I've been searching the treads and I haven't been able to find if anyone has installed a VI on a 3.5. Tsukasa(Scott) the guy tuning my car was talking about making a new intake that would flow better than what I have now. After talking for a while I told him I had a VI intake off my old DEK motor so we decided make an adapter and test it out. He is also thinking about using the Q45 throttle body instead of the pathfinder TB I have now to get more air to go along with my cams I installed in the motor. I found where Tilly installed a VI with a Q45 TB but he was using 3.0 heads on a 3.5 block. Has anyone installed this setup and if you have what was your experience with?

 

Wait a second. So do you have a 3.5 w/ the stock manifold on your car now? Why would you put ANY 3.0 manifold on it for performance reasons? The 3.5 manifold flows just fine and the 3.0 manifold(s) would have mismatched ports and actually flow LESS.

 

We are looking at getting low end torque while still having topend.As far as the intake I have now I'm running the Kinetix. I know,I know, I read all the info from other members after I had already purchase the intake so I went ahead and used it for now. Scott just shook his head the first time I opened my hood and he saw the intake I was running.The Kinetix is making good power but I'm having some misfire issues to deal with first before I can dyno again and post some numbers. It would get up to 4700 rpm's then # 2 cylinder would start misfiring then we would shut it down. I did make 220 hp at 4700 so I'm anxious to see what the motor will really do once I can get into the meat of it's powerband. As far as mismatch ports Scott would just scan the dimensions and enter them on his computer then make a port matched adapter.

 

The ports are much more different than you think. They're circles vs. ovals, a huge difference in shape. Honestly, if you want good low end back, throw on a stock FWD 3.5 manifold and get the VI working on that. It will not require adapters, the ports will be properly aligned, and you'll have plenty of low end and *decent* top end.

In fact, now that I think about it, as thick as I think the adapter would have to be to properly align everything and transition the ports properly, you might have hood clearance issues.

 

I actually think there is someone that has done this. I cant remember his username though. It will probably come to me later.

 

You have a 3.5 in your 4th gen, and you have misfire issues? Speaking from experience, gap your plugs down to .030 and see if you still have problems. If not, then you have other issues. If a smaller gap helps, then spend $50 on the laptop computer power supply mod, set to 15 or 16 volts of coil voltage feed, and set your gap out to .040 or so.

 

I actually don't think anyone has done this. Krismax had considered it but never followed through because recognized the superiority of the 3.5IM, IIRC.

The 3.5 IM outperforms any 3.0 IM when used on the 3.5 engine. And the 3.5 IM is a VI. You just need to use a window switch to use it's full potential because the IM actually has two points it needs to switch rather than just one. Or you can just do the SSIM mod, seeing as the engine produces enough torque on it's own anyway you'd probably never miss the low end power.

 

Hood clearance was one of the issues we were concerned about. We are trying to get the best of both worlds. We are going to try this first and if it doesn't work Scott says he can make an intake that would flow better.He constantly making aluminum intakes and piping for all the 2JZ /240SX conversions so fabrication work in not an issue when it comes to trying to make something work it's more on how deep my pockets are for all this R&D.That's why I'm asking if this has already be done because if it has we would just move on to another design. I asked awhile back why I kept seeing dips in the dyno charts of all the 3.5 swaps that used 3.0 timing and someone answered what I was thinking all along that it was an intake design.The intakes fine if your doing a full 3.5 swap with the wiring(which Scott says I should have done) but not so great for the guys that went the 3.0 timing route and want to keep their low end torque and still have top end.

 

350z im FTW on 3.5

 

Thanks for the tip Harold I'll try regapping the plugs to see if that helps. Actually got
the miss out of the top of the power band but now it's missing from idle to 2,000 rpms. It doesn't do it all the time. One of the problems I'm running into is my timing is at 5 degrees at idle but when i revs up it will go up to 43 degrees which is where it should be correct? I haven't figured out why my timings off 10 degrees at idle yet.

 

He wants low end though, and that isn't really designed for torque the way the FWD manifold is.


As far as who's done it: there was one guy who never comes on the .org much anymore who had a 3.5 block and heads, but 3.0 manifolds and timing equipment and kept running into issues. He had aftermarket cams and all kinds of stuff. I forget his SN, though. More recently, Nealoc187 (Neal) is using stock 4th gen (USIM) manifold on his 3.5, but that's not really comparable to an 00VI. Check out his experience with it in the 1/4 mile forum.

 

I ready the thread Neal posted. He just bolted the USIM on with the ports not lining up and still ran a low E.T. I think that low E.T. has more to do with Neal's driving ability though. I'm using the lower intake off the 3.5 so matching up the ports from the bottom of the VI and the top of the 3.5 intake doesn't look to hard but like you said earlier I might run into a height issue. There was a guy that used a VI on a 3.5 block and I think Stephenmax built the motor for him but he was using pathfinder heads to make the intake work. Is there a difference between the flow rates of the maxima 3.5 heads as opposed to the pathfinder 3.5 heads?

 

i did do this and i ported it very much (lower IM)

i drove the car for a couple yearts like this.ran like a 13.1 @ 102 .then i put the 3.5 upper and lower on and did the SSIM and ran a 12.72 at 108.33

with the 00 vi compared to the 3.5 IM felt like a small turbo was added.

youll prob loose 25-30 whp using 00 vi

 

Thanks Krismax you just saved me some money and time. Sounds like I would be better off letting Scott try to design a better flowing VI using the 3.5 intake design. I'll talk to him to see if he can make a true VI intake for the 3.5 or let him cut into the Kenitix to see if he can get it to flow any better.

 

http://forums.maxima.org/showthread....ght=hybrid+3.5

^One of the first hybrid swaps. It's not the 00VI but you get the idea.

If you already had the kinetix or the stock 3.5 manifold, it'll be a downgrade to switch to the 00VI as you've already found out.

As far as your kinetix manifold, it has been proven to make substantial gains with supporting mods. If you ever visit other VQ forums, (350Z, Altima, etc.) the only ones who have been dissatisfied with the kinetix are those with just kinetix and maybe exhaust. Those with cams, nitrous, FI and other more extreme mods. have shown an increase in power over their stock manifolds. Either way, SSIM owns. It does the same thing as the kinetix for the most part, but it is basically free.

 

Yeah thats the same guy I'm thinking about. Everytime I saw him post it was about a problem he was having.

 

Z33 IM + Z33 CVTC map = plenty of grunt, especially with plenum mods (spacer, MREV 2).

 

I was under the impression he had a car with 3.0 timing equipment and software. He speaks of his "old DEK"

See here:

I totally agree with your point, nismology, but I don't think that's the case. I know if I had a 5.5 gen I'd go that route for sure.

 

But how do you get the Z33 cvtc map? It seems that everyone shies away from trying to switch to a Z33 ECU.

 

I have a Z33 CVTC map & an A33B ECU via TS.

Also, IMO, and in a very raw / vague manner, a non CVTC 3.5L inside an A32 chassis shouldn't really have an issue w/ tq/pwr down low. Then we get into the mechanics of cam timing beyond 6k.

 

[QUOTE=Tatanko;6348499]I was under the impression he had a car with 3.0 timing equipment and software. He speaks of his "old DEK"


Yeah I'm running 3.0 ecu with the 3.5. Scott said I should have done the full swap then he would have been able to make a program to advance the CVTC when he wanted to.If I would have meet him before I installed my motor this is definitley the route I would have taken because he says he can get a lot more out of these motors by playing with the CVTC than what he has to do now which is do a dyno run then make a daughter board to match my powerband since it's locked in one place. I forgot he has worked on a few Z-350's so he is more familiar with the Z's ecu and messing with the CVTC than he is the maxima's ecu.

 

Your right I making better torque than I ever did in my 3.0 it's just that you don't seem to really feel it in the seat of your pants until around 4,000 RPM.I'm trying to see if i can move the torque curve a little lower down in the RPM band and since I don't have CVTC we were thinking of a VI design to try to do this. Granted I have S1 cams so I'm sure that plays some part in my power band moving to the right, we are just seeing if we can offset this.A few guys have told me to try to make the stock VI intake work and I would try this but I don't have one so were working with what we have on hand. I think I have access to a Z-33 intake so I guess we could see what we can do with it.

 

Z33 intake will not help your situation.

 

how did you convince ts to reflash it? and which reflash? l-spec?

 

F-spec. I asked for a 'Z33 tune'. I think they just flash all their Maxima ECU's the same, so anyone who has an F-Spec probably has the Z33 CVTC map.