Jump to content

BORLA Exhaust for the 2019+ Silverado/Sierra 1500

ian@borla
 Share

Recommended Posts

BlackBeard1790 Enthusiast

BlackBeard1790

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, truck_newbie said:

The Flowmaster is definitely much louder than the Magnaflow. Even without the flappers, the Magnaflow sound was pretty tame. I think the Flowmaster with flappers will still be a bit louder than the GM performance exhaust. The GM performance exhaust is really tame. 

That’s what I figured. So, is the Magnaflow 12909 the one for the 5.3? Also, did you go with a single exit or a dual split?

  • Replies 230
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

ian@borla
ian@borla

BORLA Exhaust for the 2019+ Silverado 1500 (In Development)   Each BORLA exhaust system is made with T-304 stainless steel to give you the best in durability and performance. We strive to pr

ian@borla
ian@borla

Hello all.  The GM Performance systems for the 2019 Silverados are indeed made by Borla. They are made according to GM's specifications and are separate from the aftermarket Borla systems. 

WNYK2
WNYK2

For anyone thinking about a Borla Exhaust system Their warranty is no joke. I had an isue with mine recently(on truck for over 2 yrs) and after contacting them a new system was on it's way within

Posted Images

truck_newbie Enthusiast

truck_newbie

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, BlackBeard1790 said:

That’s what I figured. So, is the Magnaflow 12909 the one for the 5.3? Also, did you go with a single exit or a dual split?

Both the 12909 and 11229(that i have) are single exits. I'm not sure about the 5.3 but on the 6.2, factory piping is single-in, single-out, you can see in the pictures in my post. It seems the 12909 is a much bigger muffler than the 11229. What I have been told is that generally, the bigger the muffler, the quieter the sound. The 12909 with both flappers might end up too quiet for you. If you go with the 12909, you could probably just try with one flapper first. 

 

I ordered the Gibson Part #: GPE-65692. I got it heavily discounted for $450 so i figured why not. I like my current setup but sometimes it seems a bit too quiet. If i end up not liking the Gibson, i'll go to my old setup. 

ian@borla Enthusiast

ian@borla

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

Borla Exhaust for the 2019+ Silverado/Sierra

 

Side Exit 5.3L

 

S-Type:

 

spacer.png

 

Chrome Tips: https://www.borla.com/products/silverado_sierra_1500_catback_exhaust_stype_part__140794.html

 

Black Chrome Tips: https://www.borla.com/products/silverado_sierra_1500_catback_exhaust_stype_part__140794bc.html

 

 

Touring:

 

spacer.png

 

Chrome Tips: https://www.borla.com/products/silverado_sierra_1500_catback_exhaust_touring_part__140793.html

 

Black Chrome Tips: https://www.borla.com/products/silverado_sierra_1500_catback_exhaust_touring_part__140793bc.html

 

 

True Dual 6.2L 

 

S-Type:

spacer.png

 

 

 

No Tips(For use with Factory Tips): https://www.borla.com/products/silverado_sierra_1500_catback_exhaust_stype_part__140778.html

 

Square Chrome Tips: https://www.borla.com/products/silverado_sierra_1500_catback_exhaust_stype_part__140785.html

 

Round Black Chrome Tips: https://www.borla.com/products/silverado_sierra_1500_catback_exhaust_stype_part__140779bc.html

 

Carbon Fiber Tips: https://www.borla.com/products/silverado_sierra_1500_catback_exhaust_stype_part__140779cf.html

Edited by ian@borla
ian@borla Enthusiast

ian@borla

Posted
  • Author
Posted
16 hours ago, lt1z said:

I like the true dual system. Will there be a touring or Atak version or just the S type?

Is the piping 2.75”?

Unfortunately, we will only have the S-Type sound level for the True Dual system.

 

Yes, the pipe diameter is dual 2.75". 

Dougie86 Enthusiast

Dougie86

Posted
Posted
On 9/4/2019 at 7:37 PM, ian@borla said:

Borla Exhaust for the 2019+ Silverado/Sierra

 

Side Exit 5.3L

 

S-Type:

 

spacer.png

 

Chrome Tips: https://www.borla.com/products/silverado_sierra_1500_catback_exhaust_stype_part__140794.html

 

Black Chrome Tips: https://www.borla.com/products/silverado_sierra_1500_catback_exhaust_stype_part__140794bc.html

 

 

Touring:

 

spacer.png

 

Chrome Tips: https://www.borla.com/products/silverado_sierra_1500_catback_exhaust_touring_part__140793.html

 

Black Chrome Tips: https://www.borla.com/products/silverado_sierra_1500_catback_exhaust_touring_part__140793bc.html

 

 

True Dual 6.2L 

 

S-Type:

spacer.png

 

 

 

No Tips(For use with Factory Tips): https://www.borla.com/products/silverado_sierra_1500_catback_exhaust_stype_part__140778.html

 

Square Chrome Tips: https://www.borla.com/products/silverado_sierra_1500_catback_exhaust_stype_part__140785.html

 

Round Black Chrome Tips: https://www.borla.com/products/silverado_sierra_1500_catback_exhaust_stype_part__140779bc.html

 

Carbon Fiber Tips: https://www.borla.com/products/silverado_sierra_1500_catback_exhaust_stype_part__140779cf.html

So since you wouldn't answer my email, how come there is no exhaust showing on you website for a Crew cab standard box (6.5ft). I mostly see these trucks with a longer box than the short one.  Thanks

ian@borla Enthusiast

ian@borla

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
On 9/5/2019 at 1:05 PM, bearded_warrior said:

@ian@borla

 

Is there a notable sound or performance difference for the True Dual System compared to the 1 to 2 design? 

 

Thanks!!

On a stock vehicle, the performance difference is negligible. The sound is a little bit different. The dB levels are identical, but the true dual system has a warmer tone. Overall, it will still sound like our typical S-Type system for the Silverado/Sierra. 

39 minutes ago, Dougie86 said:

So since you wouldn't answer my email, how come there is no exhaust showing on you website for a Crew cab standard box (6.5ft). I mostly see these trucks with a longer box than the short one.  Thanks

I'm sorry, I don't believe I have received an email from you. My email address is [email protected]. Unfortunately, I don't have an update regarding the Crew Cab with the Standard Box. We have not brought one in to our R&D facility, but I'm quite sure that we will offer systems for that wheelbase as we did with the previous generation. 

Edited by ian@borla
lt1z Enthusiast

lt1z

Posted
Posted
Not by the looks of the rendering or the install instructions. 



The muffler itself may act as an x pipe. Haven’t seen one up close yet but considering ordering
PabloK Enthusiast

PabloK

Posted
Posted

wish i had known a true dual setup was coming.... fml.

 

@Borla can we get some 6.2 s-type true dual sound clips?  

 

you describe it as "warmer"  can you get into any more detail?  i would imagine this setup has a fairly large impact on the tone.

 

my current 140773 / split s-type honestly doesnt sound that great. the exhaust note is too sharp and is horribly mono-tone as the engine runs through the rpms.  just a constant rumble... rushed into market?

 

PabloK Enthusiast

PabloK

Posted
Posted

ended up ordering the dual setup.... .

 

should have it in 2-4 days,  i'll install and post a sound clip the day i get it.

 

 

  • Like 2
bearded_warrior Enthusiast

bearded_warrior

Posted
Posted

FYI, received this from Borla after Ian responded regarding questions about the True Duals. 

 

Quote

There is not much in the way of performance gains on a stock vehicle over our regular system, the true dual is geared towards increased potential for vehicles that have further modifications than stock. The sound quality on a single vs true dual is not different. An S-type sounds like an S-type etc.

 

  • Like 1

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
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Coastie05
      2027 GMC Sierra: Official Discussion

      By Coastie05 · Posted

      Batteries don’t always show signs of a few years ago my vehicle started fine in the morning and took me to work. After work the battery was completely dead and I needed a jump. No, I didn’t leave anything on and the battery was only a couple months old. It was replaced under warranty. 
    • Jake87
      2027 GMC Sierra: Official Discussion

      By Jake87 · Posted

      AFM is confirmed in the Corvette engine, so I'm assuming the higher volume trucks will get it as well
    • NDKoze
      2027 GMC Sierra: Official Discussion

      By NDKoze · Posted

      If his battery was that bad I would think it would have been showing signs before this that were ignored. Stinks that it happened the way it did in rush hour traffic, but this seems like a pretty fringe scenario. I don't mind it that bad and never turn it off. The only slight annoyance for me is the slight delay between brake to gas, but I have gotten used to it and figure if it can save a little gas why not.
    • bluev8
      Intermittent no-code issues on 2022.5+ V8 trucks — what did the shop fail to capture?

      By bluev8 · Posted

      That is a good correction. I think “severity” was probably the wrong word for what I meant. What I really mean is closer to event priority, relevance, and actionability — not “this code is severe” or “replace this part.” I agree that a truck can have a lot of trivial or historical communication codes, and if the product starts pushing alerts for every stored or low-value event, people will ignore it very quickly. So the alert logic would need to be filtered. For example, I would not want a random old communication code to generate a push notification by itself. A useful alert would probably need to be based on things like: - new vs historical - active vs stored - repeated vs one-time - duration of the event - whether it happened near the driver-marked symptom - whether it happened together with voltage drop, reset, bus-off, misfire, oil-pressure change, etc. - whether the same pattern repeats under similar conditions So instead of saying “severity,” maybe the product should organize events by affected system and priority. For example: Misfire event: Show misfire counts / roughness first, then fuel trims, RPM/load, DFM/AFM state if available, coolant/oil temp, voltage, and related DTCs. Oil-pressure event: Show oil pressure first, but only in context — RPM, load, oil temperature, coolant temperature, DFM/AFM state if available, voltage, and baseline comparison. Communication event: Show which module/network/message dropped, whether voltage dropped, whether the recorder reset, whether it was active or historical, and whether it repeated. Voltage/reset event: Show battery voltage, crank/wake/sleep state, module reset, communication dropouts, and what came back online first. That also solves the display-order problem you mentioned. The main report should not always show the same fixed list first. It should show the system that appears abnormal first, and then the supporting values for that system. I also agree that the truck already has an oil pressure gauge and MIL. The point would not be to duplicate those. The value would be in showing what else was happening before and after the warning or symptom. For example, if the MIL comes on for a misfire, the truck already told the driver there is a problem. The useful part would be: - which cylinder or bank looked abnormal first - whether it happened after an AFM/DFM transition - whether fuel trims were already moving - whether oil pressure or voltage changed at the same time - whether the same pattern happened previously without a MIL On the OBD port point, I think you may be right for a consumer-facing version. OBD is much easier for the average owner: - easier install - easier removal - inside the cabin - easier phone connection - easier data download - easier to include a pass-through port for another scanner OBD is also the right place for DTCs, freeze frame, VIN, calibration information, Mode 6, and normal scan-tool parameters. The reason I was looking at ECM-side recording is that some events may be gone by the time someone plugs in a scanner, and some powertrain-side network evidence may not be available the same way through the DLC. But I agree that if an OBD-based version can capture enough useful evidence for most owners, that is probably the cleaner consumer product. Maybe the split is: - OBD/DLC version for most consumers - ECM-side version only if it proves it adds evidence that the OBD version cannot get - shop/pro version if deeper powertrain-side event evidence is actually useful So I would not want to force the inline approach if the OBD workflow solves most of the real-world problem. Your last point is probably the key product requirement: the report should be specific to the system showing the abnormality. Not “here are 50 parameters.” More like: “Misfire-related event detected. Here are the misfire/fuel/DFM/context values.” or “Oil-pressure-related event detected. Here is oil pressure compared with RPM/load/temp/baseline.” or “Communication event detected. Here is what dropped, when, and whether voltage/reset happened first.” That is a much better way to think about the report.
    • KARNUT
      2027 GMC Sierra: Official Discussion

      By KARNUT · Posted

      It was all part of the tiny bit of fuel savings it goes towards what was mandated by the government. Much like cylinder deactivation. That was relaxed by the recent administration. All that doesn’t help the individual buyer. But as a whole helps the manufacturer to try to reach the previous ridiculous past mileage per gallon mandate. So yes it was mandated and added cost to the vehicle. 

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...