PDA

View Full Version : Myth or Reality, low backpressure=low torque


luv24ds
08-16-2008, 04:45 PM
Excuse me if your not a motorhead, but I thought those of you who are might be intereseted in the following. Its often been repeated that if you dont have enough backpressure the torque output of your engine will suffer. I have even repeated this statement. However I have never heard any proof of this "fact". I read an exhaust system comparison in one of the automotive magazines where they dyno tested on a V8 engine, back to back 2.5,3.0 and 3.5" exhaust systems. Torque and horsepower increased with each increase in exhaust system diameter. A quick google search revealed this article. Which I thought was quite revealing, and dispels some commonly held myths about exhaust system backpressure.


"xhaust backpressure the myth

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

Backpressure: The myth and why it's wrong.

I. Introduction
One of the most misunderstood concepts in exhaust theory is backpressure. People love to talk about backpressure on message boards with no real understanding of what it is and what it's consequences are. I'm sure many of you have heard or read the phrase "Engines need backpressure" when discussing exhaust upgrades. That phrase is in fact completely inaccurate and a wholly misguided notion.

II. Some basic exhaust theory
Your exhaust system is designed to evacuate gases from the combustion chamber quickly and efficently. Exhaust gases are not produced in a smooth stream; exhaust gases originate in pulses. A 4 cylinder motor will have 4 distinct pulses per complete engine cycle, a 6 cylinder has 6 pules and so on. The more pulses that are produced, the more continuous the exhaust flow. Backpressure can be loosely defined as the resistance to positive flow - in this case, the resistance to positive flow of the exhaust stream.

III. Backpressure and velocity
Some people operate under the misguided notion that wider pipes are more effective at clearing the combustion chamber than narrower pipes. It's not hard to see how this misconception is appealing - wider pipes have the capability to flow more than narrower pipes. So if they have the ability to flow more, why isn't "wider is better" a good rule of thumb for exhaust upgrading? In a word - VELOCITY. I'm sure that all of you have at one time used a garden hose w/o a spray nozzle on it. If you let the water just run unrestricted out of the house it flows at a rather slow rate. However, if you take your finger and cover part of the opening, the water will flow out at a much much faster rate.

The astute exhaust designer knows that you must balance flow capacity with velocity. You want the exhaust gases to exit the chamber and speed along at the highest velocity possible - you want a FAST exhaust stream. If you have two exhaust pulses of equal volume, one in a 2" pipe and one in a 3" pipe, the pulse in the 2" pipe will be traveling considerably FASTER than the pulse in the 3" pipe. While it is true that the narrower the pipe, the higher the velocity of the exiting gases, you want make sure the pipe is wide enough so that there is as little backpressure as possible while maintaining suitable exhaust gas velocity. Backpressure in it's most extreme form can lead to reversion of the exhaust stream - that is to say the exhaust flows backwards, which is not good. The trick is to have a pipe that that is as narrow as possible while having as close to zero backpressure as possible at the RPM range you want your power band to be located at. Exhaust pipe diameters are best suited to a particular RPM range. A smaller pipe diameter will produce higher exhaust velocities at a lower RPM but create unacceptably high amounts of backpressure at high rpm. Thus if your powerband is located 2-3000 RPM you'd want a narrower pipe than if your powerband is located at 8-9000RPM.

Many engineers try to work around the RPM specific nature of pipe diameters by using setups that are capable of creating a similar effect as a change in pipe diameter on the fly. The most advanced is Ferrari's which consists of two exhaust paths after the header - at low RPM only one path is open to maintain exhaust velocity, but as RPM climbs and exhaust volume increases, the second path is opened to curb backpressure - since there is greater exhaust volume there is no loss in flow velocity. BMW and Nissan use a simpler and less effective method - there is a single exhaust path to the muffler; the muffler has two paths; one path is closed at low RPM but both are open at high RPM.

IV. So how did this myth come to be?
I often wonder how the myth "Engines need backpressure" came to be. Mostly I believe it is a misunderstanding of what is going on with the exhaust stream as pipe diameters change. For instance, someone with a civic decides he's going to uprade his exhaust with a 3" diameter piping. Once it's installed the owner notices that he seems to have lost a good bit of power throughout the powerband. He makes the connections in the following manner: "My wider exhaust eliminated all backpressure but I lost power, therefore the motor must need some backpressure in order to make power." What he did not realize is that he killed off all his flow velocity by using such a ridiculously wide pipe. It would have been possible for him to achieve close to zero backpressure with a much narrower pipe - in that way he would not have lost all his flow velocity.

V. So why is exhaust velocity so important?
The faster an exhaust pulse moves, the better it can scavenge out all of the spent gasses during valve overlap. The guiding principles of exhaust pulse scavenging are a bit beyond the scope of this doc but the general idea is a fast moving pulse creates a low pressure area behind it. This low pressure area acts as a vacuum and draws along the air behind it. A similar example would be a vehicle traveling at a high rate of speed on a dusty road. There is a low pressure area immediately behind the moving vehicle - dust particles get sucked into this low pressure area causing it to collect on the back of the vehicle. This effect is most noticeable on vans and hatchbacks which tend to create large trailing low pressure areas - giving rise to the numerous "wash me please" messages written in the thickly collected dust on the rear door(s)."
__________________
Steve Frisby

1971 Datsun 240z-under restoration(wifes car)
2004 Nissan 350z (wife thinks its her car)
1971 455 Stage 2 skylark custom

Arne
08-16-2008, 05:08 PM
No fair, Steve. That's not enough choices. How about a choice that says, "It depends on many other inter-related factors."

luv24ds
08-16-2008, 05:19 PM
Sorry Arne, I remember you and I talking about the exhaust system diameter affecting torque output. I guess it is more accurate to say that exhaust velocity will affect power output. The summary of the article is that backpressure robs horsepower. It doesnt follow that a larger exhaust system automatically produced more horspower, because exhaust velocity may suffer. In summary, a well designed exhaust system that reduces backpressure while keeping exhaust velocity high will increase horsepower and torque output.

hls30.com
08-16-2008, 06:11 PM
So since we know the volume and valve timing of the pulses, and the velocity of exploding gasoline, we could fairly easily compute the proper diameter for a straight exhaust...not that bends, losses to transitions, and god fobid the resistance of a turbocharger...
Will

Walter Moore
08-16-2008, 08:37 PM
I always wondered if people were confusing "back pressure" in a 4 cycle engine (which is bad) with the standing wave formed in a properly tuned exhaust on a 2 cycle engine (which is essential)

Not many people today have a lot of experience with 2 stroke engines, but back when I was in high school and college several of my friends had 2 cycle motorcycles. When those things hit the RPM where the standing wave forms (what they called "on the pipe") the horse power output went WAY up. I had a friend who dropped his Kawasaki 550 three cylinder bike repeatedly because he would forget about that and absent minded-ly accelerate gently down the road, only to have the thing fly out from under him when he hit the magic speed. fortunately for everyone involved he sold the thing before it killed him.

If the exhaust on a 2 stroke isn't literally tuned to produce that standing wave, the performance really suffers. (The legend is that Yamaha originally only made musical instruments, but got into motorcycles because they were involved with tuning the exhaust pipes on other manufacturer's products.)

JonnyRock
08-16-2008, 10:24 PM
Point V is describing the "Venturi Effect" where a low pressure zone is found after some kind of air restriction and eddies are created.

Oiluj
08-17-2008, 08:20 AM
OK... So what's the optimum pipe size for a Z? I have 2-1/2" and think it's to big. I'm thinking of going to 2".

bpilati
08-17-2008, 07:39 PM
When designing systems for flow, it's always good to reduce losses.

doradox
08-18-2008, 04:51 AM
Too much or too little exhaust gas velocity is bad. However, the thing that really matters is pressure wave tuning. Header pipe diameter and length as well as collector configuration,size, and length.

This article

http://www.burnsstainless.com/TechArticles/Theory/theory.html

explains things fairly well without resorting to garden hose analogies.

Steve

ozconnection
08-18-2008, 07:52 PM
Too much or too little exhaust gas velocity is bad. However, the thing that really matters is pressure wave tuning. Header pipe diameter and length as well as collector configuration,size, and length.

This article

http://www.burnsstainless.com/TechArticles/Theory/theory.html

explains things fairly well without resorting to garden hose analogies.

Steve

I agree with this.

I substituted my original Nissan factory exhaust for a modified system a while ago now. I have absolutely no regrets. I wanted more low speed power and torque and that's exactly what I got.

On another thread, "the great exhaust debate", I posted a dyno graph of the results of my new and improved exhaust system. Even then, I had a couple of people doubt the value of a well designed system. These people were well educated but simply refused to accept the truth in what was being shown to them. :stupid:Look at the graph, there are no 'dips' anywhere in the low end of the rev range, (dyno) proof to me that low backpressure really is the key to improving torque.

Cheers.

John Coffey
08-19-2008, 08:37 AM
As I've always said, "There's no such thing as back pressure." Its just pressure. Funny thing is, the pressure will always be highest right at the exhaust port if the exhaust system is properly designed.

luv24ds
08-19-2008, 09:16 AM
As I've always said, "There's no such thing as back pressure." Its just pressure. Funny thing is, the pressure will always be highest right at the exhaust port if the exhaust system is properly designed.


That is a good point. I believe mostly we are dealing with semantics in the discussion.

doradox
08-19-2008, 09:21 AM
Funny thing is, the pressure will always be highest right at the exhaust port if the exhaust system is properly designed.

Except when the low pressure part of the the pressure waves are at the exhaust port.

Steve

ozconnection
08-22-2008, 05:06 AM
5 verses 8 so far have said that backpressure in the exhaust is important to maintain low speed engine torque.

Any thoughts from those people?

John Coffey
08-22-2008, 08:05 AM
Except when the low pressure part of the the pressure waves are at the exhaust port

Yes, at very specific rpm points in wave tuning. If you hook up pressure gauges (which I saw done on an engine I had built for me) the readings show higher pressures at the primaries and lower pressures at the tailpipe mostly because the gauges are not fast acting enough to show wave action. Ideally you also see a low pressure point just past the header merge collector or the secondary pipe merge collector. A pressure difference of 1 to 2 psi is ideal.

d240zx2
08-22-2008, 04:11 PM
:dead:Ok, I'm guilty. But after reading the excellent dissertation, I know why I was wrong.

Years ago (60?) my dad was overhauling a lawnmower. Stick with me, now.

Since the contraption was noisy as all get out anyway, I asked why he needed to put the muffler back on it. His reply is muddled in my memory now but it had something to do with burning/damaging the exhaust valve if cold air(relatively speaking) hit the hot valve. Therefore, the exhaust required a muffler to keep cold air from hitting the valve.

That bit of info translated into "backpressure" as I matured and, until now, never put the noggin into gear to examine my thinking.

Thanks for the intellectual stimuli.:love:

Frank

doradox
08-23-2008, 04:40 AM
Yes, at very specific rpm points in wave tuning. If you hook up pressure gauges (which I saw done on an engine I had built for me) the readings show higher pressures at the primaries and lower pressures at the tailpipe mostly because the gauges are not fast acting enough to show wave action. Ideally you also see a low pressure point just past the header merge collector or the secondary pipe merge collector. A pressure difference of 1 to 2 psi is ideal.

Yes I agree, not always.

Steve

ozconnection
08-25-2008, 07:48 PM
I'm wondering how many of those people who responded on the poll with a 'engine needs backpressure' response actually have stock exhaust systems on their cars?

Would that fact alone invalidate their responses in the poll?? "I don't like cheese" and "Have you ever eaten it?" would be my response. Equally, the question could be applied to our exhaust systems too, I think.

Are we getting it all wrong when there is still such a high percentage of people out there how refute the notion of reducing backpressure loses engine torque?

What will it take to convince those who still aren't convinced? Suggested reading and dyno results aren't having the anticipated effect. :ermm:

m4xwellmurd3r
08-27-2008, 12:49 PM
:dead:Ok, I'm guilty. But after reading the excellent dissertation, I know why I was wrong.

Years ago (60?) my dad was overhauling a lawnmower. Stick with me, now.

Since the contraption was noisy as all get out anyway, I asked why he needed to put the muffler back on it. His reply is muddled in my memory now but it had something to do with burning/damaging the exhaust valve if cold air(relatively speaking) hit the hot valve. Therefore, the exhaust required a muffler to keep cold air from hitting the valve.

That bit of info translated into "backpressure" as I matured and, until now, never put the noggin into gear to examine my thinking.

Thanks for the intellectual stimuli.:love:

Frank
ah, yeah, we did that to a friends go-kart and my dad said that if we don't put the muffler back on we'd burn the valve up. the reason being is that the exhaust itself works as a sort of heatsink, directing all the heat away from the valves and such, or something like that.

WingZr0
08-27-2008, 03:04 PM
Just a thought here but which would be "better" then at the
points dicussed out of these four set ups and why?

1.- A 6 into 1 header with single exhaust pipe out back.
2.- A 6 into 2 header going to a sinlge exhaust pipe out back.
3.- A 6 into 1 header with dual exhaust out back.
4.- A 6 into 2 header with dual exhaust back.

~Z~

doradox
08-27-2008, 03:18 PM
Just a thought here but which would be "better" then at the
points dicussed out of these four set ups and why?

1.- A 6 into 1 header with single exhaust pipe out back.
2.- A 6 into 2 header going to a sinlge exhaust pipe out back.
3.- A 6 into 1 header with dual exhaust out back.
4.- A 6 into 2 header with dual exhaust back.

~Z~

Any one could be better depending on the specifics of the exhaust design ( tubing size and length to name two) and what your definition of better is. More top end power? More low end? Works best with cam X, Y, or Z. I think the whole point is that it's not black and white. It's the combination of lots of factors, many of which are not well defined. There's a science to it but there's some dark art to it as well.

Steve

Steve

WingZr0
08-27-2008, 03:37 PM
Any one could be better depending on the specifics of the exhaust design ( tubing size and length to name two) and what your definition of better is. More top end power? More low end? Works best with cam X, Y, or Z. I think the whole point is that it's not black and white. It's the combination of lots of factors, many of which are not well defined. There's a science to it but there's some dark art to it as well.

Steve

Steve


Ok, lets say cam, everything being stock.

Will one set up yeild a neccesary bad result over all?
I'm more of a Drag Strip guy myself just because I see more stop light to
stop light action than a racetrack and prefer low end torqe over
top end.
But at a Road Course I have to say top and speed over anything.

~Z~

doradox
08-27-2008, 05:26 PM
Ok, lets say cam, everything being stock.

Will one set up yeild a neccesary bad result over all?
I'm more of a Drag Strip guy myself just because I see more stop light to
stop light action than a racetrack and prefer low end torqe over
top end.
But at a Road Course I have to say top and speed over anything.

~Z~

If you want someone to design an exhaust system for you try...

http://www.burnsstainless.com/TechArticles/Theory/theory.html

Look at this..

http://www.burnsstainless.com/Xdesign/Race_Engine_Spec__Form/race_engine_spec__form.htm

to get an idea of the complexity of designing a system for a particular engine.

Or just go with what other racers are using. At least you won't be any worse off than they are. :)

Steve

Oiluj
08-27-2008, 06:45 PM
Being one of the "back pressure guys" in the poll, I'll give my thoughts...

1) As has been stated above, I think it's more an issue of semantics, not interpretation or analysis of technical data.

2) If "zero" back pressure is ideal, why have exhaust manifolds and exhaust systems at all? In fact, why don't all race cars have no exhaust systems?

My understanding is that you can "tune" the exhaust system using a combination of variables to maintain flow to help "scavage" the exhaust gases to achieve optimal performance within a specific power band. Like most things, one size does not fit all.

3) Then there is the more "aesthetic" nature of the sound produced and personal preferences. For example, I want a more restrained exhaust note, and don't want my car to sound like a high school kid's car... That will affect the design and effieciency of my exhaust system.

4) Lastly, there's the local noise law issues...Moving violations anyone?

From what I've seen, I believe there is as almost as much art as science to exhaust system design. Having performed fluid flow analysis in the past, I found that sometimes there are almost as many "assumptions" as known or predictive variables in the calculations.

Just my 2 cents...

doradox
08-28-2008, 05:00 AM
Being one of the "back pressure guys" in the poll, I'll give my thoughts...

1) As has been stated above, I think it's more an issue of semantics, not interpretation or analysis of technical data.

2) If "zero" back pressure is ideal, why have exhaust manifolds and exhaust systems at all? In fact, why don't all race cars have no exhaust systems?

My understanding is that you can "tune" the exhaust system using a combination of variables to maintain flow to help "scavage" the exhaust gases to achieve optimal performance within a specific power band. Like most things, one size does not fit all.

3) Then there is the more "aesthetic" nature of the sound produced and personal preferences. For example, I want a more restrained exhaust note, and don't want my car to sound like a high school kid's car... That will affect the design and effieciency of my exhaust system.

4) Lastly, there's the local noise law issues...Moving violations anyone?

From what I've seen, I believe there is as almost as much art as science to exhaust system design. Having performed fluid flow analysis in the past, I found that sometimes there are almost as many "assumptions" as known or predictive variables in the calculations.

Just my 2 cents...

To answer #2, you need an exhaust for several of the reasons you listed. With no manifold at all you can't tune the exhaust for maximum power. It's loud. It causes the failure of exhaust valves. The exhaust gasses go places you don't want them to.

The pressure is an unwanted consequence of designing a system that solves all the other issues. Every design solution is a compromise. It has to fit in the space given to the design engineer, not cost too much, not be too loud or heavy, tune for power at xxxx rpm, keep the cat converter hot, not be too close to combustibles, be easy to manufacture and easy/quick to install, and on and on. So, even though I create "backpressure" in my exhaust, It's something that comes from the other things I want. It's not something I purposely design in.

Steve

John Coffey
08-28-2008, 09:11 AM
2) If "zero" back pressure is ideal, why have exhaust manifolds and exhaust systems at all? In fact, why don't all race cars have no exhaust systems?

Safety mostly. An open exhaust port would pretty much ignite anything in the engine compartment with a foot of the port. And if the rules allow it, most race cars run without an exhaust system, just the headers. Look at Top fuel, Pro Stock, etc.

m4xwellmurd3r
08-29-2008, 09:37 PM
well also because afaik exhaust systems also help pull heat away from the head and valves. without them they burn up

ozconnection
10-01-2008, 07:51 PM
I just checked up on this thread to see how it was going....and it doesn't seem to have gone anywhere for a while.

I was thinking about some sort of simple and practical 'test' that would prove this discussion one way or another.

Grab a potato. Cut it down so it fits snugly in the tailpipe and cut a smallish hole through it so that some of the exhaust gas escapes when the engine is running. Simple.

Of course, when the engine is running now, we have effectively increased 'exhaust system backpressure'.

Take the car for a drive and see how she runs. ;)

Let us know how you get on!!

Force Fed
10-02-2008, 09:22 PM
I think it's more a question of balancing the flow through the engine, than it is about pressures. Too much flow on one side or the other of the cylinder can cause problems or inefficiency.

ozconnection
10-02-2008, 11:03 PM
Yes, that might hold some truth with forced induction.

grantf
10-06-2008, 04:03 PM
i do not know if this pertains, but my dodge van was running really rough with little power until i found a hole in the exhaust manifold, for a quick fix I plugged it up with a bolt and some washers and now it runs great. I was thinking this might be a back pressure issue.

Force Fed
10-06-2008, 07:25 PM
Chevy engines are the same, they run bad when they get an exhaust leak.

ozconnection
10-10-2008, 10:51 PM
i do not know if this pertains, but my dodge van was running really rough with little power until i found a hole in the exhaust manifold, for a quick fix I plugged it up with a bolt and some washers and now it runs great. I was thinking this might be a back pressure issue.

If that were true, the car should've run better not worse. I believe its more to do with the proper pulsing inside the exhaust system which was restored by plugging the hole.

grantf
10-10-2008, 11:27 PM
hu??? I do not understand, It dos run better! Pulsing???

ozconnection
10-11-2008, 03:18 AM
hu??? I do not understand, It dos run better! Pulsing???

Look, I'm no real expert here and a lot of this stuff belongs in the physics lab in some university. What I do know is that there are powerful pressure waves travel up and down the exhaust system while the engine is running.

A hole somewhere in the exhaust system (where it shouldn't be) then dampens this 'good' pulsing. Also, a hole creates turbulent flow in the exhaust pipe or muffler. This turbulent flow will reduce the exhaust flow out of the engine, decreasing its performance.