enkrypt3d Posted September 1, 2014 Author Share Posted September 1, 2014 (edited) Now I know for sure I need a front locker to get over some of these obstacles the mod bug continues.... Edited September 1, 2014 by enkrypt3d Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedPath88 Posted September 1, 2014 Share Posted September 1, 2014 A rear locker is easily found in the North America (fronts are not), will cause less problems than a front would and will make a world of difference in what you can do and where you can go. Might actually force you to make use of that new winch and bumper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enkrypt3d Posted September 1, 2014 Author Share Posted September 1, 2014 (edited) yea for sure + winch + compressor + etc etc haha ~2k in parts (again) Edited September 1, 2014 by enkrypt3d Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Precise1 Posted September 1, 2014 Share Posted September 1, 2014 Not necessarily... 9.5k# Smittybilt winch for $300 @ 4wheelparts, lock right mechanical locker for about $300 and what else did you need? B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thorpe991 Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 Not necessarily... 9.5k# Smittybilt winch for $300 @ 4wheelparts, lock right mechanical locker for about $300 and what else did you need? B Sorry to thread jack a min but have you ordered from them before? i was going to but decided to do research and found a ton of bad reviews so i didnt order anything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedPath88 Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 I've ordered from them a few times via phone and website, and never had any issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Precise1 Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 4wheelparts? I've bought/ordered 3-4 things through them and never had an issue, but I knew the parts/numbers before I called and never had to return anything. I'd give them 4 out of 5 as a parts house, but I'd never let them work on my truck, maybe that is where the negativity comes from. B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enkrypt3d Posted September 3, 2014 Author Share Posted September 3, 2014 Just ordered some goodies: Air Intake UpgradeARB 37 Quart Refrigerator FreezerMile Marker SEC8 Electric WinchTJM 17,600 lb Snatch Strap 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nefarious Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 Did u get the ebay intake?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enkrypt3d Posted September 5, 2014 Author Share Posted September 5, 2014 https://www.4x4parts.com/nissan/air-intake-upgrade-p-5.html I bought this one - not really sure what it looks like but hoping it's good... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enkrypt3d Posted September 5, 2014 Author Share Posted September 5, 2014 Anyone have any experience with this intake? I talked to JWT and they said its not really worth it to upgrade the MAF with programming the ECU unless I was doing a full engine build... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nefarious Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 (edited) The maf is definitely a restriction on these engines. It is the tightest bottleneck in the entire intake system. If you actually look inside the maf housing, the air path is TINY. With a stock engine, upgrading it won't make a huge difference. But once you have headers, exhaust, intake, cams etc, the maf becomes restrictive, especially when you are running a 3.3l block. Nissan uses a 90 mm maf on the vg33e equipped vehicles from the factory for a reason. Edited September 5, 2014 by Nefarious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamzan Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 Until I can bolt it on without farking around with tunes, I won't do it to my DD. I had the cone filter on mine for a while. It sounded cool but I'm not sure it added any power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nefarious Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 (edited) Depends on the temperature of the air under the hood. I'm running a 2.5 inch snorkel with an inline air filter so it will be the coldest air i can get Edited September 5, 2014 by Nefarious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enkrypt3d Posted September 5, 2014 Author Share Posted September 5, 2014 Yea I may just get another MAF and bore it out then use my good one come testing time heh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Precise1 Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 The maf is definitely a restriction on these engines. It is the tightest bottleneck in the entire intake system. If you actually look inside the maf housing, the air path is TINY. With a stock engine, upgrading it won't make a huge difference. But once you have headers, exhaust, intake, cams etc, the maf becomes restrictive, especially when you are running a 3.3l block. Nissan uses a 90 mm maf on the vg33e equipped vehicles from the factory for a reason. Considering that an engine is really just an air pump for these purposes, isn't the air volume purely calculated by displacement and RPM in a freeflow state? Shouldn't the VG33 only need exactly 10% more intake volume than a VG30? The stock MAF diameter of a VG30 is 50mm (1,963mm2). I can't believe they went with a 90mm diameter for 10% more displacement (6,360mm2) which is almost 3.25x the area. B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nefarious Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 (edited) They definitely did go to a 90 mm maf on the 3.3. My thoughts is that the stock maf was never large enough anyways. It may help with velocity a little bit at very low rpm but my truck spends most of its time between 2000-4000 rpm daily driving and that is not where a tiny maf like that would be flowing efficiently. Even the vg30e in the maxima and the m30 both use a 90 mm maf as well and that's on a 3.0. Those engines made 160 hp factory instead of 153 hp. I have copies of the tunes for all of the above mentioned vehicles and other than a slight bit more fuel on the m30 they are very similar in fuel maps and the timing are almost identical so it's doubtful that extra power was made in tune alone as they are so close. if peak torque on these engines is made between 2800-3800 rpm (depending on camshafts profile) and that is also where I spend most of my time while daily driving then that is also where I plan to tune for optimum flow. I don't need a few more off idle torque pounds but I do need more mid range torque and therefore power. this is all speculation based on my experience but I will be running several virtual dyno runs before and after my changes to document the improvements. Virtual dyno is known to be between 1-3% as accurate as a true chassis dyno, so with multiple runs to average before and after I'll be happy with the accuracy for confirmation of gains. Edited September 6, 2014 by Nefarious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Precise1 Posted September 7, 2014 Share Posted September 7, 2014 Sorry, I wasn't trying to say that you are wrong about the size of the MAF, just that I find it hard to believe that they were off by a factor of 3x and never addressed it, especially with a fairly simple component like that. There must be something else going on... As for the Maxima amd M30, I'm pretty sure the HP increase is due to heads/cams and mapping, not just an increase in the MAF diameter. LOL, now I need to see it. I'll pull the MAF off of our 1999.0 R50 and measure it tomorrow. B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nefarious Posted September 7, 2014 Share Posted September 7, 2014 Well my theory is it was made with such a restriction to act as a venturi tube to increase air velocity at low engine speed and thus increasing low rpm torque slightly. This may help very low rpm torque to make the truck a bit more grunty off idle but sacrificing some higher end efficiency. I know the heads and cam shafts are the same between the m30, maxima, and pathfinder. The only difference is in the intake system (manifold and intake tube/maf). I have studied the fuel and timing maps of all of the above 3 vehicles and they are nearly identical to each other aside from some more fuel added under higher tp values on the m30 tune. I'm convinced nissan originally sacrificed some hp in the mid range to gain a bit of low grunt by tuning the intake in this way. Still my theory! I just love re engineering things and tweaking them to get the most I can. Please keep posted on the r 50 maf size. I know physically it looks just like the n60 maf dimension wise and it is 90 mm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nefarious Posted September 7, 2014 Share Posted September 7, 2014 I also plan to convert my wd21 to run the r 50 intake manifold/throttle body as well as some re ground cams from thezstore so the decrease in intake resistance will be even more important to make maximum efficiency Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Precise1 Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 Well my theory is it was made with such a restriction to act as a venturi tube to increase air velocity at low engine speed and thus increasing low rpm torque slightly. This may help very low rpm torque to make the truck a bit more grunty off idle but sacrificing some higher end efficiency. I know the heads and cam shafts are the same between the m30, maxima, and pathfinder. The only difference is in the intake system (manifold and intake tube/maf). I have studied the fuel and timing maps of all of the above 3 vehicles and they are nearly identical to each other aside from some more fuel added under higher tp values on the m30 tune. I'm convinced nissan originally sacrificed some hp in the mid range to gain a bit of low grunt by tuning the intake in this way. Still my theory! I just love re engineering things and tweaking them to get the most I can. Please keep posted on the r 50 maf size. I know physically it looks just like the n60 maf dimension wise and it is 90 mm I could have sworn I read of some differences, but I have not studied it nor can I trust my brain... This would make sense, but only in the MAF sense since the popular swap for 'tuners' is to use the Pathfinder intake for VG30s Ok, the break down for the MAFs is: Model......Intake ID......Restrict ID.....+/- Factor......Min Area WD21.....77.5mm........50mm ..........+57mm2*1.....2002mm2 R50........71.5mm........70.5mm........-768mm2*2....3135mm2 So, the 70.5mm diameter R50 VG33 MAF has 1.57x the area in cross section for 10% higher displacement. By what I understand, this should mean lower velocity/better efficiency at cruising/highway speed for the R50, and higher velocity/low end torque for the WD21. This makes sense considering the build evolution, and makes me wonder that if you run a VG33 with VG30 cams and other components, are you starving it for air flow at RPM? At what RPM? This is where the 'tuners' take over, I just do metrics and math... *1) The WD21 MAF has an 8.5mm hole offset from the main bore to feed the sensor which is redirected into the intake, hence the + *2) The R50 MAF has a 'tonsil' that hangs down in the center, exposing the sensor element and blocking air flow, aprox 16x48mm, hence the - B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nefarious Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 (edited) Perfect thanks for the measurement info there! That's my take on it anyway, is that once a vg33 is swapped in and is using more aggressive cams, headers/exhaust, and even a vg33e intake manifold and throttle body, that small maf is not beneficial anymore since the low end torque has already been increased to a point above factory as it is. The rest of the gains to really wake the motor up on my opinion will be ditching the rest of the intake restriction to allow the mid range to really open up and make the most of the rest of the modifications. This should optimize in town and highway driving (120 km per hour speed limits here) and I am not worried about sacrificing a small amount of low rpm torque since after the work I have done I will still have much more than stock levels anyway throughout the rpm range. I'm going to do my best to log virtual dyno graphs before and after the changes to document effects on the power band Edited September 10, 2014 by Nefarious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enkrypt3d Posted September 10, 2014 Author Share Posted September 10, 2014 Great info guys! I'll have to start building a VG34 and get Nefarious to help me lol.... jk In other news ,my 37 qt frig showed up... works great by the couch to keep beers cold haha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nefarious Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 Sweet man!! That fridge looks rad... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enkrypt3d Posted September 10, 2014 Author Share Posted September 10, 2014 Thanks man! Cant wait to load'er up for this weekend... Just need to find a cart so I can wheel it on to the beach! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now