i was not at the dyno for the last test when they bumped up the timing for the high octane fuel but when i tuned it at 9600 it still had not hit its peak so i would say close to 10k . the main advantage of the pipe is not even the peak gains but the area under the curve. the car on pipe was making 199@ 7200rpm and was at 204@9600 still climbing(mustang dyno figures this car tested 10% higher on the dyno jet also used in tunning this car)so even on the old tune the car would be making 224hp on the dyno jet.so far every ported engine we have run this pipe on we have not rev'ed high enough to find the drop off point. one of the 6 port big street port test cars even at 10600 still was not at peak and when he tried 11k at the track said it felt like it would have pulled through to 12k.

 

Can you please give a full description of your exhaust setup with this expansion chamber from the block back? Pics would be nice so that we could see your product too. Thanks.

 

So cheap MF's like you can copy!
Why don't you just buy the product like all the others who have spent their $$$ in the R&D of the product.

 

Why not redesign the expansion chamber so that it gives it's best gains before the average redline and not after? Everything has a useful range of effectiveness and this obviously starts where it can be useful to most but continues upward out of the range of most. Why not alter the design so the benefit shifts downwards in the powerband?

 

Yeah, to me saying peak torque just climbing higher and higher until a insane amount of rpms like 11k+ seems like a re-design is in order. Even more midrange should still be left in this expansion chamber, if that is the case. I dont see why no pictures have been taken either. Can someone copy it? Of course, its only one sale away from someone buying it and then posting pictures anyway. My 20b conversion kit is something that can be copied by looking at all my pictures. But I posted it all up anyway. Not everyone has the skill to re-produce products. I am not going to make everyone sign a contract not to post pictures of what I sell or something. Its unavoidable. I would entertain buying a expansion chamber one if I saw it. It would be fun to compare to what I've already tried. Dyno charts need to be posted of before and after the pipe. Someones word is not enough proof for most, including me. I think you will find you sell more products when its out in the open.

 

I'm willing to buy the product, but I'm not going to buy something I've never seen before or know for sure will work in my application.

Cris, it seems you have done alot of R&D in this kind of product for your all motor pport car. So are you willing to sell your product? Let me know, I would be interested.

 

i know this is kinda off topic ... but how do guys think something like the expansion chamber or the reverse cone megaphone deal would work in a supercharged application?

 

pirsq, what results do you have for your exhaust on stock 6-port motors? I'd be interested to see how your exhaust performs on a chassis dyno in the following two tests:

Bolt your exhaust on an S5 6-port engine with a stock ecu
AND
Bolt your exhaust on an S5 6-port engine with a programmable fuel and timing ECU.

 

so why would you think a redesign is in order ?cars running the pipe hit peak hp 1k rpm lower than before and instead of having a 3-400 rpm wide power peak now have a 4k rpm wide power peak.(remember this pipe was original developed for road race 10k rpm use and it makes very good gains on modified motors)if you chose not to rev your motor that high and shift at 9k you still have a very flat power band of 7-9 1700rpm wider than off pipe go to 10k you have 3k of peak power to play with which gives you a 2700rpm wider power band.as for making it come in even lower im working on 2 things to work with the current lenght pipe and as for changing the length to try to make it come in at 5500-6000 not enough room the car just isnt long enough to package it a tube chassie race car maybe street car no.now with that being said it shows nice gains on stock motors as well.
my cousin's stock port 12 48weber racing beat header my exhaust(expansion chamber and 3inch system) my tuning 26 deg timing makes 138whp in 95-100 degree temps.the dyno testing we did 2 weeks ago stock 91 motor motec managment 2 identical set up's on with pipe one with out the one with showed 4-7 more wheel hp from about 4300 -6500 and a after peak hp gain of 9.8 at 9000
i have not nore would i put this pipe on a stock ecu car as it needs major fuel curve changes to make best power reliably. it is common to see a 2-3 point shift in the fuel air ratio after pipe instillation that is why.speed source did the dyno tunning and testing on those 2 cars i need to get the owners to give dave haskell the ok for me to get copies of those dyno sheets

 

and for the people who want to believe this is some phantom part crispeed knows almost all of the guys and cars running my pipe and was going to try one on the rx3 till it got wrecked he has seen it and he has been up dated on some of the test results.as for me getting pictures on a car i live in fortlauderdale 2 cars are in kendall 11/2 drive south of me the other is in westpalm 1hr north the other is palm city 3 hrs away sorry guys i havent made the time to take half a day to go shoot some pictures.the 12a car now has a street port motor in it so when he goes to the dyno ill take pictures then.

 

If you're refering to me as to saying that I think its a phantom .. its not what i'm saying at all I just want to see where the effective range is and how the curves look like.

Any answer on my previous question of the supercharger? I'm planning on going supercharged later on next year that why I ask.

 

I just wanted to see if I could use this in a class that doesn't allow porting, such as ITS. I also wanted to see if I could use the pipe in NASA PT, but I don't want to have to deal with the class bump and dyno re-certification because I had to port my engine.

 

I never said it doesn't work. I question the logic for not redesigning it purely based on the fact that it's average usable rpm range is higher than the average rpm range of most engines out there. That's called logic. The fact that it makes more power somewhere useful for most engines is in fact a good thing. However it seems quite obvious that even a good thing can still have room for improvement. Don't get offended. No one's bashing it. It's just simple design logic that states the best designed product is the one that has the max usable benefit in the greatest usable area. Yes it apparently works and no one is disputing that. However it can be improved by shifting it's usable rpm range downward. You can either be content or take some friendly advice and try to make it better and really blow minds. It doesn't matter to me either way. I'm not buying one. It's not hard to design one should I ever want one. I'm just a neutral observer pointing out the obvious in an attempt to help everyone.

 

Hell, if you brought the peak down to 9000, it might be useful for stock engine racers.

 

Exactly... I'm not afraid of experimenting with things mechanical (no, really?) but I'm looking to bolster the 4000-5500rpm part of the powerband.

Example: Coming off of a tight, 1st-gear, autocross style corner on pavement. Even with 4.08s and the stock trans, and 225mm wide tires, 1st gear is early useless. Sit on the tirespin for a while soft-pedaling it, and when things feel "hooked up" again and the tach isn't pointing at a number anymore ( ), shift to Second. Big bog as it's sitting at about 4000-4500 and not really accelerating. By the time it gets up to the meat of the powerband (over 5500), we're in the braking zone for the next corner. It takes a LOOOONG straight for 2nd to be useful.

On the other hand, on the course where I'm running on pavement, there IS a longish downhill straight where 2nd is perfect. Runs out to just past the top of the powerband before the braking zone, and then a very tight corner where 1st is just perfect for the *exit*.

So, absent an expensive trans that has an additional gear between 3.60:1 and 2.10:1 (and still has a < .85:1 for highway cruising) it is much easier to broaden the powerband, extending it to the midrange.

The other option involves a four cylinder Ford and a turbo. This option is still on the table. There's money to be won and money changes things...

 

mis quoted so i deleted

 

I think I am getting a better picture of what the powerband is doing. As for myself when you said the pipe never hit its peak, I was thinking peak torque. Where is peak torque occurring is what I really need to know. After some quick math, I see the engine in your test was making 145rwtq @7200 but only 111rwtq @9600. If it made 230rwhp @10k or so would be 120rwtq. It seems like a strange curve, I understand they did timing changes after you left, but that is a 10+ ft-lbs. Good news is the peak torque is in the 6.5-7.5 range. Which is what I needed to see.

 

i think people are miss underestanding the nature and shape of the power curve of cars running this pipe.all of the street port 6port and even the stock port 6port motors i have dynoed have a similar hp curve with almost all making peak power some were between 8000 and 8500 maintaining peak for about 3-400 rpm with the curve dropping off by 10-20whp in the next 1000-1500 rpm.with my pipe the whole curve shifts left on the graph with with the motor reaching close to peak at 72-7300 rpm and continuing to build very sightly as high as they are willing to rev the motor.the resulting curve looks like a plateau.it makes a rotary far less peaky the torque flattens out. if you make a peak of 135 in the 5-6000 range you might only see i drop by 10-12 ft lbs at 8500.the end result is you can shift where you want rpm wise with out being forced to short shift because the motor stopped pulling.now to address the questions Roen you first yes this can be used in a ITS type application but you need fuel management(rtec maybe for scca) which i think you are allowed in nasa racing as i stated in different post we have made gains of 4-7hp in the 4-6800rpm range and made after peak gains of 9.8whp at 9000rpm extending the usable rpm range the car made 182whp on a dynojet on a stock 91 motor 3 inch exhaust. PEEJAY what i would suggest a few things first you dont need a high price gear box just the ratios out of a miata box.the next thing a gear deeper than 4.08 i would run a 4.6 or 4.8 the pipe will help because you will make much more midrange and extend the top of the power band as well.the miata box ratios being close help to keep you in you power band longer while still having a overdrive to cruise home with. if you have more specific info you need email me or call 954-825-8288

 

Excuse me, but isn't this Logan's thread? Why don't you take your conversations about flywheels, other people's exhaust headers, and sales pitches out of here, start a new thread, and get a vendor's license.

PIRSQ: Show us a dyno graph and pictures IN ANOTHER THREAD. Otherwise, you're full of **** as far as a lot of us are concerned.

Let's get back on topic.

 

Now that we are back on topic I need to ask How is throttle responce when using the factory intake manifold(Cosmo or Turbo II) with lets say a ITB set up or weber for that matter ? accelaration from low RPM aound 2000-3000 rpm for everyday driving/ would it be a good idea to use it on a bridge port motor to make it behave a little better and give a better bottom end?
The reason i am asking all this is that if the factory Turbo manifolds can make a street port or bridge port engine a responsive strong everyday driver with a good torque curve than I dont see the need for ITB except if you need to make a screamer of a 13b .
Any comments?

 

Logan,
is this engine has mild or wild street ports ? intake and exhaust open early? longer duration ?

 

1st off your not a moderator so stop acting like it. We can speak for ourselves. Since this is Logan's thread, I'm sure he'll have some say. We are ALL here for the purpose of gaining knowledge and info.

 

The throttle response is good, heel toe downshifting is crisp. Compared to say the ITB's on my old n/a 3 rotor setup its not in the same category. But the control of the throttle is much easier to modulate. Only at low rpm decell I will get a slight bucking. The instant you breathe on the throttle its back to OEM smooth again. Daily driving and shifting at 3k is excellent. Plenty of bottom end power to satisfy me. So I dont see a need for ITB's. On a bridge port, the intake may still be too long however, so to make very good numbers it may need ITB with a shorty manifold.



I would lean on the mild side. They open a bit earlier than the average basic street port, and close just a tad later. With some more development we will sell the templates of the ports soon.

 

Do you think there is more power left in this setup? More specifically, do you think a tuned intake length would gain you more?

 

Yeah without a doubt there is more power left. Changing the collector slightly and taking out a section of the intake are the key things already in the works. Once the weather gets a bit better, it will be back on the dyno