6-3-1 or 6-2-1

Message

docdelete · #1 Post by **docdelete** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 6:11 pm

Right - here\'s one for the BHP experts... Which would be best for on-road performance (not race) - a 6-3-1 manifold feeding into a conventional system with only the rear silencer OR a 6-2-1 manifold modified to feed into a bespoke twin system with two rear silencers?? The latter would look better - fitting a challenge... (I\'ve got both 6-3-1 and 6-2-1 manifolds in my parts bin so initial cost is not an issue). Opinions anyone? Cheers, Ken.

#2 Post by **Alan Chatterton** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 12:06 am

Ken,
Neither!!
The 6>2>1 robs bottom end torque. Its better than standard but the 6>3>1 is the best route to go. Masses of bottom end torque and plenty of puff at the top end.
If it were me, I would put a 6>3>1 onto a sports system, straight through centre section (no silencers) and a witor back box.
BTW, which ever manifold you use, can we do a deal for the one you don\'t use?!?!
 

JohnD · #3 Post by **JohnD** » Sun Nov 12, 2006 9:37 pm

Ken,
Agree with Alan.
But why not have both the 631 AND the double back boxes?
John

docdelete · #4 Post by **docdelete** » Wed Nov 22, 2006 7:07 pm

Thanks for the replies - sorry I\'m late in getting back, my email notifications seem to have gone astray. JohnD - I guess I thought with the 6-2-1 already having a \"2\" bit in it this would be better to facilitate two full length pipes going to the back, not just an artificial split near the back for cosmetic reasons - like a lot of the FWD boyracer fraternity employ. At the end of the day, however, striving for a twin system is, I agree, nothing about performance and more about appearance BUT I wouldn\'t do it if it means *reducing* BHP! Alan - odds are that I won\'t be using the 6-2 manifolds. They are actually in two parts, with no 2-1 section, and they are black-enamelled steel but in great condition. If they\'re any good to you please make me an offer on docdelete at gmail.com Cheers, Ken.