Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

mate, i am not taking a personal stab at you - this is a forum and issues/debates like

this is what keeps the forums going.

this is a forum of information... and i am merely stating that you are only taking a 1-sided

view as to the appropiate size for an exhaust system on a naturally aspirated car.

i NEVER said you were wrong, and i never dissed you for getting ur 3" system...

and I never said a thing about ur rims, kit or colour, so keep your posts relevant to the question.

The question is:

What exaust would you guys recommend for a r33 GTS in terms of value for money?

There are about 10 people including myself who have said a system no bigger than 2.5"

will give the most optimum airflow without hindering backpressure...

In your case you may have attained a higher MAX POWER reading on a dyno, but everyone

will know power does not necessarily equal go, and a car is driven differently on the street

as how it is on a dyno.

We do not want to give people who are unsure the wrong type of information.

  • Replies 98
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

its a simple concept and people have been experimenting with exhausts for quite

sometime now... its now such a widely known fact that people usually dont question it, very much anymore.

ever tried to blow water out of a 3" pipe?

ever tried to blow water out of a 1" pipe?

try blowing water out of a straw?

only in high revs will the volume of flow be sufficient for such a large system to have any sort of benefits.

I do not know how you drive... but I surely would not be redlining my car just to head to the shops.

Now - I tell you that you would infact be wasting money, because @ low revs it mid range where MOST people drive their car on the streets - a 2.5" system is the optimum.

hahaha me 2 man...my car sounds poo'd ay...in 1st n 2nd i accelerate as slow as i can so the "gargling" noise dont show and in higher gears i change at about 2500...pisses me off soo bad.  i got the magnaflow muffler aswell and the 2.5"  how could i eliminate this noise???...i got to get rid of it

Haha yeah i've heard a few guys have had this same problem. I've had my stock exhaust on since i got the EPA test, but i'm thinking about adding another muffer into the system, before the cat if i do decide to put it back on. Hopefully that will eliminate the noise!! Otherwise i'm helpless, pack it up, sell it and leave the stock system on. Or buy a good reputable Jap brand like a Kakimoto, trust, a'pexi or blitz system. I did heaps of research and i was soo close to getting one of these but in the end decided to go to the local exhaust place!! Ah well what can you do!

i MAY be selling mine in about a month or two time, cat back 2.5inch with 2 resonators and a stainless muffler. (sounds HAWT as and loud :D not had trouble with cops loud though)

probably give it to ya for $650

its only been on the car for 3 months or so (im upgrading so might be getting 3inch)

but yeah, PM me if ure interested.

Oh and its made by Cypher Industies (a big performance shop over here in WA)

if i just wanted to buy a muffler 2.5" intake and 4" tip purely for the sound, would this cause any loss of bakpressure ? im not really interested in power gain.

good muffler are around $280, + $120 for labour and piping = $400

catbak systems = $800 ?

dunno what i should put on. is the 400 worth it ?

hrmmm are catbak systems illegal in any way ? i dont want insurance giving me crap when it comes to claim time. (just in case)

sorry, im crap when it comes to cars.

if you are interested in only sound, and not power gain or driveability then by all means it doesnt really matter what diameter exhaust you put on.

but if you want to retain any decent sort of fuel economy and throttle response and harder acceleration through the rev range than I'd suggest no larger than 2.5"

i still admit i know poop compared to anyone who knows their way around an engine bay more than just oil, engine, exhaust, pod etc....but if u think about it wouldnt you want the least amount of friction so u could get the most air through, how would having a more congested pipe increase power? its just the amount of air u can fit through the pipe. i dont know how else to explain it really..feel free to correct me. so far i've just heard "naarr u want pressure"...

It's at this point when I admit I'm slightly wrong about something. The other day, a rather knowledgable friend of mine remided me about fluid dynamics and how they relate to exhaust flows. I have incorrectly been talking about our NA's requiring a smaller exhaust diameter to retain some backpressure when I should have been saying that the smaller diameter is required to retain the scavenging effects from the engine.

I've looked around for a write up of sorts and read this : http://www.miata.net/garage/KnowYourCar/S4_Back.html

To quote a bit of it "So instead of going for the widest pipe possible we should be looking for the combination of the narrowest pipe that produces the least backpressure possible"

I still maintain that if you want to retain a reasonable abount of throttle response and drivability and if you're not going for outright top end power, a 2.5" exhaust is the biggest you want to go.

i'd say most would say the tip dont matter cause once its out of the exhaust pipe its just going into a bigger container....unless u want to have an exhaust pipe which never ends=

anyway what im trying to say is no 4" tip wont matter, thats just the sound..just talking about the exhaust pipe itself. the smallest part of the exhaust will be its downfall.

however the airflow issue - NA's still need some degree of "flow"

for low and mid range revs...

and reading the link MearCat has posted only supports that a 2.5" exhaust system

is optimum for NA Skylines in regards to performance, drivibility, and throttle response.

dyno proved that one wrong for me and my friend, i have GTS4 and he has a GTS.. both had increase in power from what was already on the cars when we got em.

umm... don't you already have a 3" system?!!

how can you back up this claim of more power and more torque on the dyno - just that

i just assumed by your findings that you were talking from personal experience.

this is my stupid opinion....if you try to spend few hundrad dollars for a muffler, and only have some power gains, how about just remove the "CAT" at the exhaust and you should feel the difference when you're driving....mainly increase at mid-range power. this is more worth.

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

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...