233, again, but this time @6300 RPM
#1
233, again, but this time @6300 RPM
AFR conditioning and an intake = FTW.
SAE
233 hp
220 ft/lbs
Next on list
1.) Better intake design.
2.) AFPR, Ghetto timing advance
3. 100 octane
4.) UDP, (been in my trunk for about a year now, maybe I should install it)
I played with it every way from Sunday and it seems to like that set-up. I was on 91 octane. . I went too lean on one run, and it didn't like it. Better fuel + leaner AFR will helpfully get me a touch higher numeros. New appointment within a few more weeks.
I got some plans for the evening, but I have some Cipher logs to go along with these.
SAE
233 hp
220 ft/lbs
Next on list
1.) Better intake design.
2.) AFPR, Ghetto timing advance
3. 100 octane
4.) UDP, (been in my trunk for about a year now, maybe I should install it)
I played with it every way from Sunday and it seems to like that set-up. I was on 91 octane. . I went too lean on one run, and it didn't like it. Better fuel + leaner AFR will helpfully get me a touch higher numeros. New appointment within a few more weeks.
I got some plans for the evening, but I have some Cipher logs to go along with these.
#4
I'll send them tomorrow. Me= out of town.
Seems as if the fuel issue was really holding me back. Couple of runs I saw a huge dip in power due to the lean afr. One thing though, the SAFC didn't hemorrhage, so that was a (+).
MAF logs vs HP/RPM look to be interesting. IAT's were in the 90-100*F range.
Even w/ my Z33 injectors, I don't need to take much fuel out. I 'blame' TS for that. But maybe an AFPR will remedy this.
Corr%'s didn't exceed more than 4% (+/-). I switched back from -3% --> +4% over a couple hundred RPM, and the power curve freaked.
It was quite fun. Also compared my runs w/an 03 Z33, curves were identical. Z had race cats and some modded intake shtuff.
Things in the upper 6k's seem to be suffering from my exhaust set-up, but, I'll trade off a few hp's for the mellow tone I have.
My last 233 was on pure 100 octane, so, there's power to be had from that, and these runs show my best and worst.
No intake (stock airbox) and then the last, highest, run was the average of the 5 I did.
Back to the drawing board on the intake. I have a plan, so that can be taken care of quick and easily after a quick trip to HD or Lowes.
#9
My best is 233, ever. But last time, on race fuel, the overall curve was stronger, but it went dead after 5600 (peak).
Here's my previous best vs this one.
Also, no one really mentioned the fact that I have a lof RPM(I'm an auto) resolution
Previous best. Race fuel FTW.
And here's my 1st run ever. I couldn't dyno worth ****. lol
Here's my previous best vs this one.
Also, no one really mentioned the fact that I have a lof RPM(I'm an auto) resolution
Previous best. Race fuel FTW.
And here's my 1st run ever. I couldn't dyno worth ****. lol
#10
Originally Posted by NmexMAX
Also, no one really mentioned the fact that I have a lof RPM(I'm an auto) resolution
Previous best. Race fuel FTW.
And here's my 1st run ever. I couldn't dyno worth ****. lol
#11
Yea i was wondering how you pulled that off...
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot Mike Alpha Tango Echo. You sure your VTC's are working?
n00bert...
I'm looking for a larger air filter, and am going to get rid of all said reducers and such in the intake line and have something a little better for massive RPM breathing.
#13
You really need 100 octane? From what I've seen we can run full timing advance on both VQ30's and 35's at 93/94 octane. Race gas no helpee, only burn more slowly. Ask Jime, he'll tell you the same thing based on his dyno testing.
And IIRC you're at a higher altitude = less dense air so even less risk of detonation. So if you're getting more power out of octane then I'd wonder if you're getting timing too advanced/pulled by the KS normally on pump gas...
And IIRC you're at a higher altitude = less dense air so even less risk of detonation. So if you're getting more power out of octane then I'd wonder if you're getting timing too advanced/pulled by the KS normally on pump gas...
#14
For some reason, higher octane really helps me.
My UNC #'s are ~ 190.
In fact, as you stated, I run much less risk of detonation, but, when I went lean,I did lose power( large dip/detonation) so, that means I could tune more lean and get more power w/beautiful fuel, but that is yet to be determined at this point.
Thanks for the input Dan D.
My UNC #'s are ~ 190.
In fact, as you stated, I run much less risk of detonation, but, when I went lean,I did lose power( large dip/detonation) so, that means I could tune more lean and get more power w/beautiful fuel, but that is yet to be determined at this point.
Thanks for the input Dan D.
#15
Originally Posted by NmexMAX
For some reason, higher octane really helps me.
My UNC #'s are ~ 190.
In fact, as you stated, I run much less risk of detonation, but, when I went lean,I did lose power( large dip/detonation) so, that means I could tune more lean and get more power w/beautiful fuel, but that is yet to be determined at this point.
Thanks for the input Dan D.
My UNC #'s are ~ 190.
In fact, as you stated, I run much less risk of detonation, but, when I went lean,I did lose power( large dip/detonation) so, that means I could tune more lean and get more power w/beautiful fuel, but that is yet to be determined at this point.
Thanks for the input Dan D.
Well I dunno, something just seems a bit fishy to me, I mean I would think you'd be able to run the same/lower octane than the rest of us... Good job on getting the peak up to 6300 though.
#16
What I need to do is log some air usage(gm/s) parameters and see how lean I can go using this stuff (better octane) before I dyno again.
This way, it can be seen/noted/documented just how much it affects engine efficiency.
I'm thinking of tuning rather aggressively (14.0 - 14.2) and logging/noting how it affects gm/s #'s.
This way, it can be seen/noted/documented just how much it affects engine efficiency.
I'm thinking of tuning rather aggressively (14.0 - 14.2) and logging/noting how it affects gm/s #'s.
#17
Originally Posted by NmexMAX
My best is 233, ever. But last time, on race fuel, the overall curve was stronger, but it went dead after 5600 (peak).
Here's my previous best vs this one.
Also, no one really mentioned the fact that I have a lof RPM(I'm an auto) resolution
Previous best. Race fuel FTW.
Here's my previous best vs this one.
Also, no one really mentioned the fact that I have a lof RPM(I'm an auto) resolution
Previous best. Race fuel FTW.
#19
Previous best. Race fuel FTW.
[/QUOTE]
Ok, So I'm looking at your previous best dyno, and my current (non corrected STD, no runfiles FTL)...
(these are from my ubber eyeballing guestimations- ricer math , so give or take 3whp for the #s, and +/- 7WHP for the Diff due to different correction factors, etc... I dont care so much to compare your power to my power, since the #s are not on the same correction, Im just comparing the shape of the power curve)
RPM= You/ Me/ Diff (Me vs You)
3750= 155/132/ -23
4000= 166/158/ -8
4500= 187/198/ +11
5000= 217/221/ +4
5500= 233/236/ +3
6000= 227/231/ +4
6500= 210/209/ -1
I would say that due to your ECU's timing, that explains the power difference below 4000. It would be great if the shift_control device that Grey99Max and Streetz use could work on the 5.5 gens (could it? hmmmm ) so you could actually be able to dyno from lower RPMs.
At 4500 I have more power, but thats probably due to the amount of SAFC "timing advance" at that RPM, that's my richest point so it has -20% cor.
How much timing do I have? I'll find out next week. My collegue has a dataloger device. I just need to rig up a cigarette lighter again (currently using that hole for engine start button [weeeerd]) so he can power up his laptop.
I think that after 5k we're pretty even. You held power on that setup slightly better than me closer to redline, most likely due to VCTs' fully retarding the intake cams at that range.
You have an SSIM (or SSIM "equivalent" like me) correct? My previous dyno at redline I had ~180WHP, SSIM and catback and now redline (different dyno so different correction, but still) ~210WHP.
Congrats on the #s tho, and the new setup. Must run like a beast on the highways with long straight roads :-D
[/QUOTE]
Ok, So I'm looking at your previous best dyno, and my current (non corrected STD, no runfiles FTL)...
(these are from my ubber eyeballing guestimations- ricer math , so give or take 3whp for the #s, and +/- 7WHP for the Diff due to different correction factors, etc... I dont care so much to compare your power to my power, since the #s are not on the same correction, Im just comparing the shape of the power curve)
RPM= You/ Me/ Diff (Me vs You)
3750= 155/132/ -23
4000= 166/158/ -8
4500= 187/198/ +11
5000= 217/221/ +4
5500= 233/236/ +3
6000= 227/231/ +4
6500= 210/209/ -1
I would say that due to your ECU's timing, that explains the power difference below 4000. It would be great if the shift_control device that Grey99Max and Streetz use could work on the 5.5 gens (could it? hmmmm ) so you could actually be able to dyno from lower RPMs.
At 4500 I have more power, but thats probably due to the amount of SAFC "timing advance" at that RPM, that's my richest point so it has -20% cor.
How much timing do I have? I'll find out next week. My collegue has a dataloger device. I just need to rig up a cigarette lighter again (currently using that hole for engine start button [weeeerd]) so he can power up his laptop.
I think that after 5k we're pretty even. You held power on that setup slightly better than me closer to redline, most likely due to VCTs' fully retarding the intake cams at that range.
You have an SSIM (or SSIM "equivalent" like me) correct? My previous dyno at redline I had ~180WHP, SSIM and catback and now redline (different dyno so different correction, but still) ~210WHP.
Congrats on the #s tho, and the new setup. Must run like a beast on the highways with long straight roads :-D
#20
Originally Posted by 95BLKMAX
Ok, So I'm looking at your previous best dyno, and my current (non corrected STD, no runfiles FTL)...
(these are from my ubber eyeballing guestimations- ricer math , so give or take 3whp for the #s, and +/- 7WHP for the Diff due to different correction factors, etc... I dont care so much to compare your power to my power, since the #s are not on the same correction, Im just comparing the shape of the power curve)
RPM= You/ Me/ Diff (Me vs You)
3750= 155/132/ -23
4000= 166/158/ -8
4500= 187/198/ +11
5000= 217/221/ +4
5500= 233/236/ +3
6000= 227/231/ +4
6500= 210/209/ -1
Originally Posted by 95BLKMAX
I would say that due to your ECU's timing, that explains the power difference below 4000.
Originally Posted by 95BLKMAX
It would be great if the shift_control device that Grey99Max and Streetz use could work on the 5.5 gens (could it? hmmmm ) so you could actually be able to dyno from lower RPMs.
Originally Posted by 95BLKMAX
At 4500 I have more power, but thats probably due to the amount of SAFC "timing advance" at that RPM, that's my richest point so it has -20% cor.
How much timing do I have? I'll find out next week. My collegue has a dataloger device. I just need to rig up a cigarette lighter again (currently using that hole for engine start button [weeeerd]) so he can power up his laptop.
How much timing do I have? I'll find out next week. My collegue has a dataloger device. I just need to rig up a cigarette lighter again (currently using that hole for engine start button [weeeerd]) so he can power up his laptop.
Originally Posted by 95BLKMAX
I think that after 5k we're pretty even. You held power on that setup slightly better than me closer to redline, most likely due to VCTs' fully retarding the intake cams at that range.
Originally Posted by 95BLKMAX
You have an SSIM (or SSIM "equivalent" like me) correct?
Originally Posted by 95BLKMAX
My previous dyno at redline I had ~180WHP, SSIM and catback and now redline (different dyno so different correction, but still) ~210WHP.
Originally Posted by 95BLKMAX
Congrats on the #s tho, and the new setup. Must run like a beast on the highways with long straight roads :-D
#21
Yea I was comparing to the previous best. Damn man, so that was with stock IM... that hurts me, LOL.
My top end will never be as great as a 5.5 gen's, as I dont have VCTs to retard my intake cams up there. But I didnt think it was THAT much of a difference. My SSIM on a 5spd matches your stock IM results on an auto.. ouch, lol. Perhaps some long tube headeers will assist.
Ok so your greater power on the midrange relative to mine is from the ECUs higher timing AND functioning VI.
Siiiiiiigh... I wasnt going to mod my car anymore, just fix it and save up for the next car. Now you have me concidering headers and more SAFC "timing advance" to see what I can get up there in the RPMs , lol
My top end will never be as great as a 5.5 gen's, as I dont have VCTs to retard my intake cams up there. But I didnt think it was THAT much of a difference. My SSIM on a 5spd matches your stock IM results on an auto.. ouch, lol. Perhaps some long tube headeers will assist.
Ok so your greater power on the midrange relative to mine is from the ECUs higher timing AND functioning VI.
Siiiiiiigh... I wasnt going to mod my car anymore, just fix it and save up for the next car. Now you have me concidering headers and more SAFC "timing advance" to see what I can get up there in the RPMs , lol
#22
Originally Posted by 95BLKMAX
My top end will never be as great as a 5.5 gen's, as I dont have VCTs to retard my intake cams up there. But I didnt think it was THAT much of a difference.
Actually, w/ VTC's disconnected, thre isnt much difference since the signal pulse ends @ 6200 RPM ish.
Check this thread/post for reference:
http://forums.maxima.org/showthread.php?t=475914&page=4
So, in theory, this dyno might prove that something is bottlenecking your set-up. You should be able to hold power longer than that, even using A32 electronics. You have a SAFC I, correct? I'm not sure if the option is available for you, or the next time you plan on dynoing, but this might possibly be an avenue you may want to try. Or, It may in fact be the exhaust(header) set-up. My exhaust consists of this with the stock A33B rear to finish it off. It will be interesting once you get those timing logs. If possible, you should try and get gm/s (MAF flow) logs as well.
#23
Originally Posted by NmexMAX
Actually, w/ VTC's disconnected, thre isnt much difference since the signal pulse ends @ 6200 RPM ish.
#24
Originally Posted by nismology
Hybrid 3.5 swap cam timing ≠ VTC cam timing at full retard so that comparison's invalid.
Should he have drilled said cams with respect to this (your) thread? http://forums.maxima.org/showthread.php?t=506342
#25
I wouldnt want to use a bigger MAF housing, because then I would use less correction on the SAFC, and that would in turn reduce my "timing advance". An EU is out of the question at the moment, so SAFC ghetto timing advance is the only method I can use for now.
As far as my resonator, WSP put an 18" spiral lovered core. I didnt think much of it when i looked at it. I doubt it has an effect big enough to worry about, but it would make sense that the louvers WOULD affect flow to a point. I would change it but it wouldnt be a priority to me. At the moment Im looking into headers as next mod... sometime over the summer. As well as more ghetto timing advance
As far as my resonator, WSP put an 18" spiral lovered core. I didnt think much of it when i looked at it. I doubt it has an effect big enough to worry about, but it would make sense that the louvers WOULD affect flow to a point. I would change it but it wouldnt be a priority to me. At the moment Im looking into headers as next mod... sometime over the summer. As well as more ghetto timing advance
#26
Originally Posted by 95BLKMAX
I wouldnt want to use a bigger MAF housing, because then I would use less correction on the SAFC,
You see, using a Q45 IN and your car out, it will make so that you are @ 0 corrections (essentially as if you were 'stock') So you would still be taking away % because it is just like you were at square one, prior to said MAF mod rich. I needed to add 25%+ BEFORE I changed the settings, after I changed teh settings, I was exactly as I was before. Perhaps the SAFCI doesn't have this feature though.
Originally Posted by 95BLKMAX
I doubt it has an effect big enough to worry about, but it would make sense that the louvers WOULD affect flow to a point.
#27
Originally Posted by NmexMAX
But, you must not have read my large MAF thread thoroughly, or, just did not understand.
You see, using a Q45 IN and your car out, it will make so that you are @ 0 corrections (essentially as if you were 'stock') So you would still be taking away % because it is just like you were at square one, prior to said MAF mod rich. I needed to add 25%+ BEFORE I changed the settings, after I changed teh settings, I was exactly as I was before. Perhaps the SAFCI doesn't have this feature though.
You see, using a Q45 IN and your car out, it will make so that you are @ 0 corrections (essentially as if you were 'stock') So you would still be taking away % because it is just like you were at square one, prior to said MAF mod rich. I needed to add 25%+ BEFORE I changed the settings, after I changed teh settings, I was exactly as I was before. Perhaps the SAFCI doesn't have this feature though.
#28
Just noticed everything and I am seriously scratching my head here. I know we use the same dyno machine because I have been reading your threads.
It's weird how you are only getting 233 out of your car and you also did the IM mod. I have yet to do this mod + my car's weight I SHOULD be (in theory) be putting down less numbers than you and I still have yet to get the TS ECU.
Do you think you would have gained more hp with the intake on the maf than stock airbox setup? I really hope I am not putting out less numbers than you on my next dyno run. I seriously want to do the IM mod this weekend if time permits. Are you losing power some where?
It's weird how you are only getting 233 out of your car and you also did the IM mod. I have yet to do this mod + my car's weight I SHOULD be (in theory) be putting down less numbers than you and I still have yet to get the TS ECU.
Do you think you would have gained more hp with the intake on the maf than stock airbox setup? I really hope I am not putting out less numbers than you on my next dyno run. I seriously want to do the IM mod this weekend if time permits. Are you losing power some where?
#29
lee, the cars weight means nothing on a dyno. Means alot at the track, its worthless for a dyno. If it did, people would gut their interiors for dynos, lol.
lee, DO IT! do the IM mod, you wont regret it, lol
lee, DO IT! do the IM mod, you wont regret it, lol
#30
Originally Posted by leeI35
Just noticed everything and I am seriously scratching my head here. I know we use the same dyno machine because I have been reading your threads.
It's weird how you are only getting 233 out of your car and you also did the IM mod. I have yet to do this mod + my car's weight I SHOULD be (in theory) be putting down less numbers than you and I still have yet to get the TS ECU.
It's weird how you are only getting 233 out of your car and you also did the IM mod. I have yet to do this mod + my car's weight I SHOULD be (in theory) be putting down less numbers than you and I still have yet to get the TS ECU.
Originally Posted by leeI35
Do you think you would have gained more hp with the intake on the maf than stock airbox setup? I really hope I am not putting out less numbers than you on my next dyno run. I seriously want to do the IM mod this weekend if time permits. Are you losing power some where?
I wont take this as a downfall, I'll just improve and accessorize as needed
I'll be going again in about a week w/ a few more items done.
#31
Originally Posted by 95BLKMAX
lee, the cars weight means nothing on a dyno. Means alot at the track, its worthless for a dyno. If it did, people would gut their interiors for dynos, lol.
lee, DO IT! do the IM mod, you wont regret it, lol
lee, DO IT! do the IM mod, you wont regret it, lol
I wish I had my run files from the dyno shop so I can compare it with others.
#32
Originally Posted by leeI35
As you can see, I am pretty clueless when it comes to correction factors + SAFC II and dyno chart readings. I haven't really sat down and really go over figures here.
I wish I had my run files from the dyno shop so I can compare it with others.
I wish I had my run files from the dyno shop so I can compare it with others.
Comparing dynos and AFR is hard when you have a catalytic converter. Typically, these things like to be quite lean. (close to 14.0:1 AFR) But, your ca is altering your readings making you think you're leaner than you really are. I noticed this before and after my test pipe. Now I have a wb to give me readings 24/7, or, whenever I'm diving my car.
This is a good link, not sure if you've seen it yet, but it might ehlp you better understand DJ248's. :
http://forums.maxima.org/showpost.ph...9&postcount=19
What you want to do to 'tune' is see what AFR gives the best torque. As I said earlier, I've found (through research on here and some of my own personal dynos) that these 3.5's like to be quite lean (compared to what other tuners shoot for, i.e 12.8 - 13.2)
I would get a hold of that shop and have them either email those runfiles to you, or take a thumbdrive and save the files on it. Most shops keep a record of ALL runfiles on their DJ computer, so you may be in luck.
Keep in mind that manifold will shift your powerband to the right. For me it's better because I do tons of highway driving.
You should check to see what your SAFCII settings are right now. (RPM/Corr%) This way we could see/determine if you may in fact be advancing some timing a little if you have a lot of (-) values.
#33
Originally Posted by NmexMAX
Comparing dynos and AFR is hard when you have a catalytic converter. Typically, these things like to be quite lean. (close to 14.0:1 AFR) But, your ca is altering your readings making you think you're leaner than you really are. I noticed this before and after my test pipe. Now I have a wb to give me readings 24/7, or, whenever I'm diving my car.
This is a good link, not sure if you've seen it yet, but it might ehlp you better understand DJ248's. :
http://forums.maxima.org/showpost.ph...9&postcount=19
What you want to do to 'tune' is see what AFR gives the best torque. As I said earlier, I've found (through research on here and some of my own personal dynos) that these 3.5's like to be quite lean (compared to what other tuners shoot for, i.e 12.8 - 13.2)
I would get a hold of that shop and have them either email those runfiles to you, or take a thumbdrive and save the files on it. Most shops keep a record of ALL runfiles on their DJ computer, so you may be in luck.
Keep in mind that manifold will shift your powerband to the right. For me it's better because I do tons of highway driving.
You should check to see what your SAFCII settings are right now. (RPM/Corr%) This way we could see/determine if you may in fact be advancing some timing a little if you have a lot of (-) values.
This is a good link, not sure if you've seen it yet, but it might ehlp you better understand DJ248's. :
http://forums.maxima.org/showpost.ph...9&postcount=19
What you want to do to 'tune' is see what AFR gives the best torque. As I said earlier, I've found (through research on here and some of my own personal dynos) that these 3.5's like to be quite lean (compared to what other tuners shoot for, i.e 12.8 - 13.2)
I would get a hold of that shop and have them either email those runfiles to you, or take a thumbdrive and save the files on it. Most shops keep a record of ALL runfiles on their DJ computer, so you may be in luck.
Keep in mind that manifold will shift your powerband to the right. For me it's better because I do tons of highway driving.
You should check to see what your SAFCII settings are right now. (RPM/Corr%) This way we could see/determine if you may in fact be advancing some timing a little if you have a lot of (-) values.
I just got a chance to read through this. I will pm you my values when I get a chance. Thanks...
#34
Originally Posted by NmexMAX
Only way to find out is dyno again Strange thing is, part throttle driving is greatly improved with the maf thing. Also, my intake isn't set -up optimally. A lot of 70mm - > 82mm transitions FTL.
I wont take this as a downfall, I'll just improve and accessorize as needed
I'll be going again in about a week w/ a few more items done.
I wont take this as a downfall, I'll just improve and accessorize as needed
I'll be going again in about a week w/ a few more items done.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
kjlouis
4th Generation Maxima (1995-1999)
11
11-24-2018 06:09 AM
Finkle
4th Generation Maxima (1995-1999)
13
09-27-2015 09:53 PM
MaximaDrvr
7th Generation Maxima (2009-2015)
16
08-19-2015 08:20 PM