| From | Message |
jasonsdakota
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
7/23/2004
22:33:18
|
 Subject: is 3"single exhaust too big for a 4.7
IP: Logged
Message:
ok, i have a local muffler shop priced at $375 for a 3" single exhaust with a delta 50 nonsuv muffler. price is fine but do i want to upgrade to 3" from my stock 2.5. will this flow too well and not scavange. i don't want to lose low end torque. what is manderal bent. can a local shop do this or does it have to be ordered from a major company like flowmaster. should i just change my muffler. this would certainly free up more money for my cam swap. what should i do?
|
jasonsdakota
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
7/23/2004
22:35:29
| re:
IP: Logged
Message:
it's a 2000 4.7 4x4 ext cab awd
|
well
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
7/24/2004
17:19:47
|  RE: is 3
IP: Logged
Message:
jason,
Mandrel bent? It's a macnine bend that manitains most all the internal diameter thru out the bend.
If your muffler shop doesn't do it, don't use them.
Jason,
why put hardly any money into your exhaust system? Some of the options you describe have benn dyno proven to net anywhere from -2 to 4 rwhp. If the sound is that important to you to spend the $$, OK.
The GS moto... true duals, has been dyno proven to net some extra ponies. With other mods, it helps some more.
Historically, the 4.7, already flows pretty dern good and still pass emmisions. 'cat backs', make most people really feel a subjective increase, inversely proprotional to the money they spent. When people have bothered to dyno the change, oh well, it sounds different.
Just put a fart can on it!
Good luck in your quest for mods on the descent from factory 4.7 :-)
You mentioned the reground HO cams, I think it's the KRC 216's, or something like that. A guy in Austin has them, and he definitely saw a significant change, dynoed it too.
|
crazy8888
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
7/24/2004
22:51:58
| RE: is 3
IP: Logged
Message:
Be ready to loose your low end torq. I have a 98 5.2 and I did 3" from the y and I have a 3" gibson single. I noticed a lot out of the gibson and then I did the 3" all the way with a 3" cat and I lost a lot of torque. It is deep and loud but I miss that torque.
|
Anthony
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
7/25/2004
20:32:11
| RE: is 3
IP: Logged
Message:
That's what I'm telling everyone 3" cat-backs are just a waste of money. Last Saturday I got rid of mine 3" cat-back, you will lose your torque. Keep the stock pipe and add a high flow muffler and tip to finish the look. You'll be farther ahead.
By the way I drive a 2000 Dak 4.7 4X4 CC
Anthony
|
android287
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
7/25/2004
21:07:25
| RE: is 3
IP: Logged
Message:
I listened to Anthony a month ago and bought a magnaflow and a 2.5 inch universal flomaster tailpipe from summit. Gained across the powerband. Especially down low.
|
Lurkin
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
7/26/2004
10:42:33
| RE: is 3
IP: Logged
Message:
Instead of the cat-back, you may want to consider getting the Y-pipe re-done. It seems, from looking at the pipe, this is where most of the restriction in the stock system is.
But,,, I haven't heard of anyone doing this and proving the results (dynos).
Personally, I would do this before going the cat-back or muffler replacement route, IMHO anyway...
|
Jay
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
7/26/2004
20:13:26
| RE: is 3
IP: Logged
Message:
I have 3' gibson cat back. It sounds great. My mpg improved, but not much gain on hp. You won't loose any torgue with a cat back unless you mack the cat 3' as well. If you are looking for hp, do the HO cams. Cheaper as well.
|
| | P 1 |
|
Post a reply to this message:
Username Registration: Optional
All visitors are allowed to post messages
|
