Turbos are little different.... bigger pipes and that life changing experience.

 

Correct, - a right turn. A good informative one, with a a good thread title to match..Good job, - and you hardly had to do anything lol.


Well, the word "worthy" wasen't a good choice. I was after your plans, - to determine whether you were thinking straight about this, and IF you were indeed doing the work.

I'm not sure how difficult the 5.0 was, - this install doesn't always go smooth, - its a different bit ch.

But yea, did a little write up back in October. It might help in some way,-

http://www.f150online.com/forums/exh...ml#post5114775

 

Are you saying using the 3" Y is a bad idea or going 3" after the Y?

If I stick with the factory 2.5", is a meffler upgrade worth any performance or just sound?

I was considering putting a cat right after the Y for smell reasons, will see how bad it is first.

I will be getting a tune, most likely from MPT for cost reasons.

 

Everybody here is an expert lmao

 

I can tell you this, I had stock manifolds with cat deletes and a muffler. Truck made peak torque @ 2400 rpms. After the long tubes, 3" full exhaust, it made peak torque @ 3100 rpms. Yes it made more power and torque, but with the toqrue coming later in the powerband it does not feel as peppy even tho it makes more hp and torque.

I would return the 3" y-pipe. Especially with just a basic bolt on's. It maybe even worse than what I experienced. I have high compression, cams, ported/polished heads and run on e85.

 

I have the pacesetter headers and y-pipe also, and on advice from some gentlemen here I've yet to install it because of the issue you brought to light.


However if you bottlenecked the exhaust by running 2.5" diameter pipe from the end of the y-pipe all the way back would that solve the torque generation issue or is it the y-pipe/headers that is causing the issue?


Generating more power naturally aspirated is always going to be a give and take. Is there a compatible y-pipe with a smaller diameter that would be better?


I'm glad someone posted this because it helps quite a bit of us out.


-Mike

 

So peak torque moved up, but was that because it lost torque below or because the difference in torque curve was greater at 3100 than below it?

Keep in mind I left the stock 4.6 converter in there so off the line it stalls to about 2600 and will smoke both (lsd) rear 33s I'm running for about 10-15ft and keep going, and that's on the stock 4.6 non-pi ecu.

Good questions.

 

Except you ROFL.

 

Is that a joke ? Haven't you read your own thread lol.

The answer is yes of course. I'm not the only one who's told you this. Are you not reading, people are attempting to help you here. Either you not reading the replies in your thread, can't comprehend or don't understand certain English. Which is it ?

Don't mean to give you a hard time, but common man. Are we wasting our time or...huh ?

 

Peak torque moved up along with changing the curve. When comparing the 2 graph the loss of torque right off idle dropped. Between the curves was about 30ft/lbs which is about how much more torque it made over all. Before longtube it made 329ft/lb @ 2400. After long tubes it made 362ft/lbs @3100. But lost around 30 ft/lbs under the curve.

I would find a 2.5" replacement y-pipe with no cats.