Modded Mustang Forums banner

1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Absens haeres non erit
Joined
·
2,807 Posts
Discussion Starter #2
Damn no responses?

Anyways the general consensus is that the diameter is I believe .5" larger so an adapter would be needed, so they are pointless. Since you could just buy a axle-back kit that is guaranteed to sound good for the same price.

Answered my own question. Got to love it. ;)
 

·
The Aviator
Joined
·
6,305 Posts
I like my exhaust
 

·
Stew
Joined
·
1,560 Posts
yea, i dont have a 5.0 and dont want their crappy mufflers.... i gotz my roush!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
I had take-offs from a GT500...as purchased. It was a dealer upgrade and had been traded to the dealership I purchased from (no additional cost:))...

However, they honestly made the car sound like an import bike....really high pitched whine....

They lasted about a week...or at least as long as it took American Muscle to ship the Roush axle backs!
 

·
The Aviator
Joined
·
6,305 Posts
And the Roushs sound better?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
491 Posts
Apparently, and in my opinion from videos, yes.

2011 V6 pipe's have a 2.25" diameter, pretty much everything else has a 2.5" - Notably, Borla's said that the 2.25" fits the V6 more appropriately as it helps hot exhaust flow further down (and out) the exhaust. I really wonder if this applies to forced induction setups as well - especially curious if it will allow optimal (little to no) backpressure for twin turbocharged applications.
 

·
The Aviator
Joined
·
6,305 Posts
From what I can gather: no -- you'll need larger pipes for a better flowing system in a F/I application. Especially in a TT setup, where you have a constantly high amount of pressure built up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
491 Posts
I need to see figures to believe it, or at least want to try it out - I've met cats over the years running turbos over single 3" (and 2.5") piping in S13/S14's for years, while hitting disgustingly high gains (700+). I am confident our pair of 2.25" pipes should be able to accommodate a pair of reasonably sized turbos - and at the least flow well enough in a single turbo application, but that's a different subject.

Sorry for the thread hijack.
 

·
The Aviator
Joined
·
6,305 Posts
I agree with you, figures would be good to see; speculation is just that: speculation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
The Roush setup sounds much better in my opinion. The GT500 setup stuck out a little further as well (additional flange piece for fitment).

Honestly, none of the videos of the Roush do them any justice. I was worried about the raspy sound from what I had seen, but I truly like them.

Other than the sound, the Roush are lighter, fit better, fill the valence cut-outs better....probably with most/any aftermarket when compared to a factory part.

The GT500s sounded better than any of the "stock" mustangs at the dealer though!
 

·
Stew
Joined
·
1,560 Posts
The Roush setup sounds much better in my opinion.
Honestly, none of the videos of the Roush do them any justice. I was worried about the raspy sound from what I had seen, but I truly like them.

Other than the sound, the Roush are lighter, fit better, fill the valence cut-outs better....probably with most/any aftermarket when compared to a factory part.
!
Isnt that the truth. It was great taking out those 50lbs stock mufflers and putting in those 20lbs roushes. Mine are still sounding great!
 

·
The Aviator
Joined
·
6,305 Posts
There's something I concur with; the stock mufflers were most definitely heavy duty pieces of junk.
 

·
Stew
Joined
·
1,560 Posts
I dont even remember actually hearing my stock exhaust ever :/ Now I cant imagine driving without mine!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
491 Posts
I agree with you, figures would be good to see; speculation is just that: speculation.
Well here's some food for thought. And while this isn't genuine thermodynamic flow calculation, the cross-sectional areas between the two exhaust setups are approximately as follows (even accounting for loss in available diameter due to ~.05" pipe thickness):

Cross-sectional area of a cylinder = area of a circle = pi * r(^2)

3.14 * (2 * (1.125 - 0.1)^2) = 6.598 sq in

3.14 * (1.5 - 0.1) (^2) = 6.154 sq in

Our stock piping diameter should still outflow even the larger of rice-o-matic mean machines. And there are a whole bunch of 6-cylinder engines that use only a single exhaust pipe, so I really must wonder how that will all work out.

I don't know much about air flow, but if it's anything like electricity, I would imagine there'd be a limiting factor in a single-turbo application due to the exhaust outlet's typically small size. Calling in an expert opinion on this one. :\
 

·
Absens haeres non erit
Joined
·
2,807 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
If I had scale that could weight them I'd do it right now...
Drat! Guestimate?

So my weight savings...
-Deka lightweight battery
-Rear seat/ trunk lining delete
-No jack/ spare from the factory
-Washer fluid system delete
-After market lighter exhaust.

Interesting to see how much I can save.
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Top