Yonkers914

iTrader: (1)

Ya I mean check everything over and I would reinstall the butterfly real quick and see if the noise goes away then go from there

FCVadi

iTrader: (3)

Anil, you didnt link the thread https://acurazine.com/forums/3g-tl-performance-parts-modifications-112/acurazines-first-true-dual-exhaust-3g-tl-updated-vids-pg-4-a-829912/

looks freaking awesome dude.. I am going to a exhust shop this week to talk some numbers.. not sold though on true dual yet... waiting on your feedback


ok, back the the thread...

so if I got PnP manifold do I need to bore out the Thermoblock and throttle body spacers as well...also the MDX spacer?

no point in putting on the intake manifold and runners if I still have to get some pieces worked on

Hacura

OK, major newbie questions coming up as I didn't see the answers in this thread:

Does this affect the reliability of the car at all? If I've read and understood everything correctly, it doesn't appear as if reliability will be affected.

I'm looking to get the P2R spacer to start off. Is this an easy diy? I'm assuming we need to get the gaskets for best performance.

Also, what exactly does pnp and boring/porting the TB intake do? Why don't the manufacturers do it?

swoosh

iTrader: (5)

ok we are talking about 2 things here:

1> more air = power more since the ECU tries to keep the AFR constant...but too much is too bad....the pnp will open up the ports and keep more air flowing to the engine....and hence more power....

2> cooler is better: TL is very sensitive to heat...the spacers keep the IAT (Intake Air Temp) sensor cool and hence the TL ECU doesnt retard timing and hence the low end power which is getting stolen comes back to the TL....

the runners are the toughest to install...the manifold is easier and the spacer is the easiest....

if I were you i would do the following:

pnp manifold + runners
P2R spacer sandwiched in the P2R thermal gaskets
P2R manifold spacer....
coolant bypass

all of this will help you with more power and keep the IAT from getting hot and so smoother power curve

Hacura

I appreciate the information Swoosh.

Outlaw Engineering has a kit at a reasonable price, is there a difference between them and P2R?

swoosh

iTrader: (5)

check the diameter + thickness....both make a difference....

anx1300c

iTrader: (2)

Waste of money.

j-rogsuperstar

Been trying to figure out for a minute....has anyone reported any low end gains? I think I read that there have been low-end gains.....

t0talacuratl

iTrader: (3)

Actually I've had mine done since last year. I've felt the difference through out the powerband (butt dyno). It was the last performance upgrade I've done, so all I need to do is a dyno. Once I replace my clutch, I will get it done and let you guys know.

swoosh

iTrader: (5)

^^^ hahah you are fully bolted on....you do have pnp-ed manifold + runners ? if yes it will be nice to see how much difference we are putting....

t0talacuratl

iTrader: (3)

Nah....only the manifold; didn't bother with the runners. Had the openings matched with the tb and runners though. And yes it did nicely with my other supporting mods!

swoosh

iTrader: (5)

ahhh i was thinking it will be good to see how much difference in the 5AT and 6MT fully bolted on and with different exhaust....

AbyssPearlTL

Read this whole thread and no dyno pics. Fail.

gerzand

iTrader: (3)

Welp, i can tell u that my J32A3 5AT put down 320hp with this manifold and a cam. Nope, I will not be posting them on here because it never pays, always just stirs up the bottom feeders and creates feuds. Believe it if you wish!

o4Komodo

iTrader: (2)

Andy's car is pretty beastly.
I've seen in 2010 at CanAm.
I missed 2011 CanAm, but heard lots of good things in regards to Andy's TL.

And if your name wasn't Andy then my mistake, I may have forgotten everyone's names lol

swoosh

iTrader: (5)

^^^ lol yeah his name is Andy....

I have never personally seen his car but seen some videos and stuff and its pretty insane....dont ask me anything else coz i just dont know i swear

anx1300c

iTrader: (2)

Did you honestly expect anything else?

veggiemonster

iTrader: (1)

this is exactly how you stir shit.

posting dyno plots would encourage a proper conversation.

the fenda rolla

Proof always pays...put the nay-sayers to rest and prove the supporters of this mod right.

I, for one, would definitely benefit from a dyno sheet as I am intrigued as to the potential of this mod. Although a proper test would be a before and after of just the PnP bits...

AbyssPearlTL

Exactly. I just want to see what it does rather than word of mouth. If that makes me a "bottom feeder" who's "stirring the shit", then so be it.

On a side note, 320 whp out of a 5AT gives me something to shoot for!

swoosh

iTrader: (5)

^^^ first things first NO HOMO !!!

Andy's car is sweeet and he himself is a great and very helpful guys.....he has been there for me whenever I needed some help....

He put some video's and dyno's long back and Azine as always with "ohh the dyno is optimistic" or "this is full of shit" etc pushed him to do ever better.....He was running around 320-325 to the wheels.....he is upgrading couple things and I would think he will be passing the 350whp mark on a NA engine....

I think once his car is completely built....he will be posting some dyno's/pictures and time slips....he should be around 400whp on a NA engine....

There is no use shutting down a group of people multiple times when you can do it all at once

Inaccurate

I would say this is plausible with a bigger cam. Unlike opening-up the exhaust, opening-up the intake, etc. sort of things to optimize a NA engine, a camshaft will make substantial gains..... even if the overall system is not fully optimized for the cam.

Camshafts are the ultimate "limiting factor" for a NA engine. If you want to make big gains with NA, you MUST go to a bigger cam.

A big cam is the same thing as forced induction, up to a point. FI makes power by cramming more A/F into the chamber. Bigger displacement engines make more power by sucking in my A/F into the chamber. But, camshafts have their own trick.

HP = (T x Rpm) / 5252

FI and bigger displacement make power by increasing the "T".

But a camshaft makes power by increasing the "Rpm" part of the formula.

The point is that a camshaft is just as effective as FI and/or increased displacement.

AbyssPearlTL

That's true, especially considering that these motors are running 11:1 CR from the factory. It just sounds like the most logical route for decent power.

400 whp out of a J series motor N/A would just be way too awesome.

swoosh

iTrader: (5)

^^^ yup....I wont disclose the details of the compression and stuff....Andy will de-friend me LOL....

upgrade cams and up the compression rate and ECU to tune it....u will make ~50-70 more hp right like that out of ur NA engine

why do u think just an ECU can upp ur horses by 20-25

swoosh

iTrader: (5)

couple interesting reads:

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/camshaft.htm
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/engine.htm

shortcut link to moarrrr horsesssss

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/engine7.htm

Inaccurate

Just using my hotrod experience with small-block chevy's as a guideline, CR (compression ratio) is not really a deal-breaker. That is, it is nice to be able to increase the calculated CR to compensate for the lost actual CR from the large duration cam but the cam will still make huge gains even if the CR is not increased.

But the tunable ECU and having zero cats is a Must. A big cam will be pumping a lot of raw fuel out of the exhaust at low rpms. The oem ecu would freak-out seeing all of that raw fuel. Plus, the optimum shift point will be raised by approx 500-1000 RPM higher. So, the oem rev limit will need to be bypassed.

swoosh

iTrader: (5)

^^^ I agree with every word this guy says !!!! always LOL !!!

Inaccurate

Let's look at a realistic example.

Like I mentioned, a cam does not necessarily increase the torque. But, the cam moves the tq up higher in the rpm range.

HP = (T x Rpm) / 5252

Oem cam = (220 Tq x 5000 Rpm) / 5252 = 209 HP

Big cam = (220 Tq x 6000 Rpm) / 5252 = 251 Hp

In this example, the cam increased the power by 42 Hp.

swoosh

iTrader: (5)

yeah i am thinking of cams/ECU....not compression as of now....looking to upp the hp to 325-330....

plus weight loss mods coming....Inaccurate, you will be proud of me

Inaccurate

I am already proud of you

InFaMouSLink

iTrader: (10)

I cant believe gerzand actually posted on Acurazine lol. Swoosh- He will de-friend you lol.

swoosh

iTrader: (5)

Thanks ...Your like a professor to me....and wanna here something like "kid you did a good job...am proud of you" hahaha

Yeah temme about it.....he actually posted....

but i didnt give away any info

Sonnick

When his car is done it will be a full fledged beast. He's already trapping 103 in the auto on 27lb 19" wheels. That's easily another 1-2mph on stock wheels and more on a drag setup.

anx1300c

iTrader: (2)

Ehh, stock wheels are 24 lbs, so 12 lbs lighter for all four. There's no real formula, but most agree a 3 or 4:1 ratio for rotational weight, so it would be the equivalent of losing 36-48 lbs of dead weight. That's only good for maybe 3/10 to 1/2 mph.

AbyssPearlTL

Hmm! I didn't think I was sitting on a chassis with this much potential, very interesting. I gotta amp up my reading on the J-series material.

swoosh

iTrader: (5)

^^^ you should....it is amazing....

@sonnicK: I though he was running tracklites....but well I could be mistaken....

the fenda rolla

Actually from what I've read, which is pretty substantial, is that for every pound of unsprung weight lost is the equivalent of about losing 10 lbs in the car...so for my 16 lb RPF1s that's about 8 lbs on each corner, which is about 320 lbs lost in the car...now that's huge...and I definitely feel it in acceleration, braking, and handling...

Inaccurate

Unsprung weight relates to how the suspension reacts to bumps.
Unsprung weight has no bearing on acceleration and deceleration.

Rotational mass related to acceleration and deceleration.
Rotational mass has no bearing to how the suspension reacts to bumps.

I usually refer to rotational mass as "dynamic weight". I do this for the sake of clarity for the reader.

Rotational mass is more commonly known as the Flywheel Effect. A heavy wheel is difficult to get into motion (rotation) and is difficult to slow it's rotation speed.

Then, there is the moment-of-inertia aspects to rotational mass. The further out from the axis that the mass is centered, the more flywheel effect the mass will have.

More advanced topics include the difference between weight and mass. Please Google this to learn more about this topic.

And for the record, I do not agree at all with the post directly above by " the fenda rolla". His weight reduction from the rims is not equivalent to 320 pounds of STATIC weight loss.

Each pound of rotational weight saved at wheel RPM (i.e. wheel weight) is worth 3 pounds of static body weight and each pound saved at engine RPM (driveshaft, flywheel, etc) is worth 15 pounds of static body weight. Allegedly, the book "Chassis Engineering" by Herb Adams has a chart showing this 1-3-15 relationship.

This seems to be a good rule of thumb to use when figuring effects of weight reduction on an average car. These figures are just rough estimates at best.

For me, these conversions factors appear sensible. And, based on my experiences with my "TL Diet", these conversion factors match my experiences.

anx1300c

iTrader: (2)

No way. Think about it. That would be like gaining ~32 whp through dynamic weight loss. A 6MT base loses a total of 38 hp (258bhp/220whp) through the entire driveline, ie. flywheel, transmission, axles, hubs, rotors, wheels, tires. Shaving off 8lbs per corner can't give you those kinds of gains.

Inaccurate

I estimate his dynamic weight reduction from the rims to be equivalent to 96 pounds of static weight loss.

8 Lbs per rim x 4 rims x 3 equivalency factor = 96 Lbs Static