Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hey all quick question had my exhaust checked out as it was hanging a little low, and realised i had a a full kakimoto exhaust haha only bought the car at the end of feb ;) so score.

My question to you all is what size cat should i run as it still has the compliance cat on it :( , the size of the exhaust is about 3.5 inches so i was thinking 3.5 or would a 3inch cat be alright??

Any help would be greatly appreciated

Thanks

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/329981-cat-size/
Share on other sites

what size is the exhaust?

Bit surprised you didnt notice... given the fact it would be signifigantly louder than factory...

The Kakimoto exhaust is actually really quiet most people are surprised that it is that quiet, i knew it had the catback but wasnt sure on the front pipes and yesterday i confirmed it.

It looks to be around 3.5 inches

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/329981-cat-size/#findComment-5360801
Share on other sites

The Kakimoto exhaust is actually really quiet most people are surprised that it is that quiet, i knew it had the catback but wasnt sure on the front pipes and yesterday i confirmed it.

It looks to be around 3.5 inches

I suggest you have a good look and measure :)

3.5" exhaust = 4" cat min

3" exhaust = 3.5" cat min (although i would still use a 4")

You can get 4.5" items IIRC but i dont think you need to go that large

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/329981-cat-size/#findComment-5361008
Share on other sites

I suggest you have a good look and measure :)

3.5" exhaust = 4" cat min

3" exhaust = 3.5" cat min (although i would still use a 4")

You can get 4.5" items IIRC but i dont think you need to go that large

ill have a good look and measure hopefully tomorrow

then start shopping around :)

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/329981-cat-size/#findComment-5361219
Share on other sites

Would it matter if you use say a 3.5" cat with a 3" cat back? Wouldn't the exhaust gas going from 3.5" and hitting the 3" flange be a restriction?

No because have a look @ a CAT

It’s a honeycomb, there is no way its going to flow as much as an unimpeded straight piece of pipe not matter what the manufacturers “claim” they flow, so hence I’ve always been a firm believer of 3.5” at a minimum, preferably 4” if you can.

All you do is weld 3” flanges to it and have it taper to 3.5” or 4”, pretty common stuff and any exhaust shop will be able to do it.

The CAT poses a big restriction if you are making reasonable power.

Even with only 280rwkw currently and a 3.5” exhaust… I can tell if I have my 4” CATCO “Hi-Flow” CAT in the car, is just a straight 3.5” pipe of pipe.

It’s not major, but you can feel the difference so there is at least some minor restriction even @ what I would call mild power levels by todays standards.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/329981-cat-size/#findComment-5361308
Share on other sites

I suggest you have a good look and measure :D

3.5" exhaust = 4" cat min

3" exhaust = 3.5" cat min (although i would still use a 4")

You can get 4.5" items IIRC but i dont think you need to go that large

Ash, this info is a little misleading, could you please clarify.

Someone may interpret this info as the flange size. The ID of flanges should never step down in line of flow. IE having a 4" flanged cat meet a 3.5" flange on a catback is bound to cause turbulence issues.

From experience, a cat with 75mm ID meeting a 80mm front pipe on a fairly typical SR setup held back power by roughly 50rwkw. FYI gutting the cat did not help either, yet sure enough replacing with an 80mm cat to match fixed everything.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/329981-cat-size/#findComment-5361381
Share on other sites

3in 100 cell will flow upto 250-280rwkw

3.5in 100 cell will flow upto 300-330rwkw

4in 100 cell will flow 360-400rwkw

5in 100 cell will flow around 500rwkw

if you double the cell count you knock off about 25% of the previous figures. Most 100 and even 200 cell cats won't meet euro4 emmissions. For that you need at least 400cell. Hence why c63 amg have twin 7in cats to make the poer they do and still meet emmissions.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/329981-cat-size/#findComment-5361568
Share on other sites

Im currently running one of the Loboka 100cpsi fleabay cats. They slip on to a 3 inch pipe, have a 4 inch body and seem to flow quite well, just got 245awkw at RE with one fitted last night. At $150 its a bargain I think. Any larger than a 4 inch body and you will most likely have ground clearance issues.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/329981-cat-size/#findComment-5361602
Share on other sites

IMO I'd be running whatever cat flows the same as the rest of your exhaust.

You have a 3.5 inch exhaust .....so 3.5 inch flanged 100cpi cat with 5 inch body might be the go.

CES sell this spec.....Ballistic cats can also be had in this spec off the shelf:

http://www.surefloexhaust.com.au/cc.htm

Currently in the process of fitting the CES cat and it looks like a quality item as you would expect.....the honeycomb in my Metal Cat collapsed and wedged itself at the back of the cat body.

Edited by juggernaut1
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/329981-cat-size/#findComment-5361766
Share on other sites

I'm assuming the 200 cell cats flow more than the 100 cell?

I've got a 3" xforce high flow on mine atm, and was thinking of changing it to a 3" catco metalcat, flows up to 709cfm. Only stickiNg with the 3" cat cos my hks cat back is also 3".

Anyone tried this cat before?

Edited by SiR_RB
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/329981-cat-size/#findComment-5361890
Share on other sites

I suggest you have a good look and measure :P

Meaured quickly today looks to be just under 3.5inch

Ah k thanks ! Who sells 100 cell cats with the skyline flanges already welded on? All complete bolt on cats that I've come across are 200cell

I know just jap sell the 3" catco cats at a really good price

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/329981-cat-size/#findComment-5362088
Share on other sites

Ash, this info is a little misleading, could you please clarify.

Someone may interpret this info as the flange size. The ID of flanges should never step down in line of flow. IE having a 4" flanged cat meet a 3.5" flange on a catback is bound to cause turbulence issues.

From experience, a cat with 75mm ID meeting a 80mm front pipe on a fairly typical SR setup held back power by roughly 50rwkw. FYI gutting the cat did not help either, yet sure enough replacing with an 80mm cat to match fixed everything.

Ah ye sorry - brain non functional moment :P

Taper upto the flange rather than down... NFI what i was thinking :D

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/329981-cat-size/#findComment-5362209
Share on other sites

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

    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
    • You don't have an R34 service manual for the body do you? Have found plenty for the engine and drivetrain but nothing else
×
×
  • Create New...