02-06 3.5vq thermal spacers - 3pc kit Install
11-05-2011, 02:11 PM
#41
DO NOT DO BUSINESS WITH THIS MEMBER - OWES PEOPLE MONEY
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Greensboro, NC
Posts: 3,468
CJX with that 17hp number, it appears you are comparing some pretty sloppy dyno runs.
I take it these graphs are power vs speed. The run that gets peak HP in the "after" dyno has a huge HP spike that I'm guessing is the result of a transmission shift and is much higher than the rest of the curve. If you compare the actual curves, you're within 0-5hp of the original best run the whole time.
I am guessing you have no runfiles?
11-05-2011, 02:42 PM
#42
i have no run files and even with all the information that i have provided i still see that i have gone way past what any other parts maker has provided. im sorry but i do not know what more i can do.
11-05-2011, 03:16 PM
#43
Not really. I know a larger plenum is better, but how do you measure to determine if you are making it bigger. Putting a big spacer between the elbow and the upper makes it bigger, and putting a bigger spacer between tb and elbow makes it bigger. Or not, depending on how you want to look at it.
If the original 1/4 inch spacer adds X volume, then the new spacer adds X+50% volume.
According to my calculations using solid works, the original 1/4 inch spacer adds 3.3 cubic inches to the plenum, so the 3/8 makes 4.95 cubic inches. Give or take a fraction because I am using the OEM gasket to measure the ovals. If we add the spacer behind the TB then the 1/4 inch spacer adds 1.6 cubic inches and the 3/8 adds 2.46 cubic inches. If we include the ones on the runners, it adds even more. It isn;t a huge amount, but the 3/8 spacers adds 7 cubic inches, and the 1/4 only 3.5 cubic inches.
I want to put a 1" thick spacer between the elbow and the upper to give 13.2 cubic inches.
I know it is not as much as you added with your custom upper, but every little bit helps?
11-05-2011, 03:32 PM
#45
my testing was done before making these available for sale. with all of my products i have yet to recieve 1 single bad review
i wanted to be very sure about what i am stamping my name onto. my 3/8 spacers show a gain of 17hp with 10 increase in torque.The spacers decreased the upper manifold temperature by 33-34 degrees colder than stock.My spacers produce the highest numbers of a spacer kit available
it seems that i am receiving a passion of the christ beating for making products available to maxima owners.
i have been the only other person who has went into making these and to date will be the only company providing real data to show customers what r&d has been done.
i am sorry i didnt release this information sooner but i have also 5 other products that require testing as well. in particular testing for the 7th gen thermal spacers which i am the only person to date who has designed and produced along with the 7thgen bop plates.
bear with me i am the new kid on the block.
before spacers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUqU29oqTSk
after spacers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Wz31SvDVZM
i can not provide more proof than this.
i wanted to be very sure about what i am stamping my name onto. my 3/8 spacers show a gain of 17hp with 10 increase in torque.The spacers decreased the upper manifold temperature by 33-34 degrees colder than stock.My spacers produce the highest numbers of a spacer kit available
it seems that i am receiving a passion of the christ beating for making products available to maxima owners.
i have been the only other person who has went into making these and to date will be the only company providing real data to show customers what r&d has been done.
i am sorry i didnt release this information sooner but i have also 5 other products that require testing as well. in particular testing for the 7th gen thermal spacers which i am the only person to date who has designed and produced along with the 7thgen bop plates.
bear with me i am the new kid on the block.
before spacers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUqU29oqTSk
after spacers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Wz31SvDVZM
i can not provide more proof than this.
11-05-2011, 04:30 PM
#47
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: DA Bronx, NY
Posts: 1,265
Let's see these same dyno's from said other company, you guys continue to beat the CXJup, because you stand behind the other company, guess what, that said other company has NEVER NEVER EVER, posted any dyno charts, here or on the company website. I can understand you standing behing the other guy, but guess what times are changing and products are chaning and evolving, either evolve or become like the dinosaurs.
CXJ has provided the dyno proofs, but i believe the na-sayers will always find faults because they cannot be ojective are one single minded. C'mon guys get serious
CXJ has provided the dyno proofs, but i believe the na-sayers will always find faults because they cannot be ojective are one single minded. C'mon guys get serious
Last edited by HMAX08; 11-05-2011 at 04:32 PM.
11-05-2011, 04:32 PM
#48
DO NOT DO BUSINESS WITH THIS MEMBER - OWES PEOPLE MONEY
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Greensboro, NC
Posts: 3,468
Not really. I know a larger plenum is better, but how do you measure to determine if you are making it bigger. Putting a big spacer between the elbow and the upper makes it bigger, and putting a bigger spacer between tb and elbow makes it bigger. Or not, depending on how you want to look at it.
If the original 1/4 inch spacer adds X volume, then the new spacer adds X+50% volume.
According to my calculations using solid works, the original 1/4 inch spacer adds 3.3 cubic inches to the plenum, so the 3/8 makes 4.95 cubic inches. Give or take a fraction because I am using the OEM gasket to measure the ovals. If we add the spacer behind the TB then the 1/4 inch spacer adds 1.6 cubic inches and the 3/8 adds 2.46 cubic inches. If we include the ones on the runners, it adds even more. It isn;t a huge amount, but the 3/8 spacers adds 7 cubic inches, and the 1/4 only 3.5 cubic inches.
I want to put a 1" thick spacer between the elbow and the upper to give 13.2 cubic inches.
I know it is not as much as you added with your custom upper, but every little bit helps?
If the original 1/4 inch spacer adds X volume, then the new spacer adds X+50% volume.
According to my calculations using solid works, the original 1/4 inch spacer adds 3.3 cubic inches to the plenum, so the 3/8 makes 4.95 cubic inches. Give or take a fraction because I am using the OEM gasket to measure the ovals. If we add the spacer behind the TB then the 1/4 inch spacer adds 1.6 cubic inches and the 3/8 adds 2.46 cubic inches. If we include the ones on the runners, it adds even more. It isn;t a huge amount, but the 3/8 spacers adds 7 cubic inches, and the 1/4 only 3.5 cubic inches.
I want to put a 1" thick spacer between the elbow and the upper to give 13.2 cubic inches.
I know it is not as much as you added with your custom upper, but every little bit helps?
In terms of runner spacers, you're increasing both length and volume, which affects harmonics and power band significantly.
All this is probably a bit off topic, though.
11-05-2011, 04:50 PM
#51
1. Take a visit to said site.
2. Open eyelids.
3. Read.
4. ????????
5. Profit.
This isn't the correct thread for bickering, but I do feel you should be accurate if you're going to post something. The Edit button is on the right.
11-05-2011, 04:51 PM
#53
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: DA Bronx, NY
Posts: 1,265
it is alos my understanding that it is very difficult to dyno a cvt as you cant really match up gear rations 1:1
11-05-2011, 04:52 PM
#54
DO NOT DO BUSINESS WITH THIS MEMBER - OWES PEOPLE MONEY
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Greensboro, NC
Posts: 3,468
Let's see these same dyno's from said other company, you guys continue to beat the CXJup, because you stand behind the other company, guess what, that said other company has NEVER NEVER EVER, posted any dyno charts, here or on the company website. I can understand you standing behing the other guy, but guess what times are changing and products are chaning and evolving, either evolve or become like the dinosaurs.
CXJ has provided the dyno proofs, but i believe the na-sayers will always find faults because they cannot be ojective are one single minded. C'mon guys get serious
CXJ has provided the dyno proofs, but i believe the na-sayers will always find faults because they cannot be ojective are one single minded. C'mon guys get serious
11-05-2011, 05:08 PM
#56
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: DA Bronx, NY
Posts: 1,265
Agreed not the thread to bicker, i was on his site before and did not see those charts so I am big enough boy to take it back and I do.
As i said before, the nasayers will always find fault with the new kit and his results. As per the link I was provided by another member (thank you) I have to look again but I see only one chart thats merged, I would like to see the seperate charts of before and after, but again i will look further for those.
Also, I noticed that the test vehicle is an 02 6mt, and not sure what other mods were on said 6mt
Last edited by HMAX08; 11-05-2011 at 05:13 PM.
And thank you for the link above
11-05-2011, 05:38 PM
#59
Does phenolic material come in different grades? Are there manufacturing considerations regarding quality from one source of phenolic to another?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenolic_resin
(Pool *****? Who knew?)
My point being, if there are two manufacturers (today) for IM spacers that are cut out of phenolic material, how do we know which is of superior quality, and which was chosen because it was cheaper to use? Or maybe it doesn't matter... IDK. Just throwing that out there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenolic_resin
(Pool *****? Who knew?)
My point being, if there are two manufacturers (today) for IM spacers that are cut out of phenolic material, how do we know which is of superior quality, and which was chosen because it was cheaper to use? Or maybe it doesn't matter... IDK. Just throwing that out there.
11-05-2011, 05:53 PM
#60
Isn't that the point of competition? Both try to make their product better then the others and cheaper then each others then there's a point where they both meet there "max" and settle at their "own" price and "quality". Aaron's been working on an "economy" set of spacers using a different quality material that is easier to cut and is driving his prices down so he can offer the spacers for a less price. Cory made his thicker so he seen a higher gain in power. Both are operating like they should and there is nothing wrong with any of it.
So stop your bickering guys and take it as a positive, this means more products for us, and competition lowers prices and results in a "battle" that in the process creates a better product for us.
So stop your bickering guys and take it as a positive, this means more products for us, and competition lowers prices and results in a "battle" that in the process creates a better product for us.
11-05-2011, 05:54 PM
#61
DO NOT DO BUSINESS WITH THIS MEMBER - OWES PEOPLE MONEY
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Greensboro, NC
Posts: 3,468
Aaron compiled his RUNEFILES to show clean, averaged before and after results. You scanned sheets with only 1-2 clean runs on each, then use a false 213whp peak to claim 17whp instead of the ~6whp that is demonstrated by properly viewing the dyno chart. I'm not hating on you, just trying to get the information straight. That is NOT a 17whp gain.
11-05-2011, 05:56 PM
#62
DO NOT DO BUSINESS WITH THIS MEMBER - OWES PEOPLE MONEY
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Greensboro, NC
Posts: 3,468
Hopefully you can understand what this is illustrating. The after runs result in an actual peak of 202whp, with a peak of 196 from the before dyno that gives you a 6whp gain. I picked one additional point after it has shifted to 4th gear just to get 1 more reference where they were matched at about 180WHP.
11-05-2011, 05:57 PM
#63
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: DA Bronx, NY
Posts: 1,265
[quote=2000_MAXIMA_KING;8259551]Isn't that the point of competition? Both try to make their product better then the others and cheaper then each others then there's a point where they both meet there "max" and settle at their "own" price and "quality". Aaron's been working on an "economy" set of spacers using a different quality material that is easier to cut and is driving his prices down so he can offer the spacers for a less price. Cory made his thicker so he seen a higher gain in power. Both are operating like they should and there is nothing wrong with any of it.
So stop your bickering guys and take it as a positive, this means more products for us, and competition lowers prices and results in a "battle" that in the process creates a better product for us.[/quote]
Very well said
So stop your bickering guys and take it as a positive, this means more products for us, and competition lowers prices and results in a "battle" that in the process creates a better product for us.[/quote]
Very well said
11-05-2011, 06:00 PM
#64
DO NOT DO BUSINESS WITH THIS MEMBER - OWES PEOPLE MONEY
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Greensboro, NC
Posts: 3,468
Isn't that the point of competition? Both try to make their product better then the others and cheaper then each others then there's a point where they both meet there "max" and settle at their "own" price and "quality". Aaron's been working on an "economy" set of spacers using a different quality material that is easier to cut and is driving his prices down so he can offer the spacers for a less price. Cory made his thicker so he seen a higher gain in power. Both are operating like they should and there is nothing wrong with any of it.
So stop your bickering guys and take it as a positive, this means more products for us, and competition lowers prices and results in a "battle" that in the process creates a better product for us.
So stop your bickering guys and take it as a positive, this means more products for us, and competition lowers prices and results in a "battle" that in the process creates a better product for us.
11-05-2011, 06:10 PM
#65
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: DA Bronx, NY
Posts: 1,265
Aaron compiled his RUNEFILES to show clean, averaged before and after results. You scanned sheets with only 1-2 clean runs on each, then use a false 213whp peak to claim 17whp instead of the ~6whp that is demonstrated by properly viewing the dyno chart. I'm not hating on you, just trying to get the information straight. That is NOT a 17whp gain.
You say "Aaron compiled his runfiles to show clean averaged before and after results", were you there when these runs were made? did you witness these runs, did you witness the merging of the files, OR are you basing this off the merged file he CREATED for the site. and you are going by the site. if you answer yes, then ignore the rest of this as it holds no merit
If No, how do you know that is what happened and he is NOT using this other results.
I dont want to bicker with you, you seem like a very knowledgeable and imformed max owner. I am just voicing my opinion
11-05-2011, 06:19 PM
#69
11-05-2011, 06:20 PM
#70
11-05-2011, 06:34 PM
#74
DO NOT DO BUSINESS WITH THIS MEMBER - OWES PEOPLE MONEY
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Greensboro, NC
Posts: 3,468
You say "Aaron compiled his runfiles to show clean averaged before and after results", were you there when these runs were made? did you witness these runs, did you witness the merging of the files, OR are you basing this off the merged file he CREATED for the site. and you are going by the site. if you answer yes, then ignore the rest of this as it holds no merit
If No, how do you know that is what happened and he is NOT using this other results.
I dont want to bicker with you, you seem like a very knowledgeable and imformed max owner. I am just voicing my opinion
If No, how do you know that is what happened and he is NOT using this other results.
I dont want to bicker with you, you seem like a very knowledgeable and imformed max owner. I am just voicing my opinion
That's not to say that either party is lying, just that it's a pointless argument that can go back and forth forever. My only gripe here is the misrepresentation of the actual dyno numbers by claiming 17whp gains because of a big HP spike probably resulting from a transmission shift that is irelevent to the actual peak.
11-05-2011, 06:34 PM
#75
11-05-2011, 06:55 PM
#77
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: DA Bronx, NY
Posts: 1,265
How has Cory not proven he is a stand up member?, its just because hes not part of the OLD GUARD and you old timers just cant accept a new guy coming in making waves and have the resources to prove himself and make things happen
11-05-2011, 07:03 PM
#78
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: DA Bronx, NY
Posts: 1,265
I have a feeling you could PM or call Aaron and get answers regarding witnesses and/or all the runfiles for you to inspect for yourself. When it comes down to it there is no way to prove that a set of scanned dyno sheets are any more valid than some DRFs. I could take my car to the dyno, run it how it is for 3 runs, spray a 15 shot of nitrous for 3 runs, then say it was the gains from my new 4" spacer kit.
That's not to say that either party is lying, just that it's a pointless argument that can go back and forth forever. My only gripe here is the misrepresentation of the actual dyno numbers by claiming 17whp gains because of a big HP spike probably resulting from a transmission shift that is irelevent to the actual peak.
That's not to say that either party is lying, just that it's a pointless argument that can go back and forth forever. My only gripe here is the misrepresentation of the actual dyno numbers by claiming 17whp gains because of a big HP spike probably resulting from a transmission shift that is irelevent to the actual peak.
as per calling nwp, I dont need to pm aaron or call him, I am asking you because you are the one make points on his behalf so I wanted your answers, thats all I wanted to point out
On to the other parts of your statement, I can agree with you and I hear and understand your points. As stated we can go back and forth but that gets us nowhere.
Last edited by HMAX08; 11-05-2011 at 07:42 PM.
11-05-2011, 07:25 PM
#80
Putting a spacer in the elbow lengthens the intake, since the elbow isn't distinguished in any way from the intake after the TB is open. It is all pipe with similar flow capability through which air is pulled into the plenum chamber. The actual chamber is what you want to increase in size. Adding a bigger elbow spacer will also complicate the flow pattern of air through the elbow since the top/bottom actually exit in different directions without a spacer. Maybe a BOP spacer!?
In terms of runner spacers, you're increasing both length and volume, which affects harmonics and power band significantly.
All this is probably a bit off topic, though.
In terms of runner spacers, you're increasing both length and volume, which affects harmonics and power band significantly.
All this is probably a bit off topic, though.
Does phenolic material come in different grades? Are there manufacturing considerations regarding quality from one source of phenolic to another?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenolic_resin
(Pool *****? Who knew?)
My point being, if there are two manufacturers (today) for IM spacers that are cut out of phenolic material, how do we know which is of superior quality, and which was chosen because it was cheaper to use? Or maybe it doesn't matter... IDK. Just throwing that out there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenolic_resin
(Pool *****? Who knew?)
My point being, if there are two manufacturers (today) for IM spacers that are cut out of phenolic material, how do we know which is of superior quality, and which was chosen because it was cheaper to use? Or maybe it doesn't matter... IDK. Just throwing that out there.
There are countless types of phenolic. The black phenolic Aaron uses is top quality. Some phenolics are not even waterproof. They even act like a sponge.
Last edited by knight_yyz; 11-05-2011 at 07:38 PM.