370Z with a 3.7L??? When there is a 4.0! - MY350Z.COM Forums



Reply
 
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11-22-2008, 10:03 AM   #1
Dr. Venture
Registered User
Thread Starter
iTrader: (19)
 
Dr. Venture's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Dirty Jersey
Posts: 2,687
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 2 Posts
Default 370Z with a 3.7L??? When there is a 4.0!

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.

Last edited by Dr. Venture; 11-22-2008 at 10:30 AM.
Dr. Venture is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2008, 10:15 AM   #2
Mast3rShak3
Registered User
iTrader: (26)
 
Mast3rShak3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 337
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

one of the car companies main goal is fuel economy, maybe 4.0 isnt as fuel efficient as they would like in the z series.just my opinion.
Mast3rShak3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2008, 02:43 PM   #3
davidv
Registered User
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 42,793
Thanks: 0
Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Default

Weight distribution would be 70/30.
davidv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2008, 03:13 PM   #4
Mike@Blackline
Banned
iTrader: (37)
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Charlotte / Raleigh, NC
Posts: 3,531
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

id be game for a 4.0
Mike@Blackline is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2008, 04:40 PM   #5
Greg06
Registered User
 
Greg06's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,197
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mast3rShak3 View Post
one of the car companies main goal is fuel economy, maybe 4.0 isnt as fuel efficient as they would like in the z series.just my opinion.
Guess it wasn't one of the big 3's goals...
Greg06 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2008, 05:03 PM   #6
bruddahmatt
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 241
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidv View Post
Weight distribution would be 70/30.
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.
bruddahmatt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2008, 05:12 PM   #7
BlueZ33
Registered User
iTrader: (19)
 
BlueZ33's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Jacksonville, NC
Posts: 701
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

yeah a 4.0 would be cool but bruddahmatt is right my 08 frontier has low end torque but on the highway its not really there at higher rpms
BlueZ33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2008, 11:04 PM   #8
T_K
Registered User
iTrader: (5)
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 870
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruddahmatt View Post
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.

TK
T_K is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2008, 04:11 PM   #9
trebien
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: ATX
Posts: 354
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruddahmatt View Post
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.
trebien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2008, 09:32 PM   #10
Faboo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Buena Park
Posts: 646
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trebien View Post
Although, I would wish they invest the money into direct injention before displacement increases... as I'm sure they will.
Going direct injection is like free hp and mpg...in 2 or 3 years they dont have to change a thing just offer DI...boom refresh done
Faboo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2008, 09:41 PM   #11
quietkilla6
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: arizona
Posts: 806
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trebien View Post
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.
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.
quietkilla6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2008, 10:24 PM   #12
Frostydc4
Registered User
iTrader: (3)
 
Frostydc4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Gilbert, AZ
Posts: 1,500
Thanked 6 Times in 6 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidv View Post
Weight distribution would be 70/30.

Frostydc4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2008, 01:46 AM   #13
newtkindred
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: san francisco, california
Posts: 461
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruddahmatt View Post
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.
newtkindred is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2008, 01:51 AM   #14
newtkindred
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: san francisco, california
Posts: 461
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by newtkindred View Post
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.
newtkindred is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2008, 08:34 AM   #15
BoostedAP1
Registered User
 
BoostedAP1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Kingdom Of Heaven
Posts: 7
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

A 400z wouldn't sound too bad.
BoostedAP1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2008, 09:47 AM   #16
trebien
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: ATX
Posts: 354
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by newtkindred View Post
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...
trebien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2008, 10:45 AM   #17
Dr. Venture
Registered User
Thread Starter
iTrader: (19)
 
Dr. Venture's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Dirty Jersey
Posts: 2,687
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trebien View Post
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...
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.
Dr. Venture is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2008, 11:43 AM   #18
Hella
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
 
Hella's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Fl
Posts: 769
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

i hope this thread turns into a primer on torque vs hp, and how it relates to vehicle performance.
Hella is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2008, 12:00 PM   #19
NISMO_558
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
 
NISMO_558's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 4,002
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Default

well it took 5 years to go from a 3.5 to a 3.7, so a Z with a 4.0 should come out in roughly 2016
NISMO_558 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2008, 12:53 PM   #20
track1z
Registered User
iTrader: (4)
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Lawton OK
Posts: 383
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

nice
track1z is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Valkyrie Autosport 350Z gets an HR upgrade thanks to JWT B Esquire Autocross/Road 0 09-24-2015 07:52 AM


Tags
1992, 20, 2008, 350z, bassani, block, coil, eclipse, ej206, horsepower, increases, intake, mitsubishi, pack, subaru

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:42 AM.


Copyright 2002 - 2008, MY350Z.COM All Rights Reserved.