All Motor All Motor Advanced Performance. Talk about Engine Swaps, Internal Engine work. Not your basic Y pipe and Intake Information.
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by: CARiD

3.5 coolent line plug?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Apr 6, 2009 | 06:58 AM
  #1  
95stillenmax's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
iTrader: (11)
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,342
From: SE Tennessee
3.5 coolent line plug?

what is everyone using to plug the coolent line for the 3.5 oil pan application
Old Apr 6, 2009 | 12:08 PM
  #2  
chillin014's Avatar
Senior Member
iTrader: (67)
 
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 8,601
From: houston tx
i'm curious as well. I think on mine I've got a bolt in the end of a hose
Old Apr 6, 2009 | 12:30 PM
  #3  
happy4444's Avatar
Senior Member
iTrader: (34)
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,188
From: dirty jerzy
im confused what you guys are referring to. the only line that flows coolant near the pan is the oil cooler line near the pan... and why r u pluging them?
Old Apr 6, 2009 | 12:49 PM
  #4  
95stillenmax's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
iTrader: (11)
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,342
From: SE Tennessee
Originally Posted by happy4444
im confused what you guys are referring to. the only line that flows coolant near the pan is the oil cooler line near the pan... and why r u pluging them?
I was reading some of the forums and I read that when you use the 3.5 oil pan there is a coolent line somewhere you have to plug
Old Apr 6, 2009 | 01:13 PM
  #5  
happy4444's Avatar
Senior Member
iTrader: (34)
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,188
From: dirty jerzy
Originally Posted by 95stillenmax
I was reading some of the forums and I read that when you use the 3.5 oil pan there is a coolent line somewhere you have to plug
i didnt plug any coolant lines and i used the 3.5 pan in my swap. theyre probly referring to the oil cooler on the filter that has coolant running through it. if you dont use the oil cooler (idk why u wouldnt) u would have to plug the line
Old Apr 6, 2009 | 02:26 PM
  #6  
grey99max's Avatar
LandShark has Cosworth
iTrader: (12)
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,327
From: Topeka, KS
Originally Posted by happy4444
i didnt plug any coolant lines and i used the 3.5 pan in my swap. theyre probly referring to the oil cooler on the filter that has coolant running through it. if you dont use the oil cooler (idk why u wouldnt) u would have to plug the line
Well, if you're using traction bars you can't use the 3.5 pan, 'cause the filter sticks out way too far for that.
Old Apr 6, 2009 | 05:55 PM
  #7  
chillin014's Avatar
Senior Member
iTrader: (67)
 
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 8,601
From: houston tx
Originally Posted by happy4444
i didnt plug any coolant lines and i used the 3.5 pan in my swap. theyre probly referring to the oil cooler on the filter that has coolant running through it. if you dont use the oil cooler (idk why u wouldnt) u would have to plug the line
its easier to use the 3.0 oil pan and I dont think you can use the oil cooler with that pan. I forget why exactly people prefer to use the 3.0 pan, i believe to prevent some sort of interference with a cross member or something.
Old Apr 6, 2009 | 07:37 PM
  #8  
grey99max's Avatar
LandShark has Cosworth
iTrader: (12)
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,327
From: Topeka, KS
Originally Posted by chillin014
its easier to use the 3.0 oil pan and I dont think you can use the oil cooler with that pan. I forget why exactly people prefer to use the 3.0 pan, i believe to prevent some sort of interference with a cross member or something.
Something about how the rear crank sensor on the 3.0 pan lines up with the 3.0 flywheel, I believe..
Old Apr 6, 2009 | 07:37 PM
  #9  
happy4444's Avatar
Senior Member
iTrader: (34)
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,188
From: dirty jerzy
Originally Posted by chillin014
its easier to use the 3.0 oil pan and I dont think you can use the oil cooler with that pan. I forget why exactly people prefer to use the 3.0 pan, i believe to prevent some sort of interference with a cross member or something.
hmm...i had no interference with cross members either. the only benefit is that the hole for the lower crank sensor for the flywheel is dead on insead of shaving down the pan by guesstimating
Old Apr 6, 2009 | 07:38 PM
  #10  
happy4444's Avatar
Senior Member
iTrader: (34)
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,188
From: dirty jerzy
lol u beat me to it by a few seconds grey
Old Apr 6, 2009 | 07:48 PM
  #11  
chillin014's Avatar
Senior Member
iTrader: (67)
 
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 8,601
From: houston tx
Originally Posted by happy4444
hmm...i had no interference with cross members either. the only benefit is that the hole for the lower crank sensor for the flywheel is dead on insead of shaving down the pan by guesstimating
Ahh, i was mistaken. I thought i remember reading that too but thought that it was something to do with the 6 speed swap. How big of a deal is shaving down the pan? Do you just do it until the motor starts/gets a reading or how does that work?
Old Apr 6, 2009 | 08:10 PM
  #12  
happy4444's Avatar
Senior Member
iTrader: (34)
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,188
From: dirty jerzy
Originally Posted by chillin014
Ahh, i was mistaken. I thought i remember reading that too but thought that it was something to do with the 6 speed swap. How big of a deal is shaving down the pan? Do you just do it until the motor starts/gets a reading or how does that work?

shaving down the outside of the pan isnt bad at all. i used a grinder and it came out fine. in no way can u use a file unless u have 45+ min to kill lol.

as for the sensor..
the sensor usually fits in the hole but it can be moved around if it doesnt line up w the teeth on the flywheel. i adjusted mine to one side by shaving down the plastic bolt hole on the sensor itself.

check that the sensor lines up w the teeth when the motor and trans are out of the car so u dont have to shove ur head near the rad to see if it is close... i had to do this and it sucked lol

Last edited by happy4444; Apr 6, 2009 at 08:14 PM.
Old Apr 6, 2009 | 08:20 PM
  #13  
chillin014's Avatar
Senior Member
iTrader: (67)
 
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 8,601
From: houston tx
thanks. ehhh. that sounds sketchy to me. Not saying it cant work perfectly fine, but I wouldn't do it to someone else's car unless they wanted me to. I'm surprised you cant just use the 3.5 sensor.
Old Apr 7, 2009 | 04:05 AM
  #14  
Jime's Avatar
Banned
iTrader: (10)
 
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,919
From: https://t.me/pump_upp
Shaving for the sensor is a lot easier than swapping the oil pan. You do use the 3.5 sensor if you do an ecu swap but if you keep the 3.0 timing stuff the sensor is shorter thus requiring the shaving.

I don't know why more people don't go the full ECU route, I think its easier than doing all the timing equipment swap. The variable came timing does make an appreciable difference to the bottom end power. Can you say 1.58 60' in an auto.

Last edited by Jime; Apr 7, 2009 at 04:30 AM.
Old Apr 7, 2009 | 06:23 AM
  #15  
95stillenmax's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
iTrader: (11)
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,342
From: SE Tennessee
any pics of sensor setups ?
Old Apr 7, 2009 | 07:29 AM
  #16  
chillin014's Avatar
Senior Member
iTrader: (67)
 
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 8,601
From: houston tx
Originally Posted by Jime
Shaving for the sensor is a lot easier than swapping the oil pan. You do use the 3.5 sensor if you do an ecu swap but if you keep the 3.0 timing stuff the sensor is shorter thus requiring the shaving.

I don't know why more people don't go the full ECU route, I think its easier than doing all the timing equipment swap. The variable came timing does make an appreciable difference to the bottom end power. Can you say 1.58 60' in an auto.
wiring can be intimidating. I didnt see a very thorough write-up for this route otherwise I would have considered pursuing it more. I still may in the future though.
Old Apr 7, 2009 | 08:36 PM
  #17  
happy4444's Avatar
Senior Member
iTrader: (34)
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,188
From: dirty jerzy
Originally Posted by chillin014
wiring can be intimidating. I didnt see a very thorough write-up for this route otherwise I would have considered pursuing it more. I still may in the future though.
^same thoughts. i felt like if i went and rewired everything to that extent on my 4th gen, i was better off just buying a 6spd 3.5 5th gen. i decided to use the emanage ultimate instead. hopefully everything works out...
Old Apr 7, 2009 | 08:53 PM
  #18  
chillin014's Avatar
Senior Member
iTrader: (67)
 
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 8,601
From: houston tx
Yeah....I like the idea of it all, dont get me wrong... I just dont find it worthwhile. I want to do an EU as well. Let me know how yours goes. Lets see near 300 whp!
Old Apr 8, 2009 | 04:08 AM
  #19  
Jime's Avatar
Banned
iTrader: (10)
 
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,919
From: https://t.me/pump_upp
Originally Posted by chillin014
wiring can be intimidating. I didnt see a very thorough write-up for this route otherwise I would have considered pursuing it more. I still may in the future though.
Eng92 (Dave) has some pretty good pics and excel spreadsheet on how to do the wiring. The stuff on the engine is very simple, just connects to all the existing stuff and no swapping injector connectors. Inside the cabin the ecu connector just connects to the ECU. Its the dash stuff that takes a little time but I just did one wire at a time, it went pretty easy.

The other HUGE benefit is using the UTEC vs the EU, direct control over the timing (not piggyback), seamless rev limiter raise etc etc. Having the variable timing is also a huge benefit.

Believe me I did it the 3.0 timing route the first time and then decided to change and then it WAS a big job having to do both at the same time. Bit the effort was worth it for the bottom end benefit.

Last edited by Jime; Apr 8, 2009 at 04:16 AM.
Old Apr 8, 2009 | 06:54 AM
  #20  
chillin014's Avatar
Senior Member
iTrader: (67)
 
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 8,601
From: houston tx
damn. I think in the future if I am to do it, I'll just buy another 3.5 unmodified and sell the one I got. Its a possibility though...
Old Apr 23, 2009 | 09:22 PM
  #21  
tommyd426's Avatar
Newbie - Just Registered
 
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2
From: NC
What about the EGR valve?

When replacing 3.0 (1997) with the 3.5 engine, what is being done with the EGR valve setup. I have only seen one swap where the intake manifold was modified to accept the the EGR valve setup from the 3.0 motor.

What is everyone doing here? If you are not placing the EGR system on the 3.5 motor I am wondering if State Inspection Stations are looking for these components during emissions checks. Any driveability issues or fault codes when not using the EGR system?
Old Apr 24, 2009 | 01:56 PM
  #22  
pmohr's Avatar
No more Maximas...
iTrader: (26)
 
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 14,329
From: Oak Ridge, TN
Originally Posted by tommyd426
When replacing 3.0 (1997) with the 3.5 engine, what is being done with the EGR valve setup. I have only seen one swap where the intake manifold was modified to accept the the EGR valve setup from the 3.0 motor.

What is everyone doing here? If you are not placing the EGR system on the 3.5 motor I am wondering if State Inspection Stations are looking for these components during emissions checks. Any driveability issues or fault codes when not using the EGR system?
If you absolutely wanted to use EGR, you could get the A34 UIM, it has provisions for an EGR setup.

Depending what ECU you have, the lack of EGR equipment will not result in any stored DTCs or failed readiness monitors.

If you're doing a full swap, no need for EGR (assuming A33B donor); the same effect is accomplished using varying CVTC maps.
Old May 5, 2009 | 04:59 PM
  #23  
tommyd426's Avatar
Newbie - Just Registered
 
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2
From: NC
Anybody else have any advice

Originally Posted by pmohr
If you absolutely wanted to use EGR, you could get the A34 UIM, it has provisions for an EGR setup.

Depending what ECU you have, the lack of EGR equipment will not result in any stored DTCs or failed readiness monitors.

If you're doing a full swap, no need for EGR (assuming A33B donor); the same effect is accomplished using varying CVTC maps.
Thanks for your input I am using the stock 97 computer and harness and the motor is a 3.5 out of a 2002 Maxima. Does my 97 computer have maps that can be modified?

I'm guessing I will have to modify the intake manifold and EGR tube to mate together somehow.

Questions that remain:
  • Any other solutions out there?
  • Does omitting the EGR cause fault codes?
  • Anyone pass emissions with the EGR system disconnected?
Old May 5, 2009 | 05:41 PM
  #24  
pmohr's Avatar
No more Maximas...
iTrader: (26)
 
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 14,329
From: Oak Ridge, TN
Originally Posted by tommyd426
Thanks for your input I am using the stock 97 computer and harness and the motor is a 3.5 out of a 2002 Maxima. Does my 97 computer have maps that can be modified?

I'm guessing I will have to modify the intake manifold and EGR tube to mate together somehow.

Questions that remain:
  • Any other solutions out there?
  • Does omitting the EGR cause fault codes?
  • Anyone pass emissions with the EGR system disconnected?
What do you mean in 'maps that can be modified'? Fuel/timing maps? You'd need a piggyback or a modified ECU.

Again, depending on what year ECU you want to use, you may or may not get EGR fault codes. Get a '95 Fed spec ECU if you want no codes for virtually anything.

You can pass emissions with no problem without any emissions components, as long as:
  1. You're a '96 or greater, and
  2. You have no CEL or failed readiness monitors
Old May 6, 2009 | 04:33 PM
  #25  
happy4444's Avatar
Senior Member
iTrader: (34)
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,188
From: dirty jerzy
im currently trying to get rid of as many codes as i can to pass inspection. its a pain in the @ss bc i did a 5 speed swap at the same time. gonna throw in the 96 5 speed ecu and hopefully my 6 auto trans codes will leave me alonneeee
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
howardis
8th Generation Maxima (2016-)
6
Dec 11, 2019 06:10 PM
My Coffee
New Member Introductions
15
Jun 6, 2017 02:01 PM
Fbana41
Maximas for Sale / Wanted
3
Aug 29, 2016 12:18 PM
doctorpullit
8th Generation Maxima (2016-)
60
Dec 12, 2015 09:39 AM
zmcneely13
4th Generation Maxima (1995-1999)
1
Sep 26, 2015 02:26 PM




All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:47 AM.