So now we need to test the MREV2 with no spacer. Thanks for doing this test.

 

Here you go.
http://g35driver.com/forums/intake-e...ev-spacer.html

Its the dyno plot in green.

 

And?

 

It takes time to get all the information sorted out. There were 12 total runs so there's lots of data.

 

The test was successfully performed and I had a good time just talking about cars and being there in general. I have all the raw data and I will post up all info in this thread. I have yet to download the appropriate software for the Cipher's logs, so I need to figure that out. The dyno files are easy to do, since I have a viewer (WinPep7).

I was going to post these up this afternoon, but I had some issues with the crank position sensor (P0335) on my way back from the test and I had to limp home. I had to troubleshoot that once I got home and now I'm on my way out. Tomorrow, I will be attending a local dyno event all day, so it may not be until Sunday night or Monday until I can post these in easy-to-read/see formats (i.e., dyno graphs in .jpg format). I just wanted to update you guys, since I know waiting is never fun.

However, if you wish not to wait, you can download the actual raw data from both the Cipher and the dyno from this very post (attached below).

Some updates/changes in the procedure:

1. ECU reset performed via ground-disconnect method
2. 3 baselines obtained (no plenum mods)
3. ECU reset performed via ground-disconnect method
4. Motordyne's 5/16" spacer installed and made 3 more runs
5. ECU reset performed via ground-disconnect method
6. PowerLab's 3/8" spacer installed (replaces MD's 5/16" spacer) and made 3 more runs
7. ECU reset performed via ground-disconnect method
8. took off PL's 3/8" spacer and made 3 final runs with now-back-to-stock plenum

Yeah, I know that I said I preferred not to test PL's spacer, but it was readily available and the volunteer did not mind paying extra for 3 more runs. There was no ulterior motive so let's leave it at that and stick to the topic (unbiased, independent dyno experiment).

There are also some pics taken by the guy above this post (StuLax18). I guess he'll post them when he can.

If you want a specific dyno graph (i.e., run 2 and run 11 overlaid), then make your requests here and I will post up the graph as an attachment (in .jpg). Otherwise, I will only post up select graphs, but all will be posted regardless.

Lastly, you'll notice that I am missing the Cipher logs for the first run of 3/8" spacer testing. That's because the laptop crashed in middle of the 1st run and data was lost.
--------------------

 

Can you atleast give us an overall summary of what happened? (result wise)

 

Please, because my Vista is having issues opening and running that software. (or we can wait while he sorts it out...)

 

Here are some of the pictures I took.
Two of the Z on the dyno:





5/16" MD spacer installed:



PowerLab 3/8" spacer installed:

 

I've attached 5 dyno graphs (multiple runs overlaid) below.

First attachment shows the 3 baseline runs.
Second attachment shows the 3 MD 5/16" spacer runs.
Third attachment shows the 3 PL 3/8" spacer runs.
Fourth attachment shows the 3 back-to-stock-plenum runs (no spacer).
Fifth attachment shows the overall best runs from each session.

All right, now I'm leaving for real. I'll check back on this thread later.

 

The best dyno set with the spacer showed about a 3 HP gain above no spacer at all.
The first stock baseline set and the control dyno sets of pure stock demonstrated a significant spread and roughly a little greater than +/- 3 HP margin of error.

In a quick summary, the 3 HP spacer gain was within the margin of dyno error.

Detailed analysis and plots will be posted It will take some time to get it all converted and uploaded.

 

subscribed

 

Hmm 3hp

 

The spikes at the end make it hard to know exactly what is going on, but it does like the spacers added power. The baseline went from around 260 (267 looks to be a spike at the end of the dyno) to 267+/- So a solid 7whp gain. Of course, someone will argue that it was dyno variance, even though the dyno shows once back to stock, the car wasn't able to replicate the numbers.

Looks cut and dried to me.

 

I wouldn't of reset the ecu everytime. I thought it took like 60 miles for ur ecu to relearn itself with bolt ons?

 

Looks like Motordyne took it.......

 

that car doesn't like redline at all

 

Here are some more dyno plots with additional smoothing to flatten out some of the large oscillations and make it easier to see what is going on.

This set of dyno plots is Stock Vs Stock.
It shows a clear gain of power in the second set even though nothing on the car is different from set one Vs set two. Depending on where it is measured it can be said there is about a 10-15 HP gain. (Phantom gains)





Best MD run Vs Best Stock Run
Within the margin of error, this is a perfect overlay of the plots. Is there really a 3HP gain in the last 500 RPM? No. Is there a loss of TQ with the spacer? No. This is normal dyno variation.
Blue = Stock
Red = Spacer




Best PL run Vs Best Stock Run
Within the margin of error this is a perfect overlay of the plots.
Blue = Stock
Red = Spacer




Margin of Error
The plots shown here are all stock runs. It gives a quick indication of the "set to set" margin of error. Note, nothing on the plenum has been changed in any of these runs. The plots should overlay eachother perfectly but they don't. Even though they are identical in plenum configuration, it can easily be shown to make a phantom 10+ HP gain from nothing.
Is there really a gain going from stock to stock? No. Is there a loss of TQ by going from stock to stock? No. This is normal dyno variation, it can be used to say or illustrate anything you want but the truth is, there is no change.
Every 350Z dyno owner is fully aware of this.




Just like the dyno plots shown in the first page of this thread, what all these plots here demonstrate is that simple dyno errors can be selectively used to show phantom gains if that is what you want it to show.

These plots also show that, within the margin of error, a spacer does absolutely nothing on the REVUP lower collector.

.

 

wait. all of this just to prove what we already knew? i have known this since June of 2006 when i put Motordyne's 5/16" spacer on my 2005 G35 with revup motor. i had to swap the lower collector from the revup to the non-revup to make any power. (what was then known as the MREV+)

seriously? all this trouble to (re)prove what was already known? what next? independent dyno tests to prove turbos actually DO make more power?

 

LOL!

Its a shame but that's the industry....

If one manufacturer says the truth (like turbonators don't make power) and all the rest of the turbonator manufacturers/vendors say turbonators make 10+ HP!.... the one saying the truth gets called out as a liar while the others selling the turbonators are laughing all the way to the bank.

It takes a thread like this to bring out the truth.

 

I understand what you are saying, but what would have been all of our response if we saw that there was a consistent 10hp gain with each spacer that then disappeared, or at least dropped when they were removed? There is value in proving what we already "know" because sometimes what we "know" turns out not to be true.

I see this all the time professionally, where research usually proves what we think is going on, but occasionally gives us some real surprises.

The other advantage is that we have a whole new series of dyno plots on a stock Revup motor. This can be added to all the others out there to give folks additional baselines to see what kind of power these cars are making under various conditions, keeping in mind however that there is variation day to day, dyno to dyno.

Anyway, my hat is off to anyone that increases the amount of information available to us. Maybe it is just in the Geek in me?

Dave