I mentioned that possiblity too -- if so, the small performance difference will vanish with tuning and you'll just have a very expensive noise maker bolted to the car...

I will say this: I have seen MANY crappy airbox designs -- this one actually seems to work pretty well. No butterfly valves to obstruct air -- straight path -- cool air ductwork.

I was going with the MAF's at first but I decided to go with the Injen C.A.I's. I'm guessing they have similar gains to the Gen 3 stillens. Haven't heard many mention the Injens ( feel free to coment on these). Anyways, in the end we won't really know the answer to the op's question unless we put this to the test. I don't think anyone wants to take the time to do this. Our cars are already well designed in the intake dept but like someone else said here, it all comes down to personal preference. "I" believe that colder air going In has to have a slight advantage in the overall HP/tq gain dept but that's just me....

Mazda RX8=178HP per litre
LF-A= 115HP per litre
458 Italia=126HP per litre

This:
http://www.the370z.com/intake-exhaus...-up-water.html

Mazda actually issued customer rebates with the first gen RX-8's because the power output they advertised was so grossly over-rated. IIRC they advertised around 240 bhp and the dyno's were in the 160-170 range.

Rx8 has a rotary, not to mention it was grossly overrated.


I was unaware the LFA and the 458 were "normal" cars...

I'm aware the RX-8 has a rotary, I use to own one. HP ratio per liter still applies here since we're talking about the engine itself and not the car.

I thought he meant normally aspirated, as in no FI.

I'm just saying, this is a relatively moot argument. Power to weight ratio is a more accurate measurement for performance.

RSX type S.............

/thread

Im bypassing reading the whole thread, but I had JWT Short ram intakes and made 0 hp gain. Then I put on stillen G3's and picked up about 17hp and it made more power everywhere, not just top end.

Normal ==not $300k.

Comparing HP/liter between the rotary is inevitably misleading as well.

Nobody said it is the best measure for performance, it's just a pretty impressive feat that we will likely never see again in a sub-$100k car.

Yes as "normal" I meant cars that are most of us price range. Now there is debate on hoow much displacement it has weather 1.3 or 2.6 liter...



I would go for the g3 forsure!! I have em on my car already:happydance:

Get the stillen and call it a day. On special right now at $500 shipped.

This:
http://www.the370z.com/intake-exhaus...-up-water.html[/QUOTE FROM cmike2780

Forgot to mention, mine is not a daily driver. Will never see rain..Again, its all personal preference. For some, its also what better suits their daily needs...

sr16ve. a 1.6 liter motor with 200 hp. similar to a b16b japan only type r motor. oh and the sr20ve vvel motor. 197 hp from 2.0 liter. both had vvel heads. sr16ve i think redlined at 8500 and the sr20ve redlined at 8000. watch out for se-r sentras with these motors dropped in, they can b very quick.

Its still slow

:icon18:lol

Actually that 2.0 sr20ve is a good motor, I just did a swap at my sbhop into a 99 sentre se.

Did Nissan buy the rights for the variable lift from Honda? I was studying these motors a few years back, and it was a blatant copy of VTEC.

With a decent driver, they will leave a Z around most tight road courses.

Stillen G3 hands down. Don't knock it until you try it!

They're all pink on the inside, but personally the Asians out perform the rest.



....intake analogy ;-)

both of those motors had vvel like our z. vvel is much more technically advanced than vtech. vvel has no intake cam and is computer controlled.

No, I'm pretty sure those had "Neo VVL". It didn't have fully variable control of the intake valve. Instead it had an adjacent "aggressive" cam lobe which used oil pressre to engage the aggresive cam follower at a set RPM. Just like Honda's system. Still not sure how they got around the patents.

VVEL didn't come along til much later.

neo vvl , exactly!

+1

Haven't heard anybody mention the K&N 69-Series Typhoon Short Ram Intakes? has anybody out there tried them, any significant difference in HP and tQ than stock or vs. HPS MAF tubes with K&N drop ins?

Fern to the Z

for what it's worth, I remember seeing someone on this board claiming that with the K&N short ram they netted about 6 whp on a dyno but I can't remember who said that. That's basically what you can expect to get from drop ins and the tubes so i'd save the money and go with the latter.

Awesome,
I'll go with the HPS and drop ins, thank FL, Now I just hope their in stock, reading in the other thread that people have been having problem stocking them because of the demand.
I dont mind waiting, I have to wait for my FI TDX CBE for a while too. cant wait until that one gets here.

Fern to the Z

evo - 145.5hp per liter =p

The G3-vs-dropin thing is mostly arguing about pointless tiny effects. Getting a valid dyno comparison on a 10hp or less difference on this engine is bound to run into accuracy and repeatability issues. I bet I can go to the same dyno shop two days in a row without changing a thing on my car and get at *least* a 5hp difference, especially if the dyno's not maintained and operated perfectly, or there's any slight change in the weather, or more traffic on the way to the shop, etc.

Perhaps more importantly with intake mods: the dyno doesn't accurately reflect real driving conditions. On a dyno you're measuring how effective your intake is when the car's pulling through the 100mph+ range, with only a 20mph headwind coming in from a fan (with probably lower CFM than the car would get even rolling at 20mph), too much heat building up everywhere, totally different airflow effects happening all over, etc. Could be a completely different story when you're actually at 100mph, with a 100mph wind coming in the front of the car (and everywhere else), different airflow patterns, etc.

Also:

Our engines do, in fact, have intake cams. VVEL just uses a crazy system of eccentric orbiting stuff to dynamically alter the lift/duration by moving the intake cam as it's spinning, so to speak.

Went through this thread and tried so hard to figure out how we went from "the power difference made from SRI to CAI on the 370Z" to "VTEC BRO" and couldn't draw a single line between the two.

Me old 1997 BMW M3 with the euro S50B32 engine delivered over 100hp per litre also. It was a 3.2 litre unit.

I'll have info on this tomorrow :), I have ZI tubes, Drop ins and a custom cold air feeding the stock boxes from the radiator support. I have a dyno tomorrow am .
Also HFC's and catback and 3rd revision of my Etuene, I'll have logs of my tune also. The whole project cost me $200. An only that much because I bought CF Saleen brake ducts for the air scoops

I dynode my Stillen G3 before and after.
it was the only bolt on the car. base line was 264, with the intake 284 rwhp SAE.
did it with out tuning the car.

Z

My APT just got changed to the follow Saturday , :/ Nov 1 sorry

I got one run in on the HW 3rd gear , Do you know what the MAFgm readings are for the GEN 3's from 2500-7k. Looking to compare them. Mine started at 11.63 and jumped to 121.9 by 3k and topped out at 268. )@ 5984.( max I think as nothing higher as it stayed there all the way till redline . Not sure how these compare.

The data logs on my Ecutec tuned completely stock 2013 z show the 121g/s at 3200 rpm and peak 268 g/s at 6200 rpm to redline. It appears that your intake mods allow more air flow at a given rpm until the max limit is reached at 268 g/s.

I would bet that the 268g/s peak flow would increase if you added high flow cats and/or catback exhaust.

Whoops, I see you do have Hi flow cats. Scratch the previous statement. Has anyone else seen a g/sec greater than 268 on their data logs?

Getting strapped down at the Dyno !

Aaand.....!:tup:

Went good made good power 285 WHP and 230 WTRQ, I cant break 230 WHTQ and dont know why? Can makes NO power over 7100. Falls like a rock, My AF's still need work rjey still in the 13-14's and tapper to mid 12'2 up top weird cause the tune I'm running was supposed to be for 11.3 AF's