# How can you make a frontier faster?



## buckhuntersj (Nov 17, 2005)

How can you make a frontier faster or have better acceleration?
Has any one tried the Turbonator from www.turbonator.com?
it sopposed to supercharge your vehicle by raising your horsepower by about 30 hp and get you better gas milage. :thumbup: or :thumbdwn:


----------



## thx1158 (Apr 30, 2005)

buckhuntersj said:


> How can you make a frontier faster or have better acceleration?
> Has any one tried the Turbonator from www.turbonator.com?
> it sopposed to supercharge your vehicle by raising your horsepower by about 30 hp and get you better gas milage. :thumbup: or :thumbdwn:


Why??? It's a truck and plenty fast for one. If I want speed I'll ride my BMW K1200GT.


----------



## 4x4NISMOguy (Nov 17, 2005)

buckhuntersj said:


> How can you make a frontier faster or have better acceleration?
> Has any one tried the Turbonator from www.turbonator.com?
> it sopposed to supercharge your vehicle by raising your horsepower by about 30 hp and get you better gas milage. :thumbup: or :thumbdwn:


 I saw an ad for those too, but from what I've heard they suck! Just do a search in this forum for turbonator and you'll see.

As far as I know the only regular ways to increase HP, at least in the 2nd gens, is with an intake and exhaust upgrade. Each one gains you a little bit of extra power. But, unless I am seriously out of touch, I think we're all waiting for things like a supercharger for the new Fronty's to come out.


----------



## WoW (Jan 2, 2006)

Ive seen this and one that installs the same way, but this other one has a fan that spins around as the air is taken in over it.

My thing is, fuel injection and air mixture is computer controled in most Nissans made since, well, for a long time now. Will the computer/fuel pump/oxygen sensor/ignition adjust itself or would I have to get a reprogramer? Or, is this thing junk?

One comment says it made his car feel like it was turbo charged. Ive driven a turbo charged Mitsubishi Spider. Turbo uses hot exaust gas to power a turbine that puts the 'hot air' into a compressor. That air is pumped into the cylinders. The turbine has to rev up a certain amount before turbo kicks in. I dont see how this could feel like that. He probably knows less about turbo than me and I just told yall all I know.



> Link: The Turbonator is installed in the air intake hose, located between the throttle body and the air filter box


And, if I put this in the air intake hose, its gotta pass through the air filter afterwards. Hows that gonna effect my swirly air?

:bs:

OK, so its after the air filter, but still :bs:


----------



## NismoFrontin' (Oct 4, 2005)

I wouldn't waste your money on snake oil like that. I bought a tornado(basically the same thing as a turbonator) off ebay for 15 bucks to try out, before I bought my air intake. The thing did absolutely nothing as far as power or gas mileage. In theory it makes sense, however the thing is located so far from the throttle body that by the time the "spiraled" air reaches it, it has already straightened out once more, especially if it has to pass through a filter before doing so. If anything, it seems to me that it just adds restriction and slows the air going into the intake. The funny thing is, I turned around and sold the thing on ebay for twice what I bought it for.


----------



## mitchell35758 (Oct 21, 2005)

Before you go and through money in the garbage read this article from popular mechanics

http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/auto_technology/1802932.html

good luck with what ever you do
Those CAI seem like a real nice option, I just don't know if I can bring myself to pay 200+ dollars. Maybe one day


----------



## buckhuntersj (Nov 17, 2005)

mitchell35758 said:


> Before you go and through money in the garbage read this article from popular mechanics
> 
> http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/auto_technology/1802932.html
> 
> ...




Hey thanks for the article 
It helps alot!! :cheers:


----------



## mitchell35758 (Oct 21, 2005)

buckhuntersj said:


> Hey thanks for the article
> It helps alot!! :cheers:


No problem.


----------



## SD Frontier (Oct 17, 2005)

buckhuntersj said:


> Hey thanks for the article
> It helps alot!! :cheers:


i did not see an article. please repost a new link


----------



## buckhuntersj (Nov 17, 2005)

SD Frontier said:


> i did not see an article. please repost a new link



go to this link:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/aut...gy/1802932.html

:cheers:


----------



## SD Frontier (Oct 17, 2005)

buckhuntersj said:


> go to this link:
> 
> http://www.popularmechanics.com/aut...gy/1802932.html
> 
> :cheers:


i'm not an idiot. i saw the link. i clicked it but no article showed up. now it says:

We're sorry!

To find the page you are looking for, try the following:

* Use the Search box below or at the top of the page and type in the topic.
* Click here to send us an e-mail. Please include as much information as possible, including the URL of the Web page that directed you to this page. We will respond as soon as possible. 

Use your browser's "Back" button to return to the previous page or return to the Popular Mechanics.com home page.


YOU FAILED. NOW ---> :give me beer: insolence


----------



## Franko Manini (Nov 22, 2005)

SD Frontier said:


> i'm not an idiot. i saw the link. i clicked it but no article showed up. now it says:
> 
> We're sorry!
> 
> ...


I was going to refer you to the same article. If this little device actually worked, don't you think EVERY major manufacturer would incorporate it to increase their corporate gas mileage and the horsepower ratings for their cars/trucks?

Snake oil is right.


----------



## SD Frontier (Oct 17, 2005)

Franko Manini said:


> I was going to refer you to the same article. If this little device actually worked, don't you think EVERY major manufacturer would incorporate it to increase their corporate gas mileage and the horsepower ratings for their cars/trucks?
> 
> Snake oil is right.


the article is working now...believe it or not. i'm reading as i type


----------



## mitchell35758 (Oct 21, 2005)

SD Frontier said:


> the article is working now...believe it or not. i'm reading as i type


I just checked the link myself and it said the same thing and wasn't there. I don't know what the deal is. I scanned the article and posted it onto my website because I knew that something like this might happen. So, if you don't finish it and can't find it later, I have it on my website under aticles.


----------



## mitchell35758 (Oct 21, 2005)

Well, hell, its there now and it hasn't been but two minutes. :wtf: 
Maybe the server was at it capacity at the time. I don't know what the hell the deal is.


----------



## AZdriver (Sep 8, 2005)

*Turbo Devices*

Here's the bottom line from Popular Mechanics:

THE DYNO SAYS: Both devices reduced peak horsepower by more than 10 percent. The Intake Twister increased fuel consumption by about 20 percent; the TornadoFuelSaver provided no significant change.


----------



## SD Frontier (Oct 17, 2005)

AZdriver said:


> Here's the bottom line from Popular Mechanics:
> 
> THE DYNO SAYS: Both devices reduced peak horsepower by more than 10 percent. The Intake Twister increased fuel consumption by about 20 percent; the TornadoFuelSaver provided no significant change.


i read the article. i knew that those inserts like the twister or tornado dont work. i was troubled by this comment by another poster...

"Those CAI seem like a real nice option, I just don't know if I can bring myself to pay 200+ dollars. Maybe one day"

i thought this would be discussed in the article. i would have been very surprised if a freer flowing filter and intake tube didnt help with performance, gas consumption or both. either that or the entire aftermarket community has had the wool pulled over their eyes. :loser:


----------



## 05 NISMO 4X4 (Jun 4, 2005)

Since adding my CAI, I have seen an increase in gas mileage, that's good enough for me! I didn't see much of a change with the exhaust though, so obviously the intake is more restrictive than the exhaust!


----------



## mitchell35758 (Oct 21, 2005)

SD Frontier said:


> i read the article. i knew that those inserts like the twister or tornado dont work. i was troubled by this comment by another poster...
> 
> "Those CAI seem like a real nice option, I just don't know if I can bring myself to pay 200+ dollars. Maybe one day"
> 
> i thought this would be discussed in the article. i would have been very surprised if a freer flowing filter and intake tube didnt help with performance, gas consumption or both. either that or the entire aftermarket community has had the wool pulled over their eyes. :loser:


I believe that was me that you qouted. But why does that trouble you?


----------



## mitchell35758 (Oct 21, 2005)

I too believe that the air intake on stock vehicles are more restrictive than the exhaust. I'll have to find it but I have read that automakers are using more and more less restictive exhaust setups these days.


----------



## mitchell35758 (Oct 21, 2005)

> Posted By Jerryp58
> I think the aftermarket air intakes definitely increase the flow thanks to a larger tube with a straighter shot to the throttle body, but from the dyno sheets that have been posted (which I'm very grateful for the factual results guys ), most of the HP gains appear to be above 3K RPM.


It may have been Jerry that you qouted, but either way, I agree with him on spending over 200 dollars because I'm tryin to keep this truck for a long time. I don't want to rag it out so I try to drive it easy. There are time when I do go past 3500rpm(alot lately), but I know for a fact that if I had a CAI that I would be doing it all the time. It just isn't worth it too me right now. Besides, I get great gas mileage when I keep it below 3500rpms and I have enough power (though not a lot since it is a 4 banger) for my driving needs. Yes, it would be nice to have a CAI but the way I am, I would abuse it and the truck would not last as long as I have in mind. 

Either it was me that said it or not, but I strongly agree with it right now.

I do believe that they work. 

I am still curious to know why it troubles you though, I am not sure what you were saying.


----------



## SD Frontier (Oct 17, 2005)

mitchell35758 said:


> It may have been Jerry that you qouted, but either way, I agree with him on spending over 200 dollars because I'm tryin to keep this truck for a long time. I don't want to rag it out so I try to drive it easy. There are time when I do go past 3500rpm(alot lately), but I know for a fact that if I had a CAI that I would be doing it all the time. It just isn't worth it too me right now. Besides, I get great gas mileage when I keep it below 3500rpms and I have enough power (though not a lot since it is a 4 banger) for my driving needs. Yes, it would be nice to have a CAI but the way I am, I would abuse it and the truck would not last as long as I have in mind.
> 
> Either it was me that said it or not, but I strongly agree with it right now.
> 
> ...


since that statement was said, i assumed that the article also reviewed CAIs. it was not till i was able to read the article did i find out it was not even mentioned. i wondered if perhaps it was said that CAIs did not show any measureable gains in power or fuel economy...either in this article or something else you read.

i too question if a CAI kit is worth the $200 price tag. although independent tests by me and other board members have proven that they show gains in both power and fuel economy. i suppose the saving grace of a CAI is that it will eventually pay for itself. albeit after 20,000 miles. :thumbup:


----------



## mitchell35758 (Oct 21, 2005)

SD Frontier said:


> i wondered if perhaps it was said that CAIs did not show any measureable gains in power or fuel economy...either in this article or something else you read.


I see what you were saying. Again I really do believe in them because so many people use them and they are used in racing applications and so on. I read in another article call Breathing 101 in Petersen's 4 wheel and off road about what these things "try" to accomplish along with an exhaust system. Of course they wont say "will" but "try" instead. I have it on my website if you want to read it. I would probably click on the link and try to find it in web form over reading it from my scanned on magazine pages. They are there just in case the article has been taken off their website.


----------



## alexnds (Oct 1, 2005)

*speed and truck*



buckhuntersj said:


> How can you make a frontier faster or have better acceleration?
> Has any one tried the Turbonator from www.turbonator.com?
> it sopposed to supercharge your vehicle by raising your horsepower by about 30 hp and get you better gas milage. :thumbup: or :thumbdwn:


The "turbonator" should be pulled by the FCC for false and misleading advertising. It's a bunch of garbage. Don't waste your money.

In terms of your truck, as you know, it's not how much power you make, but it's 
the power to weight ratio. If you have a motorcycle that only has 110 Horsepower, it will easily out-accelerage a truck like yours with 260 Horsepower. You ask how? Because 110 HP is smaller than 260, how come it out accelarates? Well, because the bike weighs only 500 LBs, and with rider, only about 700 LBs, but your truck is 4,100 lbs, over 2 tons!

Remember, F=M*a. Newton's Law can be rewritten as:

a=F/m

So the higher the "M", the mass, the more Force it takes to get a give "a", or acceleration.

If you really want to get a heavy vehicle like yours moving easily, you need to also know about kinetic friction and static friction. In other words, it takes more energy to get something going than to keep it going. So, if your rear-end ratio was swapped from let's say 3:55:1 to 4.10:1, gears multiply torque, so you'd accelerate all that heavy mass easier. But, your gas mileage would suck!

So, in short, your best bet is a higher rear-end ratio, say 4:10:1, that is, swapping out gears in your rear differential. This is the only way to get such a heavy vehicle off the line faster. The other alternative is to lose as much weight as you can. Lose the Airconditioner, the power steeering, the sound deadening and insulation, the ABS system, the traction control system, the DVD player, the full size spare. Save yourself at least 500 lbs before you can shave 0.5 seconds in the quarter mile.


----------



## inyourface1650 (Oct 6, 2005)

The thing I have thought of doing is throwing in 4:55s in the rear, and then regearing 4th, 5th, and 6th gear. This would leave me with 1-3rd gear insanely low geared for acceleration, but leave me with 4th 5th and 6th back at the stock ratios (around there anyway) for city and highway work.


----------

