I have reason to beleive maxima headers are worse then CL-S headers!
11-12-2002, 12:07 PM
#41
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Detroit Metro Area
Posts: 1,617
Originally posted by dwapenyi
That's like saying if the exhaust valves stay completely closed from a broken cam belt or chain, rpm and and displacement will still determine the amount of exhaust on that NA motor. The way the valves work do have a significant influence. That's the whole point behind VTEC.
DW
That's like saying if the exhaust valves stay completely closed from a broken cam belt or chain, rpm and and displacement will still determine the amount of exhaust on that NA motor. The way the valves work do have a significant influence. That's the whole point behind VTEC.
DW
A properly functioning NA engine passes it's displacement worth of exhaust every 2 RPM. So if you have a 3.5L engine running at 6500RPM it will pass 11375L of exhaust gas per minute. You can mess with the valve timing all you want, you aren't going to get more or less exhaust unless you change the RPM or add FI to the engine.
Stereodude
11-12-2002, 12:13 PM
#42
Originally posted by Stereodude
My statement was correct. VTEC messes with the valve timing which makes more power. It does not mess with the amount of exhaust.
Stereodude
My statement was correct. VTEC messes with the valve timing which makes more power. It does not mess with the amount of exhaust.
Stereodude
11-12-2002, 01:02 PM
#43
Logic says lift doesn't determine how much air passes through a valve opening. If you take a skinny straw and pretend your lungs are the cylinder on the exhaust stroke, and blow really really hard through the skinny straw, you will pass the same amount of air out of your lungs as if you used no straw at all and just blew through your open mouth. The size of the opening (comparable to the lift of the valve) doesn't dictate how much air comes out, just the velocity with which it comes out. You are still expelling say 2L of air (your lung displacement). It's Bernoulli's equation, V1xP1 = V2xP2.
11-12-2002, 01:12 PM
#44
But doesn't that effect how much air you can flow per xxx time? How much air in 10 sec could you flow though a 1 mm dia straw vs a 3" pipe? Yes you are only expelling whatever air is in your lungs but you are also refilling your lungs correct?
11-12-2002, 01:29 PM
#45
Originally posted by Jeff92se
But doesn't that effect how much air you can flow per xxx time? How much air in 10 sec could you flow though a 1 mm dia straw vs a 3" pipe? Yes you are only expelling whatever air is in your lungs but you are also refilling your lungs correct?
But doesn't that effect how much air you can flow per xxx time? How much air in 10 sec could you flow though a 1 mm dia straw vs a 3" pipe? Yes you are only expelling whatever air is in your lungs but you are also refilling your lungs correct?
As long as you can generate enough velocity through the opening to expel all the air, the duration doesn't factor in. You are right though, there is a threshold, beyond which the duration will come into play, but when we are talking about the difference in lift between a VTEC cam and non-VTEC cam, I don't think we are coming near that threshold yet.
11-12-2002, 01:35 PM
#46
That's just it. The high lift VTEC cam has a longer duration and high lift(I believe)So if you are referring to how long the valve is open, then duration is a factor. In fact, any aftermarket cam built for higher hp, will feature higher lift and duration values. To increase the valve area(lift x valve dia) and to increase the time the valve is open(to either allow more air in or to allow more air out).
I agree the stock VTEC cams don't run into the head's flow capacity.
I agree the stock VTEC cams don't run into the head's flow capacity.
Originally posted by Nealoc187
As long as you can generate enough velocity through the opening to expel all the air, the duration doesn't factor in. You are right though, there is a threshold, beyond which the duration will come into play, but when we are talking about the difference in lift between a VTEC cam and non-VTEC cam, I don't think we are coming near that threshold yet.
As long as you can generate enough velocity through the opening to expel all the air, the duration doesn't factor in. You are right though, there is a threshold, beyond which the duration will come into play, but when we are talking about the difference in lift between a VTEC cam and non-VTEC cam, I don't think we are coming near that threshold yet.
11-12-2002, 01:57 PM
#47
So is that to say then that a non-VTEC motor is leaving excess amounts of exhaust gas inside the cylinder after the exhaust stroke? And then a motor with an aftermarket cam will expel more of that exhaust gas and thereby make more power?
I was trying to make the point that changing ONLY the lift would not change the amount of exhaust gas expelled, as the velocity of those gasses would increase to escape the combustion chamber through an effectively "smaller" opening, without changing the duration (time) that the valve was open.
On the other hand if you incease both the duration (time) and lift ("opening size") then it will flow more air because it has more time to do so.
Maybe my logic is flawed, I'ts been quite a while since I took any fluid dynamics courses. Or maybe I misunderstood you at first. I guess if the engine is near the threshold of how much exhaust it can flow out of a cylinder per given lift, then increasing the lift ONLY and not the duration would flow more air, but I assumed the engine was NOT at that threshold and a small increase in lift (but not duration) would not affect the volume of gas flow per stroke.
I was trying to make the point that changing ONLY the lift would not change the amount of exhaust gas expelled, as the velocity of those gasses would increase to escape the combustion chamber through an effectively "smaller" opening, without changing the duration (time) that the valve was open.
On the other hand if you incease both the duration (time) and lift ("opening size") then it will flow more air because it has more time to do so.
Maybe my logic is flawed, I'ts been quite a while since I took any fluid dynamics courses. Or maybe I misunderstood you at first. I guess if the engine is near the threshold of how much exhaust it can flow out of a cylinder per given lift, then increasing the lift ONLY and not the duration would flow more air, but I assumed the engine was NOT at that threshold and a small increase in lift (but not duration) would not affect the volume of gas flow per stroke.
11-12-2002, 03:07 PM
#48
Originally posted by Dave B
In typical Dave B fashion, I have to sour this post
No one seems to be paying attention to the fact that the CL-S motor makes power FAR longer than the 3.5 VQ. Nearly every 3.5VQ, modded or not, has peak power occuring at 5800-6000rpms and the power slowly drops as it approaches 6500. The CL-S on the otherhand is making peak power at 6800rpms with power slowly falling off at 7300rpms. What I'm getting at is the VTEC system allows the CL-S to continue to make power longer. It's simply a better air pump than the 3.5VQ ever will be which leads me to say you will not see the same gains with headers on the 3.5VQ vs the CL-S. Air flow restrictions increase as velocity increases. The CL-S winds a lot higher than the 3.5VQ ever will. Don has already proven that the stock manifolds flow very well on the Maxima. Just because their ugly doesn't mean their restrictive. The restriction on the 4th/5th gen has always been the y-pipe. Ethan proved this when he got the New Zealand headers installed and made 1hp more than a y-pipe. The design of the headers was not bad at all. The truth was that the manifolds aren't restrictive.
Dave
In typical Dave B fashion, I have to sour this post
No one seems to be paying attention to the fact that the CL-S motor makes power FAR longer than the 3.5 VQ. Nearly every 3.5VQ, modded or not, has peak power occuring at 5800-6000rpms and the power slowly drops as it approaches 6500. The CL-S on the otherhand is making peak power at 6800rpms with power slowly falling off at 7300rpms. What I'm getting at is the VTEC system allows the CL-S to continue to make power longer. It's simply a better air pump than the 3.5VQ ever will be which leads me to say you will not see the same gains with headers on the 3.5VQ vs the CL-S. Air flow restrictions increase as velocity increases. The CL-S winds a lot higher than the 3.5VQ ever will. Don has already proven that the stock manifolds flow very well on the Maxima. Just because their ugly doesn't mean their restrictive. The restriction on the 4th/5th gen has always been the y-pipe. Ethan proved this when he got the New Zealand headers installed and made 1hp more than a y-pipe. The design of the headers was not bad at all. The truth was that the manifolds aren't restrictive. Dave
11-12-2002, 03:19 PM
#49
How is the compression ratio that much different? we only talking about 10.3:1 to 10.5:1 That dont account for that much more air that will equivalate to over 15more hp than your estimate of only being 15 and the acura gives 30.
Dixit
Dixit
11-12-2002, 03:23 PM
#50
it's not just the compression ratio the engine breathes efficently about 1000 rpms higher then a maxima which equates to a lot more air and he already got i think 11?? i might be wrong off a y-pipe so with this i think maybe 15 total tops, so another 4hp and it's a LOTTTT of work to install maxima headers.
11-12-2002, 03:37 PM
#51
Okay I agree with you there about 1000rpms brings more air, hear me out here.
That graph shows the 3.2CL-s making its peak at just around 6500rpm. I take a car like mine and on my dyno my peak hp was made just around 6400rpm. So it dont really matter that they can do almost upto 7krpm because they aint making their peak there.
The gain of almost 30whp is happening at 6500rpm. That is I think the whole argument of more air and compression ratio aint that valid.
Given it is a different style engine, but I would think headers on a max should do max 20. Max headers DONT include Ypipes, these Acura Computech ones include the whole thing, so they are factoring in the Ypipe as well.
Dixit
That graph shows the 3.2CL-s making its peak at just around 6500rpm. I take a car like mine and on my dyno my peak hp was made just around 6400rpm. So it dont really matter that they can do almost upto 7krpm because they aint making their peak there.
The gain of almost 30whp is happening at 6500rpm. That is I think the whole argument of more air and compression ratio aint that valid.
Given it is a different style engine, but I would think headers on a max should do max 20. Max headers DONT include Ypipes, these Acura Computech ones include the whole thing, so they are factoring in the Ypipe as well.
Dixit
11-12-2002, 03:59 PM
#52
....
Playing with the Ray Hall calc I get:
Acura 3.2 Type-S:
----------
Bore = 3.5039in.
Stroke = 3.3835in.
At 7000rpms = 277.62 CFM
At 7300rpms(Redline?) = 289.51 CFM
Max 3.5:
---------
Bore = 3.7598in.
Stroke = 3.2047in.
At 6400rpms = 276.6182 CFM
At 6500rpms(Redline?) = 280.940 CFM
So it looks like until the CL-S passes 7000rpms(past PEAK hp with OBX headers!) the Maxima is flowing more at 6400rpms, right? Or am I missing something here?
Acura 3.2 Type-S:
----------
Bore = 3.5039in.
Stroke = 3.3835in.
At 7000rpms = 277.62 CFM
At 7300rpms(Redline?) = 289.51 CFM
Max 3.5:
---------
Bore = 3.7598in.
Stroke = 3.2047in.
At 6400rpms = 276.6182 CFM
At 6500rpms(Redline?) = 280.940 CFM
So it looks like until the CL-S passes 7000rpms(past PEAK hp with OBX headers!) the Maxima is flowing more at 6400rpms, right? Or am I missing something here?
11-12-2002, 04:13 PM
#53
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,012
I'm Amazed
*said with the voice of the comic book store dude in the simpsons*
Best maxima discussion ever. Everyone who has taken part in this discussion is educated, respecting of others... i'm amazed.. i guess sprint isn't here yet
Best maxima discussion ever. Everyone who has taken part in this discussion is educated, respecting of others... i'm amazed.. i guess sprint isn't here yet
11-12-2002, 04:21 PM
#54
Re: ....
Ice, does that account for the Honda's VTEC varible lift cams? Or does that just use bore/stroke? For a fair comparasion you would have to factor in Acura's VTEC and whatever aids they have and Nissan's VTC/varible intake manifold design also.
I think some of you are not accounting for how much more hp Honda/Acura's VTEC system is worth. Just take a non-gsr vs gsr. About the same torque but there's close to a 30hp diff on just this little 1.8 liter 4 banger. One of the VTEC's advantages is to create more hp and hold it over a longer rpm range than usual. Nissan's VTC and varible intake does this also but not like using two different intake cam profiles.
I think some of you are not accounting for how much more hp Honda/Acura's VTEC system is worth. Just take a non-gsr vs gsr. About the same torque but there's close to a 30hp diff on just this little 1.8 liter 4 banger. One of the VTEC's advantages is to create more hp and hold it over a longer rpm range than usual. Nissan's VTC and varible intake does this also but not like using two different intake cam profiles.
Originally posted by IceY2K1
Playing with the Ray Hall calc I get:
Acura 3.2 Type-S:
----------
Bore = 3.5039in.
Stroke = 3.3835in.
At 7000rpms = 277.62 CFM
At 7300rpms(Redline?) = 289.51 CFM
Max 3.5:
---------
Bore = 3.7598in.
Stroke = 3.2047in.
At 6400rpms = 276.6182 CFM
At 6500rpms(Redline?) = 280.940 CFM
So it looks like until the CL-S passes 7000rpms(past PEAK hp with OBX headers!) the Maxima is flowing more at 6400rpms, right? Or am I missing something here?
Playing with the Ray Hall calc I get:
Acura 3.2 Type-S:
----------
Bore = 3.5039in.
Stroke = 3.3835in.
At 7000rpms = 277.62 CFM
At 7300rpms(Redline?) = 289.51 CFM
Max 3.5:
---------
Bore = 3.7598in.
Stroke = 3.2047in.
At 6400rpms = 276.6182 CFM
At 6500rpms(Redline?) = 280.940 CFM
So it looks like until the CL-S passes 7000rpms(past PEAK hp with OBX headers!) the Maxima is flowing more at 6400rpms, right? Or am I missing something here?
11-12-2002, 04:32 PM
#55
Re: Re: ....
Originally posted by Jeff92se
Ice, does that account for the Honda's VTEC varible lift cams? Or does that just use bore/stroke? For a fair comparasion you would have to factor in Acura's VTEC and whatever aids they have and Nissan's VTC/varible intake manifold design also.
Ice, does that account for the Honda's VTEC varible lift cams? Or does that just use bore/stroke? For a fair comparasion you would have to factor in Acura's VTEC and whatever aids they have and Nissan's VTC/varible intake manifold design also.
I'm still trying to understand why "VTEC" makes an engine displace more air than the cylinder/combustion chamber volume.
Give me time and I'll get it.
11-12-2002, 04:36 PM
#56
Re: Re: Re: ....
VTEC engages a higher lift cam with more duration. Lifts the intake valve more and keeps it open longer = lets more air/fuel in. The type of cam is ideal for high rpm running.
Originally posted by IceY2K1
No, strictly bore, stroke, and RPM.
I'm still trying to understand why "VTEC" makes an engine displace more air than the cylinder/combustion chamber volume.
Give me time and I'll get it.
No, strictly bore, stroke, and RPM.
I'm still trying to understand why "VTEC" makes an engine displace more air than the cylinder/combustion chamber volume.
Give me time and I'll get it.
11-12-2002, 04:41 PM
#57
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 7,530
Re: I'm Amazed
Originally posted by MaximaMan
*said with the voice of the comic book store dude in the simpsons*
Best maxima discussion ever. Everyone who has taken part in this discussion is educated, respecting of others... i'm amazed.. i guess sprint isn't here yet
*said with the voice of the comic book store dude in the simpsons*
Best maxima discussion ever. Everyone who has taken part in this discussion is educated, respecting of others... i'm amazed.. i guess sprint isn't here yet
SuDZ
11-12-2002, 04:57 PM
#58
Re: ....
Originally posted by IceY2K1
Playing with the Ray Hall calc I get:
Acura 3.2 Type-S:
----------
Bore = 3.5039in.
Stroke = 3.3835in.
At 7000rpms = 277.62 CFM
At 7300rpms(Redline?) = 289.51 CFM
Max 3.5:
---------
Bore = 3.7598in.
Stroke = 3.2047in.
At 6400rpms = 276.6182 CFM
At 6500rpms(Redline?) = 280.940 CFM
So it looks like until the CL-S passes 7000rpms(past PEAK hp with OBX headers!) the Maxima is flowing more at 6400rpms, right? Or am I missing something here?
Playing with the Ray Hall calc I get:
Acura 3.2 Type-S:
----------
Bore = 3.5039in.
Stroke = 3.3835in.
At 7000rpms = 277.62 CFM
At 7300rpms(Redline?) = 289.51 CFM
Max 3.5:
---------
Bore = 3.7598in.
Stroke = 3.2047in.
At 6400rpms = 276.6182 CFM
At 6500rpms(Redline?) = 280.940 CFM
So it looks like until the CL-S passes 7000rpms(past PEAK hp with OBX headers!) the Maxima is flowing more at 6400rpms, right? Or am I missing something here?
11-12-2002, 04:59 PM
#59
Re: Re: Re: Re: ....
Originally posted by Jeff92se
VTEC engages a higher lift cam with more duration. Lifts the intake valve more and keeps it open longer = lets more air/fuel in. The type of cam is ideal for high rpm running.
VTEC engages a higher lift cam with more duration. Lifts the intake valve more and keeps it open longer = lets more air/fuel in. The type of cam is ideal for high rpm running.
Intake side VTEC:
As the piston is moving down(intake stroke) drawing in air/fuel mixture the longer duration allows more time for piston to travel before the intake valve closes, thus more air.
Exhaust side VTEC:
As the pistion is moving up(exhaust stroke) the exhaust valve is held open longer allowing more time for the piston to travel before closing and sealing in part of the burnt gases which dilute the the next intake charge.
11-12-2002, 05:00 PM
#60
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally posted by BigDogJonx
Okay I agree with you there about 1000rpms brings more air, hear me out here.
That graph shows the 3.2CL-s making its peak at just around 6500rpm. I take a car like mine and on my dyno my peak hp was made just around 6400rpm. So it dont really matter that they can do almost upto 7krpm because they aint making their peak there.
The gain of almost 30whp is happening at 6500rpm. That is I think the whole argument of more air and compression ratio aint that valid.
Given it is a different style engine, but I would think headers on a max should do max 20. Max headers DONT include Ypipes, these Acura Computech ones include the whole thing, so they are factoring in the Ypipe as well.
Dixit
Okay I agree with you there about 1000rpms brings more air, hear me out here.
That graph shows the 3.2CL-s making its peak at just around 6500rpm. I take a car like mine and on my dyno my peak hp was made just around 6400rpm. So it dont really matter that they can do almost upto 7krpm because they aint making their peak there.
The gain of almost 30whp is happening at 6500rpm. That is I think the whole argument of more air and compression ratio aint that valid.
Given it is a different style engine, but I would think headers on a max should do max 20. Max headers DONT include Ypipes, these Acura Computech ones include the whole thing, so they are factoring in the Ypipe as well.
Dixit
11-12-2002, 05:08 PM
#61
Re: Re: ....
Originally posted by dmbmaxima2k2
so now all we have to do is flow bench the stock manifolds and we'll be all set lol and V-TEC messes with an engine a lot more then we think. i can't wait to see the numbers but i wo't be surprised if it's not more then 5. the motors are two totally seperate beasts, they are both V6 and about the same HP but it stops there.
so now all we have to do is flow bench the stock manifolds and we'll be all set lol and V-TEC messes with an engine a lot more then we think. i can't wait to see the numbers but i wo't be surprised if it's not more then 5. the motors are two totally seperate beasts, they are both V6 and about the same HP but it stops there.
Anyways, $350ish for the OBX CL-S "header" is still good, since you still get "1-5hp" in addition to the 10-15hp we already get from a Y-pipe, since IT ALSO REPLACES THE Y-PIPE.
11-12-2002, 05:11 PM
#62
Re: Re: Re: ....
Originally posted by IceY2K1
You lost me there Steve, but I think you were being sarcastic anyways.
Anyways, $350ish for the OBX CL-S "header" is still good, since you still get "1-5hp" in addition to the 10-15hp we already get from a Y-pipe, since IT ALSO REPLACES THE Y-PIPE.
You lost me there Steve, but I think you were being sarcastic anyways.
Anyways, $350ish for the OBX CL-S "header" is still good, since you still get "1-5hp" in addition to the 10-15hp we already get from a Y-pipe, since IT ALSO REPLACES THE Y-PIPE.
and the thing doing this is...... 350 is good, esp since it includes that y(is this true??) but then you're gonna have to relocate O2 sensors if your a cali spec 5th gen AND it's HARDDDDDDDDDD to install headers on a maxima, if the gains are substantial then awesome but i really dont' think they will be.
11-12-2002, 05:26 PM
#63
Originally posted by RussMaxManiac
The OBX headers do include the ypipe.
The OBX headers do include the ypipe.
Dixit
11-12-2002, 05:29 PM
#64
Originally posted by BigDogJonx
I dont believe the OBX headers for the Maxima come with the Ypipe, I called them and they are only selling shorty headers.
Dixit
I dont believe the OBX headers for the Maxima come with the Ypipe, I called them and they are only selling shorty headers.
Dixit
11-12-2002, 05:30 PM
#65
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 778
Ok, that's all well and good for the 2k2, but what about us vq30de-k maxima's. we're more high end breathers than the vq35 and our compression is what, 11:1? (i think, don't quote me). so, shouldn't we see more gains from these headers than the vq35 boys?
and, as an aside, isn't VTEC simply explained as at a certain RPM, its like putting in a more aggressive cam thats tuned for upper-RPM breathing... thats how i've alwAys thought of it...
and, as an aside, isn't VTEC simply explained as at a certain RPM, its like putting in a more aggressive cam thats tuned for upper-RPM breathing... thats how i've alwAys thought of it...
11-12-2002, 05:35 PM
#66
Originally posted by Ironlord
Ok, that's all well and good for the 2k2, but what about us vq30de-k maxima's. we're more high end breathers than the vq35 and our compression is what, 11:1? (i think, don't quote me). so, shouldn't we see more gains from these headers than the vq35 boys?
and, as an aside, isn't VTEC simply explained as at a certain RPM, its like putting in a more aggressive cam thats tuned for upper-RPM breathing... thats how i've alwAys thought of it...
Ok, that's all well and good for the 2k2, but what about us vq30de-k maxima's. we're more high end breathers than the vq35 and our compression is what, 11:1? (i think, don't quote me). so, shouldn't we see more gains from these headers than the vq35 boys?
and, as an aside, isn't VTEC simply explained as at a certain RPM, its like putting in a more aggressive cam thats tuned for upper-RPM breathing... thats how i've alwAys thought of it...
the acura makes more hp(slightly), higher comression ratio(slightly) and higher breathing(much more higher, lol don't correct my grammar) that's why i think they work much better on the acura.
so in short, the cars have the same manifolds but your redline is the same and you make less hp so no.
11-12-2002, 05:41 PM
#67
Bringing up the calculations using displacement and rpms, that's fine. You are calculating how much air can be pumped by a given displacement. That equation would only strictly apply if engines had no cylinder heads. The heads are there, and they are restricting the flow, in and out.
In an ideal world, a motor would have short intake and exhaust lift settings for low rpms, and a longer settings for hi rpms, but physical limitations on engine design prevent that from happening. Probably the most flexible motor in the world would be something that would have an OHV design at lo rpms,and then somehow transform to a 6 valves per cylinder desgin at hi rpms. Physically impossible. The VQ motor has a DOHC head. Nissan had to design the head to provide the best balance between lo rpm TQ and hi rpm power. There was a compromise in the head design. In a VTEC motor, Honda is approaching the ideal more b/c VTEC enables the motor to vary the lift of the intake and exhaust valves alot more, one mode for low rpm operation, and another mode for hi rpm operation. Is VTEC better??
It does seem to cost more.
DW
P.S. Where's SteveVTEC with his graphs?
In an ideal world, a motor would have short intake and exhaust lift settings for low rpms, and a longer settings for hi rpms, but physical limitations on engine design prevent that from happening. Probably the most flexible motor in the world would be something that would have an OHV design at lo rpms,and then somehow transform to a 6 valves per cylinder desgin at hi rpms. Physically impossible. The VQ motor has a DOHC head. Nissan had to design the head to provide the best balance between lo rpm TQ and hi rpm power. There was a compromise in the head design. In a VTEC motor, Honda is approaching the ideal more b/c VTEC enables the motor to vary the lift of the intake and exhaust valves alot more, one mode for low rpm operation, and another mode for hi rpm operation. Is VTEC better??
It does seem to cost more.DW
P.S. Where's SteveVTEC with his graphs?
11-12-2002, 05:42 PM
#68
Re: Re: ....
Originally posted by Jeff92se
Ice, does that account for the Honda's VTEC varible lift cams? Or does that just use bore/stroke? For a fair comparasion you would have to factor in Acura's VTEC and whatever aids they have and Nissan's VTC/varible intake manifold design also.
I think some of you are not accounting for how much more hp Honda/Acura's VTEC system is worth. Just take a non-gsr vs gsr. About the same torque but there's close to a 30hp diff on just this little 1.8 liter 4 banger. One of the VTEC's advantages is to create more hp and hold it over a longer rpm range than usual. Nissan's VTC and varible intake does this also but not like using two different intake cam profiles.
Ice, does that account for the Honda's VTEC varible lift cams? Or does that just use bore/stroke? For a fair comparasion you would have to factor in Acura's VTEC and whatever aids they have and Nissan's VTC/varible intake manifold design also.
I think some of you are not accounting for how much more hp Honda/Acura's VTEC system is worth. Just take a non-gsr vs gsr. About the same torque but there's close to a 30hp diff on just this little 1.8 liter 4 banger. One of the VTEC's advantages is to create more hp and hold it over a longer rpm range than usual. Nissan's VTC and varible intake does this also but not like using two different intake cam profiles.
11-12-2002, 06:05 PM
#69
Re: Re: Re: Re: ....
Originally posted by dmbmaxima2k2
i was being sarcastic lol sorry
and the thing doing this is...... 350 is good, esp since it includes that y(is this true??) but then you're gonna have to relocate O2 sensors if your a cali spec 5th gen AND it's HARDDDDDDDDDD to install headers on a maxima, if the gains are substantial then awesome but i really dont' think they will be.
i was being sarcastic lol sorry
and the thing doing this is...... 350 is good, esp since it includes that y(is this true??) but then you're gonna have to relocate O2 sensors if your a cali spec 5th gen AND it's HARDDDDDDDDDD to install headers on a maxima, if the gains are substantial then awesome but i really dont' think they will be.
11-12-2002, 07:06 PM
#72
Guest
Posts: n/a
http://www.5thgenmaximas.com/silverb...obx%20headers/
Here are the detailed pics of the OBX headers Ice....
Here are the detailed pics of the OBX headers Ice....
11-12-2002, 07:26 PM
#73
Russ
Originally posted by RussMaxManiac
http://www.5thgenmaximas.com/silverb...obx%20headers/
Here are the detailed pics of the OBX headers Ice....
http://www.5thgenmaximas.com/silverb...obx%20headers/
Here are the detailed pics of the OBX headers Ice....
Not working Russ. It stops after like 20% of the picture is downloaded. Is it me or your site?
From the 20% I can see, I can NOT believe they are only $350!!?!!?!?!
11-12-2002, 08:04 PM
#74
Originally posted by Dave B
[B]In typical Dave B fashion, I have to sour this post. No one seems to be paying attention to the fact that the CL-S motor makes power FAR longer than the 3.5 VQ. Nearly every 3.5VQ, modded or not, has peak power occuring at 5800-6000rpms and the power slowly drops as it approaches 6500. The CL-S on the otherhand is making peak power at 6800rpms with power slowly falling off at 7300rpms.
[B]In typical Dave B fashion, I have to sour this post. No one seems to be paying attention to the fact that the CL-S motor makes power FAR longer than the 3.5 VQ. Nearly every 3.5VQ, modded or not, has peak power occuring at 5800-6000rpms and the power slowly drops as it approaches 6500. The CL-S on the otherhand is making peak power at 6800rpms with power slowly falling off at 7300rpms.
What I'm getting at is the VTEC system allows the CL-S to continue to make power longer. It's simply a better air pump than the 3.5VQ ever will be which leads me to say you will not see the same gains with headers on the 3.5VQ vs the CL-S
The CL-S has a better air pump then the VQ35? I have to really disagreee on that note. Tell me what to you makes a motor a better air pump? The VQ35 makes a LOT more TQ all over the place, hell it makes a lot more HP in most places too. Now the CL-S makes a tiny bit more power way up in the power band. Does making a couple more peak HP make a motor a better air pump? Hell NO!
Air flow restrictions increase as velocity increases. The CL-S winds a lot higher than the 3.5VQ ever will.
Don has already proven that the stock manifolds flow very well on the Maxima. Just because their ugly doesn't mean their restrictive.
The restriction on the 4th/5th gen has always been the y-pipe. Ethan proved this when he got the New Zealand headers installed and made 1hp more than a y-pipe. The design of the headers was not bad at all.
The truth was that the manifolds aren't restrictive.
11-12-2002, 08:10 PM
#76
Originally posted by emax95
Ok, first off as I have allready told you in the past(multiple times) my maxima's power peaks at 6250 RPM, not 5800-6000.
.
The CL-S has a better air pump then the VQ35? I have to really disagreee on that note. Tell me what to you makes a motor a better air pump? The VQ35 makes a LOT more TQ all over the place, hell it makes a lot more HP in most places too. Now the CL-S makes a tiny bit more power way up in the power band. Does making a couple more peak HP make a motor a better air pump? Hell NO!
You got this half wrong. Correct, Air flow restrictions increase as the velocity of the air flow increases. The RPM in which these air restrcitions occur is meaningless. So who cares how long it's "winding out for".
No wrong again Dave(your getting good at this), "Don" did not prove anything other then that scrapping metal out of a oem header is useless. No one ever said ugly meant restrictive did they?
I (Ethan) gained less HP with my header Y-pipe combo then a typical maxima gained with just a Y-pipe.. So obviusly these headers where very BAD! You seem to forgot that I dynoed with a stock Y-pipe and then I dynoed with the header/Y-pipe combo. I gained 8.9 WHP and peak I gained 2.9 WHP. I don't get where you get this "1" HP statement from? It's painfully obvius that the designe of the NZ headers was VERY BAD, even Peter him self said so..
No Dave the truth is your very ignorant and you don't know what the hell your talking about. Please reframe form speaking if you have nothing inteligent to say..
Ok, first off as I have allready told you in the past(multiple times) my maxima's power peaks at 6250 RPM, not 5800-6000.
.
The CL-S has a better air pump then the VQ35? I have to really disagreee on that note. Tell me what to you makes a motor a better air pump? The VQ35 makes a LOT more TQ all over the place, hell it makes a lot more HP in most places too. Now the CL-S makes a tiny bit more power way up in the power band. Does making a couple more peak HP make a motor a better air pump? Hell NO!
You got this half wrong. Correct, Air flow restrictions increase as the velocity of the air flow increases. The RPM in which these air restrcitions occur is meaningless. So who cares how long it's "winding out for".
No wrong again Dave(your getting good at this), "Don" did not prove anything other then that scrapping metal out of a oem header is useless. No one ever said ugly meant restrictive did they?
I (Ethan) gained less HP with my header Y-pipe combo then a typical maxima gained with just a Y-pipe.. So obviusly these headers where very BAD! You seem to forgot that I dynoed with a stock Y-pipe and then I dynoed with the header/Y-pipe combo. I gained 8.9 WHP and peak I gained 2.9 WHP. I don't get where you get this "1" HP statement from? It's painfully obvius that the designe of the NZ headers was VERY BAD, even Peter him self said so..
No Dave the truth is your very ignorant and you don't know what the hell your talking about. Please reframe form speaking if you have nothing inteligent to say..
i'll wait for the dynos but i still stand my my statement that 5hp more over a y-pipe with these will impress me. higher compression, higher redline, better breathing, that's why they help so much on the acura. i'd say 15hp from a headers/y combo but add the headers to the already Y. i'd love to see more hp, don't get me wrong but i jsut dont' think it will happen.
11-13-2002, 12:28 AM
#79
Originally posted by dmbmaxima2k2
meow hiss?? lol
i'll wait for the dynos but i still stand my my statement that 5hp more over a y-pipe with these will impress me. higher compression, higher redline, better breathing, that's why they help so much on the acura. i'd say 15hp from a headers/y combo but add the headers to the already Y. i'd love to see more hp, don't get me wrong but i jsut dont' think it will happen.
meow hiss?? lol
i'll wait for the dynos but i still stand my my statement that 5hp more over a y-pipe with these will impress me. higher compression, higher redline, better breathing, that's why they help so much on the acura. i'd say 15hp from a headers/y combo but add the headers to the already Y. i'd love to see more hp, don't get me wrong but i jsut dont' think it will happen.
Dixit
PS, I have no beef with you no more.
11-13-2002, 12:37 AM
#80
Originally posted by BigDogJonx
Okay let just believe that you may be right, imagine people like me who are boosting, imagine what the power coming out of some headers will do for us. If we got over 25hp from them and it cost $300, I would say that is a good buy for boosters.
Dixit
PS, I have no beef with you no more.
Okay let just believe that you may be right, imagine people like me who are boosting, imagine what the power coming out of some headers will do for us. If we got over 25hp from them and it cost $300, I would say that is a good buy for boosters.
Dixit
PS, I have no beef with you no more.
Glad to see you guys can play nice together once again.
