For all you SUV lovers (and haters)
- Thread starter Handruin
- Start date
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
Typical moronic 4WD owner. There are some exceptions to the rule, but if I was the Tsar, I'd stake this guy out somewhere in Arizona. After his eyelids turned crispy, I'd explain that it's only an extra degree or two, what's the problem?
timwhit
Hairy Aussie
Tannin said:
This bumper sticker was put on the car by someone who oppose the use of gas-guzzling SUVs. Check out the site that Doug linked to.
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
Facts you should know about SUVs
- By law SUVs can emit 30% more carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons and 75% more nitrogen oxides than passenger cars.
- SUVs add an additional 5,000 tons per day of smog-forming pollutants to our air during the summer.
- Federal law permits SUVs to waste 33% more gasoline than passenger cars. This is an average, some SUVs waste more than this.
- Since 1990, the inefficiencies of SUVs have led to Americans wasting 70 billion gallons of gasoline.
- A loophole in the gas guzzler tax provides automakers a free ride to build and market inefficient, polluting vehicles while taxpayers are left holding the bag.
- Light trucks crashing into cars account for the majority of fatalities in vehicle-to-vehicle collisions
- 2000 people would still be alive if their vehicles had been hit by a heavy car instead of an SUV
- Drivers of small SUVs are involved in more fatal rollover accidents than any other type of vehicle.
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
So I see, Tim. I'd still stake the bastard out though. Some people don't deserve to have a planet.
jtr1962
Storage? I am Storage!
With the technology available today there's no reason why any car should get less than 75 mpg, and for the typical short trips under 50 miles that most people do, an electric car is an even more sensible choice. Or better yet walk, bike, or take a subway. SUVs are the very personification of contemptuous consumption. Even putting aside the crap they throw in the air, the congestion and confusion from cars makes many cities all but unliveable. Additionally, 50,000 annually die in the U.S. alone from auto accidents, and who knows how many more from cancers caused by air pollution. This is not a good way for people to get around.
There might yet be a way to beat the automakers and oil companies at this silly game they're playing. Do a few studies and see if there's a correlation between the time spent in a car and cancer(I suspect there is since you're breathing the polluted air from all the vehicles ahead of you), and then file a nice class action lawsuit of $1 trillion or so against the automakers, oil companies(and airlines for good measure). The goal here is not so much to actually get that much money, but to either shut them down for good(my preference) or force them to clean up their act. And while we're at it sue the federal government for encouraging suburbanization and the resulting sprawl and increase in auto use. More and more the world of 2050 is not looking like a nice place from people's selfish habits. It might well be in time that Mt. Everest is the only point above sea level.
There might yet be a way to beat the automakers and oil companies at this silly game they're playing. Do a few studies and see if there's a correlation between the time spent in a car and cancer(I suspect there is since you're breathing the polluted air from all the vehicles ahead of you), and then file a nice class action lawsuit of $1 trillion or so against the automakers, oil companies(and airlines for good measure). The goal here is not so much to actually get that much money, but to either shut them down for good(my preference) or force them to clean up their act. And while we're at it sue the federal government for encouraging suburbanization and the resulting sprawl and increase in auto use. More and more the world of 2050 is not looking like a nice place from people's selfish habits. It might well be in time that Mt. Everest is the only point above sea level.
Oh how The Giver would love to catch one of these environmental whackos putting one of those stickers on his F-150. Do please keep in mind folks that it is the people placing the stickers on the SUVs that are breaking the law, not the SUV owners.
The Giver said:
Well, on the site's rule page they explicitly say not to tag trucks since people buy those for doing work. (which is highly debatable I'm sure) They say to tag the excessively sized SUV's above the size of a ford explorer.
Yes, they are the ones breaking the law, but had they found a loophole like Tannin mentioned, everything would be OK right?
Cliptin
Wannabe Storage Freak
Our Rules & Guidlines for Successful and Ethical Big Game SUV Tagging:
1. Only tag the big ones. The Ford Expeditions and Excursions (I avoid the Explorers), Chevy or GMC Suburbans, 1500's, 2500's which often go by the Yukon and Tahoe name. The Cadillac Escalade, Toyota Land Cruiser, Land and Range Rovers and Lexus LX470 are all to be considered targets of opportunity. It is best to tag in the affluent suburbs where you will notice the Urban Assault Vechicles are never dirty. I figure that most people in rural areas are probably using them for a functional purpose and therefore don't tag in these areas.
2. Do not tag small SUV's such as any Suburu, Toyota 4Runner, etc. Owners of these small and reasonably fuel efficient SUV's keep complaining to me when they are tagged. We are after only the grotesque and bloated gas guzzling members of the SUV species.
3. Don't tag commercial vehicles, contractors, or any business affiliated vehicles. Also no pickup trucks. We have no gripe with people who really need these gas-guzzlers. It's the morons who are keeping up with the Jones' that raise my back hairs.
4. Don't retag vehicles that you recognize as already tagged (we can usually spot left over pieces from the original tagging).
5. We only tag late model vehicles, not some beat up old Suburban some poor soul has inherited.
6. Don't tag just because it's a four-wheel drive vehicle. Only the really big obnoxious ones.
With these restrictions there is still an unlimited number of eligible vehicles.
1. Only tag the big ones. The Ford Expeditions and Excursions (I avoid the Explorers), Chevy or GMC Suburbans, 1500's, 2500's which often go by the Yukon and Tahoe name. The Cadillac Escalade, Toyota Land Cruiser, Land and Range Rovers and Lexus LX470 are all to be considered targets of opportunity. It is best to tag in the affluent suburbs where you will notice the Urban Assault Vechicles are never dirty. I figure that most people in rural areas are probably using them for a functional purpose and therefore don't tag in these areas.
2. Do not tag small SUV's such as any Suburu, Toyota 4Runner, etc. Owners of these small and reasonably fuel efficient SUV's keep complaining to me when they are tagged. We are after only the grotesque and bloated gas guzzling members of the SUV species.
3. Don't tag commercial vehicles, contractors, or any business affiliated vehicles. Also no pickup trucks. We have no gripe with people who really need these gas-guzzlers. It's the morons who are keeping up with the Jones' that raise my back hairs.
4. Don't retag vehicles that you recognize as already tagged (we can usually spot left over pieces from the original tagging).
5. We only tag late model vehicles, not some beat up old Suburban some poor soul has inherited.
6. Don't tag just because it's a four-wheel drive vehicle. Only the really big obnoxious ones.
With these restrictions there is still an unlimited number of eligible vehicles.
Laura says she is going to put one of these stickers on my PC case because I leave it on all the time...sadly I didn't know how to combat that so I said..."well, I'm using it for cancer research...".
Then she said, well, if I had an SUV and drove to volunteer at a cancer clinic that would be the same thing.
Then she said, well, if I had an SUV and drove to volunteer at a cancer clinic that would be the same thing.
That PC probably puts out the same amount of pollution when being used during its entire life as does an SUV going to the shops.
Assuming your electricity isn't from renewable resources.
In fact, most cars (and maybe computers) creat more pollution when they are being manufactured than they do in their entire life...
If everyone in the US switched to manual from auto boxes that would save a few hundred thousand gallons each year alone, I bet :mrgrn:
Assuming your electricity isn't from renewable resources.
In fact, most cars (and maybe computers) creat more pollution when they are being manufactured than they do in their entire life...
If everyone in the US switched to manual from auto boxes that would save a few hundred thousand gallons each year alone, I bet :mrgrn:
Jake the Dog
Storage is cool
The Giver said:
true however, that doesn't nessarily make the oil/petrol usage and bulk emmision output of your street only SUV's right either.
jtr1962
Storage? I am Storage!
NRG = mc² said:
I'm not 100% sure that's true. Most of the steel in autos is recycled, not made from ore. That saves a tremendous amount of energy. Consider that an SUV getting 10 mpg burns 25,000 gallons of fuel if it lasts 250,000 miles. Even one getting 25 mpg that only lasts 100,000 miles burns 4,000 gallons of fuel. That's enough fuel to make ~100,000 kW-hrs of electricity, which is about what an average household uses in 10 years. I somehow doubt it takes even close to that amount of energy to manufacture it. A PC in it's 5 year lifetime might use over 10,000 kW-hrs(if it's a power hungry model and it's one 24 hours/day). Once again, I somehow doubt it takes that much energy to make it.
You do raise a valid point though-that it takes energy to manufacture. Therefore, it would make more sense if people just got in the habit of buying one car in their lives, and if the automakers made that vehicle strong enough to last for 50 years with little repair. Sure it would cost more initially, but over the long run it would be cheaper and better for the environment. Of course, if the newer vehicle offered significant efficiency improvements over the old one, then perhaps replacement would make sense, but with SUVs we're actually taking a step backwards. I would imagine the limit of fuel efficiency for a driveable vehicle is ~100 mpg, so why not make a vehicle that is that efficient and lasts for 50 years? I don't think anything will change about driving in 50 years that will make such a vehicle obsolete. If anything, highway technology has pretty much stood still during the last 40 years. The 200 mph highways that we were promised never materialized, and I somehow doubt they will anytime soon. Therefore, we might as well end this silly cycle of buying another car every few years just because we're "tired" of the old one(and also end in general the throwaway mentality of society). The planet can't afford it any more.
Buck
Storage? I am Storage!
All we need is more trees, and then we could swing from place to place like Tea.
blakerwry
Storage? I am Storage!
25mpg?
our expl..... i mean... an aquantaince of mine's Ford Explorer(circa 1998) is in perfect mechanical shape and barely gets 24mpg on the highway... for an overall MPG of about 18 mixed city/highway driving.
I can only imagine what an Expedition or dare I say... a hummer gets.
Thankfully I drive a 9 year old Toyota Camry... I am making my car last and getting about 24mpg (I drive mostly on highway) while doing it.
My next car will probably be a Civic.. but I only expect to get about a 6mpg improvement.
our expl..... i mean... an aquantaince of mine's Ford Explorer(circa 1998) is in perfect mechanical shape and barely gets 24mpg on the highway... for an overall MPG of about 18 mixed city/highway driving.
I can only imagine what an Expedition or dare I say... a hummer gets.
Thankfully I drive a 9 year old Toyota Camry... I am making my car last and getting about 24mpg (I drive mostly on highway) while doing it.
My next car will probably be a Civic.. but I only expect to get about a 6mpg improvement.
Fushigi
Storage Is My Life
blakerwry
Storage? I am Storage!
i havent read up on the Honda hybrids...
man, that's a small engine!!!
I would really have to test drive and take the total cost of ownership into consideration before I even put this car in my list of possibilities.
man, that's a small engine!!!
I would really have to test drive and take the total cost of ownership into consideration before I even put this car in my list of possibilities.
blakerwry
Storage? I am Storage!
Oh, by the way. I won't be buying a new car for quite a while.... I spend too much money on computers me thinks.
$20,000 is a bit much for a car that most people would consider basic. I would be more likely to spend about $8,000-$12,000 on a used car... probably something ~2 years old with ~60,000 miles on it. Currently, in that range, a Civic is looking good and my toyota is approaching the 200,000 mile marker so i think I should be atleast knowledgable about what's around the corner.
atleast I will have a heads up on the problems associated with Honda's current gas/electrics.
$20,000 is a bit much for a car that most people would consider basic. I would be more likely to spend about $8,000-$12,000 on a used car... probably something ~2 years old with ~60,000 miles on it. Currently, in that range, a Civic is looking good and my toyota is approaching the 200,000 mile marker so i think I should be atleast knowledgable about what's around the corner.
atleast I will have a heads up on the problems associated with Honda's current gas/electrics.
blakerwry said:
The Expedition gets about 12-13 MPG mixed. Laura has a 2000 civic EX and I think she gets about 33 MPG being it is an automatic tranny. My CL gets about 25-27 MPG overall mixed city/highway from what I've recorded over the past 1.5 years which isn't too bad for the size of the motor.
The Civic is a good car much like your Toyota I would suspect. The newer civics (after the 2000 model) has changed their design and also the front suspension. IMHO I think the older suspension was superior being unequal length a-arm vs. the McPherson strut implemented in the new design. Truth be told, no one outside of someone who would race could tell the difference, and if a person were to race a civic, they would be eccentric.
Fushigi
Storage Is My Life
True, the TCO is definitely a factor. Also factor in some extra convenience like fewer trips to the gas station.blakerwry said:
BTW, Ars Technica reviewed the hybrid a little while ago. One thing mentioned was a federal tax credit that helps bring the price down.
- Fushigi
blakerwry
Storage? I am Storage!
Are you shitting me?
I think kansas City must have the highest number of modded Civics per capita of any place on the earth.
If I go anywhere I am likely to see several modified civics... lowered... super charged... acura engines.... quad exhaust... racing transmissions and tires.... spoilers... lights and subs....
It seems like it is a street racing car of choice around here... of course, there are also the integras, preludes, and the ocassional del'sol.
blakerwry said:
Well, when I made that comment I was thinking more along the lines of really racing it on the track, not the street. (although someone who races it on the street would probably appriciate the a-arms over struts.
I see modded civics all the time, and most I have to laugh at. I saw one today that was very plain except for the enormous wing on the back with the dual fart pipes. I don't know what it is about them wings and mufflers that attract so many people.
The integra is very much similar to the civic. They share many of the same parts but the integra has the 1.8L over the civic's 1.6L. I remember reading that the integra type-R (1997) when it first came out was one of the best handling front wheel drive cars around. I can't say out of my own experience that it is the best handling FWD, but I would believe it.
Dozer
Learning Storage Performance
Handruin said:
These cars incite a mixture of laughter and rage in me, personally. What's the point of spending hundreds of dollars to soup up, of all things, a Civic. Don't get me wrong, a Civic is a decent car in its own rite, but it becomes something completely different when the wings, fart pipes, etc. are added. I hope I'm not offending anyone here, but it just seems silly to me. Several of my friends call them "penis-envy cars."
Perhaps the rage comes from the stereotypical driver that operates this vehicle: young punk, shaved head, thinks he's racing you when all you're doing is trying to get home from a long day at the office :bibber: , radio boom-boom-booming...you get the idea.
Sorry for the rant, it's just been a couple of crazy traffic days here in Chattanooga!
Dozer said:
I hear your complaint Dozer, at times I do feel some rage, but pass it off as laughter. I'll admit a few years back I had a heavily modified stereo in my Plymouth sundance. I did not have a large spoiler (only the factory equipped one which was conservative) and I had the stock exhaust. I completely realized my car was never meant to perform.
However now people put huge stickers on their windows, place blue glowing bulbs on the hood of their car, stupid sounding exhaust (granted it's my opinion), large decals on the sides. I will admit that some of the rims I see are nice, provided that person didn't hack their suspension making the car sit 1/2 in. from the ground.
As much as I liked to see the nice cars in The fast and the Furious, I can't say I enjoy the aftermath of people who jumped on the bandwagon.
zx
Learning Storage Performance
Lol. Heard about this before.
There are directions on the web site on how to remove them. So it's not the end of the word for the owners of the SUV's.
I think it's a nice initiative.
There are directions on the web site on how to remove them. So it's not the end of the word for the owners of the SUV's.
I think it's a nice initiative.
The hybrid Civic is a cool idea, an extension of the VW Golf Ecomatic that used to stop its diesel engine at the lights, it came out around 10 years back but no one cared much for it
Citroen made a 3.3l/100km diesel version of the AX in 1993 but the whole AX series was so flimsy that they fell apart by the end of the year.
A few weeks back I rented a Renault Clio diesel, it was surprisingly exconomical for its performance, With 13 litres of diesel I managed just under 150 miles, which is very good considering it was not run in (had just 300 miles on the clock), and was flooring it everywhere (its a rental car... you just have to, right?). Its powered by a 1.5 litre turbo diesel intercooled engine giving 80hp and lots of low down torque. It is claimed to give 75mpg at 50mph.
Heres a few photos:
http://rotting-energy.net/Forums/cliofront.jpg
http://rotting-energy.net/Forums/cliodials.jpg
http://rotting-energy.net/Forums/clioengine.jpg
http://rotting-energy.net/Forums/cliointerior.jpg
Its a very nice car, save for no room in the back and a plain disgusting gearshift that needs coaxing to get into third.
Citroen made a 3.3l/100km diesel version of the AX in 1993 but the whole AX series was so flimsy that they fell apart by the end of the year.
A few weeks back I rented a Renault Clio diesel, it was surprisingly exconomical for its performance, With 13 litres of diesel I managed just under 150 miles, which is very good considering it was not run in (had just 300 miles on the clock), and was flooring it everywhere (its a rental car... you just have to, right?). Its powered by a 1.5 litre turbo diesel intercooled engine giving 80hp and lots of low down torque. It is claimed to give 75mpg at 50mph.
Heres a few photos:
http://rotting-energy.net/Forums/cliofront.jpg
http://rotting-energy.net/Forums/cliodials.jpg
http://rotting-energy.net/Forums/clioengine.jpg
http://rotting-energy.net/Forums/cliointerior.jpg
Its a very nice car, save for no room in the back and a plain disgusting gearshift that needs coaxing to get into third.
Fushigi
Storage Is My Life
The fart pipes are, around here, called coffee cans. They are not necessarily installed for their musicality; they reduce the back pressure of the car's exhaust which allows for a less restrictive airflow which leads to an increase in power. How much power? I couldn't say but it's probably in the 3-5% range.
In general, the reason people trick out Civics is because the engines can normally handle it without exploding. Mitsu Eclipses, especially those from the early to mid 90s, were the tuner favorites before the Civics came to the foreground.
I wonder how much some things cancel out others. Tweak the powerplant for an extra 30 HP but add 200 pounds of curb weight with an effects kit & a bunch of idiotic neon tubing.
..
In the mid to late 80s I had a Renault Alliance that was basically a hand-me-down from my father. 1.7L, I think. 4 speed manual. My dad always got 48-50mpg but rarely drove over 50mph. I got in the upper 30s and drove it like any 18-20 year old male drives. It went to 137K miles before it needed so much work we put it out of its misery.
..
I remember the VW. They did the same with a version of the Beetle IIRC. I'll also provide honorable mention to the Toyota Prius hybrid, which is IMO one of the ugliest cars on the road but it supposedly quite roomy inside.
I vaguely remember a Volvo test car from 8-15 years ago. It used a ceramic engine and ran on nearly anything .. gas, diesel, corn oil .. and got like 160MPG. It was funny to watch them open a bottle of Mazola, pour it in, and take off. Too bad it never made it to production.
- Fushigi
In general, the reason people trick out Civics is because the engines can normally handle it without exploding. Mitsu Eclipses, especially those from the early to mid 90s, were the tuner favorites before the Civics came to the foreground.
I wonder how much some things cancel out others. Tweak the powerplant for an extra 30 HP but add 200 pounds of curb weight with an effects kit & a bunch of idiotic neon tubing.
..
In the mid to late 80s I had a Renault Alliance that was basically a hand-me-down from my father. 1.7L, I think. 4 speed manual. My dad always got 48-50mpg but rarely drove over 50mph. I got in the upper 30s and drove it like any 18-20 year old male drives. It went to 137K miles before it needed so much work we put it out of its misery.
..
I remember the VW. They did the same with a version of the Beetle IIRC. I'll also provide honorable mention to the Toyota Prius hybrid, which is IMO one of the ugliest cars on the road but it supposedly quite roomy inside.
I vaguely remember a Volvo test car from 8-15 years ago. It used a ceramic engine and ran on nearly anything .. gas, diesel, corn oil .. and got like 160MPG. It was funny to watch them open a bottle of Mazola, pour it in, and take off. Too bad it never made it to production.
- Fushigi
Unless the original exhaust is really badly designed, most of cases the power difference is negligable, and by reducing backpressure you increase power, but decrease the torque, so its not much use.
De-catting on the other hand gives a noticeable increase in performance.
Fushigi, you reminded me of something. By mixing (preferably used and filtered) vegetable oil and meths (the kerosene-less type), you can apparently make perfectly good diesel substitute with no bad long term effects on the car iteslf or any worse for the environment than regular diesel. Of course, the method is illegal over here as you end up not paying fuel tax which is sooooo important. But what are they going to do, keep a sample and take it to a lab? I was thinking of trying this with the car I rented but thought I'd rather not as for a start I'd look like a complete idiot asking the MaccyD's manager if I could take some of their old oil. They probably never change it anyway so they wouldn't have any :mrgrn:
De-catting on the other hand gives a noticeable increase in performance.
Fushigi, you reminded me of something. By mixing (preferably used and filtered) vegetable oil and meths (the kerosene-less type), you can apparently make perfectly good diesel substitute with no bad long term effects on the car iteslf or any worse for the environment than regular diesel. Of course, the method is illegal over here as you end up not paying fuel tax which is sooooo important. But what are they going to do, keep a sample and take it to a lab? I was thinking of trying this with the car I rented but thought I'd rather not as for a start I'd look like a complete idiot asking the MaccyD's manager if I could take some of their old oil. They probably never change it anyway so they wouldn't have any :mrgrn:
Oh, and another popular accessory is the sport filter kit, like K&N or Pipercross cone or pancake filters. Most of the time these are done in 5 minutes with a screwdriver in someones drive and this results in a decrease in power in many cases.
This is because most people just remove the factory fitted airbox, and fit the aftermarket filter direct to the end of the air hose which is some distance away from where the original airbox was. As a result the engine draws in hot air and as we all know hot air = less oxygen = less power.
The proper way is to either leave the stock one alone and use a lower resistance paper for the filter, or run an extended pipe to a place where plenty of fresh air is available.
They do make a nice induction noise though, whether fitted properly or not
This is because most people just remove the factory fitted airbox, and fit the aftermarket filter direct to the end of the air hose which is some distance away from where the original airbox was. As a result the engine draws in hot air and as we all know hot air = less oxygen = less power.
The proper way is to either leave the stock one alone and use a lower resistance paper for the filter, or run an extended pipe to a place where plenty of fresh air is available.
They do make a nice induction noise though, whether fitted properly or not
Fushigi
Storage Is My Life
What about the replacement filters from K&N that just replace the factory unit in the airbox ( http://knfilter.com/filtercharger.htm )? I am using one. Not for more power but for less cost. I'd rather pay about $50 once for a K&N + cleaner vs. $18 twice a year for regular replacement filters. Power difference? If any, it's not noticeable. At first, my MPG went down a little but I think that was just the onboard computer needing to make adjustments. Mileage lately is pretty much what it's been since the engine was broken in.NRG = mc² said:
- Fushigi
Dozer
Learning Storage Performance
Handruin said:
I think this is specifcally what I laugh at/irritates me. Most of these individuals are not racing their cars. Like you, I enjoyed seeing the nice cars from The Fast and the Furious. But most of the cars (with a few exceptions) that I see are more like The Slow and the Ridiculous.
And I guess it mostly is laughter that I feel for these rigs. Yesterday was just a bad day for me to be replying to this particular message. Chattanooga, Tennessee sits right smack in the middle of Interstate 75 and Interstate 24, both major arteries for traffic travelling in the south. This, coupled with the fact that it is Thanksgiving and we have road construction all over the city, has made driving one of my less favorite activities the last several days. So I guess I was a bit sensitive about the whole modded car thing, as most of these drivers cause more problems in an already screwed up driving environment. But hey, it's Thanksgiving, I'm off of work for four days, and my attitude is much improved Jake the Dog
Storage is cool
not quite a nice article on SUV drivers: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0212.mencimer.html
Cliptin
Wannabe Storage Freak
Ouch!
yipes, that was brutal, but enjoyable.
"The tragedy of SUVs is that highway fatalities were actually in decline before SUVs came into vogue, even though Americans were driving farther. This is true largely for one simple reason: the seatbelt..."
"But seatbelts aren't much help if you're sideswiped by an Escalade, a prospect that looms yet more ominously as SUVs enter the used-car market. Not surprisingly, last year, for the first time in a decade, the number of highway deaths actually rose. "
"The tragedy of SUVs is that highway fatalities were actually in decline before SUVs came into vogue, even though Americans were driving farther. This is true largely for one simple reason: the seatbelt..."
"But seatbelts aren't much help if you're sideswiped by an Escalade, a prospect that looms yet more ominously as SUVs enter the used-car market. Not surprisingly, last year, for the first time in a decade, the number of highway deaths actually rose. "
Jake the Dog
Storage is cool
NRG = mc² said:
i'm curious how you came to this conclusion since power comes from torque (x revs).
Dunno. Never thought about it, but thats what is generally believed.
http://www.superford.org/lounge/fvf/fvf_2.php
http://www.superford.org/lounge/fvf/fvf_2.php
Jake the Dog
Storage is cool
hmm. whilst there's some good facts in there there's also quite some discrepancies in that article too. it certainly doesn’t seem to be written by an expert in the field.
most car exhaust systems that come out of the factory are surprisingly restrictive. they are basic in design and usually made from cast-iron and mild-steel. this is due to two main reasons; 1) they are cheap to make and 2) absorb sound well. good sound absorption means not having use more expensive sound muffling components.
a well designed interference type extractor system with a good flowing system and mufflers, even on a stock engine, will produce more torque and hence power, throughout the entire rev range. having said that, it’s not uncommon to see a young guy with a small 2litre 4cyl engine go and get a 3” exhaust system fitted cat back, with a large 5” tipped muffler. such an overly large system does indeed reduce gas flow speed, causing a performance drop.
the key is using an entire system that is suitable sized and tuned for the engine’s characteristics.
there’s heaps more to it but I get the feeling I’m going into this too much for anyone else’s interest!
cheers
most car exhaust systems that come out of the factory are surprisingly restrictive. they are basic in design and usually made from cast-iron and mild-steel. this is due to two main reasons; 1) they are cheap to make and 2) absorb sound well. good sound absorption means not having use more expensive sound muffling components.
a well designed interference type extractor system with a good flowing system and mufflers, even on a stock engine, will produce more torque and hence power, throughout the entire rev range. having said that, it’s not uncommon to see a young guy with a small 2litre 4cyl engine go and get a 3” exhaust system fitted cat back, with a large 5” tipped muffler. such an overly large system does indeed reduce gas flow speed, causing a performance drop.
the key is using an entire system that is suitable sized and tuned for the engine’s characteristics.
there’s heaps more to it but I get the feeling I’m going into this too much for anyone else’s interest!
cheers