Q45 TB on 00VI
#1
Q45 TB on 00VI
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.
#3
Originally Posted by nismology
Bigger isn't always better. Stick with stock or get a PF TB if you absolutely MUST go plus-sized.
#4
Originally Posted by pod97654
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
#6
Originally Posted by DasYears
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?
#8
Originally Posted by DasYears
If it doesnt HURT performance, then why not do it?
Originally Posted by pod97654
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.
Originally Posted by 95turbo gxe
And im not sure that you would be able to bore the 00vi out enough to accect the q45tb
#10
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
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f2...3/Dscn1848.jpg
#11
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Tatanko
Because it doesn't HELP performance and it's extra money that could be used towards something else that will actually give gains.
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
#12
Originally Posted by DasYears
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
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
#13
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)
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)
#14
Originally Posted by NmexMAX
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)
BTW, the PF TB can probably flow up around ~600 CFM of air which is plenty of headroom N/A
#15
Originally Posted by NmexMAX
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)
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)
#16
Originally Posted by pod97654
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).
#17
Originally Posted by Tatanko
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.
#18
Originally Posted by slinky87
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
#19
Originally Posted by slinky87
B.S if you take a digital caliper and measure the stock TB is smaller than the UIM.
Originally Posted by pod97654
am i biteing off more then a can chew?
#20
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Tatanko
"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)
#22
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by nismology
Difference is the MAF housing is the bottleneck, not the TB.
#23
Originally Posted by DasYears
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?
#24
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by nismology
There's where your wrong. A bigger MAF housing actually makes more power. A larger TB on an internally stock 3.0 doesn't.
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
#25
Originally Posted by DasYears
ok well i dont need to answer that since you dont have evidence to support here.
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.
#27
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by nismology
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..
Originally Posted by nismology
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.
PS: dont quote my join date, we all know you can be around the .org without joining
#29
Originally Posted by DasYears
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
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
#31
Originally Posted by DandyMax
the PF TB can probably flow up around ~600 CFM of air which is plenty of headroom N/A
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.
Originally Posted by DasYears
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)
Originally Posted by DasYears
i know much more than you credit me for
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.
#32
Originally Posted by DasYears
having TOO open of an intake will hurt your torque
#33
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by NmexMAX
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.
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.
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.
#34
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by NmexMAX
Your 4AT DEK N/A take on 60's is just one of the many places where your credibility takes some damage.
#35
Originally Posted by DasYears
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
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.
#36
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by nismology
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.
yeah i agree here, i was only saying it might be worth a try if he already had it, not that he would feel like someone gave him headers overnight or anything
yeah i agree here, i was only saying it might be worth a try if he already had it, not that he would feel like someone gave him headers overnight or anything
Originally Posted by nismology
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.
#37
Originally Posted by DasYears
i was the first to bore the stock MAF,
Originally Posted by DasYears
not the first to do
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.
#38
Originally Posted by pod97654
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?
#39
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by NmexMAX
Never said that, just in so many words told you to stop trying to act like you know more than what you really do.