Which 2-2 are as good or better than a 2-1?

[Reddog74usa]

Just saw a post on exhaust and wanted to know which 2-2's work as well as a 2-1 just to have more choices. I just always thought the 2-1's were the hot lick.

[Hoist!]

Just saw a post on exhaust and wanted to know which 2-2's work as well as a 2-1 just to have more choices. I just always thought the 2-1's were the hot lick.

If you're talking bottom end and mid-range performance, NONE!!!

Hoist!

[Admiral Akbar]

Heck most 2 into 1 seem to loose low end but pick up on peak TQ.. Running a 95 Kromewerks ARIIIs do well. Bigger motors seem to like the Kromewerks AR100s but I've founf that they like a little tweaking to get the most out of them..

Max

[TOMCENTRAL]

I ran a V&H Pro-Pipe & a set of V&H tru duals w/0vals(not monster 0s) on my 07 SG & the dyno sheets were very similar.Power idenical.Regards,Tom

[TOMCENTRAL]

I like the SuperMeg the best for my application on my 09 build.Regards,Tom

[Sc00ter]

Heck most 2 into 1 seem to loose low end but pick up on peak TQ.. Running a 95 Kromewerks ARIIIs do well. Bigger motors seem to like the Kromewerks AR100s but I've founf that they like a little tweaking to get the most out of them..

Max

Probably more to do with your cams then the pipes, don't you think?

[GoFast.....]

Just saw a post on exhaust and wanted to know which 2-2's work as well as a 2-1 just to have more choices. I just always thought the 2-1's were the hot lick.

I stand by the rhineharts and have the dyno sheets to prove it. Check out my stock 07 96" with true dials

[Sc00ter]

Just saw a post on exhaust and wanted to know which 2-2's work as well as a 2-1 just to have more choices. I just always thought the 2-1's were the hot lick.

On a basically stock motor, you may not see much of a difference either way, but on a motor with any kind of flow (bigger throttle body, good heads, decent cam), and a competent tune, a 2 into 1 exhaust will produce more torque faster than any 2 into 2 exhaust.

[Faast Ed]

Heck most 2 into 1 seem to loose low end but pick up on peak TQ

I didn't lose any low end when I switched to a Fatcat. I have a Softail so I didn't even get the infamous dip that the Baggers are getting with that pipe.

[Hoist!]

Heck most 2 into 1 seem to loose low end but pick up on peak TQ

I didn't lose any low end when I switched to a Fatcat. I have a Softail so I didn't even get the infamous dip that the Baggers are getting with that pipe.

The dip might be in the tune! I have none with the FatCat on (2) 110 motors. One a Hi-Po TC in a '07 SERK, and one a RevTech carb'd Evo in a '85 FXWG! The type of bike don't cause the dip. And some dips can't be tuned like with a Thuderheader sometimes. But I had no problem getting mine right. Like everything else, ALL has to be a properly matched combination. Might need to look at your headwork and TB size if you've got a dip.

Hoist!

[Sc00ter]

Heck most 2 into 1 seem to loose low end but pick up on peak TQ

I didn't lose any low end when I switched to a Fatcat. I have a Softail so I didn't even get the infamous dip that the Baggers are getting with that pipe.

The dip might be in the tune! I have none with the FatCat on (2) 110 motors. One a Hi-Po TC in a '07 SERK, and one a RevTech carb'd Evo in a '85 FXWG! The type of bike don't cause the dip. And some dips can't be tuned like with a Thuderheader sometimes. But I had no problem getting mine right. Like everything else, ALL has to be a properly matched combination. Might need to look at your headwork and TB size if you've got a dip.

Hoist!

No dip with my D&D Fatcat here either - but I have a HPI 62mm throttle body, Wes Brown Cycle Rama heads and Cams and a John Golden "Rolling Thunder" tune...    I have about 110 ft.lbs. of torque to 2500 rpm and 120 ft.lbs of torque at 5800.  Pretty straight line in between...   

[Hoist!]

Heck most 2 into 1 seem to loose low end but pick up on peak TQ

I didn't lose any low end when I switched to a Fatcat. I have a Softail so I didn't even get the infamous dip that the Baggers are getting with that pipe.

The dip might be in the tune! I have none with the FatCat on (2) 110 motors. One a Hi-Po TC in a '07 SERK, and one a RevTech carb'd Evo in a '85 FXWG! The type of bike don't cause the dip. And some dips can't be tuned like with a Thuderheader sometimes. But I had no problem getting mine right. Like everything else, ALL has to be a properly matched combination. Might need to look at your headwork and TB size if you've got a dip.

Hoist!

No dip with my D&D Fatcat here either - but I have a HPI 62mm throttle body, Wes Brown Cycle Rama heads and Cams and a John Golden "Rolling Thunder" tune...    I have about 110 ft.lbs. of torque to 2500 rpm and 120 ft.lbs of torque at 5800.  Pretty straight line in between...   

Wow! What a coincidence! HeHe!!! Same heads, same TB, but a REAL bottom end too!!! Perfect tune by Bean of Big Boyz with a SERT and getting very similar numbers!

















HeHe!!! But you already knew that!

Hoist!

[GoFast.....]

Just saw a post on exhaust and wanted to know which 2-2's work as well as a 2-1 just to have more choices. I just always thought the 2-1's were the hot lick.

On a basically stock motor, you may not see much of a difference either way, but on a motor with any kind of flow (bigger throttle body, good heads, decent cam), and a competent tune, a 2 into 1 exhaust will produce more torque faster than any 2 into 2 exhaust.

we will See if that is true in about a month

[ejk_dyna]

<<Heck most 2 into 1 seem to loose low end but pick up on peak TQ>>

On dyna's which have headpipes w/ crossover Cs slip-ons have more low end meaning 2500 and below than a good 2-1 for sure.  So I think that is what Bruce is talking about.  From 3,000 to 4500 it is no contest...the 2-1 is way stronger in the mid-range.  Don't know about other head pipe configurations.

<<The type of bike don't cause the dip.>>

Actually the bagger fatcat configuration does typically produce a dip in the 3500 rpm area.  The softail/dyna pipes never do.  It is not a tuning issue per se in that if a particular build-up has it you can't tune it out.  But I have also seen bagger builds that don't have the dip...but not as many.  There is something about the bagger pipe that is more sensitive to component make-up.  Bob (FLTRI) who is an exceptional tuner has seen this again and again.  I think he might have had a back to back where they swapped to a supermeg and the dip went away.  Too bad he is not posting here anymore...

[Admiral Akbar]

A lot of this is matching the pipe to the build.. Putting a Fatcat on a bigger build can eliminate the dip but then you are probably giving up some HP up top. Toss a Boarzila on there and you'll get the HP back plus the dip.. Trap type pipes are cool cuz they can adjust the tuning some..

No dip? lets see a dyno sheet..  Max

[Hoist!]

A lot of this is matching the pipe to the build.. Putting a Fatcat on a bigger build can eliminate the dip but then you are probably giving up some HP up top. Toss a Boarzila on there and you'll get the HP back plus the dip.. Trap type pipes are cool cuz they can adjust the tuning some..

No dip? lets see a dyno sheet..  Max

OMG, somebody gets it!!!

Hoist!

[Hoist!]

Ok, here's the final run after all the testing we did. I've subsequently gone with a SERT so I'd have an ECM that can run my bike. But no components were changed, and had similar results. Different Dyno, different technique, but the curve's the same. And with the SERT, it was tuned by combustion efficiency method, not AFR, which I'm a true believer in! Numbers don't matter to me at all. The shape of my torque curve is ALL I care about! Sorry I don't have the SERT tuned run on my computer. But it was tuned by Bean of Big Boyz, and believe me, the shape of the curve's the same! And don't go by the dip below 2000 RPM. No HD, especially a stroker, should EVER be ridden down there anyway! Didn't even really tune down there! Now try to tell me my bike don't ride the way the shape of that torque curve looks! That curve WAS MY GOAL!!!

ADDED: Joe's a PC guy and Bean's a SERT guy. I'm friends with both of em!

And yes, I travel 500 miles round trip for a perfect tune!!!

Hoist!

[attachment removed after 60 days by system]

[torque4me]

did you sit on that dyno sheet or something? all squished ... what does it look like when it isnt all compressed?
thanks

[Hoist!]

did you sit on that dyno sheet or something? all squished ... what does it look like when it isnt all compressed?
thanks

Exactly the way it came off of Joe's printer! Is there a problem?
If you're referring to the size, click on it and it'll go to full size!

Hoist!

[Twolanerider]

Have to follow on Howie's, Scott's and other's satisfaction with the Fatcats.  Have them on a 107 build that offers fair performance and a basically stock 95" on an old Road Glide.  On both bikes the torque is in early and well.  Excelling pulling baggers.  With the remainder of the builds matched up nicely and a good tune no dip problems with either of them either.

The only mufflers I ever had even close to comparable performance out of when using duals compared to 2-1 was the old White Brothers E Series mufflers.  Though they've not been available for several years now.  Too bad as they were great mufflers for anyone wedded to the true dual look.  They could be tuned to pull nearly as well as a good 2-1 and they sounded great.

Competely satisfied in the FatCats with their quiet baffle option though.  The bikes run great.  Like the sound.  And (I think I mentioned this) the bikes run great .

[Reddog74usa]

The bike is an FXR with a 113. I know the Fatcat is good performer but there a heavy pipe compared to most other 2-1's. I already have a Bassani RR but wanted to see what other options are out there. I also have a set of Cycle Shack slipon's and was thinking of running a set of later model FXD oem header pipes with them however I think I'll stay with the Roadrage. Thanks for the replies.

[metaliser]

I installed a fatcat with the quiet baffle and took a little ride and it hurt my low end but it was not tuned for that pipe, it was tuned for V&H's tru duals with rush mufflers 2" baffles, so after my little trip up the rd I came back and pulled the heads to get 10.1 comp and put in the singh grooves, I'm waiting on valcon releases and after that I will get a new tune and then I will let you know how it does, I will post a dyno sheet but it will be after it warms up a little.
So here's what it will be when it's dynoed, 95" 10.1 comp, hq 0034 gear drive's, KB flatops with 30 thous hg,BigBoyz street port, Fatcat with the quiet baffle,SE ac and a PCIII, will see how it turns out. 

[Dennis The Menace]

I'll play.  Throw in a crossover on 2-2's now.  Got it on my Bub 7's, and they have more power and TQ than true duals.  Not sure what this means to the 2-1 vs 2-1 argument, but worth mixing it up a bit.

My father raced cars back in the 70's, and even back then it was well understood that the pipe needed to be matched to the characteristics of the exhaust port for that cyclinder, as well as tuned at the header collector.  Of course, you didnt have pipes and mufflers to deal with in racing, but same principles are at work--you have to tune the flow from the cylinder and deal with the reversion and sound waves/frequencies and also gases in order to get the maximum flows...all the way down the pipe and out the outlet of the muffler!

What was often ignored except by the best equipped race teams, at least in the 70's, was that an engine could actually gain a slight amount of power from an effectively designed exhaust system.  The (properly designed) exhaust pipe acts to help evacuate all spent gases on the blow stroke, a clean cylinder will fill more effectively and with greater efficiency since the air in the cyclinder at intake is purely intake air--and not residual exhaust/spent gases.

Anyway, that is what I learned way back in the day, and have seen this explained in other articles dealing with the finer points of exhaust, but both auto racing and motorcycle racing experts.

So, extrapolating this to todays motors and builds, I think it only fair to say that what works great for one build, may not work for another.  At best, it depends.  So, one cannot say that a 2-1 is better than a 2-2, because only in certain specific cases is it true.  Or the converse.

Its about as effective as arguing that a wide tire is better than a narrow tire.  It depends on the application, and how well its applied to that use too!  But, pipes must be designed well in order to be most effective.  But, you all know that...sorry to bore everyone.

menace

[Sc00ter]

I'll play.  Throw in a crossover on 2-2's now.  Got it on my Bub 7's, and they have more power and TQ than true duals.  Not sure what this means to the 2-1 vs 2-1 argument, but worth mixing it up a bit.

My father raced cars back in the 70's, and even back then it was well understood that the pipe needed to be matched to the characteristics of the exhaust port for that cyclinder, as well as tuned at the header collector.  Of course, you didnt have pipes and mufflers to deal with in racing, but same principles are at work--you have to tune the flow from the cylinder and deal with the reversion and sound waves/frequencies and also gases in order to get the maximum flows...all the way down the pipe and out the outlet of the muffler!

What was often ignored except by the best equipped race teams, at least in the 70's, was that an engine could actually gain a slight amount of power from an effectively designed exhaust system.  The (properly designed) exhaust pipe acts to help evacuate all spent gases on the blow stroke, a clean cylinder will fill more effectively and with greater efficiency since the air in the cyclinder at intake is purely intake air--and not residual exhaust/spent gases.

Anyway, that is what I learned way back in the day, and have seen this explained in other articles dealing with the finer points of exhaust, but both auto racing and motorcycle racing experts.

So, extrapolating this to todays motors and builds, I think it only fair to say that what works great for one build, may not work for another.  At best, it depends.  So, one cannot say that a 2-1 is better than a 2-2, because only in certain specific cases is it true.  Or the converse.

Its about as effective as arguing that a wide tire is better than a narrow tire.  It depends on the application, and how well its applied to that use too!  But, pipes must be designed well in order to be most effective.  But, you all know that...sorry to bore everyone.

menace

Just curious...what type of racing did your father do?

[Sc00ter]

Ok, here's the final run after all the testing we did. I've subsequently gone with a SERT so I'd have an ECM that can run my bike. But no components were changed, and had similar results. Different Dyno, different technique, but the curve's the same. And with the SERT, it was tuned by combustion efficiency method, not AFR, which I'm a true believer in! Numbers don't matter to me at all. The shape of my torque curve is ALL I care about! Sorry I don't have the SERT tuned run on my computer. But it was tuned by Bean of Big Boyz, and believe me, the shape of the curve's the same! And don't go by the dip below 2000 RPM. No HD, especially a stroker, should EVER be ridden down there anyway! Didn't even really tune down there! Now try to tell me my bike don't ride the way the shape of that torque curve looks! That curve WAS MY GOAL!!!

ADDED: Joe's a PC guy and Bean's a SERT guy. I'm friends with both of em!

And yes, I travel 500 miles round trip for a perfect tune!!!

Hoist!

My build is essential identical to Howie's - and even though I used a different tuner - (I used John Golden - Rolling Thunder - Joplin, Mo) - our dyno sheets are virtually the same.  I have a slightly leaner overall fuel curve, but the torque and horsepower curves are much the same.  At 75 or so mph, I average about 40mpg.