Jump to content

MBRP exhaust

Londart2020
 Share

Recommended Posts

doozer78 Enthusiast

doozer78

Posted
Posted

Its basically just for looks. It really adds no performance upgrade per the people at mbrp due to all the diesel restrictions. I had one on my 6.2 gasser and loved it. Seen this and asked them about it and that was the response I got.

Sent from my SM-A705U using Tapatalk

  • Thanks 1
doozer78 Enthusiast

doozer78

Posted
Posted
I’m waiting on the Borla to come out for my gasser, but I did look at this just don’t know much about them so I’m leery 
I had mbrp on my 2014 6.2 gasser and it was an awesome system. I never heard of them either but took a chance and was not disappointed. Easy to install sounds great and it was a decent price. You wont regret if you get one that's a complete setup with the muffler

Sent from my SM-A705U using Tapatalk

unit Enthusiast

unit

Posted
Posted

He's driving a Duramax and the MBRP is DPF back only - not a complete exhaust system,  There are no complete exhaust systems for  diesels unless a complete delete is made.  A complete delete is ultra expensive on the L5P, voids your warranty and could potentially give legal problems since tampering with emissions systems if illegal.  They also won't pass emissions testing if you happen to live in a place where they are required.

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

    • Chuck FB
      Joke Thread

      By Chuck FB · Posted

      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
    • SFC Retired
      2023 DRW Wheel Liners

      By SFC Retired · Posted

      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. 😄
    • SFC Retired
      2023 DRW Wheel Liners

      By SFC Retired · Posted

      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
    • KARNUT
      OCI, not when but why?

      By KARNUT · Posted

      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.
    • bluev8
      Intermittent no-code issues on 2022.5+ V8 trucks — what did the shop fail to capture?

      By bluev8 · Posted

      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...