Anything over 3'' is over kill. Also 4'' piping would be a ***** to run and probably require alot of cutting to get it to fit. Running piping that is too large for your setup will increase lag time and decrease power numbers since the air charge is moving at a slower pace through the larger diameter piping. People with 700whp run 3''. For anything under 500 whp 2.5 should be fine for the most part.

The turbo section of this forum(or any other) are probably better capable of answering it then me.

From what I have read you want the smallest pipe that will keep the air flow under 304mph. After that air becomes turbulent.

 

All the items are shipped or going to be shipped.

440's/4" 30ş 1' pipe/BPi 4" stack/4" MAF (eBay)/3" --> 4" reducer for TB.

New wideband is ready for install, and SAFCII has been on forever.

 

New thread in dyno section time?

 

Need to receive all the parts then install. Then there will be one. Hopefully I don't run into any set-backs, i.e. cracked rear VC.

When I tossed the SSSIM on, I inspected it, and it looked fine.

This time I might even remove the rear spark plugs FTFoI.

Also ordered 2 IM gaskets so I don't need to RTV the damn thing since it's a PITA to remove the IM when you do that.


My biggest worry is closed loop driving. But, if my elementary math is up to par, it should be fine.


440/335 = 1.313 <--- New injector size : Current injector size
4"/3" = 1.333 <--- New MAF size : Optimally timed MAF size

From reading on the Altima forums, vaguely, it's stated that the 440's with this combo showed no driveability issues when using a MAF scaler (UTEC/SAFCII)

 

How come you went with 30* instead of 45*?

 

I plan on doing this and making it work. Actually, I am 100% certain it will work. The only problem that I am facing is throttle precision. Basically, anything over 60% throttle will pretty much be the same. The engine will be too touchy. I will let you know when I have this running (after I finish my manifold).

I am trying to figure out how the ECU controls the position of the motor. I know there are two TPS signals, but my question is...

Does the ecu use the TPS as a feedback to judge how much to move the stepper motor? Or is the stepper motor simply controlled directly. If the second case is true, I plan on building a dual op-amp circuit to compensate for the larger amounts of airflow per given throttle position. In other words, I will trick the ECU to think that the throttle is at 40% when it is actually at 30% (because the actual amount of airflow will be the same).

If the first case is true, I will have to live with the F-ed up acceleration maps. Some 350z people reported having idle surging problems, but I think I know how to eliminate that problem. It involves performing the idle relearn TSB in which you unplug the front 3 injectors to force the idle lower then do the relearn again.

Absolutely not. You can make more than enough power to blow the motor with the stock 2.8 inch MAF. Maybe a 3.5" MAF will allow for less boost and more power, but it probably isn't worth it. Unless you are running a standalone and eliminating the MAF, the car will drive like ****.

I am in the process of making my airflow output map on my EU to compensate for my 3.5 LRMAF and it's a PITA.

I actually had both MAFs hooked up at the same time to analog inputs on the EU and compared voltages. The actual response curves are different and NON LINEAR. It isn't just a simple 38% increase in fuel like most people think.

The original process I used was I hooked up both MAFs in series (stock MAF and the 3.5" MAF) and altered the airflow correction map until the voltage coming from the 3.5" MAF was equal to the voltage coming from the stock MAF at all load voltages. The problem is that the voltages fluctuate too much to do an accurate comparison while driving.

The results I came up with were that at idle, the MAF needed 38% positive compensation BUT at a cruising speed of 60MPH, the MAF needed a positive compensation of 65% to make the voltages equal.

The car drove fine for most people but it wasn't right to me. Too much bucking at low RPM. This could be a side effect of the reduced resolution of the larger tube, IDK.

My new plan is to take both housings to my school and generate Airflow vs Voltage curves for each housing. I will then use the voltages from the stock MAF in my airflow OUTPUT map in the EU.



You math makes sense but the problem (like stated above) is that the voltage response of the stock vs the LRMAF is non-linear. The LRMAF doesn't simply show 38% less voltage than the stock MAF all the time. At low RPM it does, but not at voltages around 2.0.

The car will definitely be drivable if you add 38% to your airflow comp. map, but I noticed a lot of annoying bucking when letting off and on the gas.

Also, another thing that impacts drivability is the lag time of the injectors. In short, I have noticed that increasing the lag time compensation makes the revs hang longer between shifts and the car smoother to shift. Too little lag time comp. and the car will want to stall out if you drop it into neutral from 3rd gear.

And if you correct for your larger injectors by simply getting a larger MAF, you will basically be shifting the ECU to a much lower load cell than it should be. This will result in additional ignition timing and other possible side effects.

That method works fine for Foxbody Mustangs, but the Maxima ECU is pretty sensitive to that kind of thing.

 

I need to remember this.

 

You do know I'm not using the LRMAF, just the housing with my MAF?

I'm using the SAFCII for MAF scaling also, so my MAF in an LRMAF housing showed no drive ability problems, 0% correction, 13.5 AFR WOT, and typical AFR's non-wot.

I'e proven that the SAFCII when using it as a MAF scaler does not impact timing. In fact, that was my reasoning behind going to an entirely new set-up.

Because with my old 3.5" set-up, my timing wasn't optimal (0% AFC correction), so I went back to the 3" MAF housing and was able to remove 4-6% fuel via AFC to get back to 13.2-5 and gain a few degrees of timing putting me back at that "sweet spot".





Back when I first put the 3" MAF in, (not even the 3.5") I had to add 27-30% correction for the car to even be drivable, and even then, it wouldn't drive right at all, only at certain moments, regardless of the AFR.

Then SR hinted me to try the IN/OUT setting, and after I did that, it was fine and has been ever since. On the Altimas forum that a member with a SAFCII changed the settings, and was able to run problem free with the 440's and 4" MAF.



Talking out of my asz, it is 45ş.

 

Yea I know you're using your sensor in the new housing.

And as far as I know, the MAF scalar does the exact same thing as just pulling or adding a global amount of correction. It may have some sort of curve that it uses...who knows.

From what I gather, you're saying that pulling fuel via the SAFC does add timing, but using the IN/OUT setting doesn't? If so, that doesn't really make any sense because they both are doing basically the same thing.

And you really can't judge if the MAF is scaled properly based solely on the AFR's. The car will always target a certain AFR and the fuel trims will just absorb the correction. WOT AFR's are a little better indicator, but the fuel trims are the best way.

When I put my 380cc injectors in a year ago, the car still ran with a 14.7 AFR during cruising but my fuel trims were like -20 across the board. (With no scaling)

A good way to tell if you're in the right ball-park in terms of air fuel correction and scaling is to look at the MPG readout in your car. If your car says that you're getting 45MPG, that means that the ECU is using its fuel trims to pull a lot of fuel and that you should remove more fuel via the SAFC. If the MPG readout says 12MPG then you need to add some fuel.

Don't get me wrong, the car was 100% drivable when I had my 3.5" MAF in the first time, but it just had some irregularities. Not really bad, just different. And my fuel trims were no further than 8% in either direction, so it was compensated for pretty well. The main thing I'm talking about when I say "drivability problems" is the bucking that it used to do when I would let off the gas at low RPM's.

As far as the timing thing...how did you come to that conclusion?



I think we're talking about two different things here.

From what I gather, you plan on running using a MAF housing that is 38% bigger to compensate for your injectors that are 38% bigger. In theory that will work. If you are doing this, then you wouldn't use any SAFC corrections because that would defeat the purpose. But if you do this, you will have shifted the ECU to a lower load point which will certainly add timing. ECU will see less voltage from the MAF (because its bigger) therefore give less duration to the injectors, but everything will equal out because less duration ends up being the same amount of fuel because the injectors are bigger.


I am talking more about running the 3.5" MAF with stock injectors and compensating for the MAF via the SAFC to keep it from running lean.

If you get the 3.5" MAF and 440cc injectors and still use the IN/OUT setting, you will run extremely rich.

What I'm getting at is that the proper way to scale for larger injectors is to directly reduce the duty cycle. But I realize this is impossible without an EU or standalone or something. Also, the proper way to scale for a larger MAF is to compensate for the voltage difference directly. Using these methods, the ECU will think everything is running like 100% stock.

 

Meh, we'll see how it turns out.

Too much to write, and it's early.

 

Yes, strange, but it is is what it is.

My timing curve is the same when using 1:1 and 0% corrections and a 2.75" MAF. It (timing curve) doesn’t change when using 1:17, and a 3.5” MAF with 0 % correction.My fuel trims are a little wacky because I don’t have primary O2 sensors connected. Also, I did notice a slight increase in MPG via the MPG calculator when I went to Z33 injectors. Seem to only affect my STFT’s vs my LTFT’s when I did that.Being that I don’t have my primaries, it runs a tad rich on the highway, about 80MPH, 2400 RPM, so I’ll adjust via the MAF to get into a more friendly AFR for MPG’s and see the STFT’s change and the MPG calc go up, but for the next highway trip, it’s back to normal, slightly rich and also doesn’t have that big of an effect (adjusting SAFC) for AFR’s on teh highway, low load, as does WOT runs do.Only times I had bucking was when I tried a WOT run with no AFC correction or scaler and a 3” MAF, it’s because it was at 15+ AFR. And the second time was when I had no AFC scaler, 3” MAF and +30% correction on the SAFCII. Both about 5 years ago, 50k+ miles.
Long story short,

WRT timing/dyno:
Best situation: 3” MAF, 335’s, 1:17, and -8 – 10% = 13.5 AFR /optimal timing
Worst situation: 3.5” MAF, 335’s, 1:17, and 0%. = 13.5 AFR / not optimal timing

Theoretical best situation: 4” MAF, 440’s, 1:17 and -8-10% = 13.5AFR w/ the correction pct's, should be optimal timing.

Reason: It is identical (injectors to MAF size) to the “Best” situation above.

Looks as if you mistook what I said earlier in that this new set-up is the equivalent as my 3.0” set-up, not the 3.5” set-up, which if this new set-up was the same as the 3.5” set-up (WRT inj/MAF), then yes, I’d just be futile.

 

Or, use an tuning system that gives you full timing control and leave your injectors alone.

 

I'm too cheap for that. Just sold the UTEC.

Going to lift the Pathfinder and get bigger rubbers, so the Maxi will take a backseat for a while.

 

haltech + spark's manifold + 4'' intake = close to 300whp no?

 

Ah I see. No need for a Haltech really unless you are planning on altering the CVTC maps or running a motor with EVT. I'm sure there's some power to be had by changing the intake timing but it's questionable as to how much considering surrat made only like 16whp more than sparks and that was with the 09 motor with better intake ports and a bigger TB as well as exhaust timing control and a Haltech.

You could take the cheap route and grab an EU for like $400.

People hate on it but it can control timing and fuel directly and integrates well to the stock ECU.

But either way the power should be decent no matter how it's tuned.

I'm hoping to make around 280 when my setup is done mainly just because of the 87mm TB and 82mm intake. Sparks made 284whp on the stock 70mm TB so judging by how much these motors like large intakes, I would think a larger TB would only help.

 

Seems as if Doug's didn't make much more with the 09TB.

From all of the evidence that I've seen, IVT only halps area under the curve, not peak, and EVT helps peak, most namely because IVT works (positive ş, then drops to 0ş @ 6000) below 6k, and EVT, is complete opposite, so as we know the basic formula, it holds true in that IVT helps low-mid RPM HP, and EVT aids in high RPM HP.


I don't have Darren's latest dyno, but this is his previous vs Sparks:



This isn’t Darren’s latest, this is the 293 run. BUT, as we can see, there is a significant difference pretty much throughout the entire RPM band. Where once again, peak #’s aren’t everything. As was stated when I went from 242 to 247, doesn’t sound like much, but the area was extremely significant.

Also, the jury is still out for me re: the new IM. At the end where it sort of curves up, that seems to be the trend with added volume, I’ve seen Elon’s dyno do that, and he has an extremely gutted SSIM.

And I can sort of feel it slightly at WOT.

 

How do we know sparks dyno is accurate? Couldn't he have inflated the numbers to try and sell his product which he ripped members off with? I wouldn't put it past him.

Next step would be large **** Cams which you would need the Haltech to take full advantage of no?

 

Dynojets are rpetty fool proof if you have the runfiles. DD's/MD's aren't and can be fiddled with easily.

I’ve seen some operators prove the numbers can be fiddled with by screwing with the ambient conditions, but Spark’s conditions were believable, and his uncorrected #’s we very close too.

Basically the conditions didn’t read 120şF with 22 in/Hg and 100% RH. <--Horridly unlikely.

He and Darren’s were on par. It may be that it just doesn’t go well on my car for some reason be it AT or my weak timing curve while using the 3.5" intake and 335's.

 

Anyone have any good suggestions as to where this thread should be split? Looks as if we're going a litle OT, and some members might not want to come in here becsu of the title.

I'm more into the 4" talk here vs manifold design.

If I still had an SSIM I'd still want to go with 4", as did the Altima guys.

 

i thought sparks made 284. was that his latest dyno?

if i remember right, he gained everywhere and gained 25hp at like 6000 but 50whp at 7000

 

STD vs SAE

And that was vs BOP not SSIM

 

ohhh not to stray too OT here but do you have a comparison of sparks new manifold to surratt?

the sSSIM?

 

One man told me that sparks03max using OEM 2009 TB 75mm for 280s whp.

 

Sorry for the confusion.

The comparison I posoted is the SSSIM vs Surra.

What I was saying in the earlier post (#301) was replying to your post #300.

Basically you were stating Sparks gain vs his old manifold, but his old manifold was only BOP'd, not SSIM'd.

So my point was that his SSSIM hasn't been compared to a true, correctly done, SSIM.


Nice vague post. Could you elaborate?

1.) I have his manifold on my car, and it mates perfectly to the 03 TB, even has the NWP spacer still attached.

2.) His dyno was done before we knew about the 09TB, not relevant since a lot of people here and in the world have good mods but sometimes it takes time to get on here, some good mods never do.

3.) The pics in his build thread clearly show an 02-03 TB, albeit flipped 90ş, as is mine now.

 

I wish sparks didn't rip people off and wasn't such a liar. I wish he would man up and pay back the people he owed money. The fact the owner of the shop came on here and explained what was up is crazy.

I am amazed this unauthorized group buy was allowed.

I personally like this thread being bumped as it reminds everyone what a d bag sparks is.

 

Sorry for confuse. Man told me that he use OE TB on pm. He confuse. That's where 09 tb from ranmas not sparks. Sorry.

 

This, well sorta.... VQ35 with 280whp+ needs larger injectors.



You said it! There is the FWD VQ #1 Problem! hahaha

 

I actually should say I'm not cheap, just lazy.

 

UTEC + PnP Harness, TXS WB, never installed, sold for a huge loss: Check
Z32TT BBK + Brackets bought, never installed, sold for a loss :Check
Wilwood front BBK, bought, never installed sold for a loss : Check
Current BBK EVO Brembo's, waiting to install
Spark's IM, bought ... is it worth it, not so sure: Check
4" MAF/440's/4" intake assembly: Check
More dyno time over the years than anyone's mother: Check

As I get older, I get lazier.

 

I can say this is not true. I have a Haltech and I have IVT open pretty agressive...so much that I have a check engine light for over advanced cam timing on my car. I made 275whp. I took it back to tuner and he put it on the dyno and 1st run netted 275whp on the dot. The tuner ONLY decreased IVT some to try to attempt to get the SES to go off......the next few pulls it made peak 266, 269, 268whp. the ONLY thing he changed was IVT. So it did change peak numbers a little and REALLY took torque and HP down in the midrange. I was so disgusted with the place I didnt even get the runfiles.......I wish I had just to prove this point though.

 

Sparks still hasn't paid a dime. What a great guy.

 

What a shame. I was wondering what happened with this.

 

That sucks...

 

What a piece of ish...looks like he's long gone from here, unless he uses an AE.
I even contemplated on preordering but eventually decided I couldn't tie up the funds in time.

 

That's why I hate the whole idea of people selling things they don't have yet.

If you cant afford to build something first THEN sell it, you shouldn't be in business.

 

bump! Is sparks03max banned? If you don't mind me asking.

 

No, sparks isn't banned...scammers like him are left unbanned so they can possibly update the community on refunds or resolutions without having to set up another account.

 

He ain't coming back.

 

Oh I know he won't be back...was just explaining the ban process.

 

sup fellas, I talking about which is best maf location. I noticed sparks used maf near tb instead air cone or air box. He don't use with near air cone or airbox? What difference of it? improve engine response or feel more deep or little more power due more flow straight from long pipe or other?

EDIT: Unless you don't understand about my question I'll try to do best clear question for you.