Where did you purchase the Lotus Type 131 CF door sills from?
📓 Journals Adding Lightness
- Thread starter Eagle7
- Start date
This prefix is only usable in the Lotus Emira Journals forum.
Wow! That's impressive.
Not really.
I made a few bits to complete the CF look by getting rid of the anodised alloy, piano black, and yellow stuff that I didn't like.
Attachments
Nice work!
If anyones interested, the journey is laid out here:
https://www.emiraforum.com/threads/my-dv-emira-and-modifications.3798/
https://www.emiraforum.com/threads/my-dv-emira-and-modifications.3798/
- Thread starter
- #467
I sent the drawing to @Aerie and I'm waiting for Jason to respond. Hopefully he's still there. I don't know that he's on this forum all that much anymore. Hopefully he'll respond soon. If he doesn't, I might share the drawing on here. It'll absolutely work, I just don't know about the muffler section.
Talk about true dual. More like dual true heroes! Can’t wait to see how these turn out
Hi @Eagle7 it is from the UAE.. so tariffs are none or maybe 10% from here cant remember
- Thread starter
- #474
Well I sent the drawing to @Aerie, but Jason sent back pictures of the stock setup and said it couldn't be done. I sent more info for him on what to do to make it work, but he hasn't responded in a week, so I'm going to post my drawing in here. This is a system that would use the factory exhaust manifolds as-is. It replaces the y-pipe and everything on back. If you wanted to use shorty headers (I was thinking the ones Aerie makes or @GRP), this same setup would work, you just have to replace the red-colored pipe sections with 200 cell sport cats that would need to be welded up to pipes matching those in the drawing so they would connect right up. You would only need one configuration; it would work for either side, just flip it for left or right.
The key to making this work is to remove the factory mounting bracket that the y-pipe connects to, as it's blocking the access through the frame opening (as shown below with the red arrows). That will leave enough room for the cross over section to fit. That was the area that Jason showed which he thought wouldn't work, but if you remove and replace that factory bracket, there's enough room.
A new bracket needs to be made that would bolt onto the same spot the factory bracket does (where the left red arrow is pointing to above), and that would be how you secure the cross over section.
I just drew two images on the drawing to indicate where mufflers would go, but a different arrangement could be fabricated if you wanted to have a valved bypass. A dual connector cable would need to be made that connects two bypass valves to the one factory connector, so the drive modes (Tour, Sport, Track) would work the same as stock. The whole thing would still just connect to the two red pipe sections, or sports cats, depending on the setup. What's nice about this system is you could just get the dual exhaust and mufflers, then later add the shorty headers and cats if you wanted to. Everything is designed to be modular in that regard.
Obviously this could be done in either stainless steel (less expensive), or titanium (more expensive) for weight reduction. I didn't draw it, but I was thinking if the mufflers were flat cans, they could be tilted up at an angle, so the entrance is at the lower end, and the exit is higher which would make it easier to pair up the exhaust pipes to fit in the factory exhaust tips. This would also aid in airflow up and through the muffler section to help manage heat output.
With a true dual exhaust system with cross over, even with the factory exhaust manifolds, it should unlock about 10-15 hp and sound a LOT better. It would add more torque too. With shorty headers (even with sports cats added), it would unlock somewhere around 20-30 hp, but might require a JB4 tune or custom ECU tune. You'd have to test it on a stock car with the factory ECU to see if it works without a CEL or error message. The cats would be required to run on the street, but for race only you could leave them off, but that would definitely require a tune.
Great work! Looks very good.. indeed the x pipe area was the only bottle neck and we also have designed this in exact the same place where it should be. For the rear part we have looked ar various options like valves/none valved.
- Thread starter
- #477
I can't remember where (it might have been Aerie or Valvetronic), but there was a post that showed the full headers with y-pipe and titanium exhaust delivered 21 hp on a dyno. The y-pipe is the problem. It's forcing 6 cylinders to output into a single pipe, which creates a lot of back-pressure. Even with the headers which helps, the y-pipe is still a bottleneck.
With a true dual and cross over, there's only 3 outputs per side, with the crossover giving even more flexibility to balance the exhaust output pulses. With less back pressure, that enables a more complete evacuation of the exhaust from the piston chamber, which makes room for more fresh air and fuel when the intake valve opens, and a cleaner mix. This is where the extra power comes from. If they were able to achieve 21 hp with the y-pipe, a true dual and cross over is going to be even better, which is why I gave the range estimate of 20-30 hp.
- Thread starter
- #478
I haven't been able to drive as much as I'd like to, but today I was out driving around and I noticed the car suddenly seemed to be pulling a lot stronger. I've been driving around on Map 2 for about 2 weeks now, and I look at the trip odometer and yep... it's been 106 miles since I filled up with 93 and switched to Map 2. 100 miles seems to be the magic number where the car (or mine at least) really starts to adjust to a significant change of any kind. When I first filled up and switched to Map 2, I noticed an immediate improvement of course, but today it felt like that much more again.
Another thing I noticed was when I was out on the interstate doing 80 in Sport mode, the mpg on the dash was showing 23.6. As I was driving along I wondered how much Sport mode was costing me, so I switched to Tour mode to see what the difference was, and to my surprise it went down! It dropped to 21.5 mpg. All I had done was switch to Tour mode, I was still doing 80. So apparently, Sport mode in Map 2 with 93 is more efficient than Tour mode which was a nice surprise since the car sounds much better in Sport mode.
Another thing I noticed was when I was out on the interstate doing 80 in Sport mode, the mpg on the dash was showing 23.6. As I was driving along I wondered how much Sport mode was costing me, so I switched to Tour mode to see what the difference was, and to my surprise it went down! It dropped to 21.5 mpg. All I had done was switch to Tour mode, I was still doing 80. So apparently, Sport mode in Map 2 with 93 is more efficient than Tour mode which was a nice surprise since the car sounds much better in Sport mode.
geoffbland
Emira Fanatic
Weird? The driving mode only affects throttle response, traction control and exhaust valve/sound. As far as I know there's no reason for it to affect the engine efficiency. Does it do this consistently? I'll have to try it myself - a nice excuse for a drive
- Thread starter
- #480
Okay here's the dyno results. I had found a Shell station that advertised 93 octane V-Power Nitro+, so I drove 2 hours to fill up with it. The first time I still had a quarter tank of 91, so it was a mix. I drove that tank down to 1/2, and went back and filled up again. Went to the dyno shop this morning and here are the results.
The original stock baseline dyno showed 368.9 hp and 302.2 FtLb of torque. That was right after the break-in period last year.
The last dyno I did with the JB4, I still had the 3rd cat. Here's that result for comparison:
Today's results include the 3rd cat delete, and supposedly 93 octane gas. I say supposedly because the dyno chart showed it to be otherwise. Although the pump said 93, it looks like it was maybe 92 at best. The red line was the last JB4 dyno with the 3rd cat. I had pulls for all 3 maps, 0, 1 and 2. Map 1 is basically like the previous Map 1 dyno run, the only difference being this time it's with the 3rd cat delete. There's a gain of 5 hp and 9 FtLb of torque.
Comparing Map 0 (JB4 off) to Map 1 shows a gain of 18.4 hp and 6.5 FtLb of torque for Map 1. We did two Map 2 pulls with the best being 398.9 hp and 321.5 FtLb of torque, which is only 2.7 hp more than Map 1, and the torque is even down 5 FtLb. Surprisingly, Map 1 actually gave the best results, which tells me the gas is not 93. It feels better torque-wise, but certainly not the big gain Map 2 should be delivering.
Converting for the drivetrain loss for my car, 398.9 hp to the rear wheels is equal to 431.7 at the crank. The price of dynos went up too. It used to be $154, now it's $175, so even if I find some actual 93 I probably won't do another run. These dyno runs are starting to add up. I logged the run so I'm going to send it to Burger, but I think it was the gas. Honestly it looks like most of the gain was from the 3rd cat delete, which confirms that the exhaust system is the bottleneck. They gave me the number of a local guy who's supposed to be really good at fabricating exhaust systems, so I'm going to see what that would cost.
The original stock baseline dyno showed 368.9 hp and 302.2 FtLb of torque. That was right after the break-in period last year.
The last dyno I did with the JB4, I still had the 3rd cat. Here's that result for comparison:
Today's results include the 3rd cat delete, and supposedly 93 octane gas. I say supposedly because the dyno chart showed it to be otherwise. Although the pump said 93, it looks like it was maybe 92 at best. The red line was the last JB4 dyno with the 3rd cat. I had pulls for all 3 maps, 0, 1 and 2. Map 1 is basically like the previous Map 1 dyno run, the only difference being this time it's with the 3rd cat delete. There's a gain of 5 hp and 9 FtLb of torque.
Comparing Map 0 (JB4 off) to Map 1 shows a gain of 18.4 hp and 6.5 FtLb of torque for Map 1. We did two Map 2 pulls with the best being 398.9 hp and 321.5 FtLb of torque, which is only 2.7 hp more than Map 1, and the torque is even down 5 FtLb. Surprisingly, Map 1 actually gave the best results, which tells me the gas is not 93. It feels better torque-wise, but certainly not the big gain Map 2 should be delivering.
Converting for the drivetrain loss for my car, 398.9 hp to the rear wheels is equal to 431.7 at the crank. The price of dynos went up too. It used to be $154, now it's $175, so even if I find some actual 93 I probably won't do another run. These dyno runs are starting to add up. I logged the run so I'm going to send it to Burger, but I think it was the gas. Honestly it looks like most of the gain was from the 3rd cat delete, which confirms that the exhaust system is the bottleneck. They gave me the number of a local guy who's supposed to be really good at fabricating exhaust systems, so I'm going to see what that would cost.
Create an account or login to comment
Join now to leave a comment enjoy browsing the site ad-free!
Create account
Create an account on our community. It's easy!
Log in
Already have an account? Log in here.
Emira Forum Images
Emira Forum Images
