VQ35DE vs VQ35HR
02-10-2008, 11:22 AM
#41
Registered User
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Tampa & Orlando, FL
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by rkemp1
By the way hood hump club FTW. 
02-10-2008, 11:32 AM
#42
Registered User
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Whorelando
Posts: 2,995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by gsingh350Z
Negative. Even if a DE engine had $4,000 worth of bolt-ons, the HR would still be quicker. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh to the DE owners, but it's the truth.
I've only went to the track 2 times in my life, and I've already managed somehow with my novice driving to grab a 13.7 timeslip...
I've only went to the track 2 times in my life, and I've already managed somehow with my novice driving to grab a 13.7 timeslip...
not to mention a 75 shot should negate a HR very easily so i mean that comment is preety unfounded lmao.
Last edited by RBlover69; 02-10-2008 at 11:35 AM.
02-10-2008, 12:14 PM
#44
Originally Posted by Blu_Blur
Yeah yeah. I thought about this post last night and said to myself *wait a minute! The rev-up is a different motor than the HR! OH SNAP!*. I get the Rev-up and the HR confused so I apologise about that.
Yes, I agree on how the guy with an automatic car with 20 Fooses kept up with a MT on stock rims (he has that weird Interlagos Fire colored Z) but I was there when it happened and it was easy for me to keep pace with them since I am FI'd.
Anyways, I looked-up the specs on the HR and what not and as I said on another post, it isn't that much of an improvement considering the loss of torque which would really shine on a track through the turns added to the fact that the DE cars are over 100 pounds lighter.
Also, I don't think I would buy an HR with that kind of hood either.
Yes, I agree on how the guy with an automatic car with 20 Fooses kept up with a MT on stock rims (he has that weird Interlagos Fire colored Z) but I was there when it happened and it was easy for me to keep pace with them since I am FI'd.
Anyways, I looked-up the specs on the HR and what not and as I said on another post, it isn't that much of an improvement considering the loss of torque which would really shine on a track through the turns added to the fact that the DE cars are over 100 pounds lighter.
Also, I don't think I would buy an HR with that kind of hood either.
The HR is also rated under the new SAE HP rating system. Under the old system, that the non-revup and revup DE were rated under, the HR would be closer to 313-315hp. The non-revup DE is still used in the Infiniti FX35, and its rated at 275hp, its basically what the 287 motor would be rated at under the new system.
TK
Last edited by T_K; 02-10-2008 at 12:27 PM.
02-10-2008, 12:58 PM
#45
Registered User
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Tampa & Orlando, FL
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by T_K
The Z has been gaining weight on paper since 03, but only Nissan knows where its really coming from. I don't have a doubt in my mind that the HR is heavier than the original DE. Simply basing that on what was changed, its pretty clear the HR should logically weigh a little bit more. Several members have weighed 06+ Z's and found there was very little weight difference between their Z's and the older ones. If I had to venture an educated guess, I'd say across all model year Z's of the same trim level and options, there is probably less than 100lbs difference from 2003 to 2008, getting heavier with newer models, but the 07-08 is definitely not 150lbs heavier than the 03.
The HR is also rated under the new SAE HP rating system. Under the old system, that the non-revup and revup DE were rated under, the HR would be closer to 313-315hp. The non-revup DE is still used in the Infiniti FX35, and its rated at 275hp, its basically what the 287 motor would be rated at under the new system.
TK
The HR is also rated under the new SAE HP rating system. Under the old system, that the non-revup and revup DE were rated under, the HR would be closer to 313-315hp. The non-revup DE is still used in the Infiniti FX35, and its rated at 275hp, its basically what the 287 motor would be rated at under the new system.
TK
Which is why the HR Z is seeing 1/4 mile times .4-.5 seconds faster. In my experience, 7 hp = .1 in the 1/4 in the time range and weight range we're running in. Naturally, as you get faster it takes more hp to get the same amount of time reduction. Well, 31/7 = ~4.5 and 4.5 x .1 = .450. Dead smack in the middle of the 1/4 mile time gained between a stock DE and a stock HR. I use Veetec as a reference since he's an experienced driver and he has the top stock 1/4 mile times for both the DE and the HR. How much difference is there between his two times? .442, and we are all certain that it can still be better from looking at his timeslips.
Edit: I'd also like to add... I've seen people pointing out and complaining about the less torque. What is it anyway? Like 6 foot-pounds? That's nothing, lol. Plus, torque only helps you in the low rpm range, which would only be during your launch. Do you see any difference between the launching ability of the DE and the HR? I sure don't.
Also, if the HP is showing as less than it actually is due to the new SAE rating system, then isn't the torque understated as well? So in reality isn't it just a tad more than the older Z's then? (I don't know if it is or not, which is why I'm asking. I don't see why HP would show less with SAE but torque wouldn't. I'm not sure if this occured to anyone.)
Last edited by 2007 Z; 02-10-2008 at 02:47 PM.
02-10-2008, 04:07 PM
#47
Registered User
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: DeLand, Florida
Posts: 1,844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 2007-Z
306-275 = 31
Which is why the HR Z is seeing 1/4 mile times .4-.5 seconds faster. In my experience, 7 hp = .1 in the 1/4 in the time range and weight range we're running in. Naturally, as you get faster it takes more hp to get the same amount of time reduction. Well, 31/7 = ~4.5 and 4.5 x .1 = .450. Dead smack in the middle of the 1/4 mile time gained between a stock DE and a stock HR. I use Veetec as a reference since he's an experienced driver and he has the top stock 1/4 mile times for both the DE and the HR. How much difference is there between his two times? .442, and we are all certain that it can still be better from looking at his timeslips.
Edit: I'd also like to add... I've seen people pointing out and complaining about the less torque. What is it anyway? Like 6 foot-pounds? That's nothing, lol. Plus, torque only helps you in the low rpm range, which would only be during your launch. Do you see any difference between the launching ability of the DE and the HR? I sure don't.
Also, if the HP is showing as less than it actually is due to the new SAE rating system, then isn't the torque understated as well? So in reality isn't it just a tad more than the older Z's then? (I don't know if it is or not, which is why I'm asking. I don't see why HP would show less with SAE but torque wouldn't. I'm not sure if this occured to anyone.)
Which is why the HR Z is seeing 1/4 mile times .4-.5 seconds faster. In my experience, 7 hp = .1 in the 1/4 in the time range and weight range we're running in. Naturally, as you get faster it takes more hp to get the same amount of time reduction. Well, 31/7 = ~4.5 and 4.5 x .1 = .450. Dead smack in the middle of the 1/4 mile time gained between a stock DE and a stock HR. I use Veetec as a reference since he's an experienced driver and he has the top stock 1/4 mile times for both the DE and the HR. How much difference is there between his two times? .442, and we are all certain that it can still be better from looking at his timeslips.
Edit: I'd also like to add... I've seen people pointing out and complaining about the less torque. What is it anyway? Like 6 foot-pounds? That's nothing, lol. Plus, torque only helps you in the low rpm range, which would only be during your launch. Do you see any difference between the launching ability of the DE and the HR? I sure don't.
Also, if the HP is showing as less than it actually is due to the new SAE rating system, then isn't the torque understated as well? So in reality isn't it just a tad more than the older Z's then? (I don't know if it is or not, which is why I'm asking. I don't see why HP would show less with SAE but torque wouldn't. I'm not sure if this occured to anyone.)
Anyone who is arguing against it is justifying something. The motor is better.
02-10-2008, 04:51 PM
#48
Registered User
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Tampa & Orlando, FL
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Peak350
There isn't really any less torque. Look at Aceman's dyno plots. HJis car heavily modded puts down slightly more power to his redline than a stock HR, and from there the HR just keeps going.
Anyone who is arguing against it is justifying something. The motor is better.
Anyone who is arguing against it is justifying something. The motor is better.
I haven't seen any high boost turbo HR's yet though. That's going to be the major deciding factor to me. I do have high expectations for it though. Bolt-on mods... eh, w/e... peanuts. I'm really looking forward to seeing the 700+ whp from the GReddy. From what I read, they supposedly said they believe they can safely get 510 whp from the stock internals. Coach just broke the rods in his DE today at 500 whp, stock internals. That would mean a +1 for the HR if GReddy can do that.
02-10-2008, 04:56 PM
#49
Originally Posted by RBlover69
not true at all, with slicks and every bolt tuned on good luck beating a DE lmao
not to mention a 75 shot should negate a HR very easily so i mean that comment is preety unfounded lmao.
not to mention a 75 shot should negate a HR very easily so i mean that comment is preety unfounded lmao.
Don't try to cast doubt on something.
02-10-2008, 05:04 PM
#50
i am hearing some people say that the 3.7 will be a better motor than the HR we have now. it was my understanding that the 3.7 coming out was the same as the HR just bored out to a 3.7 liter. i wouldn't say thats a better motor hell its the same damn motor we have now just bored out. so as far as im concered its not better.
just wait untill they come out with stroker kits for our motor. i have heard rumor of one coming out sometime this year that will make it a 4.2 liter. now thats some crazy stuff there.
but please correct me if im wrong on the whole motor thing but i thought i heard that its an HR. thanks
just wait untill they come out with stroker kits for our motor. i have heard rumor of one coming out sometime this year that will make it a 4.2 liter. now thats some crazy stuff there.
but please correct me if im wrong on the whole motor thing but i thought i heard that its an HR. thanks
02-10-2008, 05:06 PM
#51
Originally Posted by blinkme323
In a year or two when the 3.7 comes out we will all be in the same boat with an inferior engine, it's just the nature of the game.
02-10-2008, 05:23 PM
#53
Registered User
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Tampa & Orlando, FL
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Sensi09
The 3.7 has a significant increase in power over the HR, it's just that the G37 is a bit of a pig.
02-10-2008, 05:27 PM
#54
Sponsor
Works Concepts
Works Concepts
Originally Posted by 2007-Z
Weight/handling has no bearing on a dyno...
A 330hp engine with the same drivetrain loss as a 306HP engine....that's going to be a significant jump.
02-10-2008, 05:31 PM
#55
Originally Posted by Sensi09
The 3.7 has a significant increase in power over the HR, it's just that the G37 is a bit of a pig.
Actually not true.
https://my350z.com/forum/showthread....dyno+g37+vs+hr
The G37 hardly makes any more power than the HR Z does. The HR actually makes more TQ than the G37 does.
Dyno same day, same dyno the link above.
02-10-2008, 05:32 PM
#56
Registered User
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Tampa & Orlando, FL
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Sensi09
I've seen those back to back dynos, but not sure if it's indicative of all G37s. Have other G37s dynoed similar numbers to stock HRs? Might have just have been a weak G37 from the factory from what I can tell.
A 330hp engine with the same drivetrain loss as a 306HP engine....that's going to be a significant jump.
A 330hp engine with the same drivetrain loss as a 306HP engine....that's going to be a significant jump.
I'll wait until it's on the streets and proven itself. There's more to a car's performance than a peak HP number.
02-10-2008, 05:35 PM
#57
Sponsor
Works Concepts
Works Concepts
Yeah, I've seen that thread before. I made mention in the post prior to yours. If the Nissan/Infiniti are true to their rating though, that's a decent increase in power.
Under the old ratings, the rev-up is rated at 300bhp and the HR would have been rated at ~315bhp. When comparing the HR numbers to the 3.7, the difference is even larger. The HR is superior to the DE, and the 3.7 engine in a Z should be superior to a HR.
Under the old ratings, the rev-up is rated at 300bhp and the HR would have been rated at ~315bhp. When comparing the HR numbers to the 3.7, the difference is even larger. The HR is superior to the DE, and the 3.7 engine in a Z should be superior to a HR.
02-10-2008, 05:39 PM
#58
Registered User
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Tampa & Orlando, FL
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Sensi09
Yeah, I've seen that thread before. I made mention in the post prior to yours. If the Nissan/Infiniti are true to their rating though, that's a decent increase in power.
Under the old ratings, the rev-up is rated at 300bhp and the HR would have been rated at ~315bhp. When comparing the HR numbers to the 3.7, the difference is even larger. The HR is superior to the DE, and the 3.7 engine in a Z should be superior to a HR.
Under the old ratings, the rev-up is rated at 300bhp and the HR would have been rated at ~315bhp. When comparing the HR numbers to the 3.7, the difference is even larger. The HR is superior to the DE, and the 3.7 engine in a Z should be superior to a HR.
02-10-2008, 05:42 PM
#59
Originally Posted by Sensi09
Yeah, I've seen that thread before. I made mention in the post prior to yours. If the Nissan/Infiniti are true to their rating though, that's a decent increase in power.
Under the old ratings, the rev-up is rated at 300bhp and the HR would have been rated at ~315bhp. When comparing the HR numbers to the 3.7, the difference is even larger. The HR is superior to the DE, and the 3.7 engine in a Z should be superior to a HR.
Under the old ratings, the rev-up is rated at 300bhp and the HR would have been rated at ~315bhp. When comparing the HR numbers to the 3.7, the difference is even larger. The HR is superior to the DE, and the 3.7 engine in a Z should be superior to a HR.
Can somebody provide a time-slip for the G37?
02-10-2008, 05:43 PM
#60
Stock VQ35DE vs stock VQ35HR the evidence is pretty clear. The VQ35HR bumped me from #8 to # 19. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why.
For modified VQ35DE vs modified VQ35HR the results are inconclusive. We only have 6 modified VQ35HR for comparison. That's not enough to reach a sound conclusion.
For quarter mile performance, I voiced my opinion sometime ago that “Not Stock/Bolt-ons 07+ VQ35HR” should not be a unique class. Those times should be included in “Not Stock/Bolt-Ons 03-06 VQ35DE.” I have no problem competing heads-up against the VQ35HR. Let the chips fall as they may.
For modified VQ35DE vs modified VQ35HR the results are inconclusive. We only have 6 modified VQ35HR for comparison. That's not enough to reach a sound conclusion.
For quarter mile performance, I voiced my opinion sometime ago that “Not Stock/Bolt-ons 07+ VQ35HR” should not be a unique class. Those times should be included in “Not Stock/Bolt-Ons 03-06 VQ35DE.” I have no problem competing heads-up against the VQ35HR. Let the chips fall as they may.