When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Yes, I will be trying that out tomorrow, but the J35A3's TB has a damaged TPS sensor on it. Looks like they broke it when they pulled the engine.
Thanks for the clarification.
You have the IACV on the 'block' on the car now, which may or may not work.
You have an untested extra IACV on the J32 TB from the Midwest.
You have an untested extra IACV on the 'damaged' J35 TB.
I'm pretty sure they all share the same part #, so hopefully you will find "joy" with one of the two extra and save a little money.
Thanks for the clarification.
You have the IACV on the 'block' on the car now, which may or may not work.
You have an untested extra IACV on the J32 TB from the Midwest.
You have an untested extra IACV on the 'damaged' J35 TB.
I'm pretty sure they all share the same part #, so hopefully you will find "joy" with one of the two extra and save a little money.
Yes, I guess I can just swap the other IACV to that block from the other j32a2 and try it out, but now I'm just thinking where those 2 vacuum lines from that block are going. I know 1 goes on top of the TB, but I forgot where the other line went. I'll be checking that as soon as I get home here shortly. Those 2 lines should be pretty important.
I see the 'block' that you mention in the picture below on the left side, just to the side of the 'air assist' device with the two vacuum hoses emerging vertically and to the rear.
Yes, I guess I can just swap the other IACV to that block from the other j32a2 and try it out, but now I'm just thinking where those 2 vacuum lines from that block are going. I know 1 goes on top of the TB, but I forgot where the other line went. I'll be checking that as soon as I get home here shortly. Those 2 lines should be pretty important.
Here is a thread of yours from 2013 regarding the Blox TB and the billet Idle Air Control Adapter from p2r. The pictures are gone but maybe the info will remind you of the vacuum line connections.
#Update#
I decided to do another valve job, yet made little difference. Decided to crack open the throttle body just a cinch. And then readjust the throttle position sensor. Well, it runs great now. I took it out for a quick spin, and that's all it did was spin. Lol I can't believe the power this engine produces. But the only thing that questions me a bit maybe because the Hood is still off the car but it's got slight valve noise how to round 2500 to 4000 RPMs. I know you can never get these valves to be as quiet as a church mouse but I put full synthetic Mobil 1 10-30w and it just seems a tad bit too noisy but may be because the hood is off and there's a lot more engine noise. But I did notice something that I slapped myself over. I never replaced the crank seal on the engine when the engine was out. I figured since it only has 90,000 miles on it it should be fine. It looked fine to me because I did inspect it and I actually put some grease around it to keep it nice and moist so that it doesn't dry out overtime, but there's a little bit of oil that's leaking from the flywheel inspection plate which obviously is probably coming from the crank seal. I really don't feel like pulling the tranny out to redo this now...
First, is it ALL of the valves that sound louder or is it the 'front' vs the 'rear' head?
Secondly, when you readjusted the valves, did you revisit all the fasteners involved in the transfer of the J32 camshafts and rocker arm assemblies to see if any where loose? It's odd that they would make more noise.
lol, it is easy to forget about those rear main seals. For the time being, maybe just drive it around for awhile, absorb the differences in performance with the larger J35, to see if things 'quiet down' and keep an eye on the rear seal leakage, then decide your next step.
When time permits, take some pic's of your new set-up and post them up, lol.
First, is it ALL of the valves that sound louder or is it the 'front' vs the 'rear' head?
Secondly, when you readjusted the valves, did you revisit all the fasteners involved in the transfer of the J32 camshafts and rocker arm assemblies to see if any where loose? It's odd that they would make more noise.
lol, it is easy to forget about those rear main seals. For the time being, maybe just drive it around for awhile, absorb the differences in performance with the larger J35, to see if things 'quiet down' and keep an eye on the rear seal leakage, then decide your next step.
When time permits, take some pic's of your new set-up and post them up, lol.
Funny that you mentioned that Zeta about the noise coming from the front or back, because it's definitely coming from the front, the back sounds very quite. Is there a reason for that? And you are absolutely right about driving it for now and just keeping an eye on the oil leak. Just frustrates me because I should have done that when the engine was out. But honestly I'm not a hundred percent sure that it's the crank seal because the two end bolts for the oil pan were slightly loose so I tighten them and it seems as if the oil leak slowed down a lot. But either way the tranny has to come out because I'd like to replace that crank seal as well.
#Update#
I decided to do another valve job, yet made little difference. Decided to crack open the throttle body just a cinch. And then readjust the throttle position sensor. Well, it runs great now. I took it out for a quick spin, and that's all it did was spin. Lol I can't believe the power this engine produces...
Hahaha, I'm already feeling it. I punched it at 40 mph in 2nd and it started to spin. 1st gear is useless, and third really pins you in your seat at 60mph
That's awesome that you got it running right! I'd put cardboard under the car and ignore the oil leak for now. If it's still leaking after driving it for a while, then look into it. Might as well drive it and let it settle for now.
That's awesome that you got it running right! I'd put cardboard under the car and ignore the oil leak for now. If it's still leaking after driving it for a while, then look into it. Might as well drive it and let it settle for now.
This is what I need, some motivation to just put the tools down and just enjoy the car for now. Besides, I can tell my GF is starting to get aggravated from all the time I've been spending in the garage. Lol
Here are some pics for the time being, but I do want to try that other IM with the plenums.
Thanks for the pictures!
As they say, the J motors love to breath, and I must say, 2ndgentl, when I look at the picture above and compare it to the one below with the S/C'er, the sheer size of that Blox TB becomes more apparent along with the diameter of the intake tube. When compared to the puny OEM J32 TB on my car, it now fully explains the 'throttle response' depicted on your S/C'er video below. Power wise, that 3.7 IM & TB looks like money well spent, and congrats on the install.
... but I do want to try that other IM with the plenums.
2ndgentl, I was thinking, when I read your statement above, I remember seeing the IMRC actuator on the rear valve cover that came with your '02 MDX engine below.
Originally Posted by 2ndgentl
I did not see that you installed it when you initially used the other OEM IM with the plenums that you want to eventually try on the picture below.
Originally Posted by 2ndgentl
There may not be enough room?
Not sure at this point whether utilizing the IMRC with those aftermarket plenums would provide any benefits 'up top' in the higher rpms; however, since you are 'naturally aspirated' now, it may be something to consider? Of course, if/when you decide to try out that IM. You should still have the harness connector there tucked away somewhere? Then it would only be a matter of seeing if there is room now with those larger plenums to fit it in and hook it up.
In the Helms, it states that '...high power at high engine speed is achieved when the...runner...valves are opened...' by the ECM.So, there you go, I might of found you a little more power 'up top', lol.
In the Helms, it states that '...high power at high engine speed is achieved when the...runner...valves are opened...' by the ECM.So, there you go, I might of found you a little more power 'up top', lol.
I haven't put the stock IM with the plenums back on yet, but I was going to do a butterfly delete on that IM which the IMRC wouldn't do anything then. But you do have a point, when I first installed that IM I did forget to put that IRMC on. Good eye! Do you think it would be better leaving the IMRC on there and not do the butterfly delete?
You must be seeing the tire smoke from your house Not joking, if I punch it in 2nd from 40 mph it spins all the way up to redline. And I have 235/45/18 Hankook Ventus RS3 tires with a tread wear of 140, which are soft tires. I need to somehow put 255's on my car, but I know it will rub unless I Jack the car back up
I haven't put the stock IM with the plenums back on yet, but I was going to do a butterfly delete on that IM which the IMRC wouldn't do anything then. But you do have a point, when I first installed that IM I did forget to put that IRMC on. Good eye! Do you think it would be better leaving the IMRC on there and not do the butterfly delete?
Good to hear that the new engine is working out so well. With all of the tire spinning you are getting down low, it doesn't sound like you need any more torque, hehe, Ok, maybe just a little more.
I attached a page copy of the Helms that shows a visual and explains the IRMC System and it states if you have this 'system' hooked up and running you get 'High torque at low engine speed...when the valves are closed, whereas high power at high engine speed is achieved when the valves are open.'
Currently, if you have not (?) already performed the 'butterfly delete' on the 3.7 IM you would be maximizing the torque down low because the 3.7 actuator is not working, keeping the valves shut, because of the electronic connection differences. At the same time, you are losing any 'gains' up top for the same reason because the valves don't open when triggered by the ECU. If you experiment with the OEM J35 IM and reinstall the IRMC actuator, you would get back that IRMC functionality at high RPM. How much you will notice on the 'butt dyno' . This is what we are all waiting for, if you decide to go forward and test the OEM J35 IM for a week or so, hehe.
Good to hear that the new engine is working out so well. With all of the tire spinning you are getting down low, it doesn't sound like you need any more torque, hehe, Ok, maybe just a little more.
I attached a page copy of the Helms that shows a visual and explains the IRMC System and it states if you have this 'system' hooked up and running you get 'High torque at low engine speed...when the valves are closed, whereas high power at high engine speed is achieved when the valves are open.'
Currently, if you have not (?) already performed the 'butterfly delete' on the 3.7 IM you would be maximizing the torque down low because the 3.7 actuator is not working, keeping the valves shut, because of the electronic connection differences. At the same time, you are losing any 'gains' up top for the same reason because the valves don't open when triggered by the ECU. If you experiment with the OEM J35 IM and reinstall the IRMC actuator, you would get back that IRMC functionality at high RPM. How much you will notice on the 'butt dyno' . This is what we are all waiting for, if you decide to go forward and test the OEM J35 IM for a week or so, hehe.
Good Luck!
So I decided to try the stock IM with the P2R plennums right after I did another valve job. Valves now are much quieter now after the 3rd valve job. Not sure exactly why, but every time I re-checked them some would be just a tad bit too loose, but I think they should be fine now. Below is also a pic of my plugs now that I have some mileage on them. About that IM though, I also installed the IRMC and the 76mm TB. I noticed that the opening for the stock IM is a lot smaller than the 76mm TB, so I knew that would be a slight problem knowing that it won't be sucking in as much air as it did on the 3.7 IM. And I don't think you can bore it out to 76 mm because the walls look pretty thin. So once I installed it I took it out for a run and noticed right away that the car was a lot slower on bottom end and top-end. Huge disappointment! The car felt A LOT slower. It was such a disappointment that I decided to take it off right away. Once I put that 3.7 IM back on I took it out for a ride again and the car felt like it was on steroids. I highly recommend doing the 3.7 intake manifold swap with the bigger throttle body. I have the p2r spacer under the intake manifold as well but I'm going to try the Ridgeline spacer which is twice the thickness of the p2r spacer as soon as I get longer bolts to fit it. Also, I have done the butterfly valve delete on the 3.7 as soon as I bought it a long time ago
^
Nice!
As you already knew, It sounds like the 3.7 IM and the Blox TB are the perfect combo for your car. Good to hear that the valves are quieting down for you. Sounds like your 3.5 is real solid and ready for whatever plans you have down the line when 'time and money' give you that 'hair' to increase power. Well done!
Ugh, so apparently I need to send my flywheel back to Aasco so they can put a new ring gear on it. My starter has been grinding up against it more and more and I've already tried another starter and the same thing happens. Here are a few pics of the flywheel. On a positive note, my car runs like a raped ape. I cannot believe how hard it pulls in every gear. I need to get it dynoed soon in this cool weather and see what kind of numbers it's putting down. I just raced one of my friends 6-speed Accord. I think it's an 06. He has done a lot of work on his j30 from shaved heads, ported runners, mdx injectors, all bolt-ons, dual throttle body intake, and tuned on 100 shot nitrous. He made 273 whp and 230 tq without nitrous. He ran a 13.2 at 108 with nitrous. Horrible 60' time though (2.3). But anyways, he just stopped by so we decided to run our cars. We raced 3 times from a 30 mph roll. EVERY TIME my car would pull 1.5 cars on him then we would stay like that the whole run up to 115 mph. I even let him have the jump on the third race and it was the same outcome. He still can't believe that he lost...
Thanks Zeta for that information! But I'm not sure what I am looking for. What is the chamfer on the ring gear? How do I know if it's backwards or not? It's simple to take the starter out and look again. I hope it's on there backwards like it was for that guy on that other thread.
Thanks Zeta for that information! But I'm not sure what I am looking for. What is the chamfer on the ring gear? How do I know if it's backwards or not? It's simple to take the starter out and look again. I hope it's on there backwards like it was for that guy on that other thread.
Check out the link below. That's what I found, the image in the middle, with a 'quick and dirty' search to give you a visual of a chamfer.
If you look at the picture in post #17 on Gerco's thread it shows a picture of the LWFW and the OEM one. It's hard as hell to make out the chamfer on the OEM FW; but, it's there. Do you have your old DM OEM flywheel handy there in your garage? If so, you might be able to make out the chamfered edge of the ring gear to help you out.
It might help to bump his thread with a post of your pictures above, explaining what you are running into, to see if his experienced 'eye' can pick out if you have an incorrectly installed ring gear on your Aasco LWFW. He usually responds relatively quickly.
Thank you once again Zeta! That link you sent explained it perfectly. According to my pics if I zoom in it looks like the chamfer is towards the tranny, but I'll take the starter off and re-check it. This issue sounds exactly like what 6-speed-Gerco experienced.
According to my pics if I zoom in it looks like the chamfer is towards the tranny, but I'll take the starter off and re-check it. This issue sounds exactly like what 6-speed-Gerco experienced.
Originally Posted by 6spd-GERCO
I end up talking to Vince at AASCO and he tells me they will send me a new flywheel right off the bar. We both are puzzled as to why the starter is having issues engaging the flywheel. I asked him about what I could do to check the ring gear, maybe count the teeth or check the runout with a dial indicator. Right before I get off the phone he tells me to check to see if the engagement chamfer on the ring gear to see it's facing the trans, he said it was a long shot but the ring gear maybe on backwards. Sure enough the ring gear was on backwards! So now I am relegating to rocking the car in gear every time the starter doesn't engage the flywheel until I get my replacement in.
If I'm understanding the above statement correctly, when the 'engagement chamfer on the ring gear' is facing the 'block' then the ring gear is on backwards.
If the 'engagement chamfer on the ring gear' is facing the tranny, then it is on the flywheel correctly. The engagement chamfer would have to be facing the tranny to interface with the starter gear smoothly, on the tranny side pointing toward the block.
Here is another chamfer illustration just for reference:
I think they are chamfered more like the last link you sent me. Zooming in on my pics I can clearly see the chamfer on top of each tooth facing the tranny
Good to hear the car is running strong minus the flywheel drama. I just wrapped up a J35 swap on the beater TL I bought & its ridiculous, first gear is the definition of a joke..
I just looked at the chamfer and it's definitely towards the tranny, so the ring gear was put on correct on the flywheel. So not sure why the starter would grind in the first place. I have a local starter guy that I get all my starters/alternators from for boats/cars and he mentioned for me to drop off my starter because he noticed that the starter gear that turns the flywheel over has dull looking teeth on it from the factory. He said this happened with a customer of his once before and he sharpened the edges on the starter gear and it grabbed every time after that. I don't know, it's worth a shot. I'm dropping it off now so once I get it back I'll let you guys know if it made a difference
So here's a few pics of the starter. The first pic is one I found online since I forgot to take a before pic. I'll let you know if it makes a difference or just making sparks on the flywheel...
I'd hate to see you have to drop the tranny so soon, to get to the bottom of this issue, if this idea doesn't provide any joy.
I looked at the starter 'Gear Assemblies' for both the '02 MDX and the '03 CL-S and there is no noticable differences, other that the part #'s, on the illustrations. I was wondering if one might be a different gear size or maybe would extend out further toward the flywheel when powered up, or if maybe there where spacing shims over the other or something; but, I can't really see anything.
CL-S: https://www.oemacuraparts.com/auto-p...r-mitsuba-scat
MDX: https://www.oemacuraparts.com/auto-p...r-mitsuba-scat
So I installed the starter back in and clinched as I went to start it... it fired right up. So I tried it 15 more times and it's started every time without the starter grinding. So I thought great, I can put this all behind me now. Until yesterday... It grinded last night and this time it sounded 10 times worse because it was really trying to grab the ring gear. And it's already done it two more times after that today. I can say it made a great difference but not good enough. Now I have to try and find out where I bought that flywheel/clutch combo and call them to see if there's anything they can do. I just don't remember where I bought it from, I'm going to have to do some digging
Now I have to try and find out where I bought that flywheel/clutch combo and call them to see if there's anything they can do. I just don't remember where I bought it from, I'm going to have to do some digging
Originally Posted by 2ndgentl
I just spoke with XLR8 and they told me that the DAILY is considered a stage 2 clutch. Handles up to 340 ft lbs of torque at the flywheel, which my car naturally aspirated will never have that much torque. I'm assuming since my car puts out about 250 ft lbs of torque at the wheels it probably measures around 280 at the flywheel?
Originally Posted by 2ndgentl
I guess I'm pulling the $1,049.00 trigger tonight...lol
Jesus Zeta, you're awesome! That was quick! Thanks a million! I'm going to call them and see what they can do. I'm just curious whether the whole j35a3/ aluminum flywheel/ and j32a2 starter have anything to do with the grinding. I'm going to see if that starter place has a j35 starter so I can compare the two. I hope it's not a spacing issue
I called XLR8 and explained to them everything I have done up to this point with my car to see if they have ever experienced the starter grinding on the flywheel. They were very kind and helpful as the person who I was talking to was trying to get an answer to this. At the end he told me he would call me back or email me as soon as he gets more answers. Here's his response yesterday as he emailed me:
Hey Joe,
I just waned to reach out to you in regards to the flywheel grinding noise you were experiencing in your 03 CL Type-S.
You mentioned you switched over from the J32 to the J35 after some bad luck with the J32 replacement, I reached out to the manufacturer of the flywheel and let them know what was going on, and it turns out the 2 motors do use a different flywheel.
They said the ring gear is a different piece, located in a slightly different place. The one for the 3.2L has 123 teeth, and the 3.5L has 126.
If you're trying to get around purchasing a new flywheel you could see if the starter from the J32 bolts into the J35. Honestly not to sure how that one would work though, if at all.
Unfortunately I can't confirm the new flywheel will stop the grinding noise since we don't have the car here to diagnose (and that can make situations like this a bit tricky) but this is something they have heard of before, and that has fixed it in the past.
Let me know if you have any questions!
Regards,
Craig
I did mention that I have a j35a3 in my car now out of an 01-02 mdx. Not sure if that flywheel that he mentions is for ALL j35's? I might have to ask him, but I'm assuming it is. Sucks if that's the case because I'll have to buy another flywheel and a j35 starter. I'll have over $1,500 spent on flywheels alone in my car...but, here's a quick update on my car. 2 days ago I took the starter back out and re-chamfered the starter gear. I noticed closely that the starter guy who chamfered the gear didn't chamfer each tooth all the way down. I mean, some were and some weren't. So I just grinded a chamfer in each tooth nice and smooth all the way down and tried to make every tooth look identical. Of course I cringe everytime I go to start my car but it's been two days without a single grind. So I don't know if the problem is fixed or not but only time will tell and I'll keep an update
If I'm not mistaken the flywheel for the CLS6 is specific to the CLS6. Using one with a different tooth count would definitely not help at all lol
I think and I hope you are absolutely right teh CL! It's been weeks so far and it's been firing up just fine with no grinds. Huge weight off my chest! I can finally drive it without having to worry about carefully starting it every time
Well, I decided to cut a hole in my carbon fiber hood since it didn't fit due to the spacer raising the intake manifold. That carbon fiber hood has been collecting dust in my shed for 2 years, so knowing that I wouldn't be able to sell it for much since there aren't many CL's out there I decided to do something with it. I am all about shedding weight off the CL, so that carbon fiber hood just subtracted at least another 30 lbs off. Plus I still have the other hood with the bump I can always throw back on if I ever wanted to. When I first cut the hole without the plastic intake manifold cover only the front of the intake manifold was barely sticking above the hood because the back of the intake manifold sits lower than the front. I didn't think it looked good at all so I decided to add the plastic cover on the intake manifold and cut out the entire shape of it and leave the back more open for air to channel through to keep the engine cool. This way you can see the entire intake manifold plastic cover. I put a rubber trim that has a 1 1/2" Rubber seal that drops down which seals the entire plastic cover but keeps the back open for air to channel through. It's definitely a different look for the CL. The hood is a shade darker than it would have been stock because the previous owner put another coat of clear on it which darkened it. So I'm going to wetsand it sometime soon to shine it up, but also to lighten it up some so you can see the carbon fiber weaving from further back because you can only really see it up close. The carbon fiber trunk on the other hand looks perfectly fine.
11-03-2017, 09:23 PM
So, there you go, I might of found you a little more power 'up top', lol. 
