difference 4-2-1 and 4-1

11th May 2009, 14:14

hi whats the difference obviously i know theres no 2 pipe just straight to one but what differemce does it make not having the two pipe part. sos if this doesnt make much sense, i did try searching but couldnt find the answer

cheers mat

11th May 2009, 14:48

Check out this guide; http://www.saxperience.com/forum/showthread.php?t=87854

Obviously the manifold is a part of the exhaust system.
4 'pipes' come from the head. These then either merge directly into 1 'pipe' or indirectly into 2 'pipes' then to 1 'pipe'.

The manifold then joins onto the centre section. Which inturn connects to the backbox.

It is said that 4-2-1's are better for gaining low to mid range performance. I.e. better acceleration etc.
Whereas 4-1's are known for better high range power. I.e. faster top end speeds available.

Due to the imperior design of most aftermarket manifolds, they function alot better than the highly restrictive OE/Standard one on the car. As they are alot less restrictive they allow a superior flow of exhaust gases to exit the car. Thus giving better performance.

Some manifolds actually house the Catalytic Convertor within them. Implementing loads of restriction.

Hope this helps.

11th May 2009, 14:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Docsamty

Check out this guide; http://www.saxperience.com/forum/showthread.php?t=87854

Obviously the manifold is a part of the exhaust system.
4 'pipes' come from the head. These then either merge directly into 1 'pipe' or indirectly into 2 'pipes' then to 1 'pipe'.

The manifold then joins onto the centre section. Which inturn connects to the backbox.

It is said that 4-2-1's are better for gaining low to mid range performance. I.e. better acceleration etc.
Whereas 4-1's are known for better high range power. I.e. faster top end speeds available.

Due to the imperior design of most aftermarket manifolds, they function alot better than the OE/Standard one on the car. They are alot less restrictive thus allowing a superior flow of exhaust gases to exit the car.

Hope this helps.

Spot on apart from that bit matey, its just where the power is in the rev range. More power higher up the band with a 4-1 than a 4-2-1, doesnt get you higher top speeds, at least noticeably, but its better when your really giving the car some as if your driving it properly youll be in the mid to high end of the range at all times and thats where the 4-1 shifts the peak torque

11th May 2009, 14:54

Ok thanks. Learn something new everday lol.

11th May 2009, 14:58

Docsamty a really superb answer, I'm so fed up with people on this forum responding with just a 'Do a search' or 'use the search button'.

11th May 2009, 15:17

Cheers for the info really apprecaite it. So either one is better than standard but just to confirm I want get off the line faster so I would get a 4-2-1

Cheers mat

11th May 2009, 15:18

In a nutshell yeah, its the better all rounder

11th May 2009, 15:22

I opened this thread waiting to see two pages of "search" lol

As said for the road get a 4-2-1, personally for my use id get a 4-1 as i only use my cars for track day toys and b-road blasts.

Matt.

11th May 2009, 15:30

Excellent thanks for the help and for not saying use the search button. Think I'm going to go for a 4-2-1 a supersprint straight through centre section and piper back box

Cheers mat

11th May 2009, 15:31

I havnt noticed any difference in power from low to midrange in fitting my 4-1 but it defo does pull better towards the top end of the rev range, but i have only done motorway miles realy since fitting it

11th May 2009, 17:24

To be honest I see little point in a 4-1 with standard camshafts

11th May 2009, 17:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by storms

Cheers for the info really apprecaite it. So either one is better than standard but just to confirm I want get off the line faster so I would get a 4-2-1

Cheers mat

When people ask the same shit day in day out you can see why people tell people to search. The information is there for them and readily available if they search.

On topic, Theres alot more to think about with manifold design rather than just the configuration, you also have the length and bore of each primary for instance etc... which again can have massive effects on pulse tuning.

11th May 2009, 17:44

Does it really make that much difference on Saxo's between 4-2-1 and 4-1?

11th May 2009, 17:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ferg

Does it really make that much difference on Saxo's between 4-2-1 and 4-1?

To many variables of tuning, for example my engine next to an OE vts engine will be different and need different designs etc...

I remeber when the raceland hype began because they made a respectable increase in torque/bhp all over the rev range over the GMC 4-1 in a back to back test on a 16v engine.

11th May 2009, 17:58

Obv a bodied engine is a different kettle of fish. But for example, a modded VTS with the usual engine mods and OEM Cams. I honestly don't think it will make hardly any difference at all.

11th May 2009, 18:13

Leeroy seemed to think there was a noticeable difference, a positive one, with the 4-1 over the 4-2-1 models

11th May 2009, 18:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben_Saxo

Leeroy seemed to think there was a noticeable difference, a positive one, with the 4-1 over the 4-2-1 models

It went the other way with daveP iircs rolling road graphs a few years back.

Which is why everyone then went for the racelands.

11th May 2009, 18:23

After having a raceland induction system for a short time on my car Id never let anything raceland touch my car again.

Ive gone for a 4-1, will see how it performs.

11th May 2009, 18:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben_Saxo

After having a raceland induction system for a short time on my car Id never let anything raceland touch my car again.

Ive gone for a 4-1, will see how it performs.

The manifolds are not badly made, I was going to run one on my old bodied engine, I fitted one to sayers etc, a slight arse to fit but ive not known of anyone having issues long term with them falling appart etc. I know alot of happy customers when it comes to the manifolds

11th May 2009, 18:44

Gota say my Raceland manifold has held up well ...

11th May 2009, 20:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan

The manifolds are not badly made, I was going to run one on my old bodied engine, I fitted one to sayers etc, a slight arse to fit but ive not known of anyone having issues long term with them falling appart etc. I know alot of happy customers when it comes to the manifolds

They are not well finished and really require more welding to offer peak performance. They have the advantage they copied supersprints good design to start with though.
They do make good power though so no one seems to mind.
Kev

11th May 2009, 20:52

interesting you say the design is copied kev, I didnt think the supersprint primaries were quite as sharp out of the head which is why the supersprint is easyer to fit.

11th May 2009, 21:26

There are many little things that make the supersprint better. You dont really notice until you have them side by side. A few people have tested the Racelands and they do seem to perform well on highly tuned engines. They have given better mid range without loosing flow at the top end. One day i'll do a direct comparison between the two but I dont have spare ones to waste on testing...

Kev

11th May 2009, 21:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by KamRacing

To be honest I see little point in a 4-1 with standard camshafts

second that. even with <8k rpm limit most of the upshifts will start in the 5-6.5k rpm region where the 4-2-1 is still in it's stride and where the 4-1 hasn't kicked it.

motorbike engine - yeah fine go with 4-1. Else, go 4-2-1.

ads

11th May 2009, 21:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by adsayer

second that. even with <8k rpm limit most of the upshifts will start in the 5-6.5k rpm region where the 4-2-1 is still in it's stride and where the 4-1 hasn't kicked it.

motorbike engine - yeah fine go with 4-1. Else, go 4-2-1.

ads

To throw further into the mix again, if 4-1 is better for a saxo engine rev limit then why do the high revving (9kish) s1600s use a 4-2-1 manifold and not a 4-1.

11th May 2009, 22:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan

To throw further into the mix again, if 4-1 is better for a saxo engine rev limit then why do the high revving (9kish) s1600s use a 4-2-1 manifold and not a 4-1.

no spanner there.....

Its about application and use. A track race car can utilise a 4-1 system as with the right gearbox you can run at high revs all day. I think gearboxes are critical for this though.
A 4-2-1 will help in the mid range where slower corners are present. A rally car would be slow with a 4-1 if you take a generalistic view.

Kev

11th May 2009, 22:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan

To throw further into the mix again, if 4-1 is better for a saxo engine rev limit then why do the high revving (9kish) s1600s use a 4-2-1 manifold and not a 4-1.

That's kind of what I said...

Quote:

Originally Posted by adsayer

motorbike engine - yeah fine go with 4-1. Else, go 4-2-1.

motorbike engine don't even make peak torque till 10k rpm.

11th May 2009, 22:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by adsayer

That's kind of what I said...

sayer it was again a backing up comment that if a 4-1 is better than a 4-2-1 then why would they be used in such a high set up NA situation

11th May 2009, 22:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben_Saxo

After having a raceland induction system for a short time on my car Id never let anything raceland touch my car again.

Ive gone for a 4-1, will see how it performs.

Exactly the same... please keep us informed!

11th May 2009, 22:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan

sayer it was again a backing up comment that if a 4-1 is better than a 4-2-1 then why would they be used in such a high set up NA situation

gotcha

11th May 2009, 22:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan

It went the other way with daveP iircs rolling road graphs a few years back.

Which is why everyone then went for the racelands.

Been in a few vts's now and they are all pants with the raceland, doesnt even feel like there is an uprated one on. Least with the GMC you get a kick and can actually feeling it working (AM sure anyone who has a gmc will agree you can feel it through your feet if get)

And get the end of the day most users 99% of them dont have a race spec engine,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben_Saxo

Leeroy seemed to think there was a noticeable difference, a positive one, with the 4-1 over the 4-2-1 models

And i still stand by that

11th May 2009, 22:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by leeroybrown

Been in a few vts's now and they are all pants with the raceland, doesnt even feel like there is an uprated one on. Least with the GMC you get a kick and can actually feeling it working (AM sure anyone who has a gmc will agree you can feel it through your feet if get)

yet theres been a back to back test showing the raceland performed better? the kick could be that the car is suffering badly lower down the rpm - food for thought.

11th May 2009, 22:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan

sayer it was again a backing up comment that if a 4-1 is better than a 4-2-1 then why would they be used in such a high set up NA situation

They need it for lower down as the have fuck until the vtec kicks in yo!

11th May 2009, 22:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan

yet theres been a back to back test showing the raceland performed better? the kick could be that the car is suffering badly lower down the rpm - food for thought.

Wow cos DaveP says so, everyone has to agree do they, bollocks

I dont really care who did the tests, I no from owning both, (gmc several times) The GMC always felt better.

11th May 2009, 22:57

now oddly, I was disappointed with the raceland when I put it on, but that was because it was blowing and I'd fitted it pish.

Then I sorted it and it felt a lot better, but sadly because I'd cocked it up with the blowing for a week, I couldn't really remember the feel of power delivery between standard mani and 4-2-1 SS mani... but here's the power graph between the two (note torque profile past 3k rpm between the two - note how shit is now below 3k rpm)

ads

11th May 2009, 22:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by leeroybrown

Wow cos DaveP says so, everyone has to agree do they, bollocks

I dont really care who did the tests, I no from owning both, (gmc several times) The GMC always felt better.

I belive I have eyes and can look at a rolling road printout, as does most of the rallye reg, who were involved in a good disucssion at length over it when the back to back test was done. People can have a discussion there about things without toys being thrown.

11th May 2009, 23:00

Always found this an interesting link

http://www.suzukituning.com/PSA/TU3T..._category_id=2

11th May 2009, 23:01

lets not get petty gays.

leeroy (and no doubt a lot of other) believe in the 4-1 and that's fair enough. and lots believe in the 4-2-1.

It's a Discussion, not a faggoty face slapping convention.

Although I'm more interested in when it kicks in Leeroy... share with us dude!

11th May 2009, 23:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by leeroybrown

Always found this an interesting link

http://www.suzukituning.com/PSA/TU3T..._category_id=2

why's that man?

ads

11th May 2009, 23:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan

I belive I have eyes and can look at a rolling road printout, as does most of the rallye reg, who were involved in a good disucssion at length over it when the back to back test was done. People can have a discussion there about things without toys being thrown.

No one is throwing there toys out, GOD can even discuss and it still wouldnt change what I think. Well the "in lot" think its better or not

Most people dont have a raced tuned engine and couldnt give a shit about the tech side, ohhhh you would get 3 more foot of torque with a racelandd,,,,,,,,,,oh you could have had 5 more bph....

GMC in my view is still the best manifold out there despite the price. Seems to be with the raceland the power is smooth ish over the rev range, where as the gmc seems to work much better for about 4k, when it feel like a surge of power, like proper old school turbo lag, good things come to those who wait

11th May 2009, 23:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by leeroybrown

No one is throwing there toys out, GOD can even discuss and it still wouldnt change what I think. Well the "in lot" think its better or not

Most people dont have a raced tuned engine and couldnt give a shit about the tech side, ohhhh you would get 3 more foot of torque with a racelandd,,,,,,,,,,oh you could have had 5 more bph....

GMC in my view is still the best manifold out there despite the price. Seems to be with the raceland the power is smooth ish over the rev range, where as the gmc seems to work much better for about 4k, when it feel like a surge of power, like proper old school turbo lag, good things come to those who wait

So what you are saying is you dont care about any theory or gains shown on rollers because an opinion is more valid. Interesting. Quite alot of people do care about the tech side as they are wanting to try and get good performance from a good budget, (much like youre opinion on the BTB, why pay £600 when an ashley can be bought for £250?). Its horses for courses, people do like to analyse information and see what could benifit them in a certain way, which is why this discussion was raised. Its allready been stated by a couple of people that on a set of OE cam shafts that a 4-1 configuration isnt necessarily benificial, and OE cams isnt exactly a race engine.

Like I said have you considered that the kick could be that the manifold isnt working well up until a set RPM? it is pheasable that it is possible.

11th May 2009, 23:13

I love some of these conversations.

Do I really have to do flow tests on the manifolds as well as the inductions....?

[Ads want to team up?

]

Seb

11th May 2009, 23:15

The last time someone was as wrong as you, was when a politician stepped off an aeroplane in 1939 waving a piece of paper in the air saying there will be no war with Germany

TBH hardly gonna see tha much difference between a 4-1 or 4-2-1 on an s with breathing mods, 2-3 bph between. Hardly noticeable. I will go on what i have driven, had and used just as much as your are, GMC is better one for me, People may have tested them, then go on another rolling road and its completely different, means nowt. Called the sheep effect RYan, one popular person buys it, then it the best thing since slide bread, you should know your guilty of it

And as for the BTB even GMC says it works better on TB or boasted engines, works better, let me get that again works better on that type of engine, hence why you dont need to waste that amount of money or something that is simply cammed

11th May 2009, 23:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by spiderxjz82

I love some of these conversations.

Do I really have to do flow tests on the manifolds as well as the inductions....?

[Ads want to team up?

]

Seb

But then we also have pulse tuning to throw into the mix for added fun

11th May 2009, 23:19

Ryan are you a complete and utter nerd or something, There is a limit people need to go , but you just step of it with this complete and utter nonsense lol, I can understand from your view with the type of engine you run, but come, nerd stuff keep for shed lol

11th May 2009, 23:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by leeroybrown

The last time someone was as wrong as you, was when a politician stepped off an aeroplane in 1939 waving a piece of paper in the air saying there will be no war with Germany

TBH hardly gonna see tha much difference between a 4-1 or 4-2-1 on an s with breathing mods, 2-3 bph between. Hardly noticeable. I will go on what i have driven, had and used just as much as your are, GMC is better one for me

Lee for once in youre life try and have a debate without acting like a fucking child. Its a discussion, which as per usual you are proving you cant have without making childish comments. Now is it possible to continue the thread without another, as a debate is perfectly fine to have.

As for the results this is where the hype came from, when before no one had a raceland and almost everyone was running a gmc 4-1

Quote:

New peak power is 166.6bhp @ 7500rpm and peak torque is 126lb ft @ 6000rpm.

Previous peak was 162bhp @ 7500rpm & 121lb ft torque @ 5500rpm.

I feel you are missing the point about 3-4 bhp though, if people are on a budget then something making more bhp for less money is deffinately something that is an important factor, as its something you have stated is with the BTB exhaust 'being no point' in spending the extra £

11th May 2009, 23:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by leeroybrown

Ryan are you a complete and utter nerd or something, There is a limit people need to go , but you just step of it with this complete and utter nonsense lol, I can understand from your view with the type of engine you run, but come, nerd stuff keep for shed lol

I dont see why sax-p shouldnt be able to have an open technical discussion tbh, any discussion like this can benifit some members and some people actually do like to read shared views and information.

11th May 2009, 23:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan

But then we also have pulse tuning to throw into the mix for added fun

Sure we can cope

Exams finish in 3 weeks, then I'm free!

On topic though, I have no problem with my 4-2-1, don't own a saxo though. Nothing wrong with 4-1s, just think they are overcompensating.

11th May 2009, 23:23

Yeah i thought it was funny one day you may laugh

On your engine that is running cup cams wasn't it

So hardly standard

11th May 2009, 23:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan

As for the results this is where the hype came from, when before no one had a raceland and almost everyone was running a gmc 4-1

Not really supersprint have been out there along time making there manifolds

11th May 2009, 23:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by leeroybrown

Yeah i thought it was funny one day you may laugh

On your engine that is running cup cams wasn't it

So hardly standard

cup cars are restricted to 150bhp due to the class regulations. Considering a faire precentage of the forum run wilder cams, aim for more power than that I dont see how something benifiting the overall running of their set up is a waste of time to look at tbh.

The results shown were not my engine.

11th May 2009, 23:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by leeroybrown

Not really supersprint have been out there along time making there manifolds

Except people suddenly jumped on the raceland bus when they saw they could get very good results for minimal outlay, the supersprint is considerably more £

11th May 2009, 23:28

Well its defo not OE cams with 166 bhp thats doe sure

Conclusion I prefer 4-1, you prefer 4-2-1, there isnt that much difference, from the figures I have seen or what you have posted, so it doest really mater unless you what HIGH reving with a 4-1 or mid range with a 4-2-1, thats the only decision you really need to make, powerwise they aint that much in it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan

Except people suddenly jumped on the raceland bus when they saw they could get very good results for minimal outlay, the supersprint is considerably more £

Better built, better fitted, no snapped gearbox mount, buying the cheapest isnt always best

11th May 2009, 23:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by spiderxjz82

Sure we can cope

Exams finish in 3 weeks, then I'm free!

On topic though, I have no problem with my 4-2-1, don't own a saxo though. Nothing wrong with 4-1s, just think they are overcompensating.

free, until you decide to do a lady sayer and do a PHD

Is the engine in you're 206 one of the smaller CC TU ones or are you with gtiiiiiiiiiiiii?

11th May 2009, 23:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan

free, until you decide to do a lady sayer and do a PHD

Is the engine in you're 206 one of the smaller CC TU ones or are you with gtiiiiiiiiiiiii?

PHD... don't think I could keep myself amused for that long....

I had a 1.4 wetlined aluminium block in the 206. Made 86bhp.

Currently has 1.6 cammed VTR block in it.. awaiting completion!

11th May 2009, 23:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by spiderxjz82

I love some of these conversations.

Do I really have to do flow tests on the manifolds as well as the inductions....?

[Ads want to team up?

]

Seb

Are you the Seb from SSC where we were discussing Airboxes dude??? pretty cheesed off axsaxoman completely ignored my post... wonder why

Quote:

Originally Posted by leeroybrown

And as for the BTB even GMC says it works better on TB or boasted engines, works better, let me get that again works better on that type of engine, hence why you dont need to waste that amount of money or something that is simply cammed

now I agree with this... fock all point in going for the BTB really. HOWEVER, the fact it has a dummy cat box is where I believe it compensates compared to people who just run a standard decat pipe.
I believe the BTB will improve torque slightly, but not because of the reason most people think... i think it's because of the freer flowing nature of it and but mainly because it has the dummy box.

Quote:

Originally Posted by leeroybrown

Ryan are you a complete and utter nerd or something,

I'm gonna claim credit for this... I post the technical shit, ryan just reads it and then regurgitates later on. I'm the geek here

pow pow.

11th May 2009, 23:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by leeroybrown

Well its defo not OE cams with 166 bhp thats doe sure

Conclusion I prefer 4-1, you prefer 4-2-1, there isnt that much difference, from the figures I have seen or what you have posted, so it doest really mater unless you what HIGH reving with a 4-1 or mid range with a 4-2-1, thats the only decision you really need to make, powerwise they aint that much in it.

The interesting point is that the results showed the raceland infact making peak torque slightly higher up the RPM than the GMC, which surprised alot of people.

4bhp/5lb of torque is quite a change.

The results were with 708s, which isnt a wild cam choice.

11th May 2009, 23:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by spiderxjz82

PHD... don't think I could keep myself amused for that long....

I had a 1.4 wetlined aluminium block in the 206. Made 86bhp.

Currently has 1.6 cammed VTR block in it.. awaiting completion!

don't worry I'm not going to keep myself interested for that long either... just going to bosh it out to MPhil level then fock off and find another degree to bosh out.

11th May 2009, 23:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by adsayer

i think it's because of the freer flowing nature of it and but mainly because it has the dummy box.

The dummy box was one of the main reason alot of people early on were using it on cammed saxos as they were feeling the car performing poorly with a decat, and annoyingly the boxed (magnex xsi decat iirc) was only made for a very very short period of time. Again it throws into the mix the joys of pulses

11th May 2009, 23:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by adsayer

did anyone actually look at my smeggin rolling road graphs?

11th May 2009, 23:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by adsayer

Are you the Seb from SSC where we were discussing Airboxes dude??? pretty cheesed off axsaxoman completely ignored my post... wonder why

now I agree with this... fock all point in going for the BTB really. HOWEVER, the fact it has a dummy cat box is where I believe it compensates compared to people who just run a standard decat pipe.
I believe the BTB will improve torque slightly, but not because of the reason most people think... i think it's because of the freer flowing nature of it and but mainly because it has the dummy box.

I'm gonna claim credit for this... I post the technical shit, ryan just reads it and then regurgitates later on. I'm the geek here

pow pow.

Same could be said for the OMP system Sayer as it had a dummy box Also

708's Ryan is the cam most people use along with ph3's, not many go for a wild cam like and 803(Correct me if am wrong) But no engine is the same, so really it doesnt matter that much

11th May 2009, 23:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan

The dummy box was one of the main reason alot of people early on were using it on cammed saxos as they were feeling the car performing poorly with a decat, and annoyingly the boxed (magnex xsi decat iirc) was only made for a very very short period of time. Again it throws into the mix the joys of pulses

This is why I'm being a pikey (apparently) and twating the cat material out of my cat

decat with faux box char,one.

11th May 2009, 23:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan

The dummy box was one of the main reason alot of people early on were using it on cammed saxos as they were feeling the car performing poorly with a decat, and annoyingly the boxed (magnex xsi decat iirc) was only made for a very very short period of time. Again it throws into the mix the joys of pulses

Must admitt I have actually had one of them

Quote:

Originally Posted by adsayer

This is why I'm being a pikey (apparently) and twating the cat material out of my cat

decat with faux box char,one.

I have a large sledge hammer

11th May 2009, 23:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by adsayer

Are you the Seb from SSC where we were discussing Airboxes dude??? pretty cheesed off axsaxoman completely ignored my post... wonder why

I am indeed. Only got lead onto that forum after a phone conversion with him.

I really didn't like talking to him. Seemed a little bit cocky if I may say so, he basically put down EVERYTHING I tried saying to him as if I was some 12 year old kid....

11th May 2009, 23:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by leeroybrown

Same could be said for the OMP system Sayer as it had a dummy box Also

Then the OMP is probably going to be one of the best performing boxes out there man

11th May 2009, 23:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by leeroybrown

Same could be said for the OMP system Sayer as it had a dummy box Also

708's Ryan is the cam most people use along with ph3's, not many go for a wild cam like and 803(Correct me if am wrong) But no engine is the same, so really it doesnt matter that much

Lee the dummy box on the OMP where is it though, is it midway along the center pipe or jammed right up where the cat should be?

Yes lee 708s and ph3s are the most used cam profile it seems, hence why its quite good for people to see the results on an engine which ran 708s. I have not once mentioned 803s in this thread.

11th May 2009, 23:40

I have one, flogged it, had a nice sound to it.

Box where the cat was, a middle box and back box just like a BTB

11th May 2009, 23:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by spiderxjz82

I am indeed. Only got lead onto that forum after a phone conversion with him.

I really didn't like talking to him. Seemed a little bit cocky if I may say so, he basically put down EVERYTHING I tried saying to him as if I was some 12 year old kid....

sod him then, never talked to the bloke but his theory seems a bit potchy, like just read from a handful of books, if I'm honest. This is the thingy really, you get a lot of people stuck in their ways and not prepared to listen to other peoples viewpoints right or wrong, you never ever stop learning

11th May 2009, 23:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by spiderxjz82

I am indeed. Only got lead onto that forum after a phone conversion with him.

I really didn't like talking to him. Seemed a little bit cocky if I may say so, he basically put down EVERYTHING I tried saying to him as if I was some 12 year old kid....

I think I might have read that discussion, where you were asking questions and I feel John felt you were trying to catch him out.

11th May 2009, 23:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by leeroybrown

I have one, flogged it, had a nice sound to it.

you prat

11th May 2009, 23:47

Dont think you can get them now

11th May 2009, 23:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan

I think I might have read that discussion, where you were asking questions and I feel John felt you were trying to catch him out.

'airboxes' thread mate.

Honestly, I wasn't playing the 'smartarse' or anything (unless it maybe sounded like it, Seb... was i?) ... he said 'bladdy-blah-blah, tonight homework is to work out why a long pipe is more benefical and increases power.

I replied about not believing that pulse induction tuning comes into affect upstream of the plenum, and certainly not upstream the airbox, but left it open to debate...

no answer...

cheers axsaxoman

11th May 2009, 23:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by adsayer

This is why I'm being a pikey (apparently) and twating the cat material out of my cat

decat with faux box char,one.

on this sayer you can pick up a universal silencer for quite cheap, you not thought about getting one and getting the exhaust flanges welded on to it so its not quite so bodged

11th May 2009, 23:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by leeroybrown

Dont think you can get them now

argh crap. I'll stick with the magnex anyway... doesn't sound too gay and the catalyst is gone so it's in line for a internal smashing

11th May 2009, 23:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by adsayer

'airboxes' thread mate.

Honestly, I wasn't playing the 'smartarse' or anything (unless it maybe sounded like it, Seb... was i?) ... he said 'bladdy-blah-blah, tonight homework is to work out why a long pipe is more benefical and increases power.

I replied about not believing that pulse induction tuning comes into affect upstream of the plenum, and certainly not upstream the airbox, but left it open to debate...

no answer...

cheers axsaxoman

Yep I said think I read it. Problem is johns just a grumpy old scotsman, I often feel with him is he trys to be to clever for his own good, and feels people are trying to knock him off his purch, when instead they are wanting just an open discussion with him to share knowlege. I dont think he is trying to be a cunt to people.

11th May 2009, 23:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan

on this sayer you can pick up a universal silencer for quite cheap, you not thought about getting one and getting the exhaust flanges welded on to it so its not quite so bodged

I don't need a universal silencer dude... do i?

I've got the magnex centre, the magnex back box... all flanges line and connect up perfectly.

11th May 2009, 23:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by adsayer

I don't need a universal silencer dude... do i?

I've got the magnex centre, the magnex back box... all flanges line and connect up perfectly.

Instead of knocking the shit out of the cat, why not get a silencer with the flanges welded in to drop in in its place, id imagine it might flow better, and you can still get £30 back for the cat from the local pikey

12th May 2009, 00:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan

Yep I said think I read it. Problem is johns just a grumpy old scotsman, I often feel with him is he trys to be to clever for his own good, and feels people are trying to knock him off his purch, when instead they are wanting just an open discussion with him to share knowlege. I dont think he is trying to be a cunt to people.

I'm sure he ain't it's just daft when he goes 'tonight homework... yada yada...'

as if he'll answer it the following day... then goes silent posts something to respond to someone else and ignores the technical jizzle.

I'm not complaining about his practical expertises... he makes a living from this so I'm sure he's very very good at what he does. But it doesn't strike much confidence into you when he suggests he has an answer, a 24 year old saxo owner who can't even take the cam covers off a saxo makes a suggestion as to why it might be the answer and then he goes silent.

12th May 2009, 00:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan

Instead of knocking the shit out of the cat, why not get a silencer with the flanges welded in to drop in in its place, id imagine it might flow better, and you can still get £30 back for the cat from the local pikey

The internally mashed cat will essentially be a decat pipe just with an expansion box, whereas another silence will have baffles and the like, which will comparatively restrict flow. I've got two silencers already, I don't want THREE!!!

haha

12th May 2009, 00:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan

Yep I said think I read it. Problem is johns just a grumpy old scotsman, I often feel with him is he trys to be to clever for his own good, and feels people are trying to knock him off his purch, when instead they are wanting just an open discussion with him to share knowlege. I dont think he is trying to be a cunt to people.

Nice way of putting it

. Adsayer, no you weren't being the smartarse at all. 'Inquiring minds' to put it simply. Anyway, not going to turn this into a b*tching thread [omitting the first couple pages

]. But he seems like a friend of mine, easy to put forward an arguement, yet never provides facts. And for me, being the modern automotive engineering student, [and Ads as well I presume], facts are what is needed to back up any kind of discussion on these topics! That's how we roll! I won't normally comprehend anything unless I'm presented with facts/data/calculations.

12th May 2009, 00:10

He also said my new car was rubbish! The cheek of it....

12th May 2009, 00:10

This thread hurts my brain ...

12th May 2009, 00:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by spiderxjz82

Nice way of putting it

. Adsayer, no you weren't being the smartarse at all. 'Inquiring minds' to put it simply. Anyway, not going to turn this into a b*tching thread [omitting the first couple pages

]. But he seems like a friend of mine, easy to put forward an arguement, yet never provides facts. And for me, being the modern automotive engineering student, [and Ads as well I presume], facts are what is needed to back up any kind of discussion on these topics! That's how we roll! I won't normally comprehend anything unless I'm presented with facts/data/calculations.

EXACTLY... opinions are meaningless without good theory or some other form of proof.
Leeroy, no dig at all but I'm sure you feel the 4-1 is better than a 4-2-1, but from a theoretical point of view I can't see it happening. Opinion is good but it needs to be substantiated in someway... it's lik when people who've stuck a nice metal pipercross open induction kit on there car and claim it's loads fastaaaa... it aint, we all know that, it just sounds meatier and as a result they think it feels quicker because we associate noise with power.

although saying it the 4-1 could very well be giving you really good results... but I'm not totally convinced dude.

ads

12th May 2009, 00:21

Placebo = BAD!

12th May 2009, 00:22

Okay okay, I'm done trolling saxo forums for tonight... time to hit the hay.

12th May 2009, 07:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by adsayer

did anyone actually look at my smeggin rolling road graphs?

i have. Whats the gap in time between them? Spec of other parts and were tyre make and pressures the same?

Kev

12th May 2009, 07:38

I dont know anything really about DaveP's results. I've seen QEP's data though and their tests were on an engine dyno. They dont sell any manifolds so I regard their data as unbiased.
Looking at the supersprint graph ads posted shows that the bottom of the rev range is compromised. That graph raises many questions though that im sure are worth discussing

As much fun as a car coming massively on cam is, its not the fastest car as it is compromised below that point. If you can get a 4-2-1 giving the same power high up the rev range as the 4-1 and giving power low down in the rev range as a bonus its really a no brainer.
Interestingly the engine QEP tested on was a 190bhp track engine rather than a standard one. I'm sure theres a thread on SSC with more detail.
To be honest you cannot look at the 4-2-1 and 4-1 in isolation. Bore size will also make a difference which is what I think ads found with his rolling road results. Bore size will massively affect the gas speed and pulse tuning.