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

Is 3 inch exhaust too much?

  • Thread starter Thread starter 66stangmeister
  • Start date Start date Dec 18, 2005
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Next
First Prev 2 of 3 Next Last

fasttback

New Member
Apr 16, 2005
471
0
0
Northern CA
home.pacbell.net
Dec 19, 2005
#21
  • Dec 19, 2005
  • #21
Just another vote for 2.5"exhaust. Three inch is too big for most small block setups. As mentioned, look at your expected flows, existing setups, and drivability to help guide your decision. Also I think 3" exhaust would be hard to fit over the rear end if you plan to run out of the rear.

If you're as picky as me and can handle some welding just buy a kit and fit it exactly as you like. I made the Summit 2.25" exhaust kit with x-pipe fit in my '66 through the valance.
 

Max Power

Active Member
Jul 31, 2003
1,774
1
36
64
St Paul
Dec 19, 2005
#22
  • Dec 19, 2005
  • #22
Well, if you already have to replace it, 2.5" probably wouldn't hurt much. Since the bends will probably reduce down to 2-1/4" anyway, you won't really notice a difference. I went with 2.5" mandrel bent all the way back for my 393. I bought the Flowmaster tailpipes as it saves a lot of money at the exhaust shop.

Keep in mind that your exhaust is only as big as its smallest restriction. Many custom shops, when building tailpipes actually bend them far enough that they are down to 2". Many people who think they are running 2.5" really aren't.
 
S

steel1212

Active Member
Jun 24, 2004
1,180
0
36
48
Frankfort, Ky
Dec 19, 2005
#23
  • Dec 19, 2005
  • #23
I vote for the kit. Put it on yourself and if you can't weld it up take it to a shop and have them do it. Thats if you want it. I just use band clamps and haven't had a problem so far.
 
6

66Dave

New Member
Dec 18, 2005
2
0
0
Kansas
Dec 19, 2005
#24
  • Dec 19, 2005
  • #24
66stangmeister said:
thats for the tip Tim

i'm just looking ahead to the future so that I won't have to get a new exhaust when i make modifications to my motor.

right now it is just a 1968? 302 with a mild cam...probably stock, and stock heads and stock intake. I plan on getting a new intake (probably a weiend or edelbrock), a new cam and finally new heads down the road.

would 2.5" hurt it while i have the stock parts on my motor? i don't really do a lot of performance running of any kind.

what other kits are there? besides flowmaster? dr. gas?
Click to expand...

PM sent
 

blown65

Founding Member
Jul 7, 1999
1,938
4
39
53
Queen Creek Arizona
streetfire.net
Dec 19, 2005
#25
  • Dec 19, 2005
  • #25
Personally Id do 3", heres why.

My Caddy is the LS6 with 400hp, 2 1/2" kit gained 10hp at the wheels and a 3" kit gained 23hp at the wheels. I doubt your going to hurt performance with a 3" kit, and if you ever hop it up you will have the exhuast to go with it. I know on my stang with the blower the 2 1/2 was WAY to small.
 
D

D.Hearne

New Member
Sep 29, 2000
11,730
6
0
south louisiana
Dec 19, 2005
#26
  • Dec 19, 2005
  • #26
How much you want to bet, that you'll find NO difference between your present 2.25" system and a 2.5" system? Spend your money on something worthwhile. If anything just add some kind of equalizer in the system ahead of the mufflers. Anything like a simple crossover pipe, an "X" pipe or what I did, build a 4"(dia). x 12"(long) chamber , will do wonders for what you have now. Mainly it smooths out the pulses and quietened it down on the system on my Ranger.
 

LMan

Founding Member
Aug 10, 2002
1,246
0
0
Mom's basement
Dec 20, 2005
#27
  • Dec 20, 2005
  • #27
3-inch is fine. For your PowerStroke.
 

blown65

Founding Member
Jul 7, 1999
1,938
4
39
53
Queen Creek Arizona
streetfire.net
Dec 20, 2005
#28
  • Dec 20, 2005
  • #28
and stupidity is for internet forums I guess. :/
 
0

06cobra

Member
Feb 12, 2004
146
0
16
Dec 20, 2005
#29
  • Dec 20, 2005
  • #29
LMan said:
3-inch is fine. For your PowerStroke.
Click to expand...


Nope, on the power stroke you need at least 4" LOL
 
D

D.Hearne

New Member
Sep 29, 2000
11,730
6
0
south louisiana
Dec 20, 2005
#30
  • Dec 20, 2005
  • #30
blown65 said:
and stupidity is for internet forums I guess. :/
Click to expand...
Who you callin stupid ?
 
0

06cobra

Member
Feb 12, 2004
146
0
16
Dec 20, 2005
#31
  • Dec 20, 2005
  • #31
double post, stupid net LOL
 
D

D.Hearne

New Member
Sep 29, 2000
11,730
6
0
south louisiana
Dec 20, 2005
#32
  • Dec 20, 2005
  • #32
blown65 said:
Personally Id do 3", heres why.

My Caddy is the LS6 with 400hp, 2 1/2" kit gained 10hp at the wheels and a 3" kit gained 23hp at the wheels. I doubt your going to hurt performance with a 3" kit, and if you ever hop it up you will have the exhuast to go with it. I know on my stang with the blower the 2 1/2 was WAY to small.
Click to expand...
You've neglected to tell us how much you paid for that 2-1/2" kit ? And then also neglected to say how much more you shelled out for the 3" kit And THEN do the math and tell us how many dollars per horsepower you ended up with PLUS, just where in the powerband were those extra ponies found ?
 

66stangmeister

New Member
Apr 14, 2004
226
1
0
Lafayette, LA
Dec 20, 2005
#33
  • Dec 20, 2005
  • #33
i found an article somewhere online where the 3 inch helped with horsepower...like 58 ponies it said, but that was wayyyy at the top end like 5600 or 5800 rpm. i think it was for a dodge anyway
 
D

D.Hearne

New Member
Sep 29, 2000
11,730
6
0
south louisiana
Dec 20, 2005
#34
  • Dec 20, 2005
  • #34
66stangmeister said:
i found an article somewhere online where the 3 inch helped with horsepower...like 58 ponies it said, but that was wayyyy at the top end like 5600 or 5800 rpm. i think it was for a dodge anyway
Click to expand...
I see you live just down the road from me in Lafayette. I live in Opelousas, and work out of Breaux Bridge. If you want to see what even a somewhat constricted 2.25" system ( locally bent) will do behind a 331-six pack Ranger, just let me know, and I'll arrange to let you test drive it.
 

mdjay

Premium Sponsor
Dec 9, 2003
896
0
16
Las Vegas, NV
Dec 20, 2005
#35
  • Dec 20, 2005
  • #35
It would probably make more power at the top end. But you will loose torque on the bottom end.

The L6 has nice low end torque so it is not apples to apples.
 

66stangmeister

New Member
Apr 14, 2004
226
1
0
Lafayette, LA
Dec 20, 2005
#36
  • Dec 20, 2005
  • #36
D.Hearne said:
I see you live just down the road from me in Lafayette. I live in Opelousas, and work out of Breaux Bridge. If you want to see what even a somewhat constricted 2.25" system ( locally bent) will do behind a 331-six pack Ranger, just let me know, and I'll arrange to let you test drive it.
Click to expand...

Opelousas haha do i really want to test drive it?

On another note, i appreciate all the replies from you guys thanks for the help with this somewhat confusing decision.
 
5

57fairlane

New Member
Apr 2, 2005
560
0
0
Oakwood, GA
Dec 20, 2005
#37
  • Dec 20, 2005
  • #37
D.Hearne said:
If you want to see what even a somewhat constricted 2.25" system ( locally bent) will do behind a 331-six pack Ranger, just let me know, and I'll arrange to let you test drive it.
Click to expand...

No one wants to drive that z-cammed slow ranger.
 
0

06cobra

Member
Feb 12, 2004
146
0
16
Dec 20, 2005
#38
  • Dec 20, 2005
  • #38
^^^Blahaha, I'm glad someone posted that!
 

Edbert

Founding Member
Jul 13, 2002
3,548
32
109
Austin TX
www.edbert.net
Dec 20, 2005
#39
  • Dec 20, 2005
  • #39
mdjay said:
It would probably make more power at the top end. But you will loose torque on the bottom end.
Click to expand...
This is very important and often overlooked in bench racing discussions. For a street car, average HP/TQ figures are more important than peak HP/TQ figures. It is quite possible to gain 10-20rwhp yet lose power from idle to 5,000RPM.
 
G

gp001

Founding Member
Jun 30, 2001
4,401
0
66
So. Cal.
Dec 20, 2005
#40
  • Dec 20, 2005
  • #40
I vote 8" dual exhaust
 
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Next
First Prev 2 of 3 Next Last
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
96 get convertible-sell or part out?
  • DTCstang
  • May 17, 2026
  • What is it Worth?!?!?
Replies
5
Views
158
What is it Worth?!?!? May 18, 2026
nickyb
K
Engine 2000 Mustang GT - Fuel issue post-blown spark plug repair
  • kenster1092
  • Feb 26, 2026
  • SN95 4.6L Mustang Tech
Replies
4
Views
380
SN95 4.6L Mustang Tech Mar 10, 2026
kenster1092
K
Place to Avoid: Jamison Auto Group in Gulfport, MS
  • D Durden
  • Oct 20, 2025
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
  • 2 3
Replies
46
Views
3K
1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk- Jul 16, 2026
Noobz347
What's your tow rig?
  • LILCBRA
  • May 31, 2026
  • Other Auto Tech
Replies
3
Views
145
Other Auto Tech May 31, 2026
LILCBRA
3
Eight inches is enough for me...
  • 351MooseStang
  • Nov 27, 2025
  • 1974 - 1978 Mustang II Talk & Tech
Replies
5
Views
594
1974 - 1978 Mustang II Talk & Tech Mar 2, 2026
Bullitt347
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?