Flowmaster exhaust?

[2bits]

I am a glasspack kind of guy myself, I prefer the warmer pure engine tone. Flowmasters tens to have a hollow modified sounding tone. Alot of people like that so it's up to your preference. I has flowmasters on two of my trucks (Freebies from a friend) They were 40 series and I would never have them again. Those are for people who would rather hear their exhaust then their music or have a conversation. It completely engulfed my 71 Stepside in a mind numbing hum. I put a glasspack on it and it sounded great after that. I think Flowmasters actually make the sound louder which I don't really care for either, so yeah maybe go for a different series of them than the 40's.

I hope that helps!

[caseydog]

I had a Flowmaster system on my 92 Siverado 5.7 litre V8. It sounded great. It didn't add one bit of power, that I could tell. But, it sounded good.

I do know that this kind of exhaust sounds kind of wimpy on a V6. A V6 is the hardest thing to make sound cool, other than a Dodge Viper V10, which is an engineering... WTF?

You are not going to get any power or fuel efficiency benefit, and if you split the exhaust into duels, you're going to look like a teenager with daddy's credit card. Your truck is not being "choked" by the exhaust. Even with the Flowmaster, your two-valve per cylinder heads are not going to let that 4.0 litre engine breathe.

If you want power, ad a supercharger. Your heads are limiting the flow of air, not your exhaust. That is a great engine for low-end torque. But is goiing to gasp for air at higher revs. I had a Ranger and an Explorer with that engine. I like it, but it is what it is.

Flowmaster makes a good product for small block V8 engines. I wouldn't personally use that muffler on any V6.

Sorry Doug, but you asked, and I like you enough to tell you what I really think.

CD

[John Palmer]

I would also recomend NOT using K&N or any other brand of that type of oiled open element. They do let more air in, and offer decreased restriction, but they will also let more dust and dirt in, which will damage the engine.

Bill, I completely agree, use a paper filter!

The one thing that is easy to install when rebuilding an exhaust system on a street vehicle is to install an X-Pipe in the system before the mufflers. Better sound, smoother running, and improved low end torque. NASCAR has used them for years to improve performance. Make sense to incorporate it into a tow vehicle with gas at $4.00/gal

Make sure to run the exhaust pipe out from under the car/truck to reduce the rumble sound of these Flowmaster type freeflow mufflers.

For the cost difference, and the pain to install, Stainless is the way to go. I'm a fan of Magnaflow, which I installed on my hot rod.

[caseydog]

I would also recomend NOT using K&N or any other brand of that type of oiled open element. They do let more air in, and offer decreased restriction, but they will also let more dust and dirt in, which will damage the engine.

Bill, I completely agree, use a paper filter!

The one thing that is easy to install when rebuilding an exhaust system on a street vehicle is to install an X-Pipe in the system before the mufflers. Better sound, smoother running, and improved low end torque. NASCAR has used them for years to improve performance. Make sense to incorporate it into a tow vehicle with gas at $4.00/gal

Make sure to run the exhaust pipe out from under the car/truck to reduce the rumble sound of these Flowmaster type freeflow mufflers.

For the cost difference, and the pain to install, Stainless is the way to go. I'm a fan of Magnaflow, which I installed on my hot rod.

An X pipe or H pipe only helps on a true dual exhaust. Doug's truck does not have that. He has one cat, so he has a single exhaust.

I have a true dual exhaust with two cats and an H pipe. Since I'm running twin turbos, I could take my mufflers off, and not be all that loud, but wouldn't gain much by doing it, so I leave it alone.

If I were to install bigger turbos, and a modified ECU, I might ditch the mufflers. But, I'll wait until the warranty is done to even think about that -- and for the economy to improve, so I can pay for it.

As for a K&N filter, it is a good product. It does flow better, but unless your engine demands that extra flow, there is no need for it. The basic two-valve, normally aspirated engine can't use that extra air flow. And it does a fine job of trapping dirt. You won't hurt your engine using one. You just may not be gaining anything over a paper filter.

CD

[Yota Bill]

As for a K&N filter, it is a good product. It does flow better, but unless your engine demands that extra flow, there is no need for it. The basic two-valve, normally aspirated engine can't use that extra air flow. And it does a fine job of trapping dirt. You won't hurt your engine using one. You just may not be gaining anything over a paper filter.

CD

there are plenty of people willing to argue each side of that, so I'll just offer my first hand experience. Keep in mind, I am an ASE certified master tech.

Bought a brand new Ranger while working at a Ford dealership. Tested milage on a pre-determined course that included highway and city driving. Then installed larger tires and a light bar on the roof with 4 off-road lights, lost about 3-4mpg (this was in 99, so I dont remember the exact numbers). Installed the K&N filter in the stock box and got back about 80% of the lost fuel milage on the same course/test, so there was a definate increase.
Every time I cleaned the filter after that, I found the filter fairly clean, but always found dust inside the air tube and the throttle body. That engine failed at just over 100K miles. Yes, I should have known better and removed that filter long before the failure point.

Installed a different brand of the same type on a Geo Tracker with a clear air intake tube. While the engine was running, I could sometimes literally see dust in the air tube. Also found dust inside the tube, throttle body and intake later. I did remove that system before failure occured from it.

On an 88 F250 with a 460 (big dumb mud truck) which the previous owner had installed the K&N open intake system, with thier pre-filter wrap. The engine failed at about 85K miles due to low compression and low oil pressure (the owner believed it was due to the filter letting dust through, I agree). He then had the engine rebuilt by Reichart Racing Engines. I then got the truck from him, with approx 10K miles on the rebuild. While playing, it sucked enough muddy water in to fill the crankcase and destroyed the bearings, crankshaft, camshaft, lifters, and pistons. A stock paper filter would have plugged and stalled the engine long before that much damage could occur. This filter never plugged, and the engine would still run and pull plenty of air, along with the muddy water.

I personally know of at least 3 other people who have had similar failures after using those filters for long periods of time, but since I dont know all of the specifics, I wont bother listing those. Search the internet and you will find plenty of stories like those I already listed. That type of filter is designed for race engines, which have a shorter life span anyway, and are often tore down and rebuilt or replaced. They care more about performance then lifespan, so the filter does exactly what they want it to do. For a daily driven or street vehicle, it does not.

As for the engine not being able to use more air, I could not disagree more. The stock air intake system uses convoluted air tubes, which cause turbulance, resonators, multiple bends, etc. They use those things in order to quiet the intake system down, and of course to make it fit a certain way in the engine bay, and looks are always a concern of the manufacturers. There is definate room for improvement, if some of their concerns are of less weight to the owner.

The most common upgrade to vehicles these days, when more power or better milage is desired, is to upgrade both the air intake and the exhaust system. What would be the point of increases the flow of the exhaust, if the intake is still restricted?

[eamarquardt]

I dunno. Given that a gasoline engine (unless running wide open) has a butterfly valve restricting the intake anyway, I'm not entirely convinced that changing the filter would make a significant difference. What's a bit more restriction when you are running a fairly significant "negative" manifold pressure the vast majority of the time anyway!

Cheers,

Gus

[asianflava]

A buddy showed me a sticker on his dually saying that oil impregnated filters were not recommended, we couldn't figure out why. Later I read somewhere that microscopic oil droplets get sucked off the filter and stick to the turbo blades, then dirt will stick to the turbo and gums it up.

I have K&N filters on 2 of my Hondas, they aren't driven in very dusty conditions and don't have turbos so I'm not worried about it.

[Mike-n-Britney]

A bunch of valid points on both sides of the coin. Having worked in a tuning shop and having had a few ho-po cars and trucks - I prefer Magnaflow over Flowmaster. I have Magnaflow mufflers and a cloth/oil-type open element air filter (Vararam) on my GTO. I got maybe 2-3 mpg increase having both. The greatest increase was from a custom tune (5 mpg over stock).

The Ford 4.0L pushrod (not the red-headed stepchild SOHC 4.0) is a great little torque-monster but it never got great mileage. BBK and JBA both make a lot of aftermarket bolt-ons that will boost performance (and can boost mileage) on your 4.0. On your Ranger you probably will gain next to nothing from a low-restriction muffler. Short tube headers, a high-flow catalytic converter, and a low-restriction cold air intake - along with a custom tune - will gain you considerable power (not the goal) and mileage... BUT, the increased mileage will take quite a while to pay for all this.

I say if you want a little rumble - go for it! But don't expect much. Keep your tires aired-up, keep a clean paper air filter in it, use copper-core (not platinum) spark plugs (change them every 25k mi), change the fuel filter often, and you will probably get as good a mileage for the buck invested as you can get!

[John Palmer]

CD[/quote]The most common upgrade to vehicles these days, when more power or better milage is desired, is to upgrade both the air intake and the exhaust system. What would be the point of increases the flow of the exhaust, if the intake is still restricted?[/quote]


Exactly correct.

Todays engines are tuned to run "very lean" to meet our emmissions standards. I have seen 15:1 and 16:1 on dyno runs. They run much hotter (and surge) this lean at cruise load, than at a more accepted 14:1 air fuel ratio at cuise. If you take an engine that runs lean in stock tune, and reduce the intake and exhaust restrictions to make it breath easier it will lean it out even further. Power and mileage will suffer as a result. Yes, some of the newer computer controled systems can compensate and adjust, but lets keep our discussion simple.

For a basic improvement to a tow vehicle, some better power pulling a hill, a little better gas mileage, improving the intake and exhaust system is the best "bang for the buck". Downside, more intake "sucking" noise. More exhaust noise. Car manufacturers cannot sacrafice in these comfort areas. As long as you run a full lenght tail pipe, the exhaust noise will not be annoying. If you terminate the exhaust exit under the vehicle it will rumble and drive you crazy on a longtrip.

If you do not want/need to run a full dual exhaust system you can get a good improvement by just increasing the diameter of the exhaust tubing. Think of water flowing through hose, one large hose can flow more water than two small hoses quicker (less restriction). If you have the room, just glue two paper filters on top of each other for a less restrictive air filter, or buy "a taller" paper filter.

I run a muffler on my 11 second VW drag race car, it does not reduce the power if tuned correctly. Some tracks we race at require mufflers for noise ordinence, so we just leave it on and jet accordingly.

[ERV]

I thought Doug said he had to cats in his first post. Thats why I said to use an H pipe. My 04 Ranger has to cats coming back but it is a V6. It then dumps into one pipe going back.

[caseydog]

Being a car nut, I have spent all kinds of money on mods, and some have been worth it, and many have not.

On three or four of my cars, I changed the intake systems and exhausts. It probably would have shown a few horsepower gain on a dyno, but I couldn't feel any difference.

Same goes with "chipping" my normally aspirated engines.

Chipping my turbocharged engines has yielded very impressive results, but I could not tell any difference on the normally aspirated engines.

On my last Silverado pickup, I replaced the air intake hardware to a free-flowing "cold air" setup that used a K&N filter, and did a cat-back exhaust with flowmasters and bigger pipes. I liked the sound, but I couldn't tell any difference driving it. Then I added a performance ECU, and that was a complete waste of money. I couldn't tell any difference.

When the exhaust on my Explorer (with a 4.0) cratered, I replaced it a freer flowing system, and the truck was a little louder, but not bad. But, I got no better performance or gas milage, like I had hoped.

So, that's my own "seat-of-the-pants" experience.

CD

[ERV]

I have a 78 F250 that I restored 6 years ago. Did a ground up on it. Then put duals and free flow mufflers on it. That was a waste of money as far as milage. But it does sound good.
It has a 400 in it and new from the factory it had 160 hp. I get around 8-10 mpg. Most of the time 8. I am going to pull the 400 out this summer and put it back to the 72 specs. In 72 the 400 had right around 300 hp and got 18 mpg. Going to do a few other things to it too. Hoping to get it close to 20 but don't think that will happen.
I bought it new in 78 and have right around 280,000 miles on it. Just love the style of it, will keep it going as long as I can. We only take it out on the weekends now, but with the price getting to $3.35 I don't think it will see to much road till I get the motor done.

[boomer]

After following this post for a couple of days I thought I might add my 2 cents. I bought a new 2007 Ranger with 2wd, 3.0L, automatic. I used this truck to tow our teardrop the first year we had it. Not only was the mileage in the low 12 to 13 mpg range, it wouldn't get over 60 to 65 mph on the highway. While towing the trailer back to Ohio to replace it, (another story for another time ) I couldn't get over 60 mph with the pedal to the floor. The trailer and truck were totally empty. When I got home I ordered a K&N cold air intake kit for it. It may have increased the power a little bit but I still wasn't happy so I traded it ( less than 6000 miles on it for a 2008 Ranger, extended cab,4x4, with the 4.0L , auto. I was talking to a friend of mine who used to run a garage and speedshop about a Flowmaster muffler and he suggested a Thrush flow thru muffler. I installed that and I am very happy with it. It replaced the stock muffler and left everything else original. I was going to install a cold air intake but after doing alot of research on it, I am going to leave that part alone. The K&N air filters do a great job of letting air in but they also let in alot of dust and dirt. The cold air concept makes alot of sense but only with a turbo charger and a charge air cooler that a diesel engine uses. I found that I could save a significant amount af fuel by just slowing down a few mph. On a recent trip to West Virginia I got consistent mileage of 22mpg and on one tank it was 23mpg. Ed.

[Mike-n-Britney]

...a new 2007 Ranger with 2wd, 3.0L, automatic. ...mileage in the low 12 to 13 mpg range, it wouldn't get over 60 to 65 mph on the highway...

IMO - I think something was wrong with that truck.

The cold air concept makes alot of sense but only with a turbo charger and a charge air cooler that a diesel engine uses.

FWIW - Every engine will run better (make more power, be more efficient) with cooler intake air. The effectiveness of a Cold Air Kit is low, even in the best applications. On turbocharged motors (including diesels) the effect of intake air temp is amplified, but most cold air kits for turbo vehicles will have a very, very minimal effect because of the presence of an intercooler (charge air cooler).

I found that I could save a significant amount af fuel by just slowing down a few mph

Bingo.

On a recent trip to West Virginia I got consistent mileage of 22mpg and on one tank it was 23mpg. Ed.

That's pretty good for a 4.0L 4x4 Ranger towing in the mountains!

[doug hodder]

I'm just sorta of reading and taking it all in. I only pose this question as I had a '80 F250 400cuin, with the trailer package on it. Stock single exhaust...put on a 3" exhaust and got a noticeable increase in mileage, no fancy muffler, went from 10 to nearly 12. Others may be skeptical, to each their own.

I'm just thinking that with the size of the pipe on this truck and how it necks down after the 2 cats, if some larger diameter tubing couldn't help on the performance/ mileage etc...maybe just a larger dia pipe with a new muffler and forget the "flowmaster" thing. They happen to have a shop close to me and talked to them. Doug