Factory IM Spacer - 17108-RDJ-A00
05-27-2009, 05:38 PM
#43
Yes i plan to have the shop port match this tuesday. As soon as Fedex drops it off. I'll post dyno numbers with all my mods including this mod before and after! I have all the parts and started the write on diy install im going to finsh tomarrow and post it later on this week with the dyno sheet.
05-28-2009, 01:37 AM
#47
05-28-2009, 03:48 AM
#48
Everything you need.
Notice the rough casting from honda.http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/9425/003qis.jpg Another!
I'm pritty sure you would only need 2 washers as a gap for the hood. well total 8 2 for each bolt in the hood.
05-28-2009, 09:37 AM
#50
Oderint dum metuant.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Lake Wylie
Age: 46
Posts: 12,496
Likes: 0
Received 534 Likes
on
446 Posts
It's easy, as long as you can follow instructions and remove/reinstall bolts. You just take out the bolts when and where the manual says to and then reinstall them when and where it says to. And none of the bolts should be rusted like suspension and exhaust bolts, so they should be easy to work with (at least mine were when I installed my IM spacer).
05-28-2009, 02:22 PM
#54
practicing nihilist
05-28-2009, 04:20 PM
#56
Safety Car
apologies...amateur speaking here
so this gasket goes between where the im gaskets would go? this raises...the 3.2 VTEC part of the motor? just the top end where that flat piece is?
thanks
so this gasket goes between where the im gaskets would go? this raises...the 3.2 VTEC part of the motor? just the top end where that flat piece is?
thanks
05-28-2009, 06:31 PM
#57
I'm betting this makes as much power as the P2R throttle body spacer... LOL.
Not sure what this could possibly do for you. This effectively lengthens your intake runners, but doesn't appear to do anything to increase or stabilize airflow.
I think it serves a purpose though...
On large cars with big hoods (like the Ody), it get the manifold up higher, away from the block, hopefully keeping the manifold cooler. That might be valuable, but the outlaw spacers are already in the "diminishing returns" category of value mods.
Just a theory... what do i know.
I'll bet any amount of beer that this make NO power, but makes everyone feel good.
Not sure what this could possibly do for you. This effectively lengthens your intake runners, but doesn't appear to do anything to increase or stabilize airflow.
I think it serves a purpose though...
On large cars with big hoods (like the Ody), it get the manifold up higher, away from the block, hopefully keeping the manifold cooler. That might be valuable, but the outlaw spacers are already in the "diminishing returns" category of value mods.
Just a theory... what do i know.
I'll bet any amount of beer that this make NO power, but makes everyone feel good.
05-28-2009, 06:31 PM
#58
94 DC4 RS LSV/Turbo
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: New York City | Stuck in Traffic
Age: 38
Posts: 11,734
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes
on
11 Posts
^ it rises the intake manifold... meaning part 1 in the original diagram I posted in post #1
again tl2slow holla at me when you get this... imma bring the teg thru so you can check it out
edit: kennedy... case of coronas (the large one's... which is worth $20 at local beerspot)
beachexotic will be taking this to another scale... so I will guarantee gains on this as the intake mani will be almost 2" away from the heat as opposed to a tiny thermal gasket
again tl2slow holla at me when you get this... imma bring the teg thru so you can check it out
edit: kennedy... case of coronas (the large one's... which is worth $20 at local beerspot)
beachexotic will be taking this to another scale... so I will guarantee gains on this as the intake mani will be almost 2" away from the heat as opposed to a tiny thermal gasket
Last edited by stillhere153; 05-28-2009 at 06:34 PM.
05-28-2009, 07:23 PM
#60
^ it rises the intake manifold... meaning part 1 in the original diagram I posted in post #1
again tl2slow holla at me when you get this... imma bring the teg thru so you can check it out
edit: kennedy... case of coronas (the large one's... which is worth $20 at local beerspot)
beachexotic will be taking this to another scale... so I will guarantee gains on this as the intake mani will be almost 2" away from the heat as opposed to a tiny thermal gasket
again tl2slow holla at me when you get this... imma bring the teg thru so you can check it out
edit: kennedy... case of coronas (the large one's... which is worth $20 at local beerspot)
beachexotic will be taking this to another scale... so I will guarantee gains on this as the intake mani will be almost 2" away from the heat as opposed to a tiny thermal gasket
05-28-2009, 10:32 PM
#62
05-29-2009, 10:11 AM
#66
Burning Brakes
This is where you guys have to be careful. For one, the spacer you're adding isn't increasing intake manifold volume. You're increasing intake runner length. There is a difference. Longer runners increase low/mid range power, but don't breath well in the high rpms. That's a fact. Secondly, you're adding a decent amount of runner length so you could be hurting topend power by a few hundred rpms.
Now, it is quite possible that this spacer will improve the overall power curve, even though some topend power is lost. The only way to be certain that the mod is benefical is to do a before and after dyno and then do a average hp calculation for the power band. If you've got more average power, you'll be faster.
subscribed....
05-29-2009, 11:12 AM
#68
I have the 5/16" MD spacer on my G35 (same as the 350Z) and I know Tony, the engineer/owner that developed the spacer. The intake manifold on the VQ is split in two, right in the middle. When you lift the top cover, there are six air horns that are attached into the intake runners. It's much the design like you'd see if you were take a part a BMW M-series intake manifold, minus the individual throttle bodies. The spacer goes between the two intake manifold halves, essentially increasing the internal volume of the intake manifold and letting the front two air horn/runners breath a bit better. Here's the rub though, the spacer is only 5/16". MD also makes 1/2" spacer, which makes 2hp more, but it neuters low end power a bit. Tony has tried numerous spacer setups, as well as other companies, and the ideal set up is around 5/16". Tony is an ex-aerospace engineer and one of the few aftermarket parts manufactuers that tests his products. He has tested all spacer heights and basically anything over 1/2" kills power.
This is where you guys have to be careful. For one, the spacer you're adding isn't increasing intake manifold volume. You're increasing intake runner length. There is a difference. Longer runners increase low/mid range power, but don't breath well in the high rpms. That's a fact. Secondly, you're adding a decent amount of runner length so you could be hurting topend power by a few hundred rpms.
Now, it is quite possible that this spacer will improve the overall power curve, even though some topend power is lost. The only way to be certain that the mod is benefical is to do a before and after dyno and then do a average hp calculation for the power band. If you've got more average power, you'll be faster.
This is where you guys have to be careful. For one, the spacer you're adding isn't increasing intake manifold volume. You're increasing intake runner length. There is a difference. Longer runners increase low/mid range power, but don't breath well in the high rpms. That's a fact. Secondly, you're adding a decent amount of runner length so you could be hurting topend power by a few hundred rpms.
Now, it is quite possible that this spacer will improve the overall power curve, even though some topend power is lost. The only way to be certain that the mod is benefical is to do a before and after dyno and then do a average hp calculation for the power band. If you've got more average power, you'll be faster.
The longer running length could harm power, but I'm skeptical. I understand the reasoning behind this, but let's take a look at some information.
2009 MDX Bone Stock showed 159whp and 144torque
2009 MDX with K&N Filter and Full Catback Exhaust (stock primary cats) showed 191whp and 170torque
2009 TL-SHAWD bone stock showed 165whp and 145torque
So with the big spacer, the 3.5L made slightly less horsepower than the 3.7L, while both made close to the same torque. Yet with exhaust modifications, the 3.5L REALLY opened up, and lost no power anywhere. Dyno graphs are here:
https://acurazine.com/forums/showthr...=699881&page=2
So I think anyone with the 3.5L TL that has an exhaust, COULD see gains across the band without seeing any power losses. Even the 3.2L should benefit, just won't be as much.
Last edited by CleanCL; 05-29-2009 at 11:15 AM.
05-29-2009, 11:16 AM
#69
Chapter Leader (Southern Region)
The intake plenums between a J and VQ are entirely different. While the VQ benefits from a plenum spacer the J suffers. The intake manifold resonance charge utilized by Honda is much more complicated than simply adding volume to the plenum chamber. You can definitely gain power on the J with a larger plenum volume, but it requires specialized channels that work in conjunction with the IMRC. The cost is too great and no one will ever do it.
The longer running length could harm power, but I'm skeptical. I understand the reasoning behind this, but let's take a look at some information.
2009 MDX Bone Stock showed 159whp and 144torque
2009 MDX with K&N Filter and Full Catback Exhaust (stock primary cats) showed 191whp and 170torque
2009 TL-SHAWD bone stock showed 165whp and 145torque
So with the big spacer, the 3.5L made slightly less horsepower than the 3.7L, while both made close to the same torque. Yet with exhaust modifications, the 3.5L REALLY opened up, and lost no power anywhere. Dyno graphs are here:
https://acurazine.com/forums/showthr...=699881&page=2
So I think anyone with the 3.5L TL that has an exhaust, COULD see gains across the band without seeing any power losses. Even the 3.2L should benefit, just won't be as much.
The longer running length could harm power, but I'm skeptical. I understand the reasoning behind this, but let's take a look at some information.
2009 MDX Bone Stock showed 159whp and 144torque
2009 MDX with K&N Filter and Full Catback Exhaust (stock primary cats) showed 191whp and 170torque
2009 TL-SHAWD bone stock showed 165whp and 145torque
So with the big spacer, the 3.5L made slightly less horsepower than the 3.7L, while both made close to the same torque. Yet with exhaust modifications, the 3.5L REALLY opened up, and lost no power anywhere. Dyno graphs are here:
https://acurazine.com/forums/showthr...=699881&page=2
So I think anyone with the 3.5L TL that has an exhaust, COULD see gains across the band without seeing any power losses. Even the 3.2L should benefit, just won't be as much.
05-29-2009, 12:49 PM
#71
Race Director
iTrader: (1)
2009 TL-S AWD??? Hmmmm :P
05-29-2009, 01:19 PM
#72
Oh, well I forgot to mention my TL was not brought up to redline due to the difficult the differentials were giving us. I just want a simple baseline. So in theory, the TL brought up to it's peak output RPM would have a higher bone stock number. But the whole point is, the thick spacer on the 3.5L MDX does not appear to harm it's performance in anyway. 
05-29-2009, 01:27 PM
#73
Chapter Leader (Southern Region)
That seems like too much drivetrain loss. Are these numbers superimposed with both front & rear wheels [awhp]? I can't imagine SH-AWD 4G TL 3.7 having less whp than a base 3G TL.. I'd be nice to see some numbers from a mustang dyno or use dynapak cells for those measurements.
05-29-2009, 01:37 PM
#74
AWD drivetrain loss... yes this is normal. All 4 wheels are spun on rollers. The only way to do the front wheels and get a number like a 3G TL has is to disconnect the driveshaft. These are just numbers, it's a tool. The 3G TL does not have more power. You have to understand the difference between the 2 dynos.
05-29-2009, 01:39 PM
#75
Race Director
iTrader: (1)
Doh! Sh-awd, now i see! Lol
05-29-2009, 01:45 PM
#76
Chapter Leader (Southern Region)
AWD drivetrain loss... yes this is normal. All 4 wheels are spun on rollers. The only way to do the front wheels and get a number like a 3G TL has is to disconnect the driveshaft. These are just numbers, it's a tool. The 3G TL does not have more power. You have to understand the difference between the 2 dynos.
05-29-2009, 02:01 PM
#77
Race Director
iTrader: (1)
There is a general what, 20% average drivetrain loss on Hondas? So, add the rear end of things into the equation...
05-29-2009, 02:53 PM
#78
Burning Brakes
AWD drivetrain loss... yes this is normal. All 4 wheels are spun on rollers. The only way to do the front wheels and get a number like a 3G TL has is to disconnect the driveshaft. These are just numbers, it's a tool. The 3G TL does not have more power. You have to understand the difference between the 2 dynos.
One of two things were happening with that dyno. Either the TL's ECU is flaking out and really dumbing down the power on the dyno or the operators are intentionally keeping the stock numbers low to inflate the gains of the modifications. I think the truth lies somewhere in between.
05-29-2009, 04:19 PM
#79
Former Whyner
If I was to do this would I need those oem gaskets and ditch my P2R gasket? Reason why i ask is post 1 AL mentioned sandwiching between 2 P2R gaskets
05-29-2009, 05:14 PM
#80
I understand that AWD cars have a good bit of drivetrain loss thanks to spinning two additional axles, extra differential and driveshaft, and some sort of transfer case, but those numbers are silly silly low even for revving to 6100rpms. AWD doesn't consume nearly 45% of the cars power, especially smart AWD systems which only shift torque around when they sense slip. The AWD loss is more like 25%. Stock G35Xs dyno in the 195whp/200wtq range which is about 15whp/10wtq lower than a stock 5AT RWD sedan.
One of two things were happening with that dyno. Either the TL's ECU is flaking out and really dumbing down the power on the dyno or the operators are intentionally keeping the stock numbers low to inflate the gains of the modifications. I think the truth lies somewhere in between.
One of two things were happening with that dyno. Either the TL's ECU is flaking out and really dumbing down the power on the dyno or the operators are intentionally keeping the stock numbers low to inflate the gains of the modifications. I think the truth lies somewhere in between.
Anyway, I guess you never looked at the RDX and 04+ RL AWD dynos. The SH-AWD gives dynos many headaches as the system is far more complicated than that of the G35X. The TL and MDX dynos are on par with that of the RL. It's just the way these cars dyno. Everyone seems to love to live by the dyno number. A dyno is a TOOL. It's just a number. It's laughable when people walk around saying my car made 300whp on a dyno. Please. All that matters is that it's a tool used for tuning and testing modifications. Dyno queens please exit.
Dave - I know you have a lot of general car knowledge. Fine. I accept that. But EVERY thread I see you post in you reference an Infiniti or Nissan. You need to do some research here before you start telling people things. The AWD system Acura has is fairly new and I understand many people, especially 3G section where there is no AWD, have probably not ventured into the other sections. Anyone who has dynoed an AWD Acura will tell you the differentials are testy on the rollers and that it's very difficult to achieve a solid run.