Shane F. Ingate wrote:
> Speaking with a fellow who races TR6s locally, he
> suggested dumping the twin-down-pipe design that exist
> for the later TR6s, and use the single-down-pipe design
> used in the early cars ...
> This certainly makes economic sense; the single-pipe
> system being considerably less expensive than the two-pipe.
> This begs the question: why did Triumph switch to the two-pipe
> system? Was it a "backward" step?
I believe that Triumph switched to the two-pipe system to
extract *more* performance from the TR6 engine, so as to
help counteract the tend towards less and less power, as
brought upon by reduced compression, emissions controls,
etc. The double-pipe system is definitely worth a few
HP over the earlier stock system. (The intake manifold
was also changed to flow better -- this makes a significant
difference, too...)
However, I assume that you would be using a header with
your system. Even though the stock double pipe system
is a major improvement over the stock single pipe system,
I have also heard that a 6-3-1 header, going into a single
2.5" pipe is the "best" exhaust system for the TR6. It
sounds like this is what you've been planning to use.
So, as I see it, in order of preference for TR6 exhaust:
1) 6-3-1 header, into single large pipe
2) stock late exhaust system (double pipe)
3) stock early exhaust system.
> As for what header to use, I am leaning toward the
> horrendously expensive TRF SS item that is supposedly
> modeled after "Kas" Kastner's cars (although I'd prefer a
> Jet-Hot coated steel item). The Monzas sound like too much
> hard work to get them to fit, and the Longflows dont look
> "right". The muffler I'll have made up with 2.5" pipe and
> SuperTrapp muffler and baffles.
--ken
'70 TR6, w/"stock" late double-pipe exhaust system
'74 TR6, w/stock late manifold and Monza exhaust
--
Kenneth B. Streeter | EMAIL: streeter@sanders.com
Sanders, PTP2-A001 |
PO Box 868 | Voice: (603) 885-9604
Nashua, NH 03061 | Fax: (603) 885-0631
|