Exhaust

I purchased my mustang with the tail pipes removed from the mufflers
back. It has flowmasters from the headers to the mufflers. Would it be
more beneficial, horsepower wise, to keep them off or put them on. I
have a set of flowmasters tailpipes and tips for the car.

wrote:
> I purchased my mustang with the tail pipes removed from the mufflers
> back. It has flowmasters from the headers to the mufflers. Would it be
> more beneficial, horsepower wise, to keep them off or put them on. I
> have a set of flowmasters tailpipes and tips for the car.

It won't make any noticeable performance difference either way. With
them off you may get exhaust gas inside the car and it will be louder.

On 17 May 2007 17:55:57 -0700, wrote:

>I purchased my mustang with the tail pipes removed from the mufflers
>back. It has flowmasters from the headers to the mufflers. Would it be
>more beneficial, horsepower wise, to keep them off or put them on. I
>have a set of flowmasters tailpipes and tips for the car.

And you may get cited by the BrentP Revenue generators. :0)

Michael Johnson wrote:
> wrote:
>> I purchased my mustang with the tail pipes removed from the mufflers
>> back. It has flowmasters from the headers to the mufflers. Would it be
>> more beneficial, horsepower wise, to keep them off or put them on. I
>> have a set of flowmasters tailpipes and tips for the car.
>
> It won't make any noticeable performance difference either way. With
> them off you may get exhaust gas inside the car and it will be louder.

Actually, on mine there was a noticeable difference when I went
from 18" or so tails to the full out the back over the axle tails and
then back to 12" tails. All 2.5" on 2 chamber Flowmasters. I do;
however, have an F-303 cam, 1.6 rollers, ported GT40 heads and a ported
Edelbrock intake with Mac headers, so all that may make a bigger
difference for tail pipes over one that is mostly stock on the engine.

--
"Humor is in the eye of the beholder.
Some beholders are flat-out blind." - Dwight

"WindsorFox" > wrote in message
...
> Michael Johnson wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> I purchased my mustang with the tail pipes removed from the mufflers
>>> back. It has flowmasters from the headers to the mufflers. Would it be
>>> more beneficial, horsepower wise, to keep them off or put them on. I
>>> have a set of flowmasters tailpipes and tips for the car.
>>
>> It won't make any noticeable performance difference either way. With
>> them off you may get exhaust gas inside the car and it will be louder.
>
> Actually, on mine there was a noticeable difference when I went from
> 18" or so tails to the full out the back over the axle tails and then back
> to 12" tails. All 2.5" on 2 chamber Flowmasters. I do; however, have an
> F-303 cam, 1.6 rollers, ported GT40 heads and a ported Edelbrock intake
> with Mac headers, so all that may make a bigger difference for tail pipes
> over one that is mostly stock on the engine.
>
> --
> "Humor is in the eye of the beholder.
> Some beholders are flat-out blind." - Dwight

Wow.

I'm all verklempt.

)

WindsorFox wrote:
> Michael Johnson wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> I purchased my mustang with the tail pipes removed from the mufflers
>>> back. It has flowmasters from the headers to the mufflers. Would it be
>>> more beneficial, horsepower wise, to keep them off or put them on. I
>>> have a set of flowmasters tailpipes and tips for the car.
>>
>> It won't make any noticeable performance difference either way. With
>> them off you may get exhaust gas inside the car and it will be louder.
>
> Actually, on mine there was a noticeable difference when I went from
> 18" or so tails to the full out the back over the axle tails and then
> back to 12" tails. All 2.5" on 2 chamber Flowmasters. I do; however,
> have an F-303 cam, 1.6 rollers, ported GT40 heads and a ported Edelbrock
> intake with Mac headers, so all that may make a bigger difference for
> tail pipes over one that is mostly stock on the engine.

I bet a dyno run between the two setups wouldn't yield much of a change.
A change from a stock exhaust to a 2.5" free flow one on your setup
might be 15-20 hp tops. I would venture that tail pipes verses no tail
pipes might be 5 hp. Not enough to make too much a difference, IMHO.
Then again, I just might be FOS on the matter.

Michael Johnson wrote:
> WindsorFox wrote:
>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>> wrote:
>>>> I purchased my mustang with the tail pipes removed from the mufflers
>>>> back. It has flowmasters from the headers to the mufflers. Would it be
>>>> more beneficial, horsepower wise, to keep them off or put them on. I
>>>> have a set of flowmasters tailpipes and tips for the car.
>>>
>>> It won't make any noticeable performance difference either way. With
>>> them off you may get exhaust gas inside the car and it will be louder.
>>
>> Actually, on mine there was a noticeable difference when I went
>> from 18" or so tails to the full out the back over the axle tails and
>> then back to 12" tails. All 2.5" on 2 chamber Flowmasters. I do;
>> however, have an F-303 cam, 1.6 rollers, ported GT40 heads and a
>> ported Edelbrock intake with Mac headers, so all that may make a
>> bigger difference for tail pipes over one that is mostly stock on the
>> engine.
>
> I bet a dyno run between the two setups wouldn't yield much of a change.
> A change from a stock exhaust to a 2.5" free flow one on your setup
> might be 15-20 hp tops. I would venture that tail pipes verses no tail
> pipes might be 5 hp. Not enough to make too much a difference, IMHO.
> Then again, I just might be FOS on the matter.

On my car after installing the cam, heads and intake there is a very
noticeable climb in power between 3.8K and 5.5K RPM. What is noticeable
is the difference in how much extra push there is in that power band
with long pipes and no pipes. So on my particular car I feel there is
more than 5HP difference wrapped up in the tail pipes unless you think
several people can feel a 5HP difference. I don't think I can. I know
one thing there is a vast difference in how loud the car is going from
8" tail pipes to 18" tail pipes.

--
"Humor is in the eye of the beholder.
Some beholders are flat-out blind." - Dwight