rom3

The SLP Dual/Dual (not the loudmouth) is on my short list for cat-back shopping. I like the tips, I like the noise level (or lack thereof), and several respected members on this board with high HP engines rave about it's flow/performance.

HOWEVER, I just can't get over the huge crimp/dent it has in the intermediate/over the axle pipe. I assume this is for more clearance around the axle. How can this not totally ruin the extra flow of the 3" pipe vs the stock 2 3/4" pipe?! It literally looks like it's cross section has been cut in half!?

Does this exhaust really perform that well vs. the stock WS6 catback with no crimp? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="images/icons/confused.gif" />

Picture of said exhaust here (in My Photos): SLP Pic

<small>[ October 10, 2002, 03:04 PM: Message edited by: rom3 ]</small>

Classic

iTrader: (3)

Well the dual duals that came stock on SSs and Firehawks has that crimp in the pipe - I believe it was because there wasn't enough clearance by GM's standards or something (anyone know the real story??). I'm not sure if the aftermarket dual dual will have this though. Sorry, I know that really didn't help. You could try calling SLP and asking them.

rom3

Anybody else have any input on this? Noticed this exhaust on sale this week at one of our vendors. <img border="0" alt="[judgement]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_judge.gif" />

jimmyblue

iTrader: (11)

It's the same way on my CME car (2002 SS).

The crimp-in's incremental flow resistance
isn't on the same order as going to a
full-length smaller diameter pipe. It's
just a short distance, a relatively smooth
bump, and it's on the inside bend of the
axle arch where flow is centrifugally
biased toward the outside of the curve
anyway.

jimmyblue

iTrader: (11)

Well I have to take part of that back.
Mine doesn't look as big a crimp as what's
in the picture. I was surprised to see it
when I got under my car, but I guess it's
better than metal-metal contact on every
bump... That amount of crush-in just looks
stupid; it doesn't need to go past flat,
there's no further clearance gain. It
really wanted a mandrel or backing die and
a flat crush. But that would be too much
effort I guess. If I got that dual-dual
setup I think I would just have to MIG a
working stub to the center of that big-***
divot, and then get the O/A torch and hot-
pull it back to flat. I don't see why (other
than time being money) they couldn't have
done a better job.

rom3

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by jimmyblue:
<strong>It's the same way on my CME car (2002 SS).

...it's on the inside bend of the
axle arch where flow is centrifugally
biased toward the outside of the curve
anyway.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I guess this makes sense and would negate some of the divot. Thanks for checking your car as well. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" /> I guess I'm still undecided. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Sad]" src="gr_sad.gif" />