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

    • 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.
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...