QUOTE(mADmAN @ Dec 11 2011, 01:56 PM)
i disagree with it...piping size doesnt always relate to CC...its more on the amount of power u have and where in the rev ranger is that power at.
take for example 1.6...campros and CPS goes up to 2.0 and the gain is pretty decent... even CPS stock piping size is 2.0....go bigger and kaput...
but when it comes to the 1.6 MIVECs and VTECs...although the 2" pipes is pretty decent for those engines but they benefit more with 2.3" especially since most of the peak power is at the higher end of the rev range and the bigger pipe size really benefits the higher rev range.
my 2.0 VTEC is running 2.5" pipes.. and its good...so good.. 4-1, 2.5" pipe, 1 midbox, no muffler.
i also have an exhaust cut out valve.. so when the valve closed the exhaust is forced from a 2.5" pipe into a 2.3" pipe and s-flow muffler.....i lose 15hp about 1.2kg torque. tested this on the dyno just yesterday
so max n/a is 2.0"??? big big no.
So what did you get at yesterday's dyno tune? take for example 1.6...campros and CPS goes up to 2.0 and the gain is pretty decent... even CPS stock piping size is 2.0....go bigger and kaput...
but when it comes to the 1.6 MIVECs and VTECs...although the 2" pipes is pretty decent for those engines but they benefit more with 2.3" especially since most of the peak power is at the higher end of the rev range and the bigger pipe size really benefits the higher rev range.
my 2.0 VTEC is running 2.5" pipes.. and its good...so good.. 4-1, 2.5" pipe, 1 midbox, no muffler.
i also have an exhaust cut out valve.. so when the valve closed the exhaust is forced from a 2.5" pipe into a 2.3" pipe and s-flow muffler.....i lose 15hp about 1.2kg torque. tested this on the dyno just yesterday
so max n/a is 2.0"??? big big no.
Dec 11 2011, 04:38 PM

Quote
0.0522sec
0.25
7 queries
GZIP Disabled