Grennan's G8 SSV Sportswagon!

[wraith]

I dunno cause of just being text on a page, I can't tell if your being serious or sarcastic.. haha
But imo they are very good which is why I have a one of his systems on my car.
Never heard a negative comment about his exhausts.

Not sarcasm. Seemed like a person really dedicated. Was a magazine article though so who knows. Given who taught him though I wouldn't be surprised.

 

[Reaper]

Congratulations! Delco lifters according to VIN I assume?

Don't go 1 7/8 unless you need to. I get 300rkw and I don't need them, better have velocity to get efficiency (economy) and good low down torque on two tonne wagon. There is a good conversation with NAAF on the matter in a recent post. 3" is purely noise. I agree, hold off on getting an off-the-shelf system for a 6.0, there's quite a bit to it and NOBODY offers the correct solution for daily driving a high performance heavyweight wagon.

But bragging about the biggest zorst is worth an extra 25rwkwanks :thumbsup:.

 

[PIR4TE]

I disagree. From the research I did, with the amount of torque an L98 puts out, 4-1 offers so much more benefit than a Tri-Y.

I have 4-1 1 7/8th Hurricane extractors on mine with a twin 2.5" system, tuned with OTR it made 265rwkw (manual) and is very ballsy at low revs.

It's not so much the benefit of through straight tubes or well developed interference design, the 1 7/8 on standard 6.0 is too big, means at low revs the exit velocity is too fast, no matter what the design.

 

[HamaTime™]

It's not so much the benefit of through straight tubes or well developed interference design, the 1 7/8 on standard 6.0 is too big, means at low revs the exit velocity is too fast, no matter what the design.

On 'standard' 6l, is too big?

Well I defer this debate to NAAF who told me to steer clear of Tri-Y's on a 6L, saying they were a waste of time (and my whole goal was a very streetable car with low down torque/response).

NAAF's response two posts down in your link https://forums.justcommodores.com.au/threads/x-force-v-others-header-sizes.230870#post2604671

 

[Grennan]

Eh, im going 4-1. Dont even know why this debate exists, there was no question what headers I was going.

More the size of the exhaust, but as I suspected, 3 inch is droney dick measuring.

Also, I love driving this thing. Its so smooth, not a sound, comfy as hell. Planted it on the on ramp for the freeway and look up and im doing a silly number and its still just planted, comfy and quiet.

 

[PIR4TE]

On 'standard' 6l, is too big?

Well I defer this debate to NAAF who told me to steer clear of Tri-Y's on a 6L, saying they were a waste of time (and my whole goal was a very streetable car with low down torque/response).

NAAF's response two posts down in your link https://forums.justcommodores.com.au/threads/x-force-v-others-header-sizes.230870#post2604671

NAAF is on the same page, literally. The point is 1 7/8 is overkill, unless you are tuning the stock intake and exhaust system above it's effective operating range (2900 to 4900 rpm) by increasing the engine's volumetric efficiency to about 115% (that's 30%, quite a challenge over stock).

However when you start to tune your car with an OTR, upgraded rods, rockers, springs and valve train to support higher rpm and more lift, you begin to open that VE window suited to that sort of oversized exhaust port CSA. On the 6.0 that's specifically not required until 500-520 bhp, 400+ rwhp (300rkw).

In order to make this power the induction would require 245 - 260 CFM (6100 rpm), and the lift required at the valve to prevent choke would be 0.553" as a minimum, in order to justify the loss using oversized headers versus 1 3/4" header diameter.

All totally achievable whilst retaining AFM, just saying the logical order of things is not to stick a bloody big pipe that will drain your engine for most driving applications until you do the important mods. 1 3/4 however will suit OP's engine and car now and well past 500 hp.

 

[lmoengnr]

NAAF is on the same page, literally. The point is 1 7/8 is overkill, unless you are tuning the stock intake and exhaust system above it's effective operating range (2900 to 4900 rpm) by increasing the engine's volumetric efficiency to about 115% (that's 30%, quite a challenge over stock)

I want to know how you'd get even close to 100% volumetric efficiency out of an NA engine?

 

[Grennan]

First day at work with the new car.

Im honestly a bit surprised, most the people here are import fans but they all said they love it.

Most of the Holden guys here hate the front though. Really seems to be one of those fronts you either love or hate.

 

[GEN3RATD]

Yeah I love Wagons lowered. Will go coilovers this time though.

Will need to wait till I move house before I lower it, my driveway is shocking. When I first got the VX I lost the exhaust tips because it used to scrape all the way. Theres a huge indent in the tarmac outside where my exhaust used to hit reversing out.

Yeah I went tein coilies over bags as well

 

[HamaTime™]

Most of the Holden guys here hate the front though. Really seems to be one of those fronts you either love or hate.

So it seems, aye ari hahaha