sparks03max

iTrader: (7)

Since my other thread was cluttered with theory/etc, I'm making this one to start fresh.

Basic idea behind the manifold: Make a SSIM that has much more plenum volume, a 3.5" elbow with a 3.5" MAF and intake to go with it. Theory behind the 3.5" piping is to make the 3" TB act as a venturi and flow better than it normally would with 3" piping on both sides of it.

Result: This gained power starting at 3000 RPMs, all the way to redline. Made nearly 20whp peak, and right at 50whp at the 7000RPM redline.

Pictures of progress from start to finish of the "prototype"














Dyno gains versus Vias deleted stock IM and stock MAF/intake within 15 minutes of each other, same dyno, same day, same all else. The custom IM/3.5" tune could use work. It goes into the high 11s around 3500-4000, and is mid 12s otherwise. Stock manifold tune is absolute perfection. 13.5 at 3000, settling down to 13.0 by 4500 and sitting at 12.8-13.0 to redline.


Closer view on SAE smoothing 5 of the top end gains.


Dyno video:


Full dyno thread:

http://forums.maxima.org/dyno-discus...ml#post7938417

Next step is to clean and pretty it all up then have it all thermal dispersant coated (ends up black).

03BlkSETE

iTrader: (3)

Wow! Definitely got my attention. Very impressive. Props for making this work.

sergofast

iTrader: (22)

Very nice...look how it levels off at 5500 on....on to mass production? lol...jk Im sure that took forever to fab up

sparks03max

iTrader: (7)

I am considering making additional manifolds as 1-offs. Now that the prototype is done for measurements and I have a grasp on how to do some things, production time will come down a bit.

This one has around 80 hours in it all said and done.

Rhyno02

iTrader: (12)

Any plans to experiment with a 3.5" TB so you can maintain 3.5" throughout?

sparks03max

iTrader: (7)

Not at all. That would require a standalone.

Plus, as I said earlier in the thread, I have 3.5" piping in front and behind the TB in order to promote a venturi effect. It may actually make more power this way than with a 90MM matching TB.

aackshun

iTrader: (3)

Next question... Can I haz?



Great work man, I may end up copying you but for the 3.0, depends on how much free time I have of course (i have easy access to USIM's, since people nearly throw them away nowadays).

KRRZ350

iTrader: (29)

I'm speechless, that is insane.

VQ'ed

iTrader: (2)

Pioneering is paramount in the tuning world for me. keep up the good work.
Very impressed!!

Velocity stacks welded on the runners inside the plenum as future step... like cosworth's Z33 upper IM...might find something else there...

Already uber-good gains from custom fabbing. The 5.5th gen UIM will always be impressive on a design point of view, in any ways it is used or modded (SSIM, Vias delete, sparks custom-modded...)

t6378tp

iTrader: (69)

great job

ampire

iTrader: (12)

That is amazing. Now you just have to market it to the 350 guys.

Also, if you are making these things let me know, I wouldn't mind gaining more hp.

sparks03max

iTrader: (7)

I seriously considered doing just that, then thought the repercussions of adding even more length to already too long runners and went against it.

My biggest issue with this darn plenum is the runners being staggered. You can't really tell from the pictures, but I actually aligned the plenum and elbow at an angle that hopefully feeds both banks equally.

One day I would like to get a 350z LIM (for the much more circular runners) and make a full UIM with runners and velocity stacks included. With our LIM, it would require transitioning mandrel bent piping to the weird oval shape of our lower runners... not easy.

VQ'ed

iTrader: (2)

OK, I understand. Sometimes minor details make things go off-ballpark rather than getting it spot-on. So, making a mix between Z33 UIM details and A33 UIM design would make a well rounded final result.

thumbs up. Ill follow your thread. Great stuff.

sparks03max

iTrader: (7)

Yeah would just be using the 350z LIM for the round runners, the actual UIM would be a single plenum box towards the back of the engine just like the stock IM is (due to hood clearance). I could make both the box and the runners much more pretty that way...

essential1

iTrader: (5)

Like I've been preaching for as long as I can remember now. Plenum volume goes a long way on a bolt on 3.5. This is also the reason why an 00VI on a 3.5 WILL choke it up (compared to even a stock 3.5 IM). Maybe people will listen to me now.

Thanks for coming through with the results sparks.

DrunkieTheBear

iTrader: (17)

I'm with you there, I always agreed with the right bolt-ons and good tuning this would be possible.

I hope this stops the idiocracy of that crap about 00vi on 3.5.

I think this should also be said about the heads too. 3.5 heads on a 3.0 just isn't a good idea nor are 3.0 heads on a 3.5

essential1

iTrader: (5)

+1. The only time 3.0 heads will be beneficial over 3.5 heads is the rare case that extensive port/flow work is done to them. Similar to what NISMO did for their "3.5" heads.

sparks03max

iTrader: (7)

Yep... And just for some stats, this intake manifold measures around 270 cubic inches, not including the elbow or runners. That's roughly 130% more than engine volume. I did not attempt to measure the stock intake manifold, but rough estimation puts it below 200 cubic inches.

azdevils013

iTrader: (5)

Quick question, I'm planning on making an intake setup like yours minus your new manifold of course. Would it be beneficial to use 3.5" piping on a setup w/o your custom manifold or just stick with 3"?

sparks03max

iTrader: (7)

Here you go.

Stock intake manifold with stock maf and 3" intake vs stock intake manifold with LRMAF and 3.5" intake

azdevils013

iTrader: (5)

Alright thanks. Is the LRMAF 3" or 3.5"? If it is 3" that is what I was asking about as far as size. Should have said 3.5" all the way from the MAF to the filter.

sparks03max

iTrader: (7)

The LRMAF of the appropriate year is 90MM OD, 82MMID... same as 3.5" pipe.

KRRZ350

iTrader: (29)

For a boosted motor the lower CR & better flow would make it a great idea.

I'm still sticking to my theory that an '00vi properly portmatched to a 3.5 would make jaws drop, and this is why, add .5 liters & vtc to this:

sparks03max

iTrader: (7)

That graph is tiny, can't see numbers. You would need to make 300 peak whp with a curve shaped like that to equal my 280 whp in real world conditions. It's damn near flat from 5500 to 7000, which is the main power band through the gears. Power under the curve > sharp peak at red line (unless you're a dyno queen).

ampire

iTrader: (12)

Now you just need to flow bench that and optimize it a little more.

sparks03max

iTrader: (7)

A flow bench is not very effective for an intake manifold since most of the gains/losses and actual flow characteristics stem from the order of intake valves opening, resonance, harmonics of that resonance... etc. In 99% of cases, flow benching an IM is just a marketing ploy to sell it and has no real bearing on its performance. An open pipe 2" off the head would give best results on a flow bench, but I can guarantee you it would see giant power losses.

CMax03

iTrader: (3)

That same thought has crossed my mind as well but with a manifold that's centered in the Valley with individual velocity stacks and an Oval plenum.....But Sparks has broke new ground for us all! Jaypee what's your secret???? You never show us bottom feeders your brainiac Maxima practices that will allow us to grow and be faster.....Sparks good job no matter how we fued at times this was superbly executed......A+

tonedef

iTrader: (7)

WOW!!!

sparks03max

iTrader: (7)

Thanks for the props. No doubt we have an argument here and there, but for me it's all in good fun. I like arguing and you oblige on a regular basis

I believe jay_pee's "secret" is making the right selection of mods that work well together, having a healthy VQ35DE, and properly prepping his car for the track and dyno. One thing we both have in common that not many others have is a LW flywheel, which I wouldn't have expected to give gains... However, numbers suggest otherwise.

Also weight reduction, power steering disconnected, lightweight DRs that give optimal gearing, and extremely fast no-lift power shifting are important parts of the equation. His race weight at the track is lower than most 5.5 gen maximas curb weight without a driver.

bds1304

iTrader: (1)

well whats the best way to delete the powersterring .......i hate my leaky powersterring line and im tired of fillin up the lil powersteering jug

sparks03max

iTrader: (7)

I wouldn't try to delete it without a manual power steering rack. Have you tried navigating parking lots without PS on a power rack?

When I talked about jaypee disabling power steering, I was (obviously) referring to removing the belt. lol

Cant_Get_Ryte

iTrader: (52)

smh

bds1304

iTrader: (1)

yeah i drove a week straight with out power steering, and it sucks in the parking lots, but i was used to it by the end of the week.....but i dont think anyone makes a manual rack for the maxima

sparks03max

iTrader: (7)

Of course they don't It would have to be a 1-off custom thing.

If you really want to delete the PS, just pull the PS belt and take off the PS pump. Good luck with that.

KRRZ350

iTrader: (29)

That was dandymax's dyno, you should know that

You can convert your rack to manual, it doesn't have the gear reduction of a true manual rack but it is MUCH better than disabled PS. You have to pull the rack & make a few modifications so you aren't fighting the fluid in the rack. http://www.flyinmiata.com/tech/depower.php

sparks03max

iTrader: (7)

Well I did manage to match his numbers today with a full interior and only a 1.91 '60 foot... thread and stuff to come

bds1304

iTrader: (1)

yeah my bud at work depowered his 240, plus i got an extra rack from a another maxima that im goin to mock up for the depower......hopefully goin to do it this weekend

KRRZ350

iTrader: (29)

:Thumbsup: I've decided I'm moving down south next winter, we've been having highs of 25-30* & lows of 10*.


On the back plate, how did you make the radiused hole.

Underneath the piping in this pic, middle right:

sparks03max

iTrader: (7)

Torch to anneal often, various hammers to form. Cut the hole smaller than the 3.5" and radiused it out until it was the right size.

krazy6

iTrader: (5)

Great fabrication!

Working with aluminum is fun stuff.