Heres the scoop, I was in the u-pull it junk yard last Saturday and found a complete 1992 Q45. So I pulled the brakes, but I was looking under the hood and I saw how big the tb was. I currently have everything I need for my 00VI, but wanted to buy the pathy tb, but now i am wondering if I could use the one from the Q45. Has anyone tried the tb swap? does anyone have any info on this tb? I didn’t even get a chance to measure the inlet, so it this point i am kinda guessing. O and I will be tuning my 00VI with an V-AFR. Advice is appreciated.

 

Bigger isn't always better. Stick with stock or get a PF TB if you absolutely MUST go plus-sized.

 

You think it would be to much air? i will be runing the lower im with the 5th gen injectors so i though the more air i could feed the better

 

The TB isn't really a bottleneck to begin with so going with a larger one won't be of major benefit like you think it will. Throttle response might improve though. Either way, a Q45 TB is DEFINITELY overkill. Like I said, if you must go larger, go with the 01-02 pathfinder TB.

 

the question is would it hurt performance? you would obviously need to taper the inlet to the UIM so that it flows cleanly. if it doesnt HURT performance, then why not do it?

 

Yes thats a given. just like you have to for the pathy tb. and if the tb is not a bottle neck when why have others claimed to have made gains by useing the bigger 01-02 pathfinder TB.

 

Na I dont think you would out flow the pathfinder tb. And im not sure that you would be able to bore the 00vi out enough to accect the q45tb

 

Because it doesn't HELP performance and it's extra money that could be used towards something else that will actually give gains.
Not saying you're wrong, but I'd like to see proof. My guess is that somewhere along the line someone dyno'd like 2 WHP more on a supercharged car or something.
That was my thought. The PF TB is already pretty big. To get the most out of even a PF TB you'd need to clear out a lot of material on the inside of the neck of the manifold. The Q TB might actually be as big as the OUTER diameter of the neck of the manifold

 

Without boost or VQ35, the stock TB is fine, unless you are crazy and running 12s or something then MAYBE.

 

Compared with the 70mm Pathy TB, the Q45 90mm TB is HUGE! That's a bore of over 3 1/2 inches.


http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f2...3/Dscn1848.jpg

 

i thought he had actually picked up the TB at the junkyard, i dont think it would be worth it to guy buy it.

with the added size i wouldnt think you could get it to bolt up to the IM so this would be a moot point (although in the picture it looks like the bolt holes might even line up). either way, i wouldnt go out and buy one, i might try it if i already had one in my possesion though

 

Yea, i found one in the junkyard, so i think the cost is about $15 (gota love harry's). but the other question is would i also need the mass air sensor from the Q45 if i end up useing the TB?

 

For obvious reasons, you would want to try and keep ID's consistent. in this case, I'm not entirely familiar with the MAF from a Q45. But perhaps a radically oversized unit would work with your existing sensor.

IMO, before proceeding(i.e. MAF thoughts) you should take precise measurements now that you have the TB in hand and see if it will actually work w/the 00VI(port match)

 

I'm guessing there's not enough wall left on the 00VI... the PF TB is tight as it is...

BTW, the PF TB can probably flow up around ~600 CFM of air which is plenty of headroom N/A

 

I am thinking i am going to make a tapered adapter plate for the new tp in addition to porting out my 00VI. I will have to look next time i am in the junk yard to see if the plugs on the mass air are even similar (same amount of wires and such).

 

If tapering is involved, you're throwing size advantage out the window, plain and simple. EVERYTHING must be the size of the throttlebody's ID to gain it's advantages. That includes: all intake piping, the MAF, air filter, throttlebody neck on the manifold, couplers, etc.

 

B.S if you take a digital caliper and measure the stock TB is smaller than the UIM. Using a 90mm TB is overkill for any v6 unless your runnign 30lbs of boost or you have a roots type supercharger. 70mm is perfect for any n/a or miild CSC or turbo app. A bigger MAf is ideal if youre maxing out your currnt setup or you run excessivley rich. I would go with the 300zx maf instead though to be honest best of luck on your build

 

Well i was just looking into this option because it was cheap, and i wanted run the pathy tb, but i figured i could pull this setup off and get the same resault for less money with more options for future adds. am i biteing off more then a can chew?

 

I've done this, actually, but I fail to see how it makes what I'm saying "B.S." What I say stands true. Ever heard of the phrase (this isn't exact words as I don't remember them) but something like, "it can only be as big as it's smallest part"? If you taper something, the SMALL end of whatever is tapered is now the largest part you have. Making the big end bigger doesn't help (at least not in terms of making extra power).
Essentially, yes - at least with the Q TB. Pathy would be ok if you were willing to do some porting work. It sounds like you don't have a Pathy TB available in the same price range, though, unfortunately.

 

this is not completely true...think LRMAF

 

Difference is the MAF housing is the bottleneck, not the TB.

 

then why go to 82mm instead of 72mm? the MAF and stock MAF are so close to the same size its not a big difference. what is the bottleneck after the MAF is bigger?

 

There's where your wrong. A bigger MAF housing actually makes more power. A larger TB on an internally stock 3.0 doesn't.

Depends on which application you're referring to.

 

ok well i dont need to answer that since you dont have evidence to support here.

if the taper is done well, ie: smooth and circular, there shouldnt be much of a volume loss but the velocity of entering air would increase, maybe or maybe not beneficial.

either way it doesnt really matter, he should go BUY the TB, if it was free it would be worth a try

 

To tell you the truth, I don't feel the need to dig up old threads just to prove to you that I know what I'm talking about. There have been dyno's through the years that say that adding a PF TB to a 3.0 doesn't add much power at all. It adds some throttle response though. You honestly think this is the first time this has been brought up/discussed? Please...


Feel free to do your own research. I'll not spoon-feed anyone in this forum, especially not one with a "I've only been around for a short while but I still think I know more than you all" attitude you're currently displaying.

 

back on topic though we all can agree a 90mm TB is to big period. LS1's and Ls7's UPGRADE to a 90mm TB............

 

i certainly dont think its the first time its been discussed. you say its different from MAF gains but you say that the type are the same. most with the BBMAF are saying there is a much more dramatic increase in throttle response than redline power. peak numbers really dont mean much in the end anyway, its whats under the curve that matters (midrange, throttle response type stuff)

i dont need to be spoon fed thanks, and i know much more than you credit me for. ive been here for over two years and have read a lot of threads so i have a pretty reasonable basis for just about everything i post. sad though that you think because youve been here for longer you know more. i guess it makes sense though, we all know the 40 yr old mentally handicapped man knows more than the 22 year old... it is the .org standard though, join date=intelligence

PS: dont quote my join date, we all know you can be around the .org without joining

 

yes, i think we all agree here

 

I do have an internally stock 3.0 but my thinking is the better the motor can breathe the better it will run. I already can move more volume on my exhaust side (ie. headers and full exhaust) then i can on the intake side. So my thinking is that just because the huge tb is there and i might not use all of it's potential I will now be able to out flow my exhaust with the amount of air i can feed in. Am i wrong in assuming the engine will only draw what it needs? i am not sure i see the harm if i install correctly.

 

having TOO open of an intake will hurt your torque

 

We should run through some calculations to see what else can be derived here, i.e. VE for a VQ30DE/K.

Dandy has the highest recorded dyno as well as the best recorded ET re: VQ30. So, unless you're radically doing something else, right now, the focus should be on known gaining mods. Get all those done, and then go to something more radical since we know the TB is not the bottleneck.

Myself and Matt are the only ones that I know of that claimed much better throttle response, but then again, there are only 3 people here with BBMAF data, and 2/3rds of them are tuned, with that said, the one person that is untuned stated nothing about throttle response, perhaps because of no said tuning.

Your 4AT DEK N/A take on 60's is just one of the many places where your credibility takes some damage. That coupled with your persistance on trying to validate your point re: I don't have to be a long time member to know this.

1.) There are people taht joined way back, but only come on every few months, if that. Your point is semi-valid there BUT:

2.) There are members that have been here nearly everyday since their join date, in which case, you cannot posses more knowledge or experience than them, even if you tried.

3.) You have yet to post/perform something that hasn't been done before, and when a repost comes up, you come in and act like you were the first to perform it, do not provide data, but provide an opinion that typically goes against the data already out there.

 

It sounds like everyone is almost in agreement. i should put the Q tb on ebay and just track down a pathy even if it's expensive. The tb was the only thing holding me back from installing my 00VI, but everyone agrees the Q tb will only hurt the performance of my swap?

 

only the members that joined a number of years ago AND are here every day in this forum qualify here, which there arent THAT many. i am here everyday and have been sine my 2k2 was 2 yrs old.

i would love nothing more than to post some supporting, refuting data than what has been posted already trust me, its the whole having the ability to GET data thats the problem. i can only post based on what i have seen and what SHOULD happen. (we all know that sometimes should and do are different). i was the first to bore the stock MAF, what were you the first to do? it certainly wasnt headers on a 3.5 4AT, exhaust on a 3.5 4AT, not the LRMAF, not VAFC tune, not the SSIM, not lighter wheels. i understand what you are saying here, but very few members actually pioneer a completely new idea, most just use that idea, some make little variations on it. although i will say that you do a lot of testing of variations to provide data on setups where the originator either didnt or didnt have the ability to gather the data.

 

hey, just cause its a stretch doesnt mean you CANT do it. just ask bbp, he just pulled a 2.1 60' in his friends stock 4th gen 4at. its stock NA 3.0, thats all you need to know

 

Response is much improved yes, but there is also a tangible increase in power throughout the rev-range. There's a recent thread in this forum that proves that. Back-to-back runs were made and power was gained everywhere. Point is, a Pathfinder TB hardly makes extra power on a bolt-on 3.0 so I think it's safe to say that a Q45 TB won't either.

Understood. Heh................

Ok now you're quoting my age. What does that prove?

In any case, I've read some of your posts and you just come across as a know-it-all when you really don't. That's all.

 

i learn something new on here every day, some days its a lot more useful info than other days, but always something

 

You did it after 96sleeper did it to his stock MAF and nearly a year after JSutter did it. Both A32's, but still on a VQ.

I NEVER said I was the 1st to do anything, I learned from others, still aside the point. If you could find where I was bragging what I did first, I will gladly eat my words. Never said that, just in so many words told you to stop trying to act like you know more than what you really do. If I do not know more than a subject that is asked about, I post OTHER members links, members who DO know more about it than me. As if I tried explaining it I would probably trip over my own words because I simply do not know it well enough to ACT like I do. If you've been browsing the forums that long, you would see this.

But, for sharts and gangles, who else had an LRMAF on their car before I did, and actually got it to work properly? Anyone else have an F-spec TS w/ Z33 CVTC, that can prove it?

I wont take credit for the first to do it because Matt and Mike helped in this journey, but my car was the first to have them installed and prove certain points.

 

When everyone is done bashing, does the mob agree with the above statment?

 

i dont know less than what i was posting. there are hundreds of threads on here that i stay out of, because i do not know what i need to enter. i know/knew what i was talking about and comparing. really our opinions werent much different, so im not sure what youre so angered about

 

yeah, that would be your best choice