Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Restriction found...

Why would you run a 3" pipe, at the point where the gasses are their hottest, and most turbulent (IE, when they need the biggest area to flow)?

Drop the dump, and I bet power climbs. Or are you still on the screamer?

Adam told me the dump is fine for 400+. But that will be one of the things ill be changing.

Most of the dumps I've seen for 400+ have been 3.5" - 4"

And the outlet may be 3", but take a look at the big power builds, they all mouth out nearly instantly

Increasing the diameter of the exhaust at any point isnt the magic bullet unfortunately. As soon as you exceed the the most efficient diameter you start to detriment the system. 'The most efficient diameter' is the $64m question though, and obviously pretty variable.

Hot gas is less dense, so the engine doesnt have to work as hard to 'push' it out. Increasing exhaust diameter makes the gas expand quickly, cool quickly, and become dense. Obviously dense air at the beginning of the exhaust process is bad news.. it equals resistance. Think about the reasons for heat-wrapping exhaust headers - it's definitely not meant to protect intake temps.. the hotter the temperature of the exhaust gas, the 'easier' it's expelled. Increasing exhaust diameter too far decreases temperature, and therefore is inefficient.

What you've seen in real life Matt, is probably a system which is close to the most efficient diameter for the dump pipe - but I guess it depends on whether they've tested it side by side with a dump with a smaller diameter (or matching) outlet size to the turbo too! :cool:

Someone correct me if I'm talking shit, this is just my understanding :blink:

Increasing the diameter of the exhaust at any point isnt the magic bullet unfortunately. As soon as you exceed the the most efficient diameter you start to detriment the system. 'The most efficient diameter' is the $64m question though, and obviously pretty variable.

Hot gas is less dense, so the engine doesnt have to work as hard to 'push' it out. Increasing exhaust diameter makes the gas expand quickly, cool quickly, and become dense. Obviously dense air at the beginning of the exhaust process is bad news.. it equals resistance. Think about the reasons for heat-wrapping exhaust headers - it's definitely not meant to protect intake temps.. the hotter the temperature of the exhaust gas, the 'easier' it's expelled. Increasing exhaust diameter too far decreases temperature, and therefore is inefficient.

What you've seen in real life Matt, is probably a system which is close to the most efficient diameter for the dump pipe - but I guess it depends on whether they've tested it side by side with a dump with a smaller diameter (or matching) outlet size to the turbo too! :cool:

Someone correct me if I'm talking shit, this is just my understanding :blink:

You're sort of on the right track, but you also have to consider Bernoulli's theorem, which roughly states that as velocity increases, pressure decreases. (this is the basis behind the lift equation in aircraft etc). The same works in reverse, so if the velocity of the exhaust gasses decreases (due to a sudden increase in pipe diameter) the pressure will increase and impede exhaust flow.

The trick in making a perfect exhaust would be to have the pipe diameter increasing at the same rate as the exhaust is cooling, to keep the flow the same, and hence no pressure change.

Just a thought, heat wrapping your 3 inch dump may be a "band aid" fix to the problem, as you would be retaining more heat in the exhaust, which would keep the flow faster in that section. But the Ideal solution would probably be a nice transition from the 3 inch output of your turbo, to a dump that matches the rest of your exhaust.

The easiest test to find out if the dump/exhaust is being a restriction, is quite simply to drop it.

But can anyone find a car make 400RWKW with a 3" dump? Most I know of from experience run 3.5" - 4" dumps, and then a 3.5" system.

While you're say going to a smaller pipe increases speed, decreases pressure. You also have to know for a fact, that whilst you go really small, the speed of the gas might be super quick, and low pressure in that section, but the section before has been restricted down basically, and it now has a huge pressure build up.

Run too small of a dump, the pressure in the turbo / exhaust manifold starts to build up, and counteract the pressure going INTO the motor.

It's not like I said go and put a 6" dump as from experience, everyone knows that it will become detrimental to the exhaust flow.

Whilst the hotter gas is less dense, it also takes up more area. And that's the big problem, as it's exitting the turbo, exhaust gas can be as hot as 850degrees, by the time it reaches that tail pipe, a mere 200 - 400 degrees.

Half the temperature, half the density... So you need half the area for the cooler gas...

I agree, there is an art to building exhausts, bigger is not always better, but experience tells me, for 400KW, a 3" dump is too small.

no...

simply no, you are wrong

From his list, the only differences to my pos are the 3" dump (3.5), 76mm china cooler (100mm) and obv the 26 head. I'm not sure about simmo but most of the guys I know making over 400rwkw are running 3.5 or 4" drain pipes.

Edited by DCIEVE

i made 430rwkw with a 3" dump

brockas just made nearly 440rwkw with a 3" dump

rr84wa made about 420rwkw with a 3" dump

nattalotto made nearly 470rwkw with a 3" dump

thats a quick list off the top of my head...

dont forgot a shit load of exhaust flow is going through the gate at high rpm!!!

i made 430rwkw with a 3" dump

brockas just made nearly 440rwkw with a 3" dump

rr84wa made about 420rwkw with a 3" dump

nattalotto made nearly 470rwkw with a 3" dump

thats a quick list off the top of my head...

dont forgot a shit load of exhaust flow is going through the gate at high rpm!!!

all running screamers?

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

    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
    • Nah, that is hella wrong. If I do a simple linear between 150°C (0.407v) and 50°C (2.98v) I get the formula Temperature = -38.8651*voltage + 165.8181 It is perfectly correct at 50 and 150, but it is as much as 20° out in the region of 110°C, because the actual data is significantly non-linear there. It is no more than 4° out down at the lowest temperatures, but is is seriously shit almost everywhere. I cannot believe that the instruction is to do a 2 point linear fit. I would say the method I used previously would have to be better.
×
×
  • Create New...