Exhaust

[carsandkites at gmail.com (Kervin)]

Like Dan said, go with a 2.25.  I got a 2.0 when I was changing mine. 
I had a 1.8 back then.  I still have it on my 2.0 with "stuff" done to
it.  I get all choked up just thinking about the power I'm missing.

Kervin

On 4/23/05, Dan Bubb <jdbubb@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> You might as well pop for a 2.25" exhaust. Not much more expensive and will support any kind of
> normally aspirated (NA) performance improvements you may do in the future.
> The 2.5" is really only for extreme NA applications or forced induction.
> Get a CAT that's the same size as the exhaust.
> Dual downpipe setups will mate directly to the 2.0 and 2.25" systems with a 3 bolt flange in an 8V.
> 2.5" is a slip fit, so applicable to 16V NA of turbo type stuff where you build your own to fit.
> Stock pipe size is under 2.0" IIRC so any of these are an upgrade.
> Dan
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Christopher Grossi" <cgrossi@dwc.edu>
> To: "Scirocco List" <scirocco-l@scirocco.org>
> Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2005 7:59 AM
> Subject: Exhaust
> 
> Going to replace the exhaust under an 85 8v. I was looking online for some exhausts and I need to
> change the cat too as the flanges on the ends have rotted beyond repair. They are showing a few
> different size cats when I look under MKI. Looks like 2", 2.25", and 2.5" diameters. It's been a
> while since I have messed with exhaust on that car, so I don't remember what the stock diameter is?
> Don't want to buy one of these and have it not fit. Also if I was going to change over to a dual
> downpipe setup, as I know I should for obvious reasons, would I have to go with a larger than stock
> pipe?
> 
> Thanks,
> Chris
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Scirocco-l mailing list
> Scirocco-l@scirocco.org
> http://neubayern.net/mailman/listinfo/scirocco-l
>