What's new
CK5
Register an account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members.

The RedBurb

Every Part Is Replaceable
Overview Gallery Discussion
max 02 said:
That’s a lot of pipe! Nice job! :waytogo:



I might have missed it...what made you decide to go twin pipe all the way back instead of one big single?
Click to expand...

I’ve heard that dual 2.5” pipes would have better flow than a larger 4” pipe, but I don’t know if that’s true or not. Could be complete bogus. Another reason could be that the stacked 2.5” pipes fit perfectly between the shock and fuel tank, and a 4” pipe wouldn’t. But the primary reason would simply be because I wanted to. Which brings me to Ethan’s response:

campfire said:
My thought exactly, since he keeps talking about adding a single turbocharger.
Click to expand...

Some day, I’ll definitely turbo charge the truck. But reality has set in and that won’t be anytime soon. I want to do this job right so I don’t want to rush it. In the meantime, what the PO had for “exhaust” from the manifold back to the MBRP muffler I had in there, needed to be tossed. Since I’ll be waiting to do the turbo, I figure in the meantime I’ll build the best flowing naturally aspirated exhaust system I can with my own hands.
 
AugustDiesel said:
I’ve heard that dual 2.5” pipes would have better flow than a larger 4” pipe, but I don’t know if that’s true or not. Could be complete bogus. Another reason could be that the stacked 2.5” pipes fit perfectly between the shock and fuel tank, and a 4” pipe wouldn’t. But the primary reason would simply be because I wanted to. Which brings me to Ethan’s response:



Some day, I’ll definitely turbo charge the truck. But reality has set in and that won’t be anytime soon. I want to do this job right so I don’t want to rush it. In the meantime, what the PO had for “exhaust” from the manifold back to the MBRP muffler I had in there, needed to be tossed. Since I’ll be waiting to do the turbo, I figure in the meantime I’ll build the best flowing naturally aspirated exhaust system I can with my own hands.
Click to expand...

Excellent Answer!

Explains it all. Right on! :waytogo:
 
Bent77 said:
If you math it out, 2x 2.5” is slightly larger surface area than one 3.5

The only answer here is that Andy is going to run dual turbos
Click to expand...

The thought has crossed my mind ...

KirsL said:
A turbo feeding into the dual tailpipe would be cool and different. It would definitely throw folks for a loop.
Click to expand...

More than likely will end up going this route ...
 
AugustDiesel said:
I’ve heard that dual 2.5” pipes would have better flow than a larger 4” pipe, but I don’t know if that’s true or not. Could be complete bogus. Another reason could be that the stacked 2.5” pipes fit perfectly between the shock and fuel tank, and a 4” pipe wouldn’t. But the primary reason would simply be because I wanted to. Which brings me to Ethan’s response:

Some day, I’ll definitely turbo charge the truck. But reality has set in and that won’t be anytime soon. I want to do this job right so I don’t want to rush it. In the meantime, what the PO had for “exhaust” from the manifold back to the MBRP muffler I had in there, needed to be tossed. Since I’ll be waiting to do the turbo, I figure in the meantime I’ll build the best flowing naturally aspirated exhaust system I can with my own hands.
Click to expand...

I totally hear you about using two tubes to fit instead of one larger tube, I would of done that too. Many times that is what practially limits the exhaust size, and sound. Larger pipes get louder fast.

Surface area is pi times the radius squared. I like apple or banana cream. The good thing is area is squared when relative to radius, so you get much more pie with just a little more radius. So if you put it in my app with 16 gauge tubing(it subtracts the tubing thickness from the area) 2.5 inch has an internal area of 4.41 sq inches and 4" has an internal area of 11.76 sq inches. So a single 4 is still 33% larger than dual 2.5.

Bent77 said:
If you math it out, 2x 2.5” is slightly larger surface area than one 3.5
The only answer here is that Andy is going to run dual turbos
Click to expand...

You are correct. And if you subtract the wall thickness the tables turn slightly, (16 ga) 3.5" tubing is 8.92 sq inches, which is essentially the same but about 1% larger than dual 2.5. But we also have to keep in mind there is friction next to the wall. I'm sure you know the perimeter is directly related to the diameter(pi x dia), while the area is exponential. This means as the tube gets larger you have a better area/perimeter ratio, and should flow more for the same area with a larger tube.

Bent77 said:
Not quite. The Gearhead pro app that @folkenheath has will do all that for you
Click to expand...

That is true, just select the tubing size and wall thickness and it outputs the cross sectional area of the tube ID. Thanks for the shoutout.
 
folkenheath said:
I totally hear you about using two tubes to fit instead of one larger tube, I would of done that too. Many times that is what practially limits the exhaust size, and sound. Larger pipes get louder fast.

Surface area is pi times the radius squared. I like apple or banana cream. The good thing is area is squared when relative to radius, so you get much more pie with just a little more radius. So if you put it in my app with 16 gauge tubing(it subtracts the tubing thickness from the area) 2.5 inch has an internal area of 4.41 sq inches and 4" has an internal area of 11.76 sq inches. So a single 4 is still 33% larger than dual 2.5.



You are correct. And if you subtract the wall thickness the tables turn slightly, (16 ga) 3.5" tubing is 8.92 sq inches, which is essentially the same but about 1% larger than dual 2.5. But we also have to keep in mind there is friction next to the wall. I'm sure you know the perimeter is directly related to the diameter(pi x dia), while the area is exponential. This means as the tube gets larger you have a better area/perimeter ratio, and should flow more for the same area with a larger tube.



That is true, just select the tubing size and wall thickness and it outputs the cross sectional area of the tube ID. Thanks for the shoutout.
Click to expand...
It’s a neat app. Now I don’t have to remember where to divide or multiply by .7854
 
The day ends in victory. After a long list of minute details to tidy up, I was finally ready to fire up the truck. I quickly realized that 6 quarts of tranny fluid isn’t nearly enough for a completely dry system, and slowly proceeded to add 7 more quarts. Once the magnum was fully in gear (didn’t realize I had it in between gears), wheels started turning.

If she can drive around the block, she can drive all the way to Moab, right? :haha:


Big thanks, as usual, to @KirsL for walking me through the kinks.
 
AugustDiesel said:
The day ends in victory. After a long list of minute details to tidy up, I was finally ready to fire up the truck. I quickly realized that 6 quarts of tranny fluid isn’t nearly enough for a completely dry system, and slowly proceeded to add 7 more quarts. Once the magnum was fully in gear (didn’t realize I had it in between gears), wheels started turning.

If she can drive around the block, she can drive all the way to Moab, right? :haha:


Big thanks, as usual, to @KirsL for walking me through the kinks.
Click to expand...

Always happy to help!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest Posts

Top Bottom