The power curve that is presented there is for a varying size resonator. A fixed size resonator, if tuned to increase efficiency, would only do so over a very small rpm range. I think it would also be difficult to tune for both increased efficiency and noise cancellation using the same resonator. Since the resonators definitely function to reduce noise, i would not expect them to function as helmoltz resonators as well. Obviously the system is pretty complicated. Like most mods, I would like to see real world proof of gains before making claims whether or not this is an improvement.

 

Also isn't the resonator used in in Dave's link very different than the one used on our G sedans? The one in the link is inline with the intake tract. Ours is one that's connected to the intake tract with an extra tube. The link shows two but the gif file only seems to use the inline one for their example.

 

Why don't some you swap back in the OEM intake tube and see what you think? It takes all of 10 minutes to do. Just make sure to drive around with the setup for at least a solid day before developing an opinion. Density altitude in Kansas City is hovering in the 3000' range and the car feels pretty dang strong, even fully loaded and about 8% down on power because of the air. I do miss the intake wail though. The car still is pretty healthy sounding, but it's not as in your face now.

BTW, I tried searching Maxima.org for info regarding the intake resonators and it's really thin. Something has happened to that site's search function and/or a lot of data was lost between 2002 and 2004. All my resonator searches end at 2002 and all the juicy stuff popped up in late 2002 through 2003.

 

I agree with you Dave. I didn't get a chance to test it out at the track due to not having tools to remove my TBS.

The G tube is very hard to install with a TBS. I just did a comparison of the rev-up box and a cone filter with velocity stack.

The best I could do with the cone filter was 14.4@98mph. The best with the rev-up box was 14.2@101.

The temp was pretty much the same all night. The night I did my 13.4 the temp was dropping.

With the cone filter for some reason my 60ft were all 2.1 with the rev-up box 2.2-2.3.

Well to the subject at hand this morning I removed my TBS and replaced the z with the g tube and for some reason the car pulls harder to me and is smoother as Dave has mentioned.

I guess the g-tube works better if your modded I guess. I know the z-tube was my 1st mod just like alot of us so we have no way of telling if it works better with other mods because we got rid of it.

I wish I had my tools last night.

Probably to test this is to have a modded G with a G-tube swap to a z-tube most modded Gs have z-tubes or something else.

I'm going to do a couple of g-tech runs on sunday night when it's cooler with both tubes.

 

I agree with you Dave. I didn't get a chance to test it out at the track due to not having tools to remove my TBS.

The G tube is very hard to install with a TBS. I just did a comparison of the rev-up box and a cone filter with velocity stack.

The best I could do with the cone filter was 14.4@98mph. The best with the rev-up box was 14.2@101.

The temp was pretty much the same all night. The night I did my 13.4 the temp was dropping.

With the cone filter for some reason my 60ft were all 2.1 with the rev-up box 2.2-2.3.

Well to the subject at hand this morning I removed my TBS and replaced the z with the g tube and for some reason the car pulls harder to me and is smoother as Dave has mentioned.

I guess the g-tube works better if your modded I guess. I know the z-tube was my 1st mod just like alot of us so we have no way of telling if it works better with other mods because we got rid of it.

I wish I had my tools last night.

Probably to test this is to have a modded G with a G-tube swap to a z-tube most modded Gs have z-tubes or something else.

I'm going to do a couple of g-tech runs on sunday night when it's cooler with both tubes.

 

Thanks for trying it out and giving me your opinion. Glad to know I'm not off my rocker. Maybe some others will do the swap as well and post back.

 

Now I am curious.

Once I get back in town I will swap it out for a week then test my car against a HR sedan that I have very consistent runs with.

 

It's been about 150 miles and I have to say I really like this setup. The power delivery from a 4000rpm punch in 2nd or 3rd is different than with the Z-tube. The power delivery is like a surge or power than keeps building and building, even though the induction noise is pretty subdued. With the Z-tube, the power delivery always seemed a little strained above 5500rpms. Maybe because of all the noise and resonance. Below 4000rpms, the induction noise sounds no different than with the z-tube.

 

hmmm.. so you think you like this setup better eh..? You let the ECU do it's own thing right.. rather than doin' the "RiverDance Reset" method to manually wipe the cached maps...?

guess I'll give it a shot... and see what happens...

film at 11 bro!

 

I just installed my Z-tube with stock airbox last night and went out for a quick cruise. From the G-Tube. At Over 4000 RPM it is not as muffled and I feel a bit more pull at higher RPMS. I pulled the Negative terminal from the battery while I was installing it so the ECU did get reset.

 

I don't reset the ECU for modifications. It's pretty quick to learn (about 10 to 40 miles).

 

I did a pre/post dyno of the Z tube against the stock tube and it made no difference to the power curves.

 

^^^
now thats proof I could believe

 

Sweet! It's good to know that you've confirmed that the G-tube isn't deterimental to performance. I sure like the way the G-tube feels compared to the Z-tube. I'm not one to swear by butt dynos, but there is something different in the way power is at least initially delivered at part-throttle and WOT tip-in which is something you're not going to be to see on the dyno since you're running WOT from start to finish.

 

I swamped mine out tonight. I will give it a week and test it out this weekend.

First 10 miles didn't tell me much.