$3500 Reality Check
12-14-2010, 08:14 PM
#128
Registered User
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: house
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow, this thread is pretty sad. Like a few people said, it doesn't matter what dyno you use, you have to look at what you gained from baseline on that same dyno. If you truly only gained 11whp with all that stuff, there is truly something wrong with the car/tune. I even felt a difference, however slight, when I installed my drop in K&Ns. Also, if you are in it for power, you shouldn't go N/A. If you look at hp/$ your going to spend waaayyy more money on an N/A build to even come close to a FI power. Bolt ons IMO are to just slightly improve on what the car already has to offer in terms of throttle response, power, sound and some weight loss (hopefully). I am currently going the N/A route, not solely for power, but for daily driveability and personal preference. I just spent $2g on my cat-back/tp combo and I just love it. I deff noticed a power increase but the sound is enough to win me over. Modding a car is not economical, PERIOD. Do it for the fun, thrill, waste of time, whatever.
12-14-2010, 08:50 PM
#129
OP, although I don't have an HR, mine is a 2005, I got similar disappointing results to yours. I have Mishimoto Intake, Berk HFCs, Turbo XS Catback, Power Labs Plenum Spacer and based at 237whp. We then reflashed with Osiris and the car dyno'd at 248whp. I gained something like 10-12 on torque, can't remember. I spent a lot of money for 10whp, lol. The work and dyno's all took place on the same day and the tune was performed by a very reputable tuner so I don't doubt there work/tune at all. I feel your pain. My only consolation is that the car sounds damn good and feels a little more responsive. I'm not sure how much more work I will do to it. i won't go FI because i want the car to remain reliable. Good luck.
12-14-2010, 10:16 PM
#130
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Kuwait
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OP, although I don't have an HR, mine is a 2005, I got similar disappointing results to yours. I have Mishimoto Intake, Berk HFCs, Turbo XS Catback, Power Labs Plenum Spacer and based at 237whp. We then reflashed with Osiris and the car dyno'd at 248whp. I gained something like 10-12 on torque, can't remember. I spent a lot of money for 10whp, lol. The work and dyno's all took place on the same day and the tune was performed by a very reputable tuner so I don't doubt there work/tune at all. I feel your pain. My only consolation is that the car sounds damn good and feels a little more responsive. I'm not sure how much more work I will do to it. i won't go FI because i want the car to remain reliable. Good luck.
you dynoed 237whp completely stock or modded without tune?
12-15-2010, 06:08 AM
#131
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have always considered this my estimate of what bolt-ons would do for an HR.
Nissan has been building variations of this basic motor since 1994. They have probably spent well over $20 million in R&D to produce as much reliable horsepower as possible. As a result they went from 3.5 to 3.7 liters to up the horsepower in the latest variation. Had there been an easy (bolt-on) way to get more out of the VQ35HR it would have been a lot cheaper for Nissan to go that route rather than a displacement increase.
Now there is no doubt that Nissan has to work to the lowest common dominator when it comes to a tune on the car considering the 91 octane on the left coast vs. the 93 octane here in the mid-west and the sound limitation on the exhaust. In addition, there are variations in the tolerance, etc. with engines (however even here with the current state of NC machines and automated assembly this difference is no that much). And the current state of engine computers is extremely sophisticated with air-fuel monitoring, knock sensors, and learning modes that are light years beyond what was available even six years ago. This allows for better optimization of performance within the variables of the real world. I have seen bigger gains on factory turbocharged cars in this area as you can turn up the boost and bump up the timing with better fuel, but for an NA car its much tougher to improve on the computer optimization.
So the real question is can you improve on the $20 million spent by Nissan on horsepower increases given the limitations they have to deal with? The answer is yes BUT how much money do you have to try different combinations and what can you expect to gain in the dollars-to-hp ratio? I especially like the folks who see a bolt-on which say a 10 hp gain and add another bolt-on to that shows the same gain and then expect to get 20 hp gain. I very rarely happens.
Finally, I have recently seen a bolt on which will increase my mileage by 40%. I sure Nissan engineers are in with the oil companies and just don’t want to have better gas mileage and so haven’t installed this type of device on their cars.
Let the flames begin.
Bob
Nissan has been building variations of this basic motor since 1994. They have probably spent well over $20 million in R&D to produce as much reliable horsepower as possible. As a result they went from 3.5 to 3.7 liters to up the horsepower in the latest variation. Had there been an easy (bolt-on) way to get more out of the VQ35HR it would have been a lot cheaper for Nissan to go that route rather than a displacement increase.
Now there is no doubt that Nissan has to work to the lowest common dominator when it comes to a tune on the car considering the 91 octane on the left coast vs. the 93 octane here in the mid-west and the sound limitation on the exhaust. In addition, there are variations in the tolerance, etc. with engines (however even here with the current state of NC machines and automated assembly this difference is no that much). And the current state of engine computers is extremely sophisticated with air-fuel monitoring, knock sensors, and learning modes that are light years beyond what was available even six years ago. This allows for better optimization of performance within the variables of the real world. I have seen bigger gains on factory turbocharged cars in this area as you can turn up the boost and bump up the timing with better fuel, but for an NA car its much tougher to improve on the computer optimization.
So the real question is can you improve on the $20 million spent by Nissan on horsepower increases given the limitations they have to deal with? The answer is yes BUT how much money do you have to try different combinations and what can you expect to gain in the dollars-to-hp ratio? I especially like the folks who see a bolt-on which say a 10 hp gain and add another bolt-on to that shows the same gain and then expect to get 20 hp gain. I very rarely happens.
Finally, I have recently seen a bolt on which will increase my mileage by 40%. I sure Nissan engineers are in with the oil companies and just don’t want to have better gas mileage and so haven’t installed this type of device on their cars.
Let the flames begin.
Bob
12-15-2010, 06:45 AM
#132
Registered User
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: house
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have always considered this my estimate of what bolt-ons would do for an HR.
Nissan has been building variations of this basic motor since 1994. They have probably spent well over $20 million in R&D to produce as much reliable horsepower as possible. As a result they went from 3.5 to 3.7 liters to up the horsepower in the latest variation. Had there been an easy (bolt-on) way to get more out of the VQ35HR it would have been a lot cheaper for Nissan to go that route rather than a displacement increase.
Now there is no doubt that Nissan has to work to the lowest common dominator when it comes to a tune on the car considering the 91 octane on the left coast vs. the 93 octane here in the mid-west and the sound limitation on the exhaust. In addition, there are variations in the tolerance, etc. with engines (however even here with the current state of NC machines and automated assembly this difference is no that much). And the current state of engine computers is extremely sophisticated with air-fuel monitoring, knock sensors, and learning modes that are light years beyond what was available even six years ago. This allows for better optimization of performance within the variables of the real world. I have seen bigger gains on factory turbocharged cars in this area as you can turn up the boost and bump up the timing with better fuel, but for an NA car its much tougher to improve on the computer optimization.
So the real question is can you improve on the $20 million spent by Nissan on horsepower increases given the limitations they have to deal with? The answer is yes BUT how much money do you have to try different combinations and what can you expect to gain in the dollars-to-hp ratio? I especially like the folks who see a bolt-on which say a 10 hp gain and add another bolt-on to that shows the same gain and then expect to get 20 hp gain. I very rarely happens.
Finally, I have recently seen a bolt on which will increase my mileage by 40%. I sure Nissan engineers are in with the oil companies and just don’t want to have better gas mileage and so haven’t installed this type of device on their cars.
Let the flames begin.
Bob
Nissan has been building variations of this basic motor since 1994. They have probably spent well over $20 million in R&D to produce as much reliable horsepower as possible. As a result they went from 3.5 to 3.7 liters to up the horsepower in the latest variation. Had there been an easy (bolt-on) way to get more out of the VQ35HR it would have been a lot cheaper for Nissan to go that route rather than a displacement increase.
Now there is no doubt that Nissan has to work to the lowest common dominator when it comes to a tune on the car considering the 91 octane on the left coast vs. the 93 octane here in the mid-west and the sound limitation on the exhaust. In addition, there are variations in the tolerance, etc. with engines (however even here with the current state of NC machines and automated assembly this difference is no that much). And the current state of engine computers is extremely sophisticated with air-fuel monitoring, knock sensors, and learning modes that are light years beyond what was available even six years ago. This allows for better optimization of performance within the variables of the real world. I have seen bigger gains on factory turbocharged cars in this area as you can turn up the boost and bump up the timing with better fuel, but for an NA car its much tougher to improve on the computer optimization.
So the real question is can you improve on the $20 million spent by Nissan on horsepower increases given the limitations they have to deal with? The answer is yes BUT how much money do you have to try different combinations and what can you expect to gain in the dollars-to-hp ratio? I especially like the folks who see a bolt-on which say a 10 hp gain and add another bolt-on to that shows the same gain and then expect to get 20 hp gain. I very rarely happens.
Finally, I have recently seen a bolt on which will increase my mileage by 40%. I sure Nissan engineers are in with the oil companies and just don’t want to have better gas mileage and so haven’t installed this type of device on their cars.
Let the flames begin.
Bob
I agree with the fact that nissan spent countless hours of R&D and $ in developing the VQ, and I applaud them. However, Nissan needs to meet emissions standards and keep build costs as low as possible while still maintaining power. I don't know of one car on the market that comes from the factory at its optimum tuned level with no room for imporovement. I mean its basic science that removing restriction (cats/restrictive cat-back) will net better performance no matter how efficient the motor is. Now the gains are deffinately debateable. But, from seeing countless dynos of stock HRs on different dynos and HRs dynoed after bolt ons, it seems that there should be a decent increase in power compared to what the OP is claiming. I have seen dyno sheets from people that have gained 10whp just from a tune alone. I'm sure this isn't the only case. Also, my buddy has an 05 and has test pipes, cat-back, intake and plenum spacer and he kept up to me when I was stock. Now I know the driver has a lot to do with that but if he gained little or no power from his mods, he wouldn't be able to keep up with an HR putting down ~30hp more. But like I said before, IMO it seems like the OP is running on a bad tune or his car is just worn and tired or whatever it may be...whatever it is, there has to be more of an explanation.
Last edited by 08sleeperz; 12-15-2010 at 06:51 AM.
12-15-2010, 12:46 PM
#133
Registered User
Thread Starter
iTrader: (15)
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oregon
Posts: 605
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks to all of you for your opinions/suggestions. In the future I may look at alternative tuning and see if that is really the issue. Although the expected gains are not there, the car feels strong.
12-15-2010, 04:44 PM
#134
Any issues while dynoing? Any issues with the car? (Improperly strapped, car pulling timing, etc...)
Below 5000rpm the gains fall in line with most others that have been posted. Peak torque gain of 13-15ftlbs is pretty much in line with others.
Above 5000, it just doesn't hold. Theres roughly zero net gain at ~6000rpm. Something doesn't add up.
Below 5000rpm the gains fall in line with most others that have been posted. Peak torque gain of 13-15ftlbs is pretty much in line with others.
Above 5000, it just doesn't hold. Theres roughly zero net gain at ~6000rpm. Something doesn't add up.
12-15-2010, 05:58 PM
#135
That was with my mods but without the tune. The tune is what brought me up to 248whp.
about 2 years ago, with just my catback exhaust, i dyno'd 267whp on a different dyno at a different shop. Different, dyno's different results, but i guess based on that original dyno i figured adding the HFCs, intake, and plenum spacer that I would have broken 275whp. That was my expectation, not what actually happened
I will try to stick to dyno'n at the same place from now on if i can so that i can get more consistent numbers.
One thing I will say is that I haven't cleaned my air filter in at least a year. I barely use the car so I figured it couldn't be that dirty. I'm gonna go in the garage now and see how dirty it is. There's gotta be a logical explanation to all this, haha. Talk about wishful thinking.
about 2 years ago, with just my catback exhaust, i dyno'd 267whp on a different dyno at a different shop. Different, dyno's different results, but i guess based on that original dyno i figured adding the HFCs, intake, and plenum spacer that I would have broken 275whp. That was my expectation, not what actually happened
I will try to stick to dyno'n at the same place from now on if i can so that i can get more consistent numbers.One thing I will say is that I haven't cleaned my air filter in at least a year. I barely use the car so I figured it couldn't be that dirty. I'm gonna go in the garage now and see how dirty it is. There's gotta be a logical explanation to all this, haha. Talk about wishful thinking.
12-15-2010, 08:37 PM
#136
Registered User
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: house
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That was with my mods but without the tune. The tune is what brought me up to 248whp.
about 2 years ago, with just my catback exhaust, i dyno'd 267whp on a different dyno at a different shop. Different, dyno's different results, but i guess based on that original dyno i figured adding the HFCs, intake, and plenum spacer that I would have broken 275whp. That was my expectation, not what actually happened I will try to stick to dyno'n at the same place from now on if i can so that i can get more consistent numbers.
One thing I will say is that I haven't cleaned my air filter in at least a year. I barely use the car so I figured it couldn't be that dirty. I'm gonna go in the garage now and see how dirty it is. There's gotta be a logical explanation to all this, haha. Talk about wishful thinking.
about 2 years ago, with just my catback exhaust, i dyno'd 267whp on a different dyno at a different shop. Different, dyno's different results, but i guess based on that original dyno i figured adding the HFCs, intake, and plenum spacer that I would have broken 275whp. That was my expectation, not what actually happened
I will try to stick to dyno'n at the same place from now on if i can so that i can get more consistent numbers.One thing I will say is that I haven't cleaned my air filter in at least a year. I barely use the car so I figured it couldn't be that dirty. I'm gonna go in the garage now and see how dirty it is. There's gotta be a logical explanation to all this, haha. Talk about wishful thinking.
12-16-2010, 08:25 PM
#137
Registered User
Thread Starter
iTrader: (15)
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oregon
Posts: 605
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any issues while dynoing? Any issues with the car? (Improperly strapped, car pulling timing, etc...)
Below 5000rpm the gains fall in line with most others that have been posted. Peak torque gain of 13-15ftlbs is pretty much in line with others.
Above 5000, it just doesn't hold. Theres roughly zero net gain at ~6000rpm. Something doesn't add up.
Below 5000rpm the gains fall in line with most others that have been posted. Peak torque gain of 13-15ftlbs is pretty much in line with others.
Above 5000, it just doesn't hold. Theres roughly zero net gain at ~6000rpm. Something doesn't add up.
12-16-2010, 08:38 PM
#138
Registered User
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: house
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's your problem right there lol. It should feel a bit faster/stronger than when you pulled it off the lot with the mods you have lol. Sorry for the joke, but you said you feel gains compared to stock right? As long as the car is strong and you feel a little stronger than stock, I wouldn't worry about it. N/A mods are not cost effiecient and in our case only slightly improve an already perfected design. If you wanna see your true gains, put your car back to stock, dyno it, then put all your mods back on and dyno it again, maybe with a new tune/tuner all on the same dyno. Not saying that is practical but that's what you would have to do to see your gains. If you did something like that, I think you would see more than a 11whp gain.
12-16-2010, 10:23 PM
#139
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Kuwait
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That was with my mods but without the tune. The tune is what brought me up to 248whp.
about 2 years ago, with just my catback exhaust, i dyno'd 267whp on a different dyno at a different shop. Different, dyno's different results, but i guess based on that original dyno i figured adding the HFCs, intake, and plenum spacer that I would have broken 275whp. That was my expectation, not what actually happened I will try to stick to dyno'n at the same place from now on if i can so that i can get more consistent numbers.
One thing I will say is that I haven't cleaned my air filter in at least a year. I barely use the car so I figured it couldn't be that dirty. I'm gonna go in the garage now and see how dirty it is. There's gotta be a logical explanation to all this, haha. Talk about wishful thinking.
about 2 years ago, with just my catback exhaust, i dyno'd 267whp on a different dyno at a different shop. Different, dyno's different results, but i guess based on that original dyno i figured adding the HFCs, intake, and plenum spacer that I would have broken 275whp. That was my expectation, not what actually happened
I will try to stick to dyno'n at the same place from now on if i can so that i can get more consistent numbers.One thing I will say is that I haven't cleaned my air filter in at least a year. I barely use the car so I figured it couldn't be that dirty. I'm gonna go in the garage now and see how dirty it is. There's gotta be a logical explanation to all this, haha. Talk about wishful thinking.
First off, I was under the impression that you had an HR Z, since this is posted in the HR section. Regardless, 267whp with just a cat back is a pretty optimistic number for a DE. Hell if this was on an HR I'd say that's a good number!
Second, your 237whp with all your mods minus the tune is not really low. Different dyno's, different conditions. The number itself is not a major concern, but rather the gain made using the same dyno.
Anyhow, my third point is that your 11whp gain is from the tune ONLY. If you want to compare numbers, then the baseline must be a bone stock Z with no mods compared to the same car and same dyno but modded + tuned. So a 11whp from just a tune is actually not a bad number at all. I made 259whp on a dynojet with all my mods without the tune. Then when I went to tune the car, which was on another dynojet, it only made 248whp. I didn't care much since that was a different dyno
12-17-2010, 12:58 PM
#140
Registered User
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: house
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok here goes...
First off, I was under the impression that you had an HR Z, since this is posted in the HR section. Regardless, 267whp with just a cat back is a pretty optimistic number for a DE. Hell if this was on an HR I'd say that's a good number!
Second, your 237whp with all your mods minus the tune is not really low. Different dyno's, different conditions. The number itself is not a major concern, but rather the gain made using the same dyno.
Anyhow, my third point is that your 11whp gain is from the tune ONLY. If you want to compare numbers, then the baseline must be a bone stock Z with no mods compared to the same car and same dyno but modded + tuned. So a 11whp from just a tune is actually not a bad number at all. I made 259whp on a dynojet with all my mods without the tune. Then when I went to tune the car, which was on another dynojet, it only made 248whp. I didn't care much since that was a different dyno
First off, I was under the impression that you had an HR Z, since this is posted in the HR section. Regardless, 267whp with just a cat back is a pretty optimistic number for a DE. Hell if this was on an HR I'd say that's a good number!
Second, your 237whp with all your mods minus the tune is not really low. Different dyno's, different conditions. The number itself is not a major concern, but rather the gain made using the same dyno.
Anyhow, my third point is that your 11whp gain is from the tune ONLY. If you want to compare numbers, then the baseline must be a bone stock Z with no mods compared to the same car and same dyno but modded + tuned. So a 11whp from just a tune is actually not a bad number at all. I made 259whp on a dynojet with all my mods without the tune. Then when I went to tune the car, which was on another dynojet, it only made 248whp. I didn't care much since that was a different dyno