Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

ahh sorry i should have explained better, yeah upgrading from the stock dump is a good idea. but i rekon changing from a 2.5" dump to a 3" will do stuff all. there is no back pressure required on a turbo car, there is already enough there supplied by the turbo :)

if the pipe is TOO big, especially off the back of the turbo, then the air wont flow away from it, it will come out the back and 'billow' around and create flow problems. the air is still hot and expanded already, so velocity is required (more so) to move it away from the back of the turbo faster, as it cools, i guess it doesnt matter, its waste anyway........

any one know if there are tuned length headers available for a VQ25DET?? i got some wicked spool times when i changed my manifolds on SR20s

  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

any one know if there are tuned length headers available for a VQ25DET?? i got some wicked spool times when i changed my manifolds on SR20s

Haven't come across them yet.

In fact, I haven't come across many heavily modified VQ25DET's.

Edited by iamhe77
i guess there isnt much room in there to play anyway. plus it will generate more under-bonnet heat too........... hmmmm

mmm under-bonnet heat....

I do like Masa's partial solution to the heat issue with the externally venting front quarter panels.

Dolphin made a vented CF bonnet, but I think that productions ceased on that a while ago...

i guess there isnt much room in there to play anyway. plus it will generate more under-bonnet heat too........... hmmmm

Don't forget that the right manifold is coming around the back of the block between the fire wall and joining the left manifold at the turbo.

It would be very difficult to tune the length too much unless you go twin turbo.... Now there is an idea...

Don't forget that the right manifold is coming around the back of the block between the fire wall and joining the left manifold at the turbo.

It would be very difficult to tune the length too much unless you go twin turbo.... Now there is an idea...

Ahh yes.. TT. An idea that has been kicked around in my head for a while.

Would need pretty decent $$$$$'s to do it and, preferably, another intake box on the left of the engine as well as 2 return piping FMIC's... ooh yeah

actually would it REALLY be all that much work. after thinking about it, just a dual input FMIC and piping from the turbo to suit might do it. i mean besides all the exhaust manifold piping etc and the turbo mounting, oil and water lines, exhaust..... a lot of work, but possible!

actually would it REALLY be all that much work. after thinking about it, just a dual input FMIC and piping from the turbo to suit might do it. i mean besides all the exhaust manifold piping etc and the turbo mounting, oil and water lines, exhaust..... a lot of work, but possible!

lol. Anything is possible with the right $$$'s and expertise

Very noice.....

and if I may ask, what did that cost you? Also, which of the XForce Mufflers is that one?

Much as with my R33, the fake trims on the dual pipes is starting to get to me, different is that with the R33, a swap to a full GT-R cat-back with proper dual pipes was only $120 and 1 hours work fitting it away..

Edited by nickcorr

is it loud?

It's got a nice tone, real V6ie sort of noise, actually same as the big apexi but quieter. I was told it was legal ( < 95 Db's) ...and it indeed passed rego inspection yesterday.

It still sounds nice, actually I can hear my turbo and intake sucking air more clearly now and the BOV sounds louder too :)

the fake trims on the dual pipes is starting to get to me

Understandable.

Have you noticed that in the case of the OE "dual" pipe muffler, only one of the pipes is actually spitting out gasses?

The other is just for "show".

Fark!!! Just checked...

Only the outside one is connected to anything!! I feel cheated.. :P

At least the OEM R33 GTS-T muffler was a genuine twin outlet.

On the plus side, a new muffler, now counts as a performance mod, rather than just a cosmetic change... :P

Understandable.

Have you noticed that in the case of the OE "dual" pipe muffler, only one of the pipes is actually spitting out gasses?

The other is just for "show".

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

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...