I've Got Exhaust!
05-04-2004, 04:17 PM
#22
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Washington, MO 63090
Posts: 64
Originally Posted by FlamingGuts' date='May 4 2004, 12:39 PM
AH!!!
ive been looking for exhaust for my FC but they all look like crap except for this trillion dollar one. but that one looks sooooooo good
give me details please
like how much it is and where i can order it
ive been looking for exhaust for my FC but they all look like crap except for this trillion dollar one. but that one looks sooooooo good
give me details please
like how much it is and where i can order it
05-04-2004, 04:21 PM
#24
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Washington, MO 63090
Posts: 64
Originally Posted by FlamingGuts' date='May 4 2004, 01:14 PM
oh and is it louder then the stock exhaust?
05-05-2004, 12:47 AM
#27
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Woodstock, Georgia
Posts: 583
I've got 3" down-pipe, followed by a 3" high-flow catatlyc convertor, Y-piped into the Racing Beat mufflers that cut it down to about 2.5"...I think this is the best setup.
I'll tell you something. My brother on his SR'd 240, used to have no muffler, just a 3" down-pipe followed by a crush-bent 3" pipe. His vacuum read extremely high, 20 or so I believe. When he got a 90mm muffler added on, the vacuum dropped to 18, and this actually resulted in a quicker spooling of the turbo.
I believe that overall, back-pressure on a turbo is bad, yes, but, as long as that backpressure isn't too close to the turbo, you aren't causing any problems, and by creating a lower vacuum, I think it makes sense that it takes less "boost" to actually spool a turbo, thus explaining why my brother's car spooled faster.
My car, the vacuum is about 18 as well, but lately it's been way fucked up, cause of some vacuum leaks under the hood, but hopefully that'll be fixed in the next few days...
I'll tell you something. My brother on his SR'd 240, used to have no muffler, just a 3" down-pipe followed by a crush-bent 3" pipe. His vacuum read extremely high, 20 or so I believe. When he got a 90mm muffler added on, the vacuum dropped to 18, and this actually resulted in a quicker spooling of the turbo.
I believe that overall, back-pressure on a turbo is bad, yes, but, as long as that backpressure isn't too close to the turbo, you aren't causing any problems, and by creating a lower vacuum, I think it makes sense that it takes less "boost" to actually spool a turbo, thus explaining why my brother's car spooled faster.
My car, the vacuum is about 18 as well, but lately it's been way fucked up, cause of some vacuum leaks under the hood, but hopefully that'll be fixed in the next few days...
05-05-2004, 08:21 AM
#28
Super Moderator
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah, Ga
Posts: 2,763
Originally Posted by Lionheart240' date='May 5 2004, 01:47 AM
I've got 3" down-pipe, followed by a 3" high-flow catatlyc convertor, Y-piped into the Racing Beat mufflers that cut it down to about 2.5"...I think this is the best setup.
I'll tell you something. My brother on his SR'd 240, used to have no muffler, just a 3" down-pipe followed by a crush-bent 3" pipe. His vacuum read extremely high, 20 or so I believe. When he got a 90mm muffler added on, the vacuum dropped to 18, and this actually resulted in a quicker spooling of the turbo.
I believe that overall, back-pressure on a turbo is bad, yes, but, as long as that backpressure isn't too close to the turbo, you aren't causing any problems, and by creating a lower vacuum, I think it makes sense that it takes less "boost" to actually spool a turbo, thus explaining why my brother's car spooled faster.
My car, the vacuum is about 18 as well, but lately it's been way fucked up, cause of some vacuum leaks under the hood, but hopefully that'll be fixed in the next few days...
I'll tell you something. My brother on his SR'd 240, used to have no muffler, just a 3" down-pipe followed by a crush-bent 3" pipe. His vacuum read extremely high, 20 or so I believe. When he got a 90mm muffler added on, the vacuum dropped to 18, and this actually resulted in a quicker spooling of the turbo.
I believe that overall, back-pressure on a turbo is bad, yes, but, as long as that backpressure isn't too close to the turbo, you aren't causing any problems, and by creating a lower vacuum, I think it makes sense that it takes less "boost" to actually spool a turbo, thus explaining why my brother's car spooled faster.
My car, the vacuum is about 18 as well, but lately it's been way fucked up, cause of some vacuum leaks under the hood, but hopefully that'll be fixed in the next few days...
05-05-2004, 11:28 AM
#29
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Washington, MO 63090
Posts: 64
Originally Posted by mazdadrifter' date='May 4 2004, 02:14 PM
86-88 cars used 2lbs of back pressure sourced at the main cat to open the actuators
89-92 used the emmisions air pump to create the pressure to open those same actuators
89-92 used the emmisions air pump to create the pressure to open those same actuators
as long as i make the block off plate..
