This is kind of off topic, but it's in the correct forum...

First of all I think I should apologize to anyone who I've offended with my style of posting lately. My intentions were not to upset people, rather to get people to think.

When talking previously about the plenum spacer: Statements like "there is no 'proof' that the just by increasing the volume balances the flow" are not wrong. There has been no evidence to date presented that the air flow through the VQ35DE is "balanced" by adding a spacer. There is evidence that the dynos respond very well to the plenum spacer mod, but no evidence that "air flow is balanced" in the lower manifold chambers.

Also, the Unichip SUCKS for NA applications. Again, broken record me... I have had inside info from a very reliable source that this "mod" would not work for NA sources.

A little background information. I have developed many reputable contacts via this forum and my350z.com. That plus the fact I've put together a very large G35 club, has allowed me to meet and speak with many very reputable people who are "in the know". These people feel the desire to contact me and tell me things that they normally would not tell normal posters. They then ask me to keep their name confidential or request that I not say anything all together. (This really sucks for me because I just want the truth to be revealed).

Once and for all... The Unichip is a rip off for a NA G35. It will be proved again and again that this mod alone does not work.

Finally, Tony is probably a GREAT GUY! I've never met him but he is what our G35 community needs. I just taunted him into posting data showing that his plenum helps "balance the air flow" from the rear to front runners of the lower manifold.

As almost NONE OF YOU KNOW, posting this data would be next to impossible, and I'm surprised that NONE OF YOU were savvy enough to point this out. There are no computers hooked up to manometers when you do pressure readings. It is very difficult to do more than record data via a log book when doing this type of work. The simple fact that Tony himself did not reply with this type of response amazes me and makes me question why he didn't bring this up himself. Did he really do the flow bench/booth testing???

BOTTOM LINE... I'm impressed by the plenum spacer results and dynos. I'm happy that so many people are impressed with the mod. I am not convinced (yet) that this is "the solution" for balancing air flow, like Doug Stewart claims the "Crawford Total Package Is".

It is now my goal to prove or disprove these two different approaches. I'll dyno, and re-dyno and post the results as they happen. My goal is to do this uninfluenced and impartial.

For the record... I'm not afraid to admit when I am wrong nor am I ashamed to apologize. I just want the truth to be found. I also was hoping that Tony would tell everyone that this type of data is NOT RECORDED! (unless of course it's all done on a computer and he's running simulations). Unfortunately he did not share this with everyone, which only adds to my speculation.

 

Neff: heheh you don't apologize well heheh I know exactly what you are saying.

I would point out that given your fondness of crawford products you'd do better to gather data/ask questions in a less aggresive way... I say this because I often must do the same.....

I would also point out that here, even your apology comes across a little backhanded.
Your comments about "AS ALMOST NONE OF YOU WOULD KNOW" and "NONE OF YOU WERE SAVY ENOUGH"

First you'd have no idea if Tony used manual notation or computer data logging, or a combo of those and computer modeling.
You left out "Don't Care" - as in me and most others, I could care less what methods he used.

In your own wording, Crawford 'CLAIMS' their design balances air flow.
I doubt you'll get any hard data to post from them either.

i.e. you will never know which design balances airflow better.
You can however test each design on a benchmark car, where between runs you do nothing but swap the manifold solution. You may even find that one performs better than the other with further mods... that is maybe the Crawford is best when combined with headers and cats, or maybe the Motordyne is better there and the crawford is better on a bone stock ride.

There are many combos to test.
I am willing to bet you'll finf little to no difference in dyno data.
I am also willing to bet that other than crawfords claims, we will never know which
does the best job or balancing airflow. As that would require some independant flow benching, and at a fair cost.


I certainly have no issue with your posts, as long as you can take it as well as dish it out.... that is just spirted debate, and hopefully we all learn, and debunk some of the bs mods...

Misunderstanding issues is a huge one I find here on the board (heatsoak being my latest fav in a post)

I want to see all opinions, all data, all info, from all posters, including opinions/impressions. That is the point of sharing knowledge.

 

Heh, I'm not sure if an apology was necessary, but I still don't see what all the fuss is about air flow with the plenum spacer, Crawford, or any other plenum for that matter. Those arguments are meaningless because everything should be answered on the dyno which they have been.

Just looking at the Crawford I can tell you that I have had several engineers say that the right angles in that design are surely not optimal for airflow or pressure. That is just common sense, I don't care if Doug says it's the Best Darn Plenum Mod, maybe he can bend some pipes but plenums aren't the same game as pipes now are they

I have yet to see anyone explain how right angles could provide for optimal flow and pressure. Still waiting for that. Please Neff explain it to us, enlighten us on that...

 

First of all, they're not right angles. It's not a sharp corner either. Secondly, how come golf ***** have dimples? Some times, stagnant air is desired for improved air flow... sometimes it is desired, other times it is not.

As for the apology... I simply don't want to upset people, that's why I apologized. I'm not "sorry" for the content of my posts, just "sorry" that some people take me way too seriously and feel as if the way I'm delivering the message is more important than the content of the message itself.

Just tryin' to make peace with some of you. The others I'm still dedicated to giving a hard time.

BTW, still no word on the data or the data collection method from the spacer side of the camp. (Not gonna let this rest just yet ).

 

Not sure if all their versions are the same design, but these sure look like pretty sharp angles to me:



...

 

I think this corresponds to having a somewhat rough surface on the inside of the plenum. I've heard that it can actually worsen flow if you polish the inside too smooth.

Golf ***** have no large defining angles though, their general shape is surely very round I know that much

 

Let's just leave this thread be for now. There is another perfectly long enough thread about the plenum spacer currently under way. For simplicity sake, let's let this thread die and continue this discussion over there.

BTW, I'm serving warm crow in the morning and I've got a big helping for you Copbait! Details in the other thread...

The old saying... "I'll show you mine if you show me yours" immediately comes to mind. Harridan's, flee for the hills!

 

LOL fair enough

 

heheheh

Golf ***** have dimples to make them spin, which creates stability (the reason rifles have rifling, the reason a pitchers puts a spin on a baseball, a quarterback on a football. )

As far as rough or polished on intakes, ports, etc...
In general a rough surface will work better at lower flow/rpm since it 'stirs' the mix
(that was the wisdom of old carb engines and the manifolds under them)
I doubt it would hold true in a Fuel Injected engine.

 

I just want to know why you think you know it all. Im an old guy and yet why do you think you know it all? Hay old fart as you say. are you picking up rocks and throwing coins?

 

Dude you should really put the pipe down...

 

wow pasta - the one thing I am sure of is - I don't know it all !!!
But I love to discuss this stuff, as I have said to neff even when we disagree

but I love you too

 

Wait a sec. Are you trying to say the Unichip sucks for NA applications??? I just not getting it?

 

NA VQ35 Unichip proved to do nothing with just fuel map alteration. Goes to say how well we're tuned from the factory.
I must point out that the Unichip tester didn't alter the timing, and that's where TS makes its gains.

 

Haha. Ya I think Neff should just update his damn sig already:





*The sig presented in this post is a fake and was created for amusement purposes only.