Unbiased, Independent Dyno Test: VQ35DE RevUp + Plenum Spacer
12-09-2009, 05:24 PM
#1
Retired Admin
Thread Starter
iTrader: (95)
Unbiased, Independent Dyno Test: VQ35DE RevUp + Plenum Spacer
In light of recent events, I volunteered to hold an independent and unbiased plenum spacer experiment on a VQ35DE RevUp engine. Tony of Motordyne has volunteered to provide us a plenum spacer just for this experiment. A few things had come up and we had to change locations but putting aside irrelevant details, this unbiased, independent experiment will take place at HPP Racing in Lewisville this Saturday, December 12th at 10 am.
Purpose:
Materials:
Procedure:
To be observed:
After the event, I will update this thread with the data/results.
Feel free to discuss what I have outlined above. If necessary, I will adjust our plan appropriately before the event actually takes place.
Purpose:
- The main reason for this experiment is to determine whether or not the plenum spacer affects power output on the VQ350DE RevUp engine.
- Additionally, we will attempt to illustrate and explain any ECU shifting on the dyno, if at all.
Materials:
- A very lightly modified or stock 2006 350Z 6MT
- Cipher (for observing/recording parameters only)
- about 9 wideband runs on the dyno
- basic tools
- 93 octane gas
- MD 5/16" spacer
Procedure:
- We'll first reset the ECU before making any runs on the dyno.
- Then, we'll obtain 3 baseline runs. These 3 runs will also serve to get the ECU into performance mode, since we have a learning ECU that adjusts accordingly to our driving habits.
- The plenum spacer is to be installed, after which we will obtain 3 more dyno runs.
- Lastly, we will uninstall/remove the spacer that was installed in the previous step. We will do 3 more runs on the dyno with the now-back-to-stock plenum.
To be observed:
- AFR B1 and B2
- Accel ped pos 1&2
- Cal/LD value
- Coolant temp
- Oil temp
- Engine RPM
- Fuel Temp
- IGN timing
- Intake air temp
- Intake cam B1 and B2
- Exhaust cam B1 and B2
- MAF GM/S
- Throttle position 1&2
After the event, I will update this thread with the data/results.
Feel free to discuss what I have outlined above. If necessary, I will adjust our plan appropriately before the event actually takes place.
12-09-2009, 05:52 PM
#3
^I'm all for that too but I'll leave that part up to Chris and the Z owner.
-----------
3hreee5ive0ero's "Unbiased Independent Dyno Test" is the result offering to help out in this thread.
https://my350z.com/forum/intake-exha...tout-test.html
.
-----------
3hreee5ive0ero's "Unbiased Independent Dyno Test" is the result offering to help out in this thread.
https://my350z.com/forum/intake-exha...tout-test.html
.
Last edited by Hydrazine; 12-21-2009 at 08:45 AM.
12-09-2009, 05:54 PM
#4
Retired Admin
Thread Starter
iTrader: (95)
While your suggestion certainly is a valid one and makes sense, we're limited to about 9 runs due time constraints. Additionally, my main focus is on whether or not there are any "phantom gains" on the dyno with the spacer on a rev-up (which is why we're uninstalling the spacer for the last 3 runs). This also goes hand in hand with ECU shifting/adapting on the dyno.
12-09-2009, 05:54 PM
#5
Nice!!!
Is Intense going to participate as well with their 3/8" spacer? If not, can't someone get a hold of one to run the test anyways? I think having official unbiased results on varying plenum thicknesses will only benefit the 350z community. There have been claims of spacers in varying sizes having the same positive effect for rev-ups, so it is only fair to validate if this theory is true or not. Since we are already going this far, I am sure the participating vendors will have no problem with paying for the extra parts and dynos if necessary.
Is Intense going to participate as well with their 3/8" spacer? If not, can't someone get a hold of one to run the test anyways? I think having official unbiased results on varying plenum thicknesses will only benefit the 350z community. There have been claims of spacers in varying sizes having the same positive effect for rev-ups, so it is only fair to validate if this theory is true or not. Since we are already going this far, I am sure the participating vendors will have no problem with paying for the extra parts and dynos if necessary.
12-09-2009, 05:58 PM
#7
While your suggestion certainly is a valid one and makes sense, we're limited to about 9 runs due time constraints. Additionally, my main focus is on whether or not there are any "phantom gains" on the dyno with the spacer on a rev-up (which is why we're uninstalling the spacer for the last 3 runs). This also goes hand in hand with ECU shifting/adapting on the dyno.
Trending Topics
12-09-2009, 05:58 PM
#8
Retired Admin
Thread Starter
iTrader: (95)
Nice!!!
Is Intense going to participate as well with their 3/8" spacer? If not, can't someone get a hold of one to run the test anyways? I think having official unbiased results on varying plenum thicknesses will only benefit the 350z community. There have been claims of spacers in varying sizes having the same positive effect for rev-ups, so it is only fair to validate if this theory is true or not. Since we are already going this far, I am sure the participating vendors will have no problem with paying for the extra parts and dynos if necessary.
Is Intense going to participate as well with their 3/8" spacer? If not, can't someone get a hold of one to run the test anyways? I think having official unbiased results on varying plenum thicknesses will only benefit the 350z community. There have been claims of spacers in varying sizes having the same positive effect for rev-ups, so it is only fair to validate if this theory is true or not. Since we are already going this far, I am sure the participating vendors will have no problem with paying for the extra parts and dynos if necessary.
However, it's common knowledge that most spacers are pretty much the same. They only slightly vary from one another, so I'd assume that whatever [general] results we obtain can be applied to other spacers (even with those of different thickness) as well.
Again, due to last minute changes, we are only able to get about 9 runs in, so that's another issue.
12-09-2009, 06:08 PM
#9
I have asked Darren to see if he would be interested in participating in this "unbiased, independent experiment" but they have declined and I didn't bother to ask why.
However, it's common knowledge that most spacers are pretty much the same. They only slightly vary from one another, so I'd assume that whatever [general] results we obtain can be applied to other spacers (even with those of different thickness) as well.
Again, due to last minute changes, we are only able to get about 9 runs in, so that's another issue.
However, it's common knowledge that most spacers are pretty much the same. They only slightly vary from one another, so I'd assume that whatever [general] results we obtain can be applied to other spacers (even with those of different thickness) as well.
Again, due to last minute changes, we are only able to get about 9 runs in, so that's another issue.
If it were me, I would be all over it if I knew my product worked. Since this is a public site that they sponsor, maybe Intense can chime in on why they are not participating in something like this. Either way, nice to know that there will be some documentation and i'm excited to see the results.
12-10-2009, 09:25 AM
#14
However, it looks like the apparent reason for not testing the 3/8 powerlab is "time constraints" even though Intense didn't want to participate without giving a reason on why. Seems kind of odd to me and things just don't seem to add up considering the circumstances that led up to all of this.
Last edited by Rickdogg; 12-10-2009 at 09:27 AM.
12-10-2009, 11:17 AM
#16
Retired Admin
Thread Starter
iTrader: (95)
That's odd considering this is a great opportunity to prove the naysayers wrong if in fact their product does what it is claimed to do for revups as well. If it were me, I would be all over it if I knew my product worked. Since this is a public site that they sponsor, maybe Intense can chime in on why they are not participating in something like this.
Either way, nice to know that there will be some documentation and i'm excited to see the results.
If it were me, I would be all over it if I knew my product worked. Since this is a public site that they sponsor, maybe Intense can chime in on why they are not participating in something like this. Either way, nice to know that there will be some documentation and i'm excited to see the results.
Originally Posted by IntensePower
We've been out some of the hardware kits for a few weeks now, and the new stock of it is still lost in one of the containers from the move.
I'm sure a forum member would be willing to donate a 3/8" or if I know Tony well enough; I am sure he wouldn't mind purchasing a 3/8 Powerlab out of his own pocket for something like this to make the test objective as possible since there is an admin (3rd party) conducting the test.
However, it looks like the apparent reason for not testing the 3/8 powerlab is "time constraints" even though Intense didn't want to participate without giving a reason on why. Seems kind of odd to me and things just don't seem to add up considering the circumstances that led up to all of this.
However, it looks like the apparent reason for not testing the 3/8 powerlab is "time constraints" even though Intense didn't want to participate without giving a reason on why. Seems kind of odd to me and things just don't seem to add up considering the circumstances that led up to all of this.
Guys, make sure you understand that this thread is NOT about Motordyne vs PowerLabs/Intense, so don't make it to be like that. My first post explicitly states my purpose for this experiment.
However, it is my belief that spacers are spacers. There's nothing extraordinary about spacers individually and they all serve the same purpose (increase volume of the stock plenum with some cooling benefits). Therefore, I believe that general results from one spacer can be applied to others. I mean, 1/16" difference between 5/16" spacer and 3/8" spacer isn't a big enough difference to drastically change the results in either direction (up/gain or down/loss).
12-10-2009, 11:40 AM
#18
Topsy Turvey!
See the announcement at the top of this page.
https://my350z.com/forum/intake-exha...spacers-8.html
Or the announcement here.
http://g35driver.com/forums/reviews/...tml#post649562
You see, this is a very interesting and different kind of dyno test that will be performed. Not only it is a open, public and independent dyno test, it is not a test to prove that a spacer works on the REVUP lower plenum, it is a independent test to prove that the plenum spacer (by itself) does NOT make power on the REVUP lower collector.
Usually dyno testing works the other way around to prove that a part works, but in this case, Motordyne is the only plenum spacer manufacturer in the industry to claim that a plenum spacer doesn't make power on the REVUP lower plenum. And because of this, I have to prove my spacer makes no power via an independent test. That's what makes this test so unusual.
Below are the results of the first time I dynod the MD 1/2" plenum spacer on a REVUP engine.
It was at a Church Auto dyno day with at least 30 people standing around and watching closely. This was the first dyno test of a 1/2" plenum spacer on a REVUP.
http://g35driver.com/forums/553564-post33.html
http://g35driver.com/forums/648411-post117.html
http://g35driver.com/forums/reviews/...edback-10.html
(see pages 9 and 10)
We dynod his car in the morning with the intent to post dyno it immediately but there were too many other cars and couldn't do the whole procedure until the end of the day.
It turned out that it was good that we couldn't do all the testing in the morning because it meant we had to re-do another baseline later that day. Anyways, here are the results of the test.
All pre/post dyno pulls overlaid:
^You will notice the dyno pulls only go out to 6500 RPM. This is because this was the first REVUP ever dynod at that shop and they were not accustomed to the higher redline.
Here is run 3 overlaid on post run 3.
Dotted line is without the spacer.
The heavy dash line is with the spacer.
Here is run 2 overlaid on run 2
Dotted line is without the spacer.
The heavy dash line is with the spacer.
Here is run 1 Vs run 1.
Dotted line is without the spacer.
The heavy dash line is with the spacer.
This particular dyno set shows a small decrease in overall power with the spacer but I'm sure that its just background noise and it is within the margin of dyno error.
The real result of a spacer on a REVUP lower collector = Zero.
Tony
12-10-2009, 12:18 PM
#19
Here are some more recent dynos of the 5/16" plenum spacer on the REVUP lower plenum.
Baseline - 5/16" spacer on REVUP lower plenum - Note how the first run in red is lowest and the following runs increase to equilibrium. In this test, the engine and plenum were already hot from driving earlier in the day and it takes time for the hot plenum to cool down as dyno pulls are done. Hence power increases as plenum temps go down.
Post dynos - All stock plenum - Note how the first run in red is highest and the following runs decrease toward eqquilibrium. In this test, the plenum started cold because it was opened with fans blowing on it. But as the testing progressed the plenum got hotter and the dyno eventually reached equilibrium.
Now take a look at the overlay of these plots. In this plot here, only the equilibrium runs are shown and they show a perfect overlay within the margin of dyno error....
The fine dotted line is with the spacer.
The heavy dash line is without the spacer.
These are the equilibrium runs shown. IE no change in power when the spacer was removed.
Below are the first two runs of each set. These runs are not at equilibrium.
These could be used to say that a spacer loses 11HP on a REVUP lower plenum. But that would be misleading. The truth is a spacer does nothing on the REVUP lower plenum.
This plot below simply shows how the results can be selectively manipulated to show anything you want them to be.
The heavy dashed lines are WITH the spacer.
The fine dotted lines are WITHOUT the spacer.
Does a spacer lose power on a REVUP lower plenum? ....of course not.
Although, the dyno plots from the runs above could easily be selected to show that a spacer loses 11 HP power on the REVUP lower plenum it isn't necessary.
A plenum spacer does nothing on the revup lower plenum.
Baseline - 5/16" spacer on REVUP lower plenum - Note how the first run in red is lowest and the following runs increase to equilibrium. In this test, the engine and plenum were already hot from driving earlier in the day and it takes time for the hot plenum to cool down as dyno pulls are done. Hence power increases as plenum temps go down.
Post dynos - All stock plenum - Note how the first run in red is highest and the following runs decrease toward eqquilibrium. In this test, the plenum started cold because it was opened with fans blowing on it. But as the testing progressed the plenum got hotter and the dyno eventually reached equilibrium.
Now take a look at the overlay of these plots. In this plot here, only the equilibrium runs are shown and they show a perfect overlay within the margin of dyno error....
The fine dotted line is with the spacer.
The heavy dash line is without the spacer.
These are the equilibrium runs shown. IE no change in power when the spacer was removed.
Below are the first two runs of each set. These runs are not at equilibrium.
These could be used to say that a spacer loses 11HP on a REVUP lower plenum. But that would be misleading. The truth is a spacer does nothing on the REVUP lower plenum.
This plot below simply shows how the results can be selectively manipulated to show anything you want them to be.
The heavy dashed lines are WITH the spacer.
The fine dotted lines are WITHOUT the spacer.
Does a spacer lose power on a REVUP lower plenum? ....of course not.
Although, the dyno plots from the runs above could easily be selected to show that a spacer loses 11 HP power on the REVUP lower plenum it isn't necessary.
A plenum spacer does nothing on the revup lower plenum.
