I have reason to beleive maxima headers are worse then CL-S headers!
#81
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.
i definetly think that S/C'ed guys with see gains off these way more then the N/A. for the couple more hp i think the n/a guys will see from the shorty headers and for how ridiculously hard they are to install i dont' think they are gonna be a good solution, but like i've said i hope they get more hp then i think but the numbers just don't add up in my head. i'd definetly like to see numbers on a boosted maxima though, those numbers should be sweet.
and
#82
Originally posted by Nealoc187
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.
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.
#83
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally posted by 02MaximizedVQ
Does the CL-S have precats in the manifold flanges? I swear I'd love to take the precats off my Max and weld on a couple pieces of pipe. Having a couple of screens that close to the heads is very bad for high rpm power.
Does the CL-S have precats in the manifold flanges? I swear I'd love to take the precats off my Max and weld on a couple pieces of pipe. Having a couple of screens that close to the heads is very bad for high rpm power.
#84
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....
I can NOT believe they are selling that part for only $350. That is a nice piece.
My only complaint(more like worry) is that flex section is WAY WAY too small. Cattman learned the hard way that the larger the flex section the better.
If you get a chance, how long is the CL-S stock flex section compared to the OBX?
#85
You know this mention of the famous Don in Texas with the fastest all time auto Maxima. He also had really really small front tires, did he not?? I'm sure that helped him a great deal as well as all the other stuff he did. Put small tires on a manual and you will probably never launch in 1st gear due to way too much tire spinning torque. I think a little too much credit is given to Don's motor.
DW
DW
#86
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..[/B]
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..[/B] [/B]
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..[/B]
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..[/B] [/B]
Ethan, you are so blinded by the fact that you think buying into every potential performance modification will give you respect in this Org. It won't. Just because something works on one car doesn't mean it will work on another.
I've looked over your dynos a few times and your famed "228fwhp" run is really no better than your "219fwhp" run. Look closely and there's a quick spike from 6000-6100rpms where your car goes from 219 to 228 fwhp for 100rpms and then the power drops off quickly. So for 100rpms, your car made an after 9fwhp. You think that will do much for you in terms of performance? Also, those look like uncorrected graphs to me. My plots have shown 5-10fwhp gains in the spikes, but when the curve is corrected, the spikes and the spiked power disappear. Take for what you will.
Just because the 3.5VQ makes more power than the 3.2 VTEC, DOES NOT mean it's a more efficent pump. The added displacement of the 3.5VQ is what gives it higher numbers over the 3.2 VTEC. However if you look closely, the 3.2 VTEC makes strong and linear power longer (look at how flat the torque curve). Simply put, it's a more efficent and effective pump. It can breath longer than the 3.5VQ ever could hope for. By your rational, a stock 5.0 Mustang is a better engine because it make more HP and TQ. Sorry. While the Stang does make more hp and tq, it has a much shorter powerband therefore it won't accelerate as long in each gear.
As RPMs increases, air velocity increases, therefore the restriction becomes more of a problem. The CL-S moves more air after 6000rpms than the 3.5VQ therefore the restrictions become more of a problem. Think about it. When the 3.5VQ is wheezing for air at 6000+rpms, the CL-S is still filling it's lungs.
When Don ported the manifolds and showed no gains, it proved to Don, the performance shop that was going to make the headers, others on the org, and myself that the design of the stock manifold is not a problem. The problems lies in the y-pipe.
As for the headers on your old car, I've looked at your dynos and you were making 177fwhp and 183fwtq which is VERY typical for a modded 4th gen. The design of the headers http://www.poweredbynissan.com/images/emax/Aug01$01.JPG does not look that bad to me at all. The turned section of the pipe off the rear bank doesn't look bad at all.
Dave
#87
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally posted by IceY2K1
Thanks Russ!
I can NOT believe they are selling that part for only $350. That is a nice piece.
My only complaint(more like worry) is that flex section is WAY WAY too small. Cattman learned the hard way that the larger the flex section the better.
If you get a chance, how long is the CL-S stock flex section compared to the OBX?
Thanks Russ!
I can NOT believe they are selling that part for only $350. That is a nice piece.
My only complaint(more like worry) is that flex section is WAY WAY too small. Cattman learned the hard way that the larger the flex section the better.
If you get a chance, how long is the CL-S stock flex section compared to the OBX?
#88
I called OBX, their fax number is listed Fax: (650) 873-8802, I called 650-873-8800 BINGO!!!. They said three weeks, call back in mid December. The piping to the cat is only 2.5", too bad for us boosted guys.
#93
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dave B
[B]
No VERY, it's been proven time and time again..
Nice low ball shot here Dave, real good. Beleive it or not modifying a car is a hobby of mine, hell I LOVE it. I enjoy helpiing others and attempting to find bigger and better things to do. I'd amagine comming form a unconstructive lemming like your self helping and sharing your work with others would translate to nothing but a act for attention. Real good Dave real good..
What does this have anyhting to do with headers or my post? Seems to me your attempting another personal attack on me, great.. But just for the hell of it I am going to once again make you look like a fool. First off I dynoed 229.2 WHP, one look at my dyno graph would have showed you this. My power line is peaking out at where you call a spike, I have 20 dynoes with almost the exact same plot. For others to see: http://www.nissanx.net/gall/album20/Picture_003 . And BTW if you where not so ignorant you would have also noticed my dyno graph has printed on it, "SAE corrected" But once again nice try on a low ball attack Dave and next time try reading everything first.
"Efficent", who ever said anythign about which motor is more efficent? Nice try..
Again where is this "effecient" comment comming from? Remember you said it was "better"? And that's great the lines are smooth.. how does that translate in to your "efficent" quota? Give me a break Dave..
I never said the VQ could breath longer or had better top end? And in terms of my "rational" a 5.0 Mustang motor is a better "air pump". By no means does that make it a better motor..
Again Dave your going OT here in a pathetic attempt to make me look bad. Nice try, but I never said the VQ35 had better top end..
No, now your putting words in Don's mouth. He never said a well made set of headers would not help. All he proved was that gutting out stock headers is a waste of time.
Look at my dynoes again hot shot, my car only gained 2.9 FWHP! Wake up man, a typical Y-pipe adds a lot more peak power then that.
And Dave I have had a VERY, VERY bad day today and you are a VERY irritating and IGNORANT person so PLEASE STFU! Don't EVER talk to me again..
[B]
Ignorant? Hardly.
Ethan, you are so blinded by the fact that you think buying into every potential performance modification will give you respect in this Org. It won't. Just because something works on one car doesn't mean it will work on another.
I've looked over your dynos a few times and your famed "228fwhp" run is really no better than your "219fwhp" run. Look closely and there's a quick spike from 6000-6100rpms where your car goes from 219 to 228 fwhp for 100rpms and then the power drops off quickly. So for 100rpms, your car made an after 9fwhp. You think that will do much for you in terms of performance? Also, those look like uncorrected graphs to me. My plots have shown 5-10fwhp gains in the spikes, but when the curve is corrected, the spikes and the spiked power disappear. Take for what you will.
Just because the 3.5VQ makes more power than the 3.2 VTEC, DOES NOT mean it's a more efficent pump.
The added displacement of the 3.5VQ is what gives it higher numbers over the 3.2 VTEC. However if you look closely, the 3.2 VTEC makes strong and linear power longer (look at how flat the torque curve). Simply put, it's a more efficent and effective pump.
It can breath longer than the 3.5VQ ever could hope for. By your rational, a stock 5.0 Mustang is a better engine because it make more HP and TQ. Sorry. While the Stang does make more hp and tq, it has a much shorter powerband therefore it won't accelerate as long in each gear.
As RPMs increases, air velocity increases, therefore the restriction becomes more of a problem. The CL-S moves more air after 6000rpms than the 3.5VQ therefore the restrictions become more of a problem. Think about it. When the 3.5VQ is wheezing for air at 6000+rpms, the CL-S is still filling it's lungs.
When Don ported the manifolds and showed no gains, it proved to Don, the performance shop that was going to make the headers, others on the org, and myself that the design of the stock manifold is not a problem. The problems lies in the y-pipe.
As for the headers on your old car, I've looked at your dynos and you were making 177fwhp and 183fwtq which is VERY typical for a modded 4th gen. The design of the headers http://www.poweredbynissan.com/images/emax/Aug01$01.JPG does not look that bad to me at all. The turned section of the pipe off the rear bank doesn't look bad at all.
And Dave I have had a VERY, VERY bad day today and you are a VERY irritating and IGNORANT person so PLEASE STFU! Don't EVER talk to me again..
#94
Originally posted by emax95
No VERY, it's been proven time and time again..
Nice low ball shot here Dave, real good. Beleive it or not modifying a car is a hobby of mine, hell I LOVE it. I enjoy helpiing others and attempting to find bigger and better things to do. I'd amagine comming form a unconstructive lemming like your self helping and sharing your work with others would translate to nothing but a act for attention. Real good Dave real good..
What does this have anyhting to do with headers or my post? Seems to me your attempting another personal attack on me, great.. But just for the hell of it I am going to once again make you look like a fool. First off I dynoed 229.2 WHP, one look at my dyno graph would have showed you this. My power line is peaking out at where you call a spike, I have 20 dynoes with almost the exact same plot. For others to see: http://www.nissanx.net/gall/album20/Picture_003 . And BTW if you where not so ignorant you would have also noticed my dyno graph has printed on it, "SAE corrected" But once again nice try on a low ball attack Dave and next time try reading everything first.
"Efficent", who ever said anythign about which motor is more efficent? Nice try..
Again where is this "effecient" comment comming from? Remember you said it was "better"? And that's great the lines are smooth.. how does that translate in to your "efficent" quota? Give me a break Dave..
I never said the VQ could breath longer or had better top end? And in terms of my "rational" a 5.0 Mustang motor is a better "air pump". By no means does that make it a better motor..
Again Dave your going OT here in a pathetic attempt to make me look bad. Nice try, but I never said the VQ35 had better top end..
No, now your putting words in Don's mouth. He never said a well made set of headers would not help. All he proved was that gutting out stock headers is a waste of time.
Look at my dynoes again hot shot, my car only gained 2.9 FWHP! Wake up man, a typical Y-pipe adds a lot more peak power then that.
And Dave I have had a VERY, VERY bad day today and you are a VERY irritating and IGNORANT person so PLEASE STFU! Don't EVER talk to me again..
No VERY, it's been proven time and time again..
Nice low ball shot here Dave, real good. Beleive it or not modifying a car is a hobby of mine, hell I LOVE it. I enjoy helpiing others and attempting to find bigger and better things to do. I'd amagine comming form a unconstructive lemming like your self helping and sharing your work with others would translate to nothing but a act for attention. Real good Dave real good..
What does this have anyhting to do with headers or my post? Seems to me your attempting another personal attack on me, great.. But just for the hell of it I am going to once again make you look like a fool. First off I dynoed 229.2 WHP, one look at my dyno graph would have showed you this. My power line is peaking out at where you call a spike, I have 20 dynoes with almost the exact same plot. For others to see: http://www.nissanx.net/gall/album20/Picture_003 . And BTW if you where not so ignorant you would have also noticed my dyno graph has printed on it, "SAE corrected" But once again nice try on a low ball attack Dave and next time try reading everything first.
"Efficent", who ever said anythign about which motor is more efficent? Nice try..
Again where is this "effecient" comment comming from? Remember you said it was "better"? And that's great the lines are smooth.. how does that translate in to your "efficent" quota? Give me a break Dave..
I never said the VQ could breath longer or had better top end? And in terms of my "rational" a 5.0 Mustang motor is a better "air pump". By no means does that make it a better motor..
Again Dave your going OT here in a pathetic attempt to make me look bad. Nice try, but I never said the VQ35 had better top end..
No, now your putting words in Don's mouth. He never said a well made set of headers would not help. All he proved was that gutting out stock headers is a waste of time.
Look at my dynoes again hot shot, my car only gained 2.9 FWHP! Wake up man, a typical Y-pipe adds a lot more peak power then that.
And Dave I have had a VERY, VERY bad day today and you are a VERY irritating and IGNORANT person so PLEASE STFU! Don't EVER talk to me again..
#99
Originally posted by emax95
No VERY, it's been proven time and time again..
Nice low ball shot here Dave, real good. Beleive it or not modifying a car is a hobby of mine, hell I LOVE it. I enjoy helpiing others and attempting to find bigger and better things to do. I'd amagine comming form a unconstructive lemming like your self helping and sharing your work with others would translate to nothing but a act for attention. Real good Dave real good..
What does this have anyhting to do with headers or my post? Seems to me your attempting another personal attack on me, great.. But just for the hell of it I am going to once again make you look like a fool. First off I dynoed 229.2 WHP, one look at my dyno graph would have showed you this. My power line is peaking out at where you call a spike, I have 20 dynoes with almost the exact same plot. For others to see: http://www.nissanx.net/gall/album20/Picture_003 . And BTW if you where not so ignorant you would have also noticed my dyno graph has printed on it, "SAE corrected" But once again nice try on a low ball attack Dave and next time try reading everything first.
"Efficent", who ever said anythign about which motor is more efficent? Nice try..
Again where is this "effecient" comment comming from? Remember you said it was "better"? And that's great the lines are smooth.. how does that translate in to your "efficent" quota? Give me a break Dave..
I never said the VQ could breath longer or had better top end? And in terms of my "rational" a 5.0 Mustang motor is a better "air pump". By no means does that make it a better motor..
Again Dave your going OT here in a pathetic attempt to make me look bad. Nice try, but I never said the VQ35 had better top end..
No, now your putting words in Don's mouth. He never said a well made set of headers would not help. All he proved was that gutting out stock headers is a waste of time.
Look at my dynoes again hot shot, my car only gained 2.9 FWHP! Wake up man, a typical Y-pipe adds a lot more peak power then that.
And Dave I have had a VERY, VERY bad day today and you are a VERY irritating and IGNORANT person so PLEASE STFU! Don't EVER talk to me again..
No VERY, it's been proven time and time again..
Nice low ball shot here Dave, real good. Beleive it or not modifying a car is a hobby of mine, hell I LOVE it. I enjoy helpiing others and attempting to find bigger and better things to do. I'd amagine comming form a unconstructive lemming like your self helping and sharing your work with others would translate to nothing but a act for attention. Real good Dave real good..
What does this have anyhting to do with headers or my post? Seems to me your attempting another personal attack on me, great.. But just for the hell of it I am going to once again make you look like a fool. First off I dynoed 229.2 WHP, one look at my dyno graph would have showed you this. My power line is peaking out at where you call a spike, I have 20 dynoes with almost the exact same plot. For others to see: http://www.nissanx.net/gall/album20/Picture_003 . And BTW if you where not so ignorant you would have also noticed my dyno graph has printed on it, "SAE corrected" But once again nice try on a low ball attack Dave and next time try reading everything first.
"Efficent", who ever said anythign about which motor is more efficent? Nice try..
Again where is this "effecient" comment comming from? Remember you said it was "better"? And that's great the lines are smooth.. how does that translate in to your "efficent" quota? Give me a break Dave..
I never said the VQ could breath longer or had better top end? And in terms of my "rational" a 5.0 Mustang motor is a better "air pump". By no means does that make it a better motor..
Again Dave your going OT here in a pathetic attempt to make me look bad. Nice try, but I never said the VQ35 had better top end..
No, now your putting words in Don's mouth. He never said a well made set of headers would not help. All he proved was that gutting out stock headers is a waste of time.
Look at my dynoes again hot shot, my car only gained 2.9 FWHP! Wake up man, a typical Y-pipe adds a lot more peak power then that.
And Dave I have had a VERY, VERY bad day today and you are a VERY irritating and IGNORANT person so PLEASE STFU! Don't EVER talk to me again..
#100
This was actually a very good thread until about 2 pages ago. People were having a civil discussion for ONCE about the virtues of the CL-S vs the 2k2 Max. Then it just dropped off the map. Bummer.
#101
Originally posted by Nealoc187
This was actually a very good thread until about 2 pages ago. People were having a civil discussion for ONCE about the virtues of the CL-S vs the 2k2 Max. Then it just dropped off the map. Bummer.
This was actually a very good thread until about 2 pages ago. People were having a civil discussion for ONCE about the virtues of the CL-S vs the 2k2 Max. Then it just dropped off the map. Bummer.
#104
Originally posted by emax95
Ya Some times you have to fight for your cause though I think all the info is allredy pretty much on the table here.
Ya Some times you have to fight for your cause though I think all the info is allredy pretty much on the table here.
#106
I have reason to believe that the stock manifolds are NOT restrictive on the Maxima. I'm using Comptech's headers as an example because the Acura guys seem to believe they are a slightly better design over the OBX. Here is a pic of the Comptech headers:
http://solar.innercite.com/comptech/product231.html
Here is a pic of the New Zealand headers for the Maxima:
http://www.poweredbynissan.com/images/emax/Aug01$01.JPG
The designs look nearly identical. I'm seeing an oval port primary runner shorty-style header with a Y-pipe. Even the rear bank pipe "loop" is in both designs. The only difference is that the New Zealand headers are divided into a couple extra pieces on the exhaust pipe.
Here's Comptech's dyno for a CL-S with the headers:
http://www.comptechusa.com/images/dyno/2000CLSplot.pdf
As you can see, power is not really gained until after 5600rpms (assuming near the VTEC switch over). As the RPMs increase, the gains become more significant. From 6200 to redline is where the largest gains occur. As we all know, 6000+rpms is out of the power production range of the 3.5 VQ (except Ethan's freakish 2k2 which seems to contine to make power to 6200rpms - not a single other 2k2 Maxima dyno I've ever seen has ever shown this). The VTEC system incorporates a higher lift lob at a predetermined rpm. In a nutshell, this allows the engine to breath better in the upper rpms which extends the torque curve which then obviously increase HP. As RPMs increase over 6000rpms, the 3.2 VTEC is moving more air over a set amount of time vs the 3.5VQ. I also think the 3.2 VTEC motor uses a VIM also (could be wrong about this one). While an extra 1300rpms of topend breathing doesn't seem like a lot to most people who understand little about cars, it is actually huge when it comes to racing. Just like putting the VIM on the 4th gen, the powerband in each gear is extended and the engine will accelerate through a much more powerful powerband in each gear. The gains become more apparent in the longer gears (3rd, 4th, 5th).
When Don ported out the stock manifolds he gained ~1hp. In his eyes and the shop that was going to design the headers, the restriction just wasn't there. If the manifolds were terribly restrictive, more of a gain would have shown up. The problem lies in the Y-pipe. Yes, Don did post this info.
Sometimes the ugly stock peice is quite efficent in it's execution. On a high-rev motor (7300rpms) like the 3.2 VTEC, the stock manifolds seem to pose a restriction after ~5800rpms, but on the lower rev 3.5VQ (6000rpms), the stock manifolds don't seem to be much of a problem because power tails off 5800rpms.
Has usual this is just my opinion based on the things I've observed and the automotive experience I've gained over the past 14 years working and modifiying cars. On a stock LT1 F-Body, gains with a full shorty header are really no better than just running a Borla Y-pipe. However, once you add a decent streetable cam which increases power production to 6200rpms vs the stock 5400rpm peak, headers become more effective than just the Y-pipe. Just like I'm seeing in this CL-S vs 3.5VQ header fiasco, the better and farther an engine can breath, the more effective headers become.
Take it for what you will.
Dave
http://solar.innercite.com/comptech/product231.html
Here is a pic of the New Zealand headers for the Maxima:
http://www.poweredbynissan.com/images/emax/Aug01$01.JPG
The designs look nearly identical. I'm seeing an oval port primary runner shorty-style header with a Y-pipe. Even the rear bank pipe "loop" is in both designs. The only difference is that the New Zealand headers are divided into a couple extra pieces on the exhaust pipe.
Here's Comptech's dyno for a CL-S with the headers:
http://www.comptechusa.com/images/dyno/2000CLSplot.pdf
As you can see, power is not really gained until after 5600rpms (assuming near the VTEC switch over). As the RPMs increase, the gains become more significant. From 6200 to redline is where the largest gains occur. As we all know, 6000+rpms is out of the power production range of the 3.5 VQ (except Ethan's freakish 2k2 which seems to contine to make power to 6200rpms - not a single other 2k2 Maxima dyno I've ever seen has ever shown this). The VTEC system incorporates a higher lift lob at a predetermined rpm. In a nutshell, this allows the engine to breath better in the upper rpms which extends the torque curve which then obviously increase HP. As RPMs increase over 6000rpms, the 3.2 VTEC is moving more air over a set amount of time vs the 3.5VQ. I also think the 3.2 VTEC motor uses a VIM also (could be wrong about this one). While an extra 1300rpms of topend breathing doesn't seem like a lot to most people who understand little about cars, it is actually huge when it comes to racing. Just like putting the VIM on the 4th gen, the powerband in each gear is extended and the engine will accelerate through a much more powerful powerband in each gear. The gains become more apparent in the longer gears (3rd, 4th, 5th).
When Don ported out the stock manifolds he gained ~1hp. In his eyes and the shop that was going to design the headers, the restriction just wasn't there. If the manifolds were terribly restrictive, more of a gain would have shown up. The problem lies in the Y-pipe. Yes, Don did post this info.
Sometimes the ugly stock peice is quite efficent in it's execution. On a high-rev motor (7300rpms) like the 3.2 VTEC, the stock manifolds seem to pose a restriction after ~5800rpms, but on the lower rev 3.5VQ (6000rpms), the stock manifolds don't seem to be much of a problem because power tails off 5800rpms.
Has usual this is just my opinion based on the things I've observed and the automotive experience I've gained over the past 14 years working and modifiying cars. On a stock LT1 F-Body, gains with a full shorty header are really no better than just running a Borla Y-pipe. However, once you add a decent streetable cam which increases power production to 6200rpms vs the stock 5400rpm peak, headers become more effective than just the Y-pipe. Just like I'm seeing in this CL-S vs 3.5VQ header fiasco, the better and farther an engine can breath, the more effective headers become.
Take it for what you will.
Dave
#107
Originally posted by Dave B
I have reason to believe that the stock manifolds are NOT restrictive on the Maxima. I'm using Comptech's headers as an example because the Acura guys seem to believe they are a slightly better design over the OBX. Here is a pic of the Comptech headers:
http://solar.innercite.com/comptech/product231.html
Here is a pic of the New Zealand headers for the Maxima:
http://www.poweredbynissan.com/images/emax/Aug01$01.JPG
The designs look nearly identical. I'm seeing an oval port primary runner shorty-style header with a Y-pipe. Even the rear bank pipe "loop" is in both designs. The only difference is that the New Zealand headers are divided into a couple extra pieces on the exhaust pipe.
Here's Comptech's dyno for a CL-S with the headers:
http://www.comptechusa.com/images/dyno/2000CLSplot.pdf
As you can see, power is not really gained until after 5600rpms (assuming near the VTEC switch over). As the RPMs increase, the gains become more significant. From 6200 to redline is where the largest gains occur. As we all know, 6000+rpms is out of the power production range of the 3.5 VQ (except Ethan's freakish 2k2 which seems to contine to make power to 6200rpms - not a single other 2k2 Maxima dyno I've ever seen has ever shown this). The VTEC system incorporates a higher lift lob at a predetermined rpm. In a nutshell, this allows the engine to breath better in the upper rpms which extends the torque curve which then obviously increase HP. As RPMs increase over 6000rpms, the 3.2 VTEC is moving more air over a set amount of time vs the 3.5VQ. I also think the 3.2 VTEC motor uses a VIM also (could be wrong about this one). While an extra 1300rpms of topend breathing doesn't seem like a lot to most people who understand little about cars, it is actually huge when it comes to racing. Just like putting the VIM on the 4th gen, the powerband in each gear is extended and the engine will accelerate through a much more powerful powerband in each gear. The gains become more apparent in the longer gears (3rd, 4th, 5th).
When Don ported out the stock manifolds he gained ~1hp. In his eyes and the shop that was going to design the headers, the restriction just wasn't there. If the manifolds were terribly restrictive, more of a gain would have shown up. The problem lies in the Y-pipe. Yes, Don did post this info.
Sometimes the ugly stock peice is quite efficent in it's execution. On a high-rev motor (7300rpms) like the 3.2 VTEC, the stock manifolds seem to pose a restriction after ~5800rpms, but on the lower rev 3.5VQ (6000rpms), the stock manifolds don't seem to be much of a problem because power tails off 5800rpms.
Has usual this is just my opinion based on the things I've observed and the automotive experience I've gained over the past 14 years working and modifiying cars. On a stock LT1 F-Body, gains with a full shorty header are really no better than just running a Borla Y-pipe. However, once you add a decent streetable cam which increases power production to 6200rpms vs the stock 5400rpm peak, headers become more effective than just the Y-pipe. Just like I'm seeing in this CL-S vs 3.5VQ header fiasco, the better and farther an engine can breath, the more effective headers become.
Take it for what you will.
Dave
I have reason to believe that the stock manifolds are NOT restrictive on the Maxima. I'm using Comptech's headers as an example because the Acura guys seem to believe they are a slightly better design over the OBX. Here is a pic of the Comptech headers:
http://solar.innercite.com/comptech/product231.html
Here is a pic of the New Zealand headers for the Maxima:
http://www.poweredbynissan.com/images/emax/Aug01$01.JPG
The designs look nearly identical. I'm seeing an oval port primary runner shorty-style header with a Y-pipe. Even the rear bank pipe "loop" is in both designs. The only difference is that the New Zealand headers are divided into a couple extra pieces on the exhaust pipe.
Here's Comptech's dyno for a CL-S with the headers:
http://www.comptechusa.com/images/dyno/2000CLSplot.pdf
As you can see, power is not really gained until after 5600rpms (assuming near the VTEC switch over). As the RPMs increase, the gains become more significant. From 6200 to redline is where the largest gains occur. As we all know, 6000+rpms is out of the power production range of the 3.5 VQ (except Ethan's freakish 2k2 which seems to contine to make power to 6200rpms - not a single other 2k2 Maxima dyno I've ever seen has ever shown this). The VTEC system incorporates a higher lift lob at a predetermined rpm. In a nutshell, this allows the engine to breath better in the upper rpms which extends the torque curve which then obviously increase HP. As RPMs increase over 6000rpms, the 3.2 VTEC is moving more air over a set amount of time vs the 3.5VQ. I also think the 3.2 VTEC motor uses a VIM also (could be wrong about this one). While an extra 1300rpms of topend breathing doesn't seem like a lot to most people who understand little about cars, it is actually huge when it comes to racing. Just like putting the VIM on the 4th gen, the powerband in each gear is extended and the engine will accelerate through a much more powerful powerband in each gear. The gains become more apparent in the longer gears (3rd, 4th, 5th).
When Don ported out the stock manifolds he gained ~1hp. In his eyes and the shop that was going to design the headers, the restriction just wasn't there. If the manifolds were terribly restrictive, more of a gain would have shown up. The problem lies in the Y-pipe. Yes, Don did post this info.
Sometimes the ugly stock peice is quite efficent in it's execution. On a high-rev motor (7300rpms) like the 3.2 VTEC, the stock manifolds seem to pose a restriction after ~5800rpms, but on the lower rev 3.5VQ (6000rpms), the stock manifolds don't seem to be much of a problem because power tails off 5800rpms.
Has usual this is just my opinion based on the things I've observed and the automotive experience I've gained over the past 14 years working and modifiying cars. On a stock LT1 F-Body, gains with a full shorty header are really no better than just running a Borla Y-pipe. However, once you add a decent streetable cam which increases power production to 6200rpms vs the stock 5400rpm peak, headers become more effective than just the Y-pipe. Just like I'm seeing in this CL-S vs 3.5VQ header fiasco, the better and farther an engine can breath, the more effective headers become.
Take it for what you will.
Dave
#108
Dave
Originally posted by Dave B
Here is a pic of the New Zealand headers for the Maxima:
http://www.poweredbynissan.com/images/emax/Aug01$01.JPG
Here is a pic of the New Zealand headers for the Maxima:
http://www.poweredbynissan.com/images/emax/Aug01$01.JPG
I'd like to see Cattmans' new Y-pipe combined with shorty headers. That would be a less restrictive design then the NZ header.
Any theory on how headers would affect the VQ30DE w/MEVI or VQ30DE-K?
#109
Re: Dave
Originally posted by IceY2K1
That's a pretty sh!ty design on the rear bank. I see why the CL-S Comptech headers do that bend, because the cat is so close, but for the NZ header their is PLENTY of room.
I'd like to see Cattmans' new Y-pipe combined with shorty headers. That would be a less restrictive design then the NZ header.
Any theory on how headers would affect the VQ30DE w/MEVI or VQ30DE-K?
That's a pretty sh!ty design on the rear bank. I see why the CL-S Comptech headers do that bend, because the cat is so close, but for the NZ header their is PLENTY of room.
I'd like to see Cattmans' new Y-pipe combined with shorty headers. That would be a less restrictive design then the NZ header.
Any theory on how headers would affect the VQ30DE w/MEVI or VQ30DE-K?
#110
Originally posted by blubyu2k2
I thought it was a waste of your time. Seems like to me you spent quite some time typing this. We will find out soon if these headers are productive. I hope they are
I thought it was a waste of your time. Seems like to me you spent quite some time typing this. We will find out soon if these headers are productive. I hope they are
That's a pretty sh!ty design on the rear bank. I see why the CL-S Comptech headers do that bend, because the cat is so close, but for the NZ header their is PLENTY of room.
Any theory on how headers would affect the VQ30DE w/MEVI or VQ30DE-K?
Any theory on how headers would affect the VQ30DE w/MEVI or VQ30DE-K?
The "loop" design of the Comptech header, like the New Zealand header, is an attempt to make the y-pipe an equal length design. It's not to clear a cat. IMO, you won't see much of a gain with the headers on the VQ30DE w/MEVI or VQ30DE-K. Just my opinion though.
Dave
#111
Originally posted by Dave B
IceY2K1-
The "loop" design of the Comptech header, like the New Zealand header, is an attempt to make the y-pipe an equal length design. It's not to clear a cat. IMO, you won't see much of a gain with the headers on the VQ30DE w/MEVI or VQ30DE-K. Just my opinion though.
Dave
IceY2K1-
The "loop" design of the Comptech header, like the New Zealand header, is an attempt to make the y-pipe an equal length design. It's not to clear a cat. IMO, you won't see much of a gain with the headers on the VQ30DE w/MEVI or VQ30DE-K. Just my opinion though.
Dave
Now, why don't you think the VQ30DE w/ VI or -K will gain? Is it because they still pull to redline, therefore the exhaust isn't restrictive as it nears 6400rpms causing it to drop off like the VQ35 and CL-S?
That's my theory, since the boosted guys are still pulling to redline, so the headers must be flowing enough air.
#112
I havent really looked in to it since I am at work right now, but how much of a pain is it to get to the headers? Are they just in a bad spot to reach or is there another issue... I noticed many people saying they are a pain.
SuDZ
SuDZ
#113
Originally posted by SuDZ
I havent really looked in to it since I am at work right now, but how much of a pain is it to get to the headers? Are they just in a bad spot to reach or is there another issue... I noticed many people saying they are a pain.
SuDZ
I havent really looked in to it since I am at work right now, but how much of a pain is it to get to the headers? Are they just in a bad spot to reach or is there another issue... I noticed many people saying they are a pain.
SuDZ
#114
Originally posted by IceY2K1
Only the rear is a BISH. Your supposed to jack up the engine a little to clear.
Only the rear is a BISH. Your supposed to jack up the engine a little to clear.
SuDZ
#115
Originally posted by SuDZ
So would you have to remove it from it's mounts or something for it to raise or can you raise it just a bit while still on the mounts?
SuDZ
So would you have to remove it from it's mounts or something for it to raise or can you raise it just a bit while still on the mounts?
SuDZ
I'm not sure how much better removing the rear mount will make it.
#116
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.
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
My statement was correct. VTEC messes with the valve timing which makes more power. It does not mess with the amount of exhaust.
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
#118
Ethan....Another OBX number
North East USA
Opak Motoring
(516)847-0337 Tel
(516)847-0547 Fax
I believe someone already posted these, but;
USA Head Office
(650)873-8800 Tel
(650)873-8802 Fax
Also according to the website:
http://www.obxracingsports.com/perfo...=3&subcatID=22
Part #: Model: Year: Description: Color: MSRP:
H00056 Maxima 00- 3.0L n/a $499.00
Does someone want to be the guinea pig on this one?
Opak Motoring
(516)847-0337 Tel
(516)847-0547 Fax
I believe someone already posted these, but;
USA Head Office
(650)873-8800 Tel
(650)873-8802 Fax
Also according to the website:
http://www.obxracingsports.com/perfo...=3&subcatID=22
Part #: Model: Year: Description: Color: MSRP:
H00056 Maxima 00- 3.0L n/a $499.00
Does someone want to be the guinea pig on this one?
#119
Originally posted by IceY2K1
I believe Ethan did it without removing the rear motor mount, but it sounds like it was a bish.
I believe Ethan did it without removing the rear motor mount, but it sounds like it was a bish.
I will try OBX some time next week, Mardi just called them so I will take his word on that info. I will get these headers as soon as they come out and do a after dyno. If I don't gain much it's not a big deal, atleast it will be fun putting them on and droping a cool 20 lb's off my car.
250 WHP and a 13.5 NA is in the works
#120
Originally posted by emax95
Yep I removed the rear manifold with out touching my motor mounts It was a hell of a job though, lol. It took me a good 14 hours to complete the whole damn thing.
I will try OBX some time next week, Mardi just called them so I will take his word on that info. I will get these headers as soon as they come out and do a after dyno. If I don't gain much it's not a big deal, atleast it will be fun putting them on and droping a cool 20 lb's off my car.
250 WHP and a 13.5 NA is in the works
Yep I removed the rear manifold with out touching my motor mounts It was a hell of a job though, lol. It took me a good 14 hours to complete the whole damn thing.
I will try OBX some time next week, Mardi just called them so I will take his word on that info. I will get these headers as soon as they come out and do a after dyno. If I don't gain much it's not a big deal, atleast it will be fun putting them on and droping a cool 20 lb's off my car.
250 WHP and a 13.5 NA is in the works
Part #: Model: Year: Description: Color: MSRP:
H00056 Maxima 00- 3.0L n/a $499.00