Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I've got a 3" exhaust off the factory dump pipe and would like to replace the stock dump pipe with one that seperates the w/g gases.

Should I go for something like this that looks like it would bolt in and replace just the stock dump pipe

http://www.drivenperformance.co.nz/scripts/prodView.asp?idproduct=329

or go with a whole front pipe which seperates the wastegate for much longer (this just means I need to get my existing exhaust modified to suit)

mgp-rb20.jpg

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/410435-dump-pipe-or-front-pipe/
Share on other sites

All a split does is create more problems, cheap ones almost always have the internal wastegate flap getting jammed against the splittter you can see in the photo that seperates the 2 streams of gases

Except for when you install them carefully and properly (like mine) and then you get no such problems.

and so when it is done properly like this what does it truly do?

create a more stable flow/boost pressure?

iv got this setup too that works perfectly but iv always wondered what it truly does over a big bellmouth...

If you were looking at a split dump I'd say look into the CES split dumps. Apparently these utilise a a longer split pipe, unlike the JJ ones etc and are supposed to effectively reduce back pressure on the waste gate flap (iirc).

So therefore I'd say the full split front, and not the just replace the stock dump.

Edited by gtsttrk

and so when it is done properly like this what does it truly do?

create a more stable flow/boost pressure?

iv got this setup too that works perfectly but iv always wondered what it truly does over a big bellmouth...

The point is to stop the wastegate exit gas flow from splashing horribly across the turbine exit gas flow. If you can keep them separate, the idea is that the turbine exit gas gets a much more efficient expansion out into the dump, resulting in lower overall backpressure, or more to the point, more pressure drop across the turbine (meaning better power available to drive the turbine). The wastegate gases are then dropped in much further down where they don't interfere so badly.

If you were looking at a split dump I'd say look into the CES split dumps. Apparently these utilise a a longer split pipe, unlike the JJ ones etc and are supposed to effectively reduce back pressure on the waste gate flap (iirc).

So therefore I'd say the full split front, and not the just replace the stock dump.

The CES dump is possibly a bit nicer in the conical expansion of the turbine exit region than the cheapy is, but as far as I can tell, the return point for the wastegate flow is about the same distance down the dump. This is for the case of the split cheapy shown above. Any of the really short split cheapies, where they are intended to only replace the factory cast dump and mate to the original front pipe, are the ones that are not worth considering.

When I changed to my cheap split (JJR I think - many years ago now) I gained a good improvement in boost threshold, more stable boost control, and an increase in max boost that I then had to adjust out. That shows me that the wastegate flow was better (boost control improvement from less intereference between wastegate and turbine flows), that the overall pressure drop was lower (better boost threshold) and that the flow at high flow rates was better (increase in boost). Overall, it has been good.

The only open question is whether those changes would have been the same, less, or greater if I'd gone with a bellmouth dump. I don't have a comparison.

Most of these guys around here just write off the concept of the split dump though. I can't understand how they refuse to accept the idea of them, yet all agree that an external gate on a bigger turbo is a better idea. The ideas are related.

Does anyone have an example of a split that brings the WG flow back in basically where the the dump joins up with the cat? I've had a look around but haven't been able to find any that are produced like this.

never heard of such a design. N also could imagine why it would not exist as trying to merge the gas flow as it is also dealing with another change (going into a cat) could reduce efficiency of the design as opposed to merging it a bit further up the dump pipe- just like in the pic by the OP

never heard of such a design. N also could imagine why it would not exist as trying to merge the gas flow as it is also dealing with another change (going into a cat) could reduce efficiency of the design as opposed to merging it a bit further up the dump pipe- just like in the pic by the OP

Yeah I worded what I was asking very poorly, too much excitement from the granny lol :laugh:

Basically I was asking if anyone knew of a split like the one in the OP posted a pic of. Virtually all the ones I've seen either just replace the stock dump, or utilise the shorter split such as the JJ, CES etc.

If you're not making loads of power and using the stock turbo especially, you're not really going to notice any real gains with the split, not to mention there's room for it to jam and give you headaches down the track.

Save the coin for a slab of beer and just get the bell mouth.

Ok, so it looks like the latter is the better one of the 2. Had a hunt around for belmouths and there aren't any readily available. either way, its gotta be better than the stock dump. i'm interested in the gain i get vs my stock dump into 3"

I've used a JJ split before and didn't think that it was a bad little piece. Had it installed correctly and I definitely felt an increase at the RPM's that boost came on. The spool definitely seemed to come on earlier than when I was using a belmouth. Mind you, this could have just been a placebo. But the JJ split isn't bad for what you pay.

Just out of interest, has anyone used any of the CES products that I mentioned earlier? If you look at their website some of their products boat huge KW gains for what they are.

If you're not making loads of power and using the stock turbo especially, you're not really going to notice any real gains with the split, not to mention there's room for it to jam and give you headaches down the track.

Save the coin for a slab of beer and just get the bell mouth.

This^^

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...