Gibson dyno tests for its catback
#1
Gibson dyno tests for its catback
Gibson has come out with this dyno chart, which you oughta all check out:
http://www.gibsonperformance.com/index.asp?p=exhperf
It covers various years and engines of Chevy, Dodge, Ford, Jeep, Nissan, and Toyota. I've never seen such a chart for a given catback system, and its very informative. Hp and torque increase claims of manufacturers for their products are always very suspect. However, the hugh differences in the range of hp and torque increases for various engines with the same muffler, and the fact that some of the shown increases are very low, indicate to me that the chart's no BS and can be trusted.
The chart includes the 3.0 and 4.0 Ranger engines.
http://www.gibsonperformance.com/index.asp?p=exhperf
It covers various years and engines of Chevy, Dodge, Ford, Jeep, Nissan, and Toyota. I've never seen such a chart for a given catback system, and its very informative. Hp and torque increase claims of manufacturers for their products are always very suspect. However, the hugh differences in the range of hp and torque increases for various engines with the same muffler, and the fact that some of the shown increases are very low, indicate to me that the chart's no BS and can be trusted.
The chart includes the 3.0 and 4.0 Ranger engines.
#7
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Coal Region, MTC to be exact...heart of the coal region.
Posts: 2,232
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
i dont know, 30 lb ft torque gain seems highly unlikely...there is nothing else there, gas engine wise, that produces those gains...and i dont think the stock exhaust is that restrivtive. im probaly wrong but 30 is a lot for just a cat back...
also if u look a 2002 exploder with the 4.0 produced a 19 torque gain which is close to what the rangers run...
id also like to see the actual chart to see how it effects the power curves. actually anything but a big displacement engine or diesel shows poor gains for the price...maybe its just me but it doesnt seem worth it...
also if u look a 2002 exploder with the 4.0 produced a 19 torque gain which is close to what the rangers run...
id also like to see the actual chart to see how it effects the power curves. actually anything but a big displacement engine or diesel shows poor gains for the price...maybe its just me but it doesnt seem worth it...
#13
#14
Ah yes, exhaust wars. Very refreshing as this has NEVER been discussed on here before...
I do like that chart, John. The most detailed one I seen also.
I have a FlowMaster dumped at the rear axle. Before that I had a Dynomax but I smacked it up too much. The FlowMaster can survive me scraping it around offroad better, and it sounds nice. Not a partisan though -- just need something that works really, and hope for gains.
I do like that chart, John. The most detailed one I seen also.
I have a FlowMaster dumped at the rear axle. Before that I had a Dynomax but I smacked it up too much. The FlowMaster can survive me scraping it around offroad better, and it sounds nice. Not a partisan though -- just need something that works really, and hope for gains.
#15
Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: MI
Posts: 3,200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by IR0NS1N
If you want real performance just run straight pipe from the cat back, I dont see these numbers as being quite accurate.
Originally Posted by DangaRanger99
No offence to anyone who has it, but my buddy and i both had gibson and they sounded like ****, it sounded more like a import car with a fart can on it, then it did a truck, get a magnaflow it sounds deeper
#18
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
jalat
OLD - Engine & Drivetrain
16
05-06-2012 02:19 PM
LILBLUE04FX4L2
Ranger Products, Company, & Member Reviews
16
02-16-2005 09:24 AM