Jump to content

2019 5.3 with Flowmaster Delta flow 40 series

DHBWA

By DHBWA
in Modifications, Wheels & Tires

 Share

Recommended Posts

DHBWA Enthusiast

DHBWA

Posted
Posted (edited)

I initially covered all 6 resonators with factory muffler and it was almost what I wanted. I preferred to buy the AFE Apollo muffler upgrade but it’s on back order. After a bunch of research and having an old version series 40 on my 1994 5.7 I ordered the SS version delta flow 40 series and had it installed and removed the flapper which I had wired open.

With all 6 resonators covered it was a little loud with a little drone. Started uncovering resonators and now have 1.5 on each side covered. 
Now to why I posted this topic.

Anyone else with this or another performance muffler notice a little blubbering/ rumbling on decel when below 1200 rpm?? If you hold the downshift and decel say at 2500-3000 it’s smooth until you down to a real low rpm then you can hear it burbling….. Seems strange to me.

 I don’t really like it…

 I also have a Range Pulsar.

Thoughts??

Edited by DHBWA
  • DHBWA changed the title to 2019 5.3 with Flowmaster Delta flow 40 series
Russ757 Enthusiast

Russ757

Posted
Posted

yep.. with or without the Pulsar. I have to go through the burbs so lots of coasting at which you get the putt putt putt. Not sure if thats what youre referring to. This with a flowfx catback system

DHBWA Enthusiast

DHBWA

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Yup. I called Flowmaster (Holley) and he said it’s because of the engine design in combination with a chambered muffler. I can’t win. Every time I change exhaust on a vehicle I end up redoing it. 
he suggested and I just ordered a Hooker VR304 3”-3” muffler (oval glass pack) you don’t hear much about them but what he said made sense…

I have tried covering all, some and none of the 6 screen resonators with no gain yet…..

DHBWA Enthusiast

DHBWA

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I really don’t want to go to the effort on the flapper but will try once more with screens all uncovered and once with all covered 

DHBWA Enthusiast

DHBWA

Posted
  • Author
Posted
3 hours ago, Russ757 said:

yep.. with or without the Pulsar. I have to go through the burbs so lots of coasting at which you get the putt putt putt. Not sure if thats what youre referring to. This with a flowfx catback system

I just figured out that your FlowFX muffler isn’t a chambered muffler. It’s Flowmasters version of a Magnaflow (oval glass pack) so my idea of going to a Hooker VR304 probably won’t help…..

DHBWA Enthusiast

DHBWA

Posted
  • Author
Posted

With all resonators uncovered it quieted it down overall and subdued the put-put that it’s mostly a non-issue.

 I doubt I will install the Hooker. 
 

I tried it again this morning with all 6 resonators covered and didn’t notice any drone and really like the sound. The put-put was louder but that is almost better if it’s going to do it.

More to come…

DHBWA Enthusiast

DHBWA

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Uncovered the resonators for the commute. Cruising there is zero drone and sounds almost stock. Idle and acceleration is throaty but subdued to an adult level. I will probably cover all resonators for tomorrow’s commute and see…..

DHBWA Enthusiast

DHBWA

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Covered them all for the return trip. Too loud for me and the put-put-put at slow decel was pronounced. Probably stick with having them all uncovered. Wish it was just a tad louder but I have a history of fixing things until they are broke…..I better quit while I am 90% satisfied……

CamGTP Senior Enthusiast

CamGTP

Posted
Posted

I don't have any data logs on this computer or really any that I've done recently to show but these computers will enable decel fuel cut off while coasting to a stop. They will also re-tard the ignition timing to negative values while coasting and when it needs to make down shifts. The sharp drop in timing is to pull torque/power and make it easier for the transmission to shift gears.

 

Decel fuel cut off turns off the fuel injectors completely and it's using the engine as an air pump to slow the vehicle down. This is likely what is happening and the answer to why you hear what you hear.

DHBWA Enthusiast

DHBWA

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Thanks Cam.

Makes sense and supports my thoughts that it probably won’t matter what muffler I have except to say the quieter the muffler the less I will hear it.

DHBWA Enthusiast

DHBWA

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

Another tidbit. 
Removed the Range Pulsar to have some work done at the dealership and with it removed 90% of the low speed - low rpm decel put-put noise. Obviously something to do with the DFM. Of course it makes other awful noises…..

Have an appt next Thursday to do some muffler tests but not convinced I’ll get what I want….

Edited by DHBWA
  • 2 weeks later...
DHBWA Enthusiast

DHBWA

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Installed a Hooker straight thru packed muffler.

To me it’s a Magnaflow copy.

It’s quieter and thusly the decel putt putt is less noticeable. Although quieter overall it seems to drone more at 70.

I really really prefer the crisper higher pitch of the Flowmaster. 
Just need to decide if I can ignore the decel puttering with the FM.

 

Hope this helps someone someday…

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

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

      By bluev8 · Posted

      That makes sense, and I agree with most of that.   I think the product would need both: 1. a default powertrain template, so it is useful out of the box; 2. user-selected priority parameters, so the owner or shop can choose what they want to see first.   Different users are going to care about different things. One owner may care about oil pressure and voltage. Another may care about misfire trend, AFM/DFM behavior, or U-codes. A shop may want communication events and repeatability first. Your baseline point is probably the most important one. Raw data is not very useful unless the report can show what normal looked like for that vehicle under similar conditions.   The way I would think about it is: - start with a basic known-good baseline - learn normal behavior for that specific vehicle over time - allow the event to be overlaid against baseline - show whether the event was a one-time spike or a repeatable pattern - provide a simple severity level, but with clear limits on what that severity means   For example, early severity could be something like: - Info: event captured, no obvious abnormal pattern - Watch: value moved outside baseline, but not repeated - Warning: repeatable abnormal pattern under similar conditions - Critical: communication loss, voltage drop, bus-off, reset, or severe repeated event   I would not want the first version to say “replace this part.” That would be overclaiming unless there is repair-confirmed data behind it. It would be more honest to say “this pattern deserves inspection.”   On the OBD port question, I think OBD absolutely has a role. OBD is probably the right place for: - DTCs - freeze frame - VIN - calibration information - normal scan-tool parameters - Mode 6 / enhanced diagnostic data if available The reason I am still looking at an ECM-side recorder is that the failure may happen before anyone connects a scan tool. If the owner plugs in a scanner after the event, the pre-event evidence may already be gone unless the ECU happened to save it. So I do not see this as “OBD versus ECM-side.” I see it more like: - ECM-side recorder: always armed, rolling buffer, event evidence - OBD/DLC companion: DTCs, freeze frame, VIN, calibration, normal scan data - phone/cloud: status, notes, upload, report generation, notifications   I agree that phone connection and push notifications would be useful. I just would not want the phone or cloud connection to be required for capture. The recorder should save the event locally even if the phone is not connected. The phone should help with event marking, download, notes, upload, alerts, and report viewing.   For a default GM V8 event report, would this list make sense? - RPM - calculated load / MAP - throttle position - vehicle speed - gear / torque converter state if available - coolant temperature - oil pressure - oil temperature if available - battery voltage - commanded AFM/DFM state if available - actual AFM/DFM state if available - misfire counters / roughness by cylinder if available - fuel trims - relevant U-codes / communication events - bus-off / lost periodic message / module reset / voltage drop events Which of those would you remove, and what would you add?

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...