In response to my cat-back recommendation query Gary suggested buying a high
flow cat and high flow muffler, "unless I need a 3" system," could be much
wiser than spending $$ on a full cat back. Brett concurred. Thanks. That
seems to make good sense as all I want is a little bit of rumble - not loud,
and a bit easier breathing exhaust to match upcoming TB tweak (plus being
totally stock is, well, stock). So, a few more questions. Why would one
"need" a 3" system, particularly if it follows a "2.5. pipe? Looks only?
Plus, the two high flow cats Brett mentioned have way different prices, is
the Carsound worth twice the price of a Catco?
Jef
99 5.2 4x4
____________________
<brett4hand@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bud51v$8du$1@bent.twistedbits.net...
>
> In article <BC2F5C15.143A%ghedlin@theramp.net>, ghedlin@theramp.net (Gary
> Hedlin) writes:
> >
> >
> > Word to the Wise,
> >
> > If you're happy with where the exhaust exits, you'll gain more by going
with
> > just a high flow cat and a high flow muffler. Unless you need a 3"
system,
> > why pay for pipes you already have??
> >
> > I don't think you can go wrong with a Magnaflow muffler, great sound and
a
> > good price.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Gary Hedlin
> > 98 3.9 RC Sport
> > http://garysdakota.1colony.com
> >
>
>
> Gary, you bring up a very good point. Roughly 80 bucks for the
performance
> muffler of his choice, another 55 bucks for a Catco cat (or roughly 125
for a
> Carsound), add 100 bucks(or so) for welding it all up, and he's got a good
> sounding/performing exhaust system.
>
> I've got all the whoopty-doo stuff on my Dak (headers, 3" cat-back, hipo
pcm,
> FIPK, blah, blah blah), and was relaying my experience. For a stock 318
guy
> just wanting to get better sound and a little hp/tq, your suggestion is
more
> cost effective, and should offer an equal (or better) performance gain
than a
> cat-back system.
>
> Brett Forehand
> '94 Dakota Sport CC 5.2 Auto
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Feb 01 2004 - 16:29:50 EST