For those of you who put the quiet baffle into your road rage 2-1 (1D5250), how did it compare to the standard baffle performance? How was it sound-wise?

I'll be running it with no baffle wrap, if that matters. I am interested in any differences good or bad. Than standard baffle is 2.5" and I believe the quiet baffle is 2".

This is going on a standard 96 engine with stage 1.

 

I would love to be able to find a quiet baffle for the short megaphone...been looking for 2 years and can't find one...

 

I like my standard baffles- quiet at idle, window breakers at speed.

 

I have the standard. It is perfect. Nice low rumble. I also have a 96"

 

Is the quiet baffle worse for engine performance?

 

Pull yours apart and pack it with MSR Silent Sport, or similar stringy packing

 

For what it's worth, I have some input on baffles...I don't have a Bassani, I have a D&D Fatcat, but the baffles are similar. You can get a quiet baffle, standard baffle, or the Big Bore baffle. I chose the Big Bore baffle, and it roars under load. Not sure what baffle options the Bassani has, but would assume similar, and results would be similar.

So, to answer your question about power....my tuner told me he could have gotten more torque out of my bike had I went with the standard baffle instead of the large baffle. I have Wood cams, and Bob Wood recommended using the larger baffle for my application. The larger baffle will produce more peak HP at higher rpms, whereas the standard baffle would produce better torque numbers throughout the rpm range, and the quiet baffle would produce good torque, but limit HP slightly at higher rpm. We're talking minimal differences, but does make a difference.

In summary, the standard baffle is probably the best all around option performance wise for most 2-1 systems IMO. If you're removing packing, then that could change things, and it would likely have similar characteristics to a larger baffle than it actually is if that makes sense.

 

I have a post in my photo albums from Biggzed who did an comparison between the 2 baffle options and he listed the Performance diameter at 2 1/2" and the Quiet at 2 1/4", but the Performance length is much shorter at 8" vs 21". He noticed that the Quiet baffle was quite a bit quieter and had less of a "staccato" sound, also that the Performance baffle had a deeper sound. He also did a Decibel reading at idle, 3000 rpm, and WOT for both and the Performance baffle was 3-4 decibels higher at all 3 check points.

I also talked to Kurt when I made my choice and like Sharkman73 mentioned he said the Quiet baffle will help a little in the lower rpms. I think with it already being a short pipe that the Quiet baffle was the way to go.

 

That last part was the main reason.. Since it is a relatively short(er) exhaust would the difference in the baffle kind of make up for that.

Almost 90% of my riding is done under 4000rpm unless I'm just acting like a hooligan and fool. So for the rest of the time I thought the extra low end torque might be the way to go.

 

That's a good point...your pipe is significantly shorter than mine, which will hurt torque at lower rpms compared to a longer pipe. In your case, going with the quiet baffle would likely help with that and keep your back pressure in check. Especially since explaining how you ride mostly....low to mid-rpm torque would be my main concern, not high flow high rpm hp.