Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Mr. Warlock]

For those who have tried both.....

What is the difference in noise levels from the 2.0 Baffles to the 1.75 Baffles?
I have had the 2.0 and contemplating the 1.75.

Thanks!!

[GregKhougaz]

I'm not sure that anybody telling you the difference in noise is going to help you. Use the search function. Some years ago fullsac did post horsepower and decimal comparisons, if I recall. A couple of members also posted YouTube videos showing comparisons.

[Mr. Warlock]

Question still stands. My question is for anyone that has tried both.

I already tried the search function Greg. If I would have found the answer that I was looking for I wouldn't have asked.

[ultrarider123]

Must notta tried very hard (just kidding... )  Some good information on sound levels, comparing to 1.75/2.0/2.25 baffle sizes but some of the answers are deep in the body of the posts.

https://www.cvoharley.com/smf/index.php?topic=103251.msg1332176#msg1332176
https://www.cvoharley.com/smf/index.php?topic=111949.0

Here's someone that sold their system because the 1.75 and 2.0 were too loud
https://www.cvoharley.com/smf/index.php?topic=108040.msg1386515#msg1386515

JCZ's comment the second one down
https://www.cvoharley.com/smf/index.php?topic=110776.msg1415908#msg1415908

I used the search criteria on the home page of Fulsac 1.75 baffles and Fulsac 1.75 vs 2.0 baffles


Lot's of sounds on YouTube, too, using search criteria "fulsac 1.75 vs 2.0 baffles".  A few examples

[Ironhorse]

Yes, I have tried both on my old 2001 Ultra. I found the 2.0 to be louder, and the 1.75 to give more torque. No dyno testing to show on paper, just a seat of the pants feel. I stuck with the 1.75 as it was not as loud.

[woodzynh]

I went with the 2.25" with tune, don't see any difference in seat of the pants from stock. Nice sound, not to load IMO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HOGMIKE]

For those who have tried both.....

What is the difference in noise levels from the 2.0 Baffles to the 1.75 Baffles?
I have had the 2.0 and contemplating the 1.75.

Thanks!!

Yes, I have tried both on 4 different bikes.
Yes there is a difference in "noise" levels.
Yes I have tried variations on the 1.75 cores and there is a slight difference in sound/frequency depending of either stock, modified, etc, etc

I guess it's what you are "contemplating" going to the 1.75?
Are your concerns "noise", "power", "driveability"??

There has been much testing on the Fullsac cores over the years and a call to Steve may be what you need to do.
He may ask a WHOLE bunch of questions to try to fit the cores to what you want. The nice thing I have found out is that I have 3 bikes with the cvo mufflers and different cores I can change easily.
Maybe if we had a little more info about your riding style, and what your goals are we can help a little.
 

[Mr. Warlock]

Thanks for the replies, I guess I asked incorrectly. I found pretty much everything that you posted Haird but I wanted to get a personal feel from those that have actually tried both.

Thanks again!

[motor1]

Have had both, and prefer the 1.75.  The smaller baffle made it easier enjoy the stereo and to cruise locally. I came to the conclusion that the smaller outlet was loud enough to let you know you're on a Harley and still enjoy the ride.

[Chief2505]

I wonder if that guy ever sold that set up and would it fit my 16 CVO limited?

[TNCarters]

I have run both 1.75 and 2.0 on my 2015 CVO which has a FuelMoto head pipe.  I like the idle and acceleration sound of the 2.0 baffle better but my old ears like the 1.75 baffle when touring.  Wife (passenger) prefers the 1.75 as well so that is usually whats in the bike.  I do think my 2 year old stock muffler packing is about gone so that could make both a bit louder.

[Cat Eye]

I started with the 2.25 and liked the sound but the drone at cruise caused me to wear ear plug on long trips.

Got tired of the ear plugs so I installed the 2" baffles which did soften the drone at cruise. Idle and acceleration noise/tone seemed the same the as the 2.25....but was probability a little softer.

However, the 2" baffles eventually caused me to wear ear plug again.

So I installed the 1.75 which were perfect at cruise but idle/acceleration was a lot softer.

I then installed a 2" baffle in the left muffler and kept the 1.75 in the right.  This seemed to increase the idle and acceleration a touch and kept the cruise drone at a nice level.

So far I pleased with this setup.

Hope this helps.

[MoparBob]

I started with the 2.25 and liked the sound but the drone at cruise caused me to wear ear plug on long trips.

Got tired of the ear plugs so I installed the 2" baffles which did soften the drone at cruise. Idle and acceleration noise/tone seemed the same the as the 2.25....but was probability a little softer.

However, the 2" baffles eventually caused me to wear ear plug again.

So I installed the 1.75 which were perfect at cruise but idle/acceleration was a lot softer.

I then installed a 2" baffle in the left muffler and kept the 1.75 in the right.  This seemed to increase the idle and acceleration a touch and kept the cruise drone at a nice level.

So far I pleased with this setup.

Hope this helps.

Stock or aftermarket headpipe?

[HOGMIKE]

Stock or aftermarket headpipe?

You do make a valid point about the header.
I HAVE noticed that the sound will change depending on the header being an "x" configuration and also depending on the packing material (assuming stock CVO cans).
I have tried various combinations of core size and length, packing, stock screens to keep the gap between the screens and the core.
I have found the combination that works very well for ME.
I like my tunes, don't like the droning sound when pulling my trailer, etc. etc.
My setup won't work for everyone, but I've been satisfied for many years with the complete system from Fullsac.
"System" is the key here IMHO

[dknuttgen]

I am interested in getting those 2.0s from you if you decide to change and want to sell them. I removed the cores from my stock mufflers and need to put something back in till I can do a complete fullsac system.
Thanks!

[Cat Eye]

Stock or aftermarket headpipe?

Full Sac DX header

[Cvostu]

Get a good header pipe and use the stock cvo mufflers. . I love my set up. . My stereo sounds great at any speed and it runs good and strong. . Stuart

[Mr. Warlock]

Thanks for all the replies guys, those were the replies I was looking for.
I already have the DX pipe as well as a D&D Boarzilla. I am rounding up the last few parts I need for my build and am going to tune it with both the Zilla and the Fullsac pipe. I am just trying to decide on using the 2.0 or 1.75 baffles for the Fullsac setup.

Thanks again!

[iski]

Get a good header pipe and use the stock cvo mufflers. . I love my set up. . My stereo sounds great at any speed and it runs good and strong. . Stuart

That setup is what I have been considering.  Losing the cat & keeping the sound at deafcon 5.

[Texas 103]

For those who have tried both.....

What is the difference in noise levels from the 2.0 Baffles to the 1.75 Baffles?
I have had the 2.0 and contemplating the 1.75.

Thanks!!

All my stock 110"s liked the 1.75 Baffle, little quieter, You pick it up on the bottom end where you can use it. 255's cams are a turd after 4 K  nothing to be gained farther to the right   

[TN]

All my stock 110"s liked the 1.75 Baffle, little quieter, You pick it up on the bottom end where you can use it. 255's cams are a turd after 4 K  nothing to be gained farther to the right

I hear many riders say this and I may agree after 4k in 5th or 6th gear it gains slowly, but yer speedo will be in triple digits. 1st thru 3rd is not too bad and 4th will climb pretty good after 4k it does with mine anyhow. I guess that's cause I got the fastest color.  I'm referring to real world riding, I have limited knowledge of dynos.

TN

I run 1.75 fullsac baffles ATM.