Had some time this week to finish mounting the tank and start on the wiring.
For the wiring, I used a set of weatherpack connectors. They are clean looking and allow for easy remove/install. Very simple to use, but you do need a crimper for them if you want to crimp them correctly. You can get a connector set on ebay for about 30 bucks.
First things first, had to find where I wanted to route the wiring and make it so I don't have to cut up the carpet. The battery is behind the rear drivers-side wheel, I planned to route the wiring as close as possible.
If using a gromment and are unsure what size hole to drill, it's pretty simple. You don't really need any fancy tools, just a set of drill bits and a drill. I used a caliper to simplify things.
I measured the outside diameter and then the inner outside diameter. Find a drill bit that is as close to the inside diameter without going past the outside diameter and there you go. The closer you go the tighter the fit. The trunk in these cars are fiberglass, so for a clean cut, set the drill on fastest setting, but use very little pressure when drilling. Too much pressure and you'll tear up the fiberglass. After it's drilled install the grommet, I usually use a small flat head screwdriver.
It happened to have a nice channel so the wiring will lay in there nicely without getting kinked or smushed. This is going to work great!!
For installing the connectors, all you do is slip on the little rubber seals over the wiring, strip about a 3/8" off, insert a male/female end, crimp, then insert into connector.
__________________
Castellano TT System - Evolution Series
Last edited by Twinscrewd; December 24th, 2012 at 01:11 PM.
I really don't care for strands of wiring hanging out, so I usually cover it with some sort of covering and wrap the ends with electrical tape or tie wraps, this really gives everything a clean look.
I put some black rtv around the wiring as well, just some cheap insurance to prevent the water from leaking out. Pull the wiring in and out and twist to get a good coating around them.
Now for the tank mounting.
I installed some washers on both the top inside and some larger fender washers on the bottom with a rubber washer under the fender washer. This will give it a little more surface area when you tighten the bolts to avoid messing up the fiberglass.
I had to drill some other holes on the forward mount tabs as you can see and trim some of the end off the outside corners. The tank shop accidently drilled the holes for me, they were too close to the wall. Oh well...
Finally finished with the mounting of the tank. I'm not going to lie, the forward bolts were a little difficult to install. Not much space to get your hand in there, but the fit was very nice when complete.
Here's a pic of the outlet and return for the tank. My little template worked out pretty good for matching them up.
Borrowed this from the wifey to clean up all the fingerprints on the tank. Works great on stainless and aluminum.
Last edited by Twinscrewd; December 24th, 2012 at 01:16 PM.
You guys should dyno an OEM car with those manifolds with some connectors to the side sill exhaust. Give it an A to B test.
A nice set of tubular headers can pick up 40 WHP on a Gen II car over a stock set of manifolds at only 400-440 WHP or so anyways. Let's call that 10% for the numbers people.
What's that equate to on an 800 WHP car. Hmm. Just food for thought.
Those long tube headers cannot be compared to the shorty headers used on turbo cars or factory engines. We aren't dealing with scavenging here like an NA car. The design goals/constraints are different with a turbo header. As such, I expect these to work marvelously. Previous CPE kits laid down more power/psi than just about anything else I've seen outside of full race builds, so I'm not overly concerned about it.
Last edited by The Former PFR; December 24th, 2012 at 03:24 PM.
Those long tube headers cannot be compared to the shorty headers used on turbo cars. We aren't dealing with scavenging here like an NA car. The design goals/constraints are different with a turbo header. As such, I expect these to work marvelously. Previous CPE kits laid down more power/psi than just about anything else I've seen outside of full race builds, so I'm not overly concerned about it.
I disagree wholeheartedly, but see my above post. These have a definite place into the market, and I think they will do quite well if offered for sale a la carte.
I have yet to ever see a convincing argument for shorty headers vs. quality manifolds. They look nicer...that's about it. N/A the performance differences are usually in the minutia...7-10 HP if you're lucky against the worst designed manifolds. This is even more true with milder cams. There the effect is almost entirely backpressure and the turbo dominates this. However, in the manifold's favor, being able to minimize entropy generation over the port by keeping the diameter/volume smaller helps here (backpressure seen in the chamber) and the economies of pipe distance to the turbine afforded by a cast design allows this smaller primary sizing with less impact on backpressure.
That said, I know this is largely a religious argument and I've seen your fabricated work...it's beautiful. I doubt I'll convince you and you're not gonna convince me, so I'll happily agree to disagree on this one.
I have yet to ever see a convincing argument for shorty headers vs. quality manifolds. They look nicer...that's about it. N/A the performance differences are usually in the minutia...7-10 HP if you're lucky against the worst designed manifolds. This is even more true with milder cams. There the effect is almost entirely backpressure and the turbo dominates this. However, being able to minimize entropy generation over the port by keeping the diameter/volume smaller helps here and the economies of pipe distance to the turbine afforded by a cast design allows this smaller primary sizing with less impact on backpressure.
That said, I know this is largely a religious argument and I've seen your fabricated work...it's beautiful. I doubt I'll convince you and you're not gonna convince me, so I'll happily agree to disagree on this one.
I'll preface this: I mean zero disrespect to the manifolds being presented. I stand by my statement that they absolutely serve their place in this market and are a welcome replacement for the widespread usage of stock manifolds.
I have no reason to do any convincing, or arguing. Real world datalogs confirm that there are definitive advantages to a well done tubular header over alternative options on a turbo car.
I'm not regurgitating an internet post or a book, and not saying you are either Cory.
I would agree that if you can do a really bitchin' header...it will make better power than our cast manifolds. That said, I don't think we could really do an optimum header in that space and still maintain our other desired design attributes, not to mention my concerns with durability, packaging, heat in the compartment etc. Here is an interesting test (on an internet post):
Maybe 20 RWHP advantage on an 800 RWHP car? Granted, on a Viper you're gating more of that exhaust so the effect may be a little different. As a note on other tests, people always test on the same turbo, vs. an equalized combination. All the tests I can find except this one have the cast spooling sooner then dying up top. Well if I see, that, I'm gonna go bigger on the hotside of the cast or smaller on the tubular and try to equalize the low end and then see where the top end falls. This one seems very equal in all aspects (despite using the same turbo) other than peak numbers and I think represents a well matched comparison of the technologies.
Last edited by The Former PFR; December 24th, 2012 at 08:01 PM.
Honestly, I agree with a lot of the points above by Aaron and Cory, but one important factor nobody has mentioned is the packaging aspect.
Sure, on an all out build like Lee Saunders' car where the entire front end has been redesigned to accomodate the turbos to be placed where the radiator used to go and such, from the merge point to the turbos there is plenty of room to run gentle, tangentially cut bends into the turbine housing inlet.............
Now we are talking about doing a footwell setup or side mounted turbo placement like 99% of the turbo builds we have seen here including some pretty mega $$$ builds, we are talking about a different animal. The fabricated merge collector footwell builds end up with such a short distance from the merge collector outlet to the turbo that the bends going into the turbo need to be non-tangential ie cheated or truncated cuts to fit everything in the remaining space. I see the extra bends in the tubular headers combined with the truncated cuts as a definite mark against the overall efficiency of the system.
I see the much fewer bends(with expanding radius, not possible with mandrell bends) of the casting combined with the super compact merge point that is only 3" below the exhaust port long axis center line giving extreme lattitude in regards to how smooth and clean the tangentially cut piping can be from the merge point to the turbo.
As far as some real world numbers are concerned, one of my older front mount cars made 1385 RWHP on 18 PSI with my old log manifolds and the old cast 76mm compressor wheels with a GTS exhaust wheel and AEM. I know of a more recent Viper that had a beautiful set of fabricated merge collectors tubular manifolds with the latest, greatest monster Tial exhaust housings and Billet 82mm compressor wheels that made 40 more RWHP on 1 less PSI. If you take the turbos out of the equation, there is very little difference between the fabricated tubular manifold with merge collectors and the fabricated log manifold with the anti reversion steps inside.
I believe in less bends with super short piping to maximize the exhaust pulse energy that is the driving force for super quick spooling of the turbos. I also believe in the anti-reversion steps inside that minimize the interference of the sonic pulses with the exhaust gas pulses going to spool the turbo.
You believe in fabricated tubular headers with merge collectors.
Both are different ways to skin the cat. I believe my way is a more favorable way to package anything that has the space constraints that are eliminated by an all out build.
There is no doubt that a cast manifold will greatly outlast a fabricated tubular manifold by a considerable margin.
My cast manifolds are beautiful and will work as well as anything in existence for a footwell or side mount twin turbo system for the Viper IMO.
They are universal for Gen 1-5.
I can't wait to see how well they work on Eugene's car and the big Gen 4 TT build I am working on at the moment!
Honestly, I agree with a lot of the points above by Aaron and Cory, but one important factor nobody has mentioned is the packaging aspect.
Sure, on an all out build like Lee Saunders' car where the entire front end has been redesigned to accomodate the turbos to be placed where the radiator used to go and such, from the merge point to the turbos there is plenty of room to run gentle, tangentially cut bends into the turbine housing inlet.............
Now we are talking about doing a footwell setup or side mounted turbo placement like 99% of the turbo builds we have seen here including some pretty mega $$$ builds, we are talking about a different animal. The fabricated merge collector footwell builds end up with such a short distance from the merge collector outlet to the turbo that the bends going into the turbo need to be non-tangential ie cheated or truncated cuts to fit everything in the remaining space. I see the extra bends in the tubular headers combined with the truncated cuts as a definite mark against the overall efficiency of the system.
I see the much fewer bends(with expanding radius, not possible with mandrell bends) of the casting combined with the super compact merge point that is only 3" below the exhaust port long axis center line giving extreme lattitude in regards to how smooth and clean the tangentially cut piping can be from the merge point to the turbo.
As far as some real world numbers are concerned, one of my older front mount cars made 1385 RWHP on 18 PSI with my old log manifolds and the old cast 76mm compressor wheels with a GTS exhaust wheel and AEM. I know of a more recent Viper that had a beautiful set of fabricated merge collectors tubular manifolds with the latest, greatest monster Tial exhaust housings and Billet 82mm compressor wheels that made 40 more RWHP on 1 less PSI. If you take the turbos out of the equation, there is very little difference between the fabricated tubular manifold with merge collectors and the fabricated log manifold with the anti reversion steps inside.
I believe in less bends with super short piping to maximize the exhaust pulse energy that is the driving force for super quick spooling of the turbos. I also believe in the anti-reversion steps inside that minimize the interference of the sonic pulses with the exhaust gas pulses going to spool the turbo.
You believe in fabricated tubular headers with merge collectors.
Both are different ways to skin the cat. I believe my way is a more favorable way to package anything that has the space constraints that are eliminated by an all out build.
There is no doubt that a cast manifold will greatly outlast a fabricated tubular manifold by a considerable margin.
My cast manifolds are beautiful and will work as well as anything in existence for a footwell or side mount twin turbo system for the Viper IMO.
They are universal for Gen 1-5.
I can't wait to see how well they work on Eugene's car and the big Gen 4 TT build I am working on at the moment!
Peace out!
I will restate it again: the CPE cast manifolds are a great fit for the substitution of using stock exhaust manifolds on TT systems. It perfectly fits the bill for a sellable product that will fit every time and work without issue for both the producer and the consumer. I don't think anyone has a leg to stand on to argue that. I think it's great that you guys have followed through on it.
There is plenty of room to do a nice hotside turbo system, footwell or thereabouts mounted, utilizing a real tubular header and not sacrificing the quality of the secondary or the wastegate placement on a gen II/III. It's tough on a III, but possible.
It takes time, patience, and skill. Those three combined become expensive if you're paying someone for it which is exactly why, once again, these cast manifolds serve a distinct purpose to the Viper market. Kudos to you for bringing it to reality, it's a surprise that other companies vying for the bolt on business didn't go this way.
Comparing two cars on two different dynos, with two different turbos, with two different engine builders, with two different years of completion, with two different intake manifolds, cams, EMS systems, and amount of wear on the drivers side bolster is not a valid representation of the difference in available modernized turbo and system technology compared to others.
It's getting fun on here again for once with the technical discussions!
The AutoGuide.com network consists of the largest network of enthusiast-owned enthusiast-operated automotive communities.
AutoGuide.com provides the latest car reviews, auto show coverage, new car prices, and automotive news. The AutoGuide network operates more than 100 automotive forums where our users consult peers for shopping information and advice, and share opinions as a community.
Linear Mode
