VE vs VQ (plus a pic to get you to look)
Originally Posted by Scope
Hp means nothing when you can't drive. Either way it'll probably be a drivers race. In the long run it comes down to gearing and driver.
The VQ is also lighter so that may give it the edge as the 4th gen is lighter but in the end stating that a car has 220whp means nothing. I took out a 98 accord V6 With VTEC but it was an auto on the highway in my vg auto (when I had it). From 40-100 I go it simply by turning my o/d off and killing the gas. It makes 40 more HP than me but that doesn't mean a thing. All in all take the cars to a track and find out with real numbers.
Originally Posted by Scope
Ummmm you're wrong......
They're also comparing which is faster. So hp doesn't hold anything but a number value. That still doesn't mean the VQ is better than the VE because it makes 220hp with full boltons and the VE doesn't with the same mods. HP really isn't that much if the driver sucks and the tranny is geared ineffeciently. All I was stating was that there are more than HP that plays a part in this bench racing game that's being played. I am going to go off topic proving this again. A 1000hp supra can get whipped by a stock civic if the driver think he can launch 100% throttle at the rip of 1st gear then do the same thing through second and into third trying to use every single hp on a stock rear end. That equals no traction and a loss. See what I am saying.
Yes the 00VI adds mucho hp but is it gonna be useable going against a VE5 similarly modded?? That is what I am questioning.
They're also comparing which is faster. So hp doesn't hold anything but a number value. That still doesn't mean the VQ is better than the VE because it makes 220hp with full boltons and the VE doesn't with the same mods. HP really isn't that much if the driver sucks and the tranny is geared ineffeciently. All I was stating was that there are more than HP that plays a part in this bench racing game that's being played. I am going to go off topic proving this again. A 1000hp supra can get whipped by a stock civic if the driver think he can launch 100% throttle at the rip of 1st gear then do the same thing through second and into third trying to use every single hp on a stock rear end. That equals no traction and a loss. See what I am saying.
Yes the 00VI adds mucho hp but is it gonna be useable going against a VE5 similarly modded?? That is what I am questioning.
Originally Posted by nismology
Preaching to the choir and completely irrelevant.
Again they are comparing a 220 hp vq so all I was stating was that hp isn't that much of a factor especailly if it cannot be properly and effectively placed onto the ground. I also stated that it would more than likely be a drivers race. I don't care how much off topic I am going nor do I care if you argue back but what I am stating is that when someone mentions this car is putting down 220hp that doesn't always mean it's faster. That is why I said if you cannot drive then you'll lose. That's also why I made an example with the supra and civic. I know because I raced people in my VG auto that should have killed me or they felt sorry for me. But they couldn't race to save their lives.
Honda motors in general aren't torquey and rely on good volumetric efficiency on the top-end and torque multiplication via short gearing so that wasn't a good example. I understand very well that area under the curve > peak numbers but a VQ is no slouch in the torque department by any stretch of the imagination.
That honda V6 is quoted to have 200hp and 195ft-lbs of torque which is 40hp more than the vg in hp and a few more ft-lbs in torque. It was also a 4speed auto so I am guessing the gears would be a tad longer than the 5-speeds. The VG has 160hp and 182 ft-lbs of torque. All of the honda's power is up top and the VG's power is down low. This was a highway race and the VG should have gotten beaten. This is irrevant and I relly don't care if it was or wasn't.
Originally Posted by nismology
What he said. We're discussing motors, not drivers. Btw the 3rd and 4th gen 5-speeds have the same exact gearing last i checked.
You're saying a whole lotta nothing and repeating yourself over and over and over again.
You should try consolidating your thoughts...anyhoo
The lowest n/a bolt-on VQ30 1/4 mile time on slicks is 13.4
The highest n/a bolt-on VQ30 trap speed is 103.xx
The lowest n/a bolt-on VQ30 1/4 mile time on street tires is 13.8
The highest n/a bolt-on VQ30 dyno that i know of is 220 WHP. It might be higher. http://forums.maxima.org/showthread.php?t=433265
Many bolt-on VQ30's are making over 200WTQ as well.
Once again, we're discussing motors. Not which car can ultimately be faster in the 1/4 mile. If we were in fact discussing that, you'd lose that argument too.
Fact: A VQ with VI will make more power mod for mod.
You should try consolidating your thoughts...anyhooThe lowest n/a bolt-on VQ30 1/4 mile time on slicks is 13.4
The highest n/a bolt-on VQ30 trap speed is 103.xx
The lowest n/a bolt-on VQ30 1/4 mile time on street tires is 13.8
The highest n/a bolt-on VQ30 dyno that i know of is 220 WHP. It might be higher. http://forums.maxima.org/showthread.php?t=433265
Many bolt-on VQ30's are making over 200WTQ as well.
Once again, we're discussing motors. Not which car can ultimately be faster in the 1/4 mile. If we were in fact discussing that, you'd lose that argument too.
Fact: A VQ with VI will make more power mod for mod.
Just cause 1 or 2 cars are the fast, does it mean they all are? you fail to leave out how much work went in to those cars, besides the motor too. When all said and done they are both slow, stock Stang will own them both.
I miss my VE
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,553
From: NY
I don't know what you guys are talkin about, but I stuck with my friends 255hp 06' 330i(auto) neck n' neck till his thing cut off at 130mph, by which time I was already at 140 pulling pretty well. He still hasn't passed me with a rolling start till this day. And Im stock far as I know.. So HP really doesn't mean anything here. And yes, I do own VQ5's up top on a regular basis. They get mad, and wonder why they lost to an older Maxima. VE Power! 
I don't even understand why you're all arguing this... Nissan designed the VQ to replace the VG/VE engine. Of course it's going to be superior in design, Nissan designed it to be didn't they? I also can't help but notice that you're all comparing the ve which comes with a variable intake manifold to the 4th gen vq30 which comes with a non-vi manifold... if you want to compare them fairly (the VI version of each engine) the VQ30DE-K comes stock comes with 222hp/217tq (and it isn't even a true VI), where as the VE30DE comes with 190hp/190tq, I won't even bring the VQ30DD into this which makes 240hp/227tq. Oh and the VQ weighs a hell of alot less since's it's an aluminum block engine, where the VE is based on the VG which is an iron block. There really is no comparison... If you were to put a VQ30DE, even the USIM one into a 3rd gen, it should still whip a VE's *** simply because of the weight difference combined with the more low end tq with equal drivers. I'm not ragging on the VE but the VQ is quite simply designed to replace the VG/VE, so why even argue if it's superior or not, it was designed to be.
I miss my VE
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,553
From: NY
Originally Posted by h2kFrosty
I don't even understand why you're all arguing this... Nissan designed the VQ to replace the VG/VE engine. Of course it's going to be superior in design, Nissan designed it to be didn't they? I also can't help but notice that you're all comparing the ve which comes with a variable intake manifold to the 4th gen vq30 which comes with a non-vi manifold... if you want to compare them fairly (the VI version of each engine) the VQ30DE-K comes stock comes with 222hp/217tq (and it isn't even a true VI), where as the VE30DE comes with 190hp/190tq, I won't even bring the VQ30DD into this which makes 240hp/227tq. Oh and the VQ weighs a hell of alot less since's it's an aluminum block engine, where the VE is based on the VG which is an iron block. There really is no comparison... If you were to put a VQ30DE, even the USIM one into a 3rd gen, it should still whip a VE's *** simply because of the weight difference combined with the more low end tq with equal drivers. I'm not ragging on the VE but the VQ is quite simply designed to replace the VG/VE, so why even argue if it's superior or not, it was designed to be.
Originally Posted by VEvolution
Don't be too sure about that buddy. I heard the reason they stopped building the VE was because it wasn't cheap, it had its unsolved VTC issue, it was based as you said on an older design, the more "efficient" VQ was on the way, and Nissan were kinda getting broke at the time. Cheapening out was a great plan indeed. Why do you think the VE was so short lived? Think about it..
Originally Posted by h2kFrosty
uh, they made the vg block all the way until 2004... the vg33e in the frontier/xterra etc. The VE was short lived because it was made to be a temporary replacement for the VG30e in the maxima, since the VQ was being made for the 4th gens, we all know that. That's not the discussion... people are arguing that the VE is superior to the VQ which it is not. Once again I'm not knocking the VE's potential, it's a great engine as well. If it was free and was a direct swap, which would you rather have in your car... a VQ30DE-K or a VE30DE?
I have watched / been a part of VE / VQ arguments a few times over the past five years. VE always comes up a tad short.
Can blame a guy for trying. 
Originally Posted by dmontzsta
Just cause 1 or 2 cars are the fast, does it mean they all are? you fail to leave out how much work went in to those cars, besides the motor too.
When all said and done they are both slow, stock Stang will own them both.
And for whoever is wondering, the MEVI could have very easily have been factory fare on the USDM market since it came stock on A32's overseas. Nissan North America figured that the average north american consumer would take excellent low-end and mid-range punch over top-end power so they designed the intake manifold accordingly.
I miss my VE
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,553
From: NY
Forget about engines, lets just compare the cars as a whole in stock form. On a road course, Im pretty sure the 3rd gen would own largely due to its IRS. Anybody know the c/d of the 4th gen? On a straight line, the VE would come out on top in the end even though the VQ will probably show it a thing or two in the 1/4. Thats all that matters to me when comparing the two. Better car in the performance department overall in my opinion. Looks and sounds better too. 4DSC FTW!! 
Originally Posted by VEvolution
Forget about engines, lets just compare the cars as a whole in stock form. On a road course, Im pretty sure the 3rd gen would own largely due to its IRS.
Anybody know the c/d of the 4th gen?
On a straight line, the VE would come out on top in the end even though the VQ will probably show it a thing or two in the 1/4.
Thats all that matters to me when comparing the two. Better car in the performance department overall in my opinion.
Looks and sounds better too. 4DSC FTW!!
I miss my VE
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,553
From: NY
Originally Posted by nismology
Last i knew the 4th gen posted better slalom numbers, had higher absolute grip, and higher torsional rigidity.
Originally Posted by nismology
.31
Originally Posted by nismology
In theory it should be. But is it actually....?
Sorry but I just can't picture a minivan suspension being better then an IRS, even if that can sound a bit uneducated. No offense
Originally Posted by VEvolution
Sorry but I just can't picture a minivan suspension being better then an IRS, even if that can sound a bit uneducated. No offense
Also, hate to do this to you, but a few seconds on Google would indicate that the 4thGen coefficient of drag is indeed .31
http://www.internetautoguide.com/car...ima/index.html
Originally Posted by Pervis Anathema
Actually, stock for stock, the 4thGen handles better. I have a video that was put together by Nissan (IIRC) which explains in detail benefits and handling gains of the 4thGen over the 3rdGen. But that is stock. I suspect that my rear suspension would be more than enough to handle a Minima.
Also, hate to do this to you, but a few seconds on Google would indicate that the 4thGen coefficient of drag is indeed .31
http://www.internetautoguide.com/car...ima/index.html
Also, hate to do this to you, but a few seconds on Google would indicate that the 4thGen coefficient of drag is indeed .31
http://www.internetautoguide.com/car...ima/index.html
Originally Posted by Scope
I've paced a M3 when I had my old vG auto and gotit to around 135-140ish according to him. It took like a mile and a half of road though. That engine was screaming and the M3 driver was like the VG sounded insane up top. Still not bad for an engine that had 230k miles at the time.
funny i just did the same thing last weekend. i miss that car i never get to drive it...
I miss my VE
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,553
From: NY
Originally Posted by Pervis Anathema
Actually, stock for stock, the 4thGen handles better. I have a video that was put together by Nissan (IIRC) which explains in detail benefits and handling gains of the 4thGen over the 3rdGen. But that is stock. I suspect that my rear suspension would be more than enough to handle a Minima.
Or it could just be marketing like dmon said. Did it make sense what they were talkin about?
Originally Posted by Pervis Anathema
Also, hate to do this to you, but a few seconds on Google would indicate that the 4thGen coefficient of drag is indeed .31
Originally Posted by dmontzsta
heh, thats called "MARKETING" friend. If you want to know the true differences of each, by one of each, then drive them, that is what I did.
Hater!!....lol
Originally Posted by internetautomar
shame the VQ got wrapped in a poorly built POS for it's introduction
They don't get it...
Originally Posted by nismology
4G SE = .83 G and 65.1 MPH according to motor trend...
Your turn...
Your turn...
Originally Posted by dmontzsta
I have all the numbers at home, I will get them off my computer tonight. If I remember correctly most of them were pretty damn close, the 3G was a little slower in the slalom. But the 3G had 15" wheels for the test, with bigger tires, while the 4G had 16" wheels and a shorter sidewall, this contributes alot.
Originally Posted by dmontzsta
I dont consider myself an expert in this thread, just experienced. I have owned my 92 SE 5 Speed since 1997. I just sold my 97 SE 5 Speed which I owned roughly 5 years. Both of them had nearly identical mods, from the prodotyped WSP SFCs which both cars were used at the testers, to the pop chargers, WSP Y, exhaust, everything was pretty much the same. When it came time to go with more power (I bought a Mustang) I had to let one go, after thinking VERY hard, I let the 97 loose from the stable. The 92 has a deeper soul, it wants to bang around on any kind of road and it wants to CLIMB AND CLIMB AND CLIMB on the top end. I also found it easier to work on than the VQ. I could write a book about the difference, from the ebrake in the leg, to the sloppy shifting the list goes on and on. I have had the VE PEGGED with hardly any mods 145+, the VQ would struggle after 110mph.
VEs ROCK!
I have owned my 92 SE 5 Speed since 1997. I just sold my 97 SE 5 Speed which I owned roughly 5 years. Both of them had nearly identical mods, from the prodotyped WSP SFCs which both cars were used at the testers, to the pop chargers, WSP Y, exhaust, everything was pretty much the same. When it came time to go with more power (I bought a Mustang) I had to let one go, after thinking VERY hard, I let the 97 loose from the stable. The 92 has a deeper soul, it wants to bang around on any kind of road and it wants to CLIMB AND CLIMB AND CLIMB on the top end. I also found it easier to work on than the VQ. I could write a book about the difference, from the ebrake in the leg, to the sloppy shifting the list goes on and on. I have had the VE PEGGED with hardly any mods 145+, the VQ would struggle after 110mph.VEs ROCK!
Originally Posted by Duckman540i
They don't know about the VE's.........................
I don't know howww many 4G 3.0's have been in the low 14's/high 13's n/a...lolAnd see post #110 in case you decide to get ignorant...
