Upper plenum project 75mm Maxima TB
04-02-2015, 09:25 AM
#61
Registered User
Run 1 is modified upper without spacer, its not making the power but its lean and wants more fuel
Run 2 APS Tall boy with NWP throttle body
Run 3 Kinetix Velocity with NPW TB.
All these runs were performed with the inertia brake on
Run 1 Modified upper with blox spacer, most power but super lean. Running between 14.25 and 14.5 Inertia brake on to simulate same results as previous test
Run 2 Modified upper with blox spacer, running very lean.
Run 3 Kinetix velocity with NWP TB. Run from 3/12, time and date right on there.
All runs from previous test were performed with inertia brake on, dyno operator didn't have previous experience with performing power pulls. The inertia brake simulates road force so it's a more realistic pull. I had him perform a pull yesterday 4/1 with the inertia brake on to replicate previous test. The results were the same, car was .5 to a full point lean. This car was tuned for the Kinetix plenum so the results should have been favorable for it. On every run with the modified upper it wanted more fuel than the other plenums. It's job was to supply the engine with more air, it's doing its job. Plenum spacer changes the size of the box, this puts a bigger hole in the side of the box to allow more air in at a faster rate. Would be interesting to see what this does with a revup lower, but I'm done testing.
I am disappointed with the results...it appears to be as good as, or maybe better than the Velocity Manifold. I was hoping for a breakthrough as it appears your upper manifold addressed a lot of the stock manifold's supposed weaknesses. However, even with these weaknesses addressed, the general power curve has not changed.
It really appears to me that maybe the upper intake manifold is not the true restriction to making power with these engines...this is assuming you have aggressive cams and supporting mods, which I'm sure you do or you wouldn't be this creative! I believe the true restriction may lie in the lower intake manifold on the DE engines. The HR changed this from circular ports to rectangular ports which appear as though to be able to flow more air...what do you think?
Your upper intake appears as though it is about as good as it can possibly get with no restriction in air flow! I think that the lower intake manifold is what is choking these motors when you start spinning above 6500 rpm. I believe the intake manifold (Upper and Lower) was designed to fit this motor's power band (obviously!). When the DE's came out they simply were not designed to spin to 7000 rpm, much less 7500-8000!!!!
Will the HR lower bolt onto a DE motor without modification? Do the DE fuel rails, injectors, etc...fit as well?
I realize the DE upper manifold will not work on this lower manifold and that the HR upper has dual throttle bodies which simply will not work with our motors without extensive work.
Thank you again for your hard work expanding our knowledge on this VQ35DE motor. I will post my results on my VQ35De build as well when it is finished. (Mid-Late April) I would like to give back as well.
Thank you!
Mike
Last edited by dsm_mikey; 04-02-2015 at 09:26 AM.
04-02-2015, 09:50 AM
#62
this was stage one. Stage 2 is porting a lower......
As far as the DE not being to rev 7k from the beginning it was. There was a nismo ecu and other mods package when the car came out that upped the power to 300 and a 7k redline. What was gathered from the testing sg did was that the upper plenum inlet was restrictive which I again proved. The leaner afr shows that with that bottleneck removed there is more air getting into the cylinders. The power curve is a function of multiple variables but intake runner length and size really have a lot to do with it. Look at what a revup lower does to these engines. So the next step is enlarging the lower port entry's a couple mm's on the roof and sides as the floor feeds the short side radius and is probably best left alone.
I am going from air filter to the back of the intake valve systematically. I now have plenty more air flow into the plenum so now onto the next place air passes through.
As far as the DE not being to rev 7k from the beginning it was. There was a nismo ecu and other mods package when the car came out that upped the power to 300 and a 7k redline. What was gathered from the testing sg did was that the upper plenum inlet was restrictive which I again proved. The leaner afr shows that with that bottleneck removed there is more air getting into the cylinders. The power curve is a function of multiple variables but intake runner length and size really have a lot to do with it. Look at what a revup lower does to these engines. So the next step is enlarging the lower port entry's a couple mm's on the roof and sides as the floor feeds the short side radius and is probably best left alone.
I am going from air filter to the back of the intake valve systematically. I now have plenty more air flow into the plenum so now onto the next place air passes through.
Last edited by 1cockyZ; 04-02-2015 at 12:44 PM.
04-02-2015, 02:01 PM
#63
Registered User
this was stage one. Stage 2 is porting a lower......
As far as the DE not being to rev 7k from the beginning it was. There was a nismo ecu and other mods package when the car came out that upped the power to 300 and a 7k redline. What was gathered from the testing sg did was that the upper plenum inlet was restrictive which I again proved. The leaner afr shows that with that bottleneck removed there is more air getting into the cylinders. The power curve is a function of multiple variables but intake runner length and size really have a lot to do with it. Look at what a revup lower does to these engines. So the next step is enlarging the lower port entry's a couple mm's on the roof and sides as the floor feeds the short side radius and is probably best left alone.
I am going from air filter to the back of the intake valve systematically. I now have plenty more air flow into the plenum so now onto the next place air passes through.
As far as the DE not being to rev 7k from the beginning it was. There was a nismo ecu and other mods package when the car came out that upped the power to 300 and a 7k redline. What was gathered from the testing sg did was that the upper plenum inlet was restrictive which I again proved. The leaner afr shows that with that bottleneck removed there is more air getting into the cylinders. The power curve is a function of multiple variables but intake runner length and size really have a lot to do with it. Look at what a revup lower does to these engines. So the next step is enlarging the lower port entry's a couple mm's on the roof and sides as the floor feeds the short side radius and is probably best left alone.
I am going from air filter to the back of the intake valve systematically. I now have plenty more air flow into the plenum so now onto the next place air passes through.
It does appear through your testing that a bottleneck was indeed removed. I was hoping for more top end increases with the improvement in air flow. I am really new to making N/A power with this engine so I do not fully understand all of the restrictions in the system. It appears through browsing that the heads on the VQ35DE are very efficient out of the box. I believe the heads on the DE vs. HR are very similar so I was throwing that out as a high rpm restriction. I also threw out your Upper Intake manifold as a restriction because your modified upper intake appears to be able to flow PLENTY of air for a 3.5 L V6. You also have an enlarged intake and throttle body. The only thing that appeared to make sense to me was the lower intake manifold where it actually bolts to the heads...I know on the newer HR motors this was changed.
I failed to think about the length of the intake runners affecting the power curve. I know it's been done before, but when I dyno may car I will dyno a Kinetix Velocity manifold, a NON-REVUP w/ Spacer, and a REV-UP manifold w/ a spacer. All with the NWP 75MM Throttle body. I am having the lower Intake Manifold touched up to match the gasket and slightly ported to (Hopefully) increase high rpm power.
Again, I am very thankful for people like you on this forum that are willing to spend their time and money improving our knowledge of this platform!
04-02-2015, 05:01 PM
#64
^ one thing to consider is that the hr is square in the middle but as far as I know it's round or oval at the head, that is not the problem. Generally shorter runners=higher peak if the engine can work there, I am going to go out on a limb and say that no manifold will outperform the velocity in the high end. I think that is the sweet spot for that manifold (6-7k) that de manifold is going to max out at the same point it appears no matter what.
04-02-2015, 05:33 PM
#66
Having had a velocity manifold in my hands and measuring everything it would be an expensive mistake. I have a de lower on the bench in the garage I just looked over and took some measurements. I'm going to start work soon on it, need to take advantage of all the new found airflow.
04-03-2015, 05:16 AM
#69
By the time you improve it its a new manifold. You have so much flexibility with the stock multi piece arrangement. Nonrevup lower or revup lower, different thickness spacers, you can port or mill the runners. The big thing was that neck and throttle body, if you look at the dyno even without a spacer more air was being drawn in and leaning out the engine. There does need to be a spacer to get the potential out of it.
Last edited by 1cockyZ; 04-03-2015 at 05:19 AM.
04-03-2015, 09:33 AM
#71
By the time you improve it its a new manifold. You have so much flexibility with the stock multi piece arrangement. Nonrevup lower or revup lower, different thickness spacers, you can port or mill the runners. The big thing was that neck and throttle body, if you look at the dyno even without a spacer more air was being drawn in and leaning out the engine. There does need to be a spacer to get the potential out of it.
I like the ability of playing with the setups as you say, but I just feel like there are going to be some sacrifices. I hope your testing provides good results so we can get a better understanding of what the DE likes.
Now as I understand it:
1. The rev-up lower gives better results up top at the expense of low to mid drop.
2. The non-rev lower has the broader power band but for some reason (unknown as far as I know) always seams to peak out around 6-6200 rpm.
3. The velocity has the traits of both plenums with only a small decrease in mid range.
I'm not familiar with your mods but what cams and exhaust do you have?
04-03-2015, 09:44 AM
#72
I am completely done testing A and B stuff. I'm porting a lower and pairing it with the upper as well as a 3.5" intake setup. Going for more hp at the next tuning session. The mods this car has and complete engine build is in my other thread. I'm going to build a jig and some flanges so I can build upper plenums and sell them one by one for anyone serious.
04-05-2015, 09:50 AM
#76
My old motor. Which now has PPE unstepped headers, other that same setup. Sometime in the future the car is going back to RT for a retune with a 3.5" intake as well. Plus I'm porting a nonrevup lower plenum. I'd like to see a cammed revup still running a revup lower test this out.
04-05-2015, 12:29 PM
#77
I had good gains with a 3.5 intake when Vince retuned me for it. Are you buying or making one? Mine utilizes the Stillen CAB as a heat shield.
My coupe went 13.13@101 last Nov with it.
Mods
Kinetix velocity
Ported lower
Exhaust
ART pipes
09 max TB
My coupe went 13.13@101 last Nov with it.
Mods
Kinetix velocity
Ported lower
Exhaust
ART pipes
09 max TB