Originally Posted by icemang17 (Post 267007)

sweet header!!!!

I also think a torque increasing header is a great idea....the high flow exhaust and intake will increase top end power.....the ideal powerband for racing (track) is 4500-7000 or so....unless you need 2nd gear, then it would be 7400 (redline)...

Originally Posted by uspspro (Post 267022)

I vote for:

1) Keeping a primary cat
2) A metal heatshield for a more "OEM " look (so upon a brief inspection it doesn't look "modified")

As far as flow designs - I would test the current design vs. the torque biasing.

Originally Posted by Jason@Nameless (Post 267039)

Spoken like a true comrade of the Democratic Peoples Republic of California. :-D I grew up there so I feel your pain. And I completely agree that an option for this is of primary concern for California residents. #AlsoTheReasonIMovedToWA

Going to do some look-see from the top and bottom to see how crazy we'd have to go on this to accomplish what you're describing.

Jason Griffith
Engineering Director
Nameless Performance, Inc.

Originally Posted by uspspro (Post 267045)

Maybe two versions.

Some of us may end up making more top end through tuning and maybe cams.

It would be sweet if the torque curve held on for another 500 rpm.

Originally Posted by Jason@Nameless (Post 267012)

We've worked with the US Built Vibrant units (one of the only parts they have made in the USA) which are nice but extremely spendy, Magnaflow, Eastern Catalytic as well as the old Carsound brand. We have sold > 200 of these in 2.5 years with zero failures. And we back the products we incorporate into our systems. If you got a failure, we'd replace it. And it would probably drive us to investigate a change in manufacturer, but up till now we're very pleased with these spun metallic units.

Jason Griffith
Engineering Director
Nameless Performance, Inc.

Originally Posted by Jason@Nameless (Post 267006)

Concerns on Catless: I'm not as worried about this as it seems you are. The primary O2 sensor is the critical sensor to provide closed loop feedback to the ECU for proper functionality of the fuel maps. That being said, there is a bit of a challenge in getting a good metering of all four runners should we choose a tri-y catless design. The secondary O2 sensor is, on almost all cars, only used for monitory catalyst efficiency and warm-up times. So really the challenge for us is to develop an secondary O2 sensor bung that will limit what that sensor sees so that the ECU doesn't throw a code for primary catalyst below efficiency or primary catalyst warmup. I've run catless on many turbocharged and naturally aspirated engines with no check engine lights if the secondary O2 sensor challenges are met.

Heat concerns: This is a naturally aspirated car with very little backpressure in the primary catalytic converter. If it were a turbo car, I'd expect to see manifolds glowing white hot, but in this application I am not a bit concerned about proximity to the coolant line or the oil pan if some method of shielding is provided. As for melting the coolant hose, you'd have to work REAL hard to accomplish that. Even a small air gap in that are is going to provide enough thermal barrier to prevent that heat from reaching damaging levels. The good news is, we do have the ability to build faceted heat shields to selectively reduce the thermal transfer between critical components. We also have laser temp guns to monitor temperatures on the dyno. And we will be doing so. The other thing to note is that a two dimensional photo doesn't do justice to the distances that exist between these components. We did our best to keep the equal length while optimizing clearance for future development of heat shields as well as keeping this as clear as possible from the engine.

Additionally, if you're worried about track oil temps, we have plans for a thermostatically controlled oil cooler as well - but I think your track driving behavior is going to be the oil temp modifier far more than the headers proximity to the oil pan. Again, all things we plan on monitoring and gathering data from in order to add components that are necessary for optimal design on the street and the track.

As for the O2 sensor bungs, they are in the factory locations up top.

Torque biasing header I think you would indeed sacrifice top end power, but it's really a testing question - if you gain 8 additional ft-lb of torque and lose 2hp at the top end, that's an easy selection to make. We could also do a triple stepped design, but again, that requires all of the real estate occupied by the header.

More questions/thoughts!! Keep em comin'!

Jason Griffith
Engineering Director
Nameless Performance, Inc.

Originally Posted by Dave-ROR (Post 267107)

Good to know.

In many ways I'd prefer catless (o2sim or mounting the so2s a bit out of the flow to fix the cel issue) but I really don't want to deal with cleaning the back of another catless car :)

Originally Posted by Jason@Nameless (Post 267121)

There's always the secondary catalyst in the downpipe. Also, we have contemplated what our options are for making the secondary catalyst the monitored catalyst. Really not much room to get the sensor that far back, but we could always engineer a solution to make that work.

j

Originally Posted by Tainen (Post 267127)

would having a single high flow cat scrub the air enough? would it smell funny at all?

Either in the header, or the downpipe, so that way people can drop down to 1 cat for performance and weight reasons, and retain relatively smell free exhaust

Originally Posted by Dave-ROR (Post 267160)

Oh so as long as I can keep one cat.. I'd be good with the catless header and a downpipe with a cat. Depends on which makes more power but I'd guess the catless header over the catless downpipe.