New Stainless Works Downpipe & Exhaust option

[Muredhawk]

The downpipe isnt just for the "adaptor flange". You can get it with high flow cats which will flow a hell of a lot better than stock or you can get catless which will really open up the flow. Just a simple downpipe swap you can get a lot of good turbo sounds out of the system plus faster turbo spool due to the higher flow on the back side of the turbo. Putting a catless down on my subie made a world of difference and I can assume this twin turbo DP setup for the Raptor will have similar effects.

I am not arguing that the adapter is a supplement for downpipes. Of course high flow cats or catless will improve power as the stock cats are the restrictive part of the exhaust regardless of running adapters or adapterless. I am arguing that the adapterless mount is going to be extremely weak on an off-road truck.

Running catless with or without the adapters would have minimal results in power difference. Yes you will save $200 dollars but I am ok with that because the stock attachment system is a better design in terms of flex and stress. Especially on a big and heavy drivetrain that moves around a lot and potential off road jarring. I don't care about the miniscule difference in flow. I just want extend the time interval between when I have to take these downpipes off to have them repaired when they do crack.

Almost every turbo application from the factory has the donut arrangement at the flange including my old EVO 8, STI, and 135i. Some even have sprigs holding that connection together.


A couple points to consider...

I don't know what the application hardware will look like but, in the adapterless application all of the stress of the weight and flex will lie on both downpipes flange welds and then studs or bolts in the hot side of the turbo. Especially if that flange isn't exactly lined up when they weld it. I don't like that essentially you are removing all relief from the exit of the heads all the way to hangers for the downpipes. That's a lot of leverage on what will be the weakest point of that 4 or 5 foot long solid mass. There is no other support to the chassis between the motor mounts and downpipe hangers in that whole now solid connection.

With the turbo adapter that joint will move around and relieve the stress on the studs and more importantly the hot side of the turbo.

Dropping the downpipes on this thing is a PITA. They are heavy, awkward, the O2 sensors are a pain to access. Forget about trying to weld cracks at the turbo with these pipes on the car. You will have to drop them. I would much rather crack bolts lose on studs at 25k than breaking bolts lose out of the hot side of the turbo 15k miles down the road.


If you want to save 200$, go with the stock adapters and go catless.

---------- Post added at 06:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:14 PM ----------

So not to be too pedantic but ball and coupler on the adapter shouldn't really move, and by design isant really a flex point. There really needs to be a flex coupler somewhere. But that's just how I would design it. I'm sure their design is just fine.

At the proper torque settings that setup will move a bit. Not as good as a flex joints but miles better than welds at the flush mount flange.

 

[ZaneMasterX]

I am not arguing that the adapter is a supplement for downpipes. Of course high flow cats or catless will improve power as the stock cats are the restrictive part of the exhaust regardless of running adapters or adapterless. I am arguing that the adapterless mount is going to be extremely weak on an off-road truck.

Running catless with or without the adapters would have minimal results in power difference. Yes you will save $200 dollars but I am ok with that because the stock attachment system is a better design in terms of flex and stress. Especially on a big and heavy drivetrain that moves around a lot and potential off road jarring. I don't care about the miniscule difference in flow. I just want extend the time interval between when I have to take these downpipes off to have them repaired when they do crack.

Almost every turbo application from the factory has the donut arrangement at the flange including my old EVO 8, STI, and 135i. Some even have sprigs holding that connection together.


A couple points to consider...

I don't know what the application hardware will look like but, in the adapterless application all of the stress of the weight and flex will lie on both downpipes flange welds and then studs or bolts in the hot side of the turbo. Especially if that flange isn't exactly lined up when they weld it. I don't like that essentially you are removing all relief from the exit of the heads all the way to hangers for the downpipes. That's a lot of leverage on what will be the weakest point of that 4 or 5 foot long solid mass. There is no other support to the chassis between the motor mounts and downpipe hangers in that whole now solid connection.

With the turbo adapter that joint will move around and relieve the stress on the studs and more importantly the hot side of the turbo.

Dropping the downpipes on this thing is a PITA. They are heavy, awkward, the O2 sensors are a pain to access. Forget about trying to weld cracks at the turbo with these pipes on the car. You will have to drop them. I would much rather crack bolts lose on studs at 25k than breaking bolts lose out of the hot side of the turbo 15k miles down the road.


If you want to save 200$, go with the stock adapters and go catless.

---------- Post added at 06:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:14 PM ----------



At the proper torque settings that setup will move a bit. Not as good as a flex joints but miles better than welds at the flush mount flange.

Stainless Works has been in business a long time and makes some of the nicest exhaust on the market, Im sure they know exactly what they are doing and they specifically designed the system to eliminate any need for "higher flow adapters"...."Factory turbo adapter is very restrictive so we eliminated the 2" adapter to give you a full 3" system from the turbo back...."

Stainless works has been making DPs for a bunch of applications for a very long time, this isnt their first rodeo in the turbo world.

 

[Bullishone]

Stainless Works has been in business a long time and makes some of the nicest exhaust on the market, Im sure they know exactly what they are doing and they specifically designed the system to eliminate any need for "higher flow adapters"...."Factory turbo adapter is very restrictive so we eliminated the 2" adapter to give you a full 3" system from the turbo back...."

I asked them today and they didn't have an answer. The salesman said "if you're doing a lot of offroading I'm not sure". He then said he'd check with engineering and get back with me. The adapter is there for a reason. I guess we will see what he comes back with.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[Muredhawk]

Stainless Works has been in business a long time and makes some of the nicest exhaust on the market, Im sure they know exactly what they are doing and they specifically designed the system to eliminate any need for "higher flow adapters"...."Factory turbo adapter is very restrictive so we eliminated the 2" adapter to give you a full 3" system from the turbo back...."

Stainless works has been making DPs for a bunch of applications for a very long time, this isnt their first rodeo in the turbo world.

They didn't make an adapter delete for any of the previous ecoboosts.


Look, I am not bashing any company at all. I am very excited that they are first to market with a downpipe offering. I am even more impressed that they offer two options with flush mount and adapter mount. However, I don't think its entirely accurate to say that the adapters are a waste. The adapter set up WILL last longer and I am positive that with turbos this size, the power difference will be negligible. I am almost positive that the difference in spool between adapters and an open mouth will be very noticeable... Especially the difference from the tiny stock orifice to adapter delete.


Saying all of this I will probably get the SW adapter style pipes once something else comes out that will prevent the CEL from coming up. Unless some other option comes out that is significantly better or cheaper.


The passenger side is going to crack first...

 

[pjones]

Stainless works may have been around for a while, but at least for the CTS-V crowd, their products suck. Fitment is terrible and all sort of problems with leaks. Not saying this is common, but I personally won't buy their products.

 

[xrocket21]

So they don't offer both as I see it but rather only a factory connect. If that's the case...wouldn't one still need adaptors?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly what I said in post 33

---------- Post added at 07:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:21 AM ----------

So not to be too pedantic but ball and coupler on the adapter shouldn't really move, and by design isant really a flex point. There really needs to be a flex coupler somewhere. But that's just how I would design it. I'm sure their design is just fine.

I have read that if it were a solid connection there, it could lead to cracking in the downpipe.

---------- Post added at 07:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:21 AM ----------

Stainless Works has been in business a long time and makes some of the nicest exhaust on the market, Im sure they know exactly what they are doing and they specifically designed the system to eliminate any need for "higher flow adapters"...."Factory turbo adapter is very restrictive so we eliminated the 2" adapter to give you a full 3" system from the turbo back...."

Stainless works has been making DPs for a bunch of applications for a very long time, this isnt their first rodeo in the turbo world.

Earlier in this thread you stated that turbo adapters "arguably do nothing", and yet you now link a picture that calls the stock adapters, "very restrictive"

The SPD ones being 25% more area, I would say thats not a bad increase for something "very restrictive".

So which is it, do the adapters do nothing, or are stock very restrictive and a 25% in crease in area is beneficial?

 

[ZaneMasterX]

Exactly what I said in post 33

---------- Post added at 07:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:21 AM ----------



I have read that if it were a solid connection there, it could lead to cracking in the downpipe.

---------- Post added at 07:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:21 AM ----------



Earlier in this thread you stated that turbo adapters "arguably do nothing", and yet you now link a picture that calls the stock adapters, "very restrictive"

The SPD ones being 25% more area, I would say thats not a bad increase for something "very restrictive".

So which is it, do the adapters do nothing, or are stock very restrictive and a 25% in crease in area is beneficial?

A 25% increase in size to stock DP hasnt been really proven to do anything other than one or two questionable dyno runs. Take a full aftermarket 3" from turbo back with high flow cats or no cats and eliminating any adapter in the first place will definitely have a better chance to increase performance.

 

[xrocket21]

I agree, full 3" is better.

Also, the sound of the 3" dp to stock exhaust is GREAT.

But I think my point is that saying the turbo adapters dont work is false. The science makes sense, and there are dyno plots to prove it. I dont understand why it is a controversy.

 

[smurfslayer]

I agree, full 3" is better.

Also, the sound of the 3" dp to stock exhaust is GREAT.

But I think my point is that saying the turbo adapters dont work is false. The science makes sense, and there are dyno plots to prove it. I dont understand why it is a controversy.

I can tell you with 100% certainty that even after a Rap owner posts up back to back dyno runs with no other changes, there will be a dedicated contingent of people who will refuse to believe the results. I experienced that with a Mustang, many years back. bought a K&N cones, ported stock MAF tube and stock airbox cut to open it.

internet predictions - $70 MAF would lose power, as would filter and airbox combo due to heat soaking.
results + 19 rwhp.

internet analysis: 1) bogus 2) bad dyno 3) changed something else 4) all filter and airbox, MAS still had to lose power ( over the 400 dollar aftermarket MAS)
One person went as far as to suggest that because I changed more than one thing, the whole dyno calibration was thrown off and the results were completely unusable.

As it happened, a group dyno day approached, so I signed up and walked the car back to stock over 4 pulls, then on the 5th pull reinstalled the mods

I removed the K&N & went to stock filter in the cut open air box. K&N was +1.? hp over stock filter
back to stock airbox - -8.9 hp ? High 8’s
back to stock MAF - -9 hp
stock before my mods, almost identical to dyno run before my mods - less than 1 hp difference, but it was a different dyno.
added my mods back - +18.9 hp or similar.

This too was called out as invalid for... reasons. different dyno - never mind the numerical consistency, and the 15 eyewitnesses, over a dozen being forum members.

You could post up all the dyno numbers in the world, charts and all and there will be a dedicated FRF contingent who will call their validity into question.

Don’t waste your keystrokes.
If you think they will work, you’re going to have to take the financial plunge and go for it. Dyno them if you’re going to pursue further mods as you might want to gauge their success. if you choose to share your results, great. But, keep in mind the dynamometer is a tool to measure power, nothing more.

The SPD probably do help. The downpipes probably help more.

 

[NewMetaRacing]

Exactly what I said in post 33

---------- Post added at 07:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:21 AM ----------



I have read that if it were a solid connection there, it could lead to cracking in the downpipe.

---------- Post added at 07:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:21 AM ----------



Earlier in this thread you stated that turbo adapters "arguably do nothing", and yet you now link a picture that calls the stock adapters, "very restrictive"

The SPD ones being 25% more area, I would say thats not a bad increase for something "very restrictive".

So which is it, do the adapters do nothing, or are stock very restrictive and a 25% in crease in area is beneficial?

Oh I agree about the cracking, I was just saying that a ball and coupler is not a "real" flex point. However I have no problem believing that it's capable of more flex then a fixed flange.