Home  |  Forums  |  914 Info  |  Blogs
 
914World.com - The fastest growing online 914 community!
 
Porsche, and the Porsche crest are registered trademarks of Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG. This site is not affiliated with Porsche in any way.
Its only purpose is to provide an online forum for car enthusiasts. All other trademarks are property of their respective owners.
 

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V  1 2 >  
 Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Best Exhaust???, 2.0, or 1.7 stock, or Bursch.
dmenche914
post Oct 16 2004, 10:29 AM
Post #1


Senior Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,212
Joined: 27-February 03
From: California
Member No.: 366
I have a 2.0 liter motor, believe to be stock configuration, 73 or 74 model year D-Jet)

I have two options of exhaust systems available to me. What would be best of these two options? Also reason(s) why one option is better or not. What do you all know?


option 1..... Stainless steel 1.7/1.8 heat exchangers (the ones that kick upwards prior to the muffler) along with an aftermarket bursch pipes and muffler.

option 2..... Stainless steel 2.0 heat exchangers (the ones that go straingt into the muffler) and a stock 73/74 2.0 liter Muffler.

The Bursche pipes and muffler weight is 15 lbs, the big rounded stock 2.0 muffler wieght is 24 lbs. There is no significant weight difference betweent he heat exchangers.

The Bursch pipes are a 4 into 2 into 1 system. (as opposed to 4 into 1 system).

So what is the best choice in this application? Trade offs? and why?

thanks for your inputs!

dave
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SirAndy
post Oct 16 2004, 11:14 AM
Post #2


Resident German
*************************

Group: Admin
Posts: 41,641
Joined: 21-January 03
From: Oakland, Kalifornia
Member No.: 179
Region Association: Northern California
option 1 ...

the difference between the 1.8 and 2.0 SS HEs is minimal, if they're SSIs and the bursch flows much better than the original muffler,
so, i vote for option 1!

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) Andy
User is online!Profile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Mueller
post Oct 16 2004, 11:27 AM
Post #3


914 Freak!
***************

Group: Members
Posts: 17,146
Joined: 4-January 03
From: Antioch, CA
Member No.: 87
Region Association: None
QUOTE
the difference between the 1.8 and 2.0 SS HEs is minimal, if they're SSIs and the bursch flows much better than the original muffler,
so, i vote for option 1!


much better??? didn't Grassroots do a dyno comparison? I thought they said the stock muffler was better than the Bursch????
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dmenche914
post Oct 16 2004, 11:56 AM
Post #4


Senior Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,212
Joined: 27-February 03
From: California
Member No.: 366
Oh, Oh Two respected knowledgable 914'ers and two different opinions. Now I'm more confused!!!!

Maybe each is much better at different rpms???

Yes, I would think the small difference in SS heat exch. bend would make zilch flow difference between the heat exch. types.

So it should come down to flow difference between the post heat exch. pipes/muffler. At least the Busch is 9 lbs less hanging out back than the stock 2.0 muffler.

Anyone got a link to flow data, or have done a conversion so you have seat of the pants data?

Thanks.
dave
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rhodyguy
post Oct 16 2004, 01:02 PM
Post #5


Chimp Sanctuary NW. Check it out.
***************

Group: Members
Posts: 22,080
Joined: 2-March 03
From: Orion's Bell. The BELL!
Member No.: 378
Region Association: Galt's Gulch
the 2.0 willl give you at least 1 other option with regards to exhaust systems.

kevin
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
anthony
post Oct 16 2004, 01:16 PM
Post #6


2270 club
****

Group: Benefactors
Posts: 3,107
Joined: 1-February 03
From: SF Bay Area, CA
Member No.: 218
QUOTE
I thought they said the stock muffler was better than the Bursch????


I've heard in the past that the Bursch just moves the torque/hp curve a little forward towards higher rpms. The difference is minor.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SirAndy
post Oct 16 2004, 01:22 PM
Post #7


Resident German
*************************

Group: Admin
Posts: 41,641
Joined: 21-January 03
From: Oakland, Kalifornia
Member No.: 179
Region Association: Northern California
QUOTE(anthony @ Oct 16 2004, 12:16 PM)
I've heard in the past that the Bursch just moves the torque/hp curve a little forward towards higher rpms. The difference is minor.

that is partially correct ...

a more free flowing exhaust will move the torque/hp curve towards higher rpms.
but it will also increase the peak torque/hp at the same time.

you will lose some low-rpm torque/hp and gain more torque/hp at slightly higher rpms ...

plus, the bursch sounds better than the stock exhaust!
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) Andy
User is online!Profile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Bleyseng
post Oct 16 2004, 01:25 PM
Post #8


Aircooled Baby!
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 13,034
Joined: 27-December 02
From: Seattle, Washington (for now)
Member No.: 24
Region Association: Pacific Northwest
Wrong! the tests showed a 1hp gain at mid rpms with a loss at higher rpms over the stock 2.0l banana muffler.

Best is the 2.0l SSI exchangers and a stock muffler OEM. For sound use the Bursch as it sounds cool and costs less.

Geoff
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Elliot_Cannon
post Oct 16 2004, 01:29 PM
Post #9


Senior Member
***

Group: Retired Members
Posts: 1,922
Joined: 26-March 03
From: Orange County Ca
Member No.: 480
Region Association: None
I think you should go with the one that sounds the best.
Cheers, Elliot
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rog914
post Oct 16 2004, 01:39 PM
Post #10


914 Fanatic
**

Group: Members
Posts: 129
Joined: 5-January 03
From: Reisterstown,Md
Member No.: 93
I've the "Triad" muffler on my 2.0 & like it better than any of the other.

Ralph

74 2.0
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rhodyguy
post Oct 16 2004, 02:03 PM
Post #11


Chimp Sanctuary NW. Check it out.
***************

Group: Members
Posts: 22,080
Joined: 2-March 03
From: Orion's Bell. The BELL!
Member No.: 378
Region Association: Galt's Gulch
that's the "at least 1 other option". off to dave's to put on some carbs.

kevin
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SirAndy
post Oct 16 2004, 02:17 PM
Post #12


Resident German
*************************

Group: Admin
Posts: 41,641
Joined: 21-January 03
From: Oakland, Kalifornia
Member No.: 179
Region Association: Northern California
QUOTE(Bleyseng @ Oct 16 2004, 12:25 PM)
Wrong! the tests showed a 1hp gain at mid rpms with a loss at higher rpms over the stock 2.0l banana muffler.

where is the data ?

i thought they tested a /6 setup?
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/idea.gif) Andy
User is online!Profile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Bleyseng
post Oct 16 2004, 03:20 PM
Post #13


Aircooled Baby!
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 13,034
Joined: 27-December 02
From: Seattle, Washington (for now)
Member No.: 24
Region Association: Pacific Northwest
I don't have that Grassroots mag handy as its stored do to the last effin move.
They dyno tested:
Stock OEM muffler
Bursch(same as stock)
CFR header (best)
That four tip muffler (lost hp)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
RustyWa
post Oct 16 2004, 04:23 PM
Post #14


Working Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 610
Joined: 2-January 03
From: Kent, WA
Member No.: 72
QUOTE(Bleyseng @ Oct 16 2004, 01:20 PM)
I don't have that Grassroots mag handy as its stored do to the last effin move.
They dyno tested:
Stock OEM muffler
Bursch(same as stock)
CFR header (best)
That four tip muffler (lost hp)

To the rescue!


Attached image(s)
Attached Image
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Joe.D
post Oct 16 2004, 06:15 PM
Post #15


MCMLXXIII MCCM
**

Group: Members
Posts: 132
Joined: 16-June 03
From: Southern Maine
Member No.: 830
Just my humble opinion....FWIW.

I have a new Bursch on a 1.8 L-jet and I think its too damned noisy. Even my hard of hearing old neigbor has commented that he has looked outside for the delivery truck when I go by (ouch!) . I just don't enjoy the constant low "drone" at highway speeds with the roof off.

But then, I'm not racing, or even AX. Just daily driver. With what I know now, I wish I'd gone for a stock one, but the money's been spent. Live and learn...

Joe.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jd74914
post Oct 16 2004, 07:09 PM
Post #16


Its alive
****

Group: Members
Posts: 4,780
Joined: 16-February 04
From: CT
Member No.: 1,659
Region Association: North East States
I have to say I've heard the CFR muffler (by CFR you mean the tangerine racing stuff), and know Chris Folley and it sounds awesome. The craftmanship also is great (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smilie_pokal.gif) . I wish I had enough ($$$) to buy one (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wub.gif).

On the question though, my Bursch sounds really good (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dflesburg
post Oct 16 2004, 07:14 PM
Post #17


Senior Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,720
Joined: 6-April 04
From: Warm and Cheerful Centerville Ohio
Member No.: 1,896
Region Association: None
My favorite exhaust was always the Thunderbird exhaust system with the tuned mid pipe.

Wish I could find an old one so I could have it copied.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
MarkV
post Oct 16 2004, 09:52 PM
Post #18


Fear the Jack Stands
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,493
Joined: 15-January 03
From: Sunny Tucson, AZ
Member No.: 154
Region Association: None
I replaced my Bursch with a stock 2 liter banana.

The Bursh was annoying loud. I set off car alarms in the mall parking lot.

The stock banana muffler seems to make better low to mid range torque.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dmenche914
post Oct 16 2004, 10:30 PM
Post #19


Senior Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,212
Joined: 27-February 03
From: California
Member No.: 366
i had the Bursch system on my 1.7 engine, liked the sound, and the fact i could set off car alarms with it!


Looks like the difference is minimal with the Bursch, the sound was ok by me, I am leaning towards the Bursch, also, as it is 9 lbs lighter also.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Joe Ricard
post Oct 17 2004, 06:08 AM
Post #20


CUMONIWANNARACEU
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 6,811
Joined: 5-January 03
From: Gautier, MS
Member No.: 92
Well depending on which SSI model you have. You need the matching Muffler. 1.7 1.8 use the same muffler stock and Bursch. 2.0L with the straight SSI requires 2.0L Muffler stock for tooling around town probably better. Anything over 4000 RPM and Bursch, Herry Hunter Header, or CFR Header are where the power and of course noise is.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
« Next Oldest · 914World Garage · Next Newest »
 

2 Pages V  1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Display Mode: Standard · Switch to: Linear+ · Switch to: Outline

Track this topic · Email this topic · Print this topic · Subscribe to this forum

- Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 17th May 2024 - 09:32 PM
Invision Power Board v9.1.4 © 2024  IPS, Inc.
All rights reserved 914World.com © since 2002
914World.com is the fastest growing online 914 community!
We have it all, classifieds, events, forums, vendors, parts, autocross, racing, technical articles, events calendar, newsletter, restoration, gallery, archives, history and more for your Porsche 914 ...