Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I just came back from the dyno and my GTR did a nice 260 whp at 12 psi with GT-SS ( sarcasm :ph34r: ). My tuner said I NEED to change my cat, we found some piece of the cat on the ground it's really block.

What are my option !? I don't want some cravy 600$ sard or nismo cat. I want to keep the oem look. So, I was thinking about buying a high-flow cat and weld the heat shield on it so I can keep that oem-look.

What do you guys think?

Why do you want to weld the heat shield onto a hi flow cat? Its not like there illegal, people only weld the stock heatshield on when there using a stright pipe to make it look stock.

Hey Cobraa,

If you have a look on Ebay, there are a couple of cats, the main one manufactured by a workshop in western australia that are reasonably cheap $200 - $230 in 4 or 5".

They use 100cpi metal matrix if i remmember correctly and these should flow sufficiently for your GT-SS's and at that price if your really chasing the power you can probably afford to knock the internals out for use on the track :D

I'm after one too

AFter researching Just Jap have the most resonable stock.

Catco/Xforce $175 each bolt on.

450+CFM. $370 for the 700CFM.

I'm probably gonna get the xforce $175 one

*edit btw Catco ones COME with the heatshield.

*edit again, there was a dyno done somewhere, hiflow vs testpipe. No HP difference. Obviously crap cat vs highflow/test pipe would be obvious. So just stick with Hi flow for legality purposes.

There was a test done. Something stupidly low

lame! makes me want to remove mine again, but right now it's the only thing holding back the annoying drone at 2000rpm

X-Force 3" Stainless High Flow Cat

it flows up to 570 cfm...

anyone know what a stock cat would flow roughly?

I got one of these on my r32 gtr making 205awkw @ 6000rpm with just exhaust, pods and 14psi. Seems to do the job good for the price!

X-Force 3" Stainless High Flow Cat

it flows up to 570 cfm...

anyone know what a stock cat would flow roughly?

I would also like to know this!

My muffler shop told me about magnaflow cat.. but that 175$ catco seems right too. Don't know which one flow better.

I got one of these on my r32 gtr making 205awkw @ 6000rpm with just exhaust, pods and 14psi. Seems to do the job good for the price!

http://cgi.ebay.com.au/SS304-4-High-Flow-M...=item2c51eb3c08

Have a look at that bad boy.

Straight pipes all the way mate

I actually run a high flow catalytic converter business, which drastically increases the flow through the unit whilst retaining the standard shell :)

  • 2 weeks later...

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...