My 2000 Max SE Auto Dyno results.....
03-10-2013, 01:03 PM
#161
Man, why can't the I6 get some respect. Both that they exist and that they have their merits. Sounds similar to the rumblings over on bimmerfest...
FYI with the exception of the E39, the 5er has always had available I4 and I6 engines (globally). BMW added V8s to the mix with the E34 (530i and 540i), and a V10 for the E60 M5. The best 5er, the E39, was only available with I6s (e.g. 530i
) and V8s.
03-10-2013, 09:49 PM
#162
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 539
Where do people get this from?
Would I gain 15 PS at the crank then?
Man, why can't the I6 get some respect. Both that they exist and that they have their merits. Sounds similar to the rumblings over on bimmerfest...
FYI with the exception of the E39, the 5er has always had available I4 and I6 engines (globally). BMW added V8s to the mix with the E34 (530i and 540i), and a V10 for the E60 M5. The best 5er, the E39, was only available with I6s (e.g. 530i) and V8s.
Would I gain 15 PS at the crank then?
Man, why can't the I6 get some respect. Both that they exist and that they have their merits. Sounds similar to the rumblings over on bimmerfest...
FYI with the exception of the E39, the 5er has always had available I4 and I6 engines (globally). BMW added V8s to the mix with the E34 (530i and 540i), and a V10 for the E60 M5. The best 5er, the E39, was only available with I6s (e.g. 530i
) and V8s.
03-11-2013, 03:05 PM
#163
Only ricer here is you lol bmw doesnt even make v6 lol the inline 6 is the staple motor for them.
and he was comparing an n/a 3L to a 3L both 6 cyls. with the exception of engine layouts an safc tune will be similar mod for mod. Yes it is an educated guess.
if say he bought intake that says plus 10hp and a y pipe says plus 15 and cat back 5 etc. Then if he said 222+10+15+5 that would be ricer math.
and he was comparing an n/a 3L to a 3L both 6 cyls. with the exception of engine layouts an safc tune will be similar mod for mod. Yes it is an educated guess.
if say he bought intake that says plus 10hp and a y pipe says plus 15 and cat back 5 etc. Then if he said 222+10+15+5 that would be ricer math.
Last edited by Grand_hustle17; 03-11-2013 at 07:41 PM.
03-11-2013, 06:20 PM
#165
03-11-2013, 09:54 PM
#166
Back on topic...
03-11-2013, 10:14 PM
#168
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 539
Yes it has VVTI.....but that has nothing to do with the internals. Any non "twin turbo" version of the 2JZ doesnt have the same reinforcement of the internals......but by no means is it a totally different engine. Its the same one, you just need to have it cracked opened and the internals reinforced. Once this is done you can boost the hell out of it. My old roommate used to have a supercharged IS300. Once he had stronger internals installed the thing handled 18psi on a daily basis. That thing still runs......and this was years ago. Its more popular to go the single turbo route, but superchargers tend to be more reliable day to day. It reliably puts out 420whp. Still running....
03-11-2013, 10:22 PM
#170
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 539
I wasn't denying they are different......He just made it sound like "Baaah they arent even the same engine" I call total BS.... Ive seen about 10 in various forms of boost killing just about everything else on the road...just like Supras do. So yeah, you need to slightly modify them.....big deal....you need to slightly modify most engines.
You are really starting to seem like you are desperate to flame someone...kinda weird dude.
" I call total BS.... Ive seen about 10 in various forms of boost killing just about everything else on the road...just like Supras do. So yeah, you need to slightly modify them.....big deal....you need to slightly modify most engines.You are really starting to seem like you are desperate to flame someone...kinda weird dude.
03-11-2013, 10:27 PM
#171
you are starting to seem like you cant take small corrections lol... this thread gives the forum a lil bit of excitement actually lol... all the egos flying all over... nuttn like a room filled with ppl of the same personalities lol... *waits for everybody to say how that we are so different*..... *opens sunroof, pulls up.... ceiling missing* 
03-11-2013, 10:31 PM
#172
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 539
you are starting to seem like you cant take small corrections lol... this thread gives the forum a lil bit of excitement actually lol... all the egos flying all over... nuttn like a room filled with ppl of the same personalities lol... *waits for everybody to say how that we are so different*..... *opens sunroof, pulls up.... ceiling missing*
03-12-2013, 02:08 AM
#175
Good, because I have one for you (see below).
I know what drivetrain losses are. My question is to why people always preach that FWD is "more efficient" than RWD. I define drivetrain efficiency (eta) as P_in/P_out, where P = power. That was, at best, the case 25+ years ago, but with modern vehicles, the difference between FWD and RWD lies within the variance among manufacturers and individual vehicles. And as it relates to a dyno, I highly doubt that is the case.
If one actually understands how transmissions are built, he or she knows that a 1:1 ratio is selected for the dyno because it is the most efficient. He or she also knows why it is the most efficient, namely that there are no gear pairs used. In a RWD transmission, the input shaft is directly coupled to the output shaft, hence the term "direct drive."
"But I don't have a true 1:1 ratio," you say. Ah, yes, that is because you have FWD (where the output shaft is parallel to the input shaft, meaning it always must run through a gear pair, which has efficiency losses). In a quasi-steady state dyno run, acceleration of the driveshaft (the only additional component in a RWD layout as compared to FWD) can be neglected (I_driveshaft << I_dyno). Thus, the case (i.e. dynos) in which this statement (eta_FWD > eta_RWD > eta_AWD) is most commonly quoted, is especially the case where it is NOT true.
Not even pulling theory into this argument, one can simply observe. Take the 2013 Audi A3 (this is one of only apples-to-apples comparison I could find). In the EPA cycle, the 2.0T S tronic - both FWD and AWD - scored a 21/28/24 (city/hwy/comb) mpg rating. In this case it appears your original statement falls flat, because eta_FWD = eta_AWD (if we assume eta ~ mpg rating).
"But," you cry, "that isn't the case for so many other cars." Ah, but you didn't say that, did you? You forgot to mention that not all AWD systems are equal. Instead, you made a uninformed, general statement, not taking into account that transmission type, drivetrain design and tuning have a much greater impact than simple layman's FWD/RWD/AWD designations. FTL
/Rant
If one actually understands how transmissions are built, he or she knows that a 1:1 ratio is selected for the dyno because it is the most efficient. He or she also knows why it is the most efficient, namely that there are no gear pairs used. In a RWD transmission, the input shaft is directly coupled to the output shaft, hence the term "direct drive."
"But I don't have a true 1:1 ratio," you say. Ah, yes, that is because you have FWD (where the output shaft is parallel to the input shaft, meaning it always must run through a gear pair, which has efficiency losses). In a quasi-steady state dyno run, acceleration of the driveshaft (the only additional component in a RWD layout as compared to FWD) can be neglected (I_driveshaft << I_dyno). Thus, the case (i.e. dynos) in which this statement (eta_FWD > eta_RWD > eta_AWD) is most commonly quoted, is especially the case where it is NOT true.
Not even pulling theory into this argument, one can simply observe. Take the 2013 Audi A3 (this is one of only apples-to-apples comparison I could find). In the EPA cycle, the 2.0T S tronic - both FWD and AWD - scored a 21/28/24 (city/hwy/comb) mpg rating. In this case it appears your original statement falls flat, because eta_FWD = eta_AWD (if we assume eta ~ mpg rating).
"But," you cry, "that isn't the case for so many other cars." Ah, but you didn't say that, did you? You forgot to mention that not all AWD systems are equal. Instead, you made a uninformed, general statement, not taking into account that transmission type, drivetrain design and tuning have a much greater impact than simple layman's FWD/RWD/AWD designations. FTL
/Rant
Last edited by tcb_02_max; 03-12-2013 at 02:21 AM.
03-12-2013, 05:20 AM
#176
I wasn't denying they are different......He just made it sound like "Baaah they arent even the same engine" I call total BS.... Ive seen about 10 in various forms of boost killing just about everything else on the road...just like Supras do. So yeah, you need to slightly modify them.....big deal....you need to slightly modify most engines.
You are really starting to seem like you are desperate to flame someone...kinda weird dude.
" I call total BS.... Ive seen about 10 in various forms of boost killing just about everything else on the road...just like Supras do. So yeah, you need to slightly modify them.....big deal....you need to slightly modify most engines.You are really starting to seem like you are desperate to flame someone...kinda weird dude.
03-12-2013, 05:38 AM
#177
03-12-2013, 05:49 PM
#181
It's funny how you go on and on about your "vast" knowledge of automotive engineering, but in the end you don't prove me wrong.
You say things like You know: fear, uncertainty, and doubt. More popularly know as FUD.
I made a statement that is g-e-n-e-r-a-l-l-y true. This is maxima.org , not MyBrainIsSoMuchBiggerThanYours.org or sae.org.
Here, let me shoot down that one example of AWD being as efficient as FWD: That Audi S3, i bet it spends alot of it's time with torque going through the front wheels only. sometimes its just the front wheels, sometimes its all the wheels. AWD is dynamic. FWD is not: front wheels only. And you can bet when they made those EPA economy numbers they were driving like Ms daisy. Not exactly the type of driver that would take advantage of AWD.
You took things out of context with your college math equations. Go play in that sandbox of those other websites if you want to.
Smooches
You say things like You know: fear, uncertainty, and doubt. More popularly know as FUD.
I made a statement that is g-e-n-e-r-a-l-l-y true. This is maxima.org , not MyBrainIsSoMuchBiggerThanYours.org or sae.org.
Here, let me shoot down that one example of AWD being as efficient as FWD: That Audi S3, i bet it spends alot of it's time with torque going through the front wheels only. sometimes its just the front wheels, sometimes its all the wheels. AWD is dynamic. FWD is not: front wheels only. And you can bet when they made those EPA economy numbers they were driving like Ms daisy. Not exactly the type of driver that would take advantage of AWD.
You took things out of context with your college math equations. Go play in that sandbox of those other websites if you want to.
Smooches
03-13-2013, 02:31 AM
#186
Here, let me shoot down that one example of AWD being as efficient as FWD: That Audi S3, i bet it spends alot of it's time with torque going through the front wheels only. sometimes its just the front wheels, sometimes its all the wheels. AWD is dynamic. FWD is not: front wheels only. And you can bet when they made those EPA economy numbers they were driving like Ms daisy. Not exactly the type of driver that would take advantage of AWD.
You demonstrate your lack of knowledge of the very things you purport to understand (by making your general statements). And you illustrate my point perfectly: AWD is not always AWD, that is:
ergo, general statements cannot be used.
How?
Last edited by tcb_02_max; 03-13-2013 at 02:36 AM.
03-13-2013, 07:07 AM
#187
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 539
Not completely yet. No one has thrown any poo
Getting valve covers done today at my new favorite shop......then after those are off my mind I will save the money and tune this bish up. Then unless something maintenance wise goes in the meantime, I'll save for a RSB and put that on.
On a side note...since Im an Auto, would a grounding kit be wise BEFORE the SAFC?
On a side note...since Im an Auto, would a grounding kit be wise BEFORE the SAFC?
03-13-2013, 08:36 AM
#188
Granted, I did come off a bit arrogantly, for which I apologize. I mostly was/am frustrated with people simply repeating statements (without any context or proof) that are both vague and only half-truths. I did not want this thread to turn into/continue to be a pissing contest. I did my best to present a simple, logical reasoning why the statement you made (especially in the context of a dyno run) is not true. I chose one example that clearly contradicts your statement. I am not burdened with providing proof (as you also failed to do), nor would not be possible without scientifically gathered empirical data. Which only companies within the industry have access to. Nor appropriate, as you said:
Forgive my attempt to provide a bit more technical reasoning and information to those org'ers interested in such trivialities.
These statements equally vague and proof-lacking. What you, perhaps in other words, accused me of doing.
You demonstrate your lack of knowledge of the very things you purport to understand (by making your general statements). And you illustrate my point perfectly: AWD is not always AWD, that is:
ergo, general statements cannot be used.
That may well be, but the EPA testing procedure is scientific, i.e. repeatable. They never claimed to provide numbers that are representative of a real-world driving, but numbers with which one can compare vehicles with one another. (As they say, YMMV.) Which do you think is a stronger argument, a general statement, without context or proof, or a scientific one, in which all parameters are clearly defined?
How?
Forgive my attempt to provide a bit more technical reasoning and information to those org'ers interested in such trivialities.
These statements equally vague and proof-lacking. What you, perhaps in other words, accused me of doing.
You demonstrate your lack of knowledge of the very things you purport to understand (by making your general statements). And you illustrate my point perfectly: AWD is not always AWD, that is:
ergo, general statements cannot be used.
That may well be, but the EPA testing procedure is scientific, i.e. repeatable. They never claimed to provide numbers that are representative of a real-world driving, but numbers with which one can compare vehicles with one another. (As they say, YMMV.) Which do you think is a stronger argument, a general statement, without context or proof, or a scientific one, in which all parameters are clearly defined?
How?
03-13-2013, 08:41 AM
#189
Not completely yet. No one has thrown any poo
Getting valve covers done today at my new favorite shop......then after those are off my mind I will save the money and tune this bish up. Then unless something maintenance wise goes in the meantime, I'll save for a RSB and put that on.
On a side note...since Im an Auto, would a grounding kit be wise BEFORE the SAFC?
Getting valve covers done today at my new favorite shop......then after those are off my mind I will save the money and tune this bish up. Then unless something maintenance wise goes in the meantime, I'll save for a RSB and put that on.
On a side note...since Im an Auto, would a grounding kit be wise BEFORE the SAFC?
what happened to getting the vafc2? aren't there more points to tune? nd opening the vias about 500 rpm earlier would be beneficial for an auto no? Or am I the only one that sees this?
03-13-2013, 09:54 AM
#190
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 539
Ive had 50% of people telling me a vafc would be useless. Even the guy at the tuning shop said via email "i dont even know if you can use a vafc on your car"......then again they do a lot more tuning on turbo cars....a great deal of STIs and Supras. Im cheap so it would be either SAFC or VAFC.....not II. I mentioned auto because i guess the grounding kits make more of a difference on cars with auto trans........
03-13-2013, 10:26 AM
#191
Ive had 50% of people telling me a vafc would be useless. Even the guy at the tuning shop said via email "i dont even know if you can use a vafc on your car"......then again they do a lot more tuning on turbo cars....a great deal of STIs and Supras. Im cheap so it would be either SAFC or VAFC.....not II. I mentioned auto because i guess the grounding kits make more of a difference on cars with auto trans........
I would take the vafc since you would benefit from changing vias engagement. The person who i bought my 00vi from had an auto... he set his to 4500 so at wide pen hrottle at every gear shift vias is open. The 4spd drops to like 4700 rpm every shift. I had it at 4400 rpm when I first did it on my 5spd and I found it a little much (too much midrange) especially withy rev extension so i set it to 4900. But for auto, imo it would be beneficial for track times AND everyday driving.
dont always listen to what everyone says. It doesnt hurt to hear them out but always do your own research and comback with more knowledge and see if that person actually now's what they're talking about. Vafc2 is great for your own basic af tuning and it has a bunch of cool features like the displays (fancy japs lol).
also shop that you use probably deal with much better FULL tuners such as greddy eu or haltech or MS. it wouldnt be wise to tune with afc for big powered cars plus you would need to take advantage of timing as well which afc can't do (it can but by ccident and not always in your favour due to changing maf voltage)
effin mobile, so many mistakes and edits ffs lol
Last edited by carsnwomen91; 03-13-2013 at 10:39 AM.
03-13-2013, 10:47 AM
#192
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 539
Pfft LOL vafc2 is in my car and i have your intake manifold. Vafc2 has 12 tuning points over rpms as opposed 6 (i think) and fancy graphs. Other than he vtec engagement it's like any ther afc.
I would take the vafc since you would benefit from changing vias engagement. The person who i bought my 00vi from had an auto... he set his to 4500 so at wide pen hrottle at every gear shift vias is open. The 4spd drops to like 4700 rpm every shift. I had it at 4400 rpm when I first did it on my 5spd and I found it a little much (too much midrange) especially withy rev extension so i set it to 4900. But for auto, imo it would be beneficial for track times AND everyday driving.
dont always listen to what everyone says. It doesnt hurt to hear them out but always do your own research and comback with more knowledge and see if that person actually now's what they're talking about. Vafc2 is great for your own basic af tuning and it has a bunch of cool features like the displays (fancy japs lol).
also shop that you use probably deal with much better FULL tuners such as greddy eu or haltech or MS. it wouldnt be wise to tune with afc for big powered cars plus you would need to take advantage of timing as well which afc can't do (it can but by ccident and not always in your favour due to changing maf voltage)
effin mobile, so many mistakes and edits ffs lol
I would take the vafc since you would benefit from changing vias engagement. The person who i bought my 00vi from had an auto... he set his to 4500 so at wide pen hrottle at every gear shift vias is open. The 4spd drops to like 4700 rpm every shift. I had it at 4400 rpm when I first did it on my 5spd and I found it a little much (too much midrange) especially withy rev extension so i set it to 4900. But for auto, imo it would be beneficial for track times AND everyday driving.
dont always listen to what everyone says. It doesnt hurt to hear them out but always do your own research and comback with more knowledge and see if that person actually now's what they're talking about. Vafc2 is great for your own basic af tuning and it has a bunch of cool features like the displays (fancy japs lol).
also shop that you use probably deal with much better FULL tuners such as greddy eu or haltech or MS. it wouldnt be wise to tune with afc for big powered cars plus you would need to take advantage of timing as well which afc can't do (it can but by ccident and not always in your favour due to changing maf voltage)
effin mobile, so many mistakes and edits ffs lol
03-13-2013, 11:37 AM
#193
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 424
Hey 2kMaxim, You want I post to my thread from your dyno data If you prefer.
Here: http://forums.maxima.org/dyno-discus...ml#post8383190
Thank
Mike
Here: http://forums.maxima.org/dyno-discus...ml#post8383190
Thank
Mike
03-13-2013, 12:10 PM
#194
Yup i believe that's right... I used to have t mounted on the steerin column then I stuck it in the cubby hole under the bose.
03-13-2013, 12:45 PM
#195
Might as well get the SAFCII, in case you want to upgrade to a larger MAF later.
VAFC II has up to 24. The VTEC option, if manipulated correctly, can do 24 points fuel points. Come on people, this is old news.
http://forums.maxima.org/5th-generat...ng-thread.html
http://forums.maxima.org/all-motor/3...s-reading.html
http://forums.maxima.org/5th-generat...ng-thread.html
http://forums.maxima.org/all-motor/3...s-reading.html
Last edited by NmexMAX; 03-13-2013 at 12:51 PM.
03-13-2013, 10:55 PM
#199
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 539
Might as well get the SAFCII, in case you want to upgrade to a larger MAF later.
VAFC II has up to 24. The VTEC option, if manipulated correctly, can do 24 points fuel points. Come on people, this is old news.
http://forums.maxima.org/5th-generat...ng-thread.html
http://forums.maxima.org/all-motor/3...s-reading.html
VAFC II has up to 24. The VTEC option, if manipulated correctly, can do 24 points fuel points. Come on people, this is old news.
http://forums.maxima.org/5th-generat...ng-thread.html
http://forums.maxima.org/all-motor/3...s-reading.html
What the heck do I need 24 points of tuning for?!Nope!
My goal isnt to have the ballsiest NA DE-k with 175k miles on it...lol. It already sounds fantastic and has respectable HP and especially torque...I just want a few more ponies, and nice flat curves. If you wanna get technical Ive already spent way too much extra money on "fun mods" for a 13 year old daily driver..lol. Who knows what could go wrong a month from now regular maintenance wise....
03-14-2013, 04:43 AM
#200
I thought the older the car the more fun to mod?.... Wouldnt wanna devalue a 1yr old car n have something go wrong with that now do u? Lol... I understand u though, ur pretty much at ur goal with this car, thats cool.... I think i want to squeeze about 230whp out of mines n im good
