Intake manifold swap on VG? Pathfinder Manifold???
02-22-2006, 08:27 AM
#41
here's some new info that was put together a couple days ago (or at least updated) from what i can tell.
http://www.redz31.com/pages/plenums.html
http://www.redz31.com/pages/plenums.html
02-22-2006, 08:35 AM
#42
Guest
Posts: n/a
I wonder why they didnt test the 3rd gen intake. It should be alot better then the 2ed gen.
Also what about gutting that divider in our stock intake, then mold some of the angles so it smooths out the air flow. This should increse the plenum volume, and top end power. Ive got 2 or 3 vg intake mani's and theres always 3-4 in the local junkyards. Maybe I can rework the lowerintake manifold to have some velocity stacks or something too. Ill have to wait untill I get megasquirt ECU in my car so I can tune it though. Maybe Ill do it any way, I think my buddy has acess to a dynojet afterhours, I have to double check.
~Alex
Also what about gutting that divider in our stock intake, then mold some of the angles so it smooths out the air flow. This should increse the plenum volume, and top end power. Ive got 2 or 3 vg intake mani's and theres always 3-4 in the local junkyards. Maybe I can rework the lowerintake manifold to have some velocity stacks or something too. Ill have to wait untill I get megasquirt ECU in my car so I can tune it though. Maybe Ill do it any way, I think my buddy has acess to a dynojet afterhours, I have to double check.
~Alex
02-22-2006, 08:38 AM
#43
yeah, i was hoping they would have done a 3rd gen maxima intake but, nada. i might contact him and see if he'd be willing to test one of mine. i have quite a few spares laying around and wouldn't mind shipping it to him. i'll try contacting him today.
03-03-2006, 07:12 PM
#44
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 476
This summer, if I have money and decide to keep the h4xima, I would love to put on a supercharger from a VG33 Xterra. I might sell it first though if I can find a cheap 5 speed M30 BMW in my area (Sorry guys, I just cant resist an inline-6 RWD german sports sedan. I found one today for 100$ more than I paid for the Maxima and wanted to kill myself).
However, if I go through with it, I'll probably just cut a hole in the hood and stick a WRX or STI hoodscoop over it. I'm sure with a pully upgrade, bigger injectors (Z32TT?) and Megasquirt, I could see 230whp.
However, if I go through with it, I'll probably just cut a hole in the hood and stick a WRX or STI hoodscoop over it. I'm sure with a pully upgrade, bigger injectors (Z32TT?) and Megasquirt, I could see 230whp.
03-04-2006, 10:15 AM
#47
If you absolutely want to do a roots supercharger setup, you'd see better gains using the M90 off of the Grand Prix GTP. The s/c on the VG33ER is something like a M62 and is quite small. (note: the roots superchargers are the least efficient of all of the supercharging methods. granted they can make good power... they're just very inefficient at doing it compared to say a screws s/c. we're actually having a similar discussion in the boosted forum.)
03-05-2006, 08:14 AM
#49
nope, roots and screws are two different things. roots it probably the most common as its cheap, reliable, and has good low end power.
the screws are quite a bit more expensive but they are incredibly more efficient than a roots. the biggest reason is simply because a roots s/c's is technically not an air compressor. the rotors inside it don't compress the air, they just move the air so fast that it is jammed into the intake causing it to compress in the intake. basically think of it as a blower.
the screws s/c does actually compress the air between the screws making the efficiency go way up. not only is it a lot more efficient than a roots, you still retain that low end power. also, some roots s/c's have been known to lose a bit of boost on the top end whereas a screws will hold that steady all of the way up.
the centrifugal s/c is even more efficient than a screws s/c... actually is usually known as the most efficient compressor... but, it has one major problem. centrifugal s/c's require rpm to make boost so, you're building boost as the rpm goes up. you basically won't reach peak boost until red line, which highly limits the low end ability of centrifugal s/c. it uses the same compressor as a turbocharger but since the centrifugal s/c is limited by the belt it is, in my opinion, not a very good all around boost choice.
a turbocharger is the most efficient of all of the options due to two main reasons... it uses a centrifugal compressor and is ran off of spent energy known as the exhaust. the problem with superchargers is running them off of the belt takes power that could be put to the wheels so this is known as parasitic loss. the turbocharger is commonly said to be free power where this is definitely not the case. turbochargers will increase the exhaust back pressure in the exhaust manifold so it does make the engine use some more power to run but not nearly as much as a supercharger.
also, unlike the centrifugal s/c it is free to spin as fast as it can until the wastegate takes over. a turbocharger will usually spin in excess of 100,000 rpm. on a centrifugal compressor, the higher the rpm the higher the pressure. a centrifugal s/c usually spins at half that making gearing a lot less of an issue. this is done by modifying the compressor wheel. (just had to throw that in for those who want to convert a turbo into an s/c... the gearing would be a major pain).
anyways, the problem with turbochargers is the boost threshold (commonly known as boost lag, which is the wrong term). basically, how long it takes for the turbocharger to produce positive boost. (boost lag is how long the turbo takes to produce boost while already in motion and at or above the boost threshold rpm (at least i think that's how it goes).
boost threshold is dependent on the turbo size, bearing type, boost pressure, and also how efficient your exhaust and intake system flows and possibly more. generally most people look for the 3,000 to 3,500 rpm range to have full boost by. however... with newer turbo technology such as variable nozzle, variable turbine, and variable geometry turbines boost threshold is pretty much totally gone.
basically, with these turbines it would be like having multiple sized turbines at the same time. it basically allows for the spooling of a tiny turbo and the power handling of a large one by changing the way the exhaust goes through the turbine.
as an idea of what this technology can do, go pickup a new issue or car and driver with the new Porsche 911 in it... this thing produced [b]502 ft. lb. of torque at 1,950 rpm[/u]! I definitely can't wait to see this technology start coming out more often like you're seeing ball bearing turbos now. these are definitely the way to go.
they can be bought right now, but you'd be looking to spend in the area to 2,000 to 2,500 and that's used... unless you find an incredible deal.
the screws are quite a bit more expensive but they are incredibly more efficient than a roots. the biggest reason is simply because a roots s/c's is technically not an air compressor. the rotors inside it don't compress the air, they just move the air so fast that it is jammed into the intake causing it to compress in the intake. basically think of it as a blower.
the screws s/c does actually compress the air between the screws making the efficiency go way up. not only is it a lot more efficient than a roots, you still retain that low end power. also, some roots s/c's have been known to lose a bit of boost on the top end whereas a screws will hold that steady all of the way up.
the centrifugal s/c is even more efficient than a screws s/c... actually is usually known as the most efficient compressor... but, it has one major problem. centrifugal s/c's require rpm to make boost so, you're building boost as the rpm goes up. you basically won't reach peak boost until red line, which highly limits the low end ability of centrifugal s/c. it uses the same compressor as a turbocharger but since the centrifugal s/c is limited by the belt it is, in my opinion, not a very good all around boost choice.
a turbocharger is the most efficient of all of the options due to two main reasons... it uses a centrifugal compressor and is ran off of spent energy known as the exhaust. the problem with superchargers is running them off of the belt takes power that could be put to the wheels so this is known as parasitic loss. the turbocharger is commonly said to be free power where this is definitely not the case. turbochargers will increase the exhaust back pressure in the exhaust manifold so it does make the engine use some more power to run but not nearly as much as a supercharger.
also, unlike the centrifugal s/c it is free to spin as fast as it can until the wastegate takes over. a turbocharger will usually spin in excess of 100,000 rpm. on a centrifugal compressor, the higher the rpm the higher the pressure. a centrifugal s/c usually spins at half that making gearing a lot less of an issue. this is done by modifying the compressor wheel. (just had to throw that in for those who want to convert a turbo into an s/c... the gearing would be a major pain).
anyways, the problem with turbochargers is the boost threshold (commonly known as boost lag, which is the wrong term). basically, how long it takes for the turbocharger to produce positive boost. (boost lag is how long the turbo takes to produce boost while already in motion and at or above the boost threshold rpm (at least i think that's how it goes).
boost threshold is dependent on the turbo size, bearing type, boost pressure, and also how efficient your exhaust and intake system flows and possibly more. generally most people look for the 3,000 to 3,500 rpm range to have full boost by. however... with newer turbo technology such as variable nozzle, variable turbine, and variable geometry turbines boost threshold is pretty much totally gone.
basically, with these turbines it would be like having multiple sized turbines at the same time. it basically allows for the spooling of a tiny turbo and the power handling of a large one by changing the way the exhaust goes through the turbine.
as an idea of what this technology can do, go pickup a new issue or car and driver with the new Porsche 911 in it... this thing produced [b]502 ft. lb. of torque at 1,950 rpm[/u]! I definitely can't wait to see this technology start coming out more often like you're seeing ball bearing turbos now. these are definitely the way to go.
they can be bought right now, but you'd be looking to spend in the area to 2,000 to 2,500 and that's used... unless you find an incredible deal.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
t6378tp
4th Generation Classifieds (1995-1999)
11
09-29-2018 04:27 PM