5/16 spacer installed no improvments over stock or 5/8 skunk 2
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by infinitialex
1/4 and 0-60 times will tell you more precisly if your mod is working or not.
I have done these tests long enough that i can say im pretty consistent at my 0-60 and 1/4 times, plus its automatic, pretty easy to be consistent.
Maybe there will be a nice gain with a tune combined but so far i see no gains. I had skunk2 spacer on and off for testing for over 6 month on my car. I have even tried it on my friends 04 g35 6 spd on the same day 1 hour between runs and we lost .2 sec of the 1/4 mi and 0-60.
Dyno will only give you bragging rights on your peak hp and torque but there is no substitute for the actual speed that your car moves at per given amount of time.
And as to 5-10 hp if the spacer does add that much across the rpm range should definitely be noticed. At least for .2 off your 1/4 mi
I have done these tests long enough that i can say im pretty consistent at my 0-60 and 1/4 times, plus its automatic, pretty easy to be consistent.
Maybe there will be a nice gain with a tune combined but so far i see no gains. I had skunk2 spacer on and off for testing for over 6 month on my car. I have even tried it on my friends 04 g35 6 spd on the same day 1 hour between runs and we lost .2 sec of the 1/4 mi and 0-60.
Dyno will only give you bragging rights on your peak hp and torque but there is no substitute for the actual speed that your car moves at per given amount of time.
And as to 5-10 hp if the spacer does add that much across the rpm range should definitely be noticed. At least for .2 off your 1/4 mi
You are right to a degree. Tuning can be done and be successful at the track. However, you are stating there is NO GAIN from the spacers. Your words. The way you evaluate is simply by the seat of your pants and a $200 gizmo that is as accurate as a Hot Wheels radar gun.
Look, do a dyno run, check the power gains through the mid range and top end. If you see a loss or no gain, then post away. If you see a gain (especially throughout the mid range), then maybe you aren't as "consistent" as you think you are.
Again, are you a professional driver? Not that it matters because I think even John Force would say you're goofy in thinking seat of the pants and time slips are a way to determine results of a bolt on that nets a top gain of 10hp.
I am wondering also if you did ANY changes outside the spacers as you "tested". Do you take into account ambient temp, track conditions - was there oil dropped before you tested and the track was essentially "green" - were the tires as much the same in terms of condition as they were each time you tested, etc., etc., etc...
The way you are testing has too many elements that can be variable and lack consistency. No matter how consistent you think you are, your reaction time can be a 1000th of a second off and cause a difference in the overall. What are your specific foot times? Were they consistent? If so, where. If not, where... .2 seconds in a 1/4 mile can be anything. 6 months of testing? The temperature alone is different through the year to get an accurate result. Each and every time the car was .2 down no matter what? That's pretty un realistic and to think it is simply the spacer...
You're doing this all wrong. Hopefully, you don't tune cars for other people....
Thread Starter
|
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 547
Likes: 1
From: SIoux Falls SD
Originally Posted by Lizard 1
Ok... You win. The drag strip is the absolute best way to tell if changes in a car or whatever is working properly. I mean, why would any of the drag teams actually take their cars to run on engine dynos and such? Why do they (race teams) waste money on engine dynos, chassis dynos, etc when they can simply tune via the driver running at the track.
You are right to a degree. Tuning can be done and be successful at the track. However, you are stating there is NO GAIN from the spacers. Your words. The way you evaluate is simply by the seat of your pants and a $200 gizmo that is as accurate as a Hot Wheels radar gun.
Look, do a dyno run, check the power gains through the mid range and top end. If you see a loss or no gain, then post away. If you see a gain (especially throughout the mid range), then maybe you aren't as "consistent" as you think you are.
Again, are you a professional driver? Not that it matters because I think even John Force would say you're goofy in thinking seat of the pants and time slips are a way to determine results of a bolt on that nets a top gain of 10hp.
I am wondering also if you did ANY changes outside the spacers as you "tested". Do you take into account ambient temp, track conditions - was there oil dropped before you tested and the track was essentially "green" - were the tires as much the same in terms of condition as they were each time you tested, etc., etc., etc...
The way you are testing has too many elements that can be variable and lack consistency. No matter how consistent you think you are, your reaction time can be a 1000th of a second off and cause a difference in the overall. What are your specific foot times? Were they consistent? If so, where. If not, where... .2 seconds in a 1/4 mile can be anything. 6 months of testing? The temperature alone is different through the year to get an accurate result. Each and every time the car was .2 down no matter what? That's pretty un realistic and to think it is simply the spacer...
You're doing this all wrong. Hopefully, you don't tune cars for other people....
You are right to a degree. Tuning can be done and be successful at the track. However, you are stating there is NO GAIN from the spacers. Your words. The way you evaluate is simply by the seat of your pants and a $200 gizmo that is as accurate as a Hot Wheels radar gun.
Look, do a dyno run, check the power gains through the mid range and top end. If you see a loss or no gain, then post away. If you see a gain (especially throughout the mid range), then maybe you aren't as "consistent" as you think you are.
Again, are you a professional driver? Not that it matters because I think even John Force would say you're goofy in thinking seat of the pants and time slips are a way to determine results of a bolt on that nets a top gain of 10hp.
I am wondering also if you did ANY changes outside the spacers as you "tested". Do you take into account ambient temp, track conditions - was there oil dropped before you tested and the track was essentially "green" - were the tires as much the same in terms of condition as they were each time you tested, etc., etc., etc...
The way you are testing has too many elements that can be variable and lack consistency. No matter how consistent you think you are, your reaction time can be a 1000th of a second off and cause a difference in the overall. What are your specific foot times? Were they consistent? If so, where. If not, where... .2 seconds in a 1/4 mile can be anything. 6 months of testing? The temperature alone is different through the year to get an accurate result. Each and every time the car was .2 down no matter what? That's pretty un realistic and to think it is simply the spacer...
You're doing this all wrong. Hopefully, you don't tune cars for other people....
Thread Starter
|
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 547
Likes: 1
From: SIoux Falls SD
Originally Posted by cato
The spacer is a huge hit with the G35 and 350Z community. You are the only one who has a complaint. Tony is the greatest. I am tempted to close this thread. 
Thats BS, I'm posting results from my own independent testing and analysis of data. I'm not saying spacers is a waste of money and don't buy it, Im just giving my own conclusions, if you think my testing was off than ignore my posts please.
Former G35driver Vendor
iTrader: (23)
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,054
Likes: 85
From: Los Angeles California
Originally Posted by infinitialex
Maybe i will gain some HP after 90 mph, but if that is the case i don't really care because its unusable power band for me.
If you believe Dave O, these are his independant results.
Gains Vs RPM
http://www.motordyneengineering.com/...tAnalysis3.gif
If you don't believe his results then you are likely to believe every company selling plenum mods is selling a bogus product.
I gotta say the gains are real though, but its OK if you don't believe it.
There really are a ton of dyno plots posted all over the internet that show the same results.
Tony
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 3,653
Likes: 5
From: Sugar Land,Texas
This thread is spinning out of control. If the "it doesn't work" "it works" argument continues much longer, 
You have made your statement of dissatisfaction. Most of us will disagree with you. There is no point of continuing the "it doesn't work" argument. You have made your point.
You have made your statement of dissatisfaction. Most of us will disagree with you. There is no point of continuing the "it doesn't work" argument. You have made your point.
My real world results:
Mods: Z-tube
Track: Kansas City International Raceway
Density altitude: 200', light wind
1/4 mile: 14.32@97.6mph, 60' 2.15. Best MPH 98.1mph
Mods: Z-tube, MD 5/16"
Track: Kansas City International Raceway
Density altitude: 1,100', 10mph tail wind
1/4 mile: 14.37@99.7mph, 60' 2.18. Best MPH 99.9mph
So in worse conditions, the car was on average about 2mph faster, but .06 seconds slower. The conditions would account for about .1-.13 seconds and 1mph. The tailwind helped on the far end probably 1mph or slightly less. IMO, under sea level conditions like I ran in when basically stock, I think it's safe to assume 14.2s@99-100mph. There was no impact to 60'. IMO, it works as advertized. About 10whp/10wtq across the board.
Maybe you should consider selling the car because all you do is bitch about it? I'm all about questioning legitamacy of modifications, but the MD 5/16" spacer does work as advertized. As for the G-tech, throw it in the trash. I've used on at the track and it's numbers and MPH varied wildly between runs and always showed 2-3mph higher traps. Take it to the strip if you want to know the truth.
Mods: Z-tube
Track: Kansas City International Raceway
Density altitude: 200', light wind
1/4 mile: 14.32@97.6mph, 60' 2.15. Best MPH 98.1mph
Mods: Z-tube, MD 5/16"
Track: Kansas City International Raceway
Density altitude: 1,100', 10mph tail wind
1/4 mile: 14.37@99.7mph, 60' 2.18. Best MPH 99.9mph
So in worse conditions, the car was on average about 2mph faster, but .06 seconds slower. The conditions would account for about .1-.13 seconds and 1mph. The tailwind helped on the far end probably 1mph or slightly less. IMO, under sea level conditions like I ran in when basically stock, I think it's safe to assume 14.2s@99-100mph. There was no impact to 60'. IMO, it works as advertized. About 10whp/10wtq across the board.
Maybe you should consider selling the car because all you do is bitch about it? I'm all about questioning legitamacy of modifications, but the MD 5/16" spacer does work as advertized. As for the G-tech, throw it in the trash. I've used on at the track and it's numbers and MPH varied wildly between runs and always showed 2-3mph higher traps. Take it to the strip if you want to know the truth.
Originally Posted by infinitialex
you really r a tool if u think i would be running with VDC
On during testing
On during testing
Thread Starter
|
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 547
Likes: 1
From: SIoux Falls SD
Originally Posted by DaveB
My real world results:
Mods: Z-tube
Track: Kansas City International Raceway
Density altitude: 200', light wind
1/4 mile: 14.32@97.6mph, 60' 2.15. Best MPH 98.1mph
Mods: Z-tube, MD 5/16"
Track: Kansas City International Raceway
Density altitude: 1,100', 10mph tail wind
1/4 mile: 14.37@99.7mph, 60' 2.18. Best MPH 99.9mph
So in worse conditions, the car was on average about 2mph faster, but .06 seconds slower. The conditions would account for about .1-.13 seconds and 1mph. The tailwind helped on the far end probably 1mph or slightly less. IMO, under sea level conditions like I ran in when basically stock, I think it's safe to assume 14.2s@99-100mph. There was no impact to 60'. IMO, it works as advertized. About 10whp/10wtq across the board.
Maybe you should consider selling the car because all you do is bitch about it? I'm all about questioning legitamacy of modifications, but the MD 5/16" spacer does work as advertized. As for the G-tech, throw it in the trash. I've used on at the track and it's numbers and MPH varied wildly between runs and always showed 2-3mph higher traps. Take it to the strip if you want to know the truth.
Mods: Z-tube
Track: Kansas City International Raceway
Density altitude: 200', light wind
1/4 mile: 14.32@97.6mph, 60' 2.15. Best MPH 98.1mph
Mods: Z-tube, MD 5/16"
Track: Kansas City International Raceway
Density altitude: 1,100', 10mph tail wind
1/4 mile: 14.37@99.7mph, 60' 2.18. Best MPH 99.9mph
So in worse conditions, the car was on average about 2mph faster, but .06 seconds slower. The conditions would account for about .1-.13 seconds and 1mph. The tailwind helped on the far end probably 1mph or slightly less. IMO, under sea level conditions like I ran in when basically stock, I think it's safe to assume 14.2s@99-100mph. There was no impact to 60'. IMO, it works as advertized. About 10whp/10wtq across the board.
Maybe you should consider selling the car because all you do is bitch about it? I'm all about questioning legitamacy of modifications, but the MD 5/16" spacer does work as advertized. As for the G-tech, throw it in the trash. I've used on at the track and it's numbers and MPH varied wildly between runs and always showed 2-3mph higher traps. Take it to the strip if you want to know the truth.
Originally Posted by infinitialex
please explain to me where you are getting density altitude figuresIts at the same track right? so you should take barometric preasure and temperatures into account. What were dates and times of your runs i can look up the rest of the information
Z-tube conditions:
11/21/05
45 degrees
30.20 baro pressure
30.0 dew point
calculated DA 183'
MD 5/16" spacer, Z-tube conditions:
11/21/05
57 degrees
29.99 baro pressure
28.9 dew point
calculated DA 1157'
The spacer works. My traps were in the 98.8-99.9mph range all day. The tailwind would account for some of the gain in mph, but the air density was a bit lower so it was a wash.
Originally Posted by cato
The spacer is a huge hit with the G35 and 350Z community. You are the only one who has a complaint. Tony is the greatest. I am tempted to close this thread.
