I just wanted to know if anyone ran the flowtech warlock on thier turbo?
http://store.summitracing.com/partde...5&autoview=sku
Looks like it would kill back pressure. And can you post pics of your exhaust setup? That would be awsome.

 

Doesn't look that bad. Every muffler short of glasspacks has some sort of reversion setup. At least these have the provision for a bypass.

 

that's, different to say the least

seems as it would be a PITA to uncap the bypass though

also, straight-piped 22r-22re sounds like PUKE... imo... couldn't tell ya bout the 3.0

 

But I was more interested in the 22rte (turbo) department. Cause turbos dont like a lot of back pressure.

 

oooooh, ok, I see, I was under the impression you were talking about a "turbo-style" muffler haha, on the RTE's, I couldn't tell ya, no experience with them here. But I bet straight pipe on that would sound cool if you could here the turbo spool

 

An RET shares many design similarities with the Ford 2.3T, so it will probably sound like a tractor just the same. That said, get a straight-through muffler if you are worried more about flow than noise. A turbo muffler like the Warlock will work and probably work fine, it just won't be as good as a straight-through. If you don't have around 2.50" exhaust already, then the muffler won't matter that much.

 

I'd have to disagree with the comparison to the Ford 2.3 Turbo, having owned one- 79 Mustang Cobra.
The 22RTE system is completely different than the 2.3T. First, the early 2.3T was carbureted whereas the 22RTE has always been fuel injected.
Ignoring that, I've yet to see one thing even remotely similar between the two... even when you consider the early Ford turbo was a draw through / carbureted design... there is little to compare.
The first Ford 2.3 turbos had a catalyst between the exhaust manifold and the turbo which frequently blew out and clogged the turbine housing on the turbo requiring a lot of work to repair.

On the other hand, I'll take a 2.3 Turbo'd Mustang over the same year Mustang GT or "Mercury Capri" any day.

 

The carbed 2.3T was only a two year thing. I was talking about the much more common and widely known '83-89 EFI 2.3T. They have a LOT of similarities for not being even remotely related.

 

uhh... similar as in they both have an engine and a turbo.
and you could get a carb'd 2.3 turbo through 84- making it a 5 year thing
the SVO Mustang was FI in 84 but the carb / turbo was available in the Mustang from 79 through 84 after which the turbo wasn't an option for the non SVO Mustangs.

 

I got a flowmaster 60 or 70, not sure. Ive seen a lifted toy around town here and it has turbo, sounds friggin MEAN! What do you mean it dont matter what exaust you have if its not a 2.5inch?

 

turbo'd engines generally have enough backpressure created by the turbo to keep the engine happy and everything behind the turbo should flow as well as possible.

lets not forget that Chrysler had a stepped exhaust (pipe size got smaller as it went farther) behind the turbo on their 2.2Turbo vehicles in order to maintain gas velocity and aid in scavenging.

 

1.) .....and an 8v SOHC head, iron block, low redline, lots of torque, similar EFI systems, and ultimately similar applications.

2.) A correction for us both; the carbureted 2.3T was '79-81, not '80. After the carbed turbo was buried in '81, it wasn't until the '83 turbo GT that a 2.3T was
available again....and it was only available with EFI.

Granted the 2.3 sounds more like a tractor, a 22RE isn't far behind.

I meant that exhaust smaller than 2.5" will probably be more of a restriction than the muffler.

 

Maybe you were referring to the Sierra? Who's brethren were seen in the US as the Merkur XR4Ti and Scorpio?

Well, either way. The initial plans were to remove the Mustang as an automobile from Ford's line-up and replace it with a more technologically advanced vehicle... and the XR4Ti was initially the prime candidate but the Probe was chosen as a more likely suitor due to it's native FWD platform and AWD capability.. realistically speaking should the Mustang be stuck in 60's tech?... and also seen as more cost-effective owing to its Mazda-based platform.... yet we the people said somthing to the effect of "Mustang = RWD".
But we digress.

 

sorry had to snip stuff.

having operated mulholland (owned by Ford) and massey-fergusson as well as case and bobcat tractors, the 2.3 turbo sounds nothing like any of them.

 

That seems to be the case. Agree to disagree?

 

fair enough.