PDA

View Full Version : Regarding TORQUE LOSS and BACK PRESSURE


Mr_Diesel
08-06-2006, 11:45 PM
Okay, peeps... I just straight piped my GTI... I was on vortex looking for some exhaust sound clips of straight piped VR6's and I came across a post where this guy did the same thing. All the uneducated schmucks decided to chime in and said he was "ghey" and stupid for doing this cause he lost all this torque blah blah blah. Finally I got pissed off and hit the books. I probably spent 4 hours studying back pressure, manifold and header design, nascar and formula 1 exhaust systems, mufflers, cats, pipe diamter, forced induction, NA performance, oldschool auto technology, etc, etc, etc... The list goes on and on. You should get the idea of what I found out by reading the post I created in response to all this. Enjoy.

------------------------------

*Back from the dead*

Quick story...

Back when I got my 94 jetta it was completely stock. For the fun of it, I decided to get a base line dyno test. 89hp and 111 lbs of torque. TO THE WHEELS in Salt Lake City (elevation 5,000 ft). Later on while going to the market, my muffler finally rotted away and fell off the car. I was a teenager and VERY poor at the time. I decided to straight pipe until I could afford a cat back system or something. I used 1 3/4 inch pipe (stock size) from the cat until just after the rear axle. Then I used 3 inch pipe from the axle to the bumper (about 2 or 3 feet) just to deepen the sound a little bit. At idle the 2.0 sounded like a V8, and sounded like a 14,000 rpm crotch rocket at redline WOT. It was very loud, don't get me wrong, but it still sounded good.

With all this BS about loosing torque and crap, I decided to get another dyno test at the same place on the same dyno. Results. 83hp and 122 lbs of torque. I actually LOST hp and gained torque, still trying to figure that one out... ANYWAY...

Regarding exhaust BACK PRESSURE:

For those of you who just say "your engine needs back pressure" just because they heard it from some other schmuck, I will describe back pressure as best as I can, so next time somebody asks you, you can provided an educated response instead of passing on baloney.

Textbook Definition: During the exhaust stroke, an easy way for an engine to loose power is through back pressure. The exhaust valve opens at the beginning of the exhaust stroke, and then the piston pushes the exhaust gases out of the cylinder. If there is any amount of resistance that the piston has to push against to force the exhaust gases out, power is wasted.

The reason why your engines produce less torque is that the reduction in back pressure is causing more air to be drawn into the combustion chamber than before.

Way back in the day, earlier cars with a carburetor often could not adjust because of the way that back pressure caused air to flow backwards through the carburetor after the air already got loaded down with fuel, and caused the air to receive a second load of fuel. While a bad design, it was nonetheless used in a lot of vehicles. Once these vehicles received performance mods that reduced back pressure, they no longer had that double-loading effect, and then tended to burn valves because of the resulting over-lean condition. This, incidentally, also provides a basis for the "torque increase" seen if back pressure is maintained. As the fuel/air mixture becomes leaner, the resultant combustion will produce progressively less and less of the force needed to produce torque.

Any modern car (including VW's) with electronic management compensate for this increase in airflow which is caused by a decrease in back pressure, and adjust the fuel mixture accordingly. This back pressure MYTH was true for old school carbureted vehicles, but it is completely irrelevant with modern electronic engines. You WILL gain power and you won't loose any bottom end by straight piping your car.

Another thing that makes me laugh :D Is people will sit around and tell you all day long that removing your muffler is bad because it reduces back pressure, but in the same breath will recommend you install a header. (which is SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO DRASTICALLY REDUCE BACK PRESSURE AND INCREASE FLOW).

Argument in a nutshell: Back pressure restricts natural airflow in your exhaust stream which consequently consumes power from the moving piston, which reduces power produced at the crank..... YOU WANT ZERO BACK PRESSURE IN ANY MODERN CAR.

So... why don't you guys lay off his back??? I guarantee he gained power from it. The reason I found this thread was because I just did this exact same thing to my 95 GTI. I was looking for comparing exhaust clips. His car sounds awesome, and my car sounds INCREDIBLE. Also, now my tires spin half way through 2nd gear instead of chirping. I am AMAZED at how long this argument has gone on in the modern automotive world. One guy with 2500 posts will post garbage about why back pressure is good, and suddenly you have 30 guys installing crappy mufflers on their cars to increase back pressure because they heard it from somebody on the internet... they act on that without doing any reasearch... Come on peeps... :banghead:

Mr_Diesel
08-07-2006, 12:10 AM
Elaboration on the subject:

Then why is it detrimental to put 5" exhausts on all our cars. Not to mention, why do people STILL lose torque when they put a 3" exhaust on a VR6 as opposed to a 2.25". I'm speaking from personal experience. You gain high end hp, but you lose some low end. It's a trade off/compromise.

This is the half of the argument, which answers your question, and elaborates on the subject.

It's about flow velocity and scavenging, not backpressure.
What you want is for the exhaust gases to be flowing so quickly out of the exhaust manifold
that it's causing a low pressure area above the exhaust valves at the end of the
exhaust stroke which helps suck the last of the exhaust gases out of the
cylinder and sometimes even pull a little fresh air in the intake valve during the overlap between
exhaust valve closing and intake opening. All that leads to a more efficient and thus
more powerful burn.

You get increased vacuum with high velocity flow, you get high velocity flow with
smaller diameter piping, but that also increases backpressure (it's a side effect, not the cause
of increased torque), and hurts your high end flow thus reducing peak horsepower.
You have to find a balance somewhere in the middle. Too large a pipe and you get low
flow velocity at low rpms, and weak scavenging, thus less torque. Too small and you get
too much backpressure reduced horsepower.

The resonance effect is real though, and has to do with using the pulse
from each exhaust pipe between exhaust valve and where it joins the others in the manifold,
to create a vacuum in the other pipes at the same time the exhaust valve is open for each one. Probably
not significant with a stock manifold because of the short pipes on the manifold, but then it's hard to improve
on the stock VR6 manifold in terms of max flow, until you go to forced induction. The place where I've seen
the most dramatic gains from exhaust resonance tuning was on motorcycles. Two exhaust
systems with the same diameter long manifold pipes, one system running to twin mufflers
and the other running 2 pipes into 1 (or 4 pipes into 1). The latter made way more low/midrange
torque (as measured on a dyno), because the exhaust pulse from one pipe at the
point where the pipes join creates a vacuum in the other, leading to increased scavenging.

You'll also often see a seriously tuned manifold with a bunch of nice mandrel bent pipes all looping
around to ensure that they're all the same length where they come together. Like this:
http://www.daxcars.co.uk/rushbuild/19.jpg
or even more dramatically on turbo manifolds.
http://www.gpsports-na.com/muffler/manifold.jpg
That's to ensure that the exhaust pulses all take the same time to get to the join point,
so that they all interleave with each other, and the pulse from one cylinder is never colliding
with another. It maximizes flow rate and actually decreases backpressure.
Another trick is to make them different lengths, but each tuned to a specific length so that at
a particular rpm, all the pulses reinforce each other for greater flow.

GoodDayForADrive
08-07-2006, 01:53 PM
Interesting... I'm actually trying to find the quietest aftermarket exhaust I can :lol:

Thanks for this post though, very informative.

SteveXs2
08-07-2006, 08:39 PM
About 6 to 8 months ago, wasn't it you who mentioned reading a book on four stroke engines which led you to post on here about how you needed to have back pressure to have torque?

Ever since I read that (not sure if it was you, Diesel, but it was on this site) I've been telling my little brother "Not only do those ricer ass fart cans sound like crap, but they cause the car to lose torque". Now I feel dumb... yet not as dumb as those fackin' ricers.

*** damn I hate fart cans with a passion.

SteveXs2
08-07-2006, 08:45 PM
K, that post sounded bad. I wasn't accusing you of anything, just asking if it was you that posted that. Your knowledge about this stuff is incredible and if I didn't have this site bookmarked I never would've had as much fun with my Jetta as I did thanks to what I learned on here, most of which was from you.

Just had to clarify so I don't look like a jerk.

Mr_Diesel
08-07-2006, 09:34 PM
I probably said that... back when I was a rice boy myself, I listened to others and believed them because they were cool.... and cool people with loud mufflers on 1.6L engines knew everything. So I believed them.

Thanks for your last post anyway.... It makes me think that my time and money invested in this site was worth while... even if only one guy learned the right way to do something, I think it would be worth it.... With that said, I am sure there are a bunch of topics on this site that directly relate to my opinion and not fact... Allthough I like to think my opinions are true and are the best way to do/handle something, I might not be right, or there might be a better way to do it. I am humble. I like to hear other peoples input, and I have certainly learned A LOT since I started this site... Mostly from reading books, participating in racing events, and searching through thouasands of threads on other forums, but a fair amount of my knowledge came from other people on this site.

It was not my intention to make a Mr. Diesel Knows All.com, it was more to keep things going. If somebody asked a question, I tried to answer it.... I figure that's the best way to start a message board.

Anyway, no offense taken. I am glad you brought that up. Steve, I can tell you that I have researched and found the things above to be FACT and not opinion. Not only that but I have personal experience with real world power gains, and certainly at no comprimise to bottom end loss.

Matty-O
08-08-2006, 02:15 AM
Well let me ask you this...keeping in mind im happy you did straight pipes and i tip my cap to the knowledge you've bestowed upon us lol...but...

Why not keep the stock exhaust and use electronic exhaust cutouts? I mean it allows gases to exit alot more freely/quickly, cost only about $400, and it allows you to make the decision when to open up for the crap loads of HP/TQ you get from straight pipes but at the same time good enough for the environment...

Plus, it'd be pretty cool if you got a 5 switch Rocker Plate Installed in your car and you say to people "check this out" *flips switch* then the engine sounds = :twisted: + :x and people's reaction is 8O and you're like 8) "Word..."

(Had to add the story lol)

GoodDayForADrive
08-08-2006, 08:45 AM
you say to people "check this out" *flips switch* then the engine sounds = :twisted: + :x and people's reaction is 8O and you're like 8) "Word..."

That is classic signature material :lol:

Mr_Diesel
08-08-2006, 10:40 PM
Why not keep the stock exhaust and use electronic exhaust cutouts? I mean it allows gases to exit alot more freely/quickly, cost only about $400, and it allows you to make the decision when to open up for the crap loads of HP/TQ you get from straight pipes but at the same time good enough for the environment...

Well... Cause I think (pretty sure) if I stuck a cutout before or after the cat, (whatever) that it would reduce scavenging. I wanted full length exhaust at stock pipe size 2.25inch all the way back. Scavenging is what creates the slight vacuum above the exhaust valve, and thus helps with performance. the longer the pipe the more scavenging occurs. (it's the same idea with the 16V intake manifold... the intake runners are long... this causes increased pressure above the intake valve, which results in better bottom end. (research up on the japanese (kawasaki or yamaha?) engine they stick in the taurus SHO's... very interesting)).

Anyway, my car is just fine to the environment. The cat is still in place. Allthough I could get away with "gutting the cat" because I have obd I, I still choose not to, because I am not that mean to the atmosphere. 2.25 inch pipe follows the cat all the way back. This cost me 39 dollars to have done at the exhaust shop.

Also, I am very impressed with the exhaust noise at high rpms with the 12V VR6. At 80MPH in 5th gear there is little to no droning sound with my car, which makes it perfect for trips.

GoodDayForADrive
08-09-2006, 01:20 PM
Would this be a good solution for a turbo back exhaust? I'm worried it'd be too loud though, I don't want to be annoying...

Mr_Diesel
08-12-2006, 08:47 AM
Would this be a good solution for a turbo back exhaust? I'm worried it'd be too loud though, I don't want to be annoying...

4 cylinder engine would sound like garbage with straight pipe.... They always do. I also don't know how the 2.0 sounds at higher rpms... The vr6 gets quiet at higher rpms. The 2.0 might sound like a high strung weed whacker in higher rpms... I dunno each engine sounds different. If you were doing turbo back in a turbo system I would do 3 inch with borla. If you were going with NA performance on the 2.0 I would probably do 2 inch with a borla (same size inlet and outlet).

GoodDayForADrive
08-12-2006, 01:21 PM
Would this be a good solution for a turbo back exhaust? I'm worried it'd be too loud though, I don't want to be annoying...

4 cylinder engine would sound like garbage with straight pipe.... They always do. I also don't know how the 2.0 sounds at higher rpms... The vr6 gets quiet at higher rpms. The 2.0 might sound like a high strung weed whacker in higher rpms... I dunno each engine sounds different. If you were doing turbo back in a turbo system I would do 3 inch with borla. If you were going with NA performance on the 2.0 I would probably do 2 inch with a borla (same size inlet and outlet).

Aren't Borla's kind of loud? I'm looking for a quiet aftermarket exhaust, I'm sorta picky :)

Mr_Diesel
08-12-2006, 11:30 PM
Would this be a good solution for a turbo back exhaust? I'm worried it'd be too loud though, I don't want to be annoying...

4 cylinder engine would sound like garbage with straight pipe.... They always do. I also don't know how the 2.0 sounds at higher rpms... The vr6 gets quiet at higher rpms. The 2.0 might sound like a high strung weed whacker in higher rpms... I dunno each engine sounds different. If you were doing turbo back in a turbo system I would do 3 inch with borla. If you were going with NA performance on the 2.0 I would probably do 2 inch with a borla (same size inlet and outlet).

Aren't Borla's kind of loud? I'm looking for a quiet aftermarket exhaust, I'm sorta picky :)

To quiet the exhaust, you need baffles... Baffles in the muffler create back pressure and restriction... If you wanted a little bit better performance and quieter operation, I would get a flowmaster. They definatly are not the best for performance purposes, but I think make a happy medium for the both. Remus has some pretty good ones that are quieter too. There are dozens of other brands out there, but those are the ones I have experience with.... Just make sure you only do 2 inch pipe if you are NA, and go as big as you want with a turbo.