Little review on flowmaster suv 50

[benztech82]

Hey guys and gals, so I have that muffler with 2 in and 2 out pipes, my cats are still original and exhaust pipe is routed down just before rear axle. I have been running this system for 6 month or so, first thing I noticed was a major power loss in 0-60 times. Before flowmaster I had a custom straight flow dual resonators which were loud as hell but truck accelerated quicker. Now good news, muffler almost has no drone and probably if exhaust pipe was routed as intended to the rear stock spot i bet it would not have even that faint drone. Another good thing about it is a deep gurgle/rumble sound of an old school v8.

Overall i think it's ok if you want to replace old stock system with something better and keep noise down. Performance wise it's mehh....

Sent from my Redmi 4 using Tapatalk

 

[riceandpho]

really depends on the piping, if you go as big as 3 inch, you get the flow, but you loose the back pressure that is needed. i think the most cat-back setup uses 2.5 inch pipes, i tried doing the 3 inch and it was loud and a loss of some performance.

 

[Drunner97]

If you haven't been on a dyno, there's no way to tell what you gained or lost.

 

[That_Titanium_4RNR]

really depends on the piping, if you go as big as 3 inch, you get the flow, but you loose the back pressure that is needed. i think the most cat-back setup uses 2.5 inch pipes, i tried doing the 3 inch and it was loud and a loss of some performance.

YouTube

 

[firebirdguy]

flowmaster mufflers are well known for terrible flow, despite the name. some like the sound but thats about the only good thing about them.

in the car performance world they are one of the worst flowing mufflers out there. they were tested at the track & on dynos to show loss of power compared to 10 other common mufflers. if power/performance is a concern, i would suggest a straight through style muffler like dynomax ultraflo or even the super turbo.

 

[doofenshmirtz]

YouTube

I KNEW it was going to be this video... This isn't pointed at you, but just in general, the title is a bit click-bait-y.

The real takeaway here is to just call it exhaust scavenging and not back pressure. Backpressure is bad, but exhaust scavenging is good. Well, as one goes up, the other goes up, too. Reduce backpressure, and you'll reduce scavenging as well. Increase backpressure, and exhaust scavenging goes up. They're so correlated that differentiating isn't really meaningful in conveying the idea.

They don't go up and down equally; so, yes, there's a sweet spot where you can optimize your ratio of scavenging to backpressure - either through tube diameter or system layout. ...But it's a bit pedantic of a qualification/clarification for casual conversation. I'd argue that's right in line with the content expected from a channel called Engineering Explained, though.

You can change backpressure to exhaust scavenging in the previous comment, and literally nothing is incorrect.

 

[That_Titanium_4RNR]

I KNEW it was going to be this video... This isn't pointed at you, but just in general, the title is a bit click-bait-y.

The real takeaway here is to just call it exhaust scavenging and not back pressure. Backpressure is bad, but exhaust scavenging is good. Well, as one goes up, the other goes up, too. Reduce backpressure, and you'll reduce scavenging as well. Increase backpressure, and exhaust scavenging goes up. They're so correlated that differentiating isn't really meaningful in conveying the idea.

They don't go up and down equally; so, yes, there's a sweet spot where you can optimize your ratio of scavenging to backpressure - either through tube diameter or system layout. ...But it's a bit pedantic of a qualification/clarification for casual conversation. I'd argue that's right in line with the content expected from a channel called Engineering Explained, though.

You can change backpressure to exhaust scavenging in the previous comment, and literally nothing is incorrect.

I have a very hard time believing that 3" wouldn't be the best option for performance. That's all I'm trying to say. Seems a bit counter-intuitive to get more power from a 2.5" or even 2.25" system than a 3". Seems like people are talking about "feel" it would be interesting to see dyno sheets, that could sway my opinion.

 

[doofenshmirtz]

I have a very hard time believing that 3" wouldn't be the best option for performance. That's all I'm trying to say. Seems a bit counter-intuitive to get more power from a 2.5" or even 2.25" system than a 3". Seems like people are talking about "feel" it would be interesting to see dyno sheets, that could sway my opinion.

FWIW Dirty Deeds has been running and manufacturing 2.25 and 2.5 systems on tundras and 4runners with the 2uzfe. I believe the choice was based on dyno-proven results - but that's going from memory doing research on Helmholtz resonators months and months ago..

He races his tundra, so I'd suspect if 3" was worth it, he'd be making 3" systems for it.

 

[benztech82]

If you haven't been on a dyno, there's no way to tell what you gained or lost.

You are correct but at the same time i'm sure as hell felt the loss of power.

Sent from my Redmi 4 using Tapatalk