Exhaust Experiment Prep Questions - Page 2 - Fuelly Forums

Android Users - Coming Soon! - Migrating from aCar 4.8 to 5.0

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 09-26-2006, 05:08 PM   #11
|V3|2D
 
thisisntjared's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,186
Country: United States
Send a message via AIM to thisisntjared
your opinion of hedman headers will change. they did not use quality anything for the header they make for the civic... before installing, sand off all of their 'high temp paint' and respray with real stuff.

with an header(s) its more important that there is quality, rather than specific dimensions.

o.g.l. is right about exhaust theory and all that. it is more complex and you dont pay us enough to explain it in depth
__________________

__________________
don't waste your time or time will waste you
thisisntjared is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2007, 11:09 AM   #12
Registered Member
 
kwtorbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 168
Country: United States
I actually like the torque-step header I bought for the civic. I know the factory paint sucks but this one was ceramic coated. It has alot more low end torque so drving it like a granny is easier. My fuel economy did go down, however. I think it is mainly due to the 5-wire O2 sensor not getting hot enough quickly enough. I am going to weld in a O2 sensor bung where two of the tubes come together (4-2-1 header w/ equalizer tube in the 2 part)and then wrap those tubes with the high temperature header wrap lindermen sent me (awesome guy). I know backpressure effects and fluid mechanics are complex but I'm just experimenting..... Would you weld in the O2 sensor where I intend to weld it or the equalizer tube (h-pipe)? Thanks
__________________

kwtorbe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2007, 03:51 PM   #13
|V3|2D
 
thisisntjared's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,186
Country: United States
Send a message via AIM to thisisntjared
ceramic is a much better choice than their 'high temp paint' but is it a good idea to weld onto a ceramic coated header??

and the 'equalizer tube' does not have a constant flow of exhaust so i dont think it would be a good idea there either.

you put this header on a vx?? hmm anyway its losing fuel economy because of the decreased exhaust velocity in the runners, not because of the o2 sensor, or backpressure. it is a heated wideband o2 sensor.

what is the exhaust like that this header is dumping into?
__________________
don't waste your time or time will waste you
thisisntjared is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2007, 07:47 PM   #14
Supporting Member
 
GasSavers_nathan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 53
Country: United States
heres a link that may be helpful, i haven't read though it recently so i don't recall how useful it would be.
backpressure
GasSavers_nathan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2007, 11:36 PM   #15
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,978
Country: United States
Interesting...

Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan View Post
heres a link that may be helpful, i haven't read though it recently so i don't recall how useful it would be.
backpressure
Good link Nathan, but 2 concerns:
1. The link discusses small aircraft engines that run at a constant RPM for long periods of time.

2. The VW tuners wanted a full-range of engine operation from idle to redline

Otherwise, very informative and detailed.

I found an old thread relating to the topic. I've been procrastinating on this exhaust for over a year ...I'm just paranoid to make it less efficient with a replacement.

Since we drive primarily at low RPM for FE, I'm willing to give up higher-end power/torque to have more readily-available torque at lower RPMs.

So when taken the practical theories gathered, and if the conclusion of the thread is true:

More Backpressure = Torque;
Less Backpressure = HP.

I'm still entertaining the idea of a header...but i dunno.

Regarding piping, we're pretty much limited to how long the vehicle is, and the intended route by the manufacturer. Mandrel bends are definitely a plus, but diameter is still in question. Using equations from another site (recall a link from here somewhere), one can find the optimal length of pipe from the engine's exhaust valve position, RPM, etc. Does this mean, cutting it short into a side-pipe?

Still corn-fused.

RH77
__________________
rh77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2007, 04:26 PM   #16
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 409
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by rh77 View Post
Good link Nathan, but 2 concerns:
1. The link discusses small aircraft engines that run at a constant RPM for long periods of time.

2. The VW tuners wanted a full-range of engine operation from idle to redline

Otherwise, very informative and detailed.

I found an old thread relating to the topic. I've been procrastinating on this exhaust for over a year ...I'm just paranoid to make it less efficient with a replacement.

Since we drive primarily at low RPM for FE, I'm willing to give up higher-end power/torque to have more readily-available torque at lower RPMs.

So when taken the practical theories gathered, and if the conclusion of the thread is true:

More Backpressure = Torque;
Less Backpressure = HP.

I'm still entertaining the idea of a header...but i dunno.

Regarding piping, we're pretty much limited to how long the vehicle is, and the intended route by the manufacturer. Mandrel bends are definitely a plus, but diameter is still in question. Using equations from another site (recall a link from here somewhere), one can find the optimal length of pipe from the engine's exhaust valve position, RPM, etc. Does this mean, cutting it short into a side-pipe?

Still corn-fused.

RH77
Ick, there is really nothing to gain from having backpressure.

Since you are most concerned with low rpm torque, your ideal headers will have narrow primaries (I think thats' the name of them) with lengths designed for your ideal rpm range.

The headers designed for high rpm torque (horsepower) use a larger runners as well as larger ports, valves, intakes etc, because of the larger amount of air flowing through them. At lower rpms these induction/exhaust systems are too large to keep the air moving quickly and smoothly. The opposite happens when you use low rpm tuning, the engine can't breath at higher power levels.

Your best bet is trying a commercialy available header, they almost all flow better than the strock restrictive system. Some stock manifolds flow fine, but most are pure crap. Up until the 80's they were all designed to just get air from one place to another, it isn't until recently that OEM's considered how they could make them flow well. My favorite example is right here They run the first exhaust port to the second ports, creating a bit of back pressure for it to fight against, with out enlargening the pipe to compensate for twice the exhaust flow, then if this isn't enough, they add the 3rd exhuast in with it, and expect it to merge smoothly with the much slower, and less pressurized gas from the 4th exhaust port

Ahh, here is a GREAT LINK to exhaust header design.http://www.team-integra.net/sections...sp?ArticleID=2
__________________
red91sit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2007, 04:44 PM   #17
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,978
Country: United States
Sweet

Quote:
Originally Posted by red91sit View Post
Ick, there is really nothing to gain from having backpressure.

Since you are most concerned with low rpm torque, your ideal headers will have narrow primaries (I think thats' the name of them) with lengths designed for your ideal rpm range.

The headers designed for high rpm torque (horsepower) use a larger runners as well as larger ports, valves, intakes etc, because of the larger amount of air flowing through them. At lower rpms these induction/exhaust systems are too large to keep the air moving quickly and smoothly. The opposite happens when you use low rpm tuning, the engine can't breath at higher power levels.

Your best bet is trying a commercialy available header, they almost all flow better than the strock restrictive system. Some stock manifolds flow fine, but most are pure crap. Up until the 80's they were all designed to just get air from one place to another, it isn't until recently that OEM's considered how they could make them flow well. My favorite example is right here They run the first exhaust port to the second ports, creating a bit of back pressure for it to fight against, with out enlargening the pipe to compensate for twice the exhaust flow, then if this isn't enough, they add the 3rd exhuast in with it, and expect it to merge smoothly with the much slower, and less pressurized gas from the 4th exhaust port

Ahh, here is a GREAT LINK to exhaust header design.http://www.team-integra.net/sections...sp?ArticleID=2
Holy crap sweet link! That answers a LOT of questions I've had for a long time. I'd like to get rid of that rusty chunk of a header with a lighter, better breathing unit. Regarding an exhaust, I've had my eye on the RS-R ExMag for a long time. Free-flow without a lot of noise. Unfotunately it's $$$. The torque curves show the right design to look for. Excellent.

RH77
__________________

__________________
rh77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Incorrect mileage calculation? tonedepear Fuelly Web Support and Community News 6 04-04-2011 01:04 AM
Keeping my distance in traffic khurt General Fuel Topics 8 09-07-2008 04:23 AM
No EPA Est for 2007 Chrysler Town & Country jklaiber Fuelly Web Support and Community News 1 08-23-2008 01:15 AM
Make / Model/ Year averages jeadly Fuelly Web Support and Community News 1 08-15-2008 12:02 AM
Poll... Do you wear seatbelts? GasSavers_Jack General Discussion (Off-Topic) 33 06-28-2006 07:53 PM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:17 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.