OK. I just got a V exhuast for my 3.2. My dealer thinks this cant be done. So my question is; Anyone out there in Chicago? Where do you get your mods done? Anyone in Chicago put a V exhaust on a 2003 3.2? Hook me up with some info...PLEASE!

OK. I just got a V exhuast for my 3.2. My dealer thinks this cant be done. So my question is; Anyone out there in Chicago? Where do you get your mods done? Anyone in Chicago put a V exhaust on a 2003 3.2? Hook me up with some info...PLEASE!

I am not trying to bust your bubble but a V exhaust is 2.5 inches way too much flow for a 3.2L engine. I think you will deffinetly loose power.

some members have done the v exhaust on the 3.2, and they said they felt no loss in power. I guess they said on paper it would logically lose power for the 3.2, but they said realistically they felt no power loss at all. Any reputable exhaust shop should be able to do the job for you.

some members have done the v exhaust on the 3.2, and they said they felt no loss in power. I guess they said on paper it would logically lose power for the 3.2, but they said realistically they felt no power loss at all. Any reputable exhaust shop should be able to do the job for you.

I know people have done it on the 3.6 and claimed no loss in power but never heard of it on the 3.2l. it would be interesting to get a dyno test before and after I might be wrong

Mbai2 did the v exhaust on his 3.2. He said he hasnt felt any loss in power, but he hasnt dyno'ed I think yet either.

Mbai2 did the v exhaust on his 3.2. He said he hasnt felt any loss in power, but he hasnt dyno'ed I think yet either.

Yea I am with you man but maybe its just me I even think 2.5" is too wide for the 3.6. corsa did A lot of testing before they started selling their 1k exhausr which is 2.25 for the 3.6l because that produce the best numbers. It wouldn't cost Corsa another penny to make it a 2.5" pipe so they went with 2.25 for a reason. I am not against your opinion at all I am just expresing my opinion. Hey just put that bitch on its all about modding our CTS I am sure you will get a better sound. :highfive:

Science says it's not a good idea but members with the 2.8 & 3.2 have done it. They feel no power loss..buts without a dyno run to confirm.
There are pics showing it can be done. Show the pic to the dealer.
Show him this one.

Can someone explain why wider eshaust flow would lead to a reduction in power? I thought it was the other way around... Or am I confused?

Can someone explain why wider eshaust flow would lead to a reduction in power? I thought it was the other way around... Or am I confused?

Science say the velocity of the gas through a smaller pipe is faster and by doing that creates a scavenging effect thus helping to pull the gases out.
As the pipe get bigger scavenging is reduced. But bigger pipes do have less restriction.

People have done the 3.2L V exhaust and felt no loss in power. There are also dyno results (http://cadillacforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48779) to prove it.

People have done the 3.2L V exhaust and felt no loss in power. There are also dyno results (http://cadillacforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48779)to prove it.

I'm glad you saved those test results Mbai2. A least he didn't lose any HP as some predicted he would.

Thanks again for all the info guys. I didnt even think of going to a exhaust shop. RobertCTS..You Da' Man!

Science say the velocity of the gas through a smaller pipe is faster and by doing that creates a scavenging effect thus helping to pull the gases out.
As the pipe get bigger scavenging is reduced. But bigger pipes do have less restriction.

:hmm: creating a suction to pull gasses out v. allowing it all to flow out without any restriction... which one works better? I dunno... :bonkers:

:hmm: creating a suction to pull gasses out v. allowing it all to flow out without any restriction... which one works better? I dunno... :bonkers:

I think there is a point for each engine design where a lot of variables come into play. Scavenging is a good thing as is low restriction..and the length of the pipe. Shorter is usually better. A dyno is really the only accurate test.
It's really cool that so many members have been able to post their dyno results. That is such a enormous help to all of us. The mind mix in this Forum is amazing to me!:yup:

:hmm: creating a suction to pull gasses out v. allowing it all to flow out without any restriction... which one works better? I dunno... :bonkers:

for every engine these is a certain point where you will get peak performance too small will be too restrictive and to big will not allow back pressure. That is why catback exhaust are soo expensive these companies spend the money on many designs and test after test to see which design and size will produce the highest performance gain. I think for the CTS 2" which is stock is way too small so you are not getting all the performance you can out of it and as the dyno proved 2.5" is too big because you are where you started with the 2" pipe but when using 2.25 which is what Corsa uses on the 3.6 you actually gain about 10-14HP I think a guy dyno his in this forum to verify it. So people are right with the V exhaust you dont loose power but you have the same power as if you had a stock system.

Boy... I have a lot to learn...

Here's my question, on those dyno results its states its an 04 CTS, not a 03. I was under the understanding that 03 was the last year the 3.2L was used, as it was a re-designed Catera engine. 04 they started using the VVT model engine. So it cant be the 3.2L, has to be the 3.6L no??

Or was the 04 MT engine still a 3.2L??

Here's my question, on those dyno results its states its an 04 CTS, not a 03. I was under the understanding that 03 was the last year the 3.2L was used, as it was a re-designed Catera engine. 04 they started using the VVT model engine. So it cant be the 3.2L, has to be the 3.6L no??

Or was the 04 MT engine still a 3.2L??

I agreee I could of swore the dyno was for a 3.6l which proves my point even more that the 2.5" cts-V exhaust is WAY TOO MUCH for the 3.2L. In 04 only 3.6l were made.

Here's my question, on those dyno results its states its an 04 CTS, not a 03. I was under the understanding that 03 was the last year the 3.2L was used, as it was a re-designed Catera engine. 04 they started using the VVT model engine. So it cant be the 3.2L, has to be the 3.6L no??

Or was the 04 MT engine still a 3.2L??

04 was the last year the 3.2L was used. okiwont had a MT and the only engine available with the MT was the 3.2L.

04 was the last year the 3.2L was used. okiwont had a MT and the only engine available with the MT was the 3.2L.

I have never head of a 2004 3.2L CTS.

My darn service manuals are at work. I think the 3.2 was offered 2 years. 2003 and 2004.

I have never head of a 2004 3.2L CTS.
the 2004 had the 3.2 but only for the manual tranny, since the manual isnt very common, I think that might be why you have never heard of it.

I have never head of a 2004 3.2L CTS.

The Getrag 5MT could only handle 220hp and thus it was restricted to using the 3.2L. The Aisin 6MT wasn't ready for production in the CTS by the 2004 model year so GM had to carry the 3.2L engine one more year in order to offer manual transmission as an option on the CTS. In fact, there was a delay in 2005 6MT production because certification of the new powertrain had a few hiccups using the Aisin.