SSIM vs. Block off Plate comparison
08-28-2009, 02:43 PM
#41
im a toyota tech,theres no diagnostic issues with my car,i keep a close eye on my codes(which i have none),the knock sensor is a 470kohm resistor,so i highly doubt theres a problem there. as far as i know,the car is running 100%.
i ran the ssim first,it was on the car since i put the new engine in,actaully its been on for a year,we put the ssim on the new engine.
the car made better numbers with the nitrous with the block off plate.i think even peak numbers.
even with heat soak,i highly doubt the numbers would be that low.my air filter is alittle dirty,not too bad.based on the safc adjustments we made,the motor was running alot richer than others ive seen.so something is causing it to run rich.maybe my maf is going bad? i know theres a tsb for a lack of power,but it feels good,this issue sucks,i need kevin to get my dynographs so we can get a better look at this.
one problem i do have is because we filled my side mounts with poly., they cause alot of vibrations on deceleration,which loosened up acouple things(before i dynoed) like my belt tensioner, the rear coil packs,which i tightend wen i did my plugs a week ago. my plugs are gapped to 43,and there 1 step colder coppers.
any input would be greatly appreciated
i ran the ssim first,it was on the car since i put the new engine in,actaully its been on for a year,we put the ssim on the new engine.
the car made better numbers with the nitrous with the block off plate.i think even peak numbers.
even with heat soak,i highly doubt the numbers would be that low.my air filter is alittle dirty,not too bad.based on the safc adjustments we made,the motor was running alot richer than others ive seen.so something is causing it to run rich.maybe my maf is going bad? i know theres a tsb for a lack of power,but it feels good,this issue sucks,i need kevin to get my dynographs so we can get a better look at this.
one problem i do have is because we filled my side mounts with poly., they cause alot of vibrations on deceleration,which loosened up acouple things(before i dynoed) like my belt tensioner, the rear coil packs,which i tightend wen i did my plugs a week ago. my plugs are gapped to 43,and there 1 step colder coppers.
any input would be greatly appreciated
08-28-2009, 02:46 PM
#42
08-28-2009, 05:58 PM
#44
This isn't the first time an SSIM has compared unfavorably to a block-off plate. The facts are the facts. There is a significant loss in volumetric efficiency over a wide range of engine speeds no matter how you slice it guys.
08-28-2009, 10:03 PM
#46
08-28-2009, 10:09 PM
#47
any difference in the way this would play out if you have the z33 vtc map? made a huge difference (20+ wtq tuned) in my midrange torque with an SSIM, but maybe it would be an even bigger difference with a blockoff plate?
08-28-2009, 10:15 PM
#48
08-30-2009, 10:14 AM
#49
Wow, I don't how I missed this thread till now. I am also baffled on the low numbers Brian, since you have about the same mods as me. It's great that you got everything running good and the car feels better.
I remember when I was having o2 sensor issues and the car did not feel good but once I fixed those it was like it came back to life. It pulls like a raped ape on the highway now!
I really don't have any ideas what it could be at this point, but I will try to think of something if anything comes to mind.
On another note(I don't want to take over this thread, just for info) if people wanted to get some info(Kevin's notes) on the numbers I got while Kevin tuned and dynoed my car here they are(this was on nycmaximas.org):
"Oooops, all of the is Uncorrected with smoothing of 5
Mods list: Hotshot Headers, Several different SSIM's, NWP spacers, vafc-!!, 17* base timng, JWT pop-charger, motostorm UDP. Catback is semi-stock for now, it currently has normal pipe welded on both before and after the resonator at those two nasty spots, but I know there is more to be had especially with a 3"
The runfiles are on my VQbeatU.com
Also, if you have Winpep open up runs 1249 and 1253, the difference is with and without the thick spacer betwen the upper & lower plenums, decreasing the runner length clearly gives a perfect shift in the curves. The 1260 is the untuned run, good for comparisons, I lost some of the runs after 1263 where I had the upper rpm a/f's back to those in the 1260 run, I gained over 20ft/lb's of tourqe around 3500 rpms with a crap fuel controller. Also the results between port-matching and not portmatching the upper to lower plenums is quite significant, upwards of 10hp. I am pretty confident I could have broken 250fwp easily if I did the final runs without the middle spacer, but I wanted to tune it with what it was going out the door with obviously.
So my findings after doing over 25 runs on this car that day, the SSIM loses peak TQ but gains up top are still very nice and by port-matching the upper/lower with and without spacers provided ALOT more gains than I was expecting and brought the peak HP to higher levels than the stock manifold. Also, the NWP spacers are definitly well worth it and HIGHLY recommended, both me and the guy I rent the dyno from were absolutely amazed at the consistency between runs. You don't see that on a VQ, they always give higher #'s with subsequent back to back runs, and this car didn't do that anywhere near as much as I usually see, I have no doubt it's from the NWP spacers, some of the sets of runs it's absouletly amazing how you can't distinguish between them, also, my dyno'ing wasn't done with **** standards of temp and what not like when Aaron did his, so no doubt the 8hp/12ft/lb's peak is for real, and the install is nice and easy.
run 1249 and the two near it (not pictured, bt the DRF's are on my site) Are prety much a wash and useless, I didn't think a vaccum leak would affect the results that much, the car would barely idle and was throwing misfire codes.
__________________
Owner of Goodwin Motorsports in Plymouth, Massachusetts....Boostin' & hooking up maximas for the NYC crew on the DL "
I remember when I was having o2 sensor issues and the car did not feel good but once I fixed those it was like it came back to life. It pulls like a raped ape on the highway now!
I really don't have any ideas what it could be at this point, but I will try to think of something if anything comes to mind.On another note(I don't want to take over this thread, just for info) if people wanted to get some info(Kevin's notes) on the numbers I got while Kevin tuned and dynoed my car here they are(this was on nycmaximas.org):
"Oooops, all of the is Uncorrected with smoothing of 5
Mods list: Hotshot Headers, Several different SSIM's, NWP spacers, vafc-!!, 17* base timng, JWT pop-charger, motostorm UDP. Catback is semi-stock for now, it currently has normal pipe welded on both before and after the resonator at those two nasty spots, but I know there is more to be had especially with a 3"
The runfiles are on my VQbeatU.com
Also, if you have Winpep open up runs 1249 and 1253, the difference is with and without the thick spacer betwen the upper & lower plenums, decreasing the runner length clearly gives a perfect shift in the curves. The 1260 is the untuned run, good for comparisons, I lost some of the runs after 1263 where I had the upper rpm a/f's back to those in the 1260 run, I gained over 20ft/lb's of tourqe around 3500 rpms with a crap fuel controller. Also the results between port-matching and not portmatching the upper to lower plenums is quite significant, upwards of 10hp. I am pretty confident I could have broken 250fwp easily if I did the final runs without the middle spacer, but I wanted to tune it with what it was going out the door with obviously.
So my findings after doing over 25 runs on this car that day, the SSIM loses peak TQ but gains up top are still very nice and by port-matching the upper/lower with and without spacers provided ALOT more gains than I was expecting and brought the peak HP to higher levels than the stock manifold. Also, the NWP spacers are definitly well worth it and HIGHLY recommended, both me and the guy I rent the dyno from were absolutely amazed at the consistency between runs. You don't see that on a VQ, they always give higher #'s with subsequent back to back runs, and this car didn't do that anywhere near as much as I usually see, I have no doubt it's from the NWP spacers, some of the sets of runs it's absouletly amazing how you can't distinguish between them, also, my dyno'ing wasn't done with **** standards of temp and what not like when Aaron did his, so no doubt the 8hp/12ft/lb's peak is for real, and the install is nice and easy.
run 1249 and the two near it (not pictured, bt the DRF's are on my site) Are prety much a wash and useless, I didn't think a vaccum leak would affect the results that much, the car would barely idle and was throwing misfire codes.
__________________
Owner of Goodwin Motorsports in Plymouth, Massachusetts....Boostin' & hooking up maximas for the NYC crew on the DL "
08-30-2009, 02:15 PM
#51
So again, what if you port-match the upper and lower manifolds and install spacers with a block-off plate setup? Any mod you do with a gutted manifold you can do with a stock IM.
08-30-2009, 08:04 PM
#54
with the block off plate...u make power sooner but it dies off close to stock redline
with the ssim u make peak horsepower later in the rpms but once it gets there it holds majority of ur hp all the way to redline which is good when u have and extended rev limiter
Last edited by datdude20; 08-30-2009 at 08:12 PM.
08-31-2009, 01:17 AM
#55
I'm familiar with what the SSIM's effect on the powerband is. The question isn't whether or not the SSIM makes better power close to redline and beyond it. The question is, "How much past the factory rev limit do you need to be revving to overcome the losses below 6000 RPM?"
08-31-2009, 04:53 AM
#56
I'm familiar with what the SSIM's effect on the powerband is. The question isn't whether or not the SSIM makes better power close to redline and beyond it. The question is, "How much past the factory rev limit do you need to be revving to overcome the losses below 6000 RPM?"
08-31-2009, 06:14 PM
#60
every 6spd down here is using the SSIM it ranges from 12.8-14.0... 12.8's and 13.6 i think both have extended rev i dont remember the traps, one traps 105 IIRC but datdude should be able to give more accurate info... 14.0 is using G35 18's on the track so those numbers are most likely better but cant really tell the accuracy
08-31-2009, 08:02 PM
#61
My point is simply that it takes more than a few hundred RPM of improved power to provide an increase in acceleration. It takes higher AVERAGE horsepower over a given RPM range for that to be the case. If you've been around enough I'm sure you're familiar with the MEVI. People initially touted it's superior top-end performance not realizing that it kills off ~12 WTQ in the mid-range. Those that experimented with it then went to the track and discovered that the 1/4 mile times had not necessarily improved. The added top-end was almost entirely offset by the reduction in mid-range torque and acceleration ended up being a wash in the 1/4. Improved acceleration at highway speeds could be seen, however, even if the rev-limit wasn't extended. Nevertheless, it wasn't until the revs were extended by a significant margin that improvements were seen at the track.Now this is a better case scenerio than the SSIM. The MEVI only lost torque in the mid-range and actually provided slightly better low end than an USIM and added top-end past ~5200 RPM. So in a way the MEVI actually gave back what it took away; just shifted the power around. Now in the case of the SSIM, there are losses up until 6000 RPM when compared with a block-off plate. It actually takes away more than it adds, even with an extended rev-limit. All one can do is hope that the gear spacing is narrow enough that it keeps the engine on boil in the sweet spot which is what...6000-7200 RPM (rev-cut dependant of course)? A 6MT equipped car might be able to get away with this but a 5MT or 4AT equipped vehicle might have an issue with the revs dropping down too low on each upshift and losing time.
Since the automobiles in question don't have CVT's and the revs actually drop between shifts, average HP across that rev-range is more important than increased HP for a few hundred RPM if there are losses otherwise. So now my question is "How much over the stock redline does one need to be revving to see a net increase in acceleration?"
Last edited by nismology; 09-01-2009 at 01:52 AM.
08-31-2009, 08:13 PM
#62
every 6spd down here is using the SSIM it ranges from 12.8-14.0... 12.8's and 13.6 i think both have extended rev i dont remember the traps, one traps 105 IIRC but datdude should be able to give more accurate info... 14.0 is using G35 18's on the track so those numbers are most likely better but cant really tell the accuracy
09-01-2009, 04:36 AM
#64
naw not really.......well phanton-v has had both IM set-ups.....and from what i see.....he is running the same times but his trap speed is a mph higher than it was with the block off plate.......
i was able to get a 104 trap speed with i/h/e and a ssim and a stock rev limiter and i havent seen people trapping that high with i/h/e and a block off plate
i was able to get a 104 trap speed with i/h/e and a ssim and a stock rev limiter and i havent seen people trapping that high with i/h/e and a block off plate
09-01-2009, 05:42 AM
#65
i was able to get a 104 trap speed with i/h/e and a ssim and a stock rev limiter and i havent seen people trapping that high with i/h/e and a block off plate
09-01-2009, 08:19 AM
#67
So is the concensus that an SSIM with the block-off plate the best for gains? Not necessarily the best setup for everyone, but if you're looking for the most from the motor?
I was debating on doing an SSIM but I wasn't sure how I'd like it. With my mods, I do lose a little low end which I'm fine with because of how it pulls up top. But I thought maybe just porting my upper and lower IM (along with the spacers) might be best. I'm not sure where to go from here.
I was debating on doing an SSIM but I wasn't sure how I'd like it. With my mods, I do lose a little low end which I'm fine with because of how it pulls up top. But I thought maybe just porting my upper and lower IM (along with the spacers) might be best. I'm not sure where to go from here.
09-01-2009, 09:23 AM
#68
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Maryland
Posts: 430
Datdude, Grandhustle17, i2viscious and myself were just talking about this the other day. I had the NWP Plate on my stock Manifold and on my SSIM. as datdude stated, i was able to trap a better time at the same track with the SSIM + Block off plate. You can see in my sig what modifications i have done.
When i changed the stock Manifold to the SSIM. i didn't change anything else.
I am Thinking of porting out my stock manifold with the NWP plate to see what gains can be achieved. I might even port the SSIM to see what gains could be seen there also afterwords.
I dont have an extended rev limit so my car pulls all the way to rev limit. I know it can put down more more for the main fact that its still gaining power all the way through.
I have yet to get my car dyno'd.
When i changed the stock Manifold to the SSIM. i didn't change anything else.
I am Thinking of porting out my stock manifold with the NWP plate to see what gains can be achieved. I might even port the SSIM to see what gains could be seen there also afterwords.
I dont have an extended rev limit so my car pulls all the way to rev limit. I know it can put down more more for the main fact that its still gaining power all the way through.
I have yet to get my car dyno'd.
09-01-2009, 09:50 AM
#70
09-01-2009, 12:56 PM
#72
Missing the point entirely. The conditions in absolute terms aren't what's important. The fact is temp and barometric pressure isn't going to be perfectly consistent throughout the course of an entire month. 
Beside that, 1 MPH is well within the realm of normal run-to-run variance. Again, not very scientific.
Beside that, 1 MPH is well within the realm of normal run-to-run variance. Again, not very scientific.
09-01-2009, 02:18 PM
#73
Missing the point entirely. The conditions in absolute terms aren't what's important. The fact is temp and barometric pressure isn't going to be perfectly consistent throughout the course of an entire month. Beside that, 1 MPH is well within the realm of normal run-to-run variance. Again, not very scientific.
Beside that, 1 MPH is well within the realm of normal run-to-run variance. Again, not very scientific.
09-01-2009, 02:56 PM
#74
My point is simply that it takes more than a few hundred RPM of improved power to provide an increase in acceleration.
It takes higher AVERAGE horsepower over a given RPM range for that to be the case.
The added top-end was almost entirely offset by the reduction in mid-range torque and acceleration ended up being a wash in the 1/4. Improved acceleration at highway speeds could be seen, however, even if the rev-limit wasn't extended.
Nevertheless, it wasn't until the revs were extended by a significant margin that improvements were seen at the track.
Now in the case of the SSIM, there are losses up until 6000 RPM when compared with a block-off plate. It actually takes away more than it adds, even with an extended rev-limit.
All one can do is hope that the gear spacing is narrow enough that it keeps the engine on boil in the sweet spot which is what...6000-7200 RPM (rev-cut dependant of course)?
A 6MT equipped car might be able to get away with this but a 5MT or 4AT equipped vehicle might have an issue with the revs dropping down too low on each upshift and losing time.
Since the automobiles in question don't have CVT's and the revs actually drop between shifts, average HP across that rev-range is more important than increased HP for a few hundred RPM if there are losses otherwise. So now my question is "How much over the stock redline does one need to be revving to see a net increase in acceleration?"
It takes higher AVERAGE horsepower over a given RPM range for that to be the case.
The added top-end was almost entirely offset by the reduction in mid-range torque and acceleration ended up being a wash in the 1/4. Improved acceleration at highway speeds could be seen, however, even if the rev-limit wasn't extended.
Nevertheless, it wasn't until the revs were extended by a significant margin that improvements were seen at the track.
Now in the case of the SSIM, there are losses up until 6000 RPM when compared with a block-off plate. It actually takes away more than it adds, even with an extended rev-limit.
All one can do is hope that the gear spacing is narrow enough that it keeps the engine on boil in the sweet spot which is what...6000-7200 RPM (rev-cut dependant of course)?
A 6MT equipped car might be able to get away with this but a 5MT or 4AT equipped vehicle might have an issue with the revs dropping down too low on each upshift and losing time.
Since the automobiles in question don't have CVT's and the revs actually drop between shifts, average HP across that rev-range is more important than increased HP for a few hundred RPM if there are losses otherwise. So now my question is "How much over the stock redline does one need to be revving to see a net increase in acceleration?"
I won't be using either manifold setup when I complete my project so it's cool. 
09-01-2009, 05:31 PM
#77
Me personally if I had cams, 7500 rev limit, 3inch exhuast and hit the track all the time ssim 100%
Stock rev limiter and who cares what other mods blockoff plate but thats just may opinion
personally I have stock 3.5 cams and 3.0 timing and my car does not make power pass 6900rpms and I plan to go back to a block off plate and do some port work and add a spacer between the elbow and block off plate for added volume
btw almost forgot when I dyno'd my mevi I only loss 8ft lbs of tq and gain 2mph and 2tenths at the track with the mevi tied open
Last edited by t6378tp; 09-01-2009 at 05:35 PM.
09-01-2009, 08:31 PM
#79
Not at all, just to get the results you want you usually have to DIY. I like sharing different view point as much as anyone. I may have misinterpreted some of your posts but it sounds as if the test conditions others shared weren't to your liking so I simply suggested try it for yourself thats all.
09-01-2009, 08:37 PM
#80
Supporting Maxima.org Member
iTrader: (29)
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Middleboro/Carver, Ma
Posts: 4,572
YOOOOO! I don't mean to interupt the ssim discussion, but I think it hit me a few minutes ago! Regarding your low numbers and the '00vi cars low numbers............
If a setting is changed in the dyno software will a previous run read lower afterwards?
Because I dyno'd my car @ 306hp, and when i was back there a few months later I searched for my 2 runs and I swore they were my 2 runs, I was 99% sure they were my two runs, but for some reason they didn't read 306, I forget the number but I think it was something in the 270's or 280's and I was SOOOOOO confused.
So if a calibration setting is changed will it affect the nmbers from previous runs? Does anyone know if that's the case with dynojet? Because if it is than me seeing what I saw with my runs will all make sense and also confirm that the dyno is reading low because I know I saw 306hp on my first run right after.
If a setting is changed in the dyno software will a previous run read lower afterwards?
Because I dyno'd my car @ 306hp, and when i was back there a few months later I searched for my 2 runs and I swore they were my 2 runs, I was 99% sure they were my two runs, but for some reason they didn't read 306, I forget the number but I think it was something in the 270's or 280's and I was SOOOOOO confused.
So if a calibration setting is changed will it affect the nmbers from previous runs? Does anyone know if that's the case with dynojet? Because if it is than me seeing what I saw with my runs will all make sense and also confirm that the dyno is reading low because I know I saw 306hp on my first run right after.