Nameless Performance Equal Length Stepped Header

[Norcalmav23]

Gotta admit, between Nameless really being transparent with their entire process of designing and releasing a product... even admitting what they don't know or have yet to figure out... it is really nice. Initially I was thinking I was going to be using Perrin as much as possible but your guys prices are awesome and I really like how you are pushing forward quickly without even a hint of compromising the actual design and testing of the product. 12 hp from the down pipe and cat back! I am hoping for close to 30hp with a full header, down pipe, and cat back. One question... how long till there is a cat less header? Would having just a cat in the down pipe, none in the header be better? or a cat-less down pipe with a cat in the header be better? I'm excited to see those header dyno graphs!

[phm14]

Still hoping they got segregated #s for the axleback. Mine's due in tomorrow.

[mike2100]

Originally Posted by dabocx

According to their facebook page.

"Stock overpipe is designed to avoid RHD steering column. We don't have those so we straightened it out,

That's a nice little tidbit of information.

Originally Posted by Norcalmav23

Would having just a cat in the down pipe, none in the header be better? or a cat-less down pipe with a cat in the header be better?

I've been wondering the same thing. My gut instinct is that if you want just one cat then catless header + high flow catted downpipe will be the best combo.

[uspspro]

Originally Posted by mike2100

That's a nice little tidbit of information.



I've been wondering the same thing. My gut instinct is that if you want just one cat then catless header + high flow catted downpipe will be the best combo.

You would be able to have longer secondaries with the cat downstream. That would be ideal for performance. For emissions, it's better to have the cat further upstream to warm it up faster.

[Jason@Nameless]

I have some stuff to share, but we're still here, just got the 1.625-1.750 header on, and I have a lot of data to look through from the OBDII logging. It is a terribly hot muggy day here and we're pretty certain that the car is pulling either spark timing or camshaft timing to deal with the conditions.

Here's the good news: On the first run with stock exhaust and 1.5-1.625 stepped header and we picked up a solid 10-13 ft lb of torque in the valley of evil torque loss. That's corrected at SAE or STD and uncorrected we're looking at ~8-10 ft lb.

The problem is, as we are adding the axleback, midpipe, overpipe/downpipe combo (new design that we are shipping at no extra charge to the people who have already ordered the downpipe), we're pretty certain that the car is pulling something to deal with the more harsh conditions. It's just like everything flattens off.

So now we're switching to the larger header and testing to see how it behaves.

Like I said, I have logs of OBDII data for AFR Sensor1, Ign Adv, LTFT, STFT, Intake Manifold Pressure, IAT, Calc'd Load, Abs Load, RPM, Catalyst Temp, ECT.

One of the things that surprised us is that no matter how hard we tried, we couldn't get the stock intake IAT's to get anywhere beyond about a 15 degree reach to ambient air temp, and as RPM increases, the IAT will start to drop but then it comes right back up ~4-7F as though it's drawing radiator wash or hot engine bay air despite the fact that the hood is open and forced air fans are right in the grill.

Frustrating to some extent, but I'm pretty confident that each of these components has merit...it's just, once again, confusing that the car somehow needs to learn more than we have time to allow it to learn.

I'm really curious to look into the Calculated and Absolute Load vs. MAP sensor data. Initially we had thought that it was pulling spark or cam timing because it was seeing a change in VE based on MAF vs. MAP and we postulated that this may be a method for the car to try to control emissions based on assumptions it was making about the reasons why the MAP vs. MAF data was changing. But that was a really big shot in the dark and we didn't discuss it publicly (but now I'm just grasping for straws so I'd like to share as much as possible to try to spark as many ideas in the group here so that we can move forward with our next series of tests).

So that's what we have got for now. It's rolling back onto the dyno right now with the larger of the two headers and we'll see how that goes.

One last thing: We noticed a fairly interesting coincidence of exhaust acoustic resonance and diminishing rate of RPM change while doing pulls. This time around I'm going to get my dB/Freq logger out and grab that information from outside the car so that we can toss a helmholtz resonator as far up as possible to try to smooth that out in future pulls to see how it effects torque. We had massive success with a twin differential helmholtz resonator set in our Genesis 3.8R axleback (20whp consistently with nothing but an axleback, numbers rivaling most catback exhausts and many header back exhausts on the market) and we are now starting to side with Dimmen that acoustics behavior may be the canary in the coal mine so to speak in order to chase down potential reversion.

We're also very eager to get that primary cat out of the system and get our secondary runner lengths to their optimal range. We have also crunched the numbers in that Toyota cam profile document and plan on plugging the details into our header calculator in order to see how far this last header was from optimal.

Please, by all means, postulate away. I'm here sharing the data with our tuner (Aaron at English Racing) and he's eager to noodle all of this data as well as soon as we can get a breath.

And yes, Tainen, we will have your car back to you tonight. :-D Might be late.

Jason

[Dave-ROR]

Sounds good guys. Keep up the good work over there

[jedibow]

Originally Posted by Jason@Nameless

Frustrating to some extent, but I'm pretty confident that each of these components has merit...it's just, once again, confusing that the car somehow needs to learn more than we have time to allow it to learn.

I'm really curious to look into the Calculated and Absolute Load vs. MAP sensor data. Initially we had thought that it was pulling spark or cam timing because it was seeing a change in VE based on MAF vs. MAP and we postulated that this may be a method for the car to try to control emissions based on assumptions it was making about the reasons why the MAP vs. MAF data was changing. But that was a really big shot in the dark and we didn't discuss it publicly (but now I'm just grasping for straws so I'd like to share as much as possible to try to spark as many ideas in the group here so that we can move forward with our next series of tests).


Jason

Jason,

As far as I know the Map sensor is only applied to idle corrections, and EGR functions... Is the timing map jumping around on the EGR map? It shouldn't because being at WOT it should put you past the load threshold for using EGR (but with the d4-s system anything is possible until we understand it's sub routines), another possible cause is that the VE is increasing causing the ECU to jump from the various variable timing maps, I did see this on the MIVEC ECU's on Evo 9's and it was hard to get consistent timing values until the maps were all set the same way.

A few thoughts,

George

P.S. Can you log Knock sum? I know that the ecu is proactive, not reactive, so it maybe attempting to learn the best tracing locations within the maps, overreacting, knocking, and pulling timing...

[Lost]

Very much appreciate all that you are sharing, Jason!

[Dimman]

Does it still lose power pretty fast past peak?

[uspspro]

Good stuff! Man that tune is going to be really important.

Honestly, I think that I want my tune to pull some timing for 91-octane, just so I'm not sitting on the knock sensor all day. Time (and testing) will tell.

I really think once the tuning is figured out all the breathing improvements are going to turn this thing into a nice little motor.

[Jason@Nameless]

Ok I need to take the car back so I cannot answer any of these quesitons tonight but I'll do my best to answer them while I'm on the train back down here in the AM.

Bringing all of the data with me.

Jason

[Tainen]

I'll fill everyone in while Jason is driving the car up to me

The bigger header made more power. A good amount more power. It filled in the evil torque void even more, and with header, overpipe/downpipe, and catback, the whole system made 21whp over stock and 15wtq over stock, with 11-15wtq gains in the evil torque valley.

The valley isn't 100% filled in. But... I am guessing that tuning can get it the rest of the way there.

Jason is also switching the car back to the stock midpipe (front half of the catback) because they are pretty sure that part doesn't make any real power. He has some amazing ideas on some improvements to the system (already... these guys are constantly improving their design) and as he said, all customers who ordered the catted downpipe that haven't had it shipped yet will get the new design that integrates the overpipe section into it. Free of charge for existing orders. Amazing. two upgrades in one, with a better flow design.

So for right now, the car will have the larger headers on it (they are wrapped at this time), downpipe, and axleback. I'll take it to Pacific Raceways tomorrow. After a few more days with the car, I'll hand it back over to Jason to see if the car has made any more power with ECU adjustments over time, like we saw with the axleback/downpipe combo.

I can't thank Jason and John, and all the guys at Nameless enough. Constant improvement on their designs, and they are fully backing every single development part they put on my car.

They will be working on catless parts next week, from what Jason is saying.

I'm sure Jason will chime in with the dyno graphs, better explanations, and findings tomorrow AM, like he says- but I hope this tides you guys over until then

[Jason@Nameless]

Originally Posted by Tainen

I'll fill everyone in while Jason is driving the car up to me

The bigger header made more power. A good amount more power. It filled in the evil torque void even more, and with header, overpipe/downpipe, and catback, the whole system made 21whp over stock and 15wtq over stock, with 11-15wtq gains in the evil torque valley.

The valley isn't 100% filled in. But... I am guessing that tuning can get it the rest of the way there.

Jason is also switching the car back to the stock midpipe (front half of the catback) because they are pretty sure that part doesn't make any real power. He has some amazing ideas on some improvements to the system (already... these guys are constantly improving their design) and as he said, all customers who ordered the catted downpipe that haven't had it shipped yet will get the new design that integrates the overpipe section into it. Amazing. two upgrades in one, with a better flow design.

So for right now, the car will have the larger headers on it (they are wrapped at this time), downpipe, and axleback. I'll take it to Pacific Raceways tomorrow. After a few more days with the car, I'll hand it back over to Jason to see if the car has made any more power with ECU adjustments over time, like we saw with the axleback/downpipe combo.

I can't thank Jason and John, and all the guys at Nameless enough. Constant improvement on their designs, and they are fully backing every single development part they put on my car.

They will be working on catless parts next week, from what Jason is saying.

I'm sure Jason will chime in with the dyno graphs, better explanations, and findings tomorrow AM, like he says- but I hope this tides you guys over until then

And you have Hawk HP+ Brake Pads now. Kept your stockers to put em back on next week. HP+ are pretty hardcore for the street for some people, but that 'Stop in the box' exercise is going to be cake for you now!!

J

[industrial]

Wow that's pretty awesome gains for no tune. Far surpassing my expectations of what we would get out of this motor with just a header and exhaust.