Pathfinder TB
08-25-2005, 05:10 PM
#2
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 28
this is like your fourth thread today when are you gonna start searching man. 
and this is not a new thing just to some
http://forums.maxima.org/showthread.php?t=257931
and this is not a new thing just to some
http://forums.maxima.org/showthread.php?t=257931
08-26-2005, 08:05 AM
#4
I don't think anybody has done a before and after dyno where the TB is the only mod. People usually incorporate the TB as part of an entire intake revamp, such as installing a MEVI or 00VI, or installing 3" SC piping.
That being said, a larger TB isn't going to help much unless you are moving copious amounts of air through it. A normally aspirated Maxima isn't going to gain too much just from the TB, except maybe in the case of people running high rev limits.
That being said, a larger TB isn't going to help much unless you are moving copious amounts of air through it. A normally aspirated Maxima isn't going to gain too much just from the TB, except maybe in the case of people running high rev limits.
08-27-2005, 09:05 AM
#5
Originally Posted by Stephen Max
I don't think anybody has done a before and after dyno where the TB is the only mod. People usually incorporate the TB as part of an entire intake revamp, such as installing a MEVI or 00VI, or installing 3" SC piping.
That being said, a larger TB isn't going to help much unless you are moving copious amounts of air through it. A normally aspirated Maxima isn't going to gain too much just from the TB, except maybe in the case of people running high rev limits.
That being said, a larger TB isn't going to help much unless you are moving copious amounts of air through it. A normally aspirated Maxima isn't going to gain too much just from the TB, except maybe in the case of people running high rev limits.
08-27-2005, 09:29 AM
#7
yeah, people like me just "snatched" them for no reasons.
acutally, i'm getting everything ready because i cannot stop my crave for more VQPOWER with our cars. i want to do all N/A mods available for our cars, and when that's done, i may think about SC-ing it. so PFTB isn't a bad idea, right?
acutally, i'm getting everything ready because i cannot stop my crave for more VQPOWER with our cars. i want to do all N/A mods available for our cars, and when that's done, i may think about SC-ing it. so PFTB isn't a bad idea, right?
08-27-2005, 09:34 AM
#8
Originally Posted by cyu1
yeah, people like me just "snatched" them for no reasons.
acutally, i'm getting everything ready because i cannot stop my crave for more VQPOWER with our cars. i want to do all N/A mods available for our cars, and when that's done, i may think about SC-ing it. so PFTB isn't a bad idea, right?
acutally, i'm getting everything ready because i cannot stop my crave for more VQPOWER with our cars. i want to do all N/A mods available for our cars, and when that's done, i may think about SC-ing it. so PFTB isn't a bad idea, right?
08-29-2005, 04:59 PM
#9
the mallfinder TB might actually hurt your top end power on a 3.0 while giving you slightly more HP/TQ on the low end. You need high velocity air coming into the cylinders at high rpms because the valves are only open for a few milleseconds to fill up the cylinder.
08-29-2005, 08:58 PM
#10
Originally Posted by foobeca
the mallfinder TB might actually hurt your top end power on a 3.0 while giving you slightly more HP/TQ on the low end. You need high velocity air
Originally Posted by Stephen Max
A normally aspirated Maxima isn't going to gain too much just from the TB, except maybe in the case of people running high rev limits.
Originally Posted by nismology
My statement was directed to 3.0's with I/Y/E etc.
08-29-2005, 10:35 PM
#11
The MallFinder needs more low end TQ at the expense of top end power because of its weight. This is why the frontier/xterra VQ40 has the same amount of HP as the 3.5. I would say that if you want slightly more low end TQ, but less top end, go for it.
When the Nissan engineers redesigned the VQ30DE and made the DE-K, they increased the size of the TB a little, but not as big as the pathfinder. I would say that with the VI and mods, the 00 TB is prolly the optimum size, that is, the best compromise.
Until someone dynos it, I think we're all just talking out of our a**ses.
When the Nissan engineers redesigned the VQ30DE and made the DE-K, they increased the size of the TB a little, but not as big as the pathfinder. I would say that with the VI and mods, the 00 TB is prolly the optimum size, that is, the best compromise.
Until someone dynos it, I think we're all just talking out of our a**ses.
08-30-2005, 08:35 AM
#15
Originally Posted by foobeca
The MallFinder needs more low end TQ at the expense of top end power because of its weight.
When the Nissan engineers redesigned the VQ30DE and made the DE-K, they increased the size of the TB a little, but not as big as the pathfinder. I would say that with the VI and mods, the 00 TB is prolly the optimum size, that is, the best compromise.
Until someone dynos it, I think we're all just talking out of our a**ses.
Which brings me back to my original post:
Man the people that actually need PF TB's (read: 4th gens with 3.5 swaps) can't find them anywhere cus 3.0 guys with bolt-ons ****** them up for no reason.
08-30-2005, 08:49 AM
#17
Originally Posted by Stephen Max
Most people experience an increase in throttle response with a larger TB.
08-30-2005, 09:01 AM
#18
Originally Posted by nismology
Are you speaking in general, or specifically to this discussion? If the latter, that's new's to me. I've read at least a few complaints about this on this forum over the past 2 years.
My experience is increased throttle response, and I have heard others say the same thing.
The increase in throttle response is due to more area being opened up for the same amount of throttle opening, compared to a smaller TB.
08-30-2005, 09:05 AM
#19
Originally Posted by nismology
How is this relavent to the discussion/topic? Furthermore, that grunt comes from cam profile and timing and intake manifold design more than the TB. All FWD 3.5's that i know of all have a 70mm throttle body as well. SR20 is make 260 WHP with the same 70mm throttle so that "more low-end/less top-end" theory goes out the window. How in the world can a larger TB produce more low-end on a car with a smaller displacement than it was designed for? It's common sense really. Larger diameter=lower intake velocity at lower RPM=less low-RPM torque. You'd be lucky to not LOSE any torque. This mod is for top-end power, if ANYTHING.
Engineering is all about compromises. Unless you have some kind of VI, then you can optimize your intake/exhaust and cam profile for low end TQ, mid range, or high end power. Honda figured out a long time ago that high end HP sells and doesn't give a rat's rear end about low end TQ.
GM, Ford, and Dodge primarily make trucks and Stupid Urban Vehicles that need the low end TQ just to get their heavy a**ses moving. That's why the most of their engines are pushrods or SOHC.
I think Nissan did a really good job on the DE-K and the 3.5 in designing an engine that has good low and midrange power, but also decent (but not great) top end power with a VI.
08-30-2005, 09:27 AM
#20
Supporting Maxima.org Member
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Posts: 1,756
Originally Posted by Stephen Max
Both.
My experience is increased throttle response, and I have heard others say the same thing.
The increase in throttle response is due to more area being opened up for the same amount of throttle opening, compared to a smaller TB.
My experience is increased throttle response, and I have heard others say the same thing.
The increase in throttle response is due to more area being opened up for the same amount of throttle opening, compared to a smaller TB.
08-30-2005, 09:29 AM
#21
Originally Posted by Stephen Max
Both.
My experience is increased throttle response, and I have heard others say the same thing.
My experience is increased throttle response, and I have heard others say the same thing.
The increase in throttle response is due to more area being opened up for the same amount of throttle opening, compared to a smaller TB.
08-30-2005, 09:37 AM
#22
Originally Posted by 96sleeper
I had increased throttle response from the TB as well.
08-30-2005, 10:46 AM
#23
Originally Posted by nismology
You're boosted, so the objective is to cram as much air as possible in there. N/A it's a little different. Were these others boosted as well? Don't quote me, but IIRC I30tMikeD complained about this when he did this mod when he was still n/a with the MEVI/ECU etc.
Makes sense in theory, but what about the reduced velocity of the air entering the intake manifold?
Makes sense in theory, but what about the reduced velocity of the air entering the intake manifold?
Butt dynos can be deceptive, but I immediately noticed an increase in throttle response. To me the difference was very pronounced, even annoying until I got used to it. Being boosted no doubt had an effect.
Did Mike say he did not sense any increased throttle response, or was he saying he did not sense any power increase? Also, did Mike port-match the throat of the IM?
08-30-2005, 11:08 AM
#24
no doubt, i sensed an increased in throttle response, too. i noticed right after i plugged in the pf tb, i started chirping 3rd gears. i even remembered taking the car down to a meet where all these integra boys didn't believe when i told them i chirped 3rd. then i took all of them one at a time to ride my car. when they get off, amazed and believed, they tell the next guys to hold on to their *****.
of course i know my car is N/A, not as fast as FI cars, but it was true that I chirped 3rd after the tb install. Bobby and Jon, both orgers down here in Baton Rouge were there that night, too. and they have experienced the 3rd gear chirps. I really don't remember their org names, though. That was months ago, hope they still remember and can chime in to verify this.
i want to point out, pf tb wouldn't give gains on a stock N/A setup, but on a N/A 3.0 modded all the way down, I think it does give good gains. word...
EDIT: "I think it does give good gains"=well, i have installed it, and i know for a fact that it does give good gains.
of course i know my car is N/A, not as fast as FI cars, but it was true that I chirped 3rd after the tb install. Bobby and Jon, both orgers down here in Baton Rouge were there that night, too. and they have experienced the 3rd gear chirps. I really don't remember their org names, though. That was months ago, hope they still remember and can chime in to verify this.
i want to point out, pf tb wouldn't give gains on a stock N/A setup, but on a N/A 3.0 modded all the way down, I think it does give good gains. word...
EDIT: "I think it does give good gains"=well, i have installed it, and i know for a fact that it does give good gains.
08-30-2005, 11:45 AM
#25
Originally Posted by cyu1
i want to point out, pf tb wouldn't give gains on a stock N/A setup, but on a N/A 3.0 modded all the way down, I think it does give good gains. word...
EDIT: "I think it does give good gains"=well, i have installed it, and i know for a fact that it does give good gains.
Why is it throughout the past 2 years or so no one has shown solid dyno proof that this mod improves HP/TQ?
BTW, the fastest(trap) and quickest(E.T.) n/a 3.0 A32 ran a 13.43 @ 102 WITHOUT a PF TB.
http://forums.maxima.org/showthread.php?t=299895
08-30-2005, 11:55 AM
#26
I have an interesting discovery that I have been keeping secret...
Well when I switched from the stock manifold to a ported 2000 VI with a 70 mm Pathy TB my butt dyno felt like I had gained more TQ in the midrange.
This was proven to be misleading because the ported 2K VI LOST TQ however it has a smoother power band.
Here are some dyno comparisons-
Blue is stock manifold with stock air/fuel and timing.
Red is ported 2K VI with 70 mm Pathy TB with stock air/fuel and timing, vias shut off.
Green is ported 2K VI with 70 mm Pathy TB with stock air/fuel and +8 timing with SMT, vias shut off.
The blue run was done with stock cat in palce so my A/F ratio looks much leaner, 21 and 22 were done with a test pipe. Also the blue run was the first run of that dyno session (done in the winter as well) and the ones with the 2k VI were after a couple of runs, so the losses appear more extreme do to heat soak conditions. I had some issues with the SMT on my dyno runs with the VI so I made 5 runs earlier correcting the massive misfires I was getting. Then I did run 21 and 22. Also it was about 95 F in that dyno on that day. However all runs were done on the same dyno in 3rd gear and are SAE corrected.
Appears that I took a hit in volumetric efficiency from the ported VI and pathy TB but I gained it all back and then some with timing advance and A/F tuning. Volumetric efficency, timing advance, and detonation have a direct correlation with each other especially at WOT conditions.
This makes me believe why Kevlo's car detonated so badly on the dyno with my SMT timing and A/F maps. IIRC he has a 2K stock manifold with a stock 2K throttle body. He gained like 20~25 WTQ @ 4000 rpm but had to stop the run cause the engine was pinging so badly.
Well when I switched from the stock manifold to a ported 2000 VI with a 70 mm Pathy TB my butt dyno felt like I had gained more TQ in the midrange.
This was proven to be misleading because the ported 2K VI LOST TQ however it has a smoother power band.
Here are some dyno comparisons-
Blue is stock manifold with stock air/fuel and timing.
Red is ported 2K VI with 70 mm Pathy TB with stock air/fuel and timing, vias shut off.
Green is ported 2K VI with 70 mm Pathy TB with stock air/fuel and +8 timing with SMT, vias shut off.
The blue run was done with stock cat in palce so my A/F ratio looks much leaner, 21 and 22 were done with a test pipe. Also the blue run was the first run of that dyno session (done in the winter as well) and the ones with the 2k VI were after a couple of runs, so the losses appear more extreme do to heat soak conditions. I had some issues with the SMT on my dyno runs with the VI so I made 5 runs earlier correcting the massive misfires I was getting. Then I did run 21 and 22. Also it was about 95 F in that dyno on that day. However all runs were done on the same dyno in 3rd gear and are SAE corrected.
Appears that I took a hit in volumetric efficiency from the ported VI and pathy TB but I gained it all back and then some with timing advance and A/F tuning. Volumetric efficency, timing advance, and detonation have a direct correlation with each other especially at WOT conditions.
This makes me believe why Kevlo's car detonated so badly on the dyno with my SMT timing and A/F maps. IIRC he has a 2K stock manifold with a stock 2K throttle body. He gained like 20~25 WTQ @ 4000 rpm but had to stop the run cause the engine was pinging so badly.
08-30-2005, 01:33 PM
#28
Originally Posted by vipervadim
hey joe i didn't know you had the pf tb. you must have nice response is with the smt, pf tb, and 00vi.
Originally Posted by vipervadim
but why was the vias off? no top end power.
Blue is what I started with and red is what the SMT and opening the vias did for my car.
08-30-2005, 01:46 PM
#29
Originally Posted by 98SEBlackMax
Those dynos were posted cause they are the most similar to show that I had midrange losses with the pathy TB and porting the VI to accomidate the pathy TB.
Just playin devil's advocate, that's all...And in case anyone missed my previous post...
http://forums.maxima.org/showthread.php?t=299895...Check the mod list...notice how the PF TB isn't there.
For years Dave B was preaching that the PF TB was useless on an n/a 3.0 and that bigger wasn't always better. Nobody really believed him, including myself. Now i know he was right all along because, to this day, there has been no CONCLUSIVE evidence that it's worth a damn.
Also, Nealoc187 is respected as one of the great pioneers of A32 n/a performance and he didn't find it necessary to include the PF TB as a useful mod. If he had thought it would help his car get down the 1/4 mile any quicker, i'm sure he'd have hopped on it. His 1/4 mile record still stands, stock TB and all. I admired his no-nonsense approach to n/a modding. No BS, no hype, just parts that perform.
Don't even get me started on UDP's...
08-30-2005, 03:32 PM
#30
Originally Posted by nismology
Hmmmm...so you had mid-range losses that had to be made up for with tuning huh? Interesting. The proof is in the pudding folks. There are A33's with bolt-ons putting out similar numbers, if not higher, with stock TB's. Nice numbers BTW... Just playin devil's advocate, that's all...
And in case anyone missed my previous post...
http://forums.maxima.org/showthread.php?t=299895...Check the mod list...notice how the PF TB isn't there.
For years Dave B was preaching that the PF TB was useless on an n/a 3.0 and that bigger wasn't always better. Nobody really believed him, including myself. Now i know he was right all along because, to this day, there has been no CONCLUSIVE evidence that it's worth a damn.
Also, Nealoc187 is respected as one of the great pioneers of A32 n/a performance and he didn't find it necessary to include the PF TB as a useful mod. If he had thought it would help his car get down the 1/4 mile any quicker, i'm sure he'd have hopped on it. His 1/4 mile record still stands, stock TB and all. I admired his no-nonsense approach to n/a modding. No BS, no hype, just parts that perform. Don't even get me started on UDP's...
Just playin devil's advocate, that's all...And in case anyone missed my previous post...
http://forums.maxima.org/showthread.php?t=299895...Check the mod list...notice how the PF TB isn't there.
For years Dave B was preaching that the PF TB was useless on an n/a 3.0 and that bigger wasn't always better. Nobody really believed him, including myself. Now i know he was right all along because, to this day, there has been no CONCLUSIVE evidence that it's worth a damn.
Also, Nealoc187 is respected as one of the great pioneers of A32 n/a performance and he didn't find it necessary to include the PF TB as a useful mod. If he had thought it would help his car get down the 1/4 mile any quicker, i'm sure he'd have hopped on it. His 1/4 mile record still stands, stock TB and all. I admired his no-nonsense approach to n/a modding. No BS, no hype, just parts that perform.
Don't even get me started on UDP's...What? MY UDP gave me 30whp on the dyno??? You saw it..
08-30-2005, 03:55 PM
#31
Supporting Maxima.org Member
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Posts: 1,756
Originally Posted by nismology
Hmmmm...so you had mid-range losses that had to be made up for with tuning huh? Interesting. The proof is in the pudding folks. There are A33's with bolt-ons putting out similar numbers, if not higher, with stock TB's. Nice numbers BTW... Just playin devil's advocate, that's all...
And in case anyone missed my previous post...
http://forums.maxima.org/showthread.php?t=299895...Check the mod list...notice how the PF TB isn't there.
For years Dave B was preaching that the PF TB was useless on an n/a 3.0 and that bigger wasn't always better. Nobody really believed him, including myself. Now i know he was right all along because, to this day, there has been no CONCLUSIVE evidence that it's worth a damn.
Also, Nealoc187 is respected as one of the great pioneers of A32 n/a performance and he didn't find it necessary to include the PF TB as a useful mod. If he had thought it would help his car get down the 1/4 mile any quicker, i'm sure he'd have hopped on it. His 1/4 mile record still stands, stock TB and all. I admired his no-nonsense approach to n/a modding. No BS, no hype, just parts that perform. Don't even get me started on UDP's...
Just playin devil's advocate, that's all...And in case anyone missed my previous post...
http://forums.maxima.org/showthread.php?t=299895...Check the mod list...notice how the PF TB isn't there.
For years Dave B was preaching that the PF TB was useless on an n/a 3.0 and that bigger wasn't always better. Nobody really believed him, including myself. Now i know he was right all along because, to this day, there has been no CONCLUSIVE evidence that it's worth a damn.
Also, Nealoc187 is respected as one of the great pioneers of A32 n/a performance and he didn't find it necessary to include the PF TB as a useful mod. If he had thought it would help his car get down the 1/4 mile any quicker, i'm sure he'd have hopped on it. His 1/4 mile record still stands, stock TB and all. I admired his no-nonsense approach to n/a modding. No BS, no hype, just parts that perform.
Don't even get me started on UDP's...He had slicks on that run. Several have trapped higher than him, and dynoed more than him, including myself. Why don't you nutswing a little more. If I decide to buy slicks this fall, we shall see what happens to my et. Then will the pf tb be a good mod? I admit its not the be-all end-all mod, but for someone looking for every last ounce of cheap power available in the 3.0vq, every little bit helps. For most people, no, the pf tb is not a worthwhile mod.
08-30-2005, 04:26 PM
#32
Originally Posted by 96sleeper
He had slicks on that run. Several have trapped higher than him, and dynoed more than him, including myself. Why don't you nutswing a little more. If I decide to buy slicks this fall, we shall see what happens to my et. Then will the pf tb be a good mod? I admit its not the be-all end-all mod, but for someone looking for every last ounce of cheap power available in the 3.0vq, every little bit helps. For most people, no, the pf tb is not a worthwhile mod.
JK
Although I have nothing to back this up with, I feel that a VQ with 00VI/MEVI and JWT ECU will benefit from a PF TB, even if it is only a few HP. As pretty much a final NA mod, it may be more valuable for some people than others. Depends on your goal/budget.
For FI people, the gains should be more concrete. I hope/assume the same would be true for people running nitrous. If I ever get around to dynoing, I may try and swap in a PF TB if I can find one to use....
I'll just say that I plan on getting a PF TB when I get some funds together.....
EDIT- I think it's somewhat the same argument as for the UDP, only isn't applicable for FI guys.....a few HP is a few HP....add em all up and you got 10-15 HP from all these small mods...
08-30-2005, 04:51 PM
#34
Originally Posted by 96sleeper
He had slicks on that run. Several have trapped higher than him, and dynoed more than him, including myself.
Why don't you nutswing a little more.
If I decide to buy slicks this fall, we shall see what happens to my et. Then will the pf tb be a good mod?
I admit its not the be-all end-all mod, but for someone looking for every last ounce of cheap power available in the 3.0vq, every little bit helps. For most people, no, the pf tb is not a worthwhile mod.
08-30-2005, 05:55 PM
#36
Originally Posted by Seximus Maximus
They are not the holy grail of parts. They are not that hard to find.
08-30-2005, 05:59 PM
#37
Supporting Maxima.org Member
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Posts: 1,756
Originally Posted by nismology
You have extensive a/f tuning done as well as an exhaust cut-out, both of which have been proven to make good power. This still says nothing about the PF TB. And as for these people that out-trapped him, i'm sure they had notable mods other than a PF TB. And what do you say to A33's that out-dyno you with stock TB's? Besides, dyno numbers are pretty inaccurate except when used on a "baseline then mod" basis. He dyno'd lower than most with the same mods yet consistently out-trapped them at the track. Trap speeds > *
08-30-2005, 08:02 PM
#38
Originally Posted by 96sleeper
A safc is not extensive a/f tuning. I dynoed over 200whp before the cutout, or tuning, or headers for that matter. Dyno links to A33 (non 3.5) with more than 210hp at the wheels please? maybe 1, 2? I still have a higher trap than neal, even hitting the rev-limiter before I cross the line, and I weigh 100lbs more than him, what does that mean?
That aside, I see what you're saying, that last post seemed as if you're exposing the pathy TB as the only reason why you're trapping higher than Neal. The bottom line remains that no one has tested the pathy TB before and after by itself to see how much/if it makes more power.
I personally think it would create power, but barely worth the hassle (2-4 horses TOPS). I would definatly expect an increased throttle response. But then again, since there is no before and after dyno, its all assumptions and educated guessing.
08-31-2005, 06:59 AM
#40
Originally Posted by krismax
I have the fastest street tire 3.0 4th gen and i had a pathy TB
, but using street tire 1/4mile results to compare TB u'd still have driver skill and weather conditions as variables.Could one of the guys that have done the pathy TB install go to the dyno one time? 2 runs with stock TB then 2 runs with pathy TB. That'd be the only way to really see how much power/if any it makes over stock. I would do it myself if I had the pathy TB.