You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!
Just before i was doing an O/F/L to this 06 Nissan Frontier and noticed something i have never seen in a Nissan before, unless i just never noticed. It had a V6 4.0L VQ40 engine stick shift. I wondered why the new 370 doesn't come with that instead of the 3.7?
I took a pic if anyone is interested.
__________________
"ALL I CARE IS ABOUT IS HOOKIN UP AND GOING TO THE GYM"-THE SITUATION
Last edited by Dr. Venture; 11-22-2008 at 10:30 AM.
Yah, because a longer stroke version of a motor with the same bore spacing will totally f**k up your weight distribution.
In all honesty, the reason the 4.0L "truck VQ" has never found its way into a passenger car is because it's designed and suited to truck duty. It has a longer stroke for better bottom end torque but it runs out of breath up top and isn't as much of a revver as the smaller displacement 3.5 and 3.7. As useful as 280 ft-lbs @ 4000 rpm is in day to day driving, there isn't much of a fun factor to be had when your peak hp figure of 261 ponies is made at 5600 rpm with the curve headed downhill thereafter.
Yah, because a longer stroke version of a motor with the same bore spacing will totally f**k up your weight distribution.
In all honesty, the reason the 4.0L "truck VQ" has never found its way into a passenger car is because it's designed and suited to truck duty. It has a longer stroke for better bottom end torque but it runs out of breath up top and isn't as much of a revver as the smaller displacement 3.5 and 3.7. As useful as 280 ft-lbs @ 4000 rpm is in day to day driving, there isn't much of a fun factor to be had when your peak hp figure of 261 ponies is made at 5600 rpm with the curve headed downhill thereafter.
+1. This is more than likely the major reasoning behind the 3.7. On top of that theres also the factor of diminishing returns. The rule of thumb is that up to about a 500cc cylinder volume the power made for the displacement increase, is somewhat more linear than above 500cc. Exceeding that rule of thumb and it gets more difficult to get high specific output i.e. HP/L.
In all honesty, the reason the 4.0L "truck VQ" has never found its way into a passenger car is because it's designed and suited to truck duty.
Exactly. It's made for torque, not HP.
Although, it will be interesting to see what the current VQ bore spacing will allow, displacement-wise, in the long term as Nissan evolves it's engines, as they always do.
Although, I would wish they invest the money into direct injention before displacement increases... as I'm sure they will.
Although, it will be interesting to see what the current VQ bore spacing will allow, displacement-wise, in the long term as Nissan evolves it's engines, as they always do.
Although, I would wish they invest the money into direct injention before displacement increases... as I'm sure they will.
agreed, its a torque engine not horsepower. i noticed this on my buddies frontier and kinda thought it odd they made a 4.0. When i drove it i thought it had truck motor all over it.
Yah, because a longer stroke version of a motor with the same bore spacing will totally f**k up your weight distribution.
In all honesty, the reason the 4.0L "truck VQ" has never found its way into a passenger car is because it's designed and suited to truck duty. It has a longer stroke for better bottom end torque but it runs out of breath up top and isn't as much of a revver as the smaller displacement 3.5 and 3.7. As useful as 280 ft-lbs @ 4000 rpm is in day to day driving, there isn't much of a fun factor to be had when your peak hp figure of 261 ponies is made at 5600 rpm with the curve headed downhill thereafter.
Yeh, what sense would it make to put a truck engine (designed for torque) in a sports car? Hmm, I guess they did it in the 240SX and Mitsubishi Starion? Oh, and the Viper. I could be wrong. Anyway, I digress. You could add volume by more bore and less of stroke so you do not add the extra length and weight to the crankshafts. Or go a head and stroke it and use some titanium rods to lighten things up so engine will spin. Anyway, I am delirious from the flight I just took here from Germany and suffering from a cold so I could be talking nonsense and wouldn't even know it.
Last edited by newtkindred; 11-24-2008 at 02:01 AM.
Yeh, what since would it make to put a truck engine (designed for torque) in a sports car? Hmm, I guess they did it in the 240SX and Mitsubishi Starion? Oh, and the Viper. I could be wrong. Anyway, I digress. You could add volume by more bore and less of stroke so you do not add the extra length and weight to the crankshafts. Or go a head and stroke it and use some titanium rods to lighten things up so engine will spin. Anyway, I am delirious from the flight I just took here from Germany and suffering from a cold so I could be talking nonsense and wouldn't even know it.
Actually, some quick cars have been made focusing on torque. Depends on if you can get it applied under as much of the power band as possible and as soon as possible. Ever feel the grunt of a good ol Chevy v8 high torque motor? Actually, doesn't forced induction have the same effect as stroking in a way? It adds torque, but I guess the crankshafts are not heavier. But then they have to crank against a higher compression. OK, I am too tired. I'll just shut up now.
Last edited by newtkindred; 11-24-2008 at 01:58 AM.
Actually, some quick cars have been made focusing on torque.
No.
Sure, some cars have boatloads of torque (Viper, ZR1, CTS-V, etc.)... but unless there is the HP ALSO to back it up, the acceleration will be dissappointing... look at any typical high torque/low HP diesel setup.
One can lust after the 560 ft/lbs of torque in the a Viper, but there is also the 600 HP to support it in the higher revs.
For instance, there are lots of fast cars with high HP/low torque ratings (M3, F430, etc.)... but there aren't fast cars with high torque/low HP ratings...
Sure, some cars have boatloads of torque (Viper, ZR1, CTS-V, etc.)... but unless there is the HP ALSO to back it up, the acceleration will be dissappointing... look at any typical high torque/low HP diesel setup.
One can lust after the 560 ft/lbs of torque in the a Viper, but there is also the 600 HP to support it in the higher revs.
For instance, there are lots of fast cars with high HP/low torque ratings (M3, F430, etc.)... but there aren't fast cars with high torque/low HP ratings...
HP to back up the torque would probably only be necessary in the final gearing of the tranny. (4, 5 , 6) TQ will least on a good take off hold up until about 100 mph. My buddies ford f250 TD craps on many cars up until about 100 when he is in high if not the last gear left. If yo also see the Vtec Concept of things, when it also kicks in the engine hold a longer stroke for bigger combustion as well hence creating that blast of power at around 5k rpm.
__________________
"ALL I CARE IS ABOUT IS HOOKIN UP AND GOING TO THE GYM"-THE SITUATION
370Z with a 3.7L??? When there is a 4.0!
