17 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHWhat exhaust hack is this?
Reported or suspected cause
opposite
Suggestion or failed attempt
No successful repair reported for this finding.
0
Identified cause
1
Suspected cause
0
Reported fixes
Read evidence and context
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that suspect a cause
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suspected cause
I guess, since Fister is a company that does these, I always thought it was the opposite.
Leading evidence: 'opposite' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, the most frequently mentioned possible cause is 'opposite' (1 discussions; 0 report identifying it and 1 suggest it). No action has an explicit, attributable resolution report under the current rules. These are forum reports and suggestions, not a confirmed diagnosis.
Source reports, not a diagnosis or a success probability. Counts refer to discussions and can overlap.
Counts describe captured discussions, not unique people or a diagnosis. Author identities are not reliably stored. Exact duplicate evidence is counted once across matching discussions; one discussion counts at most once per action/state. Multiple repairs reported together remain a combination. Suggestions and failed attempts do not establish a fix. Matches cover whole discussions and can include related faults, model variants and incomplete threads.
17 eligible posts · 0 unverified posts · 1 discussions match the subject in their title or opening post.
Rennlist: 1 discussions
0 evidence records excluded for query context · 0 excluded by outcome qualification · 0 adjusted by outcome qualification.
0 acknowledgements have no verified action link; they do not establish a repair result.
Generation: 20261026T190023Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
I was wondering which exhaust hack is this - see the attached for reference. It is obvious that the added part was too close to the bottom of the bumper and attachment screw. No idea when this mod was done or where.
As stated above, hard to tell without knowing where that pipe leads, yet, like a puzzle, I�m trying to figure this out 🤓.
Pic attached for reference only, pls disregard the arrows.
That would be my guess, too. Maybe the tube simply empties into the open air inside of the bumper cover instead of connecting right before the exhaust tip?
@sportlineguy, can you get a pic of where that added tube terminates? Or, if you can't get your phone up there for a pic, just have a look and tell us?
Apparently, there are 2 styles of the hack:
One where there is a connection between the inlet and outlet pipes:
You Tube
And one where you connect to a capped hole in the box:
You Tube
I don't know which is the preferred method or why.
Options without a lift:
- Handheld mirror
- Telescoping mirror if you happen to have one in your toolbox.
- Recording a cell phone video and sliding the phone in there. Then review the video after you pull it back down. I used this method to confirm that my frunk light was indeed turning off when closed 😅
Jacking up one corner would help all of the above.
I juyst looked but was unable to take a picture because of the angle and space available. It looks like a short tube connecting the inlet and outlet of the pipes. Not too bad when cruising but a bit louder than stock when accelerating hard. Guess that was the cheaper fix to modify the exhaust back in the day vs a proper exhaust upgrade. Will live with it a bit longer than explore other options.
This has been wrong many times, the first picture is the Fister mod. the second picture is the Gundo mod
One where there is a connection between the inlet and outlet pipes is the Fister mod.
And one where you connect to a capped hole in the box is the Gundo mod.
Thanks for the clarification! This helps me a lot as well as I'm considering one of these mods.
Are you familiar with the pros/cons of each or is there a thread somewhere?
Thanks for clarifying the difference between the Fister and the Gundo mods. I�ve always thought they were the same thing, until now.
Here is a diagram of the muffler�s internals.
The Fister mod completely bypasses the muffler, but the entry into the muffler isn�t sealed off either. So I�m guessing at high revs, the exhaust will seek the area of lowest resistance and largely exit through the bypass pipe. At low revs, the exhaust may travel through the muffler (as well as the bypass pipe) since the resistance through it is fairly low.
I would guess that the noise is pretty tame until the RPMs get high.
As for the Gundo, the pipe only bypasses the final stage of the muffler. Because all the exhaust must enter the muffler and go through the initial stage of muffling, I suppose this will produce a more mellow sound compared to the Fister at all rev ranges.
I found this diagram via this link:
https://rennlist.com/forums/996-foru...6-muffler.html
My too - and I�m probably responsible for spreading mis-information as well! So my car has the Fister mod, not the Gundo hack.
I guess, since Fister is a company that does these, I always thought it was the opposite.
