Low mount vs. high mount can
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
I think the aesthetics ARE the only difference. I'm no expert but I have had my Trident exhaust (see the 02-02 955I forum) in both configurations. The low mount seemed a bit louder and I'm not sure why, but in the end I stuck with the high mount because it looked better IMO. Bike ran the same in both configurations.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
opcorn:
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
opcorn:
Joined
·
239 Posts
The low mount system was louder b/c it was less restrictive i.e. the gases traveled through less piping to get outside. Low mounts generally weigh less not to mention what they do for mass centralization. I'd say that from a performance standpoint, low mounts are superior to high mount systems.
-Derek
-Derek
Joined
·
130 Posts
My question is how do the sounds compare? Does the high mount have a throatier growl to it? That is what I am in search of.
I think the growl was the same in both configurations on my bike. Just louder when low.
Here is a quick flick of my bike's exhaust. I know its kinda queer but a buddy wanted me to send him a sound vid a couple of days ago and I was in a hurry to do it (notice my youngest who is thoroughly infatuated with Speedy at the age of 1. We've nicknamed her "Techy" because she has an uncanny knack for getting anything electronic to work.)
Here is a quick flick of my bike's exhaust. I know its kinda queer but a buddy wanted me to send him a sound vid a couple of days ago and I was in a hurry to do it (notice my youngest who is thoroughly infatuated with Speedy at the age of 1. We've nicknamed her "Techy" because she has an uncanny knack for getting anything electronic to work.)
For that year speed 3 the undertail exhaust is the only way to go. It makes what now seems like a bulbous fat ass look slimmer. it is funny those old model speed triples were my fantasy at one time. I saw one at the dealership the other day and it almost looks like a sport tourer compared to the new style. time and people change i guess.
Joined
·
3,665 Posts
Generally speaking, the low mount systems use a shorter midipe. This can make them louder due to the sound pulses not dissipating as much as with a longer midpipe. Slight bends in the pipes can also alter the shape of the exhaust pulses - making them sound a bit different as they enter the silencers.tomstumble said:
Joined
·
3,665 Posts
In many cases, yes.
The Zard silencer seems to be the most common low mount design on S3s today. There are only a few dyno graphs out there for them, but each one I have seen loses a bit of low end torque.
When Avi8or tuned his Zard full system, he was forced to reduce fuel at lower rpm in order to get best power and engine response.
On engines with higher cam timing and higher head flow, a shorter collector length is less noticeable - less torque to lose, and more high end gains are possible - if the flow allows it.
The Zard silencer seems to be the most common low mount design on S3s today. There are only a few dyno graphs out there for them, but each one I have seen loses a bit of low end torque.
When Avi8or tuned his Zard full system, he was forced to reduce fuel at lower rpm in order to get best power and engine response.
On engines with higher cam timing and higher head flow, a shorter collector length is less noticeable - less torque to lose, and more high end gains are possible - if the flow allows it.
Joined
·
3,665 Posts
Think of it this way, up to a point, the longer the mid-pipe, the less loss of low end.
The Mivv looks like a practical balance between stock and the Zard. But I have no idea what the Mivv produces for torque. I've never seen a dyno chart.
If the cams in the S3 were longer duration, then the shorties would be better - IMHO.
The Mivv looks like a practical balance between stock and the Zard. But I have no idea what the Mivv produces for torque. I've never seen a dyno chart.
If the cams in the S3 were longer duration, then the shorties would be better - IMHO.
Joined
·
239 Posts
I can't cut a paste this PDF but if you go to the link it shows sustantial gains everywhere. ??With just a slip on?? ???
http://www.mivv.it/public/grafici/dynochart_T005.pdf
http://www.mivv.it/public/grafici/dynochart_T005.pdf
G
Guest
·that chart don't make sense. ???
Joined
·
239 Posts
I know. But it's supposed to be real. Look at these bench tests...
http://www.mivv.it/moto_usa/news_apri.asp?cn=443
http://www.mivv.it/moto_usa/news_apri.asp?cn=443
Joined
·
3,665 Posts
Number one, never trust a manufacturer's dyno sheets.
I can show you tests of the same system that have bigger differences than Mivv shows.
But the peak numbers are what I would expect with ANY system without tuning. It takes fuel to make power if you have already added flow.
Do you want to compare STOCK silencers (with catalysts), to aftermarket silencers, or do you want to compare different aftermarket exhaust designs.
Like I said before, of the low mount designs, the Mivv looks like a relatively decent design, with a short midpipe. This is one of the shorties that interest me. I would love to see one tuned well and learn how it performs.
I can show you tests of the same system that have bigger differences than Mivv shows.
But the peak numbers are what I would expect with ANY system without tuning. It takes fuel to make power if you have already added flow.
Do you want to compare STOCK silencers (with catalysts), to aftermarket silencers, or do you want to compare different aftermarket exhaust designs.
Like I said before, of the low mount designs, the Mivv looks like a relatively decent design, with a short midpipe. This is one of the shorties that interest me. I would love to see one tuned well and learn how it performs.
Joined
·
3,665 Posts
The TORS tune will work, but real tuning via TuneBoy or PCIII will release more power - especially in the midrange. You can always do tuning later.
Do it! Get the Mivv. I dare ya!
Do it! Get the Mivv. I dare ya!
Joined
·
17,244 Posts
ummmmmmm.... YES, YES, YES!!! :violent1: ;DGuvna said:
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
