Notices
VQ37HVR Mods and Support related to the 2009+ VHR engine

370Z with a 3.7L??? When there is a 4.0!

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Nov 22, 2008 | 10:03 AM
  #1  
Dr. Venture's Avatar
Dr. Venture
Thread Starter
Registered User
iTrader: (19)
 
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,697
Likes: 3
From: Dirty Jersey
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; Nov 22, 2008 at 10:30 AM.
Reply
Old Nov 22, 2008 | 10:15 AM
  #2  
Mast3rShak3's Avatar
Mast3rShak3
Registered User
iTrader: (26)
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
From: Los Angeles
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.
Reply
Old Nov 22, 2008 | 02:43 PM
  #3  
davidv's Avatar
davidv
Registered User
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 42,753
Likes: 11
From: Tucson, AZ
Default

Weight distribution would be 70/30.
Reply
Old Nov 22, 2008 | 03:13 PM
  #4  
Mike@Blackline's Avatar
Mike@Blackline
Banned
iTrader: (37)
 
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 3,525
Likes: 0
From: Charlotte / Raleigh, NC
Default

id be game for a 4.0
Reply
Old Nov 22, 2008 | 04:40 PM
  #5  
Greg06's Avatar
Greg06
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,197
Likes: 0
From: San Francisco
Default

Originally Posted by Mast3rShak3
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...
Reply
Old Nov 22, 2008 | 05:03 PM
  #6  
bruddahmatt's Avatar
bruddahmatt
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
From: Hawaii
Default

Originally Posted by davidv
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.
Reply
Old Nov 22, 2008 | 05:12 PM
  #7  
BlueZ33's Avatar
BlueZ33
Registered User
iTrader: (19)
 
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 701
Likes: 0
From: Jacksonville, NC
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
Reply
Old Nov 22, 2008 | 11:04 PM
  #8  
T_K's Avatar
T_K
Registered User
iTrader: (5)
 
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 870
Likes: 3
From: Chicago
Default

Originally Posted by bruddahmatt
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
Reply
Old Nov 23, 2008 | 04:11 PM
  #9  
trebien's Avatar
trebien
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
From: ATX
Default

Originally Posted by bruddahmatt
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.
Reply
Old Nov 23, 2008 | 09:32 PM
  #10  
Faboo's Avatar
Faboo
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 630
Likes: 0
From: Buena Park
Default

Originally Posted by trebien
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
Reply
Old Nov 23, 2008 | 09:41 PM
  #11  
quietkilla6's Avatar
quietkilla6
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 804
Likes: 1
From: arizona
Default

Originally Posted by trebien
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.
Reply
Old Nov 23, 2008 | 10:24 PM
  #12  
Frostydc4's Avatar
Frostydc4
New Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,617
Likes: 18
From: Gilbert, AZ
Default

Originally Posted by davidv
Weight distribution would be 70/30.

Reply
Old Nov 24, 2008 | 01:46 AM
  #13  
newtkindred's Avatar
newtkindred
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 461
Likes: 0
From: san francisco, california
Default

Originally Posted by bruddahmatt
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; Nov 24, 2008 at 02:01 AM.
Reply
Old Nov 24, 2008 | 01:51 AM
  #14  
newtkindred's Avatar
newtkindred
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 461
Likes: 0
From: san francisco, california
Default

Originally Posted by newtkindred
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; Nov 24, 2008 at 01:58 AM.
Reply
Old Nov 24, 2008 | 08:34 AM
  #15  
BoostedAP1's Avatar
BoostedAP1
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
From: Kingdom Of Heaven
Default

A 400z wouldn't sound too bad.
Reply
Old Nov 24, 2008 | 09:47 AM
  #16  
trebien's Avatar
trebien
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
From: ATX
Default

Originally Posted by newtkindred
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...
Reply
Old Nov 24, 2008 | 10:45 AM
  #17  
Dr. Venture's Avatar
Dr. Venture
Thread Starter
Registered User
iTrader: (19)
 
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,697
Likes: 3
From: Dirty Jersey
Default

Originally Posted by trebien
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.
Reply
Old Nov 24, 2008 | 11:43 AM
  #18  
Hella's Avatar
Hella
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
From: Fl
Default

i hope this thread turns into a primer on torque vs hp, and how it relates to vehicle performance.
Reply
Old Nov 24, 2008 | 12:00 PM
  #19  
NISMO_558's Avatar
NISMO_558
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,003
Likes: 4
From: Minnesota
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
Reply
Old Nov 24, 2008 | 12:53 PM
  #20  
track1z's Avatar
track1z
Registered User
iTrader: (4)
 
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
From: Lawton OK
Default

nice
Reply



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:43 PM.