what muffler to get 2004 jeep Grand Cherokee 4.7 - Page 2 - JeepForum.com
Search  
Sign Up   Today's Posts
User: Pass: Remember?
Advertise Here
Jeep Home Jeep Forum Jeep Classifieds Jeep Registry JeepSpace Jeep Reviews Jeep Gallery Jeep Clubs Jeep Groups Jeep Videos Jeep Events Jeep Articles
Go Back JeepForum.com > Models > Jeep Grand Cherokee & Commander Forums > WJ Grand Cherokee Forum > what muffler to get 2004 jeep Grand Cherokee 4.7

Paracord grab handles, door limiting, etc at JeepHut.comRough Country Deals at JeepHut.comNew! JK/U skid plate system.

Reply
Unread 06-24-2013, 04:35 PM   #16
Darnice
Registered User
2004 WJ 
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Windsor, Ontario
Posts: 597
Pretty much all non OEM mufflers drone. It's all of how much you can stand. If its a daily driver on the highway, you better have a high tolerance for drone.

Unless you stock is shot, do nothing. Wife will be happy.

Darnice is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 09-14-2014, 11:49 AM   #17
Skyfox16
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Akron, OH
Posts: 20
Sorry to bump and old thread...
I recent put on a Flowmaster 50 sub series and for me it seems too loud when crusing around with rpms around 2k especially with the windows down. Is there any other suggestions on what to try? I like the sound outside but wish it was quieter inside.
Skyfox16 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 09-16-2014, 12:55 PM   #18
11B-33T
Member
 
11B-33T's Avatar
2004 WJ 
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Timbuktu (S.V.), AZ
Posts: 232
^ Skyfox16, alot of owners of a 4.7 go with the Flowmaster 70. Search for 'Kolak exhaust' and read the reviews. He also offers Jeep forum members a discount.
__________________
11B-33T
- 2004 WJ Grand Cherokee SE
- 2003.5 Mazdaspeed Protege
11B-33T is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 09-16-2014, 08:38 PM   #19
Olese
Registered User
2000 WJ 
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Alabama
Posts: 167
Borla...all the way! No droning at all with my 4.7 and a great sound.
Olese is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 09-16-2014, 09:40 PM   #20
MoonyJohn
Blow on my Avatar
 
MoonyJohn's Avatar
2004 WJ 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: West Linn, Oregon
Posts: 6,964
Magnaflow cat, flowmaster 50 series with 3" pipe. Nothing better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nq1WtWixR6E

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyfox16 View Post
Sorry to bump and old thread...
I recent put on a Flowmaster 50 sub series and for me it seems too loud when crusing around with rpms around 2k especially with the windows down. Is there any other suggestions on what to try? I like the sound outside but wish it was quieter inside.
I would install some sound deadening material underneath the carpet. It cuts noise down alot, and its really inexpensive. 120 bucks for your whole jeep.
__________________
"Water covers 3/4 of the earth, Jeep covers the rest"
MoonyJohn is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 09-19-2014, 06:50 AM   #21
Jeepwalker1
Registered User
1987 XJ Cherokee 
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: xyzCity, WI
Posts: 54
I put a Walker Stainless Steel muffler on my wife's ZJ. It's a little louder than stock not obtrusive. No droning down the road. Best part it's stainless. I must have replaced the other aftermarket mufflers every 3 years. Bought it off Advance Autoparts website at a nice discount.

Jeepwalker
__________________
'87 XJ Snow Plow Truck, '95 ZJ, '03 WJ Overland, '98 Land Rover Discovery
Jeepwalker1 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 09-27-2014, 06:06 PM   #22
Skyfox16
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Akron, OH
Posts: 20
Just a followup - I had the flow master 50 series removed - i don't know if it was the stock piping or what but i had a terrible drone on the highway around 2K rpms which is where the rpms are most of the time on the highway. If i lowered the windows it was even worse. I loved the sound of the 50 but just couldn't take the noise on the inside.

I went to auto zone and picked up a Walker Sound FX Muffler - ended up getting it for $40 and i love it. It is louder than stock but I only really hear it at idle and when accelerating. On the highway its almost completely silent.

I wish i was one of the people saying that the 50 series isn't out inside because i loved the sound outside (but for me it just didn't workout).
Skyfox16 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 02-25-2015, 04:24 AM   #23
mudpack
Registered User
2004 WJ 
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Kansas
Posts: 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by 99gcl532 View Post
Doesn't flowmaster have one of the worst cfm ratings.
Yes, there are quite a few aftermarket mufflers that outflow the "Flowmasters".

Quote:
Originally Posted by alfaitalia View Post
In fact you might get less (or at least move it further up the rev range where you don't need it in an off roader) if you choose one with too little back pressure!
It's an old wive's tale that you need backpressure for best performance. The only way to have backpressure in an exhaust system to have restriction. Backpressure NEVER helps an engine, it only hurts.
Do not confuse backpressure from a muffler with timed reverse pressure pulses from a properly tuned set of headers/collector.
mudpack is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 02-25-2015, 04:40 AM   #24
Jon86
Registered User
2002 WJ 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 52
I put a flowmaster 50 on my 2002 overland last week and love it. My jeep had the two precats and the main cat. It isn't loud at all but wakes it up enough to know there is a v8 under the hood. No noticeable drone at 75mph. Around town and acceleration is where the difference is heard.
Jon86 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 02-25-2015, 10:39 AM   #25
alfaitalia
CRD Pilot!
 
alfaitalia's Avatar
2004 WJ 
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Bognor, West Sussex. England. Great Britain
Posts: 4,042
Quote:
Originally Posted by mudpack View Post
Yes, there are quite a few aftermarket mufflers that outflow the "Flowmasters".

It's an old wive's tale that you need backpressure for best performance. The only way to have backpressure in an exhaust system to have restriction. Backpressure NEVER helps an engine, it only hurts.
Do not confuse backpressure from a muffler with timed reverse pressure pulses from a properly tuned set of headers/collector.
.....but you do need a certain amount for low down torque which is what we should all be after on an off road vehicle surely. As said before...low back pressure for more power at high revs, more back pressure for power/torque at low revs. It's far from an old wives tale..It's physics!
__________________
Going to war over religion is like killing someone because your imaginary friend is better than theirs!
alfaitalia is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 02-25-2015, 01:59 PM   #26
Ironicoutlook
Registered User
2004 WJ 
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Fremont, Ne
Posts: 29
The way I've always done my exhausts is decide on what diameter exhaust I want, for this engine I'd go with 3" after the cats.
I then install the largest diameter/longest resonator I can fit under the vehicle. Something similar to a magnaflow race series muffler (not a glass pack)
I then drive it like that for several weeks. This gives me an idea for what tones I'm dealing with.
It's been my experience that this eliminates most high pitch tones and most of the drone at hwy speeds.
If there is drone or just too loud in general I can decide from there what type of muffler to install out back.
In the case of my f150 (351 with headers,high flow cats) I liked it's sound. It was super loud under accleration but sounded stock at highway speeds so I just dumped it out at the back of the cab.
With my 300 zx I liked the sound but the drone was crazy at 60+ so I then installed a second short race muffler out back and it cut out what remained.
Ironicoutlook is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 02-26-2015, 12:16 AM   #27
mudpack
Registered User
2004 WJ 
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Kansas
Posts: 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by alfaitalia View Post
.....but you do need a certain amount for low down torque which is what we should all be after on an off road vehicle surely. As said before...low back pressure for more power at high revs, more back pressure for power/torque at low revs. It's far from an old wives tale..It's physics!
That's an old wive's tale you are repeating.
Exhaust restriction will not result in more torque....at any revs. It will result in less.
Care to explain the "physics" of how restricting the airflow through an engine will result in more power?
mudpack is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 02-26-2015, 01:58 AM   #28
Treleaven
Registered User
1999 WJ 
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Kelowna, BC
Posts: 332
Quote:
Originally Posted by Olese View Post
Borla...all the way! No droning at all with my 4.7 and a great sound.
I second Borla...it sounds amazing...no drone at all...my girl loves it and we both think most exhaust(loud, raspy, annoying) are ridiculous. It purrs at all times. It may get a little deeper tomorrow tho as I am replacing the cat with a magnaflow cat and back with 2.5".

As for back pressure and such. I have no clue, but I have noticed that when running with out a cat(temp removed it) my torque converter takes a lot longer to kick in. I am not sure if that has anything to do with it but it used to kick in at a low rpm and now it will not unless the RPMs in are mid 3000.
__________________
99 Grand Cherokee Ltd w/ 4.7L, 2.5" Borla ProXS muffler and Magnaflow cat
Treleaven is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 02-26-2015, 02:30 AM   #29
alfaitalia
CRD Pilot!
 
alfaitalia's Avatar
2004 WJ 
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Bognor, West Sussex. England. Great Britain
Posts: 4,042
Quote:
Originally Posted by mudpack View Post
That's an old wive's tale you are repeating.
Exhaust restriction will not result in more torque....at any revs. It will result in less.
Care to explain the "physics" of how restricting the airflow through an engine will result in more power?
This company explain why you need a bit of back pressure quite well.

http://www.autorevolutiononline.com/...g-quick-flicks


A few of my posts from other threads......too lazy to type it again!

Very low back pressure will only improve performance it the top of the rev range. Hence your referral to drag cars where only power at the very top end of the rev range matters. Torque will decrease throughout the rest of the range...not what you want for everyday driving or off road lugging. This is because more fuel will escape unburnt during the valve overlap period (the time when inlet and exhaust valves are both open during the induction stroke - to help cylinder filling) this means less torque where you need it in the real world. And worse fuel mileage. If you want a gutless engine that needs revving hard (not something these engines like) then get a short straight through pipe. If you want a system that gives a good wide spread of power and drivability then a lot more thought and design is called for to allow maximum power WITHOUT sacrificing to much bottom end power. How you use your vehicle (and its state of tune) will help decide which way you want to go and which pipe design to choose.
The only real exception to this is turbo charged engines where a more open pipe will allow the turbo to spool up faster. This will not in itself give you more power but the power will come quicker (at lower revs) and allow more tuning potential.


Quote:


Originally Posted by wjjeepman34 View Post

"A muffler and tailpipe swap would not cause a 2mpg drop on its own."

Well it could and often does if the new exhaust has much lower back pressure, especially at lowish revs. At low revs the back pressure helps keep the newly injected fuel in the bore rather than going straight out past the exhaust valve unburnt on the valve over lap phase. So this makes it run slightly lean without the back pressure and inject more fuel to compensate. Does not tend to happen at higher revs. So this is why a freer flowing exhaust can make a car a bit flat in the mid range without affecting the top end or maybe increasing it .




Every time I have put a straight though pipe on cars I have had in the past (in my youth!) the mileage has taken a hit. At low/medium revs there is not enough back pressure to keep the gas in the combustion chambers on the valve overlap phase. Thats why straight through pipes tend to give more power at the top of the revs at the expense of midrange power. Not saying this is def what is happening here....just passing on my experiences!




Agreed for the most part. At the end of if day (and with nothing else in the engine changing) if you want ultimate high rev power at the expense of everything else you want the shortest and biggest bore pipes you can with the widest, shortest intake manifold you can....look at a drag racer...all geared to max power at peak revs because nothing else matters. If you want maximum torque at low revs you want a smaller bore and longer pipe with longer thinner intake. There is rather more to it than that of course for instance if you have very low back pressure the length of the exhaust becomes much more critical to as the pressure waves ( what helps keep the fuel in the bore on the valve overlap phase) can bounce back from an open pipe end and how long this takes ...as in the bore size, the distance travelled (so length of exhaust) get much more important....and so it goes on! In reality we want somewhere in between those extremes and that is what the manufacturer aims for with a nod towards noise and emissions. Now if you want to nudge the exhaust/intake design one way or the other then you can but there will be a price to pay somewhere in the rev range. Ok you can mess with cam/injector timing and cam profile to get back any losses but in reality most average people don't do that and put a bigger pipe on and want gains everywhere but generally it does not work like that.....and I have played with a lot of pipes on quite a few cars and bikes over the years and come to the conclusion that the car makers spent millions developing that exhaust and its very difficult to for an exhaust company (or private individual) to better their designs in more than one area without a cost elsewhere. Just my two cents!




Not surprising really. If you go to a larger bore and/or freer flowing exhaust the motor will make more power.....but only at higher revs and usually at the expense of lower down power and torque. That is the opposite of what you want for normal driving and exactly what you don't want for off road use. Same with shorter bigger intake tubes too....and that's why lots of cars have variable intake geometry (to get the best of both worlds..like BMW etc) and why lots of bikes have variable exhaust geometry (eg Yamaha EXUP) that actually restricts the exhaust size at low revs to maximise low down power whilst opening up to allow max power at high revs. Its all to do with back pressure stopping the fresh fuel air charge going straight out of the exhaust. You want it at low revs....you don't want it at high revs!......And then you have the annoying noise on the highway with a free flowing exhaust....another story!




Nothing to do with you ecu. Its because the back pressure is what helps keep the unburnt fuel/air mixture in the cylinder in valve overlap.....the amount of time that your inlet and exhaust valve are open at the same time on the intake stroke. The purpose of overlap is that the exiting exhaust gases help ensure a full fill of fresh air charge for the next firing stroke otherwise known as scavenge effect. If you have low back pressure more of the unused air (and therefore oxygen) goes straight out the exhaust without ever being burnt. At high revs this is fine as the time for this to happen is minimal and getting the air moving through the engine as fast as poss helps with power output. At low revs it makes for a poor burn and torque loss. I built a straight through system (near enough...it actually had a small silencer but straight through) for my 20v Audi Coupe and it was flat below about 2500 revs....where it spent most of its time on the highway. Put up with it for about a month...then went back to standard. Kolaks system (as referred to above)has a muffler and no doubt is engineered to have the right amount of back pressure so as not much is lost at the bottom to gain power elsewhere. Any engine without a knock sensor could in theory damage exhaust valves and piston crowns without enough BP at low revs causing the motor to run lean at those revs....but that would be an extreme example and much more likely to happen on an old high tune carb engine with larger valve overlap. On a modernish fuel injected car....it will just feel slightly flatter as the o2 sensors and ecu will stop it going too lean....at least in closed loop operation.

Modern motorcycles have a electronic valve in the exhaust to restrict the pipe and INCREASE back pressure at low revs to increase low rev torque . It opens up as revs increase to gain max power. On a Yamaha its called an EXUP valve.


A lot of duplication but you get the gist. Open pipes with minimal bends and back pressure for maximum possible power......well engineered back pressure for a torquy flexible engine. Don't get torque and power confused.

If you don't agree that's fine..... and what forums are all about IMO.Put the Jeep on the dyno before and after and prove it to yourself! I'm out!
__________________
Going to war over religion is like killing someone because your imaginary friend is better than theirs!
alfaitalia is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 02-27-2015, 06:26 AM   #30
mudpack
Registered User
2004 WJ 
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Kansas
Posts: 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by alfaitalia View Post
Don't get torque and power confused.
This may be the root cause of your misconception. A engine produces power in one form: torque. For an engine (and for a motor, for that matter) torque IS power. (Lest we get off on a tangent; "horsepower" is not produced, torque is produced. Horsepower is calculated.)

Several significant problems with the "you-need-some-back-pressure-to-make-power" theory:

Exhaust system (ES) backpressure is never beneficial. If you have an ES that has sufficient restriction to inhibit flow in the combustion chamber at low rpm/low flow states, then it would have so much backpressure at high rpm/high flow states that the engine could not achieve it's maximum designed rpm OR power.

Most engines come from the factory with camshafts that have little or no overlap between intake and exhaust acts. Cams with overlap are for higher rpm applications. Certainly this applies to our Jeeps, since our Jeep's engines are not high rpm/max hp designs. So, that would negate the need for 'back-pressure' even if the theory was accurate. I.e. an engine designed for low-rpm torque would not have a camshaft with overlap anyway, so "back-pressure" would serve no useful function....it will only hamper power production.

The problem with the video that was linked is that it does not actually address backpressure, it addresses flow velocity (exhaust pipe diameter). Notice that the more power the engine puts out, in the charts, the larger the exhaust pipe they recommend. Why do you suppose this is? To reduce back-pressure!

If our ES has a little back-pressure/restriction at low rpm/low flow states...where the old wife's tale says we want it...then it will have a LOT of back-pressure during high rpm/high flow conditions. That's really bad, I think you'll agree. So, unless you have an ES that adjusts for different RPM...and unless you've dropped a Yamaha engine in your Jeep, you don't...then any back pressure/restriction is undesirable.

Lastly, since we can never eliminate back-pressure (restrictions in the ES) altogether, the best we can do is reduce it wherever and whenever we can. After all, no one knows how much back-pressure is just enough and and how much is too much (even assuming the old wife's tale is correct). We will be of most help to ourselves and our engines to strive for the least restriction in our ES that we can achieve. By doing this, we'll have the most flexible engine possible; one making max power/torque at both low and high rpms.
mudpack is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the JeepForum.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid e-mail address for yourself.
Note: All free e-mails have been banned due to mis-use. (Yahoo, Gmail, Hotmail, etc.)
Don't have a non-free e-mail address? Click here for a solution: Manual Account Creation
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.


Thread Tools






Jeep, Wrangler, Cherokee, Grand Cherokee, and other models are copyrighted and trademarked to Jeep/Chrysler Corporation. JeepForum.com is not in any way associated with Jeep or the Chrysler Corp.