throttle body spacer?
#76
04-20-2007, 05:07 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: chula vista (SD)
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#77
04-20-2007, 05:10 PM
Originally Posted by DaveB
Snake oil 
However, it's hard to turn a blind eye to what Shawn Church has reported. I spoke to him by phone and in person... he insists this produced gains! Personally I think Shawn is very credible - even if I never met the guy I can’t see what he would gain by false reporting (too reputable to lie for marketing)... he did repeated dyno pulls and they all showed gains. ONLY on the G... he tested others (dif model on dif cars) that did nothing. The "theory” is in this thread - I'm not gonna keep reposting it. Maybe it was a fluke??? (unlikely since he reproduced on multiple dyno pulls)… maybe this particular design is specific enough that it does something others don’t? I don’t know… Bottom line is the product will undergo further independent tests and results will follow (in one form or another).
#78
04-20-2007, 05:12 PM
#79
04-20-2007, 06:19 PM
Originally Posted by OCG35
I totally figured that too. It's just too hard to believe that this can do anything... Tony at Motordyne has apparently designed a few versions and hasn't bothered to dig into it because he hasn't been able to produce gains.
However, it's hard to turn a blind eye to what Shawn Church has reported. I spoke to him by phone and in person... he insists this produced gains! Personally I think Shawn is very credible - even if I never met the guy I can’t see what he would gain by false reporting (too reputable to lie for marketing)... he did repeated dyno pulls and they all showed gains. ONLY on the G... he tested others (dif model on dif cars) that did nothing. The "theory” is in this thread - I'm not gonna keep reposting it. Maybe it was a fluke??? (unlikely since he reproduced on multiple dyno pulls)… maybe this particular design is specific enough that it does something others don’t? I don’t know… Bottom line is the product will undergo further independent tests and results will follow (in one form or another).
However, it's hard to turn a blind eye to what Shawn Church has reported. I spoke to him by phone and in person... he insists this produced gains! Personally I think Shawn is very credible - even if I never met the guy I can’t see what he would gain by false reporting (too reputable to lie for marketing)... he did repeated dyno pulls and they all showed gains. ONLY on the G... he tested others (dif model on dif cars) that did nothing. The "theory” is in this thread - I'm not gonna keep reposting it. Maybe it was a fluke??? (unlikely since he reproduced on multiple dyno pulls)… maybe this particular design is specific enough that it does something others don’t? I don’t know… Bottom line is the product will undergo further independent tests and results will follow (in one form or another).
I'm just going off of what other cars see with these TB spacers. They make them for most any Honda, GM, Ford, and other Japanese parts. I've never seen anything conclusive with 3rd party results. The whole rifling theory is about as bad as the Turbonator theory. On occasion you'll see a dyno showing gains with these spacers, but usually it shows nothing on the dyno and even possibly less power overall. Since Tony tested the mod, and I'm sure he did so religously with engineering dead-on-*****-accuracy, and saw no gains, I'm 95% certain most won't see a lick of power with the mod. I could be wrong though and it wouldn't be the first time.
#80
04-20-2007, 07:37 PM
Originally Posted by DaveB
The Church dyno is a freak. Everything dynos spectaculer on it
I'm just going off of what other cars see with these TB spacers. They make them for most any Honda, GM, Ford, and other Japanese parts. I've never seen anything conclusive with 3rd party results. The whole rifling theory is about as bad as the Turbonator theory. On occasion you'll see a dyno showing gains with these spacers, but usually it shows nothing on the dyno and even possibly less power overall. Since Tony tested the mod, and I'm sure he did so religously with engineering dead-on-*****-accuracy, and saw no gains, I'm 95% certain most won't see a lick of power with the mod. I could be wrong though and it wouldn't be the first time.
I'm just going off of what other cars see with these TB spacers. They make them for most any Honda, GM, Ford, and other Japanese parts. I've never seen anything conclusive with 3rd party results. The whole rifling theory is about as bad as the Turbonator theory. On occasion you'll see a dyno showing gains with these spacers, but usually it shows nothing on the dyno and even possibly less power overall. Since Tony tested the mod, and I'm sure he did so religously with engineering dead-on-*****-accuracy, and saw no gains, I'm 95% certain most won't see a lick of power with the mod. I could be wrong though and it wouldn't be the first time.
Tony didn't do any rigorous testing because his initial dyno pulls didn’t show squat so he didn’t bother getting rigorous with it at all.
I stated that Shawn saw no gains on other cars - you are reiterating what I said...
I don’t expect to see gains anymore than I expect to repeat what Shawn did. If you read my initial response I passed this off as most people do… but given what I have found (through a bunch of effort) there might be something to this… might not though.
So until I'm able to draw a conclusion based on educated statistical analysis - I'm not going to continue with any info here.
#81
04-20-2007, 07:56 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: chula vista (SD)
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
this is interesting - ive also seen intake manifold gaskets that resemble this ( also venturi effect ) just a question ( directed to OCG35 )
1. would the throttlebody spcer really mae that much of a difference? ( please forward this to whomeve as well ) if im not mistaken, after the throttlebody - air would still have to travel down into each plenum ( manifold ) then into each port...wouldnt that venturi effect be lost?
2. maybe this is why they made intake manifold spacers w/ the venturi design - so air enters each port " turbulent"- directly into each port/cylinder
basically, air is not "smoothed" out by the time it reaches each chamber...if this MIGHT be th ecase, maybe WE should come up w/ a copy cat design for the VQ motor ( unless someone is reading this and BEATS us to it! ) james
1. would the throttlebody spcer really mae that much of a difference? ( please forward this to whomeve as well ) if im not mistaken, after the throttlebody - air would still have to travel down into each plenum ( manifold ) then into each port...wouldnt that venturi effect be lost?
2. maybe this is why they made intake manifold spacers w/ the venturi design - so air enters each port " turbulent"- directly into each port/cylinder
basically, air is not "smoothed" out by the time it reaches each chamber...if this MIGHT be th ecase, maybe WE should come up w/ a copy cat design for the VQ motor ( unless someone is reading this and BEATS us to it! ) james
#82
04-20-2007, 08:47 PM
Originally Posted by j-champaco
this is interesting - ive also seen intake manifold gaskets that resemble this ( also venturi effect ) just a question ( directed to OCG35 )
1. would the throttlebody spcer really mae that much of a difference? ( please forward this to whomeve as well ) if im not mistaken, after the throttlebody - air would still have to travel down into each plenum ( manifold ) then into each port...wouldnt that venturi effect be lost?
2. maybe this is why they made intake manifold spacers w/ the venturi design - so air enters each port " turbulent"- directly into each port/cylinder
basically, air is not "smoothed" out by the time it reaches each chamber...if this MIGHT be th ecase, maybe WE should come up w/ a copy cat design for the VQ motor ( unless someone is reading this and BEATS us to it! ) james
1. would the throttlebody spcer really mae that much of a difference? ( please forward this to whomeve as well ) if im not mistaken, after the throttlebody - air would still have to travel down into each plenum ( manifold ) then into each port...wouldnt that venturi effect be lost?
2. maybe this is why they made intake manifold spacers w/ the venturi design - so air enters each port " turbulent"- directly into each port/cylinder
basically, air is not "smoothed" out by the time it reaches each chamber...if this MIGHT be th ecase, maybe WE should come up w/ a copy cat design for the VQ motor ( unless someone is reading this and BEATS us to it! ) james
Originally Posted by OCG35
I just got off the phone with Shawn Church (owner of Church Automotive Testing)… he indeed did dyno a prototype TB spacer from a company called Ace Precision… he confirmed that it dyno’d about 8 hp on the upper end (5500rmp range)… I asked him in theory what could possibly be the cause and he explained that the one he testing had rifling on the inside edge – you have to install it one way only… it alters the airflow in a way – unlike the Tabulator that swirls the air prior to the TB and does basically nothing, this apparently helps the airflow make the turn on our curve (from TB to plenum)… he said it did nothing on cars that have a straight intake/TB to collector.
So in theory it’s not the added volume, it the altered airflow helping the air flow around the curve after the TB.
Seems a little hokey, but I fully believe Shawn. He wouldn’t state false claims of gains. I asked about clearance (he ran a 7/8" spacer) – he has stock intake tube and said it fit but the accordion flex was collapsed all the way.
I don’t know if all manufacturers have the rifling – it looks like AAMs has functionality more for adapting other components – the rifling one might be worth looking into further. I tried doing a Google search and there are tons or Ace Precisions – so I’m not sure which one makes this particular TB spacer or if it’s even production ready… I will start researching some of the others though. Now that I know there is something other than added volume (which in theory is a bogus claim) it might be worth it?
So in theory it’s not the added volume, it the altered airflow helping the air flow around the curve after the TB.
Seems a little hokey, but I fully believe Shawn. He wouldn’t state false claims of gains. I asked about clearance (he ran a 7/8" spacer) – he has stock intake tube and said it fit but the accordion flex was collapsed all the way.
I don’t know if all manufacturers have the rifling – it looks like AAMs has functionality more for adapting other components – the rifling one might be worth looking into further. I tried doing a Google search and there are tons or Ace Precisions – so I’m not sure which one makes this particular TB spacer or if it’s even production ready… I will start researching some of the others though. Now that I know there is something other than added volume (which in theory is a bogus claim) it might be worth it?
#83
04-25-2007, 04:12 PM
So the question is....
Was the car Shawn tested completely stock? Or did it have any modifications? What about some of the other testers? This could be an important factor as well, given the multitude of modification combinations people have.
Perhaps certain mods will work or work against this sort of modification? I fully intend to find out, on a Dyno-jet soon....
I need to do some new baseline pulls as I had to replace the engine a couple weeks ago. My last baseline last year with old motor that was using 2 quarts of oil between oil changes (and with a little power robbing detonation) showed 262hp/244pft on 93 pump gas on a conservative Dynojet 248E... I will do the spacer on the same day I do the base runs.
My car has alot of modifications on the "intake" side of the motor already (ie: z-tube, K&N, lower baffle removed, ported throttlebody, ported Crawford plenum, ported upper and lower intake manifold....
Exhaust side: Crawford headers, Crawford high flow cats, Fujitsubo Legalis-R exhaust...
I don't expect much from the spacer but who knows... this is on a rev-up motor.
I also plan on indexing a set of spark plugs AFTER this test and seeing if that will make any difference on the dyno, along with a few pulls with a popular Y-pipe, and a seperate test using a Stillen intake. I plan on spending some money on dyno time this year!
Perhaps certain mods will work or work against this sort of modification? I fully intend to find out, on a Dyno-jet soon....
I need to do some new baseline pulls as I had to replace the engine a couple weeks ago. My last baseline last year with old motor that was using 2 quarts of oil between oil changes (and with a little power robbing detonation) showed 262hp/244pft on 93 pump gas on a conservative Dynojet 248E... I will do the spacer on the same day I do the base runs.
My car has alot of modifications on the "intake" side of the motor already (ie: z-tube, K&N, lower baffle removed, ported throttlebody, ported Crawford plenum, ported upper and lower intake manifold....
Exhaust side: Crawford headers, Crawford high flow cats, Fujitsubo Legalis-R exhaust...
I don't expect much from the spacer but who knows... this is on a rev-up motor.
I also plan on indexing a set of spark plugs AFTER this test and seeing if that will make any difference on the dyno, along with a few pulls with a popular Y-pipe, and a seperate test using a Stillen intake. I plan on spending some money on dyno time this year!
#84
04-25-2007, 05:03 PM
#85
04-25-2007, 08:32 PM
Okay... as it turns out, the 2nd party testing will not be concluded for another week or more... so for those that are interested here is the email I sent to the manufacturer with my findings. This is strictly dyno no driving... I will be slapping it on for driving impressions, I just don’t know when. A 2nd party will be doing the same thing…
I have an 04.5 AT sedan - which as it turns out might be (in fact I believe is) a factor. My car has Stillen CAI, 1/2" Iso-Therm spacer, Crawford HFC and Stillen catback exhaust. The results I found are not necessarily indicative of all Gs and/or Z... and in fact there is evidence that not only coupe, Z, sedan but also MT, AT will differ. Take this info for what it is and use for your own determination. It is definitely NOT a say all, end all.
If anyone wants to open discussion of all the variables... I am not here to field anything. In fact I probably won’t respond past this. Simply because there is a bunch of interesting observations that go in entirely different directions - and I'm not going to further detail one way or another.
One last note, The ONLY reason I spent the amount of time on this project is because (for my own benefit and need to know) I wanted to determine the gains previously reported.
With that - here is the summary email:
Hi Vic, just wanted to give you an update on the testing... I spent about 6 hours yesterday on a dynamometer, it's a Dynapack just like Shawn Church's... we did about 5 baseline pulls, then at lest 7 or 8 pulls with the TB spacer... the conditions were identical, cool down procedure of the motor was carefully controlled, we took great care to keep everything consistent.
Initially it looked like the spacer produced very good gains... the baseline pulls averaged roughly 254 hp and 250 trq... the first series of pulls after spacer install where 265-267 on avg... but when we continued doing pulls it dropped back to 254-257 consistently... The theory was that when we installed the spacer, the negative terminal on the battery was disconnected (this is to prevent throttle position errors and erratic idle, it has happened to me before)... so in addition to preventing the idle/throttle issues, disconnecting the battery also reset the ECU. The ECU on these cars is very temperamental specifically in the sedan and especially the AT sedan (which is what I have)... Infiniti/Nissan has some "granny" modes set into the ECU that keep it from staying in it's "aggressive" mode... so when the ECU was reset the performance mode was showing great results... but after a few pulls the ECU reverted to it's conservative function. This was tested with and without the TB spacer. When we took the spacer out (having disconnected the battery and everything else the exact same way we installed) the first several pulls were also in the 264-267 range. And just like with the spacer on, the ECU eventually reverted to it's conservative mod and started pulling 255 avg.
So the bottom line was we really didn't see any gains from the spacer, but there weren't any loses either.
I called Shawn Church to ask about how he installed and if his gains could have possibly been the ECU as well... Shawn did not disconnect the battery during his install so his gains were entirely different. He saw increases in specific areas of the RMP range whereas we saw the entire band shift up. This is consistent with the ECU creating changes on my car, but in Shawn's case it leans more towards the spacer helping. Shawn is an MT coupe. There has been a great deal of discussion regarding differences between coupe, sedan, 350Z as well as MT vs AT... it is hypothesized that the ECU stays in an aggressive/performance mode for the coupes and Z much more so than the sedan... theory is because the sedan is more "luxury" and coupe and Z are more "sporty".
So for a coupe or Z, specifically MT - based on Shawn's testing the spacer seems to show good gains... for the sedan (at least my AT sedan) we weren't able to see the same thing.
{name withheld} is going to be testing one of the 2 you provided... I am purposely withholding the dyno results from him until he gives driving impressions. I want to see if his "butt dyno" (the way it feels driving) is consistent with what we found on the dynamometer.
I will touch base with you when that leg of the testing is completed.
[not part of email]
*note the 2nd leg of testing person is now aware of dyno results...
I have an 04.5 AT sedan - which as it turns out might be (in fact I believe is) a factor. My car has Stillen CAI, 1/2" Iso-Therm spacer, Crawford HFC and Stillen catback exhaust. The results I found are not necessarily indicative of all Gs and/or Z... and in fact there is evidence that not only coupe, Z, sedan but also MT, AT will differ. Take this info for what it is and use for your own determination. It is definitely NOT a say all, end all.
If anyone wants to open discussion of all the variables... I am not here to field anything. In fact I probably won’t respond past this. Simply because there is a bunch of interesting observations that go in entirely different directions - and I'm not going to further detail one way or another.
One last note, The ONLY reason I spent the amount of time on this project is because (for my own benefit and need to know) I wanted to determine the gains previously reported.
With that - here is the summary email:
Hi Vic, just wanted to give you an update on the testing... I spent about 6 hours yesterday on a dynamometer, it's a Dynapack just like Shawn Church's... we did about 5 baseline pulls, then at lest 7 or 8 pulls with the TB spacer... the conditions were identical, cool down procedure of the motor was carefully controlled, we took great care to keep everything consistent.
Initially it looked like the spacer produced very good gains... the baseline pulls averaged roughly 254 hp and 250 trq... the first series of pulls after spacer install where 265-267 on avg... but when we continued doing pulls it dropped back to 254-257 consistently... The theory was that when we installed the spacer, the negative terminal on the battery was disconnected (this is to prevent throttle position errors and erratic idle, it has happened to me before)... so in addition to preventing the idle/throttle issues, disconnecting the battery also reset the ECU. The ECU on these cars is very temperamental specifically in the sedan and especially the AT sedan (which is what I have)... Infiniti/Nissan has some "granny" modes set into the ECU that keep it from staying in it's "aggressive" mode... so when the ECU was reset the performance mode was showing great results... but after a few pulls the ECU reverted to it's conservative function. This was tested with and without the TB spacer. When we took the spacer out (having disconnected the battery and everything else the exact same way we installed) the first several pulls were also in the 264-267 range. And just like with the spacer on, the ECU eventually reverted to it's conservative mod and started pulling 255 avg.
So the bottom line was we really didn't see any gains from the spacer, but there weren't any loses either.
I called Shawn Church to ask about how he installed and if his gains could have possibly been the ECU as well... Shawn did not disconnect the battery during his install so his gains were entirely different. He saw increases in specific areas of the RMP range whereas we saw the entire band shift up. This is consistent with the ECU creating changes on my car, but in Shawn's case it leans more towards the spacer helping. Shawn is an MT coupe. There has been a great deal of discussion regarding differences between coupe, sedan, 350Z as well as MT vs AT... it is hypothesized that the ECU stays in an aggressive/performance mode for the coupes and Z much more so than the sedan... theory is because the sedan is more "luxury" and coupe and Z are more "sporty".
So for a coupe or Z, specifically MT - based on Shawn's testing the spacer seems to show good gains... for the sedan (at least my AT sedan) we weren't able to see the same thing.
{name withheld} is going to be testing one of the 2 you provided... I am purposely withholding the dyno results from him until he gives driving impressions. I want to see if his "butt dyno" (the way it feels driving) is consistent with what we found on the dynamometer.
I will touch base with you when that leg of the testing is completed.
[not part of email]
*note the 2nd leg of testing person is now aware of dyno results...
Last edited by OCG35; 04-25-2007 at 08:36 PM.
#86
04-25-2007, 11:01 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: chula vista (SD)
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thanks - great post. That's why itntake ports are normally " rough" while exhaust ports tend to be smooth / clean. it makes more sense to me to have the spacer as close to the ports as possible. Please ( lik eyou stated in your post ) don't read into my post ( im not trying to argue ) im just thinking " through my fingers".. ever hear of an ALLMOTOR VQ?
#87
04-26-2007, 12:57 PM
Thanks for the honest post. Very rare around here. You could have easily posted the dynos showing power and left it at that. Interesting info regarding the ecu reset! Thanks!
Originally Posted by OCG35
Okay... as it turns out, the 2nd party testing will not be concluded for another week or more... so for those that are interested here is the email I sent to the manufacturer with my findings. This is strictly dyno no driving... I will be slapping it on for driving impressions, I just don’t know when. A 2nd party will be doing the same thing…
I have an 04.5 AT sedan - which as it turns out might be (in fact I believe is) a factor. My car has Stillen CAI, 1/2" Iso-Therm spacer, Crawford HFC and Stillen catback exhaust. The results I found are not necessarily indicative of all Gs and/or Z... and in fact there is evidence that not only coupe, Z, sedan but also MT, AT will differ. Take this info for what it is and use for your own determination. It is definitely NOT a say all, end all.
If anyone wants to open discussion of all the variables... I am not here to field anything. In fact I probably won’t respond past this. Simply because there is a bunch of interesting observations that go in entirely different directions - and I'm not going to further detail one way or another.
One last note, The ONLY reason I spent the amount of time on this project is because (for my own benefit and need to know) I wanted to determine the gains previously reported.
With that - here is the summary email:
Hi Vic, just wanted to give you an update on the testing... I spent about 6 hours yesterday on a dynamometer, it's a Dynapack just like Shawn Church's... we did about 5 baseline pulls, then at lest 7 or 8 pulls with the TB spacer... the conditions were identical, cool down procedure of the motor was carefully controlled, we took great care to keep everything consistent.
Initially it looked like the spacer produced very good gains... the baseline pulls averaged roughly 254 hp and 250 trq... the first series of pulls after spacer install where 265-267 on avg... but when we continued doing pulls it dropped back to 254-257 consistently... The theory was that when we installed the spacer, the negative terminal on the battery was disconnected (this is to prevent throttle position errors and erratic idle, it has happened to me before)... so in addition to preventing the idle/throttle issues, disconnecting the battery also reset the ECU. The ECU on these cars is very temperamental specifically in the sedan and especially the AT sedan (which is what I have)... Infiniti/Nissan has some "granny" modes set into the ECU that keep it from staying in it's "aggressive" mode... so when the ECU was reset the performance mode was showing great results... but after a few pulls the ECU reverted to it's conservative function. This was tested with and without the TB spacer. When we took the spacer out (having disconnected the battery and everything else the exact same way we installed) the first several pulls were also in the 264-267 range. And just like with the spacer on, the ECU eventually reverted to it's conservative mod and started pulling 255 avg.
So the bottom line was we really didn't see any gains from the spacer, but there weren't any loses either.
I called Shawn Church to ask about how he installed and if his gains could have possibly been the ECU as well... Shawn did not disconnect the battery during his install so his gains were entirely different. He saw increases in specific areas of the RMP range whereas we saw the entire band shift up. This is consistent with the ECU creating changes on my car, but in Shawn's case it leans more towards the spacer helping. Shawn is an MT coupe. There has been a great deal of discussion regarding differences between coupe, sedan, 350Z as well as MT vs AT... it is hypothesized that the ECU stays in an aggressive/performance mode for the coupes and Z much more so than the sedan... theory is because the sedan is more "luxury" and coupe and Z are more "sporty".
So for a coupe or Z, specifically MT - based on Shawn's testing the spacer seems to show good gains... for the sedan (at least my AT sedan) we weren't able to see the same thing.
{name withheld} is going to be testing one of the 2 you provided... I am purposely withholding the dyno results from him until he gives driving impressions. I want to see if his "butt dyno" (the way it feels driving) is consistent with what we found on the dynamometer.
I will touch base with you when that leg of the testing is completed.
[not part of email]
*note the 2nd leg of testing person is now aware of dyno results...
I have an 04.5 AT sedan - which as it turns out might be (in fact I believe is) a factor. My car has Stillen CAI, 1/2" Iso-Therm spacer, Crawford HFC and Stillen catback exhaust. The results I found are not necessarily indicative of all Gs and/or Z... and in fact there is evidence that not only coupe, Z, sedan but also MT, AT will differ. Take this info for what it is and use for your own determination. It is definitely NOT a say all, end all.
If anyone wants to open discussion of all the variables... I am not here to field anything. In fact I probably won’t respond past this. Simply because there is a bunch of interesting observations that go in entirely different directions - and I'm not going to further detail one way or another.
One last note, The ONLY reason I spent the amount of time on this project is because (for my own benefit and need to know) I wanted to determine the gains previously reported.
With that - here is the summary email:
Hi Vic, just wanted to give you an update on the testing... I spent about 6 hours yesterday on a dynamometer, it's a Dynapack just like Shawn Church's... we did about 5 baseline pulls, then at lest 7 or 8 pulls with the TB spacer... the conditions were identical, cool down procedure of the motor was carefully controlled, we took great care to keep everything consistent.
Initially it looked like the spacer produced very good gains... the baseline pulls averaged roughly 254 hp and 250 trq... the first series of pulls after spacer install where 265-267 on avg... but when we continued doing pulls it dropped back to 254-257 consistently... The theory was that when we installed the spacer, the negative terminal on the battery was disconnected (this is to prevent throttle position errors and erratic idle, it has happened to me before)... so in addition to preventing the idle/throttle issues, disconnecting the battery also reset the ECU. The ECU on these cars is very temperamental specifically in the sedan and especially the AT sedan (which is what I have)... Infiniti/Nissan has some "granny" modes set into the ECU that keep it from staying in it's "aggressive" mode... so when the ECU was reset the performance mode was showing great results... but after a few pulls the ECU reverted to it's conservative function. This was tested with and without the TB spacer. When we took the spacer out (having disconnected the battery and everything else the exact same way we installed) the first several pulls were also in the 264-267 range. And just like with the spacer on, the ECU eventually reverted to it's conservative mod and started pulling 255 avg.
So the bottom line was we really didn't see any gains from the spacer, but there weren't any loses either.
I called Shawn Church to ask about how he installed and if his gains could have possibly been the ECU as well... Shawn did not disconnect the battery during his install so his gains were entirely different. He saw increases in specific areas of the RMP range whereas we saw the entire band shift up. This is consistent with the ECU creating changes on my car, but in Shawn's case it leans more towards the spacer helping. Shawn is an MT coupe. There has been a great deal of discussion regarding differences between coupe, sedan, 350Z as well as MT vs AT... it is hypothesized that the ECU stays in an aggressive/performance mode for the coupes and Z much more so than the sedan... theory is because the sedan is more "luxury" and coupe and Z are more "sporty".
So for a coupe or Z, specifically MT - based on Shawn's testing the spacer seems to show good gains... for the sedan (at least my AT sedan) we weren't able to see the same thing.
{name withheld} is going to be testing one of the 2 you provided... I am purposely withholding the dyno results from him until he gives driving impressions. I want to see if his "butt dyno" (the way it feels driving) is consistent with what we found on the dynamometer.
I will touch base with you when that leg of the testing is completed.
[not part of email]
*note the 2nd leg of testing person is now aware of dyno results...
#88
04-28-2007, 11:29 PM
Originally Posted by j-champaco
thanks - great post. That's why itntake ports are normally " rough" while exhaust ports tend to be smooth / clean. it makes more sense to me to have the spacer as close to the ports as possible. Please ( lik eyou stated in your post ) don't read into my post ( im not trying to argue ) im just thinking " through my fingers".. ever hear of an ALLMOTOR VQ?
It all depends on where the fuel is actually injected on the motor...
On a carburated motor, or TBI (and some TPI motors) where the air and fuel mixture is delivered together in advance of the actual intake manifold, a textured, usually 50/80 grit finish helps keep the A/F tumbling and well mixed together. A smooth finish can cause "stratification" which is the separation of fuel from the air, which typically tends to "stick" to a smooth finish. This can cause all kinds of problems I'm not going to go into here.
However, many cars... have shown very SOLID gains with plenums and upper/lower intake manifolds being "Extrudehoned". The Extrudehone process is a gritty media that is passed through the ports and openings. A grittier material can be passed through to remove actual metal material (or to widen or make ports bigger diameter) followed by a finer grit material to get a GLASS finish. This process also works well on exhaust ports, OEM exhaust manifolds AND turbo housings/manifolds.
With that said... everything upstream of my fuel injectors is ported GLASS smooth... everything below (where the air and fuel mix) has a textured finish. The combination works quite well. Tip in throttle response is amazing on my car and power never drops off as rpm climbs on the dyno.
I too have one of these TB spacers installed on my car (did it today). Mods are below...
I will let you know what I think when I get some time to do some testing.
#89
05-11-2007, 08:45 AM
well for my car
#90
05-13-2007, 12:45 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: chula vista (SD)
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ZXiMan2
Not neccessarily true about the intake ports being rough and being beneficial on *ALL* motors....
It all depends on where the fuel is actually injected on the motor...
On a carburated motor, or TBI (and some TPI motors) where the air and fuel mixture is delivered together in advance of the actual intake manifold, a textured, usually 50/80 grit finish helps keep the A/F tumbling and well mixed together. A smooth finish can cause "stratification" which is the separation of fuel from the air, which typically tends to "stick" to a smooth finish. This can cause all kinds of problems I'm not going to go into here.
However, many cars... have shown very SOLID gains with plenums and upper/lower intake manifolds being "Extrudehoned". The Extrudehone process is a gritty media that is passed through the ports and openings. A grittier material can be passed through to remove actual metal material (or to widen or make ports bigger diameter) followed by a finer grit material to get a GLASS finish. This process also works well on exhaust ports, OEM exhaust manifolds AND turbo housings/manifolds.
With that said... everything upstream of my fuel injectors is ported GLASS smooth... everything below (where the air and fuel mix) has a textured finish. The combination works quite well. Tip in throttle response is amazing on my car and power never drops off as rpm climbs on the dyno.
I too have one of these TB spacers installed on my car (did it today). Mods are below...
I will let you know what I think when I get some time to do some testing.
It all depends on where the fuel is actually injected on the motor...
On a carburated motor, or TBI (and some TPI motors) where the air and fuel mixture is delivered together in advance of the actual intake manifold, a textured, usually 50/80 grit finish helps keep the A/F tumbling and well mixed together. A smooth finish can cause "stratification" which is the separation of fuel from the air, which typically tends to "stick" to a smooth finish. This can cause all kinds of problems I'm not going to go into here.
However, many cars... have shown very SOLID gains with plenums and upper/lower intake manifolds being "Extrudehoned". The Extrudehone process is a gritty media that is passed through the ports and openings. A grittier material can be passed through to remove actual metal material (or to widen or make ports bigger diameter) followed by a finer grit material to get a GLASS finish. This process also works well on exhaust ports, OEM exhaust manifolds AND turbo housings/manifolds.
With that said... everything upstream of my fuel injectors is ported GLASS smooth... everything below (where the air and fuel mix) has a textured finish. The combination works quite well. Tip in throttle response is amazing on my car and power never drops off as rpm climbs on the dyno.
I too have one of these TB spacers installed on my car (did it today). Mods are below...
I will let you know what I think when I get some time to do some testing.