It's ON. 4pm on Satuday, Church Automotive Testing. I believe they do dynapack testing (chassis style dyno).


Sorry for the delay everyone.

 

Tony, what was the outcome of your visit to Nissan? Thanks.

 

finally...

 

subscribed

 

I am going to attempt to duplicate what is done on the Mrev + I have the pictures from the site, and adding clearence above the front runners is easy to do on a milling machine. However, you have asked the key question. How will I know if I have succeeded? I guess I will do a before and after dyno test.

 

How did it go at Corporate Nissan of North America??

 

i see...i thought maybe you were going to do some more extensive work on the lower plenum. but yes, i can see where that would be easy to duplicate. good luck with it.

is anyone testing the mrev and the 287 hp engine on the dyno?

 

Hi Guys,

Here it is! A print out straight from the source. So far it looks consistant with the previous dyno. I will export the tabular data into excel for a detailed A-B analysis.

I may also dyno this setup on a REVUP 350Z with Wired24/7 this Saturday to see what the results are with only a modified lower collector.

Good data was also obtained at the track event last Saturday that will directly show (quantitatively) what the overall comparative effect will be on Horse Power as it is applied to the road course track.

MREV Vs REVUP lower collector.

 

Wish it were that easy.

What is shown on the website will indeed work, but keep in mind there is much more to it than what is shown in the picture.

 

I like how you guys beat on the "long tubed CAI" lol; but well, we have too many feedbacks where people are losing power with those CAIs anyways..

 

I'm sold, when can I place my order for the MREV++?

 

well, shouldn't the 287 ppl get priorities? lol.. the revup ppl got Mrev+ already..I guess it would be a good ideas to sell some Mrev++ to some 287 ppl first so they can provide you with some "individual" reviews like individual dyno runs and track performance..

 

I don't beat on long tube CAI. I don't have a predjudice to encourage or disuade their use. They are what they are. If you like them by all means be happy with them.

The above was a dyno set the Z owner performed on a CAI.

Its not related to testing of MREV but it was performed the same day and all pulls were printed on the same page by the owner.

 

Soon.

Probably next week or shortly after the additional dynos on Saturday.

The machine shop has lots of lower collectors to modify and I have a lot of logistics to coordinate.

 

Are you saying that the original machined lower plenum shown on your web site has substantial additional modifications that are invisible to the eye? You say it will work, and then imply that it won't work. I don’t understand.

Quoting from your site:

“There is only about 1/8" clearance between the first two inlets and the plenum cover. This creates a significant air flow restriction that reduces engine breathing and power output.

If the height of the flow area above the runner inlets were increased it by 1/8" it would reduce the flow restriction (pressure drop) by a factor of 4. If the height were increased once again by another 1/8" or to a total of 1/4" it would reduce the pressure drop by a factor of 9. If the plenum were lifted by a total of 3/8" it would reduce the pressure drop by a factor of 16. If it lifted by 1/2" it will reduce pressure drop by a factor of 25.

Reduction of pressure drop is asymptotic and inversely proportional to flow area. In other words this means the greatest benefit will be realized within the first 1/8" of added height. Fluid dynamic theory, dyno data and flow bench test data support this”.

If I am understanding your statements, adding a clearance of 1/8 to 1/4 will yield a noticeable benefit.

On the other hand I can understand why you wouldn’t want to discuss how you are modifying parts that your competitors have not figured out a way to do. But realistically, if someone is going to rip you off and copy your development work, all they must do is buy a Mrev+, and get busy. I am not trying to become a seller of modified intake manifolds. I am just an interested amateur trying to learn. Also, I happen to enjoy doing projects like these. I appreciate any information and insights that you are willing to share.

Thanks, Bilinghm

 

I'm not implying that it won't work. As I said in the previous post, it will indeed work. And you will see it in testing.

But what I am also saying, is there is more modification to MREV+ than is shown in the picture.

I specifically didn't want to show everything so some machining processes were left out of that picture.

And yes, I know the idea can be easily lifted... Not much can be done about that, but there is no need to make it any easier by posting explicit pictures or drawings.

Oh well... I'll just keep comming up with new mods anyways. I have many others in development right now that will require multiple patents.

Some will be huge. Bolt it onto a Z, a Mustang, STI or Ferrari and it will function the same way. If it works on my car it will work on any car. I already dyno tested some with very good results.

 

Good luck on the U.S. patents. They are extremely hard to obtain. I have a couple of patents and they took about 5 years of work. In my experience, a good marketing plan is better than a patent. Better to sell the product then worry about protection from competitors.

 

Can you take that to PM instead of cluttering up the thread Bilinghm?

Thanks!

 

can you go into more specifics as to what the differences are?

the way it appears, is that a little bit of milling has been done...but if there is more i would like to know.

i think motordyne is a great company and i am interested in this product.

i am hoping that there are some gains to be made with the mrev and an aftermarket plenum on the 287

thanks

 

A summary of results would be very valuable:
Mrev + on the 287
Mrev + on 287 with spacer
Mrev ++ on 287, etc. What works best?