2.0 TDI exhaust

**dimsim** · 01-09-2008, 08:14 PM

Im thinking of modding the exhaust on my mk v. Has anyone done this ? I went to different exhaust shops and 1 said chuck the lot and replace it all with bigger pipes and muffler, the other said to leave it as is , it was all ok because the rear muffler has no baffles in it. Any advice welcome. Thanks.

**Greg Roles** · 02-09-2008, 03:24 PM

I'm "about" to do the same thing, but I've been saying that for several weeks now ( lack of play time! ). The stock pipe is mandrel bent at 2.5" and it would flow pretty well. Then again you can never oversize a turbo exhaust. Thing is the MAJOR restriction is right next to the turbo, the DPF particulate filter. Upping the pipe size and leaving that in place is a waste of time and money really.

Nearly all the aftermarket "cat" (DPF ) back exhausts available delete the huge rear pancake muff. I am going to do that for sheer weight savings alone! I'd consider replacing the rear axle area resonator if it turns out to be restrictive, with a nice flowing Jap one, but I'd hazzard a guess that's not going to be necessary.

My vote would be cutout the big rear one, as it'll be cheap and quite easy for a shop to do, and see if the car feels any better. Go from there!

**Mischa** · 02-09-2008, 03:27 PM

greg his car doesnt have a DPF that lucky bugger

**dimsim** · 02-09-2008, 05:33 PM

On my wish list is a larger free flow cat, I would keep the resonator and do something with the rear muf(if it is as restrictive as some people say) . I need the car to be quiet as my wife drives the car now with bubs in the back and she who must be obeyed will not stand for a loud exhaust.

**gldgti** · 02-09-2008, 07:21 PM

i wouldnt be scared about making it loud - the turbocharger is the worlds most expensive muffler.

my 1.9TD has mandrel 2.5" all the way from the turbo with resonator and a small straight through perf rear box, and its DEAD quiet. quieter than stock i reckon. turbo outlet is so small it just kills all the noise.

**Greg Roles** · 03-09-2008, 03:51 PM

I've been told the diesel with no muffs etc is quite reasonable.
Personally to avoid the drone, keep a resonator at least!

**Transporter** · 28-11-2008, 10:07 PM

It is not cheap.

http://www.dieselpowermag.com/tech/g...ete/index.html

**gldgti** · 29-11-2008, 02:12 PM

emissions laws are all so backward....

all this faff trying to pull harmless soot out of the exhaust, and in the process make the entire thing less efficient, hence burn more fuel for your mile.

what they should be doing is taxing heavily any vehicles with a large displacement/weight ratio - so 6.2L V8 commodores get BIG emissions tax, and little 1.4TSI's and vw diesels get no emissions punishment.

why should I have to put up with an inefficiency such as a CAT or DPF, if i already choose to drive an economical car?

**gregozedobe** · 29-11-2008, 05:28 PM

Originally Posted by gldgti

what they should be doing is taxing heavily any vehicles with a large displacement/weight ratio - so 6.2L V8 commodores get BIG emissions tax, and little 1.4TSI's and vw diesels get no emissions punishment.

A fairer way of doing it would be to increase the tax on fuels (and also reduce rego, 3rd party, import duty, sales tax etc at the same time). Think about the concept for a moment before you all go running around screaming like headless chooks.

The more you drive, the more fuel you use, the more tax you pay. If you drive something thirsty (V8 commodore), but only travel 5,000Km a year why should you pay as much tax as someone who drives the same vehicle 35,000Km a year.

Similarly someone who drives a 1.9 Polo 100,000Km a year is also using a lot of fuel (and creating a lot of pollution), even though their vehicle is very economical. Why should they only pay the same tax as granny who only drives 12,000Km a year ?

If the recent high fuel prices had continued, we would have seen a big shift towards saving fuel. Shorter, less frequent trips, less "pleasure" driving in the short term, and moves towards more fuel efficient vehicles in the long term.

Of course politicians being what they are, we'll probably get higher fuel taxes WITHOUT the reduction in rego and all the other govt charges

**Transporter** · 29-11-2008, 09:14 PM

Originally Posted by gregozedobe

A fairer way of doing it would be to increase the tax on fuels (and also reduce rego, 3rd party, import duty, sales tax etc at the same time). Think about the concept for a moment before you all go running around screaming like headless chooks.

The more you drive, the more fuel you use, the more tax you pay. If you drive something thirsty (V8 commodore), but only travel 5,000Km a year why should you pay as much tax as someone who drives the same vehicle 35,000Km a year.

Similarly someone who drives a 1.9 Polo 100,000Km a year is also using a lot of fuel (and creating a lot of pollution), even though their vehicle is very economical. Why should they only pay the same tax as granny who only drives 12,000Km a year ?

If the recent high fuel prices had continued, we would have seen a big shift towards saving fuel. Shorter, less frequent trips, less "pleasure" driving in the short term, and moves towards more fuel efficient vehicles in the long term.

Of course politicians being what they are, we'll probably get higher fuel taxes WITHOUT the reduction in rego and all the other govt charges

Very good point there, also there would be less idiots on the road wasting fuel.