2.2L L61 Performance Tech 16 valve 145 hp EcoTec with 155 lb-ft of torque

flowmaster 40 series

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Nov 24, 2005 | 08:28 PM
  #1  
nomoreavril's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Joined: 10-08-05
Posts: 1,759
Likes: 0
From: Fort Worth, TX
flowmaster 40 series

anyone have a sound clip of one of these on a 2.2?
Reply
Old Nov 25, 2005 | 02:22 PM
  #2  
DoNtGeTdUnNuP's Avatar
New Member
 
Joined: 06-05-05
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
From: Washington
i have it on my car.. but no sound clip.. i was gunna make a video of it, but i dont know how to host a video online.
Reply
Old Nov 26, 2005 | 12:55 AM
  #3  
nomoreavril's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Joined: 10-08-05
Posts: 1,759
Likes: 0
From: Fort Worth, TX
you could email it to me or something..lol..i really wanna know how it sounds. can you describe it? is it even good? is it loud or what?
Reply
Old Nov 26, 2005 | 12:07 PM
  #4  
DoNtGeTdUnNuP's Avatar
New Member
 
Joined: 06-05-05
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
From: Washington
i have dual outlets with nice muffler tips on it and it sounds great.. its got a nice pur to it.. ill see what i can do with a video. im very happy with it tho..
Reply
Old Nov 26, 2005 | 03:13 PM
  #5  
nomoreavril's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Joined: 10-08-05
Posts: 1,759
Likes: 0
From: Fort Worth, TX
i have a cheap ass 18 dollar cherry bomb turbo 2 muffler thats loud but its not farty its a nice solid deep tone, and i plan on getting a custom catback exhaust and i'm afraid if i change to a round muffler it might make it sound bad, so i was thinking about keeping my cheap muffler or buying a flowmaster or something
Reply
Old Nov 27, 2005 | 12:10 AM
  #6  
IJDM's Avatar
New Member
 
Joined: 07-04-05
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
From: West Columbia, SC
40 will be to loud, esp a 4 banger. I have a Super 40 on my Custom Avalanche with the 5.3l, and it sounds great. I went with a FM50 on my Cobalt LS. Good sound, not farty.
Reply
Old Nov 27, 2005 | 01:57 AM
  #7  
importkiller's Avatar
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: 10-14-05
Posts: 2,291
Likes: 0
From: Colorado
which exact model did you guys get, i want to do a custom mandril bent exhaust and i was wondering which one i should go with?
Reply
Old Nov 27, 2005 | 02:17 AM
  #8  
nomoreavril's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Joined: 10-08-05
Posts: 1,759
Likes: 0
From: Fort Worth, TX
would 60 delta series be better? anyone heard that one on a balt?
Reply
Old Nov 27, 2005 | 02:18 AM
  #9  
TurboTechRacing's Avatar
Former Vendor
iTrader: (24)
 
Joined: 01-28-05
Posts: 13,687
Likes: 40
From: On Here
I have the flowmaster 40 series on my cavalier. It sounds really good. Very deep sounding and not tinny. Also it is not very load so the cops dont pester you to much.
Reply
Old Nov 27, 2005 | 01:31 PM
  #10  
importkiller's Avatar
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: 10-14-05
Posts: 2,291
Likes: 0
From: Colorado
Originally Posted by nomoreavril
would 60 delta series be better? anyone heard that one on a balt?
yeah i am looking at the 60 delta too which size should i get 2 or 2.25?
Reply
Old Nov 27, 2005 | 11:36 PM
  #11  
nomoreavril's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Joined: 10-08-05
Posts: 1,759
Likes: 0
From: Fort Worth, TX
from what i would guess....2.25 would affect performance a little more...just a guess though....is 2.25 the highest we should go on exhaust or 2.5 for a n/a engine?
Reply
Old Nov 28, 2005 | 12:31 AM
  #12  
mlcroy20's Avatar
New Member
 
Joined: 06-20-05
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
From: Orlando, FL
I'm kind of new with modding the 4-banger, i wouldn't think of going anything larger than a 2 1/4... but I know on my old V6 you really shouldn't go above a 2.5 due to loss of back pressure.. here is something that I found last year and it kind of explains it (a lot to read but fairly informative)

Is Bigger Better or is Faster Best?

When contemplating a modified exhaust system there are those who want the biggest diameter pipe that can be had. Their idea must be that fatter pipes are more effective at venting than narrower pipes. This sounds reasonable but it is not quite correct. Sure wider pipes have greater volume and higher flow capacity, but that is just half of the story. Capacity is one consideration but gas velocity is the other factor.

An experienced exhaust designer knows that the best exhaust is one that balances flow capacity with velocity. A given volume/time of gasses will travel faster through a 2" pipe than the same volume of gas passing through a 3" pipe. So when taken to its extremes we can see that a too narrow pipe will create backpressure (restrictions to positive flow) problems and a too wide pipe will cause a very slow flow with no backpressure.

The optimum is where the fastest velocity is achieved with the least constriction possible.

This situation will arise when the pipe is wide enough so that there is the least level of positive backpressure possible whilst achieving the highest exhaust gas velocity.

The faster the exhaust gas pulse moves, the better it can scavenge out all of the spent gasses during valve overlap. The scavenge effect can be visualised by imagining the high-pressure pulse with a trailing low-pressure area behind. The faster the high-pressure pulse moves the stronger the draw on the low-pressure gasses and the gasses behind that. The scavenge action is like (but not exactly) suction on the gasses behind.

The greater the clearance burned fuel from the combustion chamber the less diluted the incoming air/fuel mix is. Scavenging can also aid intake on overlapping valves (where the exhaust and inlet valves are open at the same time) by drawing in the intake. These are good things to happen.

So instead of going for the widest pipe possible we should be looking for the combination of the narrowest pipe that produces the least backpressure possible. In this scenario we achieve the least restriction on positive flow and the highest gas travel speed.

Exhaust pipe diameters are best suited to a particular RPM range. If we used a constant RPM engine this would be easy to specify. But a variable RPM engine will mean that not one size suits all. It is possible to vary the size of exhaust volumes according to rpm but it is very expensive (Ferrari has done it). The optimum gas flows (volume and speed) are required at the RPM range that you want your power band to be located. For a given engine configuration a small pipe diameter will produce higher exhaust velocities at a low RPM (good) but create unacceptably high amounts (bad) of backpressure at high rpm. If you had a car with a low RPM power band (2,000-3,000 RPM) you would want a narrower pipe than if your power band is located at 5,000-7,000 RPM.
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
GBRunner24
Featured Car Showcase
3
Sep 26, 2015 06:44 PM
jmelton327
2.2L L61 Performance Tech
13
Sep 25, 2015 09:44 AM
GBRunner24
Featured Car Showcase
0
Aug 29, 2015 03:11 PM
hatrickstu
2.0L LSJ Performance Tech
19
Oct 19, 2005 07:21 PM
rm25x
2.2L L61 Performance Tech
8
Mar 15, 2005 12:58 AM




All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:46 PM.