I saw a black Z pull into a parking lot tonight and I wanted to show my wife my future car (live) and the guy was just getting out of the car. I noticed that he had the DST 562 calif plates on it. He introduced himself and I did as well (my family owns some car dealerships, Nissan and Infiniti being amoung them, so he realized he knew my family and we talked a bit). He is the Head Marketer for the Z in the US.

I did ask hime what the "true HP" for the Z was, He said "it is a true 287 at the crank with 15% lost through the drivetrain" (he knew all the lingo, so he must have been asked that a million times). I was hoping for a different/"insider" answer (ie-we also have a Honda Dealer and the factory rep told me that the S2k really has 247 NOT 240), oh well. BUT BUT BUT, my dad joins in on the conversation (he drives a G35 for a "company car") and said that he just heard today that people are getting 300HP out of that engine with "just a chip" (I am not sure he is 100% correct, that seems like a lofty claim for the G35 sedan). The guy responded that there is more HP to be gained and that the Z has been intentionally detuned a bit, and that they left the availability for "growth" in the HP department for future models (which is surprising since so many are saying that Nissan maxed out that engine to get everything out of it for a NA engine).

take it for what its worth, nothing really earth shattering (if there was, I probably would feel real comfortable posting it anyway)

 

If Porsche can get at least 320hp out of their 3.6L flat-6, then Nissan can certainly meet or exceed that w/ their 3.5L V-6. Nissan are experts on V-6's (much like GM are experts on pushrod V-8's) and its their bread'n'butter.

Michael.

 

Mike, I agree, but man, look how long it took Porsche to get over 300 HP from that engine (NA), 30 years plus?? (infact this is the first year for the 320 isn't it??)

I hope nissan is a little faster than that at increasing it (tic)

 

Or if Honda can get 240hp out of a 2.0L 4-cyl engine!

 

Yes, but we don't want an S2000/motorcycle-like engine that make great specific output at the expense of torque. An engine can be made to make power at high revs, but have nothing to offer at normal RPM (like in traffic). We want lots of torque, so 120 hp/L is not realistic unless you're talking about forced induction.

 

But doesn't Porsche use much more expensive materials and hand-build their engines? I know BMW does for their M at least. If Nissan did get that much power out of the engine, it would cost more too.

 

actually the Z seems a bit detuned on purpose. My 92 300ZX redlines at 7K, and this is a from an engine (VG)thats basically a 20 year old design. Theres no reason I can think of that they couldnt make the newer vQ engine(with a better rod ratio to boot!) spin as high or higher than the old VG engine. do the math on the new engine: horsepower = rpm x torque / 5252 if you can stretch the RPMs out to AT LEAST to the old VG redline you will be over 300hp

 

I don't think that the M-division hand builds every engine. I think they just get the engine from the factory conventially and then do their magic after the fact. Much like an OEM aftermarket group (oximoran of sorts). Could be wrong...

 

But doesn't Porsche use much more expensive materials and hand-build their engines? I know BMW does for their M at least. If Nissan did get that much power out of the engine, it would cost more too.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exactly what I was thinking, Ha, I am all for more HP, I just don't have $70k to pay for it.

 

If the torque is higher and teh car is slower I CAN CARE LESS!!!

All I care about it the bottom line, less torque, less HP, but faster and drivable-fine with me. I still don't understand how the Z has similar HP to Wt ratio as the NSX, 911, and M cars, yet is sooooo much slower (those cars as 4.5-4.8 range), I would expect to at least see the Z in the 5.2 range??? (not 5.4-5.6-although that is NOTHING to be ashamed of)

 

Did you guys see raceboy's dyno pulls? If it's one thing the 350 VQ has in common w/ a GM LS-1 is that torque falls flat on its face after 5k. The motor is screaming "CAMS, CAMS, CAMS!" The LS-1 has'em (heads & cam upgrades), why can't the VQ?

Just something to ponder about...

Michael.

 

IMO, it's not all about the engine. There's also the driver, the suspension, the gearing, and the tire contact patch.

Michael.

 

We must be reading different magazines....
CAR & DRIVER:
2003 350Z 0-60 5.4 sec. 1/4 mi. 14.1 sec.
2002 Porsche carrera 0-60 5.5 sec. 1/4 mi. 14.0 sec
they do list the M3 at 4.8/13.4 but since this car is about the same weight with 45 more horsepower its no where near what would be considered "similar horsepower"
the NSX is 5.0/13.5 though at only 100 pounds less, go figure

 

i dunno, gearing? what is the power/weight ratio for the track z vs. the cars you mentioned?

 

"...I still don't understand how the Z has similar HP to Wt ratio as the NSX, 911, and M cars, yet is sooooo much slower (those cars as 4.5-4.8 range), I would expect to at least see the Z in the 5.2 range??? (not 5.4-5.6-although that is NOTHING to be ashamed of)"


Here are some reasons why, I think, the NSX & 911 are faster/quicker: both cars are mid/rear engine--if I'm not mistaken--so there is much less drivetrain loss because the engine is more closely coupled to the drive wheels. They may have similar hp-to-wt ratio at the engine crank, but not at the drive wheels. So these to cars will actually have better hp-to-wt ratios. Also important is the power (hp/torque) available across the entire rpm range; while I'm not familiar with hp/torque curves of the NSX, 911 & M3 (the M3 has significantly more torque/hp than the Z), I would be willing to bet that these cars have less hp/torque drop-off at their respective redlines. Their performance when compared to the 350z seems to indicate this.


I may be wrong, though.

 

Hey man! Read my post, the 911 is NOT quicker and as for the NSX, even though it .5 sec faster in 0-60 and 1/4 mile, I just read its weight was 3070, so thats actually about 200lbs lighter, = .2 sec and yes, rear engines have a bit of an advantage over rear drives in drivetrain losses, also, they keep more weight over the rear wheels, when you launch and the weight transfers to the rear wheels, rear/mid engines have twice the felt weight on ther rear wheels that front engines do, lets see those street start(5-60mph) numbers and see if things change

 

That 911 time was an anomoly, it is always between 4.7-5.0 that is for the 296 HP version. The NSX is between 4.6-4.9 (the 4.6 was even a non-Zanardi edition). The M3 is about 150-250 lbs heavier than the Z (3600 lb test wt- R&T feb 01), and that is why it competes.

btw, the Z has 274 lbs-torque, while the 911 has 258 and M3 269. Last time I checked 274>258 (or 269)???

 

btw, usually to be fair, I go by the 2 fastest times per car, NOT the slowest time for 1 car (911 @ 5.5, M3 @ 5.0) and the fastest time for the next (Z @ 5.4). It just isn't very objective, as much as I would love to beat a 911 in a Z, I won't count on it.

imho, anyone can drive slower and a slow time, but you have to look at the fastest times to know its true potential.

 

Yes, but that's assuming the torque remains constant, which we unfortunately know to be untrue. Unless we can get the torque to flatten out at the high rpms your strategy may not work.

 

287.......15%........287 times .15.......equals 43. 287 minus 43.....uhhhhhhh.................................approx. 244 hp at the wheels.