MREV+ Dyno Tested On The 287 HP Engine!
04-07-2006, 08:52 PM
#83
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: calgary
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Hydrazine
Can you dyno it?
Scientific controls and all?
Scientific controls and all?
04-08-2006, 12:27 AM
#84
Originally Posted by 99atlantic
If you send me a free ( ^_^ ) mrev I can dyno it up here @ 4500feet elevation at Davensport...... they can do the baseline run, slap the mrev on (since ihave the 1/2'' iso thermal already), then re-dyno it and you'd have your scientific control and all; same day, same weather conditions, car not moved an inch since last dyno run ^_^
04-08-2006, 09:04 AM
#86
Originally Posted by Hydrazine
Dyno at some altitude less than 1500 feet and we may be able work something out.
I can dyno the MREV if you like on my car after my car is tuned. I have the 3/8 spacer with the iso thermal if you want FI numbers. I'm having the car tuned at this place www.performanceefi.com I'm pretty sure he would be interested in this testing. The car will not be tuned until next because I will be out of town. Let me know if you want some FI numbers with the MREV on a 04.
Derek
04-08-2006, 09:21 AM
#87
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: calgary
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Z BOY
oh yeah, that altitude will make some great numbers.
i know ^_^
Originally Posted by Hydrazine
Dyno at some altitude less than 1500 feet and we may be able work something out.
c'monnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn, don't you want to see how it dynos at higher elevations w/o a tune ^_^ (i can tell you one thing though; the spacer alone kicks major ***; when i first got it felt a HUGE power bump after 4k and was able to kick the rear-end out on 1-2 shifts (now with headers and cats I can do it on the 2-3 as well, yaaaaaay).....so even at our crappy elevation difference was immediately noticeable
04-08-2006, 05:42 PM
#88
Registered User
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Greenville SC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I need to find a good dyno shop in my area, its crazy to think these gains from such a simple idea. I'd love (as a mechanical engineer) to see the changes you are making to the manifolds to improve the flow so much. I know nissan engineers dont do things to extract every last pony, but you'd think they wouldnt over look air flow, especially with the ease of using a flow bench to test against.
If i find a good shop that i trust, and save up some bucks i'd love to do some testing on this product.
If i find a good shop that i trust, and save up some bucks i'd love to do some testing on this product.
04-08-2006, 08:47 PM
#89
Registered User
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tony,
Just wondering to know... have you tried to shorten the intake runners on the 287HP lower plenum (still a bit longer than 300HP lower intake runners) to actually get some more top end for 287HP and maintain or gain small amount of HP and torque at the mid range? Can that be done at all?
Thanks!
cheers,
richie
Just wondering to know... have you tried to shorten the intake runners on the 287HP lower plenum (still a bit longer than 300HP lower intake runners) to actually get some more top end for 287HP and maintain or gain small amount of HP and torque at the mid range? Can that be done at all?
Thanks!
cheers,
richie
04-09-2006, 05:48 PM
#90
Originally Posted by BigZ88
I need to find a good dyno shop in my area, its crazy to think these gains from such a simple idea. I'd love (as a mechanical engineer) to see the changes you are making to the manifolds to improve the flow so much. I know nissan engineers dont do things to extract every last pony, but you'd think they wouldnt over look air flow, especially with the ease of using a flow bench to test against.
If i find a good shop that i trust, and save up some bucks i'd love to do some testing on this product.
If i find a good shop that i trust, and save up some bucks i'd love to do some testing on this product.
Working from CAD is like designing from a different perspective.
And I'll bet the Nissan engineers have to work for hard nose project managers that beat on them to finish the design within a tight schedule.
04-09-2006, 06:03 PM
#91
Originally Posted by Z350Lover
Tony,
Just wondering to know... have you tried to shorten the intake runners on the 287HP lower plenum (still a bit longer than 300HP lower intake runners) to actually get some more top end for 287HP and maintain or gain small amount of HP and torque at the mid range? Can that be done at all?
Thanks!
cheers,
richie
Just wondering to know... have you tried to shorten the intake runners on the 287HP lower plenum (still a bit longer than 300HP lower intake runners) to actually get some more top end for 287HP and maintain or gain small amount of HP and torque at the mid range? Can that be done at all?
Thanks!
cheers,
richie
Yeah, I thought of it but shortening the runners would require major rework of the lower plenum. Too much.
Besides, I think I know what it would do anyways.
It may be able to raise HP in the 6500-7000 range by 2-3HP and end up compromising about 6-8HP everywhere on the curve below 6000.
What I am finding is the tuning frequency (runner length) of the 287 lower collector is very highly optimized. The overall performance is excellent as long as all the various pressure drop points (flow restrictions) can be eliminated.
IMO The runner length is good. All they needed to do is allow for more open area around the mouth of the inlets.
Last edited by Hydrazine; 04-09-2006 at 06:07 PM.
04-11-2006, 03:29 PM
#97
Tony and I are still working out the details on doing the testing (287hp motor on bone stock 350Z). We are going to do it the next available weekend at the dyno shop with the best price.
I'm not sure if Tony did some testing on his G35 today or not. But there was a little miscommunication and it turns out I could not do the testing today.
I'm not sure if Tony did some testing on his G35 today or not. But there was a little miscommunication and it turns out I could not do the testing today.
Last edited by Wired 24/7; 04-11-2006 at 03:31 PM.
04-11-2006, 05:05 PM
#98
Registered User
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Greenville SC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Hydrazine
I guess I can't really blame the engineers. I can see they designed it from a CAD program and they followed preset geometric lines for the sake of symmetry or simply to finish out a line or curve. And when you design from within a CAD program and then produce a real part from it, you can end up scratching your head wondering how it ended up that way.
Working from CAD is like designing from a different perspective.
And I'll bet the Nissan engineers have to work for hard nose project managers that beat on them to finish the design within a tight schedule.
Working from CAD is like designing from a different perspective.
And I'll bet the Nissan engineers have to work for hard nose project managers that beat on them to finish the design within a tight schedule.
Luckily i know, because i'm a Mechanical Design Engineer, working with 3d CAD modeling every day (which is what i'd hope they used to create such a castng so they'd know exactly what was coming when they were done), and there are ways to design around complex curves if you want, but you are probably right about the project schedules, and therefore they may have done exactly what you're saying. Im still curious to see what you've done as far as machining vs stock. I guess the only way is to buy one though! haha
i'm goin to have to build me a mini flow bench at work one of these days.
04-11-2006, 06:09 PM
#99
MREV+ Vs MREV++
Hi Guys,
Here it is. This is a pre/post comparison of only the lower manifold with the prior Manifold Machining Process modification (shown in the first post of this thread) and the latest Manifold Machining Process where additional air flow modifcations were made.
http://www.motordyneengineering.com/..._Vs_MREV++.jpg
Each line shown above represents the best pull from each set. I would have exported the data into Excel for detailed analysis but I don't yet know how to export tabular data from a Dynajet.
Absolutely nothing was changed between the pre/post dyno runs except for installing the new lower plenum. The car was not removed from the dyno and the ECU was purposfully driven into performance mode before each set.
What is interesting to see in the plot above is that the new modification shifted A/F down about a 1/4 point through most of the curve. This isn't the first time I've seen a mod make power and simultaneously make it run a little richer, but it is always interesting to see.
You will also notice the RPM's only go up to ~6100 RPM. I don't know why the dynojet was showing this, but the engine was definitly run up against the RPM limiter at ~6600 RPM.
A spacer was not included in this comparison due to time constraints, but WIRED 24/7 will have the option to independantly test any configuration, in any order, or way he likes.
Let the independant dynos begin!
Here it is. This is a pre/post comparison of only the lower manifold with the prior Manifold Machining Process modification (shown in the first post of this thread) and the latest Manifold Machining Process where additional air flow modifcations were made.
http://www.motordyneengineering.com/..._Vs_MREV++.jpg
Each line shown above represents the best pull from each set. I would have exported the data into Excel for detailed analysis but I don't yet know how to export tabular data from a Dynajet.
Absolutely nothing was changed between the pre/post dyno runs except for installing the new lower plenum. The car was not removed from the dyno and the ECU was purposfully driven into performance mode before each set.
What is interesting to see in the plot above is that the new modification shifted A/F down about a 1/4 point through most of the curve. This isn't the first time I've seen a mod make power and simultaneously make it run a little richer, but it is always interesting to see.
You will also notice the RPM's only go up to ~6100 RPM. I don't know why the dynojet was showing this, but the engine was definitly run up against the RPM limiter at ~6600 RPM.
A spacer was not included in this comparison due to time constraints, but WIRED 24/7 will have the option to independantly test any configuration, in any order, or way he likes.
Let the independant dynos begin!
Last edited by Hydrazine; 05-03-2006 at 07:29 PM.
04-11-2006, 06:19 PM
#100
tony, when will you have the newest version of the machined lower plenums ready for sale, and do you anticipate any further lower plenum modification and testing in the near future, or have you maxed it out?
ps: how can more air=lower a/f?
ps: how can more air=lower a/f?
Last edited by Z BOY; 04-11-2006 at 06:36 PM.