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. |
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.
|
Weight distribution would be 70/30.:(
|
id be game for a 4.0
|
Originally Posted by Mast3rShak3
(Post 6591845)
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.
|
Originally Posted by davidv
(Post 6592589)
Weight distribution would be 70/30.:(
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. :) |
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
|
Originally Posted by bruddahmatt
(Post 6593045)
Yah, because a longer stroke version of a motor with the same bore spacing will totally f**k up your weight distribution. :icon18:
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. :) TK |
Originally Posted by bruddahmatt
(Post 6593045)
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.
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. |
Originally Posted by trebien
(Post 6595648)
Although, I would wish they invest the money into direct injention before displacement increases... as I'm sure they will.
|
Originally Posted by trebien
(Post 6595648)
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. |
Originally Posted by davidv
(Post 6592589)
Weight distribution would be 70/30.:(
:rofl: |
Originally Posted by bruddahmatt
(Post 6593045)
Yah, because a longer stroke version of a motor with the same bore spacing will totally f**k up your weight distribution. :icon18:
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. :) |
Originally Posted by newtkindred
(Post 6597174)
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.
|
A 400z wouldn't sound too bad.
|
Originally Posted by newtkindred
(Post 6597179)
Actually, some quick cars have been made focusing on torque.
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... |
Originally Posted by trebien
(Post 6598694)
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... |
i hope this thread turns into a primer on torque vs hp, and how it relates to vehicle performance.
|
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
|
nice
|
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:14 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands