Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Lets here more,what did you do exactly and what are your gains?

 

my 014 6.2 looks like 3.5" pipe,at the flapper it might be necked down to 3" right there for a couple inches

Edited by Gonzoid
Posted (edited)

Lets here more,what did you do exactly and what are your gains?

 

my 014 6.2 looks like 3.5" pipe,at the flapper it might be necked down to 3" right there for a couple inches

Gonzoid, the theory for experimenting with my truck modding was formed from these thoughts.

 

1. I think the 3.5" pipe is a little too big for good lower rpm flow. a 3.5" pipe can support 460-470 hp. When driving, the closer I'm pushing to 400 hp, the more efficiently the pipe is flowing exhaust gas. But in normal daily driving, I'm probably varying between 200-375 hp. The further away I am from 400 hp the less efficient the pipe is flowing as the 3.5" diameter allows the slower rpm exhaust gases more room to expand, cool, slow down and impeded flow. The only time I get near 400 hp output on the road is if I manual shift through first and second and peg the tach needle. But that's not how I normally drive. In auto and during spirited take offs the tranny changes gears by 5k rpm. I think a stock 3.25" exhaust would be a better compromise but it's not a standard size. It would support the 403 hp just fine but would be a little better flowing at low and mid rpms.

 

2. My magnaflow, or any straight through muffler, although freer flowing than stock, also allows the exhaust to cool a little sooner. The stock muffler traps heat better, keeping the exhaust gas hotter further down the pipe. Hotter exhaust flows better. The longer then pipe from muffler to exit, the more important it is to keep it hot.

 

3. Narrower pipes will enhance low end torque whereas larger pipes will enhance top end hp. Capacity favors hp, velocity favors torque.

 

4. On motorcycles, people often swap stock pipe/mufflers for straight through pipes, aka drag pipes, because they look and sound better and shed significant weight. Stock motorcycle exhaust are typically 1.75". Drag pipes are usually 2" to 2.25" diameter. Drag pipes are ideal on the drag strip but hurt low end because of #1 and #2 above. These drag pipes, being larger diameter than needed and without a muffler to keep the exhaust hot allow the exhaust to expand more, cool more, slow down more and ultimately impede low rpm power. Drag pipes become most efficient at drag strip rpms, hence their name.

 

So, we've established that bigger pipes with lower exhaust temperatures flow most efficiently at max rpm but increasingly less efficiently the lower the rpm until you hit idle, where they are the least efficient at flowing. But what about daily driving exhaust flow efficiency? What if the pipe on my truck was designed for better exhaust flow efficiency from idle to say 5200 rpm, where I spend all of my time, and not closer to 6000 rpm where I spend very little time? Would it improve my daily driving experience? The answer, for me, is yes.

 

Increasing velocity is how I accomplished improving the efficiency. A 50 year old technique used to improve low end on motorcycle drag pipes is to install an eye bolt about two inches inside the exhaust exit. This little obstruction forces the gas, upon exit, to speed up or increase velocity. When you increase velocity you reduce pressure. So by adding the eye bolt it increases exit velocity to help clear the slower rpm gases sooner, allowing less time to expand, cool and slow down but it also reduces exhaust pressure. Both of these elements, faster and less pressure, decrease low end pumping losses which translates to better lower rpm power and street drivability. From that, motorcycles exhaust manufacturers began playing with narrowing the end of drag pipes to add velocity/reduce pressure. Further, they began tuning them by varying the amount of narrowing and the length of the narrowed sections for individual motorcycle engines and performance goals.

 

When I added my magnaflow muffler I lost some low end. Then I looked at the magnaflow + 3.5" pipe as being like putting drag pipes on a motorcycle in that the pipe was a little too big and, with no reversion muffler, a heat source was eliminated. I tried the eyebolt in the exhaust trick on my 3.5" pipe and noticed some low end improvement, so I knew I was dealing with a velocity issue and not a capacity issue. I chose to incorporate a narrowed section in the back half of the exhaust, like manufacturers do on motorcycle exhaust. I felt the total exhaust might work better for my daily driving by adding velocity, clearing exhaust gases faster and, since velocity and pressure are inversely proportional, that increased velocity would mean lower exhaust pressure.

 

Subjective gains are more torque vs stock/magnaflow on take off, more torque vs stock/magnaflow when I want to increase speed, and smoother, more even power throughout the powerband. Before it seemed like there was a point around 2400-2800 rpm, both stock and just the magnaflow, where I started to feel a stepped increase in power as the 3.5" pipe began flowing exhaust more efficiently. "Getting into the meat of the power band" is how most would characterize it. The narrower section shifted the power band down some so it's much sooner and I spend more time in it rather than working up to it. Objective gains are decrease in downshifting on hills, tires breaking loose occasionally on normal take offs (I'm a laid back driver), faster acceleration and mpg increase from not pressing the pedal down as much.

Edited by Roll Bama Roll
  • Like 1
Posted

For clarification of my previous post- you can't just go narrowing any exhaust. Most stock exhausts produce flow that matches the engine hp well. But you can go narrower on an exhaust that is larger than needed, meaning it has the capacity to handle more hp than the engine can produce.

  • 1 month later...
Posted

So would it make sense to cut out the stock 3.5" muffler and replace with a high flow 3" muffler to help with some low end torque? Or would a baffled muffler that is 3.5" be better?

Posted

Since many different engine / exhaust configurations exist I'm focusing my comment solely on the GM 6.2L L9H V8, the engine / truck combo this thread is specific to:

 

Smaller primaries on headers increase velocity thereby create a scavenging effect to empty the exhaust gases making more room for cylinder fill of fuel/air mixture. Backpressure (downsized tubing-smaller or more restrictive muffler) downstream inhibits scavenging of exhaust gases and decreases performance.

 

A smaller tail pipe will not increase performance. As rpms increase you may notice the fall-off of performance on top end creating the illusion that bottom end has increased.

  • Like 1
  • 3 weeks later...
Posted

Hello everyone, just wanted to introduce myself here, I already did in the new members section. I'm going to pick up my 2012 Silverado ccsb ltz 6.2 on Saturday. I'll post some pictures on either Sunday or Monday. I'm very excited for this truck. I had an 08 Silverado 5.3 and finally left it for a 2014 ram 5.7, been unhappy since so I'll be glad to be back with the bow tie :)

 

Thanks

Josh

Posted

I recently tested the 2015 Silverado 1500 CC Z71 4x4 with the 6.2L against similar Ford, Ram and Tundra V8 packages. Silverado bested them in every category and felt far more planted when towing 6,500 pounds sans a WD hitch. Quietest cab interior, too. GM 6.2L acceleration is flat-out strong. It also delivered best towing and unloaded highway mpg between the three. (I also tested the Sierra version with Max Tow package…didn't like ride without a trailer in-tow.)

Posted

The 2014-2015 6.2 is not an L9H

 

 

Ryan

Posted

Hello everyone, just wanted to introduce myself here, I already did in the new members section. I'm going to pick up my 2012 Silverado ccsb ltz 6.2 on Saturday. I'll post some pictures on either Sunday or Monday. I'm very excited for this truck. I had an 08 Silverado 5.3 and finally left it for a 2014 ram 5.7, been unhappy since so I'll be glad to be back with the bow tie :)

 

Thanks

Josh

 

Congrats & look forward to seeing it.

  • 4 weeks later...
Posted

Here she is! Drove over 6 1/2 hours to pick her up :)

 

Josh

Congrats! Is there a way to search for a 900 model 6.2 or just a long auto trader, check each truck that comes up method?

Posted

Cars.com in the search

 

 

Ryan

Posted

I couldn't figure out a way to filter the engine-size using cargurus. I ended calling 4 different dealers before coming across the one I wanted. Well worth it :)

 

I've done a few mods already too, but not sure if this is the correct section to discuss them.

 

Josh

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Can it still be Assembled I?    Stribeck says that we need a certain amount of viscosity under conditions of load and velocity to prevent two surfaces of a know roughness from tearing each other asunder. And we have marketing trying to tell the masses that those two surfaced require less of that commodity due to more exact limits being placed on the same old clearances. We also know that there are limits to how hard something can before it becomes to brittle to be viable and to smooth to 'wet' the surface and that both of those conditions have been known and met since about the Second World War.    That viscosity value shook out at 10 centistokes at 212 F just under a hundred years ago.  Give this a look: [Anton Parr]     What is advertised is the Kinematic viscosity (mm2/s) or that which has been density adjusted but the value we are after is the dynamic viscosity (mPa.s) or true viscosity. You can see that this number is dependent on density thus base stock and temperature. You can also see that an SAE 30 doesn't reach that value in this example. However an SAE 30 that is at the upper end of the SAE 30 range; 12.5 cSt (mm2/s), might. 12.5 * .83 = 10.375 (mm2/s). If you could find an SAE 30 at the upper end these days.   Then there is the complication of viscosity modifiers or VII or VM, whatever you wish to call them. Polymers added to very thin base oils, perhaps 3 to 6 cP oils, that will meet the SAE *W30 spec at 'tested' shear rates and 100 C/212F  target temperature. So a polymer fortified base that is a fraction of the 10 cP requirement Stribeck insist upon.   This could be all well and good if those polymers didn't have two very problematic 'features'. They shear or loose viscosity both 1.) permanently and 2.) temporality. And they do both omitted in the advertised data with the distinct  purpose of deceiving the consumer of the actual operating state of the fluid. I've shown the example of Warren Oils COSTCO 10.91 cSt 5W30 formuation several times where the 100 C HTHS value is 6.9 cP!! That's the temporary shear down and with and SSI or shear stability index of 9.4 cSt. Note the intentional deception in using mixed units?    After a short while that 9.4 cSt oil has a viscosity corrected dynamic value of 7.8 cP. But as the SSI is still within the range of an SAE *W30 whose lower value is 9.3 cSt.    This allows them to continue to call this SAE 16 weight oil a 30 weight, the cake, and still meet the API requirements for fuel efficiency IMPROVEMENT mandated by the EPA. The eating of the cake. By the time you've worn out your motor doing the responsible thing by adhering to the warranty requirements, (the stick), you get deprived of the carrot, wear control. So sad, to bad.   So what can be done? Do I need actually say? [Anton Parr]       Even this must be monitored if the oil is on the low side and the VII an organic or you opt for a 0W40 with an even lighter base oil and more / higher MW VII. (Note the lower density of the 40 weight versus the SAE 30 mono-weight?)    There is another workaround. Temperature. An SAE *W30 run at a bulk temperature of between 180 and 195 F.    Being the belt and suspenders sort I am I do both. Run it cook and run it heavy.    In Part II I'll work the AW package. 
    • So, do I go elbow-deep on this thing or list it for sale and play dumb? Seems to "runs good."   I'm about $1200 away from having: -a rebuilt injector ($300) -a new cat ($250) -a new cat back exhaust (OE style) ($300) -a new AC compressor ($200) -AC refrigerant charge ($150)   In theory, this should rectify the obvious detracting issues from its value and operability. Cold AC with a non-squeaking AC pulley both sounds and feels good. An exhaust that isn't cut/hacked in 17 different places and doesn't vibrate on a crossmember would make it sound and feel less janky. A working cat would help the stink, and will save the earth, but *if and only if* the fuel system is working properly, which would also address the intermittent "rich" CEL.   Heard a good one... CEL for "Rich condition" means you haven't spent enough money on the truck lately, and it's letting you know.   Rebuilding the injector would seem to be the most important part. Replacing the cat would be secondary. I don't think mine is plugged or overly restricted, but it might be a little restricted? I have no good way to tell other than seat of the pants feel. I hate the smell.   The current theory is I have a rich idle problem: A bad fuel pressure regulator, or a leaking injector(s) being the highest probabilities. I already replaced the FPR but that doesn't mean its replacement isn't also bad. It was a new part from Dorman, but the packaging looked like it had been sitting on a shelf for 20 years.   This is the (single) upstream O2 sensor shown at idle. I'm getting a lot of "rich" it seems. Sometimes it stays high like that and doesn't drop down. That makes me think it's processing injector leaks or a partially stuck open injector.     Other times it looks like this. Nice oscillations between rich and lean, which is what I think it should be. Under load and at speed, the oscillations are nice and tight and uniform looking, high and low.     Fuel trims suggest the PCM is compensating pretty hard at idle to pull fuel out. But it's not enough to trip a CEL. Something about slowing to a stop: brake vaccum booster, EGR, or the EVAP purge is delayed, or there's pooled fuel in the intake again that's draining into a cylinder is enough to set the CEL. Of course, in two days of driving, it hasn't set. I was hoping to actually look at the freeze-frame data when it sets. IAT is high because it's idling on an 83 degree day here.  
    • Have considered installing a DC to DC charger in your camper to replace your isolator?  
    • Common failure.  You need to replace the fuel door housing.   The painted cover transfers over to the new housing.  To remove the old one there is 4 spots where you poke the plastic to release it.  
    • No such thing as regenerative braking on a pure ICE vehicle.     Regenerative braking is the re-capture of energy from electric motors and stores it in the battery pack.  So hybrids, PHEV and EVs have regenerative braking.     What you are seeing is the charging system changing modes is all.  Its likely entering charge mode for some sort of reason is all.  All of the charging modes will be listed below.   As for L10 vs D.  L10 turns off automatic grade braking.  L10 puts you in control of grade downshifts where in D it will automatically do it based on brake pedal position and other factors.  Otherwise L10 and D drive exactly the same aside from that one aspect.    Battery Sulfation Mode The BCM will enter this mode when the interpreted Generator output voltage is less than 13.2 V for 45 minutes. When this condition exists the BCM will enter Charge Mode for 2–3 minutes. The BCM will then determine which mode to enter depending on voltage requirements.   Charge Mode The BCM will enter Charge Mode when ever one of the following conditions are met:   Windshield wipers are ON for more than 3 s. Climate Control Voltage Boost Mode Request is true, as sensed by the HVAC control module via serial data. High speed cooling fan, rear defogger, and HVAC high speed blower operation can cause the BCM to enter the Charge Mode. The estimated battery temperature is less than 0°C (32°F). Battery State of Charge is less than 80%. Vehicle speed is greater than 145 km/h (90 mph) A current sensor malfunction exists. System voltage is determined to be below 12.56 V When any one of these conditions is met, the system will set targeted generator output voltage to a charging voltage between 13.9–15.5 V, depending on the battery state of charge and estimated battery temperature.   Fuel Economy Mode The BCM will enter Fuel Economy Mode when the estimated battery temperature is at least 0°C (32°F) but less than or equal to 80°C (176°F), the calculated battery current is less than 15 A and greater than −8 A, and the battery state-of-charge is greater than or equal to 80%. Its targeted generator output voltage is the open circuit voltage of the battery and can be between 12.5–13.1 V. When fuel economy mode is active, the generator is not charging, only maintaining open circuit battery voltage. The BCM will exit this mode and enter Charge Mode when any of the conditions described above are present.   Headlamp Mode The BCM will enter Headlamp Mode when ever the head lamps are ON (high or low beams). Voltage will be regulated between 13.9–14.5 V.   Start Up Mode When the engine is started the BCM sets a targeted generator output voltage of 14.5 V for 30 s.   Tow/Haul Mode (if applicable) Pressing the Tow/Haul Mode button located on the center stack, the vehicle system voltage is raised and the remote (non-vehicle) battery will be charged. Having the headlamps on will raise the system voltage and if the Tow/Haul button is applied it will not serve any purpose. The voltage is regulated between 13.9-14.5 V.      
  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...