I still have the V1 and love it to death. I think the Kinetix logo on their plenum is ugly, uglier than my V1 Crawford. In my opinion the raw look of V1 Crawford under the hood is great, but it doesn't matter in the end what I think. The points:

The Crawford has proven its reliability, even under boost, and its ability to provide the gains. It costs more since you need the new strut bar and you do have to include your core. It can be purchased in different powder coated colors and even a polish finish, this does have a price however.

The Kinetix has hopefully solved their cracking issues, but if you plan on boost??, only time will tell. The Kinetix is priced very well and you can keep the stock strut bar. Its plastic design in theory will stay cooler.

Its your call, only you can decide what looks better to you as we all share a different opinion on looks. Both have top notch customer support. Both have good gains and really have not shown much if any difference in those gains that I can recall.

In the end and just in my opinion, I would rather have the more reliable product on my car and until the Kinetix can prove itself, it would not be my choice, but I can also afford to pay the extra that I did, even for the beautiful V1 that I still show off.

 

CRAWFORD!!!!!!

The original is still the best. Reliable with proven gains.

Lou

 

anyone got a pic of the kinetix installed? i am going for a stealth look, and im not planning fi, so boost pressure really doesn't concern me

 

 

lmao....I was sure that you'd be one of the first to reply.....you must have been busy cause I know you couldn't have willfully resisted for so long

 

Nah... just sick of all the bs.

To each is their own. The only thing I care about now is my Z.

How is yours coming along?

 

It's good, barring the third tranny replacement and the replacement of the valve cover gaskets due to oil leakage. Anythign else pops up and Nissan has bought themselves a Z

It's in the shop now getting the SC installed along with the J&S and the S-Tune suspension.

How's yours ?

--wes

 

Crawford plenum... Nuf Said!!! So stfu

 

lol...you go from asking about plenums barely a month ago and now you're firmly in the Crawford corner, meanwhile you probably don't own either of them.

Thanks for the solid input

--wes

 

Anyone that thinks that 8psi of boost pressure will crack a composite intake plenum is nuts. 8psi is virtually NOTHING pressure wise. Hell, the stresses of heating and cooling are probably more taxing on the plenum than boost pressure ever will be.

 

It really has nothing to do with the plenums themselves. Both have had a series of design improvements and will provide equally good gains, although it is yet to be determined if the Kinetix unit will withstand forced induction. In any case, on a NA car, I would go with Kinetix and it is because of the shock tower brace issue. The stock unit is a very sturdy design that is functionally one rigid piece including the mounting plates. The crawford bar, because of the way it is bolted in does little to reduce chassis flex. You can picture the body still flexing and the bar just pivoting on the mounting bolts. What Crawford should have done is to make a true one piece thicker-than-stock bar/mount, that was simply bent to be re-routed around the front end of the plenum.

 

Look under the car!

 

So a bar that is pre- bent is stronger than one that is not? I don't think so. The Crawford bar is adjustable on both ends and it's strength was proven when Doug's car flipped end over end 3 times, and the bar easily was removed and put into his new car. The mounting flange was skinned on the pavement, and the unit still bolted right into the new car. The Crawford bar is as strong, and probably stronger than the stock bar when properly installed as it it not pre-bent.

 

I trust Crawford's plenum over the Kinetix. For one, Crawford's been around Zs for quite some time now, and really took an initiative to do all the original flow testing, etc. on the stock plenum. And in the long run, no matter how much boost or nitrous or whatever else is added to up the Zs hp, I'd be a lot less worried about metal holding up to plastic. But that's just my .02, I'm sure both are excellent products and from what I've seen, Kinetix really made an effort to decrease the possibility of any kind of cracking in their plenum.

So basically, it's personal preference. Mine just happens to be Crawford.

 

Glad you're enjoying it Christy!

 

Ick... third eh? My 2nd one was clicking... but after changing the fluid. Good as new.

As for the valve cover gasket leaking... "the all do that". Just tighten the bolt over by the dip stick... Doug's first one did it, Adam's did it... and mine is doing it.

Enjoy the boost... Doug is working on another one at the shop, and has another one coming. SC's looking to be damn fun!

I on the other hand have other plans! muah hahaaha

 

for that reason alone I'd go with the Kinetix. The 350Z can be plagued by heatsoak, anything to fix that is a bonus.

 

I'm not coninved that using the plastic plenum (top cover) alone aids any of the mentioned "heatsoak issues". Note this , the primary heat source is the block, which for the most part soaks the aluminum "plenum -bottom half". Some of this heat is then partially transfered into the intake charge as the intake air mass passes though the plenum. When replaceing "just" the top half of the plenum with a thermally "non-conductive" material (ie. plastic) ,the heat which soaks the lower portion no longer can wick into the "plenum-top half" and into the air space jsut below the hood.

So, basically , without replacement of the "entire manifold, top and bottom" ,with a thermally non-conductive material you quite likely are a "exacerbating" soak.

Note OEM manifolds which use thermally non-conductive materials such as plastic do so with the entire manifold , not just the top half. In the Z / G configuration you probably gain more heat soak reduction by removeing the top plastic fasia and maintaining a thermally conductive upper half IMO. Actually if fins were added to the top of the conductive plenum there woudl most likey be more improvment.

So this being part of my theory is one reason I selected the crawford method. Kinetix uses plastic to "make the product cheaper", any claims of heatsoak reduction is BS IMHO.

Now if someone cna present objective data to the contrary, this is my current stance.

 

If you have a cylindrical can with approx. dimensions of 12in W x12in L and H 6in and the whole assembly is at approx. 300deg F and introduce incoming air into it while it is flowing into the intake and measure its temp and compare it to temp for the same cylindrical box which has half of the cylinder at 300deg and the other half at a much lower temp. which configuration do you think will have a lower intake temp.?

 

With a "constant" air velovity thru the box whihc is 1/2 conductive and one half insulative, the one with 1/2 cooler would impart less heat to the air flow to it. Of course you also must take into account were the main black body source lives(in the plenums case the longblock).

However; "heatsoak" is more than a steady air flow phenomena .
Consider that the airflow is interrupted or slowed dramatically
(ie idle of engine shut off), the box with conductive surface on the top (as opposed to insulative) will generally cool faster , so than when air flow is again present ,(ie when engine is started or accelerated from a standstill conditon the temperature of the box and the energy which it can impart to internal air mass will be lower. This is why you would open your car hood between drag races. With more conductive mass exposed to the top and open air , the faster the cool down and lesser the adverse soaking effect.

Keeping the intake charge cooler is in part an attempt to keep the ECU from seeing a heat induced "ping" which can result in de-timing and hence loss of power just after the intial acceleration.


So for drag raceing and stop and go street driving keeping the top half conductive and exposed reaps more benefit. Under constant highway or road track driveing the top half being non-conductive may reap more benefit. But note where charge temp induced detoation is most likely to occur is in the former circumstances were instantaneous TQ loads from a soak conditon are greater.