LT1 Based Engine Tech 1993-1997 LT1/LT4 Engine Related

Apparently, true duals aren't as good as everyone makes them out to be...

Old Mar 19, 2004 | 05:32 PM
  #1  
'93 formy ...'s Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 320
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Apparently, true duals aren't as good as everyone makes them out to be...

A friend of mine with a 94 Z28, recently made the switch from a single 3" catback (borla) to a 2.5" duel exhaust which exits just before the rear axle. It's got a pair of "Bullit" mufflers, no cat's and a set of Hooker Long tubes. Last summer it dyno'es at 343hp and 360torque at the wheels through the borla (it was with the 1" opening plate).

He dynoed the car again last night with his duel exhaust and beleive it or not, made slightly less HP -339 but made more Torque - 375 than through the borla.

I have to say that I honestly wasn't very impressed. Yeah, the car sounded different (it's not often you hear a late model fbody with duel's). It did sound good, I'll give it that, but it just didn't provide the power increase I (or he) expected. He now has virtually no ground clearence and because the exhaust exits right underneith the car, it's really loud. There's a very pronouced "drone" inside the cockpit at all RPM's. After a while, it get's annoying.

Basically, I just wanted to say that in MY opinion the extra $$, the loss of ground clearence, and the annoying exhaust drone, of a duel set-up just isn't worth it. I'm willing to bet that had he kept his Borla and run it without any of the plates, he'd make more Torque (not just HP) than the duel.

My advice to everyone is to save your money and just get a single 3" catback.

It seems like every fbody owner wants duels now,. It's like the latest rage or something. Just thought I'd share my experience with you. Maybe save some of you some $$ from not getting the duel set-up

I'll try and get some pics. of his set-up soon.

Last edited by '93 formy ...; Mar 19, 2004 at 05:35 PM.
Old Mar 19, 2004 | 05:44 PM
  #2  
Brent94Z's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Joined: May 1999
Posts: 4,060
From: Inverness, FL
Doing the two dyno sessions a year apart isn't the best to use as a comparison. There are other factors that could be affecting the dyno numbers... like worn plugs and shot plug wires for example Just pointing that out... it would have been better to do a dyno run, change to duals, then do another dyno run. But, since that didn't happen, it's good to provide the best data you can which is what you did
Old Mar 19, 2004 | 05:49 PM
  #3  
'93 formy ...'s Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 320
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Originally posted by Brent94Z
Doing the two dyno sessions a year apart isn't the best to use as a comparison. There are other factors that could be affecting the dyno numbers... like worn plugs and shot plug wires for example Just pointing that out... it would have been better to do a dyno run, change to duals, then do another dyno run. But, since that didn't happen, it's good to provide the best data you can which is what you did
Your right, it would have been better (and more accurate) to do both dyno's ...say... within a day or two of each other but he had to save up the money for the Duel set-up over the winter. He installed new plugs alond with the new exhaust 'cause he had to take off the headers to send them over to get coated so he also got new wires too. I'd think that if anything, he'd get better #'s this time around for sure since it was about -4 last night and when he ran the dyno last summer it was like 35 degrees out.
Oh well. Just thought I'd share.
Old Mar 19, 2004 | 05:58 PM
  #4  
RedHottG2's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,076
From: Waco, TX
I appreciate the feedback from the dyno you provided, I know you ment well. I also agree that there are alot of variables between the two dyno sessions. I have rode in alot of diff. cars that have switched from a good cat back to true duals and I can deff. feel a seat of the pants improvement. I'm still going to stand by the true duals.
Old Mar 19, 2004 | 06:00 PM
  #5  
RedWS6TA's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 847
From: Abilene, Texas, USA
why wouldnt you just use true duals with 3inch pipe. i but money that will make more power than a catback. my buddy has dyno numbers to prove that and the where not a year apart either.
Old Mar 19, 2004 | 06:10 PM
  #6  
tryintogofast's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 297
From: WBL, MN
3 inch over a 2.5 inch

The thing is with a 3 inch pipe per bank you need to be making a serious amount of horsies to make that flow well. Velocity is a important factor here. You don't want the exhaust gas to slow down or your engine is going to have to push to get the gases out. Having 2.5 inch is more than enough for most of us and keeps the gasses flowing at a higher rate. One other thing to consider is the ground clearance.Just my thoughts but hey I might be wrong atwhich I'm sure someone will chime in.
Old Mar 19, 2004 | 06:15 PM
  #7  
Bersaglieri's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,907
From: The Wild West
Not very often do we get two dyno comparisons with changes done to the car. That being said thanks for at least coming to the board with sufficient information to make a judgement. If we had more dyno and track info with specific changes made like headers and catbacks it would solve alot of havoc and money for F-Body guys.

-Dustin-
Old Mar 19, 2004 | 06:26 PM
  #8  
justens95z's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 73
I'm not really sold on true duals either. Too much of a pain. Also, did he run any kind of x or h pipe?
Old Mar 19, 2004 | 07:20 PM
  #9  
Kraest's Avatar
Retired
 
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 3,166
From: Inside Uranus
My 396:

4" Mufflex w/Dynomax Ultaflow

Not much more flow than that w/a muffler

http://www.slowwhitecar.com/kraest_396/396idle.avi
http://www.slowwhitecar.com/kraest_396/396rev.avi
http://www.slowwhitecar.com/kraest_396/396launch.avi

Mike
Old Mar 19, 2004 | 07:23 PM
  #10  
a walker's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 743
From: Near the wonderful state of Chicago
Were both dyno pulls at least mad eon the same dyno at the same shop?

Like Brent said, there are too many variables to consider to say that it isn't worth it. Temperature does play a bit of a role, but that's only a small part of it. Humidity is important, as well as overall tuning of the car.

Things have been changed on the car, so it needs to be dyno tuned for the new mods. Some of that lost power may be gained back with a good tune.
Old Mar 19, 2004 | 08:17 PM
  #11  
'93 formy ...'s Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 320
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Originally posted by a walker
Were both dyno pulls at least mad eon the same dyno at the same shop?
Yeah, both were made at the same dyno. I forgot to metion that his set-up also has an H pipe aswell. Sorry.

Still, I think that especially considering the -4 wheather last night, he'd have a huge gain but the dyno results speak for themselves.

Will everyone get the same results? Probably not. I'm not a mechanic nor am I an expert on exhaust systems. All I'm doing is sharing what I seen with my own two eyes. A dual exhaust makeing only a minimal power increase over a 3" cat-back despite the advantage of being run on the dyno in freezing (winter) whether.

You draw whatever conclusion you want from my (or should I say, my friends' experience.

Good luck to all

Last edited by '93 formy ...; Mar 19, 2004 at 08:19 PM.
Old Mar 19, 2004 | 08:23 PM
  #12  
kmook's Avatar
Advanced Tech Moderator
 
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,262
From: Nashville
What Brent said, comparing two dyno sessions a year apart doesnt give accurate information.

Also compare the hp/trq at each 1000 rpms on both dyno charts and see what the difrence is between each 1k rpms.

Chuck's dyno comparisons show a much larger increase from duals but not at peak rpm.

Originally posted by Mr. Horsepower
Ok guys, as promised in the other thread I have the dyno results from the dual swap. First off, I'm not making any claims as to which exhaust you should run, just giving you the numbers.... so do with them as you see fit.
I would also prefer not getting into the combination as this is not my car. It belongs to a friend. I know a little about the setup but I don't want to turn this into a "What cam is he running" questionathon (my own word there ).
I will tell you this much... the heads are AFR 200's and I did about an hours worth of cleanup/blending on them last year. The cam is a custom ground Isky hydraulic roller and the other mods are as follows...
1.6:1 CC Magnum rockers, TPIS 1-3/4 headers, ported intake, K&N CAI, Granatelli MAF, AS&M 52mm TB, T56 w/LT4 clutch assembly. Oh yeah, it's a 383 running 11.3:1 compression. That's really about all I know other than the fact that I built the exhaust for it.

Ok, this car was running a 4" Mufflex catback and Rich replaced the Flowmaster with a Borla XR-1. Here are the dyno results from last weekend. I had to transfer these from the dyno graph so they aren't 100% accurate... good enough for this comparison though.

2000 rpm 139 rwhp/356 rwtq
2500 rpm 177/365
3000 rpm 226/395
3500 rpm 288/443
4000 rpm 341/459
4500 rpm 388/443
5000 rpm 408/428
5500 rpm 416/405
5600 rpm 418/396 (rwhp peak)

Tonight we tested the duals. This setup uses 3" to 2.5" transitions right off the collector. It then goes into the Dr. Gas x-pipe and then through a chambered muffler similiar to that used in the CMMG catback system. The system then exits at the side ahead of the rear wheel. It's a 2.5" system. There is a noticable tone difference with this setup. The x-pipe also creates a higher pitch exhaust note in comparison to the 'Y' or a straight dual setup.
Anyways, here are the results...

2000 rpm 150/370
2500 rpm 189/383
3000 rpm 236/416
3500 rpm 292/455
4000 rpm 339/458
4500 rpm 385/442
5000 rpm 413/430
5500 rpm 422/412
5600 rpm 426/401

Obviously the x-pipe is making some good torque over the Mufflex up til about 4000 rpm. From there til just past 4500 rpm the "Y" is winning, then the edge goes back to the x-pipe. This is usually typical of an x-pipe dual exhaust unless the situation is compensated for through valve timing. A little less exhaust duration would probably help gain back some of that torque loss in the 3500-4500 rpm range. AFR's generally have good exhaust ports so that only compounds the problem, which I'd conclude is a loss of volumetric efficiency in that rpm range. Maybe a swap to 1.5's on the exhaust would help. Either way, it warrants a little experimentation.

That's a wrap on the test so, considering this combination is pretty much inline with what most of you are doing, you can draw your own conclusions and go from there.

Any questions?

Take care,
Chuck Riddeck
Progressive Race Engine Development
Old Mar 19, 2004 | 11:44 PM
  #13  
truedualws6's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,406
From: Downey, CA
My switch from a 3" Flowmaster cat back system to
a true dual system resulted in a 12 rwhp increase
and 8 rwtq increase. Something else is probably
wrong.
Old Mar 20, 2004 | 12:34 AM
  #14  
a walker's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 743
From: Near the wonderful state of Chicago
Originally posted by truedualws6
My switch from a 3" Flowmaster cat back system to
a true dual system resulted in a 12 rwhp increase
and 8 rwtq increase. Something else is probably
wrong.

You're biggest gain cam from ditching the Flowmaster
Old Mar 20, 2004 | 12:57 AM
  #15  
1995redZ28's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 311
From: Orlando, FL
My advice to everyone is to save your money and just get a single 3" catback.
im not really sure, but i spent about $200 installed for my true duals! i didnt have a dyno before/after.... but just the sound is enough for me!

like you said... its not everyday you see a late model camaro with true duals! thats why i did it, and it was way cheaper than a catback!!

pics in sig!!

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:42 PM.