<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by ILLICON3000 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">4 inch downpipe? lol. This isn't an Izuzu NPR or an LS1 we're dealing with, it's a 4 cylinder 2.0 liter max honda civic. </TD></TR></TABLE>

were you born a hater or did jealousy do it for you?

 

[sarcasm]No, you dont need a 4" downpipe. You only need the same size pipe as whatever the turbo exit is for maximum efficiency[/sarcasm]
ILLICON3000, this was mainly designed for the 400whp+ croud. Almost twice the volume as a 3" downpipe means almost half the pressure, which means more power and less lag, which means one hella fast car with the AC blowin In the turbo exhaust world, bigger is better, no matter what.

 

[/QUOTE]

Daaayuuuum!! My god, what have this world coming to!!

One point thought, shouldn't #1 runner coupling to #4 runner, and #2 to #3? That would provides a lot smoother flow. just a thought!!

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Turbo9Nut &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
One point thought, shouldn't #1 runner coupling to #4 runner, and #2 to #3? That would provides a lot smoother flow. just a thought!!</TD></TR></TABLE>
If there was room to do this, I wouldve just used a 4-1 collector

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Tinker219 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
If there was room to do this, I wouldve just used a 4-1 collector </TD></TR></TABLE>

Seriously? What's in the way of doing it that way? Looks like plenty of room to me?

 

I though so too!! I guess I'll hold off on my sidewinder order. I want this one then!! But can you do it as #1 to #4 and #2 to #3 and 3" down pipe??

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by tony1 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

Looks like plenty of room to me?</TD></TR></TABLE>
There just isnt, that 4 inch is MASSIVE. As it is, I think AC line tweaking has to be done. Ill toy w/the idea, but I dont think its possible without pushing the DP forward anymore.

 

Pretty Neat man

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Tinker219 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">[sarcasm]No, you dont need a 4" downpipe. You only need the same size pipe as whatever the turbo exit is for maximum efficiency[/sarcasm]
ILLICON3000, this was mainly designed for the 400whp+ croud. Almost twice the volume as a 3" downpipe means almost half the pressure, which means more power and less lag, which means one hella fast car with the AC blowin In the turbo exhaust world, bigger is better, no matter what.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Ok cool. I'm just wondering though, won't that cause some loss of low end power, if we were dealing w/ a pretty normal non t78 turbo?

I was born a 'hater' but most of the time it's just the way I word things that make me come off as disrespectful. I was just kidding btw about the LS1, etc.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by ILLICON3000 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

Ok cool. I'm just wondering though, won't that cause some loss of low end power, if we were dealing w/ a pretty normal non t78 turbo?
</TD></TR></TABLE>
nope, quicker spooling turbo = more low end. Its not all-motor, its turbo, COMPLETELY different animal.

 

Cool. would like to see a dyno comparison. good luck

 

as corkey bell says "the best exhaust for a turbo is no exhaust"

mike

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Tinker219 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">But will it work, and work well? yep!</TD></TR></TABLE>

dont make that claim yet man... there is a lot of room for improvement on your design.

 

Looks like it will be very jumbled after everything is together. Whats the idea for charge piping and oil return?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Full-Race Geoff &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

dont make that claim yet man... there is a lot of room for improvement on your design. </TD></TR></TABLE>
One thing that will be changed is the wastegate location which will be possible with 38 or 44mm wastegates(46's too long/tall, hit the frame rail). Another is longer primary merges. Another is the use of stepped secondaries, which will be MUCH easier when I can get material thats easier to size to step properly. Once all these are done, then things should be much better than they are now.
Everything could use improvement, its just how far we go/pay to get whats desired

Charge piping will be easy with the use of a dual inlet IC, ie inlet/outlet are on the same side, which we can make/will make when this hits kit form.
Oil return will be tricky, but do-able, just have to snake it along the tranny/block, then drop down to the oil pan. Past SideWinders have worked great, no reason this one wont.

 

looks good ... I would think about trying to make this out of thin-walled 321 instead of 8 gauge 304 to deal with some of the heat soak issues associated with such long tubing.

Who-ever purchases this design please get this ceramic coated. My sidewinder is ceramic coated and I still have problems with too much engine bay heat.

Is this manifold designed to be braced to the transmission?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by dasher &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">looks good ... I would think about trying to make this out of thin-walled 321 instead of 8 gauge 304 to deal with some of the heat soak issues associated with such long tubing.

Who-ever purchases this design please get this ceramic coated. My sidewinder is ceramic coated and I still have problems with too much engine bay heat.

Is this manifold designed to be braced to the transmission?</TD></TR></TABLE>
As stated somewhere up above, thin-walled tubing will more than likely be the material of choice because a nice tridpod bracing system will be easy to make work, based on any of the several bolts from the valve cover to some on the transmission. We havent decided what bolts to use yet because most of these will be used for Vtec motors and all I have to mock with is a b20/LS. Plus, thin tubing makes it possible to obtain more accurate runner sizing based on the customers needs.
On the heat-soak issues, the first gen Sidewinder has the same runner lengths as an SST. They are just not as concentrated to one area as the SST, so it seems like there is more heat. The downpipe however is large, so this may be contributing to more engine bay heat(ESPECIALLY in the 2nd gen case).

We may be able to setup something with Jet-hot for a nominal fee, Im on my way to returning an email from them.

 

man and i thought 3 in. was big ..... i guess i was wrong. just out of curiosity how big are supra dp's ??

 

I believe 4" is to supras as 3" is to Hondas. I would think 5" is the next logical step...

 

Yeah, the big boy supra guys are using 5"

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Tinker219 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I believe 4" is to supras as 3" is to Hondas. I would think 5" is the next logical step...</TD></TR></TABLE>
Let's put it this way, my friends dad is building a turbo mustang, and he is using a 5" downpipe for 2000+whp. So 4" will be damn fine for any honda motor. . .

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Tinker219 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I believe 4" is to supras as 3" is to Hondas. I would think 5" is the next logical step...</TD></TR></TABLE>

I think I remember that question on the SAT.

 

lol, good one

 

its almost funny saying 700hp and Air conditioning

 

Here are some finished pics. Still have to weld the 02 bung on