Jason@Performance

iTrader: (11)

then a link to it...

either way, i would dyno it if i had one...

azrael

like was said already, the #1 issue is the main bearings in the bottom end. I think a valvetrain upgrade would be nice, and a cam would definitely be necessary to take advantage of a higher redline.. but the bottom line is.. if you raise it to ~8,000+ at this point, you're going to be on the phone with Nissan really soon pricing out short blocks.

Lateapex

iTrader: (9)

So, we've heard the rpm limitation on the engine is valve spring retainers, rod-bolts and, now, main bearings. Sounds like a lot of speculating going on here (I hope). Given the technical specifications we've read regarding the engine's development, and the raves world-wide for it's sophistication and performance, I am skeptical about the 'shortcomings' that regularly surface in the forum, when the subject of raising the rpm limit a modest 7-800 rpm is entertained.

There may be some truth to the idea that the engine is configured very carefully to operate under a relatively low rprm ceiling but, both my Mazda V6 engines and the longish-stroke 4.6 Cobra engine in my previous car would happily crank 7500 rpm after the obligatory cam and intake and exhaust upgrades. Hopefully, the 350's engine will turn out to be as willing.

BOOSTED

yea...jstu build you head with vlave springs/retainers/cams/possibley valves..and a computer that will allow that high a revv, and your good...i dunno about 8000, that sounds like that would the max...

dougrace zs

iTrader: (2)

Questions?



Thanks To Our Partners - Balanced Performance

Jason@Performance

iTrader: (11)

Baseline was?
and then my guess is addition of plenum only?

or is it the addition of your cats / headers / plenum?

dougrace zs

iTrader: (2)

This is baseline vs. Crawford Package.

Headers, Cats, (In this case) Borla exhaust, and Plenum.

Four bolt-ons... what do you think?

The plenum gained on it's own, 9hp at peak and 17 @ redline.

Jason@Performance

iTrader: (11)

I am impressed with the upper RPM's with the extra HP made there. That must be from the Plenum.

As for the lower RPM range, there is not much of anything added downlow HP wize (a few HP at 3100 RPM and a little more for 500 rpms at 3.5k to 4k) and the low end torque went away.

Up top that car screems!

but for mid range / low end... needs work...

I dont think the Z likes longer tube headers much. How much pipe is there in your header? What size do they join up to?


also, your A/F looks like it hasnt been treated by a re-program and I know from talking with other people that is what your plenum NEEDS to perform best...

zzzya

iTrader: (2)

I think the torque gains from 3200-4200 look very nice! The gains up top are incredible. Once TS can get the A/F in line there should be some serious gains throughout the low/mids. Just think, this car has no other mods like the pulleys, CAI, flywheel, cams, throttle body or ECU. I would love to see what this combo would do with a set of cams and a properly tuned fuel map

PhoenixINX

Actually... these gains were 50/50 plenum and headers. Plenum alone only made 17 @ redline... this is near 40! These headers are simply INCREDIBLE!

I would not DARE expect NISMO, Borla, etc. to match these... both companies rushed to get their product on the market. VERY LITTLE R&D was in them - The Crawford Headers have nearly one (1) year of R&D.

As for low-mid range gains... just check that air/fuel - WAY TOO LEAN! Once that is richened up and targetted around the 13.5-13.7 range torque gains with be VERY impressive. Remember, you have to have fuel to make power! As for loss... you can see that quick 500rpm... look at the AIR FUEL! It spiked 15.0! YIKES!

I'm going to be using an SAFC on my own car for @ dyno adjustments. Should be VERY pleasing results.

Jason@Performance

iTrader: (11)

I'm not going to argue that youare making tons of power up top. but it is next to nothing down low - mid... It seems that the RT High Flow Cats add the same amount of power across the powerband, I will be seeing if that is still true with the Nismo Headers added to the equation.

zzzya

iTrader: (2)

Once again we have to remember, different car, different mods, different dyno, different location. So many variables it is pretty hard to compare one product to another unless its on that same car being swapped out and redynoed on the same dyno. Even this Crawford car was dynoed on a different dyno with this package a little while back and the gains across the board looked better on the piece of paper, but the numbers were different. Probably different temp, elevation, calibration, and of course different dyno and so on. I take dyno information with a grain of salt given there are so many variables out there. It is really only right to follow the same car on the same dyno in the same conditions to see what is really happening. I like to test my car on the drag strip to see real world performance changes. Sure there are variables on the strip as well, but with a 5AT they are not as much as with a 6MT.

VandyZ

iTrader: (2)

Dont forget about the Hi-flow cats and borla.

To be fair about the whole situation, we saw better low end numbers on our local dyno. A/F (see older dyno posts) here was not a lean low down where in ATL it was uncomfortably lean. I would hope the general consensus of impressions at this time to include the issues that not just us, but most most everyone are encountering with the “fine” tuning needed with the ecu concerning timing and fuel.

PhoenixINX

Well said...

RARELY does an simple "bolt-on" NA car need tuning.

Why? Because typically the "bolt-ons" do not yield those great of gains.

None of the headers, intakes, etc. thus far on the Z have required tuning.

Whilst on the flipside, the parts Crawfords has developed are making BIG power - which in retrospect DO need tuning. The ECU isn't compromising anything, but it's now the bottleneck.

VandyZ

iTrader: (2)

I would not go that far. There can always be improvements.