| Author | Topic |
|---|
Location:
Somewhere on a dirt bowl ...
Registered:
August 2004
|
|
Re: Twin vs single system
|
Mon, 24 January 2005 13:07
 
|
 |
| Nark wrote on Mon, 24 January 2005 22:42 |
My question is, what are the benefits of going for a twin system on an H6 as opposed to just going a single.
|
V6 and v8 info but i cant see there being anything different on a boxer 6.
In a nut shell more power and torque. But you'll need a crossover or balance pipe of around the same size as the exhaust. (Can go a little smaller for the sake of clearance but not bigger). Located around where the gearbox is.
| Quote: |
Will having only 3 cylinders on each bank cause too much pulsing? I'd like tuned length headers to remove that ghey boxer burble.
|
That i wouldn't have a clue of but on an 8 it sounds dead sexy.
| Quote: |
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.
|
That my friend is a case of trial and error which means $$$$$. But in in a case like this you'll be able to use the front and rear of the standard exhaust.
| Quote: |
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.
|
On a 3.0L motor, on average, the ideal pipe size would be around the 2.5in, while with twins its around the 2in size. Its a little more weight but its easier to find the room to fit.
"Headers are designed for TORQUE" - Hummmmm, yes and no. Its more or less an age old fight of torque and horsepower.
"We do ALSO offer a tuned header, however its performance varies with model." - ?????? different factory work maybe? Like cams, intake.
"A TRUE SPlit system will be worse than the kit we offer" - This bit is true, very true. Without the balance pipe you'll wind up losing power and not gaining anything.
One other thing is that when asking for a dyno sheet also ask what else has been done. More so if the gain looks to true to be good.
|
|
|
| | 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 |
