onthemove MOD's

onthemoveMOD'S Tire Mod;
Got the tires trued today. Very smooth ride, better mileage, faster acceleration, longer lasting(?) and noise reduction, all thanks to less friction and a perfectly round tire, or so the claim goes. They feel really nice until I get on the freeway when the steering wheel shakes at certain speeds. The front passenger side was a little out of round, more than the other three thus more material was removed. Now I've got to get them balanced. Gotta get up early in the morning to beat the rest of the assholes that have the same idea, the idea being that they're going to get to the tire dealer 1st so they don't have to sit and wait.
The piece of equipment in pic 3 was built in the 50's and at the time it cost $7k. That was a lot of $ back then. It was a trip watching this 40 year veteran of this trade do his thing and slice the shit out of my new tires. I'd say he removed a 1/4 pound off each and a bit more on the odd ball tire:). Discount Tire told me how great all the tires were and none were out of round. I went back and had them replace the one that was unlike the other three and closest to becoming problematic. Someone's lying here and I know it's not the tire truing guy.:mad:
I learned a few things from this guy. He told me Michelin's have the best tolerance and when he trues them, the least amount of material needs to be removed. He has trued tires from known race car drivers, many different high end makes, and supercars. I never heard of this until a week ago.
Spent part of my friday night removing wheel weights. Fortunately I figured out a way to do so taking the least amount of time. I researched this in the past and again briefly before starting tonight. Nothing new. Some may already know this but for those that do not;
use a heat gun on low and heat up the weights
use a plastic sharp edged tool to pop the weights off
heat up the foam-like tape and roll that off the wheel
heat up the adhesive then go to town with a terry cloth and googone
This worked extremely well and fast.

GetFileAttachment


15d59KlbyTScPJWEySLM4an-OKv11gIg0IuvNqEZQLq5SAPhkw6fdFO8pNqgQTkZOTrgQW74fnr-mtg&owa=outlook.live.jpg

15d59KlbyTScPJWEySLM4an-OKv11gIg0IuvNqEZQLq5SAPhkw6fdFO8pNqgQTkZOTrgQW74fnr-mtg&owa=outlook.live.jpg
 
Last edited:
I had the FX out for awhile today after I wrapped up a few minor details on the air scoop. The most noticeable difference was sealing off the air filter by a mile. Without that, iat's fluctuated wildly and actually increased with engine speed as I found out a month or 2 ago. This air scoop has further sealed off the bay air from the filter. Not why I did it but was hoping it might help iat's and it did. 2nd best mod to drop iat's after the air box hands down and certainly much more noticeable than motordynes aramid iso-thermal spacer.
The reason I added an abs panel that attached to the frame a couple months back was to prevent hot air building up in the bay, not being relieved fast enough and spilling into the air box from underneath. That panel did make a difference but not like this scoop. After sealing off several areas, one being the oddly located grill-like cut out's on the top of the inner wheel well, iat's get as low as 5* above ambient while driving and at idle move up slower than ever.
 
Checked the fluids, tire pressure, wash, clay bar & sealer. Ready to get some 1/4 mile time slips Saturday and see just how accurate the scangauge is.
DSC01773.JPG DSC01770.JPG
 
I'm not surprised by the slower than hoped for time. I missed the window of opportunity to go to the track near the ocean two months ago when the temp's were much more favorable. This is the same (imo) shitty track that feels like fly paper when you walk on it and was built facing the opposite direction it should be. Why build a track that faces the consistently directional head winds? This track really, honestly does feel like a wind tunnel.

78* day with 56% humidity and what felt like 15-20 mph winds. I couldn't find a shady spot for onthemove and he was pissed! Bitch, moan, complain! I'll get to the track near the beach this fall for my 13 second time slip. I should have the n2o on by then and will be looking for a mid-high 12 on a stock block with a 100 wet shot. Only time will tell.

I talked to a guy with a 10.5 second t-bird. Mid 80's with the 5.0. I asked him about the track conditions (head winds, weather, etc.) and if he knew how much his times were negatively affected. He said in the fall the car runs a 9.9 and the "density altitude" this afternoon was 1,700, so he told me to find a d.a. calculator online and plug in the numbers. I don't know too much about the d.a. but I'm too tired to learn more about it now. (Edit - I understood altitude above sea level but knew little about the density altitude. Baro pressure, temps, humidity and feet from sea level are all in the mix. Maybe the scangauge accounts for this? It's extremely close to the adjusted numbers and mph. Gonna call and find out.)
(Edit - called scangauge and was told it does not compensate for d.a.)

Most important to me is the scangauges accuracy. So, the two 13.8 sec. 1/4 mile times I got were a worst case 14.0 flat. My more easily attained 14 sec runs are 14.2. My 0-60 vid that I posted against the charger tells me that the scangauge looses accuracy with time so my 0-60 is probably a little more accurate than my 1/4 mile times. Scangauge is running rich by 2/10's and around 4 mph in the 1/4. Pretty fucking accurate govna. Pretty fucking accurate for a buck 25.

If I build and go with a specific jwt cam set, increased compression, possibly the velocity intake, ditch the awd to shave another 160 lbs and get back some drive train robbing power, I bet I could get into the low 13's nat. asp. and maybe kiss a high 11 on a 125 wet shot with a little tail wind for once. That's a goal I might have to set.

Dragtimes d.a. calculator "Correct your ET and MPH using the DA (Beta Testing)"
14.6 at 95 mph with a d.a. of 1,700 (ambient temp=78* baromatric pressure=30.15 elevation=400' humidity=56%)
Stock and Mildly Modified Naturally Aspirated Engines
14.321 @ 96.891 MPH

Fastest naturally aspirated 1st gen fx known on the planet. Faster than any n.a. 2nd gen v6 also?

DSC01775.JPG DSC01776.JPG DSC01780.JPG
Edit - Figured I'd throw up a pic of these 2 that show the date & time.
My reaction time on the 2nd run is nutz. Some kind of lexus in the right lane on run 2. I had a third run, same results, but I lost the slip. Spent much more time watching than running.
DSC01785.JPG
 
Last edited:
Got to wipe the track grunge off the FX. 150 miles and a couple runs down the strip and it's close to needing another wash already. Love my original california car duster and ice detailer.
DSC01781.JPG
 
Fast Infiniti FX35 1/4 mile Drag Racing Timeslips
# = Stock Vehicle Click HERE to add your Infiniti FX35 to the database.
1/4 Mile ET
1/4 Mile MPH
1/8 Mile ET
1/8 Mile MPH
0-60 Foot ET
Car Year
Driver
1) 12.741* 107.170 8.227 87.400 2.023 Infiniti FX35 RWD Jim Wolf Turbo 2005 Viet Nguyen
2) 14.320*^ 96.900 9.400 75.300 2.200 Infiniti FX35 All Wheel Drive 2003 MJH
3) 14.530*# 96.410 Infiniti FX35 2009 NA
4) 14.618*^ 94.690 9.411 75.340 2.213 Infiniti FX35 all wheel drive 2003 MJH
DragTimes.com, the online 1/4 mile times & Timeslip Database

I'm up there twice. Oops. I'm mjh. Not sure how that happened. Tried to take one down and edit the other. Both are down now until approval. Took a week for these guys to get my FX up there, now this will just add to the confusion. Should've just left it alone.
There's no correction for anything other than the 1/4 time and mph. I wonder if there is a correction calculator for 60' and 1/8 mile. Looked for a minute but came up short. Even the corrected 14.3 is not representative of onthemove's true 1/4 mile as rockingham sucks balls...big balls. I'll get a more realistic time at a different track this fall, one that will need no correction.
 
Why will my next ride probably be something domestic (usa) but certainly not a nissan/infiniti? The link below is from nicoclub.com who can no longer give free access for the service manuals for Nissan's and Infiniti's. Intellectual property? Give me a brake. Douchebags. If I didn't like my FX so much, I'd dump it right now.
Infiniti Factory Service Manuals
 
Dragtimes got it up. I'm gonna try to find corrections for 60' and 1/8th. It's a far cry from #10 on the list.

Fast Infiniti FX35s 1/4 Mile 0-60 Drag Racing - DragTimes.com

Fast Infiniti FX35 1/4 mile Drag Racing Timeslips

1) 12.741* 107.170 8.227 87.400 2.023 Infiniti FX35 RWD Jim Wolf Turbo 2005 Viet Nguyen
2) 14.320*^ 96.900 9.400 75.300 2.200 Infiniti FX35 All Wheel Drive 2003 MJH
3) 14.530*# 96.410 Infiniti FX35 2009 NA
4) 14.807# 93.460 9.565 74.530 2.234 Infiniti FX35 2009 Brandon Patane
5) 14.968 90.460 9.584 74.010 2.210 Infiniti FX35 2007 Stuart Hopson
6) 15.125*# 91.990 9.799 73.240 2.332 Infiniti FX35 2009 Brandon Patane
7) 15.300* 96.200 Infiniti FX35 2004 Kirk
8) 15.491* 89.620 10.018 72.500 2.343 Infiniti FX35 2007 Stuart Hopson
9) 15.739* 89.020 10.253 71.470 2.453 Infiniti FX35 RWD 2005 William
10) 15.780# 88.120 10.500 68.000 2.320 Infiniti FX35 2005 Joe Childress

Read more: Fast Infiniti FX35s 1/4 Mile 0-60 Drag Racing - DragTimes.com


These calculations look fairly reasonable. I think the 60' is much more accurate here than it was at the track, that's fo sho.
Wallace Racing - Automotive Calculators
Estimated 60 Foot Time: 2.032 seconds
1/8th mile ET is 9.17 seconds
1/8th mile MPH is 76.26 MPH

Scanguage gave 9.0 second/83 mph in the 8th mile, so the closest time is probably 9.2 at 79 + mph. Looks like the calculators at wallaceracing.com are fairly accurate for time but a bit off for mph.

 
Last edited:
Increased performance; Between the mild drop, smaller sidewalls, big weight reduction, "parachute bumper" delete, mild brake upgrades, transgo reprogramming and added power, onthemove far outperforms his former self. Someday, I'll get the nerve to slam on the brakes at 60mph for a 60-0 time. After driving this thing bone stock for so long, it's like driving an entirely different car that I'm still not used to. Improved in most ways except for a cracked dash issue that decided to show itself AFTER I decided to keep it and mod.
The FX just got heavier after the 03-04 years. 4204 lbs 03-04 and up to 4314 lbs for the 08. My 0-60 looks more than out of place but I assure you, it's legit. It is an interesting dichotomy that I'm around 1.7 seconds quicker 0-60 but only 1 second quicker in the 1/4 (?)
So, is my FX moving slower the further down the track it travel's than stock? I think part of what's missing in this equation is track conditions as I was 4/10's to 6/10's of a second slower at the track than on the street via the scangauge and I now know that concerning the 1/4 mile, it reads rich by 2/10's. There's a happy medium here. My 0-60 at 5.0 to 5.2 in cool ambient air is probably a 5.4-5.5 in current conditions which would coincide better with a 14.1-14.2 second 1/4 mile, in current conditions. Best thing to do is get back out on a reasonable night, log all conditions & run the 1/4 again. I'll try to get a vid.
If I was smart enough, I would've checked the 0-60 time on the scangauge while at the track:tdown::poop::mad::cry:.

----------------------0-60-----1/4 mile
03 onthemove-------5.2-------14.3
03-04----------------6.9-------15.3
05--------------------7.0-------15.4
08--------------------7.1-------15.5

The 1/4 mile time slips represent my FX during the day with higher temps & humidity (spring instead of winter) and track conditions (less than optimal to say the least). Knowing the density altitude and being able to calculate for that to get a more realistic # is a big deal but to calculate for the FX's drag coefficient affected by head wind speed and this sticky ass'd track is damn near impossible to do with accuracy.
Most of my scangauge runs were at night in the 30-40* range on a nice, smooth road that is not "prepped" (sticky) with minimal wind conditions, so minimal that I didn't bother to account for them. I installed the velocity stack, ridiculously huge air filter and the headers and yet no improvement in 0-60 or 1/4? IAT's were approx the same, so wtf gives? The weather changed and even though my iat's were similar, the density of the air was not so my question is, what will my FX run now with the headers and completed intake mods in a real world situation, which is of coarse is on the fuck'n street, in cool fall/winter ambient temps as it's obvious to me that the temps the MAF sees are not the whole story. I won't have an answer to this question until fall 2018.
I never did a similar type of run after my pressurized air box, ram air scoop and frankly I have 0 idea as to whether or not I had created a low pressure area by installing the air filter and making the air box to draw air from below therefore I have no idea if I corrected this potentially non-existing problem with the scoop but I do know that my iat's are far better with it than without, so I'm glad I did it.
There's a guy on the time slip thread with an FX50. He ran a 13.7 in 40* weather. Through the 1/4 I'd be 3 cars behind him. That's fuck'n awesome.
 
Last edited:
Roll out for another 3/10ths? What's this? Oh yeah, I am definitely gonna have to use this the next time at the track. Portable weather stations to determine wind speed? That should be a feature at the strip imo. Cheap pricks.

Interesting to read something explaining why there can be such a divergence between motortrend, edmonds, the manufacturer's #'s and average joe at the track. What a mess. I'll stick with my 2/10's and 4 mph off scangauge on the road and on a still night but to include density altitude corrections, whether they be for or against me, thank you very much.

How We Test Cars and Trucks

"""A Few Words About Rollout

The term "rollout" might not be familiar, but it comes from the drag strip. The arrangement of the timing beams for drag racing can be confusing, primarily because the 7-inch separation between the "pre-stage" and "stage" beams is not the source of rollout. The pre-stage beam, which has no effect on timing, is only there to help drivers creep up to the starting position. Rollout comes from the 1-foot separation (11.5 inches, actually) between the point where the leading edge of a front tire "rolls in" to the final staging beam — triggering the countdown to the green light that starts the race — and the point where the trailing edge of that tire "rolls out" of that same beam, the triggering event that starts the clock. A driver skilled at "shallow staging" can therefore get almost a free foot of untimed acceleration before the clock officially starts, effectively achieving a rolling-start velocity of 3-5 mph and shaving the 0.3 second it typically takes to cover that distance off his elapsed time (ET) in the process.
We believe the use of rollout for quarter-mile timed runs is appropriate, as this test is designed to represent an optimum drag strip run that a car owner can replicate at a drag strip. In the spirit of consistency, we also follow NHRA practice when calculating quarter-mile trap speed at the end of the run. So we publish the average speed over the final 66 feet of the quarter-mile run, even though our VBOX can tell us the instantaneous speed at the end of the 1,320-foot course, which is usually faster.
On the other hand, the use of rollout with 0-60 times is inappropriate in our view. For one, 0-60-mph acceleration is not a drag-racing convention. More important, it's called ZERO to 60 mph, not 3 or 4 mph to 60 mph, which is what you get when you apply rollout. While it is tempting to use rollout in order to make 0-60 acceleration look more impressive by 0.3 second, thereby hyping both the car's performance and the apparent skill of the test driver, we think it's cheating.
Nevertheless, some car magazines and some automobile manufacturers use rollout anyway — and fail to tell their customers. We've decided against this practice. We publish real 0-60 times instead. But in order to illuminate this issue and ensure we do justice to every car's real performance, we've begun publishing a clearly marked "with rollout" 0-60 time alongside the primary no-rollout 0-60 time so readers can see the effects of this bogus practice.
Corrected Data
Correction factors are another source of controversy in vehicle testing. Because weather conditions vary from day to day, this affects an engine's horsepower output. As a consequence, acceleration times can be effectively compared only if the results are adjusted to a set of standard atmospheric conditions. The most widely recognized correction factors are those the SAE specifies within its horsepower measurement procedure.
SAE correction factors have undergone a revision or two in recent years, and it is our policy to use the one contained in the most recent horsepower measurement procedure, SAE J1349. Turbocharged engine performance is not corrected by this standard, because modern turbocharged engines with electronic controls essentially produce and optimize their own atmosphere.
The old standard, SAE J607, is now considered obsolete by the SAE, but the use of its correction factor produces quarter-mile times that are about 0.3 second quicker than those returned by J1349. Some publications still use J607, ostensibly because they don't want to lose the ability to make comparisons to their library of past data. (Sure, the 0.3-second advantage they get in quarter-mile times has nothing to do with it.)
If the outdated correction factor is combined with rollout, the results can be dramatic. The following example is based on data from a single run of our 2008 Mitsubishi Lancer GTS long-term test car. Here you can see the effects that the worst-case combination of correction factor and rollout can have on a 0-60 time.
Correction
Rollout 0-60 (sec) 1/4 mile (sec @ mph)
SAE J1349 (current) without 8.61
with 8.30 16.44 @ 83.85 SAE J607 (obsolete)
without 7.92 16.17 @ 85.03
If you inappropriately apply rollout to 0-60 times and use the outmoded SAE J607 for weather correction, the 0-60 time appears to be 7.9 seconds. We use the more current SAE J1349 and do not use rollout for 0-60 runs, so we would report 8.6 seconds, a difference of some 0.7 second. On quarter-mile runs, where we do include rollout for reasons explained earlier, the difference comes down to correction factor alone, and in this example the difference would round out to 0.2 second and 1.1 mph.
Same car, same run, same raw data file, same ambient conditions, but different data processing — clearly, a lot of tricks can be played by massaging the raw data. And there's a strong temptation to corrupt the data in this way because acceleration times arouse such strong emotions among readers. Enthusiasts want their dream car to be super fast, so those publications that produce the lowest numbers are hailed as professionals, while anyone who gets a lesser number "doesn't know how to drive." We think it's more important to be as correct about performance as possible, so we're scrupulous about our data.
Meanwhile, the weather data we use for the correction calculations comes from a Novalynx WS-18 portable weather station we set up at the track. It records ambient temperature, wind speed and direction, barometric pressure and relative humidity at five-minute intervals throughout the day."""
 
Last edited:
I guess I couldn't have done a worse job of staging. I'd pull up and through both light triggers and then back up until all 4 yellows are lit which is apparently the opposite of what I want to do if I were going for a best et. It was just easier that way and I thought nothing of it and nobody there corrected me. Dicks. Details details details. What a pita. I just want an accurate time but if most are doing it this way, I'm at a disadvantage. New tool for the strip :).

 
Last edited:
5/21/18 - 10,000 views in 10 months. That's nutz, especially for a body style that hasn't been in production for a decade.:)
 
Short of doing a flush with a cleaner (gunk product) and new oil then dropping the pan (which I did last year minus pan drop) this is the best way to do an oil change imo. Certainly not your cheap-ass "jiffy Lube" 10 minute change.
Eco plug with the removal tool. I love this thing. After wiping off most of the plug (pic2), you can see the grey mixed with oil on the towel next to the plug and after doing the top of the magnet, no oil, just the fine grey metal on the towel to the right, so fine that I couldn't brush it off but just enough to "stain" the towel.
Letting the oil drip out over time is where I come across the nastiest of it (pic 4, 5 & 6) which one might not witness if one doesn't jack up the FX on the driver side and walk away while it drips. Pic 4 is the cleaner oil from the pan vs the oil from the can and pic 5 is the cleaner drained oil vs the last drips from the pan. The mishimoto catch can seems to do it's job though it doesn't catch it all, which as I said previously somewhere in this thread, is probably a good thing.
The oil in the can is nasty, similar in appearance to what's in the measuring cup. Between the can and the powerful magnet on the eco plug, the oil filter has an easy job and could probably be used again after draining but they're cheap enough. Went with a fram tough guard this time.
Before installing the new filter and plug I poured in some fresh oil to help further flush out the pan. In previous cars, I'd turn the crank over once or twice to relieve any oil caught elsewhere but it doesn't seem to do squat for the vq35de.
DSC01906.JPG DSC01905.JPG DSC01908.JPG
DSC01909.JPG DSC01913.JPG DSC01914.JPG
DSC01910.JPG DSC01912.JPG DSC01907.JPG
 
Last edited:
Back
Top