mandrel piping
mandrel piping
i would like to get custom 2.5" mandrel piping from my cat to my exhaust.. but i dont know anywhere that can do it around here. I live in Harrison NY, 10528.. about 35 minutes out of the city.. does anyone know anywhere around here or within reasonable driving distance where i can have that done? 
It shouldn't lag significantly if at all with nothing more than an intake. I'm running 2.5" mandrel bent and tq loss isn't even an issue. Nothing changed. If anything the lows/mids are quicker.
I'm running 2.5" mandrel bent and tq loss isn't even an issue. Nothing changed. If anything the lows/mids are quicker.
In Timeout
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
From: Monte Carlo
NO WAY....2.5 o.d. or i.d.... either way... both or excessively to big for ou car buddy. I had 2.5 o.d. for my car and it sufficed only a little bit.... anyways here is somethingi read a while back....
article from Tuan/Micheal Delaney
OD (in.)....ID (in.)...Area....%Increase.....HP.......HP/in^2
2.25........2.120.......3.53.....0%............... 200.......56.66
2.50........2.370.......4.41.....25%.............. 275.......62.34
2.75........2.620.......5.39.....22%.............. 318.......59.00
3.00........2.870.......6.47.....20%.............. 400.......61.83
OD is exhaust outer diameter, ID is inner diameter, Area is tube cross-sectional area, % Increase is increase from the prior OD, HP is flywheel hp, and HP/in^2 is hp per square inch cross-sectional area.
For the 2.75 in. tube, I assumed 59 HP per square inch of flow area, I used Larry's numbers for the others...you are talking HP at the crank :
2-1/4" for up to 200HP @ the crank, 2-1/2" for 275HP, 2-3/4 for 320HP...
or 60HP (at the crank) per square inch of (cross-sectional) flow area.
This 60HP/in^2 is to get you in the general vicinity. It also is based on the inside diameter of the tubing not the OD (ie. 2" in your example). The ID for 2' 16g tubing is 1.87" and this will yield a limit of 165 crank HP. 2-1/4" 16g (212 HP), 2-1/2" (265 HP). Now you can get different sized tubing such as 2-1/8" and 2-3/8" to fine tune a vehicle but you can't get cats and mufflers in those sizes so you should go up a size when building an exhaust in those cases.
OD (in.)....ID (in.)...Area....%Increase.....HP.......HP/in^2
2.25........2.120.......3.53.....0%............... 200.......56.66
2.50........2.370.......4.41.....25%.............. 275.......62.34
2.75........2.620.......5.39.....22%.............. 318.......59.00
3.00........2.870.......6.47.....20%.............. 400.......61.83
OD is exhaust outer diameter, ID is inner diameter, Area is tube cross-sectional area, % Increase is increase from the prior OD, HP is flywheel hp, and HP/in^2 is hp per square inch cross-sectional area.
For the 2.75 in. tube, I assumed 59 HP per square inch of flow area, I used Larry's numbers for the others...you are talking HP at the crank :
2-1/4" for up to 200HP @ the crank, 2-1/2" for 275HP, 2-3/4 for 320HP...
or 60HP (at the crank) per square inch of (cross-sectional) flow area.
This 60HP/in^2 is to get you in the general vicinity. It also is based on the inside diameter of the tubing not the OD (ie. 2" in your example). The ID for 2' 16g tubing is 1.87" and this will yield a limit of 165 crank HP. 2-1/4" 16g (212 HP), 2-1/2" (265 HP). Now you can get different sized tubing such as 2-1/8" and 2-3/8" to fine tune a vehicle but you can't get cats and mufflers in those sizes so you should go up a size when building an exhaust in those cases.
but my real question is where can i get it done? 
If you get the chance try driving a Lancer with a 2.5" exhaust.
Not only does the powerband not suffer (compared to stock of course) but it's sufficient for future turbo mods. I stand by the exhaust unless you really don't plan on doing much with the car but bolt-ons. ...Even then I don't see/feel the problem at all.
EDIT: Also see Buschur's dyno results with a 2.5" mandrel bent exhaust if you feel like digging it up from import tuner. Nothing but gains. That's the closest I've seen to concrete evidence.
Not only does the powerband not suffer (compared to stock of course) but it's sufficient for future turbo mods. I stand by the exhaust unless you really don't plan on doing much with the car but bolt-ons. ...Even then I don't see/feel the problem at all.
EDIT: Also see Buschur's dyno results with a 2.5" mandrel bent exhaust if you feel like digging it up from import tuner. Nothing but gains. That's the closest I've seen to concrete evidence.
Trending Topics
Evolved Member
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 2,167
Likes: 0
From: TB, FL
Originally posted by HobieKopek
It shouldn't lag significantly if at all with nothing more than an intake. I'm running 2.5" mandrel bent and tq loss isn't even an issue. Nothing changed. If anything the lows/mids are quicker.
It shouldn't lag significantly if at all with nothing more than an intake.
I'm running 2.5" mandrel bent and tq loss isn't even an issue. Nothing changed. If anything the lows/mids are quicker.
One day, he installed header, which took out some of the lag. Then, he took me for a ride. Well, I don't know if he was driving conservatively or didn't want to goose the throttle . . . IMO, the Oz definately will beat my car in stock form, even with intake. But, it will be very close to my untuned A/F mixture from my 4-2-1 header in the past.
Yes, 2.5 inches will be a good upgrade to TC mods in the future.
Evolved Member
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 2,167
Likes: 0
From: TB, FL
Originally posted by RedEvo6
NO WAY....2.5 o.d. or i.d.... either way... both or excessively to big for ou car buddy. I had 2.5 o.d. for my car and it sufficed only a little bit.... anyways here is somethingi read a while back....
NO WAY....2.5 o.d. or i.d.... either way... both or excessively to big for ou car buddy. I had 2.5 o.d. for my car and it sufficed only a little bit.... anyways here is somethingi read a while back....
What car was it done it on? VW products or Saturn? I do believe I've seen that article somewhere.
Nevertheless, I do believe those specs were on cars with DOHC. In higher rpms, the DOHC can push out more gas.
In SOHC, I don't believe that's the case. The design is for it to be TQ'ey and noty made for topend power trips.
Here's an example that I've always heard from people in PR who loved their mirages (have to be leary of their tech stuff).
A 1.8L with the same mods against one with 2.25 and 2.0 inch exhaust. Who will win, besides driver part of the equation?
Many would say the bigger exhaust. Wrong.
The one with the 2.0 inch exhaust wins about a rear 1/4 panel lead (at most). Why? The SOHC can't push enough gas at higher spd.
Now, should the lancer get 2 inch exhaust . Absolutely not . . . since you, guys, have a slightly bigger displacement . . . 2.25 should be fine.
How about a 4 inch exhaust? Look at how much possible HP gain . . . lol
Last edited by bahamut; Oct 1, 2002 at 04:45 AM.
In Timeout
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
From: Monte Carlo
its a quote from the tech heads at Hondavision... you should check out the head article also... learn alot !
Anyways that exhaust was on a integra Type R... the motor was bumped up to 11.6:1 CR.... Toda Spec B cams, spoon head gasket, and spoon balanced adn blue printed bottom end. I chose teh 2.5 exhaust mainly because of the power which equated to the crank. 225 at the...which lead from 205 at the wheels from other people w/ similar setups.
Anyways that exhaust was on a integra Type R... the motor was bumped up to 11.6:1 CR.... Toda Spec B cams, spoon head gasket, and spoon balanced adn blue printed bottom end. I chose teh 2.5 exhaust mainly because of the power which equated to the crank. 225 at the...which lead from 205 at the wheels from other people w/ similar setups.
Last edited by RedEvo6; Oct 1, 2002 at 02:34 PM.
In Timeout
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
From: Monte Carlo
Also I'm not to familiar w/ what DSM does w/ their motors.... Mainly low compression, low reving, low amount of cam overlap... I'm so used to the power gained from teh B18c platform which consists of the opposite of what im seeing rgiht now: High static compression, extremely hi lift, and a good amount of cam overlap..... Compressions means alot though w/ the right exhausts... such as adding a supercharger or turbo. Also I dont really see any ways of making a mildly powerful N/A in the USDM lancers... Thats my opinion though.
Honda=high CR, and highly engineered N/A (Type R's) and unforunately some "RICE"
Nissan=infamous big block Turbos i.e.:RB26DETT..nuff said
Mitsu=very good in providing reliable Turbo cars!--->Evo's<-----
Toyota=almost the same category as the Nissan, but good reputation on their backs....such as the old 5 valve 4AG's..and the monstor Supras!
Mazda=they aren't really fast unless ur mazda is a rotary...The possibilities are really endless w/ these motors!..bridge port etc..
domestics=gay
Honda=high CR, and highly engineered N/A (Type R's) and unforunately some "RICE"
Nissan=infamous big block Turbos i.e.:RB26DETT..nuff said
Mitsu=very good in providing reliable Turbo cars!--->Evo's<-----
Toyota=almost the same category as the Nissan, but good reputation on their backs....such as the old 5 valve 4AG's..and the monstor Supras!
Mazda=they aren't really fast unless ur mazda is a rotary...The possibilities are really endless w/ these motors!..bridge port etc..
domestics=gay