Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Just something I have been curious about recently and decided it might be a good idea to pop the question.....

We all know that "generally" the larger the diameter of the piping in an exhaust system the more power it will generally produce and the better that it would respond to modifications as well. But unfortunately the larger you go, the more impractical it becomes due to the excessive noise that it would make.

Now here is my question. Btw cat convertors are disregarded for this experiment.

Now lets say if I hypothetically had an full turbo back 3" exhaust like most people generally buy for there turbo cars which was straight through until it reached the rear cannon, where it had only one to help baffle the sound of the exhaust. Lets say that this exhaust produced 90db.

In my second example lets imagine I had a full 3.5" turbo back system which was helped to keep it down to regulation noise by use of a couple of mufflers (same design as our cannon in example one, same restriction/flow) to keep it at our regulation noise of 90db.

Now between these both setups. Which one would produce more power? Would one produce more than the other? Would one respond better modifications than the other? Or would they be actually the same?

Just wondering.

Cheers

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/81921-exhaust-diameter-theory/
Share on other sites

Hi Baz;

Good question, you could work that out in rough terms by using the figures for back pressure imposed by the second muffler vs increase in flow through the larger diam pipe, they should be available somewhere. Intuitively I reckon you'd need to go up to a 100mm pipe to overcome the pressure created by the second muffler but there would have to be a break even point somewhere. It also depends on the quality of the exhaust design, as opposed to just the diam.

Then again some of the better quality mufflers are expensive becuase they can do both very well ie cancel noise and produce horsepower; it's always going to be a tradeoff and I don't think the 'perfect solution' exists.

Cheers

if your making upwards of 300rwkw then there is a difference over 3" to 3.5" without a doubt.

Stock turbo i doubt you'll see anything

Adding in extra mufflers wont hurt the power if they are straight flowing ones.

You'll be hard pressed to get its to 90db tho

Interesting idea Cubes , where does it go from single to double and does it go back to single down the back .

I had a bad experience with noise on an FJ20ET with a GT28RS and 3" tube . The dump pipe was formed to match the turbo outlet flange ie not a saparate waste gate pipe . There were no soft spots and the noise at cruise was LOUD . I think turbos that vent into a large volume and large pipe promote the dreaded drone . The split dump seems to have performance benefits and less noise as well . I've often wondered if the pipe venting the turbine is similar or a smidge larger that the outlet promotes flow and forms an anti reversion restriction when the pipe opens out to the main pipe diametre . I think large pipes can act as an auxilary engine tie bar if the exhaust has no give ie those braid covered stainless steel bellows gadgets , and can transmit engine noise directly to the body making it a boom box .

Corky Bell says that gas velocity is directly related to pipe size and quotes pipe diametres in relation to power output . I think the golden rule is to try to keep the exhaust manifold pressure as close to inlet manifold pressure (on boost) as possible . To do this exhaust pressure needs to be measured pre turbo , post turbo and before and after every cat/silencer in the system . Remember the turbo can be a sizeable restriction in the exhaust system which is why I keep harping about the importance of efficient (free flowing ) turbines and housings .

My 2 cents only A .

im assuming zorst flow is like current. 2 restrictions in series = double the restriction. whereas 2 restrictions in parallel (seperate pipes) = same restriction... but now im thinking.. .would that cancel out the effectiveness of both of them in a row as far as noise goes? i still think it would be quieter with an overall larger flow area (2x2.5 vs 3)

I assume APS decided to go a 2 x 2.5" system rather than a big 3.5" single. 2 x 2.5" keeps drone to a minimum on the big ford six.

Head over to the LS1 forums and you will see the 2 x 2.5" systems are quieter than the 3.5" singles on the v8's also.

Fluid flow is significantly different to electricity in practice despite the claims otherwise. Flow potential increases with a radius^2 relationship, and the conservation of mass/volume has to be maintained.

So essentially if you stick to the simple A1.V1=A2.V2=volumetric flow rate. A and V being Area and Velocity then you can't go wrong.

consider if you push 300rwkw through a 75mm (4415mm^2) pipe, and you increase to a 100mm pipe (7850mm^2) and the gas velocity remains the same the potential flow for power is around 530rwkw (which is far more than linear relationship attributed to just the diameter increase)

Moral, 100mm pipe is just too big when 75mm (3") can deliver well over 300rwkw.

Thats with regards to peak power but how does it affect mid range etc? Can the theory be applied so to speak?

I have know ppls fit up 3.5" exhaust and picked up quite a bit of mid range and turbo spool but still made the same peak power.

Moral, 100mm pipe is just too big when 75mm (3") can deliver well over 300rwkw.

3" cant deliver much over 300... from what testing i have seen and been told about... changing to a 3.5" can net upto 20rwkw when you get into the mid 300 + range

I'll dig out some laminar and turbulent pipe flow data later and get some theoretical flow values. It'll take a while as I've got a pretty busy day and I'll calculate completely the airflow needed for certain power figures, the fuel required, the expansion due to the heat present and finally the pipe size needed. Then I'll do some acoustic calculations for SPL drops. Time to exercise the brain. :)

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 would just put EBC back on the "I would not use their stuff" pile and move on.
    • Can I suggest you try EBC directly again and link them to as many competitor catalogues as you can to show their listing is incorrect, eg https://dba.com.au/product/front-4000-series-hd-brake-rotor-dba42304/ If you have access to an R33 GTST VIN and your VIN, you could also use a Nissan Parts lookup like Amayama to show them the part number is different between 33 GTST and 34 GTT which may get their attention
    • So i got reply from EBC and they just this site where you can clearly see those 296mm fronts on R34 GTT. I send them photos and "quotes" that 296mm are not for 34 GTT and they are too small. But it will be very hard to return them cuz nobody here knows 100% and they just copy those EBC catalogue :-D https://ebcbrakesdirect.com/automotive/nissan/skyline-r34
    • Hi, is the HKS  Tower Bar still available ? negotiable ? 🤔
    • From there, it is really just test and assemble. Plug the adapter cables from the unit into the back of the screen, then the other side to the car harness. Don't forget all the other plugs too! Run the cables behind the unit and screw it back into place (4 screws) and you should now have 3 cables to run from the top screen to the android unit. I ran them along the DS of the other AV units in the gap between their backets and the console, and used some corrugated tubing on the sharp edges of the bracket so the wires were safe. Plug the centre console and lower screen in temporarily and turn the car to ACC, the AV should fire up as normal. Hold the back button for 3 sec and Android should appear on the top screen. You need to set the input to Aux for audio (more on that later). I put the unit under the AC duct in the centre console, with the wifi antenna on top of the AC duct near the shifter, the bluetooth antenna on the AC duct under the centre console The GPS unit on top of the DS to AC duct; they all seem to work OK there are are out of the way. Neat cable routing is a pain. For the drive recorder I mounted it near the rear view mirror and run the cable in the headlining, across the a pillar and then down the inside of the a pillar seal to the DS lower dash. From there it goes across and to one USB input for the unit. The second USB input is attached to the ECUtec OBD dongle and the 3rd goes to the USB bulkhead connected I added in the centre console. This is how the centre console looks "tidied" up Note I didn't install the provided speaker, didn't use the 2.5mm IPod in line or the piggyback loom for the Ipod or change any DIP switches; they seem to only be required if you need to use the Ipod input rather than the AUX input. That's it, install done, I'll follow up with a separate post on how the unit works, but in summary it retains all factory functions and inputs (so I still use my phone to the car for calls), reverse still works like factory etc.
×
×
  • Create New...