Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

I am looking for advice on the best short tube headers and CAT back exhaust system that will bolt on. I am not looking for annoyingly loud, but something that will help pull my boat down the road, while still maintaining the luxury feel of the Denali. I do plan to do a tune once the upgrades are done. I have the K&N CAI for her already, but I am have seen so many options, I'm just looking for someone who had a similar engine and if they like the mods and would spend the money again! Thanks for your help!!!

1598054557285.jpg

Posted
2 hours ago, kris shirley said:

I am looking for advice on the best short tube headers and CAT back exhaust system that will bolt on. I am not looking for annoyingly loud, but something that will help pull my boat down the road, while still maintaining the luxury feel of the Denali. I do plan to do a tune once the upgrades are done. I have the K&N CAI for her already, but I am have seen so many options, I'm just looking for someone who had a similar engine and if they like the mods and would spend the money again! Thanks for your help!!!

1598054557285.jpg

I'd recommend E85 and a good custom tune. That's the easiest, cheapest torque you can buy. For about what a catback costs you can pick up an honest-to-goodness 40-50 lb ft down under the torque peak. 

 

A catback might be 10-20 lb ft. Now if you're going for sound, that's a different story and just go for what YOU personally think sounds good. YouTube videos kind of suck though for that. I was at the dealer last week (for service warranty work) and was killing time on the new truck lot and noticed a pimped out '21 Silverado that had a lot of dealer add-ons. One of the upgrades was a Corsa Catback. I'd never heard Corsa in person (to my knowledge) on a Gen V truck motor. I coerced the salesman into starting it up for me and revving it a few times. Man did it sound awesome. I consider myself a bit of an aficionado when it comes to V8s so it takes a lot to impress me. This was a very good tone. Anyways - ad for Corsa over. 

Posted

...oh yeah don't do short tubes either. You already have short tube cast iron manifolds. Are they perfect? Nope. But they're much better than the log style manifolds. I'd go long tubes and preferably 1.75" primaries which eliminates your bargain brands.

 

Even then it might be overkill for YOUR specific goal. The issue that NO ONE discusses is part throttle velocity. They look at a dyno curve and think "I gained torque down low" or "only lost a few ft lbs". Dyno runs are at 100% WOT. Who is at 100% throttle and 2,000, or even 2,500 RPM?? Exactly. It's a misnomer. With part throttle, port velocity becomes very important to have good tip in, throttle response, and torque production. Most long tubes available for our trucks increase volume FAR too much at part throttle. (postulation of mine - not proven) Volume increase will have an opposite impact on velocity. Think about this: you go from the "wimpy" little cast manifolds and 2.5" down pipes to headers with 1.75" primaries that are 28"+ each that dump into a 3" collector...the volume increase is enormous. Good for full throttle, bad for part throttle - which is important for towing. Anyone that wants to argue needs to study exhaust science. Don't try to argue with "butt dynos" and actual dyno graphs that only reference full throttle. 

 

Posted

Just remember that's it's $1,900 just to tune that truck without owning HP Tuners, if you need to buy HP Tuners add another $300. Then spend hours, months or longer trying to figure out how to tune those trucks. There is literally nothing out there as far as tuning manual's go and the logic behind the 2019+ trucks is different than before.

 

Fun stuff.

 

I'd probably throw the idea of tuning and E85 out the window. Add your intake, buy a cat-back system and call it a day. Short tube headers is just flushing money down the drain.

Posted

Man that gets me every time. It's not the old days anymore lol

 

For $1900 I'd put that towards a blower and have some real torque. 

 

Yep opinion revised then. ^what Cam said. 

Posted
4 hours ago, lucas287 said:

...oh yeah don't do short tubes either. You already have short tube cast iron manifolds. Are they perfect? Nope. But they're much better than the log style manifolds. I'd go long tubes and preferably 1.75" primaries which eliminates your bargain brands.

 

Even then it might be overkill for YOUR specific goal. The issue that NO ONE discusses is part throttle velocity. They look at a dyno curve and think "I gained torque down low" or "only lost a few ft lbs". Dyno runs are at 100% WOT. Who is at 100% throttle and 2,000, or even 2,500 RPM?? Exactly. It's a misnomer. With part throttle, port velocity becomes very important to have good tip in, throttle response, and torque production. Most long tubes available for our trucks increase volume FAR too much at part throttle. (postulation of mine - not proven) Volume increase will have an opposite impact on velocity. Think about this: you go from the "wimpy" little cast manifolds and 2.5" down pipes to headers with 1.75" primaries that are 28"+ each that dump into a 3" collector...the volume increase is enormous. Good for full throttle, bad for part throttle - which is important for towing. Anyone that wants to argue needs to study exhaust science. Don't try to argue with "butt dynos" and actual dyno graphs that only reference full throttle. 

 

Just my .2

 

I have longtubes and my truck is nuts at low rpm. It will make asphalt behave like ice if you want it to (minimal throttle), but the tune does contribute to that. Definitely substantial gains low-mid, top-end didnt get the kick that I thought it would.  

  • Thanks 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, M1ck3y said:

Just my .2

 

I have longtubes and my truck is nuts at low rpm. It will make asphalt behave like ice if you want it to (minimal throttle), but the tune does contribute to that. Definitely substantial gains low-mid, top-end didnt get the kick that I thought it would.  

And that's where theory collides with reality lol :) I think a lot of older engine theory, while still valid to an extent, is flawed with how much cylinder heads flow and direct injection, etc.. some older vizard material would argue the use 1.5 or 1.625 long tubes on a sub 400 inch torque focused engine. But that might not be the reality any longer. 

  • Like 1
Posted

as others have stated, dont mess w/ shorty headers.   either do long tubes (LT) or stick w/ OEM.

 

might be worth inquiring w/ @BlackBearPerf for tuning as well

 

 

LTs w/ catback & tune would definitely wake up your ride.

 

if you can budget for it... supercharger would give most bang  (whipple or magnuson)

  • 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

    • I’m definitely interested to hear the end result here. 
    • My 2025 Silverado 1500 had to receive a brand-new engine (long block) under warranty last month at only around 16,500 miles. Before the replacement, the truck repeatedly displayed "Engine Oil Level Low" warnings, even though the Oil Life Monitor still showed around 50% remaining after about 6,000 miles since my last oil change. After seeing the warning several times, I checked the dipstick with the engine cold, and the oil level was completely normal. The next day, the message escalated to "Add Engine Oil." At first, I assumed it was just a faulty oil level sensor, so I brought the truck to the dealership. After inspecting the engine, they found internal cylinder wall scoring and ultimately replaced the entire long block under warranty. Before this happened, I was planning to install a 4-inch lift and suspension upgrade on my truck. After needing a new engine at just 16,500 miles, I honestly don't see the point anymore. I also contacted GM to ask whether my vehicle qualified for a buyback, but I was informed that it does not at this time. Anyway, this experience has left me with serious concerns about the long-term reliability of this engine. I sincerely hope NHTSA expands the current investigation or recall to include 2025 model and performs a thorough inspection of affected vehicles. My biggest concern is that these engines may fail shortly after the powertrain warranty expires. If GM truly stands behind this engine, then at the very least, please consider extending the powertrain warranty to 10 years for affected owners. That would go a long way toward restoring customer confidence.
    • Without exception but then I'm the odd duck, right? I know what goes into that test, how it is calculated and thus how to beat it. But EPA values are often not beaten by the general public and the government has in past years adjusted the means and methods to come to those values to more closely approximate "Joe Average".    The only real trick to beating that EPA average is don't drive like "Joe Average".    It's the same method you used to profit from "Economic Migration" and in doing so beat the 'stats'. But you, like me, are not "Joe Average".     The thing you don't seem to grasp is this "Purchasing Power Index" isn't forward looking. It doesn't predict what it going to be but looks backward and states what it was. They are not telling us what the THINK, they are telling us what they MEASURED. Example:    Wife says "I'm going to lose 40 pounds by Christmas". May she does, maybe she doesn't but the doctors office who weighed her when she made that statement and again at Christmas only REPORTS what the RESULT was. You and I can banter about what was possible and what aunt Tilly did till the cows come home but the result is the result. Arguing otherwise is.....irrational. That's all I'm saying. This isn't about:      What you are calling a 'Statistic' is a RESULT not a CALCUATION and as a result the RULE. Like gravity as a rule, it can not be broken. 
    • Just wanted to say thank you for posting this. Years later, your thread is still helping Silverado owners.   I bought my 2025 Silverado 1500 in January 2025, and I've had what feels like the exact same rattle since day one. After reading your findings, I believe my truck has the same issue with the cable carrier contacting the rear sliding window. To be honest, I had pretty much given up on pursuing the issue. It wasn't until I recently drove another brand's pickup that I realized just how quiet their cabin was—and how noisy mine has been all along. On my truck, the rattle happens on almost any paved road, gets even worse on rougher pavement, and I can even hear it during braking and acceleration.   I actually referenced your thread when submitting my case to GM, hoping they'll recognize this as a recurring issue instead of treating it as an isolated incident. The reason I reached out to GM first is because my dealership told me they would need to keep the truck for at least two days just to diagnose the problem. I was concerned that even after two days, they still might not be able to identify the source of the rattle before giving the truck back to me. I had also asked a few dealerships about this issue during previous service visits, but none of them seemed to know what was causing it or had a solution. That's why I decided to contact GM directly first, hoping they might already have an official repair procedure or guidance for this issue.   I also hope GM eventually comes up with an official fix for this problem. I have a feeling there are many Silverado owners experiencing the same rattle, but most either choose to live with it or simply don't know what the cause is.   Really appreciate you taking the time to document your diagnosis. Your post is still making a difference years later.
    • I have 2 choices. 
  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...