Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

So I got a deal on a corsa performance exhaust but it’s for 6.2 off 2016 Silverado..... I have a 2014 Silverado with a 5.3 would it work? I have a small exhaust leak (missing the donut where the y-pipe and manifolds meet at) so I figured I’d just swap the whole exhaust with something better wonder if this would help it or hurt? Also thinking of changing the intake to the 6.2 I think I’ve seen couple people do that on here... 

53362C31-C3B0-42CB-99B8-1BFAEE572AF7.jpeg

 

F52B0E6B-FA8D-43F0-B42F-ABE09B17913C.jpeg

 

AAB35C5E-6DA4-4F4A-85CB-23A9EE60B3E8.jpeg

 

DD30BAEE-82EA-4800-B710-BFEF7915F46C.jpeg

 

DF30E3B3-DDF9-4177-A680-954E45707FEB.jpeg

 

36481F5B-53FB-4088-B6F6-34B397DB6506.jpeg

 

CD5E7212-F741-493A-8663-24DEFFA97C9A.jpeg

Edited by Frankielozano214
Posted

It should fit Frankie the muffler clamps are the same size for the 6.2 and 5.3 

  • Like 1
Posted

I just bought a new one cause my Corsa is on back order so when the time comes I won’t worry about using the original one 

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)

Well I mean will this bolt up straight to my current 5.3 Y-pipe? Is this flex pipe bigger then the one that’s on my truck currently? This is off a 6.2 exhaust 
 

I know all the hangers are on the same place so those will fit perfectly. 

 

2F9C768E-7EBB-4ADB-887C-902BF0AD6AA1.jpeg

Edited by Frankielozano214
Posted (edited)

About to go take a picture of my factory setup, thanks hope it’s good got this for a really good deal don’t wana sell it if I can use it0781D106-4A8A-4412-87FF-AB3ACAD0E4C1.thumb.jpeg.f46b4e48b259433194280007fb4dd61f.jpeg

 

C74179C3-A93D-438C-9F5D-076DA6705686.thumb.jpeg.bf6cd68c1e5d1841ea62300d8b151439.jpeg

 

CFAAC942-1C72-4304-9246-AF78C65826D4.thumb.jpeg.c4a7950cb456f149fb63cba63be1fa2b.jpeg

 

0D35C6CE-063C-4EC6-B4A8-D89005C6269A.thumb.jpeg.d16f554efdae988b5b5d513ea4e0fac0.jpeg

 

8909150D-3754-4238-A444-35446F9378FF.thumb.jpeg.5ed28517b52378e81f8d42a927d6eb49.jpeg

Edited by Frankielozano214
Posted (edited)

Yeah I looked it up before I bought price was like 1400/1500$ 
 

posted pictures of the current stock setup looks pretty old and thin

Edited by Frankielozano214
Posted

The 6.2 clamps is larger than the 5.3 clamp. The ball flange dealio on the cat-back is larger on the 6.2's because the overall exhaust size is larger on a factory 6.2.

 

But what I don't is if the corsa system used the same size clamp as the 5.3's.

 

Having worked in a parts store, I always have to send people to the dealership to get the 6.2 clamp because our computer system says the 5.3/6.2 clamps are the same size but with a tape measure they are clearly not the same.

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, CamGTP said:

The 6.2 clamps is larger than the 5.3 clamp. The ball flange dealio on the cat-back is larger on the 6.2's because the overall exhaust size is larger on a factory 6.2.

 

But what I don't is if the corsa system used the same size clamp as the 5.3's.

 

Having worked in a parts store, I always have to send people to the dealership to get the 6.2 clamp because our computer system says the 5.3/6.2 clamps are the same size but with a tape measure they are clearly not the same.

Might just let the muffler shop install it, I looked up both the 6.2 (3.5in) and 5.3 (3.0in) Corsa Performance Exhaust and it’s about .5in difference so I’m wondering if the shop can make something work

Edited by Frankielozano214
Posted

Any exhaust shop could just chop your flex joint with flange and weld it straight to the corsa system if they had too.

  • Like 1
Posted
More air out mean more horsepower right? I needa buy a cold air intake still
Save your money for gas .
I see a lot of your pics are at the pumps[emoji2957][emoji2957][emoji2957][emoji40]

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted

Your truck looks killer Frankie [emoji106][emoji106][emoji106][emoji106][emoji40]

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

  • 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
  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • This video may not be the exact content for the joke thread but its a lot of laughs so here it is, I've only watched a portion of it so far but if anyone is looking for some light hearted good soap box driving action, its here. As a note in the upper left of the screen it shows the number out of 100 to refer back to any particular vehicle for comment !.    https://www.facebook.com/reel/1351928276956715
    • Did have to make 1 modification because of the WeatherTech rear mud flaps and that was needing 3 longer screws than what came with the install package. 😄
    • Picked up the liners yesterday. Installed passenger side WITHOUT any modifications. All mounting holes lined up perfectly. Rain is interfering today with drivers side. Very Happy! Will add pics when finished
    • As a matter of amusement I’ll leave this conversation with this. Do you beat the government average fuel estimate? Statistics are a guide to me. Not a rule. Someone once said I have to have the last word. If true and possible may be. I’ll blame that on working in a family business.
    • That is a fair point, and I agree that trying to log “everything in the truck” would be the wrong direction.   There are a lot of modules and a lot of traffic. If the product became a full-truck datalogger, the amount of data would get huge very quickly, and most owners would never use it.   I think the first useful version would need to be narrow: - powertrain-side event evidence - selected high-value parameters - communication / voltage / reset events - pre/post event window - short report first, raw log only as backup   One distinction I should make is between active OBD/PID polling and passive bus capture. If you are polling PIDs through OBD, then yes: the more parameters you request, the lower the effective sample rate becomes, and you are adding diagnostic traffic to a vehicle that is already busy running itself. With passive CAN capture, the recorder is not asking all the modules for data. It is listening to traffic that is already on the bus. So it does not consume vehicle bus bandwidth in the same way that a scan tool polling hundreds of PIDs would. But your point still applies in a different way.   Even if passive capture does not add bus traffic, the recorder still has limits: - processing rate - storage rate - timestamp accuracy - decoder workload - event filtering - report size - user attention span   So the answer cannot be “log everything and let the user figure it out.” The product would need to store enough raw evidence to be useful, but only decode, graph, and present the important parts around the event.   A practical report should probably show: - what triggered the capture - how much pre/post data was preserved - which selected parameters changed - how those values compared to baseline - whether the same pattern happened before - whether any voltage, reset, bus-off, lost-message, or communication fault occurred - selected graphs around the event - raw data only as supporting evidence   So I agree with you. More data is not automatically better. The real product is the reduction from raw data into a useful event report.
  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...