My Maxima sucks!!!
#83
Re: My Maxima sucks!!!
Originally posted by turbo97SE
The lower HP at the top end is with VI closed. The 429 was with VI open
Oh and for you guys who said a T4/TO4E was too big and laggy. The T4/60-1 should be more laggy .... well I make 170HP and 170 lb-ft of torque at 2000 rpm which is more than I had with the TO4E. I have more power everywhere!
There's a comparison below from an old dyno compare chart I had. I don't know how it is possible, but here it is:
The lower HP at the top end is with VI closed. The 429 was with VI open
Oh and for you guys who said a T4/TO4E was too big and laggy. The T4/60-1 should be more laggy .... well I make 170HP and 170 lb-ft of torque at 2000 rpm which is more than I had with the TO4E. I have more power everywhere!
There's a comparison below from an old dyno compare chart I had. I don't know how it is possible, but here it is:
I do want to clear up two misunderstandings/mistakes you made in reading your dyno chart.
While your car does make 170 ft/lbs of torque at 2,000 rpms its physically impossible to make 170 HP at 2,000 rpms when you only have 170 ft/lbs to work with.
You also got confused when you did your splice job on the dyno chart overlay.
From 2,000 to 5,250 rpms you copied your TORQUE curve, and from 5,250 to redline you copied your HP curve. The resulting affect is that it makes it appear that you are making BEEFY HP down in the low RPM's which isn't really happening. At 2,000 RPM's you are making 70 HP.
Still very impressive top end power though!!!
#84
Re: Re: My Maxima sucks!!!
Originally posted by 3.0LV6
Much props on your car!
I do want to clear up two misunderstandings/mistakes you made in reading your dyno chart.
While your car does make 170 ft/lbs of torque at 2,000 rpms its physically impossible to make 170 HP at 2,000 rpms when you only have 170 ft/lbs to work with.
You also got confused when you did your splice job on the dyno chart overlay.
From 2,000 to 5,250 rpms you copied your TORQUE curve, and from 5,250 to redline you copied your HP curve. The resulting affect is that it makes it appear that you are making BEEFY HP down in the low RPM's which isn't really happening. At 2,000 RPM's you are making 70 HP.
Still very impressive top end power though!!!
Much props on your car!
I do want to clear up two misunderstandings/mistakes you made in reading your dyno chart.
While your car does make 170 ft/lbs of torque at 2,000 rpms its physically impossible to make 170 HP at 2,000 rpms when you only have 170 ft/lbs to work with.
You also got confused when you did your splice job on the dyno chart overlay.
From 2,000 to 5,250 rpms you copied your TORQUE curve, and from 5,250 to redline you copied your HP curve. The resulting affect is that it makes it appear that you are making BEEFY HP down in the low RPM's which isn't really happening. At 2,000 RPM's you are making 70 HP.
Still very impressive top end power though!!!
#85
Re: Re: My Maxima sucks!!!
Originally posted by 3.0LV6
Much props on your car!
I do want to clear up two misunderstandings/mistakes you made in reading your dyno chart.
While your car does make 170 ft/lbs of torque at 2,000 rpms its physically impossible to make 170 HP at 2,000 rpms when you only have 170 ft/lbs to work with.
You also got confused when you did your splice job on the dyno chart overlay.
From 2,000 to 5,250 rpms you copied your TORQUE curve, and from 5,250 to redline you copied your HP curve. The resulting affect is that it makes it appear that you are making BEEFY HP down in the low RPM's which isn't really happening. At 2,000 RPM's you are making 70 HP.
Still very impressive top end power though!!!
Much props on your car!
I do want to clear up two misunderstandings/mistakes you made in reading your dyno chart.
While your car does make 170 ft/lbs of torque at 2,000 rpms its physically impossible to make 170 HP at 2,000 rpms when you only have 170 ft/lbs to work with.
You also got confused when you did your splice job on the dyno chart overlay.
From 2,000 to 5,250 rpms you copied your TORQUE curve, and from 5,250 to redline you copied your HP curve. The resulting affect is that it makes it appear that you are making BEEFY HP down in the low RPM's which isn't really happening. At 2,000 RPM's you are making 70 HP.
Still very impressive top end power though!!!
Anywho..
Nigel, If I'm understanding this right, you're working on a different engine rebuild on the side? So is that why you're pushing this one that way you know what the limits are?
#86
Originally posted by turbo97SE
I may go to the track this year ... we'll see
[/B]
I may go to the track this year ... we'll see
[/B]
#88
Supporting Maxima.org Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Fort Collins, Colorado
Posts: 1,035
Re: Re: My Maxima sucks!!!
Yup you are indeed correct. I did a dohhhhh! Sorry. I will correct it and upload it again. Thanks! I knew something was wrong ... I even told the shop there must be something wrong. Me = DUMB!
We actually did some of the pulls with some one pulling my intake open at about 5000 rpm. I have been too lazy to get the rpm switch. I ordered one about 2 weeks ago but it still hasn't come! Well, I must have got confused thinking there should be a difference. So I really didn't need to overlay them at all! Doh!
We actually did some of the pulls with some one pulling my intake open at about 5000 rpm. I have been too lazy to get the rpm switch. I ordered one about 2 weeks ago but it still hasn't come! Well, I must have got confused thinking there should be a difference. So I really didn't need to overlay them at all! Doh!
Originally posted by 3.0LV6
Much props on your car!
I do want to clear up two misunderstandings/mistakes you made in reading your dyno chart.
While your car does make 170 ft/lbs of torque at 2,000 rpms its physically impossible to make 170 HP at 2,000 rpms when you only have 170 ft/lbs to work with.
You also got confused when you did your splice job on the dyno chart overlay.
From 2,000 to 5,250 rpms you copied your TORQUE curve, and from 5,250 to redline you copied your HP curve. The resulting affect is that it makes it appear that you are making BEEFY HP down in the low RPM's which isn't really happening. At 2,000 RPM's you are making 70 HP.
Still very impressive top end power though!!!
Much props on your car!
I do want to clear up two misunderstandings/mistakes you made in reading your dyno chart.
While your car does make 170 ft/lbs of torque at 2,000 rpms its physically impossible to make 170 HP at 2,000 rpms when you only have 170 ft/lbs to work with.
You also got confused when you did your splice job on the dyno chart overlay.
From 2,000 to 5,250 rpms you copied your TORQUE curve, and from 5,250 to redline you copied your HP curve. The resulting affect is that it makes it appear that you are making BEEFY HP down in the low RPM's which isn't really happening. At 2,000 RPM's you are making 70 HP.
Still very impressive top end power though!!!
#90
Supporting Maxima.org Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Fort Collins, Colorado
Posts: 1,035
Re: Re: My Maxima sucks!!!
OK so I fixed the graph (you have to click refresh to see it).
Originally posted by 3.0LV6
Much props on your car!
I do want to clear up two misunderstandings/mistakes you made in reading your dyno chart.
While your car does make 170 ft/lbs of torque at 2,000 rpms its physically impossible to make 170 HP at 2,000 rpms when you only have 170 ft/lbs to work with.
....
Still very impressive top end power though!!!
Much props on your car!
I do want to clear up two misunderstandings/mistakes you made in reading your dyno chart.
While your car does make 170 ft/lbs of torque at 2,000 rpms its physically impossible to make 170 HP at 2,000 rpms when you only have 170 ft/lbs to work with.
....
Still very impressive top end power though!!!
#92
Originally posted by turbo97SE
Dude
I think you underestimate our motors.
Dude
I think you underestimate our motors.
I still have a lot of respect for the engine, but it's not indestructable (By the way, I only had 35K miles on it).
#93
Originally posted by Axel
Hmm..I have no engine mods yet my engine broke down on me on January 2nd. The piston flew right out and made a huge hole in the engine block. Granted I race the car in Solo-1 but still, I was very surprised to see a VQ engine just get destroyed like that. Again, no mods on the engine. Maybe I was just unlucky and got a bad engine from the start but still...
I still have a lot of respect for the engine, but it's not indestructable (By the way, I only had 35K miles on it).
Hmm..I have no engine mods yet my engine broke down on me on January 2nd. The piston flew right out and made a huge hole in the engine block. Granted I race the car in Solo-1 but still, I was very surprised to see a VQ engine just get destroyed like that. Again, no mods on the engine. Maybe I was just unlucky and got a bad engine from the start but still...
I still have a lot of respect for the engine, but it's not indestructable (By the way, I only had 35K miles on it).
#97
Nigel, I take it those numbers from your dyno are corrected, right? You shouldnt be using the correction factor for a turbo car at altitude. If the correction factor was near normal for in Ft. Collins i'm guessing it would be right around 1.22-1.24, only problem is that that number is for NA cars. If that dyno is correcting with standard numbers then you're not making 429whp. And as far as boost, I thought a max could hold 9psi at sea level? That's all the cylinder pressure you're seeing up here running 12 psi (about the same as 9psi at sea level) maybe turn it up to 15psi up here and see what happens.
You should go down to bandi, with all that power and wrong wheel drive I doubt you'll be able to put much of it down, unless you run slicks, and I for one dont know exactly what your tranny/axles will think of that with all that power. I think you'll see about 13.5@109 or so at bandi.
You should go down to bandi, with all that power and wrong wheel drive I doubt you'll be able to put much of it down, unless you run slicks, and I for one dont know exactly what your tranny/axles will think of that with all that power. I think you'll see about 13.5@109 or so at bandi.
#99
Originally posted by IceY2K1
Just curious, but was it cylinder #5?
Just curious, but was it cylinder #5?
All I know is that it was one of the back ones (closer to the driver) and blew downwards/forward.
#101
Supporting Maxima.org Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Fort Collins, Colorado
Posts: 1,035
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Axel
Hmm..good question. I really don't know. I dropped the car off in New Jersey and took a flight home. I really didn't think of asking.
All I know is that it was one of the back ones (closer to the driver) and blew downwards/forward. [/QUOTE
number 5 is the closest to the driver. Mine misfires intermittently. I checked my compression - they all read exactly the same, injectors, changed all the plugs etc... but it still misfires. This cylinder is closest to the fuel regulator but is second to last in the firing sequence (don't think firing sequence will affect anything). Anyway, could it be that it is seeing too much fuel? I had to richen everything up at the top. My AFC is maxed out at 50%. Also my O2 sensors are bad so it is probably dumping as much fuel as it can. I have no clue at this point.
Hmm..good question. I really don't know. I dropped the car off in New Jersey and took a flight home. I really didn't think of asking.
All I know is that it was one of the back ones (closer to the driver) and blew downwards/forward. [/QUOTE
number 5 is the closest to the driver. Mine misfires intermittently. I checked my compression - they all read exactly the same, injectors, changed all the plugs etc... but it still misfires. This cylinder is closest to the fuel regulator but is second to last in the firing sequence (don't think firing sequence will affect anything). Anyway, could it be that it is seeing too much fuel? I had to richen everything up at the top. My AFC is maxed out at 50%. Also my O2 sensors are bad so it is probably dumping as much fuel as it can. I have no clue at this point.
#102
What plug gap are you running? try .030"
# 5 is the last to get fuel, what shows as 120psi at the fuel pressure gauge sender location is less at that last cylinder. 50%+ correction factor is insane. The reason it isnt knocking is because the ECU is seeing crazy high MAF voltage and is thinking that you are flowing crazy amounts of air (you are), but the higher the MAF voltage the lower the ignition advance. If you went with larger injectors and pulled MAF voltage with the AFC your timing would jump up and you would see some more power I bet, only try this with the J&S. It really comes down to what ever works I guess, but for how long is the question. Larger injectors should be next up for sure!
# 5 is the last to get fuel, what shows as 120psi at the fuel pressure gauge sender location is less at that last cylinder. 50%+ correction factor is insane. The reason it isnt knocking is because the ECU is seeing crazy high MAF voltage and is thinking that you are flowing crazy amounts of air (you are), but the higher the MAF voltage the lower the ignition advance. If you went with larger injectors and pulled MAF voltage with the AFC your timing would jump up and you would see some more power I bet, only try this with the J&S. It really comes down to what ever works I guess, but for how long is the question. Larger injectors should be next up for sure!
#105
Supporting Maxima.org Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Fort Collins, Colorado
Posts: 1,035
Hi Matt
Thanks! I priced up some injectors yesterday, they ain't cheap! ... even your source requested twice what you said you paid for yours. I am gapped at 0.028" right now. I tried 0.030" but same thing. I didn't know about the ignition advance stuff, that's interesting.
With bigger injectors, I'll probably have to swap FMU ... probably go with the Cartech instead of messing with discs and back way off on the AFC.
I noticed in the FSM, it says compression should be about 140 psi to like 190 (can't remember the upper limit) it also has in parentheses that 140 equates to 10:1 and the upper limit is like 13:1 (I think unless it is a misprint). Didn't realise our compression was that high! Well you live and learn!
Thanks! I priced up some injectors yesterday, they ain't cheap! ... even your source requested twice what you said you paid for yours. I am gapped at 0.028" right now. I tried 0.030" but same thing. I didn't know about the ignition advance stuff, that's interesting.
With bigger injectors, I'll probably have to swap FMU ... probably go with the Cartech instead of messing with discs and back way off on the AFC.
I noticed in the FSM, it says compression should be about 140 psi to like 190 (can't remember the upper limit) it also has in parentheses that 140 equates to 10:1 and the upper limit is like 13:1 (I think unless it is a misprint). Didn't realise our compression was that high! Well you live and learn!
Originally posted by MardiGrasMax
What plug gap are you running? try .030"
# 5 is the last to get fuel, what shows as 120psi at the fuel pressure gauge sender location is less at that last cylinder. 50%+ correction factor is insane. The reason it isnt knocking is because the ECU is seeing crazy high MAF voltage and is thinking that you are flowing crazy amounts of air (you are), but the higher the MAF voltage the lower the ignition advance. If you went with larger injectors and pulled MAF voltage with the AFC your timing would jump up and you would see some more power I bet, only try this with the J&S. It really comes down to what ever works I guess, but for how long is the question. Larger injectors should be next up for sure!
What plug gap are you running? try .030"
# 5 is the last to get fuel, what shows as 120psi at the fuel pressure gauge sender location is less at that last cylinder. 50%+ correction factor is insane. The reason it isnt knocking is because the ECU is seeing crazy high MAF voltage and is thinking that you are flowing crazy amounts of air (you are), but the higher the MAF voltage the lower the ignition advance. If you went with larger injectors and pulled MAF voltage with the AFC your timing would jump up and you would see some more power I bet, only try this with the J&S. It really comes down to what ever works I guess, but for how long is the question. Larger injectors should be next up for sure!
#106
Originally posted by MAXIN
~400+ fwhp and only 13.5? Are you predicting that with slicks?
~400+ fwhp and only 13.5? Are you predicting that with slicks?
#107
Originally posted by 5.0THIS
Yeah, I dont see anything much quicker. Just because he's got all that power doesnt mean he'll be able to use it all. Remember, wrong wheel drive! When the tires spin you dont go anywhere fast. And remember, it's in Colorado.
Yeah, I dont see anything much quicker. Just because he's got all that power doesnt mean he'll be able to use it all. Remember, wrong wheel drive! When the tires spin you dont go anywhere fast. And remember, it's in Colorado.
#108
Originally posted by blubyu2k2
his times might not be that great but the traps speeds will show his power which is much greater than 109 traps. 109 traps is around 300whp and 300tq. I see around 116 traps with his power
his times might not be that great but the traps speeds will show his power which is much greater than 109 traps. 109 traps is around 300whp and 300tq. I see around 116 traps with his power
#109
Originally posted by 5.0THIS
Isnt gonna happen, especially in Colorado ,I'll bet you money. But he'll never go to the track anyway, for what reason I dont know, but he does seem to shy away from going to the track.
Isnt gonna happen, especially in Colorado ,I'll bet you money. But he'll never go to the track anyway, for what reason I dont know, but he does seem to shy away from going to the track.
He did go once...
#110
He is right at that track a 15.0 @ 92mph car at sea level would probably pull a 16.1-4 @ 84-87mph at bandimere (sp?). High altittude ownz everyone there .
Originally posted by 5.0THIS
Isnt gonna happen, especially in Colorado ,I'll bet you money. But he'll never go to the track anyway, for what reason I dont know, but he does seem to shy away from going to the track.
Isnt gonna happen, especially in Colorado ,I'll bet you money. But he'll never go to the track anyway, for what reason I dont know, but he does seem to shy away from going to the track.
#111
Originally posted by Nismo87SE
He is right at that track a 15.0 @ 92mph car at sea level would probably pull a 16.1-4 @ 84-87mph at bandimere (sp?). High altittude ownz everyone there .
He is right at that track a 15.0 @ 92mph car at sea level would probably pull a 16.1-4 @ 84-87mph at bandimere (sp?). High altittude ownz everyone there .
If you set the boost to 12psi, no matter whether you are at sea level or 5000ft, you still end up with 12psi. The turbo just spins more revolutions to produce 12psi at 5000ft than sea level.
#112
Originally posted by IceY2K1
I thought FI cars, especially turbos, aren't affected near as much as NA cars by altitude.
If you set the boost to 12psi, no matter whether you are at sea level or 5000ft, you still end up with 12psi. The turbo just spins more revolutions to produce 12psi at 5000ft than sea level.
I thought FI cars, especially turbos, aren't affected near as much as NA cars by altitude.
If you set the boost to 12psi, no matter whether you are at sea level or 5000ft, you still end up with 12psi. The turbo just spins more revolutions to produce 12psi at 5000ft than sea level.
i wwas told the same
#113
Originally posted by Craig Mack
Does anyone know another V6 engine that can hold this kind of power under these circumstances? Honestly, I think the VQ is freakishly strong. This is insane.
Does anyone know another V6 engine that can hold this kind of power under these circumstances? Honestly, I think the VQ is freakishly strong. This is insane.
#115
Yes you can easily make grand nationals into high 12 or low 13 second cars with $2000 dollars. They are trubocharged stock though. Automatics also, just like turbo trans ams. The only turbo trans am, and its the fastest.
#116
Supporting Maxima.org Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Fort Collins, Colorado
Posts: 1,035
Yeah, whatever ... You are one of the really mature ones here I can tell! I'll be at the track first chance I get this year. Some of us have to work you know? Plus going really fast in a straight line isn't my idea of fun ... kicking unsuspecting Corvette's butts on the street is more fun. Don't waste my time! It's all about having fun not about proving myself to immature woofters!
Originally posted by 5.0THIS
Isnt gonna happen, especially in Colorado ,I'll bet you money. But he'll never go to the track anyway, for what reason I dont know, but he does seem to shy away from going to the track.
Isnt gonna happen, especially in Colorado ,I'll bet you money. But he'll never go to the track anyway, for what reason I dont know, but he does seem to shy away from going to the track.
#117
Originally posted by turbo97SE
Yeah, whatever ... You are one of the really mature ones here I can tell! I'll be at the track first chance I get this year. Some of us have to work you know? Plus going really fast in a straight line isn't my idea of fun ... kicking unsuspecting Corvette's butts on the street is more fun. Don't waste my time! It's all about having fun not about proving myself to immature woofters!
Yeah, whatever ... You are one of the really mature ones here I can tell! I'll be at the track first chance I get this year. Some of us have to work you know? Plus going really fast in a straight line isn't my idea of fun ... kicking unsuspecting Corvette's butts on the street is more fun. Don't waste my time! It's all about having fun not about proving myself to immature woofters!
#119
Originally posted by IceY2K1
I thought FI cars, especially turbos, aren't affected near as much as NA cars by altitude.
If you set the boost to 12psi, no matter whether you are at sea level or 5000ft, you still end up with 12psi. The turbo just spins more revolutions to produce 12psi at 5000ft than sea level.
I thought FI cars, especially turbos, aren't affected near as much as NA cars by altitude.
If you set the boost to 12psi, no matter whether you are at sea level or 5000ft, you still end up with 12psi. The turbo just spins more revolutions to produce 12psi at 5000ft than sea level.
#120
Originally posted by turbo97SE
Yeah, whatever ... You are one of the really mature ones here I can tell! I'll be at the track first chance I get this year. Some of us have to work you know? Plus going really fast in a straight line isn't my idea of fun ... kicking unsuspecting Corvette's butts on the street is more fun. Don't waste my time! It's all about having fun not about proving myself to immature woofters!
Yeah, whatever ... You are one of the really mature ones here I can tell! I'll be at the track first chance I get this year. Some of us have to work you know? Plus going really fast in a straight line isn't my idea of fun ... kicking unsuspecting Corvette's butts on the street is more fun. Don't waste my time! It's all about having fun not about proving myself to immature woofters!
Anyway..... I am glad you'll be at the track, I'd like to see your car run. Above I only gave what I thought were reasonable estimates as to what your times would be. Werent your times in the 18s last time you were there? that's what I was told by some other maxima guys anyway..... Do you have a 5 spd? With a LSD? if not then that's probably why you're getting so much spin out of the thing. One wheel up front with no weight on it (it's transfered to the back of the car) equals no traction. Even my buddy's stock 97 N/A SE can break them loose fairly easily. I hope if you're coming to the track you can find a way to put power down. I think if you could put down 349whp you could easily be in the 12s running 115 mph traps. If you're interested, you should check out CSMA, a club I belong to, we are renting ou bandi for a day, you could get in 30 runs or more if you wanted, for 60$. which is a pretty good deal when test and tune costs 30$ and you only 4-5 runs at most. PM me if you want more details on getting in on that.
Andy