Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Just wondering if there will be a noticeable difference on a stock turbo (R33 11psi) between a split dump, and a split dump/front pipe (where the split joins to the main pipe further along)? What is your experience?

Also, do you guys always heat wrap your stainless steel dump/front pipes? Is it required/advisable?

Another thing, i noticed when i put my highflow cat on, it caused richness. Will i find the same with going from standard dump to split dump? ie, requires a retune?

Cheers

EDIT: i currently have a stock dump going into a 3 inch front pipe - 3 inch cat back. very straight thru exhaust. hardly a bend in it, with a cannon on the end.

Edited by Munkyb0y

you wont see anything noticeable b/w front dump and split dump. IMO, and others will agree, either a front/dump in 1 from flyn. or a jjr split front/dump will be exactly the same.

unless ur targeting more than 250rwkw, then either will be ok. if you want more, go a the front/dump in 1 like flyn has.

the longer wastegate sepparation on the split dump design improves power, due to reduction in turbulence at the turbine exit. This is well proven on the GTR, with products like the Trust style setups. The gtst is going to benifit in exactly the same manner. If you look under the forced induction 'guide' sticky there is a back to back dyno of the improvement on a fairly stock gtst, as proof if you need it. The theory is sound enough however.

I recently aquired a JJR split pipe for my stagea (Rb25det), it needed a die grinder to clean up the alignment of the flange. IT was cheap so some elements of it's finish are what you expect for the price.

I usually heat wrap the pipe. Be sure to do it properly, with even overlap of the tape. DEI make a tape that has a line marked on it as a guide.

Edited by rev210

There was alot of discussion about this a few years ago when BATMBL introduced his pipes into the market and was competing against CES... as rev210 said the longer wastegate separation the less turbulence.

I currently run an apexi front pipe and stock dump. Wouldnt mind changing over to a BATMBL pipe when I put my new turbo on though....

thanks for the replies

i'm still tossing up whether to keep my current 3inch front, and just add the split dump to it.

but after some more research, it would seem that to gain most benefit from a split dump pipe, the split should be a minimum of about 40cm before joining back to the main pipe. so i guess a split dump/front pipe is the way to go.

thanks for the replies

i'm still tossing up whether to keep my current 3inch front, and just add the split dump to it.

but after some more research, it would seem that to gain most benefit from a split dump pipe, the split should be a minimum of about 40cm before joining back to the main pipe. so i guess a split dump/front pipe is the way to go.

Make sure 100000% it is...coz my friend's joins almost instantly (shit custom job) and now he has a brand new engine...cooked. (couldnt lower boost in the run in period). Otherwise, if done properly, i personally think they are the way to go.

Make sure 100000% it is...coz my friend's joins almost instantly (shit custom job) and now he has a brand new engine...cooked. (couldnt lower boost in the run in period). Otherwise, if done properly, i personally think they are the way to go.

guess he drove with his foot down too far then! :(

This is my opinion only but I reckon you lose a bit of convienence if the dump/engine pipe is in one piece . The turbine housing outlet/dump pipe bolts can be a pain to work around in situ and I have to wonder if removing a turbo with the dump attached would be easier . You can get at the fasteners easily enough once the turbos been removed .

Also if you needed to remove the engine pipe alone for some reason its very easy to drop- it off the bottom of a conventional dump pipe .

All up to you guys but making things straightforward to work on saves knuckles and time in the long run .

Thoughts ? Cheers A .

This is my opinion only but I reckon you lose a bit of convienence if the dump/engine pipe is in one piece . The turbine housing outlet/dump pipe bolts can be a pain to work around in situ and I have to wonder if removing a turbo with the dump attached would be easier . You can get at the fasteners easily enough once the turbos been removed .

Also if you needed to remove the engine pipe alone for some reason its very easy to drop- it off the bottom of a conventional dump pipe .

All up to you guys but making things straightforward to work on saves knuckles and time in the long run .

Thoughts ? Cheers A .

I reckon you have a good point. But I think most people when they were shopping for exhausts like I was too at one stage, only thought about the 'fit and forget' side. I haven't had to remove mine again thankfully.

But if your going to be removing and refitting the exhaust on a regular basis, having a separate dump to front pipe certainly would be more convenient.

Getting to a couple of the bolts on the back of the turbo are a bit hard to get to but they're not impossible. Having a friend on hand is a must whether its a separate dump or not & it makes things a lot easier.

I would agree that removing the turbo would make it heaps easier to remove the dump, but it then involves removing more things in the engine bay, like undoing the turbo to exhaust manifold bolts, water line, oil line, hot intercooler piping, pod/airbox, intake pipe and afm.

By the time you've had all that off, you could've removed the the heat shield and O2 sensor and dump & front pipe.

It's not a bad idea, but it just depends on the cars duty's as to what you use.

Cheers.

so u saying an extremly small dump pipe wotn effect boost ?

*should have probably mentioned his injectors were f**ked :(

You say that the small dump pipe meant your friend was unable to 'turn down the boost' during his run-on, and in turn this is his excuse for blowing up his engine. This is one of the most ridiculous comments I have ever read on SAU.

Blaming an undersized dump pipe for overboosting and blowing up a new engine............. :laughing-smiley-014:

Sounds like your friend leaned out his motor, either due to an injector problem, poor tune or too much boost - This has nothing to do with his split dump pipe and is completely irrelevant to this thread.

You say that the small dump pipe meant your friend was unable to 'turn down the boost' during his run-on, and in turn this is his excuse for blowing up his engine. This is one of the most ridiculous comments I have ever read on SAU.

Blaming an undersized dump pipe for overboosting and blowing up a new engine............. :laughing-smiley-014:

Sounds like your friend leaned out his motor, either due to an injector problem, poor tune or too much boost - This has nothing to do with his split dump pipe and is completely irrelevant to this thread.

Who said i/he was entirely blaming the dump pipe ? I just said it played a part in stuffing up boost levels and as well as his injectors weren't too good causing, like you said, the motor to lean out and go bang.

And no he wasnt giving it too much, it was still in the run in period (obviously gave it a bit sometimes, but not constantly).

So its pretty much what you said, too much boost, shit injectors....How is that the most stupid comment ever made on SAU ?

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

    • Got the gearbox in and the front drive shafts.
    • Hi There I went through a rabbit hole of reading about Xenon headlights and the ADR regulations for having them installed. As people have been defected by running factory xenon I was researching in ways to make them compliant. Everyone always say needs to be self leveling and have washer installed, which I don't necessarily agree with. For this argument I'm using R34 as reference as I'm more aware on the construction of the headlight compared to the R33 Xenon, which may still be the exact same case.   For the self leveling clause taken from ADR 13 - Installation of Lighting and Light Signalling Devices on other than L-Group Vehicles As you can see the bold text "these manually adjustable devices from driver seats" are fine to use. As Series 1 Xenon model headlights do have a 4 level adjuster on the right near the ignition (however not series 2) then these model are consider compliant in that argument.   For the Self Cleaning aspect of this argument clause taken from ADR 13 - Installation of Lighting and Light Signalling Devices on other than L-Group Vehicles Now i can understand the argument that Xenon will need a washer as they are over 2000 lumens, but I clicked on the 12 at the end of that sentence and it takes me to the end notes which states R34 for headlight lenses are plastic, not sure if PL is mark as I don't currently have my skyline to confirm that marking is there. But could you not technically get a lenses with the PL marking on it and then get away with the argument that you need a washer. I went through a quick read of the adr and might have missed something else that may cause them to be non-complaint.    But wouldn't these technically be complaint headlights   Would love to hear other people input on this and shed some light   Edit In regard to the the washer portion I might be mistaken ADR 45 (which I believe is Regulation NO.45) states 12 cd (candela) I dont understand that portion in regarding to calculating the candela if anyone can shed some light. Otherwise I guess throw in a washer for the headlight and you definitely comply.
    • Took it to all Japan day, flogged the hell out of it and took it all, am a very very happy man  don’t know how that ended up in Greg’s thread before
    • Hey Nismo, any chance in the world you still have these seats?
    • I'd say closer to OG GTX3582R, just smaller trim - so 59mm inducer/82mm exducer as opposed to 62/82 for the first gen GTX3582R. Yeah EFRs were boss, the EFR8474 is still an absolute beast and it perplexes me that people still go to things like Turbosmart/Garrett etc when the results people are getting with those are pretty unremarkable compared to what you could get with a turbo available well before those options came out.  DriftSquid (I think) "upgraded" from an EFR9174 to a Turbosmart turbo and promised a comparison video - and kinda shuffled awkwardly and did a bit of diversion from the fact that they didn't get any improvement going to the currently massively hyped brand of turbo from a turbo that was a bit of a frankenstein that had been well superceded in it's own range before the Turbosmart unit he put on there even came out. I suspect the EFR would outperform most Xonas for what a lot of less-insane RB owners would go for, in the 400-600kw range but the Xonas are looking hard to beat up to maybe in the mid 700kw range at this stage- basically where EFRs don't really reach, and before the Precision turbos take over.  What the Xonas do well in the "EFR range" is be easier to package etc, and work very well if a divided housing doesn't suit your application.  
×
×
  • Create New...