| Author | Topic |
|---|
Location:
Cabramatta, NSW
Registered:
May 2002
|
 Twin vs single system
|
Mon, 24 January 2005 11:42
|
 |
Hi all,
Just idle time, thinking about getting rid of the fake twin system on the s00b with a real one.
Standard system joins somewhere up in front (I haven't gotten that far underneath the car to see) and then splits again just after the rear diff.
My question is, what are the benefits of going for a twin system on an H6 as opposed to just going a single.
Will having only 3 cylinders on each bank cause too much pulsing? I'd like tuned length headers to remove that ghey boxer burble.
I don't really know much about exhausts so I don't know the effect of having only 3 cylinders in each exhaust system will be like.
The weight of a twin system is a bit of an issue, but I already have a fake one on the car so I don't think weight will be that much more.
Engine is a 3.0L making 180kW & 297Nm if that will help.
I've also posed the question to Brett Middleton of the Middleton Rally Team (MRT):
| From Brett Middleton |
| From Nark |
Hi Brett,
Are the headers tuned length? I really hate the boxer burble, so would like something that'd make the car scream rather than throb.
Are the exhaust kits available for the 3.0L? If so, do you have a dyno graph showing the difference?
What I'd really like is a true twin system rather than the split one that the car came with. Any chance of you creating something like this in the near future?
|
Headers are designed for TORQUE.
We do ALSO offer a tuned header, however its performance varies with model.
Yes the 3 litre kit is complete, please call us, data and dyno info postred soon.
A TRUE SPlit system will be worse than the kit we offer.
|
Sounds a bit suss to me, especially that last line.
But then again, I don't know much about exhausts.
|
|
|
| | Subject | Poster | Date |
|---|
 |
Twin vs single system
|
Nark | Mon, 24 January 2005 11:42 |
|
Re: Twin vs single system
|
thechuckster | Mon, 24 January 2005 12:30 |
|
Re: Twin vs single system
|
mrshin | Mon, 24 January 2005 12:33 |
|
Re: Twin vs single system
|
towe_001 | Mon, 24 January 2005 13:07 |
|
Re: Twin vs single system
|
rob_RA40 | Mon, 24 January 2005 21:35 |
|
Re: Twin vs single system
|
Nark | Tue, 25 January 2005 00:11 |
|
Re: Twin vs single system
|
CrUZsida | Tue, 25 January 2005 00:48 |
|
Re: Twin vs single system
|
FWDCelica | Tue, 25 January 2005 00:58 |
|
Re: Twin vs single system
|
CrUZsida | Tue, 25 January 2005 01:08 |
|
Re: Twin vs single system
|
FWDCelica | Tue, 25 January 2005 01:40 |
|
Re: Twin vs single system
|
CrUZsida | Tue, 25 January 2005 01:42 |
|
Re: Twin vs single system
|
Kyosho | Tue, 25 January 2005 02:44 |
|
Re: Twin vs single system
|
Kyosho | Tue, 25 January 2005 02:42 |
|
Re: Twin vs single system
|
CrUZsida | Tue, 25 January 2005 02:49 |
|
Re: Twin vs single system
|
thechuckster | Tue, 25 January 2005 06:34 |
|
Re: Twin vs single system
|
Nark | Tue, 25 January 2005 07:06 |
|
Re: Twin vs single system
|
Kyosho | Tue, 25 January 2005 07:19 |
|
Re: Twin vs single system
|
towe_001 | Tue, 25 January 2005 18:37 |
|
Re: Twin vs single system
|
b1gb3n | Tue, 25 January 2005 21:40 |
