Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Would have to be 1k wouldn't it? I'm not really sure what mild steel prices are. Stainless would have to be what 1.2-1.4k for a decent cat back 4"? I really have no idea but just a estimate.

  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

$700-800.

Be nice do have a custom centre and rear muffler made that actually work, so we can run these big systems and not worrie as much about the cops.

My tomei system, flows awesome but it's stupid loud.

If I was to do a minimum of 5 systems using 4 inch mild steel with resonators and mufflers I could do them for $1200 each with flanges, bolts and gaskets.

4 inch mufflers and resonators aren't cheap

By comparison a 3.5in system doing 5 of them I'd say $880-990.

Does anyone have any actual knowledge of what effect (if any) it would have on an engine to have the cats staggered on a twin system? By that I mean having one cat slightly closer to the engine than on the other pipe to allow them to fit under the car better?

Like this picture (best photo I could find!)-

RV_1300854851.jpg

I tried Googling but couldn't really find any info.

Does anyone have any actual knowledge of what effect (if any) it would have on an engine to have the cats staggered on a twin system? By that I mean having one cat slightly closer to the engine than on the other pipe to allow them to fit under the car better?

Like this picture (best photo I could find!)-

RV_1300854851.jpg

I tried Googling but couldn't really find any info.

Any effect if any would probably be negligible.

It wouldn't hurt to stagger the cat’s so there equal distance from the turbo’s – that would ensure all things are indeed equal.

Edited by R31Nismoid

I can't remember what underside I saw, but there are some cars in the US doing it (modified). Can't see it as a problem as if you put them side by size "technically" they aren't event anyway given the front turbo is further away, and such setups work without issue. So you are effectively making it better.

Just ensure there is a cross over pipe somewhere if doing separate CATs/pipes.

I can't remember what underside I saw, but there are some cars in the US doing it (modified). Can't see it as a problem as if you put them side by size "technically" they aren't event anyway given the front turbo is further away, and such setups work without issue. So you are effectively making it better.

Just ensure there is a cross over pipe somewhere if doing separate CATs/pipes.

Good point, I stupidly didn't think of that! In theory that makes it perfect! The offset would be nearly identical.

I remember when I was a tech at Holden when the whole crossover pipe thing came along. Late 90's early 00's from memory. If it only makes it a bit quieter then it's worth it.

Not so much the sound level, it's more the fact that going 3 cylinders per pipe, without a X-over, sounds really bad in a lot of cases.

Last car i heard like that didn't sound like a "RB" at all really. It was weird.

pretty sure there are some jap twin exhaust that don't have a crossover pipe....can't recall how good or bad they sounded though.

Edit: just checked a few u-toob vids and they sound like crap. I have always wanted a twin 3"...but I think a single 4" will do.

Dual 3" exhausts is the same as having a single 4¼" exhaust.

pretty sure there are some jap twin exhaust that don't have a crossover pipe....can't recall how good or bad they sounded though.

Edit: just checked a few u-toob vids and they sound like crap. I have always wanted a twin 3"...but I think a single 4" will do.

Dual 3" exhausts is the same as having a single 4¼" exhaust.

Can you post some links Charlie? I must have shite searching skills as i couldn't find any!

  • 1 month later...

After reading this article http://www.modified.com/tech/modp-1102-exhaust-test-tech/

It seems like there could be a gain by going 3.5 inch. I already have the trust extension pipe which are 2x70mm. so to get perfect sizing, I should get myself a 4 inch cat-back to match the 2x70mm total exhaust diameter.

However, my setup is a RB26 with stroked 87mm piston and -5 with cams and all the supportive mods you could expect.. My cat-back is 3 inch right now. So, going 3.5 is quite easy, theres tons of aftermarket BUT theres very few 4 inch catback..

Whats your thought, anyone saw gain from 3.5 to 4 inch ? Should I really concentrate on having both the downpipe and catback ''flow-matched'' or simply stick in a 3.5 instead of my 3 inch and call it a day ?

P.S: I'm also keen about a 3.5 or 4 inch group buy in stainless steel!

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

    • If as it's stalling, the fuel pressure rises, it's saying there's less vacuum in the intake manifold. This is pretty typical of an engine that is slowing down.   While typically is agree it sounds fuel related, it really sounds fuel/air mixture related. Since the whole system has been refurbished, including injectors, pump, etc, it's likely we've altered how well the system is delivering fuel. If someone before you has messed with the IACV because it needed fiddling with as the fuel system was dieing out, we need to readjust it back. Getting things back to factory spec everywhere, is what's going to help the entire system. So if it idles at 400rpm with no IACV, that needs raising. Getting factory air flow back to normal will help us get everything back in spec, and likely help chase down any other issues. Back on IACV, if the base idle (no IACV plugged in) is too far out, it's a lot harder for the ECU to control idle. The IACV duty cycle causes non linear variations in reality. When I've tuned the idle valves in the past, you need to keep it in a relatively narrow window on aftermarket ecus to stop them doing wild dances. It also means if your base idle is too low, the valve needs to open too much, and then the smallest % change ends up being a huge variation.
    • I guess one thing that might be wrong is the manifold pressure.  It is a constant -5.9 and never moves even under 100% throttle and load.  I would expect it to atleast go to 0 correct?  It's doing this with the OEM MAP as well as the ECU vacuum sensor. When trying to tune the base map under load the crosshairs only climb vertically with RPM, but always in the -5.9 column.
    • AHHHH gotchaa, I'll do that once I am home again. I tried doing the harness with the multimeter but it seems the car needed a jump, there was no power when it was in the "ON" position. Not sure if I should use car battery jump starter or if its because the stuff that has been disconnect the car just does send power.
    • As far as I can tell I have everything properly set in the Haltech software for engine size, injector data, all sensors seem to be reporting proper numbers.  If I change any injector details it doesnt run right.    Changing the base map is having the biggest change in response, im not sure how people are saying it doesnt really matter.  I'm guessing under normal conditions the ECU is able to self adjust and keep everything smooth.   Right now my best performance is happening by lowering the base map just enough to where the ECU us doing short term cut of about 45% to reach the target Lambda of 14.7.  That way when I start putting load on it still has high enough fuel map to not be so lean.  After 2500 rpm I raised the base map to what would be really rich at no load, but still helps with the lean spots on load.  I figure I don't have much reason to be above 2500rpm with no load.  When watching other videos it seems their target is reached much faster than mine.  Mine takes forever to adjust and reach the target. My next few days will be spent making sure timing is good, it was running fine before doing the ECU and DBW swap, but want to verify.  I'll also probably swap in the new injectors I bought as well as a walbro 255 pump.  
    • It would be different if the sealant hadn't started to peel up with gaps in the glue about ~6cm and bigger in some areas. I would much prefer not having to do the work take them off the car . However, the filler the owner put in the roof rack mount cavities has shrunk and begun to crack on the rail delete panels. I cant trust that to hold off moisture ingress especially where I live. Not only that but I have faded paint on as well as on either side of these panels, so they would need to come off to give the roofline a proper respray. My goal is to get in there and put a healthy amount of epoxy instead of panel filler/bog and potentially skin with carbon fiber. I have 2 spare rolls from an old motorcycle fairing project from a few years back and I think it'd be a nice touch on a black stag.  I've seen some threads where people replace their roof rack delete with a welded in sheet metal part. But has anyone re-worked the roof rails themselves? It seems like there is a lot of volume there to add in some threads and maybe a keyway for a quick(er) release roof rack system. Not afraid to mill something out if I have to. It would be cool to have a cross bar only setup. That way I can keep the sleek roofline that would accept a couple bolts to gain back that extra utility  3D print some snazzy covers to hide the threaded section to be thorough and keep things covered when not using the rack. 
×
×
  • Create New...