Intake Manifold Spacer


Moderator: volvite

Posts: 222
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2010 9:30 am
Location: SW Ohio

Postby CPLTECH » Sat Oct 23, 2010 7:18 pm

Could you briefly explain how this device helps efficiency?
Is it because there is a little more area that the fuel can atomize?
Just wondering how this idea came about.

User avatar
Posts: 89
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 9:29 pm

Postby highaltitude » Sat Oct 23, 2010 8:40 pm

By adding this spacer it creates an extra volume of air and raises the intake plenum up ½” which essentially extends the intake runners. The lengthened runners also change the torque curve changing where the power actually comes in. Some of the mpg savings etc is because you no longer need to use as much of the throttle to achieve the same desired power.

BTW, intake manifold spacers are Not a new technology. They are made for alots of types of vehicles including Fords, Chevys etc. Just there werent any for our vehicles.

Posts: 117
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 7:05 am
Location: Illinois

Postby bbermann » Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:11 am

NOTE: I reposted this inquiry in R51 Engine topic

Sitting at about 85K miles and thinking about a spark plug change.

As long as I am tearing into things, maybe it might be nice to install one of these?

It would be great to get some new feedback from any of you with experience with an intake manifold spacer to help push me over the edge.

Also, is 85K too soon for a plug change?

Last edited by bbermann on Mon Oct 14, 2013 3:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 5759
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2012 11:13 pm
Location: Prospect, VA

Postby smj999smj » Sun Oct 13, 2013 7:46 pm

Plugs aren't due until 105,000 miles...and you can replace them on the V6 without removing the upper plenum. I gave details in the spark plug guide thread.

User avatar
Posts: 140
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2011 5:14 pm
Location: Minnesota

Postby Clay350 » Wed Apr 23, 2014 2:05 pm

RacerZX wrote:Very interesting, thanks for the great before and after dyno testing. The longer runners should improve velocity for higher RPM power, but the dyno showed the opposite, odd, not sure what to make of that, but great none the less that there was a measureable improvement.
Longer runners would actually improve the low/mid range but may sacrifice some of the top end.

User avatar
Posts: 117
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 3:27 pm
Location: NJ

Postby 08PathPounder » Fri Mar 06, 2015 7:36 am

Are there any longterm cons after having the IMS installed? My pathy is bone stock, just wondering if I should keep it that way or not..

User avatar
Posts: 415
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 12:03 pm
Location: Phoenix, AZ

Postby AZ_Path » Fri Mar 06, 2015 12:14 pm

08PathPounder wrote:Are there any longterm cons after having the IMS installed? My pathy is bone stock, just wondering if I should keep it that way or not..
Not that I'm aware of. All you are doing is adjusting the power curve bringing more power into the mid-range at the expense of the top end. If you look at the dyno graphs on the sellers website I think it's a good trade off because it's not 1 for 1 (so there is an overall gain) and your bring the power into a more useable range. I like being able to have more power and not be WOT.

Return to “2005-2012 Pathfinder (R51)”