JCat

iTrader: (4)

Is it possible that the Vortech, ATI, and Stillen superchargers are engineered for SPECIFIC intake, plenum, and exhaust volume and flow characteristics?

Perhaps mods or certain combinations of them negate power gains?

Theory?

Have the TT engines experienced the same effect with this manifold?

Machupo

iTrader: (6)

the easiest way to see what this manifold's max flow rate would be to get a bunch of different sized pullies and see where the dynos level off (if it is infact a flow issue).

are you having any issues with maintaining a vacuum?

2003z

iTrader: (7)

or have it flow tested. I know Crawford did a lot of flow testing before releasing their manifold.

Machupo

iTrader: (6)

lol, that would probably be easier -- my SSV manifold is going to the machine shop to have the flanges flattened/polished (had big milling grooves in them causing vac leaks)... i'll see if they can flow-test while it's there.

SungNamZ

It took my tuner awhile, but he was able to get my A/F adjusted. Frustration, patience and 28 pulls.

Rogue350z

iTrader: (10)

I am not sure it is worth the effort.

If the intake would have caused a lean condition then I could make more HP with tuning however since it went rich then it would seem I would not be able to make more power with this intake.

I thought that more HP is made by increasing fuel and air. With my dynos is shows that I have way to much fuel after installing the intake. Less air. Then to tune I would be pulling more fuel. Seems backward to me for making more power.

Is this correct?

Thanks,
Jeremy

BTW - Forgot to mention this before but, I had stock Plenum on the car for the 401 run - no crawford, no other kinetix plenum.

Rogue350z

iTrader: (10)

I am not sure. I gave Ed a link to this thread so hopefully he can shed some light. I do know for the last couple of runs he started entering in 9s for the top area of the curve. In your tuning have you gone below 10?

Thanks.

Machupo

iTrader: (6)

Makes sense -- the only weird thing I've noticed is that with every breathing mod I've added (nismo exhaust, then plenum, then JWT popcharger, then HF cats, now the kinetix manifold), my car has run progressively richer... now, I seriously doubt that the HF cats flow less than the stockers, but I still got richer after their install...

dunno if it's the ECU being a *****, or what... i definitely need a retune at any rate, but am going to wait until the new engine is done / cams installed...

Rogue350z

iTrader: (10)

I have seen the same thing when I install a part on the dyno, however I drove the car 4 days between the install and the dyno. I would think the ECU would adjust over that time. I drove the car at least 10 hours in that time.

Machupo

iTrader: (6)

well, just got back from the machine shop -- flow test is possible, but would be a pain in the *** (read: lots of $$$), he would prefer to do it via formulas/calculation, though... so i'm just getting it machined, i'll leave the flow test until after I can get rid of these vacuum leaks

Sharif@Forged

iTrader: (92)

Curious why you didnt just exchange the plenum with Kenetixs, if this particular example was defective?

Sharif@Forged

iTrader: (92)

Machupo had a leak in his plenum. Is it possible that this plenum also had a leak? A leak will definately cause untunable richness.

How was the A/F at idle when you first installed it?

CP tuned McDucks car, and after the return with the R4 software, the car ran great. It's unclear what gains were attributed to the Plenum, and what portion of the gains were achieved with the retune and 2psi increase in pressure, with a smaller pulley. Ended up at low 11's A/F ratios and 421whp.

Machupo

iTrader: (6)

There wasn't a "leak" in the manifold per say, the flanges were just poorly machined... had grooves too large for the collector gasket & TB gasket to deal with... even with the addition of RTV, I would still get vac leaks (and yes, went through and made sure all the hoses were hooked up )

should be back from the shop this afternoon, new gaskets are enroute from perf. nissan overnight (along with a manifold stud I killed trying to make sure it was tight enough... whoops!)... hopefully i'll have it all back together tomorrow evening... the only reason i'm getting new gaskets is to make sure they're not at fault.

if this doesn't work, the manifold is going straight back to kinetix and the stock/crawford hybrid is going back on... it'd be a shame to see this one go, though... between the stalls, there is a definite increase in power according to the all-knowing ButtDyno™

dynotuner

It took a minute to register, sorry I'm late. The above quote might explain some of the issue. It's always easier to "armchair engineer" someone else's design. The design looks good, I may have tried to squeeze in a larger plenum for more volume, but according to engineer from Sunbelt Engines, the thing should work well. There is some part of the flow equation that is missing - hopefully the designer will explore it a bit to find it. There could be a nasty flow disturbance based on runner length, transistion from plenum to runner, etc. It's hard to say for sure - sorry to be so vague.

As far as spending lots of patient time on the dyno and doing 28 pulls.... I saw we weren't headed for substantial gains anywhere in the power curve and did a judgement call on $$$ to HP analysis. I was headed into the "8's" in R4 controller values to even get the AFR to show up on the screen. Even though the AFR was starting to lean out, the power was consistently going down which led me to believe something else was going on perhaps in the stock ECU. That's a lot of trim to feed back to the stock ECU. Keep in mind the R4 is nothing more than a signal intercepter for tuning. If you get too far outside what the stock ECU would see as a load signal at that RPM, the output might get less predictable.

My $.02
Ed

lsdunique

iTrader: (3)

Sorry to hear about the troubles.

A vacuum leak will most easily be noticed by a rough idle, or a lower idle. Even a tiny leak will cause a rough idle.

We have since changed the machining on the main flange.

I dont want to jump to any conclusions based on this one dyno, even though it definately should not be ignored.

I have seen one other persons car go richer after adding this mod. The Z has been very tricky in terms of its A/F when modding. Many people have had high flow cats or other mods turn the car richer, while others have the same mods lean out their car. Its not as easy as simple as "richer means less flow"

I doubt this A/F being that rich is a direct effect of the manifold flowing less than factory, because if that was the case we simply wouldnt be seeing the feedback from several other customers.

You can email me at jamisonl@msn.com and maybe we can eliminate some of the possible problems.

sentry65

iTrader: (11)

this could be an ECU issue

did anyone reset their ECU after install?

say the manifold is more airflow

the ECU could pull some timing up high which richens the A/F - whether it decided this by the A/F or if it detected knock who knows.

just an idea, probably not what's going on but it'd be worth while to do an ECU reset

lsdunique

iTrader: (3)

It would be appear there is an issue somewhere, not just a matter of flow.

The A/F looks like it dropped a full 3 points!! which I would find hard to believe is resulting from less flow. Possibly a MAF signal is maxed out.

SpeedDreamTuner

Guys, just because the car ran richer after the IM, doesn't mean it's not flowing more air. 99% of the boosted cars I tune that do headers run richer even though they're flowing more air. These changes in A/F are not uncommon at all when your dealing with this style of MAF. Further i've noticed that these MAF's are so touchy, even removing and re-installing them can alter the A/F. Unfortuneatly, R4 is a very finicky piece of software. You won't dial it in, in five pulls. It's gonna take time, and your gonna have to try several things. If you initially tuned the car for 7 PSI, it could actually loose boost, yet gain efficiency. If you loose some boost, your gonna run richer. I see it a lot in lot's of different cars. It's no unreasonable to think this IM needs some good tuning to see the full results. If it's got more volume, you probably ate up some boost, nothing more, nothing less.

Tuning an R4 Vortech car, with this IM is a challenge. Probably one of the harder car's i've done. To be succesfull, you need to take your time, do quite a few pulls, and maintain composure. It's easy to get frustrated and go backwards. Trust me, I know. Our shop has done a lot of these intakes. They flat make power, but you gotta have a descent tune to start with. It's all in the tune.

booger

iTrader: (6)

LeMans350Z.......Did you lose boost after the install ? Or did your boost curve change after the install ? If others are having to have the IM milled and sanded off , so not to cause vacuum leaks . A boost leak , also may cause the A/F to go rich .
I didnt find a boost leak until I preasurized the system with a air compresor . I found a pretty big leak on the Crawford plenum and I wouldnt have found it or even thought it to be leaking there unless I preasurized it .

Also...some one else mentioned that timing may be the cause of it . Hooking up a OBDII could confirm if the ECU is pulling timing at WOT with this IM

mcduck

Not taking time to read this entire thread now. Just had my car dynoed yesterday. Only real changes since the last tune is 20K miles, Kinetix SSV vs Crawford V1, and 3.33" pulley vs 3.12" pulley (one size drop).

Here is the previous best graph (blue lines) vs yesterdays final tuning (red lines)

Notes
- had to pull the data into excel to plot the graphs because sets of runs were not in same data format. Sorry if you don't like it, that's just the way it is.

- IMPORTANT!!!! When my car hit 425rwhp/340rwtq before that was at the absolute ragged edge of tuning. Car was running as lean as reasonable and had as much timing pulled as possible. My 418/340 figure from yesterday was on a semi-conservative, safe tune. In fact, it was hit easily once A/F was sorted out. According to the tuning techs, they could get as much as 50 more hp out of my current set up, but didn't recommend pushing it to the limit. Apparently there is room to take an additional 3-4 degrees of timing out and above 5500rpm, my car A/F is in the high 10s. So, I'm hitting the same numbers today, but am doing it much more safely.

- Graph clearly shows increases in area under the curve all the way across, especially in midrange power. There's a nice band where my torque is up 20ftlbs for a sizeable range. This was exactly what I wanted with my upgrades... not more peak power, just more area under the curve

Bottomline, I'm very happy with my set up. Not sure what other Zs are putting down with the 3.12" pulley. It may be close to what I have, but then I'd have to ask how much more power they could get from there. The professional opinion of my tuner (who does a ***LOT*** of Vortech kits) is we could close in 470rwhp with my car, as it is, before it would pop. Of course, it would require more very delicate tuning and probably won't have the longevity it does now.

I honestly think the issues most are seeing are related to the tuning. It one thing to be a good tuner vs someone who is inexperienced. It's an entirely different thing to be a **GREAT** tuner vs a good tuner. After spending the day with my tuner yesterday, I would firmly place them in the GREAT category. They spent a lot of time making minor tweaks and adjustments to get the car exactly where I wanted and keep the power curve smooth.

Will try to check back tomorrow on this thread when I have more time to answer questions.


NOTE: The image of the computer screen was my peak power run for the day, but not my last run. as you may see, there is a considerable "hump" in the A/F at one point and a complimentary dip in power. That was eventually tuned out