Exhaust Pipe, why downsize?

dont worry -just use the 2 & 1/2 in stuff it will be easier for you.

buy the 2.5 and get it swedged to fit, then install.

Factory exhaust systems always get smaller as you get to the back. It helps to stabalize back preasure and makes it quieter at the tail pipe.

If your exhaust gets bigger towards the back it will be loader and have that school bus sound. They of how a musical instrument is built.

M1D

may want to just clamp the glasspack incase you dont like it, i got 2 i installed yestarday (welded) that are coming off in morning.

I don't particularly like loud.
I have a silent muffler with 3" inlet and two 2" outlets


And it growls enough when I open it up. Turn up the volume on this vidio.
https://s119.photobucket.com/albums/o122/m1dadio/?action=view&current=DSCN1423.mp4

M1D

cant you just use a couple adapters/reducers? about $5.00 a peice.

Yes Don, I have a high flow 3" cat on mine.l


m1d

Hey M1 -im curious as to why the cat converter?? Due to needing an oxyger sensor feed back for computer?? or=?? With / for the tpi??

LMAO ya right Don!

The CAT is for two reasons.
#1 it keeps the single wire O2 sensor at the right temperature.
#2 There is no reason why we should not take air polution seriously ; we know its a problem, we have a choice to do the best we personaly can to keep our world clean or ignor the problems we cause.
On that note, let me rant a bit. I also use an EGR valve and a charcole canister with a complete fuel tank evaporative control system as well as a PCV system and all the other basics like coolant recovery tank.
My van is a street van not a race car, most of its run time is below half throtle.
I get lots of coments at car shows about the CAT Many people say the catelectic converter takes away horse power; thats real old school thinking. Maybe an older or cloged cat is a problem, but a new high flow CAT on an engine that runs under 7000 RPM, it dosn't have a measurable effect on power.
I hear so many vanners crying about fuel economy, the EGR valve system saves me about 4 mile per gallon at highway cruise speed.
My van delivers 196 hp at the wheels, It will do a 100 foot posi burn out and clear 100 plus mph.
Would excluding a cateletic converter really make any noticable difference?

I think not.
M1D

Although I commend M1Daddio for putting in a cat I am not convinced, from studies I've read, that converting exhaust to sulphuric acid gas as some other flouro carbons is anything more than a shell game by Congress, the EPA and the car companies.

However, running a car lean (like he does via the O2 sensor) and having a way to recover fuel vapor is a really big deal to the environment. Unburned hydrocarbons (evaporants) are almost always much, much worse than burned ones. With that in mind am hoping he and anybody who has set up vapor recovery on the oldies would post pick and a part list. I would like to do the same on my old flattie as I know everytime I open that gas cap or just let my van sit in the sun I'm doing a lot more damage than just running my van well tuned.

Thanks much, Mark

Heres what ive learned over the years = i wont go with the cat system- ever - There was a time when we had many old typw vehicles on the road - all going down the road burning oil & dirtying the air. Our new oils are allowing our engines to go over 100,000 miles easily- in past times - if we got 70,000 out of them we were facing a rebuild. Our older vans are usually now running rebuilt engines, new oils and better in all ways for us .In not one to like polution - yet- here we are with cleaner air and thats nice- -we have improved in many ways and can still do our part in building our vans like we want to without having to use all the "pollution controlls and newer computers and stuff that our Governments forced us to have on our newer cars. I do believe in "Freedom" and thats my choice to build the old van my way , without adding all the ?modern junk" we are forced to buy on our newer vehicles. I also remember when a performance car gave us over 400 HP and then a =' performace car in the 70's & 80's gave us 150HP and a cruise controll & stereo, leather seats and a phone inside it. Finally we have past all those days - have some nice performance parts & equip. again and are building some nice vans. My vote is to use what we want- build what we want - and hope we never digress to those government controlled days + That once required us to update all our older vehicles up to our newer standards. We can really thank SEMA for getting us to our present stage in that government controlled battle on our older vehicles. Im Happy without all the pollution controlls- but im really glad i dont have to hand crank my V-8 to start it!! My 2 cents worth- still to all Happy Vannin=

I'm of the school of thought of "if you do an engine swap, put the same or better emissions control system back in the vehicle". When I did a V8 swap in my Wrangler, to replace the wimpy wheezy 4 banger, I went with a MPFI head/intake/injection setup from a 5.2 out of a '96 Ram. The block is a standard 70's LA 318. Since OBD-II runs before and after cat O2 sensors, I installed a high flow Cat, much like M1D has. OBD-II called for the end of EGR for Chrysler V8 engines (until the new Hemi) and therefore was not required/installed for my application.
Having said all that, when it comes time to swap a V8 into my A100, it will be carbureted and therefore will not have any emission equipment on it, because nothing was called for. I feel a good running newer engine will always produce lower emissions than an older series of engine.
But like M1D said, no use spewing out more toxic emissions than necessary. Carbon Dioxide is much easier on the environment than Carbon Monoxide, I dont care who's propogating what on the subject. Plants absorb CO2 and release Oxygen. Nothing in nature absorbs/converts CO into anything, it just hangs around.

Got CAT? Got stainless pipe?


63