Page 1 of 1
1.6l header question
Posted: October 25th, 2004, 2:48 pm
by war
I was reading up on the header information for the 1.6L DOHC and it seems you can use the probe 2.0L headers. I was wondering if the headers would replace the extra catalytic convertor??
Re: 1.6l header question
Posted: October 25th, 2004, 2:52 pm
by projectmx
why would a header replace a catalytic converter? isn't one hearder just a replacement for another header? and one cat a replacement for another cat.. what you would do is when you put the new header on.. use high flow cat from that same car...but i highly doubt the probe header replaces the need for a cat
Re: 1.6l header question
Posted: October 25th, 2004, 4:13 pm
by monty73741
whats the point in replacing the header, no one has done a before & after dyno results
Re: 1.6l header question
Posted: October 25th, 2004, 4:16 pm
by Gro Harlem
there isn't a extra cat on the b6d as far as I've seen. Unless its a 96+ obdii one.
Re: 1.6l header question
Posted: October 25th, 2004, 4:49 pm
by war
It looks like another cat. I have the 1.6 DOHC. I bottomed at one day and snapped the pipe that runs down from the exhaust manifold to the cat. I took the pipe off and went and had it welded. As I was putting it back on i looked up at what I thought was the exhaust manifold and it looked like the cone stuff inside a cat so I assumed that there was one cat comming off the exhaust manifold to the pipe then to the other cat
Re: 1.6l header question
Posted: October 25th, 2004, 5:19 pm
by war
also, there are alot of cars that havent been dynoed after headers. You dont have to be a rocket scientist to tell if you actually gained any horsepower. At any rate wouldnt must headers give more horse power because there arent as restrictive as an intake manifold. So regardless even if they were poor quality(ive read that there are different ways for making headers for different power gains) it should be less restrictive. Someone correct me if im wrong about any of this. But who needs dyno results.....Did you dyno your car after putting your cold air intake on. No, because you know it gave you more power.
Re: 1.6l header question
Posted: October 26th, 2004, 9:00 pm
by lujacks
You are correct that there is two cats for the 94 and 95 1.6L dohc mx-3. the first is called the warm up cat (I asked the mechanics at the mazda dealership) and the second is your ordinary cat. YOu can do the header conversion from a 2.0L probe you just have to do a few mods. check out this site he has done the conversion on his car
http://www.cardomain.com/id/emanx
Re: 1.6l header question
Posted: October 27th, 2004, 9:57 am
by Custommx3
U sure about 2 cats? I need to get under mine and look. As far as I have seen on my 95, there is a resonator, a muffler, and a cat.
Re: 1.6l header question
Posted: October 27th, 2004, 10:12 am
by monty73741
War i'm glad ur such an expert in cars
a header is 299
then u need to mod it to fit
then a custom down pipe
so is the HP gain worth it...dont know if it is b/c i dont have the dyno numbers
i dont do anything to my car if i "think" i will get a more HP
I'm also saying the header isnt a bad idea..i think his idea is great, but for me to put that time in then i need to know numbers.
also there was a header a while ago for the 1.6l dohc & it didnt have any real gains
<small>[ October 27, 2004, 09:14 AM: Message edited by: monty73741 ]</small>
Re: 1.6l header question
Posted: October 27th, 2004, 12:48 pm
by mx3optidrive
There is definitely 2 cats on the Canadian '95 becauseI put a highflow one on for the lower cat and when I was getting the oil changed, I noticed that there was a huge bulge in the pipe right after the manifold. I took it off and sure enough, it was another cat, so I beat it out with a pipe and put it back on and the car works awsome now and I am getting better gas milage also.
I am not sure if they are on the US models or not.
Jeff
Re: 1.6l header question
Posted: October 28th, 2004, 12:40 am
by war
they must be because what I saw looked exactly like a second cat. Did you just hollow out the cat and put it back on?
<small>[ October 27, 2004, 11:45 PM: Message edited by: war ]</small>