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

    • As discussed in the previous post, the bushes in the 110 needed replacing. I took this opportunity to replace the castor bushes, the front lower control arm, lower the car and get the alignment dialled in with new tyres. I took it down to Alignment Motorsports on the GC to get this work done and also get more out of the Shockworks as I felt like I wasn't getting the full use out of them.  To cut a very long story short, it ended up being the case the passenger side castor arm wouldn't accept the brand new bush as the sleeve had worn badly enough to the point you could push the new bush in by hand and completely through. Trying a pair of TRD bushes didn't fix the issue either (I had originally gone with Hardrace bushes). We needed to urgently source another castor arm, and thankfully this was sourced and the guys at the shop worked on my car until 7pm on a Saturday to get everything done. The car rides a lot nicer now with the suspension dialled in properly. Lowered the car a little as well to suit the lower profile front tyres, and just bring the car down generally. Eternally thankful for the guys down at the shop to get the car sorted, we both pulled big favours from our contacts to get it done on the Saturday.  Also plugged in the new Stedi foglights into the S15, and even from a quick test in the garage I'm keen to see how they look out on the road. I had some concerns about the length of the LED body and whether it'd fit in the foglight housing but it's fine.  I've got a small window coming up next month where I'll likely get a little paint work done on the 110 to remove the rear wing, add a boot wing and roof wing, get the side skirt fixed up and colour match the little panel on the tail lights so that I can install some badges that I've kept in storage. I'm also tempted to put in a new pair of headlights on the 110.  Until then, here's some more pictures from Easter this year. 
    • I would put a fuel pressure gauge between the filter and the fuel rail, see if it's maintaining good fuel pressure at idle going up to the point when it stalls. Do you see any strange behavior in commanded fuel leading up to the point when it stalls? You might have to start going through the service manual and doing a long list of sensor tests if it's not the fuel system for whatever reason.
    • Hi,  Just joined the forum so I could share my "fix" of this problem. Might be of use to someone. Had the same hunting at idle issue on my V36 with VQ35HR engine after swapping the engine because the original one got overheated.  While changing the engine I made the mistake of cleaning the throttle bodies and tried all the tricks i could find to do a throttle relearn with no luck. Gave in and took it to a shop and they couldn't sort it. Then took it to my local Nissan dealership and they couldn't get it to idle properly. They said I'd need to replace the throttle bodies and the ecu probably costing more than the car is worth. So I had the idea of replacing the carbon I cleaned out with a thin layer of super glue and it's back to normal idle now. Bit rough but saved the car from the wreckers 🤣
    • After my last update, I went ahead with cleaning and restoring the entire fuel system. This included removing the tank and cleaning it with the Beyond Balistics solution, power washing it multiple times, drying it thoroughly, rinsing with IPA, drying again with heat gun and compressed air. Also, cleaning out the lines, fuel rail, and replacing the fuel pump with an OEM-style one. During the cleaning process, I replaced several hoses - including the breather hose on the fuel tank, which turned out to be the cause of the earlier fuel leak. This is what the old fuel filter looked like: Fuel tank before cleaning: Dirty Fuel Tank.mp4   Fuel tank after cleaning (some staining remains): Clean Fuel Tank.mp4 Both the OEM 270cc and new DeatschWerks 550cc injectors were cleaned professionally by a shop. Before reassembling everything, I tested the fuel flow by running the pump output into a container at the fuel filter location - flow looked good. I then fitted the new fuel filter and reassembled the rest of the system. Fuel Flow Test.mp4 Test 1 - 550cc injectors Ran the new fuel pump with its supplied diagonal strainer (different from OEM’s flat strainer) and my 550cc injectors using the same resized-injector map I had successfully used before. At first, it idled roughly and stalled when I applied throttle. Checked the spark plugs and found that they were fouled with carbon (likely from the earlier overly rich running when the injectors were clogged). After cleaning the plugs, the car started fine. However, it would only idle for 30–60 seconds before stalling, and while driving it would feel like a “fuel cut” after a few seconds - though it wouldn’t fully stall. Test 2 – Strainer swap Suspecting the diagonal strainer might not be reaching the tank bottom, I swapped it for the original flat strainer and filled the tank with ~45L of fuel. The issue persisted exactly the same. Test 3 – OEM injectors To eliminate tuning variables, I reinstalled the OEM 270cc injectors and reverted to the original map. Cleaned the spark plugs again just in-case. The stalling and “fuel cut” still remained.   At this stage, I suspect an intermittent power or connection fault at the fuel pump hanger, caused during the cleaning process. This has led me to look into getting Frenchy’s fuel hanger and replacing the unit entirely. TL;DR: Cleaned and restored the fuel system (tank, lines, rail, pump). Tested 550cc injectors with the same resized-injector map as before, but the car stalls at idle and experiences what feels like “fuel cut” after a few seconds of driving. Swapped back to OEM injectors with original map to rule out tuning, but the issue persists. Now suspecting an intermittent power or connection fault at the fuel pump hanger, possibly cause by the cleaning process.  
×
×
  • Create New...