DIY plenum porting
10-14-2007, 08:42 AM
#381
Banned
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: OC - So Cal
Posts: 1,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by civic4982
I think it's more about the fun of the DIY and the project than time value.
11-06-2007, 10:35 PM
#382
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Tampa
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by OCG35
That’s fine & dandy - but he stated he saved $450, so clearly part of it was about money to him... It's a very time consuming process thus the reason I made the value of time reference.
11-07-2007, 04:32 AM
#383
Originally Posted by gnodhcni9
Why are you in the DIY forum if your time is worth so much? If you are big money then go buy your stuff and let us blue collar guys take care of turning the wrenches.
11-07-2007, 08:32 AM
#384
Banned
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: OC - So Cal
Posts: 1,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by gnodhcni9
Why are you in the DIY forum if your time is worth so much? If you are big money then go buy your stuff and let us blue collar guys take care of turning the wrenches.
His reference was almost to say why spend $450 on a Motordyne product when you can do the same thing yourself… I guess if time has no value then the statement would be true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To the post directly above - It seems some people just like to find drama.
01-13-2008, 05:35 PM
#385
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just finished doing mine. Only took off the casting marks on the back 4, and heavily shaved the front two. Thickness of the top was 1.85" and I took it down to 1.5". This was just using a set of calipers, nothing like a good set of micrometers or a CMM lol.
This took about 90 minutes to do with a $45 electric angle grinder and 60 or 80-grit "flapper" sanding disc (Can't remember which). I could have went up to a smoother one and got fancy with a dremel, but I'm convinced that the distance is the biggest factor because the MREV looks like it hasn't been blended at all. I did some blending, I probably left the top of the air horns too knife-edged, but oh well.
Top:
Left:
Right:
A little bit much blow by for 70k miles, so I'll probably put a catch can in next weekend.
No Dyno numbers, nor do I plan to. It seems to be faster, but I'd call it the placebo effect. Still, it cost me nothing and who knows, might have gained me a few hp.
This took about 90 minutes to do with a $45 electric angle grinder and 60 or 80-grit "flapper" sanding disc (Can't remember which). I could have went up to a smoother one and got fancy with a dremel, but I'm convinced that the distance is the biggest factor because the MREV looks like it hasn't been blended at all. I did some blending, I probably left the top of the air horns too knife-edged, but oh well.
Top:
Left:
Right:
A little bit much blow by for 70k miles, so I'll probably put a catch can in next weekend.
No Dyno numbers, nor do I plan to. It seems to be faster, but I'd call it the placebo effect. Still, it cost me nothing and who knows, might have gained me a few hp.
01-23-2008, 09:34 AM
#388
New Member
iTrader: (10)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Jersey, New
Posts: 7,146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey guys. My cousin and I just ported the upper and mid manifolds and we're planning out the polish on the lower most manifold. It definately made a difference. We used a dremel, aluminum oxide sand paper, a power drill and a honing tool. We got it sanded down.
The next part of our project will be to hone out the lower manifold (the one that attatches to the head) and port match it to the mid manifold (the "mrev") and hone out the inlet after the throttle body.
We've been documenting this with my camera and i'll post them up when I have time.
Cost so far: 70 bucks for dremel, 30 bucks for bits and grinders, 10 bucks for misc parts. Cheap for 10ish whp.
The next part of our project will be to hone out the lower manifold (the one that attatches to the head) and port match it to the mid manifold (the "mrev") and hone out the inlet after the throttle body.
We've been documenting this with my camera and i'll post them up when I have time.
Cost so far: 70 bucks for dremel, 30 bucks for bits and grinders, 10 bucks for misc parts. Cheap for 10ish whp.
01-23-2008, 12:51 PM
#390
New Member
iTrader: (10)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Jersey, New
Posts: 7,146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
notice the ish part. I can't really verify. Someone in the first few pages did verify, just the upper manifolds and he got 6whp.
I wish I had the dough to do a before and after manifold, but there is a noticeable difference, about the difference i noticed with test pipes..but like i said, its all garbage until someone can verfify..
I wish I had the dough to do a before and after manifold, but there is a noticeable difference, about the difference i noticed with test pipes..but like i said, its all garbage until someone can verfify..
01-23-2008, 06:07 PM
#391
New Member
iTrader: (10)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Jersey, New
Posts: 7,146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by first350
I always thought that the golf ball dimples were to help the ball fly straight...in the end, the golf ball will actually have more resistance. The general rule that I did my work under was to reduce trubulence...since it usualy increase the resistance. That's why ppl port match and smooth casting lines...all things that can cause turbulence. I could be wrong though.
Now i'm not correcting you or anything, but I'm just saying i THINK thats how it works. For that reason I only ported my manifold a little bit but made sure everything was very smooth.
01-23-2008, 09:21 PM
#392
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
turbulance is an interesting thing. You want it, but on fuel-injected cars, the only turbulance you really want is the very last bit of flow, across the intake valve into the cylinder.
From what I remember from the SAE book I read a few years ago, gasoline engines want swirl, and diesel engines want a tumble. This is because the stoichometric ratios are very different between gas burners and diesel exploders.
Gas engines are more "dumb" in that you want a homogenious mixture, but diesel engines you actually want a richer mixture localized by the fuel injector, and a leaner mixture away from the fuel injector.
Turbulance near the maf (aka tornado), or turbulance in the intake tract is actually not desired because turbulent flow is slower than laminar flows. Thats why manufacturers like to extrude-hone the intake lengths. If your hood wasn't a constraint, ideally you would have a straight shot intake runner to the intake valve because fluids do have inertia that is useful for cylinder filling.
Now for carbs, turbulance may be beneficial because it helps mix the air/fuel mixture as it passes through the manifold before it hits the intake valve.
A great book, if you are interested is this. It is designed to be a reference guide/ IC Engine College course manual, so it is heavy on thermodynamics and calculus so it can be a long read. That being said, there is lots of interesting things (all theory) in this book.
From what I remember from the SAE book I read a few years ago, gasoline engines want swirl, and diesel engines want a tumble. This is because the stoichometric ratios are very different between gas burners and diesel exploders.
Gas engines are more "dumb" in that you want a homogenious mixture, but diesel engines you actually want a richer mixture localized by the fuel injector, and a leaner mixture away from the fuel injector.
Turbulance near the maf (aka tornado), or turbulance in the intake tract is actually not desired because turbulent flow is slower than laminar flows. Thats why manufacturers like to extrude-hone the intake lengths. If your hood wasn't a constraint, ideally you would have a straight shot intake runner to the intake valve because fluids do have inertia that is useful for cylinder filling.
Now for carbs, turbulance may be beneficial because it helps mix the air/fuel mixture as it passes through the manifold before it hits the intake valve.
A great book, if you are interested is this. It is designed to be a reference guide/ IC Engine College course manual, so it is heavy on thermodynamics and calculus so it can be a long read. That being said, there is lots of interesting things (all theory) in this book.
01-24-2008, 05:56 AM
#393
New Member
iTrader: (10)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Jersey, New
Posts: 7,146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SoCal.VQ35DE
turbulance is an interesting thing. You want it, but on fuel-injected cars, the only turbulance you really want is the very last bit of flow, across the intake valve into the cylinder.
From what I remember from the SAE book I read a few years ago, gasoline engines want swirl, and diesel engines want a tumble. This is because the stoichometric ratios are very different between gas burners and diesel exploders.
Gas engines are more "dumb" in that you want a homogenious mixture, but diesel engines you actually want a richer mixture localized by the fuel injector, and a leaner mixture away from the fuel injector.
Turbulance near the maf (aka tornado), or turbulance in the intake tract is actually not desired because turbulent flow is slower than laminar flows. Thats why manufacturers like to extrude-hone the intake lengths. If your hood wasn't a constraint, ideally you would have a straight shot intake runner to the intake valve because fluids do have inertia that is useful for cylinder filling.
Now for carbs, turbulance may be beneficial because it helps mix the air/fuel mixture as it passes through the manifold before it hits the intake valve.
A great book, if you are interested is this. It is designed to be a reference guide/ IC Engine College course manual, so it is heavy on thermodynamics and calculus so it can be a long read. That being said, there is lots of interesting things (all theory) in this book.
From what I remember from the SAE book I read a few years ago, gasoline engines want swirl, and diesel engines want a tumble. This is because the stoichometric ratios are very different between gas burners and diesel exploders.
Gas engines are more "dumb" in that you want a homogenious mixture, but diesel engines you actually want a richer mixture localized by the fuel injector, and a leaner mixture away from the fuel injector.
Turbulance near the maf (aka tornado), or turbulance in the intake tract is actually not desired because turbulent flow is slower than laminar flows. Thats why manufacturers like to extrude-hone the intake lengths. If your hood wasn't a constraint, ideally you would have a straight shot intake runner to the intake valve because fluids do have inertia that is useful for cylinder filling.
Now for carbs, turbulance may be beneficial because it helps mix the air/fuel mixture as it passes through the manifold before it hits the intake valve.
A great book, if you are interested is this. It is designed to be a reference guide/ IC Engine College course manual, so it is heavy on thermodynamics and calculus so it can be a long read. That being said, there is lots of interesting things (all theory) in this book.
Don't confuse turbulence with 'tornado'. Its not the same thing. turbulence in a long pipe (like the intake tract before and after the plenum) is usually good because there is less friction and the boundry layer is smaller, so you have more flow through the pipe. The most important thing in porting and polishing is to reduce any losses because of inlets and outlets and through wall friction.. this is through the polish.
Porting should make the flow more turbulent, assuming the engine is stil not at 100% volumetric efficency.
I'm sorry if this sounds all jumbled up. I'm late for class!
Raj (3rd year chemical engineer)
edit: i know nothing of internal combustion, just of fluid dynamics and mass/heat transport. So if this is wrong thats why!
01-24-2008, 04:53 PM
#394
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I found some more interesting NASA fluid flow stuff here:
This other NASA article states that the air moving past the boundary layer moves faster.
This states that laminar flows have a thinner boundary layer.
Putting both together would seem that a laminar flow will have a larger cross-sectional area of faster flowing air since the boundary layer is thinner. That being said, the 2nd link concludes:
I studied MechEng for 3 years (Never made it past dynamics) and switched over to CompSci so you definitely have a firmer grasp on the subject than me. I really don't know enough about fluid mechanics to say if the intake is a situation where pressure drag is dorminant or not though.
I know that extrude honing is done to smoothen the intake walls, and it usually does increase power, however it is possible that the process still leaves a surface that is "rough" enough to induce the turbulent flow.
The tornado was in reference to the device that they sell called a tornado that does nothing to help increase power
They actually do want detonation in diesels (That's technicaly how they work), but they don't want it homogenious because it saves fuel. They only want it rich near the injector for lightoff, and once the flame kernel has been established, it consumes the leaner fuel mixture that is further away from the fuel injector.
(For the curious, this is also why diesels cannot rev much faster than about 4000 RPM -- the burn rate of the fuel cannot exceed this speed)
The methods above is also how GM et. al., are designing into their HCCI engines. Obviously obtaining a rich mixture near (in this case, a spark plug) and a leaner mixture elsewhere requires a very intricate head and injector design. It also requires a substantially more powerful ECU, because HCCI only works at certain engine loads, and at certain engine speeds (think cruising at low TPS% )
Props on the ChemEng degree -- you guys scare me
I could not wrap my head around organic chemistry no matter how interesting it was to me. Please get a job with the EPA or something and convince them that we need higher octane fuel for our cars so that higher compression can be utilized saving fuel 
This other NASA article states that the air moving past the boundary layer moves faster.
This states that laminar flows have a thinner boundary layer.
Putting both together would seem that a laminar flow will have a larger cross-sectional area of faster flowing air since the boundary layer is thinner. That being said, the 2nd link concludes:
So for objects in which the pressure drag is dominant, it can be beneficial to artificially trigger a boundary layer to go turbulent to reduce the flow separation effect. The most well-known example of this is the golf ball.
I know that extrude honing is done to smoothen the intake walls, and it usually does increase power, however it is possible that the process still leaves a surface that is "rough" enough to induce the turbulent flow.
The tornado was in reference to the device that they sell called a tornado that does nothing to help increase power
They actually do want detonation in diesels (That's technicaly how they work), but they don't want it homogenious because it saves fuel. They only want it rich near the injector for lightoff, and once the flame kernel has been established, it consumes the leaner fuel mixture that is further away from the fuel injector.
(For the curious, this is also why diesels cannot rev much faster than about 4000 RPM -- the burn rate of the fuel cannot exceed this speed)
The methods above is also how GM et. al., are designing into their HCCI engines. Obviously obtaining a rich mixture near (in this case, a spark plug) and a leaner mixture elsewhere requires a very intricate head and injector design. It also requires a substantially more powerful ECU, because HCCI only works at certain engine loads, and at certain engine speeds (think cruising at low TPS% )
Props on the ChemEng degree -- you guys scare me
I could not wrap my head around organic chemistry no matter how interesting it was to me. Please get a job with the EPA or something and convince them that we need higher octane fuel for our cars so that higher compression can be utilized saving fuel
01-25-2008, 05:38 AM
#395
New Member
iTrader: (10)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Jersey, New
Posts: 7,146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SoCal.VQ35DE
I found some more interesting NASA fluid flow stuff here:
This other NASA article states that the air moving past the boundary layer moves faster.
This states that laminar flows have a thinner boundary layer.
Putting both together would seem that a laminar flow will have a larger cross-sectional area of faster flowing air since the boundary layer is thinner. That being said, the 2nd link concludes:
I studied MechEng for 3 years (Never made it past dynamics) and switched over to CompSci so you definitely have a firmer grasp on the subject than me. I really don't know enough about fluid mechanics to say if the intake is a situation where pressure drag is dorminant or not though.
I know that extrude honing is done to smoothen the intake walls, and it usually does increase power, however it is possible that the process still leaves a surface that is "rough" enough to induce the turbulent flow.
The tornado was in reference to the device that they sell called a tornado that does nothing to help increase power
They actually do want detonation in diesels (That's technicaly how they work), but they don't want it homogenious because it saves fuel. They only want it rich near the injector for lightoff, and once the flame kernel has been established, it consumes the leaner fuel mixture that is further away from the fuel injector.
(For the curious, this is also why diesels cannot rev much faster than about 4000 RPM -- the burn rate of the fuel cannot exceed this speed)
The methods above is also how GM et. al., are designing into their HCCI engines. Obviously obtaining a rich mixture near (in this case, a spark plug) and a leaner mixture elsewhere requires a very intricate head and injector design. It also requires a substantially more powerful ECU, because HCCI only works at certain engine loads, and at certain engine speeds (think cruising at low TPS% )
Props on the ChemEng degree -- you guys scare me I could not wrap my head around organic chemistry no matter how interesting it was to me. Please get a job with the EPA or something and convince them that we need higher octane fuel for our cars so that higher compression can be utilized saving fuel
This other NASA article states that the air moving past the boundary layer moves faster.
This states that laminar flows have a thinner boundary layer.
Putting both together would seem that a laminar flow will have a larger cross-sectional area of faster flowing air since the boundary layer is thinner. That being said, the 2nd link concludes:
I studied MechEng for 3 years (Never made it past dynamics) and switched over to CompSci so you definitely have a firmer grasp on the subject than me. I really don't know enough about fluid mechanics to say if the intake is a situation where pressure drag is dorminant or not though.
I know that extrude honing is done to smoothen the intake walls, and it usually does increase power, however it is possible that the process still leaves a surface that is "rough" enough to induce the turbulent flow.
The tornado was in reference to the device that they sell called a tornado that does nothing to help increase power
They actually do want detonation in diesels (That's technicaly how they work), but they don't want it homogenious because it saves fuel. They only want it rich near the injector for lightoff, and once the flame kernel has been established, it consumes the leaner fuel mixture that is further away from the fuel injector.
(For the curious, this is also why diesels cannot rev much faster than about 4000 RPM -- the burn rate of the fuel cannot exceed this speed)
The methods above is also how GM et. al., are designing into their HCCI engines. Obviously obtaining a rich mixture near (in this case, a spark plug) and a leaner mixture elsewhere requires a very intricate head and injector design. It also requires a substantially more powerful ECU, because HCCI only works at certain engine loads, and at certain engine speeds (think cruising at low TPS% )
Props on the ChemEng degree -- you guys scare me
I could not wrap my head around organic chemistry no matter how interesting it was to me. Please get a job with the EPA or something and convince them that we need higher octane fuel for our cars so that higher compression can be utilized saving fuel its density * velocity of air * diameter of pipe / viscocity of air. If this is > 2300, its turbulent. Because the viscocity of air is so small, its more than likley turbulent. It should also be noted that tubular piping that is turbulent is actually a lot of the times composed of only boundry layer..
I'm not sure if having a rough surface induces turbulent flow. I read somewhere it induces eddy currents which actually provide kind of like a ball bearing surface for the air to flow past, tahts why you may want a surface with very small imperfections.
I kinda figured the lean part of the mixture would detonate first and start the ignition of the rich area, in the diesel motor.
Thanks for the props. Organic chem Sucks the big one. I got a B+ and a C+ for the 2 semesters.
. I think statistical pchem was much harder =\..PS: that picture of turbulent velocity profile is wrong :-D Theres 4-5 sublayers in the boundry layer and it looks like a buttplug. The pressure past the boundry layer is constant and the flow is very organized past that. Ideally you want something thats in between laminar and turbulent which breaks off into full turbulent later down the pipe (Thats why the golf ball has dimples, and i don't think it says it).
Last edited by plumpzz; 01-25-2008 at 05:40 AM.
01-28-2008, 05:58 PM
#396
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: O'Fallon,MO
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
do you guys think that i fully polished, sandblasted, or scotchbrite inside would be best for flow. from what you guys seem to be saying i would think that a fully polished surface would be too smooth to produce the best flow but i guess i'm mainly wondering if you guys think a sand blasted or scotchbrite surface would be best.
01-28-2008, 07:09 PM
#397
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I studied Mechanical Engineering for 3 years, then moved on to Computer science, so in all reality, I'd go with what Plumpzz recommends since he's seen more fluids classes than I have.
Based on what I have heard extrude honing leaves the surface very smooth (How smooth, not sure, but obviously much more so than stock).
I believe that most of the newer composite intake manifolds are fairly smooth also because they can be molded instead of cast.
On the other hand, if you look at the MREV, they didn't even bother to smoothen the factory casting marks on top of each intake trumpet. I would not be surprised if the only thing that really matters is the surface down the trumpet. Obviously volume is important (MREV increases through lower trumpet height, spacers leave trumpets alone and add height) but my guess is that motordyne would have removed the casting marks, along with the raised lettering because it wouldn't take much more cnc time to mill it off. Maybe they found that it didn't affect the dyno enough to make it worth while.
For me, I left the surface pretty rough, and used scotchbright over everything (quickly) more for cleaning out the aluminum grit than anything else.
Based on what I have heard extrude honing leaves the surface very smooth (How smooth, not sure, but obviously much more so than stock).
I believe that most of the newer composite intake manifolds are fairly smooth also because they can be molded instead of cast.
On the other hand, if you look at the MREV, they didn't even bother to smoothen the factory casting marks on top of each intake trumpet. I would not be surprised if the only thing that really matters is the surface down the trumpet. Obviously volume is important (MREV increases through lower trumpet height, spacers leave trumpets alone and add height) but my guess is that motordyne would have removed the casting marks, along with the raised lettering because it wouldn't take much more cnc time to mill it off. Maybe they found that it didn't affect the dyno enough to make it worth while.
For me, I left the surface pretty rough, and used scotchbright over everything (quickly) more for cleaning out the aluminum grit than anything else.
01-28-2008, 08:02 PM
#398
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: O'Fallon,MO
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i plan on removing the lettering and casting marks as well as lowering the forward most trumpets, that would make these areas very smooth compared to the rest of the inside surface and i would assume this would result in poor airflow going from rough to smooth multiple times in the intake so do you think sandblasting the worked areas will help me keep a pretty uniform roughness to the intake (i've never sandblasted anything but we have a booth at my work and various grades of sand and glass beads for it). Also i don't know if any of you have seen my thread in FI about the use of a revup lower plenum on an FI non revup car but my overall plans are you get a revup lower, port match, remove casting marks, and lower front trumpets and reshape to match stock. i also have a spare upper that i am removing the casting marks from and removing the outer 4 mounting studs. i know this most likely wont produce the same tq of the non revup plenum but i think the greater volume and different tuning of the revup plenum may produce better power overall and give me more power towards redline.
01-29-2008, 06:11 PM
#399
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lots of cool ideas, and checked out the FI thread. Nice setup BTW. If I weren't in CA I would be seriously considering turbos. I miss the turbo rush that my stage 2 SRT-4 had.
I think if you are ultimately looking to make more power up top, I think I would try to shorten the runner length as much as possible, and maybe try to open them up as much as possible. Doing that is probably extremely difficult without cnc equipment.
I think if you have a spare upper, try shortening the trumpets. As far as how much is really something that you would need blueprints of the engine for, because cross-sectional area and length are going to give you the resonance that the trumpets are tuned for.
I haven't sand-blasted anything myself, but I know you can get a lot of different finishes with it. Maybe practice by grinding a section smooth on the outside of the plenum, then try to match the texture with sandblasting media. I would think you would want to use something kinda large because a fine grit won't match the (pretty rough) factory surface. If you take a look at my pics earlier, that was just a sanding wheel with 60 or 80 grit sandpaper, only finished with a light scrubbing with a scotchbright pad.
I think if you are ultimately looking to make more power up top, I think I would try to shorten the runner length as much as possible, and maybe try to open them up as much as possible. Doing that is probably extremely difficult without cnc equipment.
I think if you have a spare upper, try shortening the trumpets. As far as how much is really something that you would need blueprints of the engine for, because cross-sectional area and length are going to give you the resonance that the trumpets are tuned for.
I haven't sand-blasted anything myself, but I know you can get a lot of different finishes with it. Maybe practice by grinding a section smooth on the outside of the plenum, then try to match the texture with sandblasting media. I would think you would want to use something kinda large because a fine grit won't match the (pretty rough) factory surface. If you take a look at my pics earlier, that was just a sanding wheel with 60 or 80 grit sandpaper, only finished with a light scrubbing with a scotchbright pad.
01-29-2008, 08:23 PM
#400
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: O'Fallon,MO
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i started working on my upper today after work. i cut out the outer 4 mounting posts and made plates that i will weld in tomorrow to fill the holes. i also worked on the few casting marks that can be found in the upper and tried out some sandblasting. the sand that i used gave a slightly smoother finish than the rest of the surface so i'll try a larger grit tomorrow. but the upper isn't going to take long to get done so i really need to find a revup and non revup lower that i can start working on. i'm hoping i can find a revup lower for cheap since they aren't in high demand.
thankyou for your input socal, i can't wait to get a revup lower and just see what it does on my car. I love turbos, my last car was a turbo eclipse and i don't think i could go back to driving NA again especially after having this z.
thankyou for your input socal, i can't wait to get a revup lower and just see what it does on my car. I love turbos, my last car was a turbo eclipse and i don't think i could go back to driving NA again especially after having this z.