cat-back will i lose power what work's ?

hello everyone. i have a 03 silverado 5.3, and i want to install a duel cat-back system. only problem is everyone i know with a chevy that has had exhuast work done says they have lost power ( i have witnessed this
) from just changing the muffler to cat-back's, but none were a duel type like i want ( im worried i'll lose even more back pressure ) has anyone else had this problem, is there a right or wrong way to do it. can any one tell me what has been proven to work. any help at all would be greatly appreciated.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I have a banks on a 5.7 and didnt notice a drop. It runs well and takes grades better than stock. They might be refering to the power loss under ~1500rpm, which is expected with larger tubes.
If its any consolation, Buy a Flowmaster and use your present pipes.
Cheers
BTW dont worry about loosing back pressure. Its the velocity youll loose at the low rpms.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
--WebTV-Mail-17723-5834 Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
i was thinking of using a 2 1/4 inch duel exhuast, with a h pipe. to get specific about the setup's my freinds have had problems with, one freind has a 3" cat back mandrel bent with a 40 series flowmaster on his 4.3 reg/cab s/b. i went for a ride in it before and after he had his exhaust done, and there was a noticeable loss of power through out the rpm band lost botom and top end...... another freind 5.3 reg/cab s/b, just replaced muffler with flowmaster also complained of lost power. and a couple other guy's i've asked at the local 1/4 mile track have said the same. just dont make sense to me any help would be appreciated. thanks again.
--WebTV-Mail-17723-5834 Content-Description: signature Content-Disposition: Inline Content-Type: Text/HTML; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
<html><body bgcolor=black text=gold></html>
--WebTV-Mail-17723-5834--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I would call the guys at Banks, They'll know what your particular engine suffers from. Adding a Catback without intake modifications may cause problems. My 5.7 had poor flow on the intake, and the stringer intake from banks had a noticable improvement by itself. But tthis may not be the case with the 5.3.
Cheers
i was thinking of using a 2 1/4 inch duel exhuast, with a h pipe. to get specific about the setup's my freinds have had problems with, one freind has a 3" cat back mandrel bent with a 40 series flowmaster on his 4.3 reg/cab s/b. i went for a ride in it before and after he had his exhaust done, and there was a noticeable loss of power through out the rpm band lost botom and top end...... another freind 5.3 reg/cab s/b, just replaced muffler with flowmaster also complained of lost power. and a couple other guy's i've asked at the local 1/4 mile track have said the same. just dont make sense to me any help would be appreciated. thanks again.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 21:22:05 -0800 (PST), snipped-for-privacy@webtv.net (david cruz) wrote:

usually, when you reduce back pressure, you lose low rpm "grunt" which most folks think of as "power" and gain power at the higher rpm range... i'd say that if you lose both low end AND high end, that the exhaust is definitely not matched to the engine... i know that with the newer dodge trucks, dropping back pressure seems to decrease performance... maybe the big 3 have finally started putting efficient stock exhaust systems on? nah...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
hay guys im just trying to figure out what works before i spend a lot of $$$ on a system that dont work. so if any one has had any experience with a late model chevy, please let me know what combo, and what were the results. thanks again.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I got around 10% performance & mileage increase with a Gibson stainless header/cat-back system on my '97 Suburban w/5.7 engine. See http://www.gibsonperformance.com ...
VLJ
--


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@webtv.net (david cruz) wrote in message

I put a flowmaster 3 chamber 2.5" cat back on my 2000 Silverado w/ 5.3. When I took it in, the truck would "bark" the tires (285/75/R16) off the line on dry pavement. After I had the flowmaster with 2.5" pipe from the cat back, I can now roast the tires from a dead stop. Only other mod is a K&N FIPK. I didn't notice an increase in gas mileage with either, but it's definitely louder and it "sounds" like it's going faster.
Derek
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
--WebTV-Mail-23628-16277 Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
hay derek you said you have 285/75/16's tires, those are pretty tall. i have 255/70/16's with a 3.73 gear peg-leg, and i might get it to spin for 4-5 feet, but i definetley can't lite'em up. do you have a posi in it ?..... im not looking for a good exhuast just for the sound ( thats just a plus to me ) i realy would like to increase the power and mileage. thanks for the replies guys, any additional help would be appreciated.
--WebTV-Mail-23628-16277 Content-Description: signature Content-Disposition: Inline Content-Type: Text/HTML; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
<html><body bgcolor=blue text=gold></html>
--WebTV-Mail-23628-16277--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@webtv.net (david cruz) wrote in message

David,
Yes, I have the Eaton G80 "locker" with the 3.73 (I believe) gears also. Mine will spin hard enough to engage the posi and then will continue about 15 feet or so. I try not to do this since all I hear are how weak these posi units are. Plus the tires are $$$. As for fuel economy, I didn't really notice a big difference. May .5mpg or so. It does have more power, so I got more power with the same MPG, I am happy.
Derek
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
--WebTV-Mail-29153-22989 Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
thanks dereck.
--WebTV-Mail-29153-22989 Content-Description: signature Content-Disposition: Inline Content-Type: Text/HTML; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
<html><body bgcolor=blue text=gold></html>
--WebTV-Mail-29153-22989--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
thanks dereck.
PLEASE.....turn off the HTML. Thanks
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
sorry about that last post, forgot to remove my signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.