3.2 VS 3.5!! - Page 3

*Dv8* · 10-22-07, 01:43 PM

I would actually like to see the VIS dyno test preformed on a 3.5 RL stock motor now.

I know we can squeeze 250whp from these motors N/A. I'll be making a hybrid T2 intake manifold as part of my turbo build, it probably wont be dyno'd N/A however.

On the pre-ems dyno graphs when using the stage 2 bayou type 1 ecu, fuel correction was handled significantly by the AFC.

Hey Eric, I should of printed out the overlay of my 316/345 over yours and mine N/A dyno, that would have been real interesting to dissect

~Dv8

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Marley

Awesome thread! I love the comparisons, especially Christian's graph laid over yours. I'm curious to see how Eric's car dynos after he sorts through the exhaust, and especially curious about his y-pipe

. My hunch is that both of you have maxed out the flow of the heads (or intake?), and it's time for some bigger valves and/or FI. I'm also EXTREMELY curious as to how christian's car would dyno with a type II manifold.

The results of the VIS tests were no surprise to me, I was certain Honda would not have wasted the money engineering a system that didn't function. I understand christian's theory behind reducing torque to gain traction, but it seems like it can be done by adding some switches to the VIS solenoids instead of completely removing the flaps.

I was pleasantly surprised with the results of the chips and I really appreciate you taking the time to dyno them and overlay the graphs. I think this is the first Type II ECU chip comparison with a before and after dyno. Christian's dyno was with the 1st gen type I ECU which has much different coding. Make sure to get an EGT sensor to monitor the temperature of the exhaust -- you are running quite a bit more timing then stock. My concern is that you might be running too much timing in certain areas of the map which may cause the knock sensors to pull it back to a level where you are actually losing power.

Blackend: I'm getting back on my feet, I may start selling them again in the future but right now that is the least of my concerns. As far as the "Stage 4" chip, Eric gave away the recipe for it right in this thread

. Its not hard to figure out - it's spelled out in plain english in his first post. I'd be happy to post up the .bin files on request.

-Matt

GreekPower · 10-22-07, 02:03 PM

if i read this right and i dont think i did. removing vis shows no improvement in power? so we should all keep vis?

Alperovich · 10-22-07, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreekPower

if i read this right and i dont think i did. removing vis shows no improvement in power? so we should all keep vis?

exactly, removing the VIS showed LOSS of power and torque. we SHOULD all keep our vis.

*Dv8* · 10-22-07, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alperovich

exactly, removing the VIS showed LOSS of power and torque. we SHOULD all keep our vis.

Actually, unhooking VIS on a 3.2 showed the best topend and peak numbers after 4.500rpm.
Suffering in the low end, but in between the other two canidates, low and high.
I consider it the better blend of the test.
An overlay of no VIS(no: 09) and best dyno (no:14) should have been done.

For those interested in topend & peak power on a manual 3.2 and not concerned with daily driving, no VIS is actually best.
Matt's compromise of switch activated flaps might be even better.

~Dv8

Forevralegend · 10-22-07, 08:26 PM

yea i think if we had a switch to open all flaps at 5200 rpms, but keep the flaps working at the lower rpms, that would be the best setup, as far as just removing the flaps... there is a big loss of lower end power and its not worth it.

Forevralegend · 10-22-07, 08:29 PM

unless thats pretty close to where they both open normally anyways... we could find out my just printing out my normal vis system dyno with these to tell

acc-unit · 10-23-07, 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dv8

Mods like this arent even worth bringing up in comparo because theyre so miniscule on a dyno.

Didn't kyle post a dyno of his pullies in which it looked like they were good for +10 peak whp?

But anyway, awesome stuff guys. I think it's safe to say that the midrange of the 3.5 is definately the determining factor when you line those two cars up on the street.

I'd also like to point out that the dv8 N/A 3.5 dyno (after EMS) is almost identical to a stock 350z dyno, not bad at all!

Alperovich · 10-23-07, 02:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acc-unit

Didn't kyle post a dyno of his pullies in which it looked like they were good for +10 peak whp?

But anyway, awesome stuff guys. I think it's safe to say that the midrange of the 3.5 is definately the determining factor when you line those two cars up on the street.

I'd also like to point out that the dv8 N/A 3.5 dyno (after EMS) is almost identical to a stock 350z dyno, not bad at all!

also i'd like to remind every1 that dv8 does have typeII heads.

I'd like to see a dyno of a 3.5 (with its stock head) with a similar setup to these guys. that should be a interesting comparison.

and i defiantly agree that we CAN make better use of our flaps.

*Dv8* · 10-23-07, 03:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acc-unit

Didn't kyle post a dyno of his pullies in which it looked like they were good for +10 peak whp?

Yes. The crank labrat pulley weights around 2-3 lbs. On a type II thats a 7-8lbs difference(10lbs). The other 3 pulleys(PS, AC, ALT) probably account for 3/4 to 1 lbs together in savings.
Kyle wrote it all up somewhere. The whole kit makes a big difference, I only have the PS and ALT pulley.
Beating up on 350z and G35's is what i pride myself on

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alperovich

also i'd like to remind every1 that dv8 does have typeII heads.

I'd like to see a dyno of a 3.5 (with its stock head) with a similar setup to these guys. that should be a interesting comparison.

I do have TYPE II heads, according to Matt the gain is insignifigant compare to RL heads. Someone needs to dyno a modded 3.5 to put that to rest, Overdrive, Telion?
~Dv8

Telion · 10-23-07, 05:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dv8

Yes. The crank labrat pulley weights around 2-3 lbs. On a type II thats a 7-8lbs difference(10lbs). The other 3 pulleys(PS, AC, ALT) probably account for 3/4 to 1 lbs together in savings.
Kyle wrote it all up somewhere. The whole kit makes a big difference, I only have the PS and ALT pulley.
Beating up on 350z and G35's is what i pride myself on

I do have TYPE II heads, according to Matt the gain is insignifigant compare to RL heads. Someone needs to dyno a modded 3.5 to put that to rest, Overdrive, Telion?
~Dv8

Working on it I intended to do it Sunday actually but then I ran into the whole car won't start issue so I will attempt it again this weekend.

sr5guy · 10-23-07, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dv8

Yes. The crank labrat pulley weights around 2-3 lbs. On a type II thats a 7-8lbs difference(10lbs). The other 3 pulleys(PS, AC, ALT) probably account for 3/4 to 1 lbs together in savings.
Kyle wrote it all up somewhere. The whole kit makes a big difference, I only have the PS and ALT pulley.
Beating up on 350z and G35's is what i pride myself on

I do have TYPE II heads, according to Matt the gain is insignifigant compare to RL heads. Someone needs to dyno a modded 3.5 to put that to rest, Overdrive, Telion?
~Dv8

The stock 91-92 automatic type I pulley weighs in at 5 1/2lbs, the question in my head is what horsepower gain does the labrat crank pulley have over using the lighter OEM one.

I never said the gains with the type II heads were insignificant, I just questioned whether it was actually worth all of the work with frankenstein-ing the intake manifold and water passages. Also, Kenso discovered that the TII cams and stiffer springs would drop right in to the 3.5 heads. The basis of my questioning it was Kenso's type II manifold upgrade dyno. He got 90% of the benefits of the Type II motor just by upgrading to the TII manifold. There is also the issue of the 3.5 heads having a less robust valve train. I would like to see an expert comment on what the suggested upper RPM limits would be for the 3.5 heads.

-Matt

*Dv8* · 10-23-07, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Marley

I never said the gains with the type II heads were insignificant, I just questioned whether it was actually worth all of the work with frankenstein-ing the intake manifold and water passages. Also, Kenso discovered that the TII cams and stiffer springs would drop right in to the 3.5 heads. The basis of my questioning it was Kenso's type II manifold upgrade dyno. He got 90% of the benefits of the Type II motor just by upgrading to the TII manifold. There is also the issue of the 3.5 heads having a less robust valve train. I would like to see an expert comment on what the suggested upper RPM limits would be for the 3.5 heads.

-Matt

10% sounds pretty insignificant to me

Did those type 2 springs in a rl head actually work? Wern't people snapping bolts?

~Dv8

sr5guy · 10-23-07, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dv8

10% sounds pretty insignificant to me

Did those type 2 springs in a rl head actually work? Wern't people snapping bolts?

~Dv8

The dyno I'm speaking of was actually quite a nice balance. If I remember correctly, he didn't loose much of the low end torque of the type I but gained quite a bit up top.

I'm pretty sure telion has TII cams and springs installed in the 3.5heads. Swift supposedly had them also. The reason telion was snapping the bolts was because the tapped hole in the head was filled with oil preventing the bolt from going all the way down (hydraulic lock).

-Matt

GreekPower · 10-23-07, 03:21 PM

matt I think u got your names confused. someone in chicago tried the springs but snapped. telion i think is just t2 cams.

why doesnt a 3.5 guy try the chevy springs? I know some people are doing that

*Dv8* · 10-23-07, 04:21 PM

My EMS pwns you!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Marley

The dyno I'm speaking of was actually quite a nice balance. If I remember correctly, he didn't loose much of the low end torque of the type I but gained quite a bit up top.

I'm pretty sure telion has TII cams and springs installed in the 3.5heads. Swift supposedly had them also. The reason telion was snapping the bolts was because the tapped hole in the head was filled with oil preventing the bolt from going all the way down (hydraulic lock).

-Matt

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreekPower

matt I think u got your names confused. someone in chicago tried the springs but snapped. telion i think is just t2 cams.

why doesnt a 3.5 guy try the chevy springs? I know some people are doing that

Telion was experiencing snapping bolts too.

Power falls off before 7k anyway. N/A better springs aren't really needed and eric's dynos prove that.

10-22-07, 08:26 PM	#35 (permalink)
Forevralegend Type II King Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Sacramento Posts: 1,118 Car 1: 94 Legend Gs type II iTrader: (11)	yea i think if we had a switch to open all flaps at 5200 rpms, but keep the flaps working at the lower rpms, that would be the best setup, as far as just removing the flaps... there is a big loss of lower end power and its not worth it. __________________ mods- 2.5" mandrel exhaust, deleted cat, cold air intake, web cam regrinds, comp cam valve springs, port & polish heads and manifold, tb bypass, egr block, five speed clutch/flywheel, 80a polyurethane mounts all around, type 1 pulley, headers,re-fabed y-pipe, SR5guy Custom Chip, 6speed swap, safc II, strut bar, F/R sway bars, FL tie bars, ksports,tune 243.3 hp 197.7 ftlb N/A dynapack before manual swap 232.8 hp 204.0 ftlb N/A dynojet 10/19/07 13.737 1/4 mile @ 100.207 mph & 2.012 60' NA

10-22-07, 08:29 PM	#36 (permalink)
Forevralegend Type II King Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Sacramento Posts: 1,118 Car 1: 94 Legend Gs type II iTrader: (11)	unless thats pretty close to where they both open normally anyways... we could find out my just printing out my normal vis system dyno with these to tell __________________ mods- 2.5" mandrel exhaust, deleted cat, cold air intake, web cam regrinds, comp cam valve springs, port & polish heads and manifold, tb bypass, egr block, five speed clutch/flywheel, 80a polyurethane mounts all around, type 1 pulley, headers,re-fabed y-pipe, SR5guy Custom Chip, 6speed swap, safc II, strut bar, F/R sway bars, FL tie bars, ksports,tune 243.3 hp 197.7 ftlb N/A dynapack before manual swap 232.8 hp 204.0 ftlb N/A dynojet 10/19/07 13.737 1/4 mile @ 100.207 mph & 2.012 60' NA

Remove Advertisements Sponsored Links
The Acura Legend & Acura RL Forum Advertisement

10-22-07, 02:03 PM	#32 (permalink)
GreekPower Banned Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Pittsburgh,PA Posts: 10,458 Car 1: 1992 Acura L"S" Sedan Car 2: 1991 3/S Turbo's 2x Car 3: 2005 Grand Prix iTrader: (13)	if i read this right and i dont think i did. removing vis shows no improvement in power? so we should all keep vis?

10-23-07, 03:21 PM	#44 (permalink)
GreekPower Banned Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Pittsburgh,PA Posts: 10,458 Car 1: 1992 Acura L"S" Sedan Car 2: 1991 3/S Turbo's 2x Car 3: 2005 Grand Prix iTrader: (13)	matt I think u got your names confused. someone in chicago tried the springs but snapped. telion i think is just t2 cams. why doesnt a 3.5 guy try the chevy springs? I know some people are doing that