Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Thinking of buying this oval veilside Jasma muffler as well but worried it will be much louder than my Xforce oval (I know its jasma approved, but the body is not too big..), it looks to be free flow?

What do you guys think? :unsure:

post-49401-0-57539700-1395968588_thumb.jpeg

post-49401-0-46789500-1395968599_thumb.jpeg

post-49401-0-74784700-1395968610_thumb.jpeg

It'll probably be louder as you suspect. But at least there will be no restriction.

Just do it. if you don't like it, move it on. By the same token.........I don't think there could be any suspicion that the Xforce oval is restrictive. A straight through 3" is a straight through 3" in terms of what it can flow, give or take a few % point here and there for different perforation styles. So why not put your existing rear onto the cheaparse system from the previous page? If you're going to start cutting and shutting exhausts, you might as well cut up the one you already have and don't like.

By the same same token, which not just buy a decent 3" mid and stick that into your existing system in place of the shitty one that's on there now? Sounds like less f**king around than any of the options you have come up with or that I listed above.

Neither way will likely fix your power issue, but I guess you need to follow your tuner's instructions no matter how much it costs in wasted time and parts. At what point do you pull the pin though?

  • Like 1

Well.. I will get that cheap arse exhaust, at least the main element, (the gutted catco cat) is there as well as the 3" mid-muffler. I wont take that ugly canon though. I might just buy the Jasma oval above if I don't find anything better.

Even Yavuz said my rear muffler might not be such a problem, but the cat definitely.. But you can see from previous pics the Xforce has a small hole outlet. If they fail to deliver results and come up with something else 'restricting my car',..well, time to move on...

post-49401-0-22042400-1395978657_thumb.jpg

I don't know why people run the risk of a $10k fine for 0 performance gain by gutting the cat, when for a couple hundred you can get a good cat that flows more then you need, on top of that when the cat "ignites" it helps keep the gas hot and hot gas moves faster then cold

I had an 80mm decat made for my 32 for drag racing, went to the drags did a run then changed to the decat did another run and they where both exactly the same time and speed, if your cat is a restriction then buy a new one that isn't

Looks ok and fairly straight thru inside the veilside muffler

Also the bigger the rear muffler is the more sound it will suppress Aslong as it's still true 3inch straight thru

And your starting to head over 20psi and close to 300rwkw so the 2.5inch neck down in the rear will start to hurt power up top as 2.5inch is only good for 250rwkw

Bought me a present, 3 inch used gutted cat and the Veilside Jasma oval muffler 5-6 threads up, its 3.5 inch straight thru however. Body size is 6X11X14.5 long in inches, my current xforce oval is 6X10X16 long so hoping the replacement wont be much louder.

Now need to find the largest 3 inch oval mid-muffler I can cram under there, any suggestions? ;-)

post-49401-13960777319188_thumb.jpg

post-49401-13960777498574_thumb.jpg

So u saying no need to put it on? What about my 2.7inch mid muffler necking on one outlet? Well it actually looks like it maybe 3 inside just the pipe is necked down at joint..? No idea why

Not, not saying that. Let's face it. The car used to make more power, now it makes less. Either the PowerFC sucks or the cat has a problem. The mufflers haven't changed, therefore they aren't the cause, is all. Bigger is always better (if perhaps louder), so go ahead and redo your exhaust. But just don't expect to identify what the actual problem was if you change everything all at the same time. If you only swap out the cat for something that won't be a restriction, and redyno and it all comes good, then it was the cat. Same for any other component. Change all of them though, and it comes good....and then wonder which one was the bad one, or maybe if it was the sum of the parts. Having said that last bit, re-read my 5th sentence.

Lol the power FC cant suck, it is a constant and proven in many cars. The tune can suck of course, and in my case as mentioned its had timing retarded big time everywhere. And power (lack of) been suggested to a restrictive cat. And of course its cheaper to replace the exhaust components in one go and have a touch up tune, and if it makes power then u know its the combination of these components that was the problem but wont be able to identify which one.. Which doesnt really matter when you are able to pick this cat for 30bux and Veilside oval for 50..

  • 1 month later...

If you want quiet and free flowing ring Kirawee Mufflers , my exhaust is 3.5 to 3" necking back through a 200 cel Xforce cat and the mufflers are I think Redback . The rear is 20" long and something like 6 x 11 . They can get them in 3.5" as well . It fits up very neatly and the single 3" outlet looks really conservative .

A .

If it were me I'd replace the exhaust as it is obviously bothering you. Don't you just hate it when you truly believe something isn't right and 6mths later you wish you had changed it ? Seems stupid to get a tune then end up changing the exhaust anyway. Do it once, do it right. I have just changed my dump pipe from 3" to 3.5" using the cat as a step down. The difference is chalk and cheese. Whoever said a bigger exhaust slows down the flow has rocks in their head. Revs faster harder, more power everywhere from idle to full boost. Strangely, it is quieter. Now I want to go full 3.5" all the way to see what my little 3071r is capable of.

  • 2 weeks later...

Update- cat replaced with hollow 3" compliance cat (for now) and necking in mid muffler eliminated. Drive feel on road was noticeably punchier n free-er on mid-high rpms. Then after touch up tune- a dissapointing 280rwkw at 22psi dropping to 18psi. Is this why I made low power? Precision 5558 on 98/ Rb25.

Previous boost drop was 2psi, now its 4 psi?? Only 10kw gain from previous 270rwkw at 20psi. But hugely different drive-a lot punchier n snappier in all gears and a lot more torque/boost in low rpms from feel - lighter throttle input required in low rpms. See dyno sheet.

One big problem is that during downshifts as in overtaking or motorway pulls from 4th to 3rd or 3rd to 2nd there is a massive power loss for 3-4 secs and then it suddenly boosts and pulls hard as normal. During this time it is like 50-60% down on power -like hitting a brickwall or NA yaris/civic spec torque. It ONLY happens on downshifts not upshifts. Is it tune related or a BOV or boost leak? Yavuz and Mark have confirmed the tune is as good as should be.

post-49401-13997651993846_thumb.jpg

Thats odd. Did they play with the tune much after you fixed the exhaust? I would expect it would need a bit of playing around with the tune, not as much as if it were a MAP based ECU

The precisions are ball bearing arent they? Sounds like it cant be a turbo issue, but it nearly sounds like when you drop a gear the turbo takes forever to get up to the speed it should be at. This makes me think its ECU related, as if its going to cells that the car never really reached before and the tuners just made safe just in case it ever did unexpectedly Even a boost leak it should sound like it wants to take off.

Thats certainly a strange one.... but the fact that you have gained power on effectively less boost (up top) and the better driveability at least proves that the exhaust was a problem

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

    • 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.
    • When I said "wiring diagram", I meant the car's wiring diagram. You need to understand how and when 12V appears on certain wires/terminals, when 0V is allowed to appear on certain wires/terminals (which is the difference between supply side switching, and earth side switching), for the way that the car is supposed to work without the immobiliser. Then you start looking for those voltages in the appropriate places at the appropriate times (ie, relay terminals, ECU terminals, fuel pump terminals, at different ignition switch positions, and at times such as "immediately after switching to ON" and "say, 5-10s after switching to ON". You will find that you are not getting what you need when and where you need it, and because you understand what you need and when, from working through the wiring diagram, you can then likely work out why you're not getting it. And that will lead you to the mess that has been made of the associated wires around the immobiliser. But seriously, there is no way that we will be able to find or lead you to the fault from here. You will have to do it at the car, because it will be something f**ked up, and there are a near infinite number of ways for it to be f**ked up. The wiring diagram will give you wire colours and pin numbers and so you can do continuity testing and voltage/time probing and start to work out what is right and what is wrong. I can only close my eyes and imagine a rat's nest of wiring under the dash. You can actually see and touch it.
    • So I found this: https://www.efihardware.com/temperature-sensor-voltage-calculator I didn't know what the pullup resistor is. So I thought if I used my table of known values I could estimate it by putting a value into the pullup resistor, and this should line up with the voltages I had measured. Eventually I got this table out of it by using 210ohms as the pullup resistor. 180C 0.232V - Predicted 175C 0.254V - Predicted 170C 0.278V - Predicted 165C 0.305V - Predicted 160C 0.336V - Predicted 155C 0.369V - Predicted 150C 0.407V - Predicted 145C 0.448V - Predicted 140C 0.494V - Predicted 135C 0.545V - Predicted 130C 0.603V - Predicted 125C 0.668V - Predicted 120C 0.740V - Predicted 115C 0.817V - Predicted 110C 0.914V - Predicted 105C 1.023V - Predicted 100C 1.15V 90C 1.42V - Predicted 85C 1.59V 80C 1.74V 75C 1.94V 70C 2.10V 65C 2.33V 60C 2.56V 58C 2.68V 57C 2.70V 56C 2.74V 55C 2.78V 54C 2.80V 50C 2.98V 49C 3.06V 47C 3.18V 45C 3.23V 43C 3.36V 40C 3.51V 37C 3.67V 35C 3.75V 30C 4.00V As before, the formula in HPTuners is here: https://www.hptuners.com/documentation/files/VCM-Scanner/Content/vcm_scanner/defining_a_transform.htm?Highlight=defining a transform Specifically: In my case I used 50C and 150C, given the sensor is supposedly for that. Input 1 = 2.98V Output 1 = 50C Input 2 = 0.407V Output 2 = 150C (0.407-2.98) / (150-50) -2.573/100 = -0.02573 2.98/-0.02573 + 47.045 = 50 So the corresponding formula should be: (Input / -0.02573) + 47.045 = Output.   If someone can confirm my math it'd be great. Supposedly you can pick any two pairs of the data to make this formula.
×
×
  • Create New...