Does your exhaust add power ? Good X- Flow read
Banned
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 5,551
From: tn
Rep Power: 628
with everything that has gone wrong with mine i needed a diversion! so i now own a 3400 lb 60,000$ paperweight. sometimes modding really sucks
Keep your head up high. Some of us have 2 x 3 times that in ours LOL
Other then that facts are facts Cory.
- back pressure after turbo is bad
- u don't lose torque from getting rid of it
- cheap cats fall apart
- your friend Markski uses some of the cheapest cats on the market while selling forum members 3k+ exhaust claiming to use quality parts
I am about 50ft away from a car that has his kit on it and everyone who has seen it hasn't said anything positive to say the least. I won't even go into the tune and other details.
__________________
#TeamAIM
997TT SilverSpool - 210.8 mph 1/2 Mile WR Apr 2019, 9.2 @ 168 mph 1/4 Mile Manual World Record , 3.15 60-130 mph , 2.72 100-150 mph , 1400whp E85
996TT SpoolBus - 204.6 mph 1/2 Mile 996TT WR Aug 2018, 9.5 @ 154 mph, 3.23 60-130 mph, 2.5 100-150 mph Manual Porsche World Record, 1400whp E85
997TT SlowBerry - 205.0 mph 1/2 Mile WR Nov 2018, 9.7 @ 170 mph 1/4 Mile , 3.2 60-130 mph , 2.4 100-150 mph , 1420whp E85
ESMOTOR | DO88 | TPC DSC | SYVECS | COBB | IPD | KLINE | XONA | AMS | ID | ERP | SACHS | TURBOSMART | CSF | DODSON |
#TeamAIM
997TT SilverSpool - 210.8 mph 1/2 Mile WR Apr 2019, 9.2 @ 168 mph 1/4 Mile Manual World Record , 3.15 60-130 mph , 2.72 100-150 mph , 1400whp E85
996TT SpoolBus - 204.6 mph 1/2 Mile 996TT WR Aug 2018, 9.5 @ 154 mph, 3.23 60-130 mph, 2.5 100-150 mph Manual Porsche World Record, 1400whp E85
997TT SlowBerry - 205.0 mph 1/2 Mile WR Nov 2018, 9.7 @ 170 mph 1/4 Mile , 3.2 60-130 mph , 2.4 100-150 mph , 1420whp E85
ESMOTOR | DO88 | TPC DSC | SYVECS | COBB | IPD | KLINE | XONA | AMS | ID | ERP | SACHS | TURBOSMART | CSF | DODSON |
You jest but bring up a good point, are we talking outside diameter here or are we including the effects of the 1/2" inner diameter worth of louvers inside some of these mufflers? Some 3" exhausts really aren't... I'd take a 2.75 perforated core over a 3" louvered for flow any day.
Sometimes even a 2.5'' straight core will flow more then a 3'' not because of just the louver size in it but the angle or swirl pattern that causes the gases to hit in the middle causing a restriction because of the turbulence..
Made and test many baffles back in the day on my bike dyno..
I have tech info pipe flows to HP > A 2.75'' straight pipe is capable of making 50 more HP then a 2.5''pipe,thats each..2.75'' cfm 622 / 2.5'' cfm 509..Around 2 cfm per horsepower..From Classic tubing specs..
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 253
From: Australia
Rep Power: 32
I run 3" x and tested straight pipes verse exhaust connect and nothing changed on the dyno it was just louder. I'm sure in big hp cases it would make a difference but I'd rather the sound of the x.
your talking about Adams car right?
First of all, he took it to a shop to do the install 3 years ago and he then after threatened to sue him for BS work... the car never ran right and it was bouncing around shops trying to fix the issues for 2 years... what if the compression is low etc...
I told him not to got with Tial A38s but rather true 30rs.. he got a deal at FP and did want he wanted... I supplied the parts... same Y pipe, ICs, and tune as is in most 30r blow thru cars... including Corey's, Nicks, our old 996 gt2, etc. My own 996 has the same Y pipe, maf, piping and even ICs and it ran 9s and held the 60 to 130 record for 3 almost 3 years...
What makes you think Im to blame? or the parts I supplied? Corey went 139 mph on at the track with same parts less turbos.. and he even had the X exhaust...
This game is not easy.. to go fast it takes money and time.... of all the people you should know... If the owner is not willing to spend some time on the car... supply logs to Todd, get it looked at... do a pressure test, check the turbos again, see if WGs are holding, maybe port the OEM headers, see if the ducking on the ICs was cut right and plugged up, etc. then what can I say...
He can get a mafless tune from Todd to compare. etc... Or have Bihn's tuner just swap tunes and see... this is not that hard... not sure what the drama is..
In my opinion its in the turbos/ Wgs... I think the tune is OK... Assuming the car has no leaks and everything is hooked up right... I asked Adam to shoot over some logs but still nothing... and if they show nothing then its hardware and or install... not the Y pipe, tune, or ICs.
__________________
2001 996TT 3.6L and stock ECU
9.66 seconds @ 147.76 mph 1/4 mile click to view
160 mph @ 9.77 seconds in 1/4 mile click to view
50% OFF ON PORSCHE ECU TUNING BLACK FRIDAY SPECIAL
2001 996TT 3.6L and stock ECU
9.66 seconds @ 147.76 mph 1/4 mile click to view
160 mph @ 9.77 seconds in 1/4 mile click to view
50% OFF ON PORSCHE ECU TUNING BLACK FRIDAY SPECIAL
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,319
From: Long island NY
Rep Power: 381
This looks like a good ole vendor fight. The blog article from AMS clearly just tries to make an unfair point/comparison of the 911tuning exhaust and then gives no details as to the AWE exhaust they are comparing it to.
Not to mention this thread's main purpose is to display that biased blog article under the pretense of trying to show some data that the X is not a flowing as straight pipes (which is already known and common sense). No empirical data was given as to a before and after backpressure as well which lends to my theory.
Plus Mark and Tim have a grudge against Markski and try to discredit him and his products every chance they get. I have point blank asked Tim what his grievance is with Markski and he did not reply. Mark swings off Tim's nuts, so hence this post.
What have we learned in this post - NOTHING. What has this post done - tried tried to discredit 911tuning's products. Hmmm Seems like the rouse has been discovered! Plus AMS removed comments from their blog as they are trying to cover up their blog post purpose as well.
This all is just so shady I have no words for these people and AMS. Makes me sick how some people spend so much time and energy trying to ruin someone for no good reason.
Not to mention this thread's main purpose is to display that biased blog article under the pretense of trying to show some data that the X is not a flowing as straight pipes (which is already known and common sense). No empirical data was given as to a before and after backpressure as well which lends to my theory.
Plus Mark and Tim have a grudge against Markski and try to discredit him and his products every chance they get. I have point blank asked Tim what his grievance is with Markski and he did not reply. Mark swings off Tim's nuts, so hence this post.
What have we learned in this post - NOTHING. What has this post done - tried tried to discredit 911tuning's products. Hmmm Seems like the rouse has been discovered! Plus AMS removed comments from their blog as they are trying to cover up their blog post purpose as well.
This all is just so shady I have no words for these people and AMS. Makes me sick how some people spend so much time and energy trying to ruin someone for no good reason.
I could get into thermo expansion and how much 6 psi post turbo back psi effects pre turbo back psi and how that just rolls into so much more like raising head and cylinder temps... But what do I know you know everything
after all you make money while you sleep. How I envy you..
Hey Guys what do you think of this Fabspeed 2.75''X design,with 4 2.75'' straight core mufflers?
Even though they are not popular on here,I believe this is a better less turbulant way?
Yes its a 997 but it is the same style X for our cars....
Even though they are not popular on here,I believe this is a better less turbulant way?
Yes its a 997 but it is the same style X for our cars....
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 613
From: Toronto
Rep Power: 67
LOL ..... Except for the fact that AWE exhaust was a 2.5" as well not 3" which was said several times.
You feel that comparing one 2.5" exhaust to
another 2.5" exhaust isn't fair? Great post tho full of misinformed statements.
10 year olds are the ones that believe everything they are told lol.
You feel that comparing one 2.5" exhaust to
another 2.5" exhaust isn't fair? Great post tho full of misinformed statements.
10 year olds are the ones that believe everything they are told lol.
Bickering like 10 year olds still stands though, this threat is deteriorating.
I was going to stay out of this thread, but after reading some of the mis-information contained here, I just have to comment...With all due respect, your assumption of the performance of a 2.5" vs. 3" exhaust is not accurate or correct information - at least with respect to our SpeedTech X-cellerator X-Flow systems. We dynoed our shop car with K24/18G's and FULL supporting mods (SpeedTech Hi-Flow intake plenum w/hard piping, 2.5 IC's, 2.5x75mm Y-Pipe, 75mm TB, 75MM IPD plenum, dual fuel pumps, injectors, etc.), with our 2.5" vs. 3" exhausts back to back and found a 25HP difference in a very small 1500 RPM window in the mid range - that's it. When real time driving at WOT, this small blip goes by so fast (a fraction of a second), it is not perceptable to the operator of the vehicle. I have switched back and forth between 2.5 and 3.0 several times and can not feel any difference between the two at this level. Additionally, I have done 1/4 mile runs with multiple exhaust systems. Our former twin can 70mm system (non-X) and our current 2.5 & 3.0 X-cellerator X-Flow systems. The results in real world testing are all the same...my car runs best times of 11.0x to 11.1x, trapping well into the 130's with all systems. So in real world, road testing, at the roughly 700 HP level, our 2.5" system is absolutely fine in terms of performance and leaves nothing on the table. Additionally, it is virtually drone free and makes ownership of the car much more enjoyable than some of the high HP designed systems being discussed. Obviously, I can use any system on my car because I manufacture them and I choose a 2.5 because I am completely satisfied with the performance and love the sound attributes. To say you need a 3" exhaust at roughly 700HP, IMO, is just plain wrong and I have tested enough to feel comfortable saying that....As for cats, I can not speak for the cats mentioned in this thread, as I am not familiar with them, but we manufacture our own cats from scratch, beginning with a substrate manufactured in the USA. We cut our own turbo flanges, then port and flow match them to the K-Series turbos (approx. 3.2") for maximum flow and no restriction out of the turbo. I have been running the same 100 cell cats for years at this power level without failure. I also have 130,000 miles logged on this car and over 60 1/4 mile passes. 70,000 of the miles with K24/18G turbos and full supporting mods, so I have a fair amount of experience on which to draw my conclusions...again, IMO, to state a 2.5" system is not adequate for a 600-700 HP car is just plain wrong and a 60 WHP difference between a 2.5 and a 3.0 system at this level is not a "reasonable" assumption, either...at least for our products.
I was trying (not so eloquently) to say a 2.5" system designed to be quiet v. 3" designed to flow will see that difference. Also the 2.5" designed to be quiet wasn't too small (as you have proven) but too restrictive which was what I was trying to articulate. It's pretty clear the system was too restrictive or blocked via the cats or whatever as the pipes got very hot.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 489
From: Long Island, NY
Rep Power: 110
This thread is a mess, sure. And entertaining as hell too! But to this newcoming 996 TC owner who's doing homework not just on what to tune but WHO to chose, this thread is pure gold.
Personalities and professionalism go a long way.
-V
Personalities and professionalism go a long way.
-V
Banned
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 5,551
From: tn
Rep Power: 628
except for the tips, it looks just like the gmg w/c sport exhaust i have on my car. its an older unit with welded cats instead of v bands. 3"
Alex at Fabspeed will give a very good discount on it..
If I would get it, it would be without cats..
Still have not tryed swapping my large HJS 100 cell cats for the SpeedTech cat delete pipes yet..I think I should do that first,even though most agree it would not be that beneficial at my HP level.
Banned
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 5,551
From: tn
Rep Power: 628
Alot cheaper for the Fabspeed though..lol
Alex at Fabspeed will give a very good discount on it..
If I would get it, it would be without cats..
Still have not tryed swapping my large HJS 100 cell cats for the SpeedTech cat delete pipes yet..I think I should do that first,even though most agree it would not be that beneficial at my HP level.
Alex at Fabspeed will give a very good discount on it..
If I would get it, it would be without cats..
Still have not tryed swapping my large HJS 100 cell cats for the SpeedTech cat delete pipes yet..I think I should do that first,even though most agree it would not be that beneficial at my HP level.
worst part was the 4" slash cut tips. drone was a nightmare. had a shop weld me an end section so i could reuse the oem tips and the drone is all but gone. with my power no need to upgrade yet. i do wish it had the v bands so i could swap out the cats for the track to a catless system