Are the UUC Exhaust numbers correct?

[Tai Pham]

I was looking through KO performace looking for an exhaust with my next paycheck. I was almost 100% sure that I was going with AA but when comparing the numbers with UUC's V2, I was a little dissapointed to find out that AA was getting around 4hp and 4lb of torque while UUC was pushing 6hp and 10lb of torque. Do these numbers sound right? If they are then I am definately going with UUC. The UUC is also 10lbs lighter to boot.:dunno

[Ron17]

I'm a little puzzled on that. AA's site lists only a 4/4 gain, using a stock '96 M3 as their test car.

However, if you'll go to the Eurospeed Perf. site and look at their exhaust shoot-out ( http://www.eurospeedperformance.com/exhaustdynox.htm ), you'll see that with their test car, a stock '95 M3, they were gaining around 11/13 -- at the wheels.

Perhaps it's an OBDI vs. OBDII issue? This might make sense as the prevailing wisdom is that OBDI M3's are more receptive to mods than OBDII. :dunno

[Replicant]

I would not trust AA's non-independent numbers when you have real numbers put out by a fully independent source that physically changed the exhaust on the exact same car without ever taking it off the dyno so there is no room for error.

[Rob Levinson]

This might help a bit... European Car, January 2003 issue:

http://www.europeancarweb.com/tech/0301ec_techbmw/index.html

Note that regarding fitment, System•U v.2 addresses the slight problem.

[hatnlvr]

So Rob when is UUC releasing the pulley set for E36 M3's???:dunno

[Tai Pham]

Originally posted by Rob Levinson
This might help a bit... European Car, January 2003 issue:

http://www.europeancarweb.com/tech/0301ec_techbmw/index.html

Note that regarding fitment, System•U v.2 addresses the slight problem.

Is there a reason why the numbers quoted on KO performance in regards to power gains of the v.2 different then the numbers on the website you provided. I am aware that temperature, location, car, etc. are all determinants in the HP gain but why are the numers so different?

[Ron17]

Yes, I am curious about this, also. We're seeing numbers that are all over the place from one report to the next. This is with the same exhaust. All numbers are *supposedly* at the wheels, also, so loss corrections don't come into play.

I'd like to find a definative answer somewhere, because it would really help my decision-making process.

Can anyone shed any light on why the results are so scattered? And if so, can you tell us which results to put more faith in?

:help:

[SG_M3]

Originally posted by Tai Pham
Is there a reason why the numbers quoted on KO performance in regards to power gains of the v.2 different then the numbers on the website you provided. I am aware that temperature, location, car, etc. are all determinants in the HP gain but why are the numers so different?

Its only 2hp and 5lb tq. All cat-backs are all almost the same, look more the sound you want, and less about the power gains.

[b0rf]

Most well made catback exhausts perform exactly the same, within 5rwhp of eachother.

Another reason AA's numbers are low is because they use a Mustang Dyno--NOT a dynojet.

[Cru Jones]

Originally posted by Rob Levinson
This might help a bit... European Car, January 2003 issue:

http://www.europeancarweb.com/tech/0301ec_techbmw/index.html

Note that regarding fitment, System•U v.2 addresses the slight problem.

Thanks for the link. Good reading!!!

[Tai Pham]

Originally posted by b0rf
Most well made catback exhausts perform exactly the same, within 5rwhp of eachother.

Another reason AA's numbers are low is because they use a Mustang Dyno--NOT a dynojet.

What's the difference between the mustang dyno and the dynojet?

[SG_M3]

Originally posted by Tai Pham
What's the difference between the mustang dyno and the dynojet?

http://www.aatuning.com/dyno/MustangVsDynojet.asp