Would you be interested in an intake manifold?
03-24-2006, 04:56 AM
#42
i like my design better than theirs...its more of an OEM look but still has better floe characteristics....i had some things i had to yesterday so i didnt get a chance to mess with it more...Kinetix look like the ruuners are still a little to long...and again i wonder if they have velocity stacks in the plenum......
03-24-2006, 06:05 AM
#43
Supporting Maxima.org Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,204
Originally Posted by MaximaSE96
...yea the angle of the plenum is more for forcing air to the far end of the plenum...if u look at aftermaket supra and skyline sheet metal manifolds its a similar design ....i am gonna tweak it some more tonite and hopefullt get some hard dimensions and do some flow calcs
Intuitively one would think that a more symmetrical design (space permitting of course) would lend itself better to even flow distribution for NA applications.
Are you using CFD software for the flow calcs or doing it by hand?
03-24-2006, 06:35 AM
#44
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 369
Originally Posted by Puppetmaster
Allen, looks like Kinetix's FWD plenum didn't dyno as well as they wanted to and they are looking to "redesign". Here's your chance to jump in the market. 
If I can't get anyone interested in working with me on some dyno testing then this is all a waste of time though. I'd even like to test one on a turbocharged maxima as the gains would surely be even greater for those guys.
If someone would like to meet me in NW arkansas or Tulsa even we could make this work, I think those are the closest dynos to me.
allen
03-24-2006, 07:07 AM
#45
Originally Posted by allen22
That's interesting, love to see the numbers. I'd say their runners are still a little too long and I bet they arent using velocity stacks, to save cost, but that's just a guess.
If I can't get anyone interested in working with me on some dyno testing then this is all a waste of time though. I'd even like to test one on a turbocharged maxima as the gains would surely be even greater for those guys.
If someone would like to meet me in NW arkansas or Tulsa even we could make this work, I think those are the closest dynos to me.
allen
If I can't get anyone interested in working with me on some dyno testing then this is all a waste of time though. I'd even like to test one on a turbocharged maxima as the gains would surely be even greater for those guys.
If someone would like to meet me in NW arkansas or Tulsa even we could make this work, I think those are the closest dynos to me.
allen
If you ever decided to do a 3.0 manifold I would be more than willing to provide before and after dynos.
I have dynos with my stock manifold
Dynos with MEVI
03-24-2006, 08:46 AM
#46
Originally Posted by eng92
It is interesting that you used two example of turbocharged cars to draw design similarities from.
Intuitively one would think that a more symmetrical design (space permitting of course) would lend itself better to even flow distribution for NA applications.
Are you using CFD software for the flow calcs or doing it by hand?
Intuitively one would think that a more symmetrical design (space permitting of course) would lend itself better to even flow distribution for NA applications.
Are you using CFD software for the flow calcs or doing it by hand?
03-24-2006, 09:57 AM
#48
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 369
Originally Posted by MaximaSE96
hey Allen there are prolly going to be more 3.0 volunteers than 3.5 at the moment..most of the 3.5 guys are set on the 350z plenum
allen
03-24-2006, 11:12 AM
#50
Originally Posted by allen22
You may be right. If the 350z plenum works out well then this idea may not be worth while. How many would pay 3-500$ for my proposed IM when they could get the Z IM for 2-300$, probably none.
allen
allen
03-24-2006, 11:29 AM
#51
Originally Posted by MaximaSE96
hey Allen there are prolly going to be more 3.0 volunteers than 3.5 at the moment..most of the 3.5 guys are set on the 350z plenum
03-25-2006, 10:18 AM
#53
Originally Posted by MaximaSE96
i would rather buy a bolt-on than have to cut my hood up
Pretty much...
03-25-2006, 02:10 PM
#55
Originally Posted by virgilio7
200-300 plus cutting the hood plus other things will be the same price
remember this is only the start and for sure a lot of people will show interest if gains are there.
remember this is only the start and for sure a lot of people will show interest if gains are there.
i understand people don't want hoodscoops, but I would sacrifice some looks for speed, and who knows, it might look decent.
The 350z IM is a direct bolt on.
03-25-2006, 06:55 PM
#57
Originally Posted by tavarish
cutting the hood you can do yourself. Other things? like what?
i understand people don't want hoodscoops, but I would sacrifice some looks for speed, and who knows, it might look decent.
The 350z IM is a direct bolt on.
i understand people don't want hoodscoops, but I would sacrifice some looks for speed, and who knows, it might look decent.
The 350z IM is a direct bolt on.
no a direct bolt-on would mean not have to mess with different TB...EGR TUbes....Injectors...stuff like that...i am talking about taking the upper IM off and puttin the new one and and using all existing 3.0 Ish
03-25-2006, 10:05 PM
#59
Originally Posted by MaximaSE96
no a direct bolt-on would mean not have to mess with different TB...EGR TUbes....Injectors...stuff like that...i am talking about taking the upper IM off and puttin the new one and and using all existing 3.0 Ish
TB is exactly the same, bolts up fine. You use the stock injectors of the 3.5, no need to mess with the fuel rail.
03-26-2006, 05:46 AM
#61
I'm interested in Allen's intake manifold...
As for the 350z IM, I would go that route if I had my stock hood....but I don't....and I'm not willing to shave off my already weak & fragile as he!! CF hood...but the whole idea of getting a complete 350z IM for $250ish and another $100 or so for custom straight piping is tempting....
As for the 350z IM, I would go that route if I had my stock hood....but I don't....and I'm not willing to shave off my already weak & fragile as he!! CF hood...but the whole idea of getting a complete 350z IM for $250ish and another $100 or so for custom straight piping is tempting....
03-31-2006, 07:24 AM
#63
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 369
Originally Posted by mdemonte
Allen any updates??
Well, I'm trying to finish the intake on my S14 currently so I can finally get it on the road.
Bottom line, if I decide to do this I'll most likely do one first for a fully prepaid customer. Once it's completed I'll ship it to him/her with an agreement to dyno test as soon as it's installed. That way I don't have 10 deposits for a design that is unproven. You can imagine the crap I'd be in if I had several deposits and the intake didn't dyno very well, I'd have a ton of people wanting their money back.
If it dyno's and drives well and people feel good about the hp gain vs. cost then I could go forward with copies of the original.
allen
03-31-2006, 08:30 AM
#64
Guest
Posts: n/a
Allen, what are you using as a base? If you have a 00VI to go by Id see if you could do similar runner length and/or plenum volume, and bump it up by about 15-20% or so. (what ever the increse is from 3L to 3.5L, it would give a good starting point) I looked at some dynos from 3.5's with VI and they make alot of TQ but because they are trying to pull more air through a 3L designed manifold its just making more TQ, with a varible switch over optimised for 3.5's Im sure it would be a huge advantage. But thats more heavily modifying the 00VI and not a custom manifold
But thats what I was going to do with my 3L, to just move the TQ curve up in the rpm range. Im hoping to have peak power in the 72-7500 range with power up to about 7700. But I need to do more research on the revabiliy of the VQ30 though.
~Alex
But thats what I was going to do with my 3L, to just move the TQ curve up in the rpm range. Im hoping to have peak power in the 72-7500 range with power up to about 7700. But I need to do more research on the revabiliy of the VQ30 though.
~Alex
03-31-2006, 09:51 AM
#65
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 369
Originally Posted by Alex_V
Allen, what are you using as a base? If you have a 00VI to go by Id see if you could do similar runner length and/or plenum volume, and bump it up by about 15-20% or so. (what ever the increse is from 3L to 3.5L, it would give a good starting point) I looked at some dynos from 3.5's with VI and they make alot of TQ but because they are trying to pull more air through a 3L designed manifold its just making more TQ, with a varible switch over optimised for 3.5's Im sure it would be a huge advantage. But thats more heavily modifying the 00VI and not a custom manifold
But thats what I was going to do with my 3L, to just move the TQ curve up in the rpm range. Im hoping to have peak power in the 72-7500 range with power up to about 7700. But I need to do more research on the revabiliy of the VQ30 though.
~Alex
But thats what I was going to do with my 3L, to just move the TQ curve up in the rpm range. Im hoping to have peak power in the 72-7500 range with power up to about 7700. But I need to do more research on the revabiliy of the VQ30 though.
~Alex
This thing is fully custom from the flange on up. I'm using the stock lower intake manifold though.
I'm just experimenting w/ the volume and runner length on this one (the one for my S14). Once it's dyno'd I'll know what to do differently on the next one if anything and those lessons will help on the design of the first Maxima intake.
allen
04-24-2006, 08:17 AM
#68
Newbie - Just Registered
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 6
Got a question... what is stopping a fwd VQ35 owner from using the crawford intake plenum for the rwd vq35? Is it solely based on fitting under the hood? Or is there a major difference in the manifold design between the two?
04-24-2006, 09:15 AM
#69
Originally Posted by nissannx
Got a question... what is stopping a fwd VQ35 owner from using the crawford intake plenum for the rwd vq35? Is it solely based on fitting under the hood? Or is there a major difference in the manifold design between the two?
04-25-2006, 06:33 AM
#72
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 369
Originally Posted by aznsap
how's this project going? you think you'll have something ready for the summer? i'm really hoping you can design one for us 3.0 guys
It's on the burner, just on the back for now.
allen
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
litch
4th Generation Maxima (1995-1999)
123
01-04-2024 07:01 PM
hayne
6th Generation Maxima (2004-2008)
2
10-05-2015 11:53 AM