|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 283
CEG\'er
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 283 |
Originally posted by CalgarySVT:
How is it possible to gain power by removing the stock resonator on an otherwise stock exhaust?
Yes, the resonator probably DOES restrict exhaust flow and increase backpressure as opposed to a straight pipe or a freer flowing resonator but who cares! I would be willing to bet big bucks that the cats create far more backpressure...Replacing the stock resonator on an otherwise stock setup is, in all probability, a waste of money and a recipe for a really gay, boy-racer sounding car.
Originally posted by CalgarySVT:
Originally posted by Dan Nixon:
The resonator with its narrow down to under 2" is likely the biggest single bottleneck of the stock SVT catback..
I still find it difficult to understand how the removal of the stock resonator, on a otherwise unmodified exhaust can increase horespower. Unless the stock resonator is the single most restrictive part of the entire SVT exhaust system, i.e. MORE restrictive than the pre-cats, the y pipe intersection, the main cats and the mufflers.....
If you read Dan's message again, I think you'll agree that "the biggest single bottleneck" is pretty close to "the single most restrictive part".
Originally posted by CalgarySVT:
Are we in agreement then that the resonator is the single most restrictive thing on the entire exhaust system?
It sounds as though you're reversing your position here??? Are you?
BTW, I've never thought of "arguing" as a skill, more an annoyance. I'd prefer to see people with what appears to be very limited real knowledge of a specific topic ask questions without arguing. People are then usually more inclined to engage in an open discussion of ideas and concepts.
I've tried to live by the old adage:
- Better to be thought a fool and remain silent, than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt. -
Unfortunately, I like most of us just can't help saying the wrong things from time-to-time. 
Originally posted by CalgarySVT:
I would be willing to bet big bucks that the cats create far more backpressure...
OK, how much are you actually willing to bet . Give me an actual "big bucks" dollar amount and we'll see if my bank account can cover it. 
03 Volvo S60 2.5T AWD
98 Mystique 2.5 MTX
99 SVT - Inheriting Lil Monster's parts
98 SVT - Lil Monster (RIP) 183.7 whp
Quaife/Fidanza/UR UD Clutch
AFE/MSDS/SHO-Y/Bassani/MagnaCore
GC/Koni/22mmR/EndLinks/ES/
KVR Slotted/1144's/SS Lines/MASItaly
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 38
New CEG\'er
|
|
OP
New CEG\'er
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 38 |
Originally posted by SVT PETE:
The title of this thread was poorly worded.
For someone (many people) on this site, spending $700 on a catback exhaust or $300 on a y-pipe is not feasible.
So spending under $100 to remove one of the most restrictive parts of the exhaust to provide a little increase in power and enhanced sound is worth it.
There have been many who have removed the resonator and and replaced it with something like a Magnaflow and very happy.
To the extent that happiness is subjective I agree with you. My comments were directed to the fact that, in my opinion and experience, removing a portion of the exhaust system that is not the bottle neck to gas flow is not productive (from a power standpoint) and that money may be better spent elsewehere.
Originally posted by SVT PETE:
Your statement is an opinion on "worth" and "value" - nothing that can be proven. Just because you don't think it's worth it doesn't mean it's not worth it to many others.
Yes, I agree. However, as there are people that will disagree, conversley, there are many like me who may agree. Moreover, power increases can be proven, which is the information I was looking for, and, in the end, teh information I received.
Originally posted by SVT PETE:
Statements like this wont be tolerated from you in future posts.
May I ask why? Being a moderator at a rather large site myself I would never curtail a members opinion unless it was profain or abusive. IMHO, my comments are neither.
With all due respect SVTPete, I posted a thread here that expressed reasons why the repacement of the stock resonator on an otherwise stock exhaqust system would produce negligable power gains. Those reasons are sound enough to have several other members post reply's in a manner that IMO, served to bring benefit to this forum. That benefit, even if you refuse to ackowledhge it, was a debate on the merits of power increases from this modification. It may serve someone well in the future when they decide (as I am) whether to remove the resonator.
1999 CSVT #545
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 38
New CEG\'er
|
|
OP
New CEG\'er
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 38 |
Originally posted by alex_96GL:
how to succeed in Duratec Performance section:
1. Register.
2. Make 10-20 points so you don't look like a complete troll.
3. Pick the most popular performance mod.
4. Word a subject in the most arrogant manner to attract attention.
5. Word your first post like you know something on the subject. It's important to to have no hard numbers to prove your point.
6. Don't listen and play hardball. Twist the matter here and there to up the number of posts to attract even more attention.
7. Demon, Dan, Stazi, and Pete will be awed by you enough to comment on the subject which is otherwise known as dead and buried.
1. okay ya
2. you go me, that was the purpose of those posts, brilliant!
3. hmmm, doesn't seem to be much of a "performance" mod
4. again, how did you figure it out?
5. As a matter fo fact I do know something on the subject, Where are the hard numbers on the other side, Alex, LOL? Show me please...
6. wow, you don't understand either?
7. I received some good comments, I try not to "awe" guys on a bulletin board, is that something you strive for?
It is dead, so why did you post?
1999 CSVT #545
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,384
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,384 |
Well you could have just used the search option, so you wouldn't be flamed like you are now. The performance increases w/o the resonator has been proven on the non-SVT and SVT dual exhausts numerous of times. Also, I bet there are alot of non-svt exhaust guys out there including myself who will disagree iwth your initial argument being that then aftermarket cat-back system is not very beneficial. I for one had the SE exhaust system and upgraded to an SVT system w/o resonator, and can feel substantial differences in torque. Although, I do not have the actual dyno readings to contrast there are those whom do. Your prior opinion of sound of the car w/o resonator is merely that, an 'opinion.' Many cannot stand the drone produced by removing the resonator and go to such aftermarket resonators such as magnaflow as I believe SVT Pete stated. All in all, you're a newer person on this thread so your credibility isn't there compared to someone whom has experience on the board. Now, that doesn't mean that your ideas are less valued, it's just htat nobody cares about opinions if they aren't backed up w/ evidence.
99 Black Contour SE Sport
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 768
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 768 |
Originally posted by CalgarySVT:
It is dead, so why did you post?
Honestly, I was surprised by the number of responses and by the caliber of respondents. Otherwise, I would not look at the thread untill I get home if at all.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 38
New CEG\'er
|
|
OP
New CEG\'er
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 38 |
Originally posted by Alan Coles:
If you read Dan's message again, I think you'll agree that "the biggest single bottleneck" is pretty close to "the single most restrictive part".
Dan used the term "cat-back" I was referring to the entire system, hence there is a difference.
Originally posted by Alan Coles:
BTW, I've never thought of "arguing" as a skill, more an annoyance. I'd prefer to see people with what appears to be very limited real knowledge of a specific topic ask questions without arguing. People are then usually more inclined to engage in an open discussion of ideas and concepts.
That was in a joking reply to the engineering degree comment. Actually I was making fun of myself and my profession.
Originally posted by Alan Coles:
OK, how much are you actually willing to bet . Give me an actual "big bucks" dollar amount and we'll see if my bank account can cover it.
Okay $20 CDN LOL, you're on.
1999 CSVT #545
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 283
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 283 |
Originally posted by CalgarySVT:
Dan used the term "cat-back" I was referring to the entire system, hence there is a difference.
Yes I agree there is a difference there but in the context of your original comments...
Originally posted by CalgarySVT:
Replacing the stock resonator on an otherwise stock setup is, in all probability, a waste of money...
Dan, I think, was saying that the documented evidence on this site contain dyno sheets that show HP gains from installing Cat-back systems, ergo removing the resonator (which is acknowledged as definitely being the weakest link aft of the Cat) has been shown to produce HP gains.
Being a moderator yourself I expect you'd prefer people to search before asking well documented questions and have seen how failure to do so can lead to terse responses.
I beleive what SVT Pete was indicating (if he's not already PM you on it) is that the descriptive section that followed the quote above can be considered by many to be offensive and therefore is outside the acceptable range of appropriate comments.
Originally posted by CalgarySVT:
That was in a joking reply to the engineering degree comment. Actually I was making fun of myself and my profession.
It's good to poke fun at ourselves, I missinterpreted your intonations.
03 Volvo S60 2.5T AWD
98 Mystique 2.5 MTX
99 SVT - Inheriting Lil Monster's parts
98 SVT - Lil Monster (RIP) 183.7 whp
Quaife/Fidanza/UR UD Clutch
AFE/MSDS/SHO-Y/Bassani/MagnaCore
GC/Koni/22mmR/EndLinks/ES/
KVR Slotted/1144's/SS Lines/MASItaly
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,045
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,045 |
Originally posted by SVT PETE:
So spending under $100 to remove one of the most restrictive parts of the exhaust to provide a little increase in power and enhanced sound is worth it.
and then you said
Originally posted by CalgarySVT:
.....in my opinion and experience, removing a portion of the exhaust system that is not the bottle neck to gas flow is not productive (from a power standpoint) .......
perhaps you wuold be willing to demonstrate for us how and or why the stock resonator on the svt is not a significant bottle neck. i am going to withhold my opinion. i would like to hear yours, keeping in mind that not all stock exhaust systems are the same in terms of efficiancy.
00 black/tan svt, #2052 of 2150, born 2/1/00
formerly known as my csvt
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than a sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." -Martin Luther King, Jr.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 38
New CEG\'er
|
|
OP
New CEG\'er
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 38 |
Originally posted by CalgarySVT:
Being a moderator yourself I expect you'd prefer people to search before asking well documented questions and have seen how failure to do so can lead to terse responses.
I think this thread has died, but in response to this I must say two things. (1) my discussion of bottle necks to exhaust flow in the context of resonator removal is not a topic that has been discusssed in this context on this site, as far as I can tell. (2) and perhaps most importantly, I have NEVER seen a forum in which the "search" mantra has been chanted so often. As a moderator I have always tried to help, it is a rare case indeed in which I would ever resort to the response "search it yourself." With the greatest of respect, from reading this board it seems ripe with alot of that kind of thing along with a substantial amount of needless flames. It is a great resource and should not be tarnished by over protective admin and ubiquitous "search" rants.
1999 CSVT #545
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 38
New CEG\'er
|
|
OP
New CEG\'er
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 38 |
Originally posted by acrdklr:
perhaps you wuold be willing to demonstrate for us how and or why the stock resonator on the svt is not a significant bottle neck. i am going to withhold my opinion. i would like to hear yours, keeping in mind that not all stock exhaust systems are the same in terms of efficiancy.
No, no, no... it is clearly a restictive portion of the exhuast. I do NOT doubt that at all, I never have. What I am saying is that it is likely not "the" bottle neck, or in other words, not the single most restrictive portion of the stock exhaust system. Meaning there can only be one bottle neck in the system at one given time. I am of the opinion that the cats (both the pres and mains) as well as the Y-pipe joint are probably more restictive than the resonator. Therefore, my position is why remove the resonator when it is not the part (on a stock exhaust system) that is slowing down the gas flow. For example, if 50 widgets of gas can pass through the cats in one second, and 60 widgets can pass through the resonator in one second, removing the resonator will still only allow 50 widgets a second to exit the exhaust system...
1999 CSVT #545
|
|
|
|
|
