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

    • There's plenty of OEM steering arms that are bolted on. Not in the same fashion/orientation as that one, to be sure, but still. Examples of what I'm thinking of would use holes like the ones that have the downward facing studs on the GTR uprights (down the bottom end, under the driveshaft opening, near the lower balljoint) and bolt a steering arm on using only 2 bolts that would be somewhat similarly in shear as these you're complainig about. I reckon old Holdens did that, and I've never seen a broken one of those.
    • Let's be honest, most of the people designing parts like the above, aren't engineers. Sometimes they come from disciplines that gives them more qualitative feel for design than quantitive, however, plenty of them have just picked up a license to Fusion and started making things. And that's the honest part about the majority of these guys making parts like that, they don't have huge R&D teams and heaps of time or experience working out the numbers on it. Shit, most smaller teams that do have real engineers still roll with "yeah, it should be okay, and does the job, let's make them and just see"...   The smaller guys like KiwiCNC, aren't the likes of Bosch etc with proper engineering procedures, and oversights, and sign off. As such, it's why they can produce a product to market a lot quicker, but it always comes back to, question it all.   I'm still not a fan of that bolt on piece. Why not just machine it all in one go? With the right design it's possible. The only reason I can see is if they want different heights/length for the tie rod to bolt to. And if they have the cncs themselves,they can easily offer that exact feature, and just machine it all in one go. 
    • The roof is wrapped
    • This is how I last did this when I had a master cylinder fail and introduce air. Bleed before first stage, go oh shit through first stage, bleed at end of first stage, go oh shit through second stage, bleed at end of second stage, go oh shit through third stage, bleed at end of third stage, go oh shit through fourth stage, bleed at lunch, go oh shit through fifth stage, bleed at end of fifth stage, go oh shit through sixth stage....you get the idea. It did come good in the end. My Topdon scan tool can bleed the HY51 and V37, but it doesn't have a consult connector and I don't have an R34 to check that on. I think finding a tool in an Australian workshop other than Nissan that can bleed an R34 will be like rocking horse poo. No way will a generic ODB tool do it.
    • Hmm. Perhaps not the same engineers. The OE Nissan engineers did not forsee a future with spacers pushing the tie rod force application further away from the steering arm and creating that torque. The failures are happening since the advent of those things, and some 30 years after they designed the uprights. So latent casting deficiencies, 30+ yrs of wear and tear, + unexpected usage could quite easily = unforeseen failure. Meanwhile, the engineers who are designing the billet CNC or fabricated uprights are also designing, for the same parts makers, the correction tie rod ends. And they are designing and building these with motorsport (or, at the very least, the meth addled antics of drifters) in mind. So I would hope (in fact, I would expect) that their design work included the offset of that steering force. Doesn't mean that it is not totally valid to ask the question of them, before committing $$.
×
×
  • Create New...