MY350Z.COM - Nissan 350Z and 370Z Forum Discussion

MY350Z.COM - Nissan 350Z and 370Z Forum Discussion (https://my350z.com/forum/)
-   VQ37HVR (https://my350z.com/forum/vq37hvr-524/)
-   -   370Z with a 3.7L??? When there is a 4.0! (https://my350z.com/forum/vq37hvr/400349-370z-with-a-3-7l-when-there-is-a-4-0-a.html)

Dr. Venture 11-22-2008 10:03 AM

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.

Mast3rShak3 11-22-2008 10:15 AM

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.

davidv 11-22-2008 02:43 PM

Weight distribution would be 70/30.:(

Mike@Blackline 11-22-2008 03:13 PM

id be game for a 4.0

Greg06 11-22-2008 04:40 PM


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.

Guess it wasn't one of the big 3's goals... :icon17:

bruddahmatt 11-22-2008 05:03 PM


Originally Posted by davidv (Post 6592589)
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. :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. :)

BlueZ33 11-22-2008 05:12 PM

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

T_K 11-22-2008 11:04 PM


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. :)

+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

trebien 11-23-2008 04:11 PM


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.

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.

Faboo 11-23-2008 09:32 PM


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.

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:werd:

quietkilla6 11-23-2008 09:41 PM


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.

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.

Frostydc4 11-23-2008 10:24 PM


Originally Posted by davidv (Post 6592589)
Weight distribution would be 70/30.:(


:rofl:

newtkindred 11-24-2008 01:46 AM


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. :)

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.

newtkindred 11-24-2008 01:51 AM


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.

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.

BoostedAP1 11-24-2008 08:34 AM

A 400z wouldn't sound too bad.

trebien 11-24-2008 09:47 AM


Originally Posted by newtkindred (Post 6597179)
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...

Dr. Venture 11-24-2008 10:45 AM


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...

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.

Hella 11-24-2008 11:43 AM

i hope this thread turns into a primer on torque vs hp, and how it relates to vehicle performance.

NISMO_558 11-24-2008 12:00 PM

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

track1z 11-24-2008 12:53 PM

nice


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:14 PM.


© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands