Troopie Grunt
Submitted: Wednesday, Dec 02, 2009 at 21:53
ThreadID:
74157
Views:
3263
Replies:
6
FollowUps:
8
This Thread has been Archived
Member - Garry G (WA)
Hi, I have a 2007 V8 Troopie and last week had a three and a half inch exhaust fitted minus the converter and muffler. Officially 7.3 kilowatts improvement in power. Is there anyone who has done something similar who can advise if they found improved fuel consumption
Reply By: Member - Kroozer (WA) - Wednesday, Dec 02, 2009 at 22:53
Wednesday, Dec 02, 2009 at 22:53
Is there any real reason to go so large? I would think 3'' would have been plenty while still allowing plenty of back pressure. Must say though, i would love to hear it.
AnswerID:
393550
Follow Up By: Horacehighroller - Thursday, Dec 03, 2009 at 00:02
Thursday, Dec 03, 2009 at 00:02
It amazes me that so many people think that back-pressure is necessary or desireable.
With a turbo it DEFINITELY IS NOT! The larger exhaust the better.
Without a turbo it isn't desirable either, but (to a degree) it is a necessary consequence of a small diameter exhaust (which in itself is necessary to speed the flow of hot gasses from the engine.)
Google is your friend for the whys and wherefores.
Peter
H Z Z Z Z J 105 n/a auto
FollowupID:
661660
Follow Up By: Member - Garry G (WA) - Thursday, Dec 03, 2009 at 00:35
Thursday, Dec 03, 2009 at 00:35
Had the work completed at
Fremantle Fuel Injection and they recommended it. Has a nic V8 burble now without being too loud.
FollowupID:
661665
Reply By: Member - ross m (WA) - Thursday, Dec 03, 2009 at 00:05
Thursday, Dec 03, 2009 at 00:05
OfficiallY? Do you mean it was dynoed?
AnswerID:
393559
Follow Up By: Member - Garry G (WA) - Thursday, Dec 03, 2009 at 00:32
Thursday, Dec 03, 2009 at 00:32
Yep, have the before and after printouts.
FollowupID:
661664
Reply By: Gronk - Thursday, Dec 03, 2009 at 00:49
Thursday, Dec 03, 2009 at 00:49
7.3KW is nothing to write home about.....Hope you didn't pay big bucks to achieve it ????
I'd be more interested in torque !!!!!!
AnswerID:
393561
Reply By: Rossco 09 - Thursday, Dec 03, 2009 at 08:18
Thursday, Dec 03, 2009 at 08:18
Maybe I can relate something from the motorbike world about exhaust upgrades. Most of the time a new can or system will give modest gains in overall kw's, but the real difference is in the shape of the power curve. It's one thing to have a higher peak figure, but the real value in a system is it's increase in usable power. If you can get rid of the flat spot's (or dip's in some curves) you end up with better acceleration in the ranges you actually use for most of your driving, and if that driving is sensible (as opposed to enjoying those extra horses) you 'should' see an improvement if fuel consumption.
Cheers.
AnswerID:
393585
Follow Up By: Member - Garry G (WA) - Thursday, Dec 03, 2009 at 09:50
Thursday, Dec 03, 2009 at 09:50
Thanks Rossco, The reason I replaced the old one was to try to improve fuel consumption as it already has plenty of torque, but now has more. A friend had some similar work done and improved his consumption. I look forward to seeing what happens in this regard on my first long trip this weekend.
Cheers
FollowupID:
661696
Reply By: Member - Mark E (VIC) - Thursday, Dec 03, 2009 at 09:25
Thursday, Dec 03, 2009 at 09:25
You guys who muck around with the V8 diesel to get more grunt need to spend some time in the old 1HZzzz for a while to get some perspective back.
I had a drive of a 76 a few months ago and can't understand why anyone (apart from those towing over the max GCM) would want anymore stick. These things GO anyway. Seems a lot of $$ to throw at small gains that really aren't required IMHO.
Flame suit on........ ;-0
Cheers,
Mark
AnswerID:
393598
Follow Up By: Gronk - Thursday, Dec 03, 2009 at 10:24
Thursday, Dec 03, 2009 at 10:24
Have spoken to a couple of Nat Parks blokes who have driven the utes back to back and the V8 doesn't go much harder than the old 6 cilinder girl....
If I had one, I'd certainly be looking to get some serious grunt out of the thing.....bigger exhaust, twin turbos etc etc.....!!!!
FollowupID:
661700
Follow Up By: Member - Garry G (WA) - Thursday, Dec 03, 2009 at 11:37
Thursday, Dec 03, 2009 at 11:37
My previous vehicle was an older V6 and it would't blow wind up the new V8. I have found it to have more power more torque.
FollowupID:
661714
Follow Up By: Member - Kroozer (WA) - Thursday, Dec 03, 2009 at 14:14
Thursday, Dec 03, 2009 at 14:14
I'd have to agree in a sense. These things really do have some poke, i could definitely have some fun with one thats for sure. But i suppose if the fuel consumption is kept to reasonable levels then you can never have too much power. Best thing about the one i drove was it was brand new, only 70 kilometres on it, and it had the privilige of being a lease car and having me as the breaker inner. There would be no way i would break my own car in like that.
FollowupID:
661742
Reply By: Member - John H (WA) - Thursday, Dec 03, 2009 at 10:28
Thursday, Dec 03, 2009 at 10:28
Garry - I've got a V8 79 series, and found that I did get better fuel economy when I put on a 3" exhaust. Not a lot, but about 1L/100km improvement.
It didn't seem any more powerful to me, and your dyno results show that as
well - 7.3kw is quite small. It did seem to rev more freely though, but that's just my gut feel as I didn't have it on a dyno at that point, so just '
seat of the pants' feel.
I did the exhaust in preparation for a chip upgrade. The chip gave more power, and with the exhaust, the EGT temps were kept acceptable. Of course with the power, I lost the fuel saving .
Overall I'm happy though - Same fuel economy as I originally had, but a noticeable increase in power (with the exhaust and chip). With all the weight I have on the back, I found the upgrade
well worth it.
I hope the info helps .................
John
AnswerID:
393615
Follow Up By: Member - Garry G (WA) - Thursday, Dec 03, 2009 at 11:34
Thursday, Dec 03, 2009 at 11:34
Thanks John. I thought about a chip upgrade but was told it was expensive so didn't bother. I can definitley feel the increase in power/torque when driving under load.
FollowupID:
661712