Dear Corey,
Thank you for your recent inquiry. Rick Miller says the cylinder head horsepower gains are approximately 20 to 30, intake manifold gains are approximately 20, and the exhaust manifold gains are approximately 12 to 15.
If you have further questions for Rick, he can be reached at 1-800-613-1065 or reply to this e-mail.
Sheila Rothwell
Marketing Department
Extrude Hone Corporation
Corey
Extrude Honing Part 2
Cost:
Cylinder Head: $900Intake Manifold: $625Exhaust Manifold: $625
http://www.extrudehone.com/powerflow.html
http://www.extrudehone.com/oem.html
Corey
Cylinder Head: $900Intake Manifold: $625Exhaust Manifold: $625
http://www.extrudehone.com/powerflow.html
http://www.extrudehone.com/oem.html
Corey
-
HeavyDuty
- Posts: 1281
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2003 4:51 pm
- Car: 1995 Infiniti Q45
95 Nissan 240SX S14
96 Nissan D21
06 Nissan 350Z Z33
I missed Part I, but was thinking about EH porting this evening.
Although Mike Kojima (SCC & Nissan NA) had little dyno proven gains from am SR20 EH ported intake manifold, one thing was overlooked in a postulation regarding the VH45.
EHC has the capablility of flow matching deficient runners as a base 'run', then decreasing the boundary layer overall to allow for matched, ergo balanced flow.
So you achieve 30+ HP overall, from the above referenced machining.
I'll take it.
Although Mike Kojima (SCC & Nissan NA) had little dyno proven gains from am SR20 EH ported intake manifold, one thing was overlooked in a postulation regarding the VH45.
EHC has the capablility of flow matching deficient runners as a base 'run', then decreasing the boundary layer overall to allow for matched, ergo balanced flow.
So you achieve 30+ HP overall, from the above referenced machining.
I'll take it.
Rob's had headers made for his car via a shop he found in Florida. He's kind of being the guinnea pig for the rest of us... If he gets good gains from the headers then Ryan and myself will follow suite.
Unfortunately one-offs cost more each than making a few... so me and Ryan will be splitting the total cost 3 ways with Rob to pay him back. For everyone else, I'm sure BRM will come up with a lower cost version.
:Werd
Now, lets be hoping he gets some good numbers!
Corey
Unfortunately one-offs cost more each than making a few... so me and Ryan will be splitting the total cost 3 ways with Rob to pay him back. For everyone else, I'm sure BRM will come up with a lower cost version.
:Werd
Now, lets be hoping he gets some good numbers!
Corey
-
Q45tech
- Moderator
- Posts: 14296
- Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2002 3:19 am
- Car: 1990 Q45 342,400 miles 22 years ownership with original engine
1995 G20t 5 speed 334,000 miles 16" 2002 wheels - 205/50/16 Sr20ve vvl
Funny back in 1993 when they extrude honed a few Q motors to sell the service to what was then a Stillen competitor "Goldrush" and Dinan looked at the process " for Q45", they didn't achieve but 5-6 HP.........all above 6,000 rpm near 6,900 rpm.
In modding a few Q45 the custom builders skipped the step as not cost effective, just like bored out Throttle bodies.
The only thing found that did do some good was port matching the lower runner 2 outlets to the gasket and heads. This mismatch was factory intentional to improve the 1500-1800 rpm reversion. Bucking problems in 4th gear at 45 mph with AC on pulling slight inclines
In modding a few Q45 the custom builders skipped the step as not cost effective, just like bored out Throttle bodies.
The only thing found that did do some good was port matching the lower runner 2 outlets to the gasket and heads. This mismatch was factory intentional to improve the 1500-1800 rpm reversion. Bucking problems in 4th gear at 45 mph with AC on pulling slight inclines
-
Q45tech
- Moderator
- Posts: 14296
- Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2002 3:19 am
- Car: 1990 Q45 342,400 miles 22 years ownership with original engine
1995 G20t 5 speed 334,000 miles 16" 2002 wheels - 205/50/16 Sr20ve vvl
The factory quality on the plenum and upper runners is very good and consistent. If you measure any variances it will be in the diameter and shape of the outlets from the lower runner section.
Years ago I was able to measure about 15 different units: circular [slightly oval] area was within 3%.........I was measuring to 0.0005" accuracy..............never checked the internal volume of each runner but it approximates 43 cubic inches [each cylinder volume is only 34.25 cubic inches 561.75 cc] plus each head port to valve has 5 ci x 2= 10 +43 or 53 cubic inches to feed 34.25 ci.............plenty of margin in fact just as the Helmholtz models indicate is optimum 150% 34.25 x 1.5= 51.375 ci vs my guesses of 53.......~~3% variation from measurement errors - probably.
If they specified peak HP rpm at 6,000 rpm that's where the tune was so increasing the runner diameters from 1.95" raises the tune rpm........at the expense of low rpm torque.
Years ago I was able to measure about 15 different units: circular [slightly oval] area was within 3%.........I was measuring to 0.0005" accuracy..............never checked the internal volume of each runner but it approximates 43 cubic inches [each cylinder volume is only 34.25 cubic inches 561.75 cc] plus each head port to valve has 5 ci x 2= 10 +43 or 53 cubic inches to feed 34.25 ci.............plenty of margin in fact just as the Helmholtz models indicate is optimum 150% 34.25 x 1.5= 51.375 ci vs my guesses of 53.......~~3% variation from measurement errors - probably.
If they specified peak HP rpm at 6,000 rpm that's where the tune was so increasing the runner diameters from 1.95" raises the tune rpm........at the expense of low rpm torque.
