TORCH RED SUPER SNAKE COUPE!!!

[68fastback]

CSM#08SS0125 725HP - We have already called JBA, the car is heading to their shop once SAI is done and we are changing the exhaust. Yea it is a bummer to have to spend more money to get it the way it should/supposed to be .

Aggie

 

Not sure, possibly the SS had to keep within Federal sound levels ...most aftermarket exhausts are not legal for on-road use tho most everyone does it (check FRP website). I know for sure that the reason the GT500's stock exhaust is so quiet is because the S/C whine ate into the total sound-level 'budget' and required a very quiet exhaust. Possibly the SS had similar [aftermarket] considerations -- dunno.

 

MM's SS sure sounds better after the change tho :happy feet:

 

Dan

[Robert M]

CSM#08SS0125 725HP - We have already called JBA, the car is heading to their shop once SAI is done and we are changing the exhaust. Yea it is a bummer to have to spend more money to get it the way it should/supposed to be .

Aggie

 

 

Yes, to the tune of about $2200 in 3" parts and about $1300 in labor. OUCH!!

 

Not to mentioned transportation cost to San Diego from Las Vegas..........

 

JBA says the 3" exhaust parts specific to the 725 will not be available for 3-5 weeks, FWIW.

 

R

[Michael Morris]

I guess it can always be louder, but I really like the way mine sounds now. The new mufflers were like $600. No where near 4K.

 

michael morris

[MustangsRule]

I guess it can always be louder, but I really like the way mine sounds now. The new mufflers were like $600. No where near 4K.

 

michael morris

 

 

MM,

 

Did you read post #270.

 

Bob

[Michael Morris]

MM,

 

Did you read post #270.

 

Bob

They really didnt tell me anything about them. I have talked to Son of GT about what to do and he said WAX them and then he suggested that I put some UV portection on them. I havent done it yet but Im going to this weekend.

 

 

michae morris

[Robert M]

I guess it can always be louder, but I really like the way mine sounds now. The new mufflers were like $600. No where near 4K.

 

michael morris

 

 

Not so much louder, but instead better flow, which equals more power (usually). The 3" flow was originally designed for the 725, instead of the 2.5" which is being installed.

 

The earliest information from Shelby listed "JBA manifolds with 3" exhaust" for the 725. Then it did not pass the C.A.R.B. test and now the 725's get the smaller 2.5" 600h.p. exhaust. It is a shame, because the $31,995 for the 725 horse conversion included the larger 3" exhaust originally. Now it will take an additional $3500 to make the engine perform as it was originally designed to perform. This is not Shelby's fault, but it is a sign of the "green world" that we live in..........

 

R

[Vogon]

Not so much louder, but instead better flow, which equals more power (usually). The 3" flow was originally designed for the 725, instead of the 2.5" which is being installed.

 

The earliest information from Shelby listed "JBA manifolds with 3" exhaust" for the 725. Then it did not pass the C.A.R.B. test and now the 725's get the smaller 2.5" 600h.p. exhaust. It is a shame, because the $31,995 for the 725 horse conversion included the larger 3" exhaust originally. Now it will take an additional $3500 to make the engine perform as it was originally designed to perform. This is not Shelby's fault, but it is a sign of the "green world" that we live in..........

 

R

This is a bit off topic, sorry, but this was my point in another thread. The price jumped considerably because of the exhaust, but didn't come down when deleted. Kinda like gas prices...

[Michael Morris]

Not so much louder, but instead better flow, which equals more power (usually). The 3" flow was originally designed for the 725, instead of the 2.5" which is being installed.

 

The earliest information from Shelby listed "JBA manifolds with 3" exhaust" for the 725. Then it did not pass the C.A.R.B. test and now the 725's get the smaller 2.5" 600h.p. exhaust. It is a shame, because the $31,995 for the 725 horse conversion included the larger 3" exhaust originally. Now it will take an additional $3500 to make the engine perform as it was originally designed to perform. This is not Shelby's fault, but it is a sign of the "green world" that we live in..........

 

R

I thought I read on the KB website that headers wouldnt help much on HP. Will a 3 inch exhaust help much. I know the better is can get air in and out, but would it really mattter. For that money I would just buy another pulley and get my HP there.

 

michael morris

[Robert M]

I thought I read on the KB website that headers wouldnt help much on HP. Will a 3 inch exhaust help much. I know the better is can get air in and out, but would it really mattter. For that money I would just buy another pulley and get my HP there.

 

michael morris

 

I can not quote numbers when comparing the JBA's that were originally going to be installed, and the stock GT500 headers that are now left on the 725 through the conversion. I would guess, and this is only a guess, that the JBA long tubes and the 3" from the long tubes back, would be a reasonable, if not significant increase over the stock GT500 exhaust headers and the 2.5" Borla that is now being installed on the 725's. Yes, another pulley would "up" the performance level, but what about the new pulley and the full 3" exhaust? The S/C is a pump, it loves free flow. A pulley will not help with the flow out of the engine. I am not into "loud", but I do like efficient performance. Since the 725 was designed with a 3" system in mind, I don't know that the 2.5 is as friendly to the "high flow" KB? I'm sure it will work fine, but I'll bet there "was" more in the original design of this 725 package.

 

BTW - Michael, your SS is beautiful!! Mine will look like yours, when my number is called.

 

R

[Michael Morris]

I can not quote numbers when comparing the JBA's that were originally going to be installed, and the stock GT500 headers that are now left on the 725 through the conversion. I would guess, and this is only a guess, that the JBA long tubes and the 3" from the long tubes back, would be a reasonable, if not significant increase over the stock GT500 exhaust headers and the 2.5" Borla that is now being installed on the 725's. Yes, another pulley would "up" the performance level, but what about the new pulley and the full 3" exhaust? The S/C is a pump, it loves free flow. A pulley will not help with the flow out of the engine. I am not into "loud", but I do like efficient performance. Since the 725 was designed with a 3" system in mind, I don't know that the 2.5 is as friendly to the "high flow" KB? I'm sure it will work fine, but I'll bet there "was" more in the original design of this 725 package.

 

BTW - Michael, your SS is beautiful!! Mine will look like yours, when my number is called.

 

R

I understand that an engine is a air pump and an even more so with that HUGE KB sitting on top. I gues my question is. Does adding 4500 worth of 3inch exhaust make a BIG difference for the money. I know you are right that the more air you get in and OUT is more effecient, but is it going to make a difference enough to spend $4500

 

michael morris

[Robert M]

I understand that an engine is a air pump and an even more so with that HUGE KB sitting on top. I gues my question is. Does adding 4500 worth of 3inch exhaust make a BIG difference for the money. I know you are right that the more air you get in and OUT is more effecient, but is it going to make a difference enough to spend $4500

 

michael morris

 

Well, I just talked to Mike at the JBA shop. I needed some additional info. to satisfy my mind on this exhaust issue. He said Snake 1 (the Red prototype SS) has long tubes, BUT, they (JBA) do not make a "manifold" as listed in the early Shelby info. shown below, "JBA manifolds", but instead only long tubes for the GT500 SS application. He said that the addition of long tubes alone would increase power output by approx. 25h.p. over the GT500 header/manifolds...........

 

 

Michael - It sound like you are going a different direction than me. The only thing I am looking for out of my 725 is what it is/was supposed to produce from Shelby before the feds got in the way. I am not looking for any other upgrades to power other than what these cars were/are supposed to put out as they were originally designed. I know that the sky, or I should say the wallet is the limit to what power can be achieved.

 

The JBA long tubes and 3" exhaust are approx. $2100 for the parts only. As I had mentioned above, I discussed the "long tube headers only" with Mike at JBA and he said approx. 25h.p. gain, so I would guess the associated 3" pipes and muffs would also help to up that final h.p. number somewhat, maybe 30-40h.p. total? It would not at all be realistic to quote the exhaust upgrade at $4500 because that also includes transporting the car to San Diego and having JBA do the work, when in reality that parts are less than 1/2 that cost and the install and tune could be done locally. There is a form member on SVTPerf.com who is getting the full long tube and 3" w/o cats. It will be interesting to see what his car achieves during the tuning pulls.

 

Someone on one of the forums said that they read that the Snake 1 put out 800h.p. with its long tubes, so I guess it all depends upon the specific set up on a per car basis.<<<If this is true.

 

 

R

[Michael Morris]

Just got off the phone with the guys at Kenne Bell. We talked about adding headers and different exhaust.

 

They said you could take AWAY boost by adding headers, which could make you lose HP. I asked them about changing pulleys. He said if you go with the 2.5 inch pulley that you would get 800HP RWHP!!! If I do the math close thats 960HP at the crank. The pullies cost $125. The exhaust cost almost $4500 for 25HP. I think having the manifold back would be cool, but it seems like a HUGE waste of money.

Someone who knows more about the KB and boost please correct me if Im wrong. Robert, Im not trying to talk you out of the exhaust Im just trying to figure out why you would want to spend the money for so little gain.

 

michael morris (future owner of a 2.5 inch pulley :happy feet:)

[Michael Morris]

i got this from the KB website under FAQ

 

 

Headers? 4 tube or Tri-Y? 4 tube headers work best, but even they offer very little HP gain on the late model vehicles - and they are expensive! We've never seen any worthwhile gains on the 4.6, 5.4 Fords - certainly not the inflated numbers we see advertised. Just look at the reputable tests by MM&FF magazine.

 

 

 

 

michael morris

[68fastback]

Just got off the phone with the guys at Kenne Bell. We talked about adding headers and different exhaust.

 

They said you could take AWAY boost by adding headers, which could make you lose HP. I asked them about changing pulleys. He said if you go with the 2.5 inch pulley that you would get 800HP RWHP!!! If I do the math close thats 960HP at the crank. The pullies cost $125. The exhaust cost almost $4500 for 25HP. I think having the manifold back would be cool, but it seems like a HUGE waste of money.

Someone who knows more about the KB and boost please correct me if Im wrong. Robert, Im not trying to talk you out of the exhaust Im just trying to figure out why you would want to spend the money for so little gain.

 

michael morris (future owner of a 2.5 inch pulley :happy feet:)

 

MM, you will see a reduction in boost with longtubes and 3" exhaust but you most definately will *not* see a reduction in HP. On the contrary, you should see 25-40 more HP with about 3# less boost. The reason for this is because of freer flow which greatly reduces parasitic losses in the S/C -- i.e. that extra boost that's not making power with stock exhaust but is being 'eaten' by the S/C. The real benefit to the 3" exhaust and longtubes (besides the HP increase) is not makng the S/C work as hard, thereby increasing it's thermal efficiency and reducing heatsoak, pulled timing and HP loss. It one thing on a dyno with a cool-down; it's another thing in real-world continuous use where reduced heatsoak becomes key to consistently achieving the same HP.

 

Be carefull on kicking up the lower pulley. It will definately give you more boost and HP, but will do it by pushing the S/C harder. Cheaper solution, yes. Best solution, imo no. Depends how you plan to use the car. If you plan to run it on a road course or any sustained hi-po driving, the headers, 3" pipes/muffs and the biggest heat-exchanger you can find will actually permit the S/C to not have to stress-out so much. Then once you have more HP with lower boost (a good thing) you can kick up the boost mechanically (pulley) a bit if desired for more HP but with no more stress on the S/C than with stock exhaust and pulley.

 

For a given pulley combination, you want the most efficient set-up, i.e. the least boost possible with that pulley combo at a given output HP. Longtubes and 3" all the way back will help optimize that. Bigger heat exchanger will help too since it will permit the tune to *not* pull timing over a broader range of operating conditions. If the tune has to pull timing because of high IAT2 temps because the S/C is working harder (more boost) for the same HP output, you will have given back the HP gains via pulled timing. Looked at from another angle, headers, pipes, HE, etc work because they all help keep the S/C output IAT2 temps low which means more HP at a given level of boost and less wasted mechanical energy that could be going to the wheels. The KB sucks a huge amount of HP from the crank, especially at elevated boost levels, and anything that reduces that parasitic mechanical and related adiabatic load is a big benefit with any S/C, especially fixed-displacement types.

 

Hope this helps, and my appologies if it sounds like I'm repeating myself a bit, but boost, efficiency, flow, temps, timing and HP are all inextricably related. You want the most HP, at the least boost (freest flow), with the coolest IAT2s, at maximum WOT-table advance, across the broadest range of operational/use conditions, and over the widest range of actual ambient temperatures. All other things being equal, optimizing these variables also translates to enhanced engine life for a given level of performance.

 

Imo, avoid the 800HP option. It's not possible to get much more than 625-650 rwHP to the ground on these cars anyway, and, tho 800HP looks good on the dyno, you'll not be sustaining that output under real world continuous conditions for the above reasons. Besides, the KB kit boost-a-pumps are already pushing the fuel system to elevated levels well beyond their engineering design point at 800 rwHP and tho the MAF scaler the kit uses works, it is not an ideal solution, imo. If on the other hand the 725 option *doesn't* use the MAF-scaler and boost-a-pumps (I don't recall), then 800rwHP is flatly not achievable anyway with the stock fuel system. In any event, pipes/headers/HE will permit you to consistently get the most HP out of any given boost level in realworld conditions, not just on the dyno -- that's the real and practical bottom line, imo.

 

Btw, have I told you lately -- your SS is absolutely friggin' awesome!!! ;-)

 

Dan

[cccorr]

When they arrive, can you let me kow if you did any special "prep" to protect them, who you used and how it turned out? I'm particulary interested in the supercharger, hood and rims. Thanks for your responses.

Michael, any updates on the parts?

[Michael Morris]

MM, you will see a reduction in boost with longtubes and 3" exhaust but you most definately will *not* see a reduction in HP. On the contrary, you should see 25-40 more HP with about 3# less boost. The reason for this is because of freer flow which greatly reduces parasitic losses in the S/C -- i.e. that extra boost that's not making power with stock exhaust but is being 'eaten' by the S/C. The real benefit to the 3" exhaust and longtubes (besides the HP increase) is not makng the S/C work as hard, thereby increasing it's thermal efficiency and reducing heatsoak, pulled timing and HP loss. It one thing on a dyno with a cool-down; it's another thing in real-world continuous use where reduced heatsoak becomes key to consistently achieving the same HP.

 

Be carefull on kicking up the lower pulley. It will definately give you more boost and HP, but will do it by pushing the S/C harder. Cheaper solution, yes. Best solution, imo no. Depends how you plan to use the car. If you plan to run it on a road course or any sustained hi-po driving, the headers, 3" pipes/muffs and the biggest heat-exchanger you can find will actually permit the S/C to not have to stress-out so much. Then once you have more HP with lower boost (a good thing) you can kick up the boost mechanically (pulley) a bit if desired for more HP but with no more stress on the S/C than with stock exhaust and pulley.

 

For a given pulley combination, you want the most efficient set-up, i.e. the least boost possible with that pulley combo at a given output HP. Longtubes and 3" all the way back will help optimize that. Bigger heat exchanger will help too since it will permit the tune to *not* pull timing over a broader range of operating conditions. If the tune has to pull timing because of high IAT2 temps because the S/C is working harder (more boost) for the same HP output, you will have given back the HP gains via pulled timing. Looked at from another angle, headers, pipes, HE, etc work because they all help keep the S/C output IAT2 temps low which means more HP at a given level of boost and less wasted mechanical energy that could be going to the wheels. The KB sucks a huge amount of HP from the crank, especially at elevated boost levels, and anything that reduces that parasitic mechanical and related adiabatic load is a big benefit with any S/C, especially fixed-displacement types.

 

Hope this helps, and my appologies if it sounds like I'm repeating myself a bit, but boost, efficiency, flow, temps, timing and HP are all inextricably related. You want the most HP, at the least boost (freest flow), with the coolest IAT2s, at maximum WOT-table advance, across the broadest range of operational/use conditions, and over the widest range of actual ambient temperatures. All other things being equal, optimizing these variables also translates to enhanced engine life for a given level of performance.

 

Imo, avoid the 800HP option. It's not possible to get much more than 625-650 rwHP to the ground on these cars anyway, and, tho 800HP looks good on the dyno, you'll not be sustaining that output under real world continuous conditions for the above reasons. Besides, the KB kit boost-a-pumps are already pushing the fuel system to elevated levels well beyond their engineering design point at 800 rwHP and tho the MAF scaler the kit uses works, it is not an ideal solution, imo. If on the other hand the 725 option *doesn't* use the MAF-scaler and boost-a-pumps (I don't recall), then 800rwHP is flatly not achievable anyway with the stock fuel system. In any event, pipes/headers/HE will permit you to consistently get the most HP out of any given boost level in realworld conditions, not just on the dyno -- that's the real and practical bottom line, imo.

 

Btw, have I told you lately -- your SS is absolutely friggin' awesome!!! ;-)

 

Dan

 

Thanks for the info Dan, Im having problems keeping the 725 under control. The car has tons of Power. I dont want to change anything, I just couldnt understand spending 4300 for so little gain. Now if you plan on REALLY hot rodding the car then from you expaination you will need to do the headers and exhaust. Im just going to drive it once or twice every few weeks and enjoy looking at it.

 

BTW, Thanks I really really love this car!

[Michael Morris]

Michael, any updates on the parts?

They came in yesterday. Most of the parts are in boxes. I will pull them out this weekend before I put them up and give you a better description.

 

michael morris

[Robert M]

Thanks for the info Dan, Im having problems keeping the 725 under control. The car has tons of Power. I dont want to change anything, I just couldnt understand spending 4300 for so little gain. Now if you plan on REALLY hot rodding the car then from you expaination you will need to do the headers and exhaust. Im just going to drive it once or twice every few weeks and enjoy looking at it.

 

BTW, Thanks I really really love this car!

 

 

I keep seeing $4300, $4500 quoted as prices for the 3" exhaust. Rmember, that is only "if" you choose to ship the car to JBA. Shipping a car across the country is never cheap, even if it is only the cost of the fuel, but usually there is more involved than just fuel costs.

 

The breakdown of the parts themselves are $1096 for the Long Tubes. <<<These are the better quality (ceramic coated) headers. The stainless Steel long tubes are a couple hundred less. The catted 3" X-pipe is $680 and the 3" from the X back is $438 total for both sides. If someone were to choose the non-catted X-pipe, it is also less money. There are also two O2 sesor extensions needed because of the longs tubes. How much they are? I do not know. $50-$100 sould easily cover these.<<They might be $25 for the pair?

 

The total for the parts is just over $2000, well under the $4K plus $$$ that are being quoted. A tune will be required according to JBA. This 3" conversion can be done locally I presume? It all bolts in and uses factory hangers according to JBA.

 

 

So now in reality that puts the 25-40h.p. upgrade to approx. $2500, depending upon the cost of the tune.

 

R

[Michael Morris]

I keep seeing $4300, $4500 quoted as prices for the 3" exhaust. Rmember, that is only "if" you choose to ship the car to JBA. Shipping a car across the country is never cheap, even if it is only the cost of the fuel, but usually there is more involved than just fuel costs.

 

The breakdown of the parts themselves are $1096 for the Long Tubes. <<<These are the better quality (ceramic coated) headers. The stainless Steel long tubes are a couple hundred less. The catted 3" X-pipe is $680 and the 3" from the X back is $438 total for both sides. If someone were to choose the non-catted X-pipe, it is also less money. There are also two O2 sesor extensions needed because of the longs tubes. How much they are? I do not know. $50-$100 sould easily cover these.<<They might be $25 for the pair?

 

The total for the parts is just over $2000, well under the $4K plus $$$ that are being quoted. A tune will be required according to JBA. This 3" conversion can be done locally I presume? It all bolts in and uses factory hangers according to JBA.

 

 

So now in reality that puts the 25-40h.p. upgrade to approx. $2500 depending upon the cost of the tune.

R

Im SORRY Robert. I thought I read that someone said it would cost 4500 to do the job. I thought that was ALOT of money for the MOD. I was complaining or agruing doing the mod, but just thought that was alot of money for not much gain. Its your car do what YOU want. Dont listen to anything I say. I posted earlier and have since been proven right. I dont know enough to be telling anyone what to do thier car.

I hope you didnt take my post the wrong way. I misunderstood the price and benefit and was just asking for someone to explain it to me.

 

Good Luck

 

michael morris

[Robert M]

MM, you will see a reduction in boost with longtubes and 3" exhaust but you most definately will *not* see a reduction in HP. On the contrary, you should see 25-40 more HP with about 3# less boost. The reason for this is because of freer flow which greatly reduces parasitic losses in the S/C -- i.e. that extra boost that's not making power with stock exhaust but is being 'eaten' by the S/C. The real benefit to the 3" exhaust and longtubes (besides the HP increase) is not makng the S/C work as hard, thereby increasing it's thermal efficiency and reducing heatsoak, pulled timing and HP loss. It one thing on a dyno with a cool-down; it's another thing in real-world continuous use where reduced heatsoak becomes key to consistently achieving the same HP.

 

Dan

 

Thank you Dan for the input.^^^^^^^ This too is what I have read, and heard, many times over the years. My theory, the full exhaust on these cars will create sufficient back pressure in comparision to an "open header" drag race situation with a super charger. Flow is what it is all about. Adding a "bottle neck" to the system in the form of a smaller 2.5" exhaust, well, there is no other way to overcome that except to remove the bottle neck. You can spin the S/C all you want, as fast as you want, but the bottle neck is still there. These cars were designed, by Shelby for the 3" exhaust.<<There was a reason for this in the first place. The problem is, the Feds got in the way!!

 

R

[Robert M]

Im SORRY Robert. I thought I read that someone said it would cost 4500 to do the job. I thought that was ALOT of money for the MOD. I was complaining or agruing doing the mod, but just thought that was alot of money for not much gain. Its your car do what YOU want. Dont listen to anything I say. I posted earlier and have since been proven right. I dont know enough to be telling anyone what to do thier car.

I hope you didnt take my post the wrong way. I misunderstood the price and benefit and was just asking for someone to explain it to me.

 

Good Luck

 

michael morris

 

 

Michael - I am in full agreement that $4K+ for a 25-40h.p. mod is not realistic, $$$ vs. h.p. gain.

 

I don't know if you had read the added comments I made later last night on my previous post at the top #281, but the ONLY thing I am trying to do is make my car perform as Shelby had originally designed it when they first offered the 725 in Shelby liturature. I am not looking for any additional power beyond that, but I do not want any less. I feel that these cars are missing their potential, by being "plugged up".

 

JBA says that long tubes were not part of the original 725 plan that they know of, but 3" was. I do not know what difference the 3" vs. 2.5" will make from the stock GT500 headers back, but they (JBA) did tell me the sound would change, not noise level, but instead sound, and there would be better flow with their free flow cats. This is what he told me was originally planned for the 725's. The free flowing cats are one of the main reasons that the feds were not happy with the emissions levels.

 

I am always interested in more input on these cars............

 

R

[08jester]

We called JBA about changing the exhaust and we were told that it was a visual thing with the feds not emissions. We have several problems with SAI putting the Borla exhaust on the 725. First when we paid the deposit we were told we were getting the 3" JBA. We feel the car should breath, look and sound like a 725hp car not STOCK. We will be changing the exhaust (at whatever cost) once the car is done. If we are going to spend this kind of money it should be the way we want it or actually "should" be.

[Robert M]

We called JBA about changing the exhaust and we were told that it was a visual thing with the feds not emissions. We have several problems with SAI putting the Borla exhaust on the 725. First when we paid the deposit we were told we were getting the 3" JBA. We feel the car should breath, look and sound like a 725hp car not STOCK. We will be changing the exhaust (at whatever cost) once the car is done. If we are going to spend this kind of money it should be the way we want it or actually "should" be.

 

Did you talk to the installation shop?, the guys who actaully install and tune/dyno the cars? These are the same guys who installed the 3" on Snake 1 (the Red SS prototype) and dynoed/tuned it. I have talked to them twice, they, as well as a couple of Shelby contacts told me the same thing about the emissions issues, and it was not a visual thing only.

 

But, the original letter listing the parts on the Super Snake, and then the "updated" list, both which include the 3" JBA, have a small asterisk "*", parts and prices subject to change.

 

I agree that it would be nice to have the 3" done, as was originally planned.

 

R

[08jester]

Did you talk to the installation shop?, the guys who actaully install and tune/dyno the cars? These are the same guys who installed the 3" on Snake 1 (the Red SS prototype) and dynoed/tuned it. I have talked to them twice, they, as well as a couple of Shelby contacts told me the same thing about the emissions issues, and it was not a visual thing only.

 

But, the original letter listing the parts on the Super Snake, and then the "updated" list, both which include the 3" JBA, have a small asterisk "*", parts and prices subject to change.

 

I agree that it would be nice to have the 3" done, as was originally planned.

 

R

We spoke with Greg Raymond. He was the same gentleman that we met at the SEMA show last year. They had a booth with the red SS prototype. When we spoke with Greg about a week ago he told us that California does not allow you to change the cat within the first 5 years from new. He told us that it passes smog with the exhaust but not the visual. He is a sales manager, so I would hope he has all the correct info.

I understand that parts and prices are subject to change, then they should find another 3" that would work. I am not extremely happy about putting on another exhaust that doesn't look or sound any better than stock or breathability benefits.

[68fastback]

I think Stainless Works still makes their longtubes and 3" all the way to the muff-tips for the GT500. They had some early fitment problems but that's supposedly resolved now. Maybe some bullet racing-cats too? ;-)

 

Might be worth checking with Fred at Evolution (610-485-3596) -- there may be more 3" with long-tube alternatives that he has first-hand install and dyno experience with and can recommend.

 

I'm just guessing, but I think Fed emissions law precludes most exhaust system swaps (including x-pipes) for on-road use (is that the 'visual' consideration?). If you look thru FRP website, almost every exhaust is "not legal on polution controlled motor vehicles" (i.e. registered for on-road). I suspect that's not because the changes would not meet emissions in actual testing, but because it's illegal to modify the exhaust design for polution controlled vehicles without doing a whole friggin' re-certification which is *very* epensive ...my hunch is that's the problem, but I do not know.

 

Still, folks change to long tubes/X-pipes/racing-cats/hot-tunes, etc and still pass emissions (at least in some places) even tho the swaps are not trechnically 'legal'

[Robert M]

We spoke with Greg Raymond. He was the same gentleman that we met at the SEMA show last year. They had a booth with the red SS prototype. When we spoke with Greg about a week ago he told us that California does not allow you to change the cat within the first 5 years from new. He told us that it passes smog with the exhaust but not the visual. He is a sales manager, so I would hope he has all the correct info.

I understand that parts and prices are subject to change, then they should find another 3" that would work. I am not extremely happy about putting on another exhaust that doesn't look or sound any better than stock or breathability benefits.

 

If Calif. does not accept change of cats within the first 5 years, and Shelby must meet 50 state certification, then the exhaust system forward of the mufflers and over the axle pipes is assy. line Ford on both the 600 and 725's? as Shelby is meeting 50 state requirements. I thought I was told by Shelby that the 725's got Borla 2.5" from the manifolds/headers back.<<This could not be, as it would require a cat change with the Borla install.

 

What I was told by the JBA shop is that at first they tuned the Red SS with the long tubes, high flow cats, and full 3". It did not meet what they knew to be the emissions standards for Calif. They then removed the long tubes and installed the stock GT500 headers/manifolds and redesigned the X with the high flow cats to fit up to the stock GT500 parts. They ran it again on the dyno attempting to tweak it, no go, the high flow cats and 3" X would still not pass. Now they were down to the 3" pipes behind the X and that was it. In the end (supposedly), a 2.5' Borla system was chosen for use from the the stock GT500 headers back, as it would pass the Calif. emissions standards which made this set up 50 state legal. But now I have more questions as this would require the Borla cats on the Borla X??

 

I understand the visual inspection vs. the sniffer inspection of the exhasut system, but anything other than "Ford" would be a change to the original cats. "If" these cars still have all of the original exhaust system parts forward of the mufflers and over axle pipes, I guarantee there is more to be had with the exhaust upgrade to 3".

 

Did you notice another missing item on the 725's?

 

R

[ShelbyCobra826]

So I'm obviously late to this party (thought you were getting the car later in the summer...).

 

CONGRATS, Michael! Amazing car.

 

I like to think that my 07SGT4990 purchase helped in some way with your SS purchase. That way, I won't feel bad begging you for a ride in it when we meet again!

 

Until then, I'd settle for a picture of a big cloud of gray tire smoke with about 6" of red SS snout poking out of the front of the cloud... :burnout:

 

Take care, and keep her straight.

[Michael Morris]

So I'm obviously late to this party (thought you were getting the car later in the summer...).

 

CONGRATS, Michael! Amazing car.

 

I like to think that my 07SGT4990 purchase helped in some way with your SS purchase. That way, I won't feel bad begging you for a ride in it when we meet again!

 

Until then, I'd settle for a picture of a big cloud of gray tire smoke with about 6" of red SS snout poking out of the front of the cloud... :burnout:

 

Take care, and keep her straight.

The rides a DONE DEAL!!

We are working on keeping her straight. Its a tough thing to do in the beast!

 

 

michael morris

[SuperSnake08]

We spoke with Greg Raymond. He was the same gentleman that we met at the SEMA show last year. They had a booth with the red SS prototype. When we spoke with Greg about a week ago he told us that California does not allow you to change the cat within the first 5 years from new. He told us that it passes smog with the exhaust but not the visual. He is a sales manager, so I would hope he has all the correct info.

I understand that parts and prices are subject to change, then they should find another 3" that would work. I am not extremely happy about putting on another exhaust that doesn't look or sound any better than stock or breathability benefits.

 

Unfortunately on this one we are :beatdeadhorse: This is a touchy point for me as well. I even contacted Amy about it who confirmed that the manifold back system is a dead issue. I love SAI but my position on this is not nicey nicey.I agree that at least a manifold back system similar to the one originally promised should have been delivered or an option to retain stock exhaust and receive a credit so we can look at options on our own and not waste money paying twice :angry2: on a weak sounding axleback that many owners will remove. Providers like JBA and others needed to be pushed hard by SAI to develop and offer a system that would pass all federal testing so as to protect SAI's EPA certification as a manufacturer. It seems that the path of least resistance was taken and a less costly, abbreviated exhaust (axle back only) was the result. No offense to those who have it but it is too mild, restrictive and does not eliminate some of the documented restrictions in the stock x pipe and manifold back piping.

 

PS- Dan is spot on regarding the back pressure/boost/horsepower/volumetric efficiency issue. Very well stated and accurate.

[andyukok442]

Personally I think all those over-sized filler caps under the hood and the carbon fibre parts look cheap and tacky. Completely over-kill. The SS is an awesome looking car, it shouts out thoroughbred street/strip performance and to add stuff like that is just ridiculous.