They're not close at all. That angle makes it hard to see. I don't think I have anything better though as the car was on a lift at the time.

Mark

 

The previous graphs were with our new full turbo-back. I can post up some 93 octane results later this week. Just have to dig them out from the computer.

We never really weighed the exhaust so I don't have a figure to give. It should be considerably lighter since we are replacing that thick-walled cast iron o2 housing with a tubular replacement. I'll put an exhaust on the scale on Monday and report the results.

There is virtually no compromise to handling/chassis stiffness with the chassis bracing spacers. They are designed to still keep maximum conact area between the bar and the mounting tabs to reduce deflection. It's not the same as using a stack of washers as spacers There's about 1/4-1/3" of space between the pipe and the rods when installed.

Cheers,
shiv

PS. Thanks for the pics, KK

 

Cool thanks

Any plans for the piece before the down pipe for your signature series exhaust?

 

i must have counted 8 times where people have been asking for the weight difference between stock and this new turbo back...

and still no answer...

 

See my last post...
shiv

 

shiv - a few questions:

1.) what's the power difference between your signature series and the new turbo back? would there be a power difference after the o2 sensor addition to the signature series?...because money saved with the turbo back would most likely be lost to the price of installation.

2.) You're taking a different route than most of the other tuners by not changing boost. Is this because there were better gains from the cam gears? is holding 19 PSI to redline too close/in to the knock threshold?

3.) any sound clips of the turbo back?

4.) do you have any higher resolution images of those dyno graphs hidden on your website? cant' see them too well.

ohhh...that turbo back exhaust is beautiful!!!!

 

.) You're taking a different route than most of the other tuners by not changing boost. Is this because there were better gains from the cam gears? is holding 19 PSI to redline too close/in to the knock threshold?

It was mentioned that the stock Turbo, with these cam adjustments was not man enough to hold 19psi to red line

 

Shiv,
Have you thought about using Ovalized stainless tubing in the section which passes under the braces? Relocating the braces could be illegal for many sanctioned racing series classes.

http://burnsstainless.com/OvalTubing/ovaltubing.html

James

 

 

They look like the same thing as using washers to me. If you increase the torsion on the bolt by making it longer, how is it not decreasing stiffness or possible cause it to snap or bend something? I've messed with something similar to this on my Jeep Wrangler when I had to drop the center crossmember in order to solve driveline angle vibration after I lifted my Jeep 5 inches. I originally used longer bolts with the spacers that were included with the lift kit (similar to your spacers). Within a month, I had already broken 2 out of the 6 that held it on. It was just too much twisting for the bolts to handle, and I was using grade 8 hardware. So I did what I should have done in the first place. I addressed the true problem at hand. I raised the crossmember brace back up to the stock position and I bought a custom driveshaft that had a CV joint on the front end of it to deal with the angle vibration. I've included some pictures of the brace that I am talking about, as well as the driveshaft that I had to buy to remedy the problem (don't worry about the gear oil that has been flung all over the muffler in the picture, this Jeep leaked out of every place you could imagine. I mostly used it for off-road anyway. The crossmember is marked with yellow arrows.

My point is, should the crossmember issue be addressed like RMR has done with their exhaust? For theirs to fit, you have to get a special crossmember brace. I would think that this would be the best solution.

Also, you are saying that this exhaust should not ever see 1/3 of an inch deflection even after it has been on a while and it gets some miles on it? 1/3 if an inch seems like some pretty close clearance to me.

Oh, and let us know when you get those weight measurements, please.

Josh

 

And here is picture number 2.

Josh

 

Simply using spacers wouldn't offer enough contact area between the tie bar and the mounting surface. This would allow more twisting and bending of the tie bar, and therefore, the bolts. We use rectangular blocks to retain max. contact. Plus, we only space the set-up down ~1", not 5". Also, the underbody bracing isn't a very stressed load bearing member. You'll find that most of the EVOs overseas don't even have them in the first place. But they are there and they are worth having. A new cross-brace is certainly a reasonable alternative if one is so inclined.

Cheers,
shiv

 

The lift of the Jeep was 5 inches. The spacers dropped the crossmember only one inch. My driveline angle before the spacers was sitting right at about 20 degrees at the front U Joint. After it was dropped, it still only brought it to about 25 degrees. When I raised it back up and added the CV driveshaft, I then had the same 20 degree angle, but it was split over the two U Joints so it was only 10 degrees at each bend. This did away with all of my vibration issues as well as snapping grade 8 bolts from excessive flex. The spacers that we are talking about are actually 1 inch thick square tubes that run about 2 feet long and have 3 holes drilled in them with reinforced internal structure. It would be the equivalent of running a tube spacer from the front crossmember on the Evo to the rear one, covering every factory contact point that is in question. They were not some cheap stacker or anything. They simply did not work right for my intentions. Here is my point. The lift kit was great, but lowering the crossmember on it was for driveline issues (to make it behave on the street better) and when taken off road, the flex was too much for it. You could chalk this up as abuse or whatever, but it would be like telling me that I couldn't take the Evo on a road course and turn hard as hell in it. As far as the overseas Evo's not having them, they are missing a lot of things that I definitely am glad that I have (stronger bumper, thicker glass, side impact beams, etc.). These cross braces were put on for a reason, and I think it is to make the car a little more rigid, either from a crash test point of view or from a road course point of view. I would tent to beleive that it was for a better crash test score. With that being said, I would hate to put something on the car that seems to be fine, but then would snap like a toothpic if I was hit from the side. Folding the car in half right along the b-pillar doesn't seem that appealing to me, since I will be right around that area.

Any ideas on this?

Josh

 

What I ment was...why cam gears instead of holding 19 PSI to redline (not cam gears and 19 PSI to redline)?

 

Maybe you missed this a few posts back... From Shiv:
Cams are apparently sucking up all that boost. YUMMY!