Super short SRI... Rethink it!
09-24-2011, 01:48 PM
#81
The Injen is poorly designed, but effective in it's efforts. Either way, you WILL see an increase over stock, though it may be minimal on the 3.5 especially. If you made an intake that was the same diameter throughout that took the same path as the injen, it would fair quite well on the DE-K I think. The Injen just looks like cobbled up pieces of other pre-made intakes they had lying around, they took what they had and put it together.
09-24-2011, 06:35 PM
#83
Nice how did you end up in Aachen? My two brothers are going to school in Aachen, one of them is studying IT at the RWTH. I'm originally from a town like 35 miles from there
09-25-2011, 07:51 AM
#84
So the reason it's not a bad idea? Because the DE-K needs a longer intake, the Injen is about the right size, the only other way to get that length is to go into the fenderwell, which requires moving the battery, cutting into the car, and moving the fuse block, etc. needless to say not a 15 minute job.
So as it is for ease of install and room to work, the Injen's path isn't that unreasonable, perhaps not the MOST ideal, but the best they had to work with for a bolt-on system. And just because it's behind the damn rad doesn't make it that hot, everyone fears that, it's low enough and far enough away that it's not going to be that hot, and CERTAINLY not as hot as the upper portion of the engine bay. Again, it's not the BEST set up, but it's actually a decent location to consider on the DE-K.
09-25-2011, 07:58 AM
#85
Dam tuner...putting the smackdown. Even on the 5.5 Gen....its COLDER than the SRI. I lifted my hood after driving to work and touched the intake...HOT...not to mention when I opened up the hood you can feel all that heat being released in the air past your face. I was thinking about cutting a hole in there (where the battery sits and moving the battery and fuse box and using some kind of tubing from the from fender to direct air right up into that hole to cool the intake....I don't know still thinking about the design. All that dam heat under there can't be good for the SRI at all.....
09-25-2011, 02:56 PM
#86
After finishing my Bachelor, I applied for grad programs in the States and Germany. I knew that my best chance to go abroad for a longer period of time was now, as I have no real responsibilities like a family, debt, etc. Being a somewhat lazy American, I found an English-taught Masters program at RWTH. I only realized once I got here/later that the University is quite good (and well-known in Germany). I should finish up in about a year- we'll see how long I stay...
Wo kommst du genau her?
Last edited by tcb_02_max; 09-25-2011 at 02:58 PM.
09-25-2011, 03:11 PM
#87
These are dangerous waters cause everyone on here loves to bash the Injen and thinks it's downright foolish. The fact is, the air down there IS COLDER . It's not a true CAI, but it's still colder than you'd pickup with a SRI or any other setup that puts the filter near the stock airbox location.
So the reason it's not a bad idea? Because the DE-K needs a longer intake, the Injen is about the right size, the only other way to get that length is to go into the fenderwell, which requires moving the battery, cutting into the car, and moving the fuse block, etc. needless to say not a 15 minute job.
So as it is for ease of install and room to work, the Injen's path isn't that unreasonable, perhaps not the MOST ideal, but the best they had to work with for a bolt-on system. And just because it's behind the damn rad doesn't make it that hot, everyone fears that, it's low enough and far enough away that it's not going to be that hot, and CERTAINLY not as hot as the upper portion of the engine bay. Again, it's not the BEST set up, but it's actually a decent location to consider on the DE-K.
So the reason it's not a bad idea? Because the DE-K needs a longer intake, the Injen is about the right size, the only other way to get that length is to go into the fenderwell, which requires moving the battery, cutting into the car, and moving the fuse block, etc. needless to say not a 15 minute job.
So as it is for ease of install and room to work, the Injen's path isn't that unreasonable, perhaps not the MOST ideal, but the best they had to work with for a bolt-on system. And just because it's behind the damn rad doesn't make it that hot, everyone fears that, it's low enough and far enough away that it's not going to be that hot, and CERTAINLY not as hot as the upper portion of the engine bay. Again, it's not the BEST set up, but it's actually a decent location to consider on the DE-K.
09-25-2011, 03:29 PM
#88
what do you mean the length is way off? it's was stated above that the DEK benefits from the longest intake possible. the inJen doesn't go straight to the reasonator, it loops around first to the right towards the strut tower and then curves around into the radiator area. It is the longest available intake for the DEK.... the rest is sRam (which is funny it means "i ****" in polish) or you'd have to cut into the fenderwell
Sorry but I was just under my car 15 mins ago and I can't agree with you. IMO the injen has a terrible path its just hotter down there then it is near the battery where sri's sit. And on another note the length is way off if you just read the first post about how resonant frequency has an effect on power.
09-25-2011, 08:02 PM
#89
what do you mean the length is way off? it's was stated above that the DEK benefits from the longest intake possible. the inJen doesn't go straight to the reasonator, it loops around first to the right towards the strut tower and then curves around into the radiator area. It is the longest available intake for the DEK.... the rest is sRam (which is funny it means "i ****" in polish) or you'd have to cut into the fenderwell
09-25-2011, 08:15 PM
#90
what do you mean the length is way off? it's was stated above that the DEK benefits from the longest intake possible. the inJen doesn't go straight to the reasonator, it loops around first to the right towards the strut tower and then curves around into the radiator area. It is the longest available intake for the DEK.... the rest is sRam (which is funny it means "i ****" in polish) or you'd have to cut into the fenderwell
You act like the vq30dek and vq35de are way different, the only difference intake wise is the 35de has a longer elbow BUT the total intake length (31") that yields the most power will also yield the most power on the dek. SO yes essentially the deks intake would be a bit longer but thats only the difference between the elbows and the injen is way longer then that and its a poor design point blank.
09-26-2011, 06:18 PM
#91
Said by who??? A member here, or is it written in stone
You act like the vq30dek and vq35de are way different, the only difference intake wise is the 35de has a longer elbow BUT the total intake length (31") that yields the most power will also yield the most power on the dek. SO yes essentially the deks intake would be a bit longer but thats only the difference between the elbows and the injen is way longer then that and its a poor design point blank.
You act like the vq30dek and vq35de are way different, the only difference intake wise is the 35de has a longer elbow BUT the total intake length (31") that yields the most power will also yield the most power on the dek. SO yes essentially the deks intake would be a bit longer but thats only the difference between the elbows and the injen is way longer then that and its a poor design point blank.
That said, the fact that the DE-K's plenum is pretty much non-existant, compared to the very long 3.5 plenum elbow, makes the two intake designs EXTREMELY different.
09-29-2011, 04:46 AM
#92
Said by who??? A member here, or is it written in stone
You act like the vq30dek and vq35de are way different, the only difference intake wise is the 35de has a longer elbow BUT the total intake length (31") that yields the most power will also yield the most power on the dek. SO yes essentially the deks intake would be a bit longer but thats only the difference between the elbows and the injen is way longer then that and its a poor design point blank.
You act like the vq30dek and vq35de are way different, the only difference intake wise is the 35de has a longer elbow BUT the total intake length (31") that yields the most power will also yield the most power on the dek. SO yes essentially the deks intake would be a bit longer but thats only the difference between the elbows and the injen is way longer then that and its a poor design point blank.
09-29-2011, 07:02 AM
#93
Said by who??? A member here, or is it written in stone
You act like the vq30dek and vq35de are way different, the only difference intake wise is the 35de has a longer elbow BUT the total intake length (31") that yields the most power will also yield the most power on the dek. SO yes essentially the deks intake would be a bit longer but thats only the difference between the elbows and the injen is way longer then that and its a poor design point blank.
You act like the vq30dek and vq35de are way different, the only difference intake wise is the 35de has a longer elbow BUT the total intake length (31") that yields the most power will also yield the most power on the dek. SO yes essentially the deks intake would be a bit longer but thats only the difference between the elbows and the injen is way longer then that and its a poor design point blank.
You're missing the vital point, intake length's major variable is the Intake plenum's length (TB to runners), this is what impacts the desired intake length more than nearly ANY other factor.
That said, the fact that the DE-K's plenum is pretty much non-existant, compared to the very long 3.5 plenum elbow, makes the two intake designs EXTREMELY different.
That said, the fact that the DE-K's plenum is pretty much non-existant, compared to the very long 3.5 plenum elbow, makes the two intake designs EXTREMELY different.
I think you're not understanding me, what I'm saying is the total (from plemun to filter) the same length is optimal for the right resonant frequency in order for the power to peak as has been shown. So yes I agree (and actually never disagreed with this point) on a 3.5 the midpipe etc would be shorter then on a dek since we have to make up for our midget plenum elbow.So essentially what you just said reiterated my point in a different way, maybe you read my post wrong or maybe I wrote it in an unclear way
I dont know why you state they are extremely different; they are only slightly different, extremely is a pretty heavy word.This may be slightly off topic since it has more to do with my recent phone conversation with Brian(Cattman)Catts re: headers for my VQ30DE-K. But exhaust and intake theory are somewhat interrelated. Point #1, An engine is simply a fuel burning air pump. Point #2 The 3.0L and 3.5L ARE different, due to displacement, cam, intake changes. Point #3 Therefore a 3.0L has lower volumetric efficiency demands than the 3.5L. Point #4 This explains why the 3.0L shows smaller gains from intake mods i.e. GAB/CAI/SRI etc. and (as stated by Cattman) "A 3.0L will do just fine with a 2.5" exhaust" vs. the major improvements seen with a GAB etc. and 3" exhaust on the 3.5L.
I'm talking from experience and from a calculation that proves my point. Also, yes the 3.0 might not benefit as much from the 3" exhaust as much as a 3.5 but with the right mods and the right tune it will, so just jumping on the bandwagon and saying the 3.5 is better then the 3.0 and benefits better from mods is ridiculous.
Last edited by 2000_MAXIMA_KING; 09-29-2011 at 07:05 AM.
09-29-2011, 11:51 AM
#95
So after reading trough this and other threads similar it seams like the consensus is that the Injen intake is primarily hated for the following reasons
1. Cost - $300 for an intake come on
2. Location - hot enough to negate "cold air location"
3. Length - (on a 3.5 - which is what i have) can be restrictive in the upper rpm band
So I figured I'd build my own CAI into the fender and see how that worked
Solved the cost issue, and the location issue
But now I'm starting to wonder about the length issue. It does feel a bit more "restrictive" in the top end.
I don't want to spend a whole lot more on an intake quite frankly - so i feel a larger MAF with the tuning that would be needed makes it over kill
But would replacing the tubing i have now into the fender with 3.5" piping then reducing it down at the MAF to 3" get the best of both worlds on the cheap? or without the large MAF is it not really worth it?
1. Cost - $300 for an intake come on
2. Location - hot enough to negate "cold air location"
3. Length - (on a 3.5 - which is what i have) can be restrictive in the upper rpm band
So I figured I'd build my own CAI into the fender and see how that worked
Solved the cost issue, and the location issue
But now I'm starting to wonder about the length issue. It does feel a bit more "restrictive" in the top end.
I don't want to spend a whole lot more on an intake quite frankly - so i feel a larger MAF with the tuning that would be needed makes it over kill
But would replacing the tubing i have now into the fender with 3.5" piping then reducing it down at the MAF to 3" get the best of both worlds on the cheap? or without the large MAF is it not really worth it?
09-29-2011, 02:10 PM
#96
Dont know why you think this basic info is relevant at all or why I would care what Cattman told you I'm talking from experience and from a calculation that proves my point. Also, yes the 3.0 might not benefit as much from the 3" exhaust as much as a 3.5 but with the right mods and the right tune it will, so just jumping on the bandwagon and saying the 3.5 is better then the 3.0 and benefits better from mods is ridiculous.
I'm talking from experience and from a calculation that proves my point. Also, yes the 3.0 might not benefit as much from the 3" exhaust as much as a 3.5 but with the right mods and the right tune it will, so just jumping on the bandwagon and saying the 3.5 is better then the 3.0 and benefits better from mods is ridiculous.
09-29-2011, 02:31 PM
#97
No need to get an attitude! First of all, I'm NOT saying either engine is better or worse. Simply that they have different working parameters, ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL. Also that the VQ30DE-K is LESS prone to power loss due to reduced intake/exhaust flow. Cattman's comment tends to confirm that. And that's why I included it.
09-29-2011, 02:41 PM
#98
09-29-2011, 06:51 PM
#99
Dont see how I missed it since its right there in red I think you're not understanding me, what I'm saying is the total (from plemun to filter) the same length is optimal for the right resonant frequency in order for the power to peak as has been shown. So yes I agree (and actually never disagreed with this point) on a 3.5 the midpipe etc would be shorter then on a dek since we have to make up for our midget plenum elbow.
So essentially what you just said reiterated my point in a different way, maybe you read my post wrong or maybe I wrote it in an unclear way I dont know why you state they are extremely different; they are only slightly different, extremely is a pretty heavy word.
I think you're not understanding me, what I'm saying is the total (from plemun to filter) the same length is optimal for the right resonant frequency in order for the power to peak as has been shown. So yes I agree (and actually never disagreed with this point) on a 3.5 the midpipe etc would be shorter then on a dek since we have to make up for our midget plenum elbow.So essentially what you just said reiterated my point in a different way, maybe you read my post wrong or maybe I wrote it in an unclear way
I dont know why you state they are extremely different; they are only slightly different, extremely is a pretty heavy word.Please take the time to read this, i think it should shed some light about just how big of a difference a different IM has.
http://www.team-integra.net/forum/bl...culations.html
The fact is, you're missing this whole thing. I am not at home and can't find the PROPER calculations to find out ideal intake length, but the ones posted are NOT CORRECT.
As I said, The most important variable in the calculation is the length of the intake after the TB, to the Plenum/collector. To clarify here's a pretty picture:
Now, I forget the actual length of that elbow but it doesn't really matter, you'll get the point. Compare that length to this:
To re-itterate it one more time, THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT VARIABLE IN YOUR CALCULATIONS. Having an EXTREME difference in the length before the plenum creates a very different desired Intake length from the TB to the filter, which is the length we're dealing with.
I hope you understand why I stressed what I said so much, and I also hope you're a little more enlightened into why I stand by my comment that a long intake is preferred for the DE-K, and a shorter intake for the 3.5.
Before you say it, I did catch your comment about 'overall length', and as such, you're correct, the ideal overall length to the Plenum is pretty much the same when comparing these two engines, but the TB cannot be overlooked in the resonance calculations, it's a major factor. It's not a coincedence that the overall lengths are close, but keep in mind when calculating ideal intake length you cannot do it the way you are, you have to incorporate the length before and after the TB differently, can't just add them together.
So after reading trough this and other threads similar it seams like the consensus is that the Injen intake is primarily hated for the following reasons
1. Cost - $300 for an intake come on
2. Location - hot enough to negate "cold air location"
3. Length - (on a 3.5 - which is what i have) can be restrictive in the upper rpm band
So I figured I'd build my own CAI into the fender and see how that worked
Solved the cost issue, and the location issue
But now I'm starting to wonder about the length issue. It does feel a bit more "restrictive" in the top end.
I don't want to spend a whole lot more on an intake quite frankly - so i feel a larger MAF with the tuning that would be needed makes it over kill
But would replacing the tubing i have now into the fender with 3.5" piping then reducing it down at the MAF to 3" get the best of both worlds on the cheap? or without the large MAF is it not really worth it?
1. Cost - $300 for an intake come on
2. Location - hot enough to negate "cold air location"
3. Length - (on a 3.5 - which is what i have) can be restrictive in the upper rpm band
So I figured I'd build my own CAI into the fender and see how that worked
Solved the cost issue, and the location issue
But now I'm starting to wonder about the length issue. It does feel a bit more "restrictive" in the top end.
I don't want to spend a whole lot more on an intake quite frankly - so i feel a larger MAF with the tuning that would be needed makes it over kill
But would replacing the tubing i have now into the fender with 3.5" piping then reducing it down at the MAF to 3" get the best of both worlds on the cheap? or without the large MAF is it not really worth it?
As I just went over, the ideal intake length for a stock 3.5 IM runs into the corner of the engine bay, for a DE-K, it needs to go down by the rad or into the fenderwell.
09-29-2011, 07:38 PM
#100
All the discussions on resonance tuning are interesting. I'm curious on how well the Nissan engineers calculated this factor into the OEM air-box/snorkel setup on a VQ30DE-K vs. VQ35DE? From your description, the OEM setup appears to approximate the optimal length/orientation stated for a DE-K.
Last edited by BobPezz; 09-29-2011 at 07:47 PM.
09-29-2011, 07:47 PM
#101
All the discussions on resonance tuning are interesting. I'm curious on how well the Nissan engineers calculated this factor into the OEM air-box/snorkel setup on a VQ30DE-K vs. VQ35DE? From your description, the OEM setup appears to approximate the optimal length/orientation stated for a DE-K.
09-29-2011, 07:54 PM
#102
I guess what I meant to ask was. Does the OEM setup use any resonance tuning and if so, how close is it to being a good design?
09-29-2011, 08:01 PM
#103
I see what your saying and I understand that I bet we can find a hundred different calcs for making the most optimal intake but in this thread we have the one the OP posted so thats the one I was using. DO I think there will be a great deal of difference if I used the different sets of calcs? NO I think that I would end up with a similar result.
When you mention to treat the length before TB different you have to remember basically for a dek there is no before
But I do see what your saying and I don't disagree at all but I feel the calc in this OP does a good job of estimating a pretty accurate length compared to the other more sophisticated calcs that yield a similar result. But maybe I'm wrong if you have calculated and came up with a different length and diameter then by all means post it and I'll accept it as well.
When you mention to treat the length before TB different you have to remember basically for a dek there is no before
But I do see what your saying and I don't disagree at all but I feel the calc in this OP does a good job of estimating a pretty accurate length compared to the other more sophisticated calcs that yield a similar result. But maybe I'm wrong if you have calculated and came up with a different length and diameter then by all means post it and I'll accept it as well.
09-29-2011, 08:02 PM
#104
09-30-2011, 08:52 AM
#105
What you've done is a great route for the DE-K, and will be beneficial for a stock IM in the 3.5, but you'd be better off bringing the filter back into the corner of the engine bay where the battery is now. Then if you want the Cold air you can connect a hose to the end of a pop-charger style filter, or better yet, build an 'ice-box' as has been discussed earlier.
As I just went over, the ideal intake length for a stock 3.5 IM runs into the corner of the engine bay, for a DE-K, it needs to go down by the rad or into the fenderwell.
As I just went over, the ideal intake length for a stock 3.5 IM runs into the corner of the engine bay, for a DE-K, it needs to go down by the rad or into the fenderwell.
I agree however the question was more would the increase in diameter to a 3.5" intake pipe up to the MAF make up for the restrictiveness that my intake length may be experiencing
That way i get the best of both worlds - colder air and enough of it
09-30-2011, 05:43 PM
#106
No is the short answer, the difference a 1/2 inch makes is equivalent to about 2"-3" of length, not nearly enough to make it worthwhile.
01-07-2012, 10:59 PM
#107
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Manassas, VA
Posts: 21
Ok...even though I'm late to the conversation...I have a 2001 and it has been confirmed in this post and others that for the 2000-01 engines works best with a place racing or "true-cai" custom intake. I'm planning on using the LRMAF with 3.5" diameter piping so my "dumb" questions are (maybe I've completely missed it in other posts) 1) what would be the lengths I would use for the midpipe and pipe from the MAF housing to the filter? 2) What is the purpose of the midpipe? I've read in another thread that some people live by the midpipe and others don't. If I understood TunerMaxx does the midpipe help to make up the plenum length? 3) would I need a MAF adapter? looking at sparks doesnt seem that I do. AND FINALLY 4) Since I have a 2001 what would I do with temperature sensor from the stock intake?
Somebody please help out the young grasshopper!
Somebody please help out the young grasshopper!
01-08-2012, 05:49 AM
#109
Ok...even though I'm late to the conversation...I have a 2001 and it has been confirmed in this post and others that for the 2000-01 engines works best with a place racing or "true-cai" custom intake. I'm planning on using the LRMAF with 3.5" diameter piping so my "dumb" questions are (maybe I've completely missed it in other posts) 1) what would be the lengths I would use for the midpipe and pipe from the MAF housing to the filter? 2) What is the purpose of the midpipe? I've read in another thread that some people live by the midpipe and others don't. If I understood TunerMaxx does the midpipe help to make up the plenum length? 3) would I need a MAF adapter? looking at sparks doesnt seem that I do. AND FINALLY 4) Since I have a 2001 what would I do with temperature sensor from the stock intake?
Somebody please help out the young grasshopper!
Somebody please help out the young grasshopper!
01-08-2012, 06:02 AM
#110
Ok...even though I'm late to the conversation...I have a 2001 and it has been confirmed in this post and others that for the 2000-01 engines works best with a place racing or "true-cai" custom intake. I'm planning on using the LRMAF with 3.5" diameter piping so my "dumb" questions are (maybe I've completely missed it in other posts) 1) what would be the lengths I would use for the midpipe and pipe from the MAF housing to the filter? 2) What is the purpose of the midpipe? I've read in another thread that some people live by the midpipe and others don't. If I understood TunerMaxx does the midpipe help to make up the plenum length? 3) would I need a MAF adapter? looking at sparks doesnt seem that I do. AND FINALLY 4) Since I have a 2001 what would I do with temperature sensor from the stock intake?
Somebody please help out the young grasshopper!
Somebody please help out the young grasshopper!
Overall, getting a larger bore and different MAF to work properly to acheive optimum flow on the DE-K is going to be VERY difficult. The money and time you'll invest would negate any potential gains, expecially since you're going to be using the stock Intake manifold. The whole idea of going BB on the DE-K seems silly to me.
01-08-2012, 06:18 AM
#111
Open breathers work best on full race N/A and F/I(Blower) engines.
01-08-2012, 06:29 AM
#112
I don't think anyone's tried a LRMAF and 3.5" on the DE-K and dyno'd. As far as I'm concerned it's foolish on the DE-K. The main reason being the DE-K doesn't have the electronic controls the 3.5 does. It has a CABLE Throttle body and intake temp sensor doesn't control much.
Overall, getting a larger bore and different MAF to work properly to acheive optimum flow on the DE-K is going to be VERY difficult. The money and time you'll invest would negate any potential gains, expecially since you're going to be using the stock Intake manifold. The whole idea of going BB on the DE-K seems silly to me.
Overall, getting a larger bore and different MAF to work properly to acheive optimum flow on the DE-K is going to be VERY difficult. The money and time you'll invest would negate any potential gains, expecially since you're going to be using the stock Intake manifold. The whole idea of going BB on the DE-K seems silly to me.
01-08-2012, 10:25 AM
#113
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Manassas, VA
Posts: 21
By the way, I have manual transmission and I still don't know what to do with the temp sensor
01-08-2012, 12:05 PM
#114
Temp sensor can bemounted externally (not in the intake stream). Mine is hanging by the battery. Closest the the filter = better.
I recommend a 6" filter and velocity stack (stack fits inside filter on pipe end). Do a google/ebay search for it.
I recommend a 6" filter and velocity stack (stack fits inside filter on pipe end). Do a google/ebay search for it.
01-08-2012, 02:01 PM
#115
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Manassas, VA
Posts: 21
cool beans...thanks
01-10-2012, 02:19 PM
#118
01-10-2012, 02:29 PM
#119
Not sure, I have one that was custom made (76.2mm). There's also a Mustang Bosch unit that is 77mm (3.03" ID) Also, the JWT POP is 3" ID also (velocity stack is anyway).
Also, we are all probably used to seeing general "pipe" made in 3" OD, etc, but MAF's are different, like I said, I have a 76.2mm unit, have seen a 77mm unit, and also have the 82mm unit, all MAF housings, not just a peice of pipe, but an actual MAF housing with the A33 MAF sensor bolt pattern.
Also, we are all probably used to seeing general "pipe" made in 3" OD, etc, but MAF's are different, like I said, I have a 76.2mm unit, have seen a 77mm unit, and also have the 82mm unit, all MAF housings, not just a peice of pipe, but an actual MAF housing with the A33 MAF sensor bolt pattern.
01-10-2012, 05:49 PM
#120
^ That's really good to know, as long as you can keep the MAF length the same, or re-tune. I suppose a tune would be needed either way but at least it would work.
And supposing you can find 3" ID piping for the rest of the intake.
I guess if they sell 3.25" piping that would likely work (1/8" wall x 2 = 1/4")
And supposing you can find 3" ID piping for the rest of the intake.
I guess if they sell 3.25" piping that would likely work (1/8" wall x 2 = 1/4")