Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Now that is what I call a nice sidepipe Zebra, but I don't understand why they would even plumb the wastegate back in...

The rear section of it pulls apart from the front section. I assume they wanted everything coming out in the same place and/or rules/restrictions in the class they are racing in

hey GTSBoy, your postage was highly detailed and it sounds like you know your shizzle on where the dumpipizzle is concerned. What are your thoughts on this slice of exhaust action?

http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/TOG-NISSAN-SKYLINE-RB20-RB25-R32-R33-R34-EXHAUST-TURBO-DUMP-FRONT-PIPE-/130709924344?pt=AU_Car_Parts_Accessories&hash=item1e6eeb29f8

It would appear to match your specific criteria mentioned - spilt pipes, seperator, merged much later in the pipe, at a smooth flowing angle, and flaring out in a cone-type shape as much as possible in the space available. Good price too. Granted I am sure it would be made of incredibly low grade s/steel, but from a design point of view?

That's essentially the same as the cheapy I got. JustJap used to have them for less $$ than that, but don't seem to stock them for RB engines any more. Only seem to keep the short ones.

These cheapies are OK. They're not as well thought out as the CES one, and if I have my choice I'd make the re-entry of the wastegate gas on top of the bend rather than shooting into the back of it (hard to describe without drawing some MSPaint magic). My idea might not fit against the floorpan though.

Unless there were specific regs dictating its design I wouldn't view that pipe as you beaut . It looks like 500 short sections welded together and thats not required these days to get good pipeforms - if you have money .

My problem with the second small pipe is exactly that , its small and wouldn't have a lot of volume for expansion . Also note how it rejoins the pipe down the back , same scenerio as the IW type turbine housing debacle .

I also have issues with mobs that start the gates vent pipe out as a holesawed hole through the flange plate when the gates outlet hole is not round .

Where I agree with some carefully made twin dumps is when they are made firstly to be a turbine outlet pipe and second a wastegate outlet .

Its all the same deal with Evos and if you can find some pics of the American Megan Racing firms Evo dumps you can see why they work . What they do is form a slow expanding taper (elongated conical tube if you like) that curves down to run the exhaust back under the engine .

They have a "shell back" section that vents the twin wastegate (twin scroll) and it comes back into the main tube after its diameter has increased in size .

The findings with Evos is that 3" outlets don't seem to work any better than 2.7" ones even though the front pipe is 3" .

I think at the end of the day it depends on the engines state of tune and ultimately its use .

Obviously if you have a GTRS on an RB25 you're not looking for 500 Hp so most reasonable dumps should be adequate . If you are super serious it'd be a GT30 or larger using an external gate .

I have that RS and dump and I wouldn't bother spending good money on a split dump because I don't think the returns are there . An open collector is much simpler and easier to form and if the turbine housing is a good design it won't fire the gates gasses sideways into the turbines outlet .

All the race tech thinking is fine on a race car thats mostly driven flat out , road cars mostly aren't so the full load time is short/small .

A .

Disco, that exhaust is/was good for 500+hp on a ct26 turbo'd 7m and built by TRD

I don't see there being any disadvantage to the lobster back pipe work apart for the poor bugger who had to make it lol

Meh, everything can always be better but the question is one of economics and whether it is actually worth the time and money.

Well the issue aside from the time and costs involved , splitting hairs I know , would be grinding the bead off the inside of every weld to maintaain boundary layer flow . A mandrel bend would be easier cheaper and less heat stress into the material . May not look as pretty but when function is everything ...

I wouldn't know at TRD level but 7MGTEs are known for headgasket sealing probs and people who used to race them could tell by the witness marks left by the fire rings how many times they really let them have it .

Again don't know about noise issues but you'd think they would have ovalised the outlet rather than form a collector to three short pipes .

Just my observations , cheers A .

On that dump, the lobsterbacking in the top half is for the purpose of getting the steady conical increase. Arguably the first 4 or 5 inches below the solid conical section are still incraesing diamater also. I agree with the rest of the lobsterbacking from there to the exit is gratuitous, but it serves its purpose in the top.

I think you're both missing the point that it's made of titanium. The reason for them choosing titanium for an exhaust material is pretty obvious but the reason for lobster-backing the pipe is because of the almost impossible bend-abilitiy of titanium. They can't use mandrel bends.

The weight saving outweighs (no pun intended) the flow capability of the pipe

I think you're both missing the point that it's made of titanium. The reason for them choosing titanium for an exhaust material is pretty obvious but the reason for lobster-backing the pipe is because of the almost impossible bend-abilitiy of titanium. They can't use mandrel bends.

The weight saving outweighs (no pun intended) the flow capability of the pipe

I have Ti mandrel bent pipes in my workshop, granted they are Jet engine parts but they are available.

they should make a part of it out of aluminium, sounds stupid but could be probably made to work.

I'm still trying to talk someone into an alloy cat back, no-one has been game as yet. It's more common in the US it seems. We will catch on eventually.

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

    • Thanks for the reply mate. Well I really hope its a hose then not engine out job
    • But.... the reason I want to run a 60 weight is so at 125C it has the same viscosity as a 40 weight at 100C. That's the whole reason. If the viscosity changes that much to drop oil pressure from 73psi to 36psi then that's another reason I should be running an oil that mimics the 40 weight at 100C. I have datalogs from the dyno with the oil pressure hitting 73psi at full throttle/high RPM. At the dyno the oil temp was around 100-105C. The pump has a 70psi internal relief spring. It will never go/can't go above 70psi. The GM recommendation of 6psi per 1000rpm is well under that... The oil sensor for logging in LS's is at the valley plate at the back of  the block/rear of where the heads are near the firewall. It's also where the knock sensors are which are notable for 'false knock'. I'm hoping I just didn't have enough oil up top causing some chatter instead of rods being sad (big hopium/copium I know) LS's definitely heat up the oil more than RB's do, the stock vettes for example will hit 300F(150C) in a lap or two and happily track for years and years. This is the same oil cooler that I had when I was in RB land, being the Setrab 25 row oil cooler HEL thing. I did think about putting a fan in there to pull air out more, though I don't know if that will actually help in huge load situations with lots of speed. I think when I had the auto cooler. The leak is where the block runs to the oil cooler lines, the OEM/Dash oil pressure sender is connected at that junction and is what broke. I'm actually quite curious to see how much oil in total capacity is actually left in the engine. As it currently stands I'm waiting on that bush to adapt the sender to it. The sump is still full (?) of oil and the lines and accusump have been drained, but the filter and block are off. I suspect there's maybe less than 1/2 the total capacity there should be in there. I have noticed in the past that topping up oil has improved oil pressure, as reported by the dash sensor. This is all extremely sketchy hence wanting to get it sorted out lol.
    • I neglected to respond to this previously. Get it up to 100 psi, and then you'll be OK.
    • I agree with everything else, except (and I'm rethinking this as it wasn't setup how my brain first though) if the sensor is at the end of a hose which is how it has been recommended to isolate it from vibrations, then if that line had a small hole in, I could foresee potentially (not a fluid dynamic specialist) the ability for it to see a lower pressure at the sensor. But thinking through, said sensor was in the actual block, HOWEVER it was also the sensor itself that broke, so oil pressure may not have been fully reaching the sensor still. So I'm still in my same theory.   However, I 100% would be saying COOL THE OIL DOWN if it's at 125c. That would be an epic concern of mine.   Im now thinking as you did Brad that the knock detection is likely due to the bearings giving a bit more noise as pressure dropped away. Kinkstah, drop your oil, and get a sample of it (as you're draining it) and send it off for analysis.
    • I myself AM TOTALLY UNPREPARED TO BELIEVE that the load is higher on the track than on the dyno. If it is not happening on the dyno, I cannot see it happening on the track. The difference you are seeing is because it is hot on the track, and I am pretty sure your tuner is not belting the crap out of it on teh dyno when it starts to get hot. The only way that being hot on the track can lead to real ping, that I can think of, is if you are getting more oil (from mist in the inlet tract, or going up past the oil control rings) reducing the effective octane rating of the fuel and causing ping that way. Yeah, nah. Look at this graph which I will helpfully show you zoomed back in. As an engineer, I look at the difference in viscocity at (in your case, 125°C) and say "they're all the same number". Even though those lines are not completely collapsed down onto each other, the oil grades you are talking about (40, 50 and 60) are teh top three lines (150, 220 and 320) and as far as I am concerned, there is not enough difference between them at that temperature to be meaningful. The viscosity of 60 at 125°C is teh same as 40 at 100°C. You should not operate it under high load at high temperature. That is purely because the only way they can achieve their emissions numbers is with thin-arse oil in it, so they have to tell you to put thin oil in it for the street. They know that no-one can drive the car & engine hard enough on the street to reach the operating regime that demands the actual correct oil that the engine needs on the track. And so they tell you to put that oil in for the track. Find a way to get more air into it, or, more likely, out of it. Or add a water spray for when it's hot. Or something.   As to the leak --- a small leak that cannot cause near catastrophic volume loss in a few seconds cannot cause a low pressure condition in the engine. If the leak is large enough to drop oil pressure, then you will only get one or two shots at it before the sump is drained.
×
×
  • Create New...