JL ws-6

iTrader: (50)

yes, there will be clearance issues... ehnce why you don't see too many newer cars with them.. as I stated above.

Patrick G

iTrader: (14)

If you were to make your own box, it wouldn't necessarily have to be taller than 3.5" and then 9" wide and maybe 18" long. Think about how big a Flowmaster merge collector is an how well it fits under the car, even with a 4" pipe. This box could be no taller and only a couple of inches wider. It could fit.

RyanJ

Vizard built an exhaust system for a vette and the "box" was LONG and skinny. Probably 3+ inches thick, but only maybe 6-8 inches wide and probably 2 feet long. Maybe that would fit better running along side the TA and DS, rather than going under them.

Patrick G

iTrader: (14)

Here is the No Loss Exhaust that Vizard built for a C4.

JL ws-6

iTrader: (50)

I know all about that one... I have one in my Y running above a spohn tq arm and it is 4 inch on the exit... fits like **** LOL.

JL ws-6

iTrader: (50)

I think the main thing is to have the box have enough capacity... shape probably only changes the tone some.

Patrick G

iTrader: (14)

According to Vizard, the box capacity needs to be a minimum of 8x the displacement of 1 cylinder per side. For my 347 for example, I would need 347ci x 2 or 694ci capacity of a resonator box with 2 pipes going in. That means an 8" wide x 3.5" tall box would need to be around 25" long to make the pipes think they've hit atmospheric. Basically, you would get a box that looks incredibly similar to Vizard's C4 box. That being the case, you would then have to take the dual exit pipes over the passenger side axle. It could work and it could fit. I'd probably need to have someone like Beck Mechanical make the resonator box out of sheet metal. Anyone else have any other sources to fab up this experimental box (at an affordable price)?

RyanJ

DO IT PATRICK. It would be a nice experiement to do a back to back with what you have and maybe an X system if you have access to one. Do you have merge collectors? What are you gonna do for mufflers after the chamber?

Patrick G

iTrader: (14)

I don't have merge collectors. This is what my exhaust looks like now...notice the dual 3" pipes going into the single 3" pipe and the 3" cutout. After that it goes back into my SLP dual dual from one of the flanged openings. The way my exhaust is right now, I lose about 6 rwhp going from open headers with extensions to my catted y-pipe and cutout. The difference between the cutout open and closed is an additional 12 rwhp/12 rwtq loss. Basically, I'm trying to pick up the 18 rwhp I'm losing running between my closed street exhaust and open headers. For my test, I'd have to do a before and after dyno test. I would run dual Dynomax Ultraflow mufflers on each bank near the bumper.

By the way, that's Paul from Thunder Racing on the left and Shane on the right.

Tony Mamo @ AFR

iTrader: (13)

OK Pat...Youve peaked my curiosity a little....LOL

I have to say this mod would be a NO BRAINER on a C5. The tunnel is about as ideal as it gets for this modification.

I'm half tempted to fabricate this myself....I would actually flange both ends so I could bolt in the box or bolt in the "X" pipe. Its a must that this gets tested the same day on the same dyno and that would facilitate that scenario quite nicely.

Im also curious as to its effects on part throttle and low/mid WOT torque....Im afraid it might hurt those area's but who knows.

I think some more research is in order.

Good stuff Pat....where do I sign?



Tony M.

JL ws-6

iTrader: (50)

I'd try it on my transam... but there's no room underneath for that kind of thing... sorry guys.

SSDude

ttt**

BrianC98Z28

iTrader: (11)

Patrick what y pipe is that?

Patrick G

iTrader: (14)

I currently have the Kooks catted y-pipe (pictured above). Fits great, but it needs the better merge like the Mufflex pipe that QTP adds to their system. Sadly, it won't fit the Kooks headers without modifications.

Tony Mamo @ AFR

iTrader: (13)

Any one know where the data/information is on the Mustang's that they dyno'ed this mod on. I would really like to see more information about this. I tried using google to look around but didn't seem to get very far. I'm considering deleting my CATS and fabricating a really long narrow box which I prefer from a flow perspective as well. It would certainly be a time consuming project to do it right and I would like to gather more intel before I seriously consider moving foward.

I need to do more rooting around on the NET, but if anyone knows where some addtional information could be accessed, that would be great.

Thanks,
Tony

Ric

Okay, so 694ci inside the box... does it matter how you get that? Because I did the math, and you could make a box 3.5" X 6" X 33.5" to get said volume, and still be packaged nice and tightly under an F-body.

Quite interested myself(as I look at my stepped H-pipe and sigh)

JL ws-6

iTrader: (50)

Screw all this crap.. just put dumps on the headers and be done with it LOL.. even if there's not as much power made that way, the weight reduction alone makes it worth while LOL.

Patrick G

iTrader: (14)

Or if you used a 4" round pipe after the y-collector, it would only need to be 55" long, LOL. Interesting stuff indeed. It's a shame that there's such limited room under the floor of an F-Body. The Y-body guys have it made in this department...that tunnel opens up a lot of interesting opportunities.

Ric

I haven't measured length, but it does seem like you have 33ish" of I-pipe before going over the axle. I've only measured width of the tunnel that it hangs in, so I may be wrong... probably am.

SSDude

I have never been interested in true duals. However, this thread fascinates me. If Tony Mamo or some other sponsor manufactured this box for mass sales, it would be a major hit. Imagine, the hp advantage of true duals with the racket of true duals.