Good point!!!


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Maverick Message Board ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Mavman (IP: 192.62.107.213) on September 29, 1999 at 14:47:05:

In Reply to: The secrect is flow velocity.... posted by TBR on September 28, 1999 at 14:04:30:

Never looked at it that way. Well, I wonder if four 1 5/8 inch pipes on each side would be better than one 2 1/5 inch pipe???


: ...That's why 4-valve engines are so much more efficient than 2-valve. Even though port volume is the same, the smaller 4-valve ports flow at higher velocities making for more effective cylinder filling & scavenging. Think of running water through a garden hose & then running the same volume through a large pipe. The hose will flow at high velocity while the pipe will just dribble. That velocity helps scavenge the cylinders due to a residual "siphoning" effect. Which is why bigger is not always better. Remember, I suggested 2.25" as the max size - you would most likely be better off with 2" on the dual setup.

: : I suggested the 3" in place of the dual 2.25" pipes. One 3" should fit alot better in the six tranny mount than two 2.25" pipes. If you think about the flow of six cylinders into 4.5" combined pipe diameter, isn't that a little more overkill that one 3"???

: : "The duals will fit fine down the same side - don't go overboard on pipe diameter - 2.25" max. They won't exactly fit the cutout in the crossmember".

:
: : : : ...The dual is the trick setup. The single is a little quieter & retains bottom end power. I think 3" is too big for a single - 2.5" would be max. After all does anyone one use 3" pipes on a dual exhaust for a 400ci v8?

: : : : : ...using a 3 inch pipe from the header, and into a single in/dual out muffler. Just a question. I guess that the header(s) is split as well, so you would have to have two pipes, right???




Follow Ups:



Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Maverick Message Board ] [ FAQ ]