Factory IM Spacer - 17108-RDJ-A00
05-29-2009, 06:14 PM
#81
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.
05-30-2009, 12:05 AM
#82
Burning Brakes
I can tell you the operators were not keeping the numbers low. That's laughable. What reason would they have to keep them low? Their not selling parts, they were modifying their own MDX. Right.
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.
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.
You're right, the Honda AWD system is far more complicated than the Nissan ATTESSSA AWD because Honda continues to bandaid the TL to make for the fact they keep making the damn thing FWD. The ATTESSSA AWD is very advanced (remember same one found in the GTR), but at least it doesn't flake out.
Yes, dynos are tools. I preach the same thing, but those TL numbers are retarded low. I'm pretty certain when a few more TL AWDs dyno, the numbers will be higher and more realistic.
05-30-2009, 12:35 AM
#83
If you bothered to read the thread and look up the dyno we used, you would realize this particular dyno is one of the lowest reading ones out there, lower than a mustang. Some more reading material on the 'band aid' SH-AWD system and a dyno.
https://acurazine.com/forums/2g-rl-2005-2012-76/my-rl-dynoed-numbers-pix-movies-499226/
https://acurazine.com/forums/4g-tl-performance-parts-modifications-295/dyno-715286/
The whole point is that I showed dynos side by side, a 3.5L motor w/ a spacer and a 3.7L without a spacer. The numbers and graphs are there for all to read. They can make their own decision about whether the spacer hurts power.
https://acurazine.com/forums/2g-rl-2005-2012-76/my-rl-dynoed-numbers-pix-movies-499226/
https://acurazine.com/forums/4g-tl-performance-parts-modifications-295/dyno-715286/
The whole point is that I showed dynos side by side, a 3.5L motor w/ a spacer and a 3.7L without a spacer. The numbers and graphs are there for all to read. They can make their own decision about whether the spacer hurts power.
05-30-2009, 10:18 PM
#85
Burning Brakes
If you bothered to read the thread and look up the dyno we used, you would realize this particular dyno is one of the lowest reading ones out there, lower than a mustang. Some more reading material on the 'band aid' SH-AWD system and a dyno.
https://acurazine.com/forums/showthread.php?t=499226
https://acurazine.com/forums/showthread.php?t=715286
The whole point is that I showed dynos side by side, a 3.5L motor w/ a spacer and a 3.7L without a spacer. The numbers and graphs are there for all to read. They can make their own decision about whether the spacer hurts power.
https://acurazine.com/forums/showthread.php?t=499226
https://acurazine.com/forums/showthread.php?t=715286
The whole point is that I showed dynos side by side, a 3.5L motor w/ a spacer and a 3.7L without a spacer. The numbers and graphs are there for all to read. They can make their own decision about whether the spacer hurts power.
05-30-2009, 10:30 PM
#86
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
mmmh I guess I had overlooked the honda-tunning article mentioning the spacer... so it turns out my theory is correct
for those w/ full flowing exhausts... this is the perfect upgrade to force the tq curve to recover some lost low end tq
for those w/ full flowing exhausts... this is the perfect upgrade to force the tq curve to recover some lost low end tq
05-31-2009, 10:10 AM
#88
AZ Community Team
Join Date: May 2007
Location: N35°03'16.75", W 080°51'0.9"
Posts: 32,488
Received 7,770 Likes
on
4,341 Posts
IIRC, Nueronbob's AWD RL had 30% DT loss. 45% is 
, no matter what dyno you're on. A "tool" is no good if it won't do the job right; IOW - I wouldn't trust these runs, they are way out in left feild. (MHO)
I don't see where the MDX numbers show whether the spacer helps, hurts or is neutral. None of the cars above have a 3.5L or the fat IM Spacer.
2009 MDX is running a 3.7L with 11:1 compression and no "big" spacer.
You need to look at 3.5L v 3.5L with and without - 2006 MDX v 2007 TL-S for example. Even then, you've got issues as the '07 was tweaked.
Best is a new dyno TL with the spacer and without.
, no matter what dyno you're on. A "tool" is no good if it won't do the job right; IOW - I wouldn't trust these runs, they are way out in left feild. (MHO)....
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. ....
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. ....
I don't see where the MDX numbers show whether the spacer helps, hurts or is neutral. None of the cars above have a 3.5L or the fat IM Spacer.
2009 MDX is running a 3.7L with 11:1 compression and no "big" spacer.
You need to look at 3.5L v 3.5L with and without - 2006 MDX v 2007 TL-S for example. Even then, you've got issues as the '07 was tweaked.
Best is a new dyno TL with the spacer and without.
05-31-2009, 06:41 PM
#89
I confused myself in that both are 3.7L. The dyno on the TL was brought up to 6100 rpm, where peak HP is at 6300... so the number would have been higher. There was nothing wrong with the dyno, you guys need to look up the differences between Dyno Dynamics, Mustang Dyno, Dyno jet, Dynapack, etc.
When I checked with Acura parts the latest generation of MDX was using the spacer, if not then I apologize for that mistake.
When I checked with Acura parts the latest generation of MDX was using the spacer, if not then I apologize for that mistake.
05-31-2009, 09:54 PM
#91
AZ Community Team
Join Date: May 2007
Location: N35°03'16.75", W 080°51'0.9"
Posts: 32,488
Received 7,770 Likes
on
4,341 Posts
Part# 17108-RDJ-A00 is only on the '03 - '06 MDX according to http://www.acuraautomotiveparts.org/...1=&inputstate=
They do not have up-to-date parts info for some of the '09's.
17105-RCJ-A01, the IM Gasket for the '07 TL-S is also used in:
MDX '07 - '09
RL '09
TL '07 - '08
05-31-2009, 10:03 PM
#92
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
refer to estore.honda.com
the im gasket is the same for all of them... if there are 3 cats on the v6 motor the im gasket is the same
the im gasket is the same for all of them... if there are 3 cats on the v6 motor the im gasket is the same
05-31-2009, 10:38 PM
#93
Part# 17108-RDJ-A00 is only on the '03 - '06 MDX according to http://www.acuraautomotiveparts.org/...1=&inputstate=
They do not have up-to-date parts info for some of the '09's.
17105-RCJ-A01, the IM Gasket for the '07 TL-S is also used in:
MDX '07 - '09
RL '09
TL '07 - '08
They do not have up-to-date parts info for some of the '09's.
17105-RCJ-A01, the IM Gasket for the '07 TL-S is also used in:
MDX '07 - '09
RL '09
TL '07 - '08
06-01-2009, 04:44 AM
#95
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
I figure you really don't need the thermal spacer since this spacer is sooo thick... but running 1 on the motor side wouldn't hurt I guess
06-01-2009, 09:05 AM
#96
Burning Brakes
I did a quick scan and it looks like the camshafts are different between the TL and MDX which may or may not influence how the motor behaves with/without the larger spacer. Just another thing to keep in mind.
06-01-2009, 08:49 PM
#99
Bolts up for a 3.2 runners. I'm not sure if it will bolt up to older style. I have pictures of everything together. I'm making a nice DIY for all the people with questions. I'm including dyno numbers as well. Please wait to find out. Everything is bolted on the car starts pulls really flipping hard. I loose traction in 3rd gear with auto mode. About 2,900 the car breaks free.
I'm also most postive i'll be in the 280whp on a mustang dyno only time will tell. I couldn't get to pure tuning last week or the week before really busy with school work. I'm going this weekend hopefuly to get the pictures of me on the dyno and the dyno numbers! I'm going to be before and after install of the spacer.
06-01-2009, 09:53 PM
#100
AZ Community Team
Join Date: May 2007
Location: N35°03'16.75", W 080°51'0.9"
Posts: 32,488
Received 7,770 Likes
on
4,341 Posts
Excellent!!
Looking forward to your numbers.
Looking forward to your numbers.
06-02-2009, 01:40 PM
#102
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: charllote n.c. halton park
Age: 36
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hey everyone how about putting two off the spacers under the plentom that would probably give you a big .i went to acura today and the spacers are 43 each so guess what i bought two off them hahahahahahahaha. every thought about putting an 09 mdx intake plentom on the tl it will probably work and their not that expensive to. i think like under 200
06-02-2009, 01:52 PM
#104
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: charllote n.c. halton park
Age: 36
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you ever heards off home depo or lowes im sure they have lots off bolts that would work and i think i figure something out with the hood
tech 575 hendrick honda
tech 575 hendrick honda
06-02-2009, 02:04 PM
#105
practicing nihilist
06-02-2009, 02:52 PM
#109
practicing nihilist
I thought it was kinda a joke at first! I mean, how many are you going to stack up? I'm sure it's diminishing returns at some point and who wants a 1" gap between their hood a front 1/4 panels?
06-02-2009, 02:57 PM
#110
Race Director
iTrader: (1)
so what's going on here? lol
06-02-2009, 03:36 PM
#117
