent tuned it, but the car has always, and still does run fine, besides this recent loss of response. all in all, it's not a huge issue, but like many of you here, i'm pretty picky about my car, and i tend to notice every little thing.

Edited by Munkyb0y

You do not need to reset your ECU it is a setting within the ECU, next time you go in for a services or a tune ask the person to check when they are connected with the ECU coding console for your car.

The ECU will adjust itself accordingly if you reset it then take it for a hard drive. Resetting is very easy and basically involves disconnecting the battery and pumping the brake pedal (to drain any residual power) then reconnecting the ECU and going for a hard drive. During this period the ECU will adjust timing and listen for knock and adjust timing again accordingly as well as adjust other variables as required.

Good idea to do it after new mods.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • I know why it happened and I’m embarrassed to say but I was testing the polarity of one of the led bulb to see which side was positive with a 12v battery and that’s when it decided to fry hoping I didn’t damage anything else
    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
×
×
  • Create New...