• Mustang Forums
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
  • Classic Mustang Specific Tech

How much exhaust is too much?

  • Thread starter Thread starter 1967project
  • Start date Start date Jul 18, 2007

1967project

New Member
Dec 28, 2006
89
0
0
Oklahoma
Jul 18, 2007
#1
  • Jul 18, 2007
  • #1
I have a 347 and two 40 series Flowmasters, 3 inch on both ends.

Is 3 inch exhaust from the collector back going to be too loud?
If it helps I have a X303 cam.
If too loud, what are the recommendations out their?
Daily summer driver, but I wake up early for work and dont want to wake the neighborhood, but still want it to sound good.

Thanks
 

SadbutTrue

Founding Member
May 1, 2002
2,390
4
49
Granada Hills, California
Jul 18, 2007
#2
  • Jul 18, 2007
  • #2
I'm not exactly sure about how pipe-size correlates to noise, but how built is your 347? 3" exhausts, are usually reserved for big blocks and crazy small blocks (which your 347 could be, just don't see any information there about it).

Either way, it'll be loud but shouldnt be too bad. My 351 with headers, 2.5" pipes, and Flow 40s has never had a noise complaint from the neighbors (or anyone else) and we live in a neighborhood that I think would crack down on it if it was at all a nuisance (we have an evil homeowners association).

Someone with experience might be able to chime in on the nosie difference with 3" pipes though and overrule me.
 

1967project

New Member
Dec 28, 2006
89
0
0
Oklahoma
Jul 18, 2007
#3
  • Jul 18, 2007
  • #3
Engine Specs

Holly 750 DBL Pumper
Dual Plane Intake
Angus Racing Rockers
351 Heads w/ larger intake/ exhaust
Flat Top Forged Pistons
Polished Crank
BBK Headers


The Flowmasters I have were for a 460, but never got put on.
 

SadbutTrue

Founding Member
May 1, 2002
2,390
4
49
Granada Hills, California
Jul 18, 2007
#4
  • Jul 18, 2007
  • #4
1967project said:
Holly 750 DBL Pumper
Dual Plane Intake
Angus Racing Rockers
351 Heads w/ larger intake/ exhaust
Flat Top Forged Pistons
Polished Crank
BBK Headers


The Flowmasters I have were for a 460, but never got put on.
Click to expand...


Cam specs? How aggressive are those 351 heads done? What dual-plane intake? From what I see i think you'll be better off with a 2.5" exhaust. For a small block, a 3" exhaust will only help you if you have the intake/heads/cam to rev fairly high... without those components, the reduced backpressure will just kill your torque. With a stock cam you would almost be certainly losing a bunch of torque and going slower in the quarter (not to mention drivability issues and less gas mileage... etc) with 3" pipes as opposed to 2.5". As a matter of fact, if you have a stock cam, near-stock heads, and say a performer intake, even 2.5" might be 'technically' too much...

Noise-wise I'm still not sure, but I doubt the 2.5" would be any louder than the 3...
 

69gmachine

Member
Dec 2, 2004
576
2
19
Southern Maryland
Jul 18, 2007
#5
  • Jul 18, 2007
  • #5
3" = loud

I have the 3" Magnaflow system and it might as well be an open exhaust. I'm planning to change the mufflers to something a bit quieter, but still retain the 3" pipes. The Magnaflow mufflers are a straight thru design, so I'm hoping a regular "turbo" style muffler will knock the dBs down quit a bit.
 

69gmachine

Member
Dec 2, 2004
576
2
19
Southern Maryland
Jul 18, 2007
#6
  • Jul 18, 2007
  • #6
3" = loud

I have the 3" Magnaflow system and it might as well be an open exhaust. I'm planning to change the mufflers to something a bit quieter, but still retain the 3" pipes. The Magnaflow mufflers are a straight thru design, so I'm hoping a regular "turbo" style muffler will knock the dBs down quite a bit.
 

blown65

Founding Member
Jul 7, 1999
1,938
4
39
Queen Creek Arizona
Jul 18, 2007
#7
  • Jul 18, 2007
  • #7
1967project said:
Holly 750 DBL Pumper
Dual Plane Intake
Angus Racing Rockers
351 Heads w/ larger intake/ exhaust
Flat Top Forged Pistons
Polished Crank
BBK Headers


The Flowmasters I have were for a 460, but never got put on.
Click to expand...

What size engine? Assuming 302 Id say 2 1/2 is plenty since you prob wont rev much more than 6000-6500 anyways. 351 is a toss up, 2 1/2 would prob be fine but 3 might give a little more performance.

As far as being loud, depending on the mufflers you choose, the 3" shouldn't be all that much louder than the 2 1/2.
 
F

ForceFed70

That's why they call it "dope"
Founding Member
Dec 6, 1999
4,818
1
69
BC Canada
Jul 18, 2007
#8
  • Jul 18, 2007
  • #8
The sound has more to do with muffler design than the size of the piping. Generally they are louder, but that's because people with 3" exhaust piping are generally looking for every pony they can find and don't mind a little noise.
 

Rusty67

20+ Year Stangneter
Dec 3, 2002
3,749
37
109
LA, CA
Jul 19, 2007
#9
  • Jul 19, 2007
  • #9
The size of the piping used should match the HP of the engine. If yer over 400-450HP then 3" pipe is in yer future. Otherwise use 2.5" pipe. Ditch those crappy slow masters and get some good MagnaFlows.
 
1

180 Out

Member
Jul 23, 2005
375
0
16
Jul 19, 2007
#10
  • Jul 19, 2007
  • #10
I think 3" exhaust and Flow 40's will be super loud. A 2.5" circle has an area of 4.9 sq. in. A 3" circle is 7.1 sq in. That's a 44% increase -- almost half again as much. That x303 cam will be pretty lumpy too, and maybe a little hard to start, depending on your ignition system. All-in-all, not a good combo for making friends with the day-sleepers in your neighborhood.

BTW, I'm probably going to end up with something very similar on the roller cam 302 I'm putting in my '65.

I do not understand the suggestion that a higher flowing exhaust will hurt low end torque. The latest Car Craft has a long article on dyno testing different bolt-ons, including exhaust components, and they got increased low end torque the less restrictive the exhaust system. This was with a 383 with some pretty big heads and cam, but I would expect the same result regardless of engine size.
 

Cyclone

Founding Member
Aug 17, 2002
124
0
0
Chatsworth, California
Jul 19, 2007
#11
  • Jul 19, 2007
  • #11
Just an FYI, 2 1/2" would be best as you would maintain great bottom end, mid range and top end Horse Power, with 3" exhaust you will lose bottom end, your power range will not start to work until around 2,700 RPM.

I have a 308CID with AFR 2.02 Valved Heads, Comp Roller Cam 2.84 Dur. with 5.36 Lift and a 110 degree lobe center, with a Holley 750 HP Double Pumper, 9" rear-End, 3.70 Posi, and a world class trans. with 2 1/2" mandrel bent X-Pipe Exhuast with Magna Flow Mufflers.

I produced 428 on the engine dyno and 348HP on the Chassis Dyno at the rear wheels.

Note: I had 3 chamber flow masters, But They Drove me Deaf!
 

SadbutTrue

Founding Member
May 1, 2002
2,390
4
49
Granada Hills, California
Jul 20, 2007
#12
  • Jul 20, 2007
  • #12
180 Out said:
I think 3" exhaust and Flow 40's will be super loud. A 2.5" circle has an area of 4.9 sq. in. A 3" circle is 7.1 sq in. That's a 44% increase -- almost half again as much. That x303 cam will be pretty lumpy too, and maybe a little hard to start, depending on your ignition system. All-in-all, not a good combo for making friends with the day-sleepers in your neighborhood.

BTW, I'm probably going to end up with something very similar on the roller cam 302 I'm putting in my '65.

I do not understand the suggestion that a higher flowing exhaust will hurt low end torque. The latest Car Craft has a long article on dyno testing different bolt-ons, including exhaust components, and they got increased low end torque the less restrictive the exhaust system. This was with a 383 with some pretty big heads and cam, but I would expect the same result regardless of engine size.
Click to expand...

Peak torque might have gone up, but I'd be willing to bet the off-idle and really low end torque dropped. When i swapped my exhaust/headers on i noticed a loss of lowend, and thats with a 351 and 2.5" exhaust. I also noticed the top end gains.
 

Cyclone

Founding Member
Aug 17, 2002
124
0
0
Chatsworth, California
Jul 20, 2007
#13
  • Jul 20, 2007
  • #13
This Is What I Have done too my Mustang, Dynoed 348HP and 416 Torque RWHP

308CID, with AFR 185 Heads ( 2.02 intake valves ) Comp Roller Cam 2.84 Duration / 5.36 Lift / 110 Lobe Center, JBA Shortie Headers, 2 1/2" Mandrel Bent X-Pie Exhaust Edelbrock RPM Air Gap Intake, 750 HP Series Carb, World Class T-5 Trans, 3.70 Posi 9" Rear-End
Front: 17" X 8" Chrome Bullitt Wheels with 225/45 Tires, Rear: 17" X 9" Bullitt Wheels with 275/40 Tires.
Baer 13" Front Brakes, and 12" Rear Brakes

Hello everyone, I am Marlon, Owner & Operator of Marlo's Frame & Alignment/Fly-Ford Racing, http://www.Fly-Ford.com I have upper control arms available that do not use Bearings Or Threads, and My Coil Spring Perches are made the same way, The car will drive like silk, because the suspension has Very Limited Friction, With NO Bind, I make these arms here at my shop, None of it is from china or some other 3rd world country which you cannot pronounce, LOL.
By The Way, My lower control arms are complete with polyurethane bushings, and both upper and lower arms come with polyurethane ball joint boots, And NO They Do Not Squeak!

The Same Control Arm & Spring Saddle Perch is Great addtion for Street Driving, 1/4 Mile Drag Racing and Road Racing as well.

Note: I have my 1966 Mustang with this same system as well as my 1969 Ford Ranchero.

My Mustang has 620lb 1" drop springs, 1 1/8" front Sway Bar, KYB Heavy Duty Gas Shocks, Global West Sub-Frame Connectors, 5 leaf mid-eye springs, 3/4" rear Sway Bar, Traction Master Bars, KYB Heavy Duty Gas Shocks.


The Ranchero has the same Suspension, except it has a 351W AFR 185 Heads & Automatic AOD Trans, and it has
Front: 17" X 9" Cobra "R" Wheels with 255/40 Tires, Rear: 17" X 10 1/2" Cobra "R" Wheels with 315/35 Tires
Wilwood 13" Front & Rear Brake System

There is an article all about them in the October 2007 Issue of "Mustang Monthly"
Marlon@Fly-Ford.com <<< E-Mail
 

Cyclone

Founding Member
Aug 17, 2002
124
0
0
Chatsworth, California
Jul 24, 2007
#14
  • Jul 24, 2007
  • #14
Here is an article that I did for Mustang & Fords Magazine, Click on the link
http://www.fly-ford.com/MustangFords0404-SoundsRight.html
 

p0prcksandc0ke

New Member
Apr 27, 2007
111
0
0
sacramento,ca
Jul 24, 2007
#15
  • Jul 24, 2007
  • #15
too loud? no such thing
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

G
Quiet my 2015 GT on the cheap
  • gsrblack
  • Feb 12, 2025
  • 2015 - 2023 (S550) Mustang -General/Talk
Replies
6
Views
767
2015 - 2023 (S550) Mustang -General/Talk Apr 16, 2025
gkomo
Engine Suggestions on an engine rebuild. Stock cam/GT40Ps or aftermarket on both for a fun weekend driver?
  • MadSquirrelTech
  • Apr 28, 2026
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
  • 2
Replies
23
Views
803
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech May 7, 2026
MadSquirrelTech
6
Hey all,I’m putting together a 302 for my 1968 Mustang and wanted to post the combo + some questions to make sure I’m not missing crucial
  • 68_Disgustang
  • Feb 22, 2026
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
Replies
4
Views
871
1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk- Jun 20, 2026
gray owl
G
A definitive answer to the question of how much height Energy Suspension isolators add
  • 2000xp8
  • May 20, 2025
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
0
Views
273
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- May 20, 2025
2000xp8
K
Engine 2000 Mustang GT - Fuel issue post-blown spark plug repair
  • kenster1092
  • Feb 26, 2026
  • SN95 4.6L Mustang Tech
Replies
4
Views
341
SN95 4.6L Mustang Tech Mar 10, 2026
kenster1092
K
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
  • Classic Mustang Specific Tech
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Forums
  • What's new
  • Media
  • Resources
  • Contact
  • Sponsor
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?