E90Post
 


 
BMW 3-Series (E90 E92) Forum > E90 / E92 / E93 3-series Powertrain and Drivetrain Discussions > N54 Turbo Engine / Drivetrain / Exhaust Modifications - 335i > Full catless = less torque ??????



Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      06-17-2015, 11:25 AM   #23
cmg5461
First Lieutenant
United_States
76
Rep
315
Posts

Drives: 2008 Deep Green 335xi 6MT
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Falling Waters, WV

iTrader: (1)

Garage List
2008 BMW 335xi  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by csu87 View Post
put a 4" dp and exhaust off your turbo and let me know how it works. It will affect the flow characteristics of the turbo.
No it won't. Not negatively at least.

Why don't you prove to me that it will affect it negatively?
__________________
Appreciate 0
      06-17-2015, 11:37 AM   #24
Mike@N54Tuning.com
Joint Chiefs of Staff
Canada
5044
Rep
116,174
Posts

Drives: 2007 335i, 2015 M3
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: N54tuning.com

iTrader: (89)

Everything I have seen points to catless downpipes making much more power over catted. Even ar design who sells both and pretty sure they make more money on the catted versions will tell you that catless >> catted >> stock downpipes.

Mike
Appreciate 0
      06-17-2015, 11:38 AM   #25
BQTuning
Banned
United_States
475
Rep
4,392
Posts

Drives: 2012 Z4 sDrive35i M Sport 6MT
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: bq@bqtuning.com

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by csu87 View Post
... Hence why the ETS dynos of a 2.5" exhaust showed improvements.
Good question, I would like to see the schematics of their mufflers that will probably answer a lot of questions or just complicate things more...lol .
Appreciate 0
      06-17-2015, 11:38 AM   #26
csu87
Banned
2130
Rep
3,553
Posts

Drives: 09 335xi
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Northern Colorado

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by cmg5461 View Post
No it won't. Not negatively at least.

Why don't you prove to me that it will affect it negatively?
i dont really care that much to go through the testing. Just going off what I have seen in the past with other turbod cars.

Either way, I think we both agree that removing the 2nd cat is not going to lead to lower torque.
Appreciate 0
      06-17-2015, 11:40 AM   #27
shadow191
Lieutenant Colonel
182
Rep
1,681
Posts

Drives: 2017 Volvo XC90 R-Design
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: GA

iTrader: (3)

No it won't; the bigger the pressure differential between pre and post turbine the more energy transferred through the shaft. So you really can't go to big with an exhaust on a turbo setup. At some point, a bigger exhaust won't do anything as the pressure differential can't get bigger. But at no time will too big of an exhaust post turbo cost you power. Anything that minimizes that pressure differential like a pipe that's too small or a cat is going to cost power.

Based on this thought, catless downpipes would make less power than catted ones and we all know that's not the case. There is even a power difference between the 3" downpipes and 2.5" ones even though they all taper down to 2.5". Simply because the 3" section allows the exhaust to expand more and there is more pressure differential.

Even with a N/A motor, it's not loss of "backpressure" that causes low end torque loss, it's loss of scavenging. With a turbo, there isn't really scavenging.

I only have one anecdotal data point that's relevant. A long time ago, I built a turbo setup for a car. With the OEM secondary cat in place and 2.5" exhaust, it made 270whp at 5.5psi (7lb wastegate spring). We then built a 3" exhaust and replaced OEM cat with 3" test pipe. 2.5" downpipe wasn't changed. Car immediately made 301whp and it hit 7psi on the same spring. No tuning changes, just exhaust. And I think it was an additional 20ft/lbs torque. We also pulled the exhaust and ran it open downpipe, it picked up another 5-6whp. Later on, a friend bought the setup and modified the downpipe to 3". I forget the numbers, but he picked up a few hp by going to the larger dp.


Quote:
Originally Posted by csu87 View Post
put a 4" dp and exhaust off your turbo and let me know how it works. It will affect the flow characteristics of the turbo.

Last edited by shadow191; 06-17-2015 at 11:50 AM..
Appreciate 3
      06-17-2015, 11:46 AM   #28
cmg5461
First Lieutenant
United_States
76
Rep
315
Posts

Drives: 2008 Deep Green 335xi 6MT
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Falling Waters, WV

iTrader: (1)

Garage List
2008 BMW 335xi  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by csu87 View Post
i dont really care that much to go through the testing. Just going off what I have seen in the past with other turbod cars.

Either way, I think we both agree that removing the 2nd cat is not going to lead to lower torque.
So you're going to offer your opinion without backing it up? That's not how you debate my friend
__________________
Appreciate 0
      06-17-2015, 11:49 AM   #29
cmg5461
First Lieutenant
United_States
76
Rep
315
Posts

Drives: 2008 Deep Green 335xi 6MT
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Falling Waters, WV

iTrader: (1)

Garage List
2008 BMW 335xi  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuraQ View Post
Good question, I would like to see the schematics of their mufflers that will probably answer a lot of questions or just complicate things more...lol .
BuraQ, why do I gain 30wtq from catless downpipes, but lose 30wtq from catless midpipes?
__________________
Appreciate 0
      06-17-2015, 11:50 AM   #30
csu87
Banned
2130
Rep
3,553
Posts

Drives: 09 335xi
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Northern Colorado

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by cmg5461 View Post
So you're going to offer your opinion without backing it up? That's not how you debate my friend
I did back it up. "Just going off what I have seen in the past with other turbod cars."

I am not going to test the theory. I am not a scientist
Appreciate 0
      06-17-2015, 01:48 PM   #31
cmg5461
First Lieutenant
United_States
76
Rep
315
Posts

Drives: 2008 Deep Green 335xi 6MT
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Falling Waters, WV

iTrader: (1)

Garage List
2008 BMW 335xi  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by csu87 View Post
I did back it up. "Just going off what I have seen in the past with other turbod cars."

I am not going to test the theory. I am not a scientist
What do you mean by "seen"?

Read on forums, concluded from trends by multiple people on forums, remember from a test from someone else, remember from a test you did?

No offense, but I generally take other people's word with a grain of salt. Many times I have heard people say, "It's better because butt dyno," but I'm the type of person who wants to test theories with an actual dyno.

Testing has been drilled into me from FSAE, as EVERYTHING needed to be tested, reviewed, verified and documented. We were drilled on every change we made and why we made it.

Can you please expand on what you have seen?

Not trying to be harsh or anything, just genuinely interested!
__________________
Appreciate 1
      06-17-2015, 04:00 PM   #32
C.Pop
First Lieutenant
65
Rep
385
Posts

Drives: 335i
Join Date: May 2013
Location: AZ

iTrader: (0)

Honeywell/Garrett states that the less restriction in a turbo exhaust the better, period. This isn't debatable, it's been known/established for a long time. I agree that his testing shows otherwise, I question the validity of the comparisons -there are a ton of variables to account for, no way would I assume it had anything to do with cats.
__________________
2007 E90, 6MT, VRSF 7" FMIC, RR DP's, Vargas Stage 2+ (19t unclipped), CP-e Charge Pipe/Tial BOV, BMS DCI, Fuel-it! Stg 2 LPFP, E66, 118k+ miles Brentuned
Appreciate 1
      06-17-2015, 04:28 PM   #33
csu87
Banned
2130
Rep
3,553
Posts

Drives: 09 335xi
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Northern Colorado

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by cmg5461 View Post
What do you mean by "seen"?

Read on forums, concluded from trends by multiple people on forums, remember from a test from someone else, remember from a test you did?

No offense, but I generally take other people's word with a grain of salt. Many times I have heard people say, "It's better because butt dyno," but I'm the type of person who wants to test theories with an actual dyno.

Testing has been drilled into me from FSAE, as EVERYTHING needed to be tested, reviewed, verified and documented. We were drilled on every change we made and why we made it.

Can you please expand on what you have seen?

Not trying to be harsh or anything, just genuinely interested!
A few years ago on a Genesis Coupe me and a buddy did some testing with no exhaust, huge exhaust and the typical 3" exhaust that everyone was using. We were unable to get good dyno results, but the no exhaust had a little more lag than the 3" exhaust, and same with the bigger exhaust. Really the only testing Ive done on this subject. Who knows why the lag, but we figured it was due to the exhaust.

I would do testing on the 335 if I could, but the amount of time it takes to remove/install DPs on the xi is way too much to justify curing my curiosity.

If Im wrong, Im wrong and thats cool. You learn things everyday.
Appreciate 0
      06-18-2015, 05:57 AM   #34
BigHoncho
Private First Class
13
Rep
161
Posts

Drives: E90 335xi
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Germany

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by shadow191 View Post
No it won't; the bigger the pressure differential between pre and post turbine the more energy transferred through the shaft. So you really can't go to big with an exhaust on a turbo setup. At some point, a bigger exhaust won't do anything as the pressure differential can't get bigger. But at no time will too big of an exhaust post turbo cost you power. Anything that minimizes that pressure differential like a pipe that's too small or a cat is going to cost power.
THIS! Thats the proper explanation for the actual physics that are going on here!
Appreciate 0
      06-18-2015, 10:06 AM   #35
Tim603
Colonel
Tim603's Avatar
United_States
488
Rep
2,283
Posts

Drives: 2007 335i E90
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: North Canton, OH

iTrader: (8)

Garage List
2007 335i  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmg5461 View Post
Oh, and 335is A vs 335is B is not apples to apples.

Apples to apples is using the same car. Get a stabilized baseline with the catted midpipes. Then compare a stabilized result with your catback removed.

Need I say to use the same calibrated dyno as well?

This
__________________
Appreciate 0
      06-18-2015, 09:07 PM   #36
stanlalee
Major
261
Rep
1,093
Posts

Drives: 07' E92 335i manual
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Newport News, Va

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigHoncho View Post
I appreciate your experiences and your feedback, I really do.

But I still think that the assumption is false... there ist simply no reason why less back-pressure should yield into less torque. So I think the solution is on the tune side. Maybe we will see some advances here in the future.

I myself also prefer 200cell secondaries for a couple of practical reasons (smell, smoke, drones).
I think you hit the nail on the head. This comes up quite a bit on platforms with tuning and small factory turbos. There's always a camp that swears even through verified dyno testing loss of tq with less restriction (whether it be cats, pipe diameter, cell count etc). Then there's always another tuner who sites tuning and claims no such findings after compensating with x, y and z tuning technique. At the end of the day got to put your money on the turbo experts and engineers who pretty much accept there is no such thing as beneficial back pressure past the turbine. Yeah I read maximum boost by corky bell back in the 90s when they started slappin turbos on Hondas lol.
Appreciate 0
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:17 AM.




e90post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST