Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hey guys,

I just bought my R34 two days ago, it runs good and I love it. I noticed the previous owner had a APEXi ECV exhaust control valve fitted to the exhaust and control lever next to the hand break. I asked him about it and he said he hasn't connected it up. But the next day I looked under neath the car and saw it is connected but the butterfly valve isn't moving. That's not why I'm here though. I saw that the valve is located in the centre of the car's exhaust pipe. Normally they would be fitted at the end of the bore right? Have a look at the pics:

5_zps3gfzf8sr.jpg

1_zpsaijbcrjm.jpg

2_zps9yzy1hen.jpg

From the other side (passenger side)

3_zpsldvshtx7.jpg

exhaust_zpscm1oc12z.jpg

My concern is if that butterfly valve were to close, the exhaust fumes have no were to go. Usually they fit these control valves onto the end of the aftermarket exhaust and have an extra hole behind the valve so when it closes the fumes are forced into that opening and will travel down the length of the muffler usually 3 times before it exits (so I've heard) and that makes the muffler silent. Does anyone about these things? Does that setup look right? I'm planning on making the valve work so it will be handy to use for when I'm starting my car at 5am in the morning so I don't wake everyone up in the neighborhood, or if a bored cop tries to follow me.

Edited by Joni Boi

The valve is never fully shut, also doesn't matter where it sits.

Less exhaust flow means less noise.

Oohh really? I thought it would shut it completely

Yeah, I'm thinking of taking it apart and see whats what. Just seems odd why it would be located there, that's why I'm asking if anyone has seen this before.

My concern is if that butterfly valve were to close, the exhaust fumes have no were to go. Usually they fit these control valves onto the end of the aftermarket exhaust and have an extra hole behind the valve so when it closes the fumes are forced into that opening and will travel down the length of the muffler usually 3 times before it exits (so I've heard) and that makes the muffler silent.

What you're describing/expecting here is something like the varex muffler (as below), what you've got is just a butterfly valve in the pipe, which should have a mechanical way of stopping it from being completely shut. The only reason I can think of placement would have an impact is if the valve couldn't handle the heat being closer to the turbo than say the muffler which it's had a split second to cool??

varex_Settings.jpg

I bet you'll find the valve plate is either limited such that it can't fully close as John suggested

OR the plate has a heap of small holes to restrict the gas flow/noise.

A bit like the sheet of holey metal we'd slip in the cat flange joint to instantly lose those dB.

What you're describing/expecting here is something like the varex muffler (as below)

varex_Settings.jpg

That's exactly what I had in mind. I've never dealt with these things before, that's why it was odd to me.

what you've got is just a butterfly valve in the pipe, which should have a mechanical way of stopping it from being completely shut.

Yeah must that. Thanks guys :biggrin:

Edited by Joni Boi

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


  • Latest Posts

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...