Cherokee Offical Exhaust sound clip thread ! - Page 4 - Jeep Cherokee Forum

Go Back  Jeep Cherokee Forum > Technical Discussion > Modified XJ Cherokee Tech
Cherokee Offical Exhaust sound clip thread ! >

Cherokee Offical Exhaust sound clip thread !

Modified XJ Cherokee Tech XJ (84-01)
All modified tech questions. If it modifies your XJ beyond stock parts ask it here.

Cherokee Offical Exhaust sound clip thread !

Old 05-25-2017, 08:36 PM
  #46  
Someone stole my badge!
 
Basslicks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ocala, FL
Posts: 11,137
Year: 1992
Engine: 4.0 HO
Default

Originally Posted by moparado View Post
Ahh ok, makes sense.
I could be wrong but seem to remember the 50 has an OEM 2-1/4" input.
If so, could the 2.5" to 2-1/4" reducer be part of it?
Don't know, just throwing that out there.

Seen a Utube video about how the Flowmaster 50's baffling system is supposed to help increase exhaust scavenging but it could be it was tweaked for OEM plumbing.
You can get any FM muffler in virtually whatever inlet/outlet diameter you want. 2" all the way up to 3"

http://www.flowmastermufflers.com/50-series-delta/

(or 2.5" to 4" for the HD 50 series)

http://www.flowmastermufflers.com/50-series-hd/
Basslicks is offline  
Old 05-25-2017, 08:47 PM
  #47  
Someone stole my badge!
 
Basslicks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ocala, FL
Posts: 11,137
Year: 1992
Engine: 4.0 HO
Default

Originally Posted by XJlimitedx99 View Post
Manifold: factory
downpipe: custom 2.5" to remove dent
cat: 2.5" Magnaflow
muffler: 2.5" Flowmaster 50
tailpipe: 2.5" out the back
intake: Spectre cowl intake

Sounds awesome. The Flowmaster 50 is a great choice for some sound and tone while not being over the top. I'd recommend 2.25" tubing for anybody looking to replicate because I think I lost some torque when I went up to 2.5".

video best with headphones:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjrImQxF_EI
I really wish we could get someone to dyno their Jeep before and after increasing diameter to 2.5"

I can't say "boo" about it because mine already had 2.5" on it when I got it. I will say though that when I was driving around the loaner XJ with the OEM exhaust on it, it had very much less ***** than mine.... mine is an auto w/ 3.55 gears and at the time had 31" tires on it, the loaner was a 5 spd with 235's and 3.73 gears... and ran better than mine!

All that being said, I really think the 1/4" difference in diameter is negligible. Now if you went from 2" to 2.5", you'd notice a difference one way or another.
Basslicks is offline  
Old 05-26-2017, 01:14 PM
  #48  
Great White Jeep
 
5-Speed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: SoCal
Posts: 2,692
Year: Jeepless
Model: Cherokee (XJ)
Default

Originally Posted by Basslicks View Post
I really wish we could get someone to dyno their Jeep before and after increasing diameter to 2.5"
Ill throw mine on the dyno for a before and after. Got one a couple hundred feet away from me. But its going to take some time since I wont be doing the exhaust for a while...
5-Speed is offline  
Old 05-26-2017, 11:34 PM
  #49  
Someone stole my badge!
 
Basslicks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ocala, FL
Posts: 11,137
Year: 1992
Engine: 4.0 HO
Default

Originally Posted by 5-Speed View Post
Ill throw mine on the dyno for a before and after. Got one a couple hundred feet away from me. But its going to take some time since I wont be doing the exhaust for a while...
EXTREMELY interested in seeing the results
Basslicks is offline  
Old 09-15-2017, 05:40 AM
  #50  
CF Veteran
 
Battle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 1,983
Year: 1997
Model: Cherokee
Engine: 4.0
Default

Manifold : Gibson stainless steel header
Downpipe: stock
Catalytic Converter: stock
Muffler: 2.5" Vibrant stainless steel
Tailpipe: 2.5"

Other noise modifications:
K&N cold air intake
62mm throttle body

Battle is online now  
Old 09-15-2017, 10:27 PM
  #51  
Someone stole my badge!
 
Basslicks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ocala, FL
Posts: 11,137
Year: 1992
Engine: 4.0 HO
Default

Nice!
Basslicks is offline  
Old 01-07-2018, 09:43 PM
  #52  
CF Veteran
 
Waynerd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: North canaan Connecticut
Posts: 1,212
Year: 01, 99, 98, 98,98
Model: Cherokee
Engine: 4.0
Default

Larger exhaust diameters will equal less low end. It's relative to exhaust velocity. Not sure a quarter inch will change too much. But I've always believed in the fact that exhaust size is optimized from the factory. I mean if they could have gained any power by using a larger diameter exhaust then why wouldn't they? The cost increase would probably not be much if any.

Also straight piping is the worst. When I was in school at American Motorcycle Institute we dyno'd a Harley with straight pipes, with and without baffles. Without baffles it lost 5 horsepower. That was a stock motor though. Any other mods obviously may have gained that 5 horse back. Larger exhaust's are only really for high rpm applications. Making a ton of power at crazy high rpm then the stock exhaust will become more of a restriction and the larger exhaust will then accommodate for higher velocity without turbulence.

So possibly a 4.0 stroked, cammed, ported and polished with larger valves and a high flow intake and bored throttle body would benefit from the larger exhaust. Stock configuration not so much.
Waynerd is offline  
Old 01-07-2018, 09:54 PM
  #53  
CF Veteran
 
Waynerd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: North canaan Connecticut
Posts: 1,212
Year: 01, 99, 98, 98,98
Model: Cherokee
Engine: 4.0
Default

Originally Posted by XJAlmex View Post
4.0 L 120,000 miles
Manifold : Stock
Downpipe: Stock
Muffler: Flowmaster 40
Tailpipe: Sirrush 2.5" chromed tip (for a classy touch)
It's not noisy inside the cabin, and even makes me a bit mad that it makes all of the grunt on the outside but none on the cabin... Jeep Cherokee XJ 4.0 2000 Flowmaster 40 exhaust sound test - YouTube
This is my favorite sounding of all I have heard so far. It's fairly quiet with a bit of a growl. Very clean sounding and not obnoxious. I have a 40 but with no cat at the moment. Mines a bit raspier for some reason. I need to record a video and post.
I had one on my last phone but the touch screen isn't working right now so I can't use that. Maybe I'll do a cold start vid in the morning. It's only going to be about 10 degrees probably so it'll be good. It's much louder until the Jeep warms up. Then it's not loud at all. Wether driving or idling. I mean you can tell it's not a stock muffler but by no means is it loud.
Waynerd is offline  
Old 01-15-2018, 06:35 PM
  #54  
Someone stole my badge!
 
Basslicks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ocala, FL
Posts: 11,137
Year: 1992
Engine: 4.0 HO
Default

Originally Posted by Waynerd View Post
Larger exhaust diameters will equal less low end. It's relative to exhaust velocity. Not sure a quarter inch will change too much. But I've always believed in the fact that exhaust size is optimized from the factory. I mean if they could have gained any power by using a larger diameter exhaust then why wouldn't they? The cost increase would probably not be much if any.
Cost increase on a single model would be negligible, yes. Cost increase on the entire production span of the vehicle is pretty significant. The main reason, however, is to improve their NVH numbers. Larger diameter exhaust = more noticeable exhaust tone = more "noise" = lower NVH rating.

I borrowed a '93 Country from someone for a while when I was saving for a car for my wife a few years back. The thing had the OE-spec exhaust and you couldn't hear ANYTHING when it was running... not even so much as a lifter tick (jeep was babied mechanically). It was also a 5-speed.... there was definitely a noticeable difference in acceleration between the two, however. Not saying it was astronomical, but you could tell there was a little more hitch in the giddyup of mine with the larger diameter, free-er flowing exhaust.... and that's even with mine having larger diameter tires.
Basslicks is offline  
Old 01-15-2018, 08:02 PM
  #55  
CF Veteran
 
RocketMouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,263
Year: 1999
Model: Cherokee(XJ)
Engine: I6 4.0L
Default

Originally Posted by Basslicks View Post
Cost increase on a single model would be negligible, yes. Cost increase on the entire production span of the vehicle is pretty significant. The main reason, however, is to improve their NVH numbers. Larger diameter exhaust = more noticeable exhaust tone = more "noise" = lower NVH rating.

I borrowed a '93 Country from someone for a while when I was saving for a car for my wife a few years back. The thing had the OE-spec exhaust and you couldn't hear ANYTHING when it was running... not even so much as a lifter tick (jeep was babied mechanically). It was also a 5-speed.... there was definitely a noticeable difference in acceleration between the two, however. Not saying it was astronomical, but you could tell there was a little more hitch in the giddyup of mine with the larger diameter, free-er flowing exhaust.... and that's even with mine having larger diameter tires.
On the good ole butt-dyno. Yeah I've worked on/ built cars before that it made a difference. But I always balanced out more intake with larger exhaust. That seemed to always work well. Keeping within the right amount of back pressure is important on some models too.
RocketMouse is offline  
Old 01-16-2018, 01:51 AM
  #56  
Someone stole my badge!
 
Basslicks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ocala, FL
Posts: 11,137
Year: 1992
Engine: 4.0 HO
Default

Okay.... I'm seeing the term "backpressure" being thrown around a lot in this thread and I'm tired of cringing.

The idea that backpressure is needed in an exhaust system is a misnomer. NO car
"needs" backpressure. What is needed, in EVERY exhaust system, is exhaust velocity and exhaust gas scavenging. Example:


The thing about the XJ exhaust specifically, is that it has gradual step-increases. It goes from a 1.5" exhaust port into the 1.5" header tube, then into a 2" collector, then into a 2.25" (or in the case of a lot of modifiers such as myself - 2.5") then into a baffled and/or chambered muffler. There is plenty of negative pressure in these systems, whether you're running the OEM 2.25" or stepping it up to 2.5" exhaust, to evacuate exhaust gases. Here's a handy chart I've come across that can be used as a guide to selecting proper pipe diameter for your exhaust according to horsepower ratings:



So if you use our XJs as an example, the 242 CID 4.0 liter inline six which ranged from 177hp in 1987 to 190hp in 2006, we see that the correct range of pipe diameter is between 2.25" and 2.5" SINGLE exit exhaust. Yes... if you're running dual, you need to stick with 2" - 2.25" pipe diameter after the split.

Also, in 1991 Chrysler increased (the advertised) hp for the 4.0 to 190, so if you use this chart (see below) as a guide, the 2.25" diameter pipe is slightly too small:



Again, Chrysler was fine with restricting the performance of these vehicles in the name of making it "quieter" which, we all know that an uncorked 4.0 is NOT quiet. Example?


This video is my XJ with a 2.5" exhaust from the downpipe back. Factory cat, and Dynomax Ultraflow muffler. As you can see, it's exhaust sound is noticeable and yes, you could hear it on the inside as well. The average american family wasn't looking for that out of their family grocery-getter.

As far as straight pipe exhaust robbing power - I never noticed a decrease out of mine when it was straight piped. I'm sure it's different for every motor and vehicle though, and the example of the Harley previously used here is not the first example I've heard of in the motorcycle world. Bike motors like baffles for some rhyme or reason. Apparently they promote better velocity and scavenging.

Anyway, that's my .02
Basslicks is offline  
Old 01-16-2018, 03:07 AM
  #57  
CF Veteran
 
Bugout4x4's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Arizona
Posts: 4,457
Year: 97
Model: Cherokee
Engine: 4.0
Default

Originally Posted by Basslicks View Post
Okay.... I'm seeing the term "backpressure" being thrown around a lot in this thread and I'm tired of cringing.

The idea that backpressure is needed in an exhaust system is a misnomer. NO car
"needs" backpressure. What is needed, in EVERY exhaust system, is exhaust velocity and exhaust gas scavenging. Example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjPeP_Nn2B4

The thing about the XJ exhaust specifically, is that it has gradual step-increases. It goes from a 1.5" exhaust port into the 1.5" header tube, then into a 2" collector, then into a 2.25" (or in the case of a lot of modifiers such as myself - 2.5") then into a baffled and/or chambered muffler. There is plenty of negative pressure in these systems, whether you're running the OEM 2.25" or stepping it up to 2.5" exhaust, to evacuate exhaust gases. Here's a handy chart I've come across that can be used as a guide to selecting proper pipe diameter for your exhaust according to horsepower ratings:



So if you use our XJs as an example, the 242 CID 4.0 liter inline six which ranged from 177hp in 1987 to 190hp in 2006, we see that the correct range of pipe diameter is between 2.25" and 2.5" SINGLE exit exhaust. Yes... if you're running dual, you need to stick with 2" - 2.25" pipe diameter after the split.

Also, in 1991 Chrysler increased (the advertised) hp for the 4.0 to 190, so if you use this chart (see below) as a guide, the 2.25" diameter pipe is slightly too small:



Again, Chrysler was fine with restricting the performance of these vehicles in the name of making it "quieter" which, we all know that an uncorked 4.0 is NOT quiet. Example?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpDNd25aoyo

This video is my XJ with a 2.5" exhaust from the downpipe back. Factory cat, and Dynomax Ultraflow muffler. As you can see, it's exhaust sound is noticeable and yes, you could hear it on the inside as well. The average american family wasn't looking for that out of their family grocery-getter.

As far as straight pipe exhaust robbing power - I never noticed a decrease out of mine when it was straight piped. I'm sure it's different for every motor and vehicle though, and the example of the Harley previously used here is not the first example I've heard of in the motorcycle world. Bike motors like baffles for some rhyme or reason. Apparently they promote better velocity and scavenging.

Anyway, that's my .02
This is a very good post and right on the money. I think the bike thing may have started with two strokes. For some reason they run better with an expansion chamber and then a restricted output. Maybe so they don't push as much of the intake mixture out of the exhaust ports on the way back up? But here's one for you... Ca in their infinite wisdom decided everything needed a restriction. They force manufactures to slide a restrictor up inside the manifold to cat pipe where it can't be seen on most cars. I guess some genius decided that if you plug the exhaust up it will put out less dirty air. Par for the course... lol
Bugout4x4 is offline  
Old 01-16-2018, 04:00 AM
  #58  
Someone stole my badge!
 
Basslicks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ocala, FL
Posts: 11,137
Year: 1992
Engine: 4.0 HO
Default

Originally Posted by Bugout4x4 View Post
This is a very good post and right on the money. I think the bike thing may have started with two strokes. For some reason they run better with an expansion chamber and then a restricted output. Maybe so they don't push as much of the intake mixture out of the exhaust ports on the way back up? But here's one for you... Ca in their infinite wisdom decided everything needed a restriction. They force manufactures to slide a restrictor up inside the manifold to cat pipe where it can't be seen on most cars. I guess some genius decided that if you plug the exhaust up it will put out less dirty air. Par for the course... lol
lol.. yeah don't even get me started on the great state in which every product under the sun contains a substance known to them to cause cancer.
Basslicks is offline  
Old 01-16-2018, 04:15 AM
  #59  
CF Veteran
 
Bugout4x4's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Arizona
Posts: 4,457
Year: 97
Model: Cherokee
Engine: 4.0
Default

Originally Posted by Basslicks View Post
lol.. yeah don't even get me started on the great state in which every product under the sun contains a substance known to them to cause cancer.
Yeah, but luckily the rest of us are safe, because apparently these only cause cancer in Ca. lol
Bugout4x4 is offline  
Old 01-17-2018, 07:44 PM
  #60  
Someone stole my badge!
 
Basslicks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ocala, FL
Posts: 11,137
Year: 1992
Engine: 4.0 HO
Default

Originally Posted by Bugout4x4 View Post
Yeah, but luckily the rest of us are safe, because apparently these only cause cancer in Ca. lol
Basslicks is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: Cherokee Offical Exhaust sound clip thread !


Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

© 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
 
  • Ask a Question
    Get answers from community experts
Question Title:
Description:
Your question will be posted in: