Jump to content

Flowmaster FlowFX Cat Back - My Experience

Diamond817
 Share

Recommended Posts

Diamond817 Enthusiast

Diamond817

Posted
Posted (edited)

My Truck:

 

2021 Silverado 1500 RST 5.3ltr 8spd. Single exhaust side exit option.

 

Parts used:

 

Cat Back – Flowmaster FLowFX cat back part # 717893

Muffler – Flowmaster Series 70 part # 530702

Resonator – Vibrant Performance Ultra Quiet part # 1142

Flex Pipe - RP Remarkable Power 3x8x12 part # RK7551 (on Amazon)

 

This all started because I wanted dual exhaust. I know there is a factory dual exhaust option. In my opinion the dual exhaust through the bumper looks clean, neat, modern, and finished, but at the same time looks too car-ish for me, so I went with the single side exit exhaust option. I wanted a dual side exit exhaust, with tips, hanging down under the truck look, which is not a factory option as we all know. My original intentions were to bring it to an exhaust shop and have them fab up the look I wanted. At this point, knowing what I know now, I should have just went that route.

 

Enter the FLowmaster FlowFX cat back part # 717893.

 

So, looking around at some already made cat back systems I came across the FLowmaster FlowFx cat back system for the 2019-2021 Silverado. It checked all the boxes. Inexpensive (paid around $520), stainless steel, 3”, performance muffler, dual side exit, and big black tips! I couldn’t ask for more.

 

Ordered. Shows up a promptly. Bring it down to my buddies garage and we throw the truck on the lift and get to work.

 

Growing up in the 80’s around mechanics and hot rods, FLowmaster was always synonymous with quality and performance. Not so much 40 yrs later.

 

Stock exhaust comes out easily in one piece. Start mocking up the flowmaster and right off the bat, the front hanger on the straight pipe misses the factory hanger location by 3 inches. Oh boy. So, we proceed to mock up the tailpipes and muffler. The tailpipes line up ok with the factory hangers, not perfect, but good enough where no fabrication will be needed. The passenger side tailpipe is really pulling the factory isolators inward. The muffler outlets could have been a little further apart. But it’s in. So we go back and fab up a hanger for the front pipe to use the factory isolator. Everything looks pretty good at this point, so we tighten up all the connections and proceed to the tips. Passenger side tip slides right on. The driver side, not so easy. The driver side tailpipe end has been expanded from 2.5 inch OD to 2.5 inch ID. WTF flowmaster? It took us a good hour of fighting with the tip and pipe to resolve the issue, but we got it done.

 

Remote start it on the lift, no leaks, sounds great! Or so I thought.

 

After a day of driving around, I realize this thing is loud. Really loud. Straight pipe loud. The drone and interior sound level is off the charts. On the highway and cruising around town. The DFM is only making it worse. And the cold start is explosive. Your neighbors will hate you. All I can think is what a mistake this was.

 

I need to a solution to quiet this thing down a bit. And I’m not going back to the stock exhaust because I am very pleased with the look of the dual tips hanging out the back.

 

I start looking at muffler options to replace the FlowFX muffler in the system. I decide to go back to FLowmaster to see if anything will directly fit in place. The 70 series is the “quietest” muffler in their lineup, uses the delta flow chambering, and is a close match to the inlet and outlet measurements. So, I go ahead and order the FLowmaster Series 70 part # 530702. Which winds up working out very well dimensionally. The outlets are .75 inches further apart than the FLoFX muffler which relieves the pulling on the passenger side isolators.

 

Now I have to remove the front 3 inch straight pipe to cut it down because the series 70 muffler is much longer than the FLowFX muffler. No big deal really. But before I install the new muffler I start to wonder why the factory exhaust has a flex pipe in it and the Flowmaster system doesn’t. So I do a little research by checking out different cat back systems for this truck, including the systems GM offers. I find there is really no consensus on this as half of the cat back systems incorporate a flex pipe and the other half do not. Even with GM’s cat back offerings, one system has a flex pipe and the other does not. So I decide to go ahead and air on the side of caution and add in a flex pipe (RP Remarkable Power 3x8x12 part # RK7551 (on Amazon)).

 

The new series 70 muffler and flex pipe are installed. This thing sounds great now. The delta flow chambering changed the sound from a race boat sound to a tuned V8 truck sound. But, it was still a little loud for me* on cold start up and idle. I decide to try adding a resonator into the system to knock the edge off the sound. I come across the Vibrant Performance Ultra Quiet part # 1142 resonator. Looks like the perfect option. I add it in before the muffler. All I can say is perfect! The sound and noise levels at start up, idle, around town, and highway cruising are perfect. Cold start and idle are tame. Around town is a nice deep tone that’s not obnoxious. And with the cruise set at 72 on the highway it sounds like a stock exhaust.

 

That DFM is still an ear sore around town at this point. I need a solution to remedy this. I decide to try the Range Technologies DFM disabler. I have to say, it worked, and flawlessly. Now the truck looks and sounds perfect.

 

 

IMG_20210313_163405833_HDR.jpg

Edited by Diamond817
Sublym808_RST Enthusiast

Sublym808_RST

Posted
Posted

I was thinking about ordering this kit through 4WheelParts. From the videos I've seen on YouTube, it sounds really good. Now, your review of it has me on the fence. 🤔 I may consider going to a local exhaust shop and price a custom setup. Is there anyone else that has installed the FlowFX Cat-Back on their 5.3 T1? If so, what was your experience like with this setup? 

Diamond817 Enthusiast

Diamond817

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Sublym808_RST said:

I was thinking about ordering this kit through 4WheelParts. From the videos I've seen on YouTube, it sounds really good. Now, your review of it has me on the fence. 🤔 I may consider going to a local exhaust shop and price a custom setup. Is there anyone else that has installed the FlowFX Cat-Back on their 5.3 T1? If so, what was your experience like with this setup? 

The FlowFX did what it was supposed to do, make a lot of noise and look good. The quality control at Flowmaster is questionable though. So, if you're intention is to make a lot of noise and look good doing it,  it fits the bill. 

 

I'll try to attach sound clips of the FlowFX and the Series 70.

Edited by Diamond817
Sublym808_RST Enthusiast

Sublym808_RST

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Diamond817 said:

FlowFx muffler.

 

There's no audio in this clip. 🔇 I'd rather not spend the $700 it would cost for this exhaust. I'm sure that it would be cover under warranty but, the hassle of returning it and additional shipping time to HI doesn't seem worth it to me. 

Edited by Sublym808_RST
Sent too soon
Diamond817 Enthusiast

Diamond817

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Sublym808_RST said:

There's no audio in this clip. 🔇

Click on the 3 dots in the right corner and download for sound. I don't know why uploading video is so difficult.

Edited by Diamond817
Diamond817 Enthusiast

Diamond817

Posted
  • Author
Posted
3 hours ago, Smittys21elevation said:

Get the front driver and passenger windows tinted to match the back and that thing will look bad ass.  

Illegal in NJ. Although a lot of people do it, I don't like to draw attention.

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...