The swap is complete but I need some ideas....
09-03-2008, 05:51 PM
#241
09-03-2008, 07:01 PM
#244
09-03-2008, 07:31 PM
#245
Jared has it right. I'd rather have less displacement so I can get better mileage until I hammer it to build boost.
09-03-2008, 09:09 PM
#246
Not to mention how much lighter a VQ35 is than a VG/VE. Significantly lighter engine = lighter car = better gas mileage (and handling).
Last edited by nismology; 09-03-2008 at 09:15 PM.
09-03-2008, 09:38 PM
#247
I dunno if I buy this. A larger engine makes more torque by virtue of it's geometry (increased cylinder volume as well but not the primary reason) and thus doesn't necessarily need to swallow as much air to match the torque output of the smaller engine at a given throttle position. Especially when you're dealing with a relatively small 3.0 to 3.5 jump.
Not to mention how much lighter a VQ35 is than a VG/VE. Significantly lighter engine = lighter car = better gas mileage (and handling).
Not to mention how much lighter a VQ35 is than a VG/VE. Significantly lighter engine = lighter car = better gas mileage (and handling).
09-03-2008, 10:56 PM
#248
^ I know what you mean. I used to think the SAME EXACT way when I first read about the possibility of a 3.5 swap into an A32; "boosted 3.0 >>> n/a 3.5" "it's just bigger" etc etc. But then I read about all the improvements the VQ35 has over the VQ30. I'm a believer.
09-04-2008, 06:18 AM
#249
I dunno if I buy this. A larger engine makes more torque by virtue of it's geometry (increased cylinder volume as well but not the primary reason) and thus doesn't necessarily need to swallow as much air to match the torque output of the smaller engine at a given throttle position. Especially when you're dealing with a relatively small 3.0 to 3.5 jump.
Not to mention how much lighter a VQ35 is than a VG/VE. Significantly lighter engine = lighter car = better gas mileage (and handling).
Not to mention how much lighter a VQ35 is than a VG/VE. Significantly lighter engine = lighter car = better gas mileage (and handling).
a VQ35 is not that much lighter than VG/VE motor. 100lbs or so IIRC.
09-04-2008, 08:27 AM
#251
you don't have to believe it, but it is. the reason that OEMs use turbos on smaller engines to make HP is because although you lose the initial torque of a higher displacement engine you will still have (under boost) the hp. boost is not always present, and the cars engine sensor detect when it is. when under boost the computer ADDS fuel proportionally. when boost is not present, the computer does not add that fuel which means less is used.
a VQ35 is not that much lighter than VG/VE motor. 100lbs or so IIRC.
a VQ35 is not that much lighter than VG/VE motor. 100lbs or so IIRC.
the..... engine sensor? you mean the MAF? boost pressure sensor?
sorry.. i lawled when i read "engine sensor"
09-04-2008, 09:23 AM
#252
internetautomar: I believe you are oversimplifying things. There's more to it than that. A smaller engine, turbocharged or not, doesn't guarantee better gas mileage. Just look at Evo's and STi/WRX's....
There's overall intake/exhaust port efficiency, weight of reciprocating parts, the total friction of all the moving parts, volumetric efficiency @ highway cruising speeds, how much pumping loss the turbo causes (turbo HP is not free), combustion chamber design, valve included angle which helps determine how much swirl the fuel/air mixture has when entering the chamber, injector size/design (turbo motors require larger injectors which might not atomize the fuel as well as smaller, stock'ish injectors) etc. All that stuff matters too.
Fact: People that swap VQ35's into their A32's do not see a drop in gas mileage based solely on the increase in engine displacement. In fact, some have seen mileage go up slightly.
P.S.: A VQ35 sans accessories and exhaust manifolds weighs in around 315 pounds. Anybody weighed a VE/VG? Just curious...
Last edited by nismology; 09-04-2008 at 09:50 AM.
09-04-2008, 10:08 AM
#254
Those are small 4 cylinders, not 3.0 liter V6's. Big difference.
internetautomar: I believe you are oversimplifying things. There's more to it than that. A smaller engine, turbocharged or not, doesn't guarantee better gas mileage. Just look at Evo's and STi/WRX's....
There's overall intake/exhaust port efficiency, weight of reciprocating parts, the total friction of all the moving parts, volumetric efficiency @ highway cruising speeds, how much pumping loss the turbo causes (turbo HP is not free), combustion chamber design, valve included angle which helps determine how much swirl the fuel/air mixture has when entering the chamber, injector size/design (turbo motors require larger injectors which might not atomize the fuel as well as smaller, stock'ish injectors) etc. All that stuff matters too.
Fact: People that swap VQ35's into their A32's do not see a drop in gas mileage based solely on the increase in engine displacement. In fact, some have seen mileage go up slightly.
P.S.: A VQ35 sans accessories and exhaust manifolds weighs in around 315 pounds. Anybody weighed a VE/VG? Just curious...
internetautomar: I believe you are oversimplifying things. There's more to it than that. A smaller engine, turbocharged or not, doesn't guarantee better gas mileage. Just look at Evo's and STi/WRX's....
There's overall intake/exhaust port efficiency, weight of reciprocating parts, the total friction of all the moving parts, volumetric efficiency @ highway cruising speeds, how much pumping loss the turbo causes (turbo HP is not free), combustion chamber design, valve included angle which helps determine how much swirl the fuel/air mixture has when entering the chamber, injector size/design (turbo motors require larger injectors which might not atomize the fuel as well as smaller, stock'ish injectors) etc. All that stuff matters too.
Fact: People that swap VQ35's into their A32's do not see a drop in gas mileage based solely on the increase in engine displacement. In fact, some have seen mileage go up slightly.
P.S.: A VQ35 sans accessories and exhaust manifolds weighs in around 315 pounds. Anybody weighed a VE/VG? Just curious...
my brother got 24 mpg city out of my parents V6 malibu.
part of the reason the people have seen mpg go up is because they aren't pushing the car as hard to make it achieve the same speeds.
09-04-2008, 10:17 AM
#255
on an EVO/STi they build boost from idle. if one can stay out of high boost they can get good mpg.
my brother got 24 mpg city out of my parents V6 malibu.
part of the reason the people have seen mpg go up is because they aren't pushing the car as hard to make it achieve the same speeds.
But again, at the throttle positions we're talking about, a VQ35 isn't swallowing much more than a 3.0. Not enough to reduce MPG on it's own. The thinking that "if it's bigger it must automatically use more gas" is false and conjecture, at best.
09-04-2008, 10:25 AM
#256
I said the same exact thing in post #246. Thanks for agreeing. But again, at the throttle positions we're talking about, a VQ35 isn't swallowing much more than a 3.0. Not enough to reduce MPG on it's own. The thinking that "if it's bigger it must automatically use more gas" is false and conjecture, at best.
But again, at the throttle positions we're talking about, a VQ35 isn't swallowing much more than a 3.0. Not enough to reduce MPG on it's own. The thinking that "if it's bigger it must automatically use more gas" is false and conjecture, at best.
10-01-2008, 11:53 AM
#258
for a VE swap? well you're gonna need to get either the hubs off the VE, or get the outer joints of your VG axles put onto the VE inner+shaft. Your car, being a 93, will have less electrical fixes to do since you already have a time control unit as opposed to my car, which has more individualized controllers and such cuz it's a 90. I forget what year they switched that... gut says 92 but i'm not sure. there may be a few other components that you'd have to switch to get the VE engine to work right though, like the ac piping is different on the VE i think.
10-04-2008, 07:38 AM
#259
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Surrey, B.C
Posts: 1,355
for a VE swap? well you're gonna need to get either the hubs off the VE, or get the outer joints of your VG axles put onto the VE inner+shaft. Your car, being a 93, will have less electrical fixes to do since you already have a time control unit as opposed to my car, which has more individualized controllers and such cuz it's a 90. I forget what year they switched that... gut says 92 but i'm not sure. there may be a few other components that you'd have to switch to get the VE engine to work right though, like the ac piping is different on the VE i think.
10-04-2008, 05:34 PM
#260
ya DO DAT....its a pain in de *** if u mixed VE VG axles.....i have da same driver side axle problem....i donoo wat on the earth i have in my car but i have a VE engine but i don have a LSD tranny....so i have to get inner joint from the VG axle and leave the outter joint like that so it can fit VE hub.....i have to customize it DAMMIT...
10-04-2008, 06:19 PM
#262
10-04-2008, 06:50 PM
#263
10-04-2008, 07:49 PM
#264
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Surrey, B.C
Posts: 1,355
03-18-2010, 02:45 AM
#265
Reviving the thread
Is it worth swapping a VE into a pre 92 Max. Reading the thread it's obviously harder to do than swapping in an VQ35 into a 92 and up Max SE because of closer electrical compatibility. Did the guy ever get the issues sorted out, seems like he stop posting when the thread got too noisy with that dude jacking the thread with his ground breaking VQ35de swap instead of starting his own. And they let him. Anyway I have a few questions. Did the OP swap the harness that goes from the SMJ to the steering and a few other places, he probably didn't swap the airbag setup (though it can be done albeit with difficulty) did he swap the steering assembly (which makes sense to me). Did he swap the water **** solenoid valve. The AC piping is different and drilling is needed in at least two placed in the engine bay. The write up should have been revised. I think.
Last edited by Augustus Maximus; 03-18-2010 at 11:51 AM.
03-19-2010, 03:24 PM
#268
Mission accomplished...ran out of time or I would've put it into the VG shell. The weather was great and I was in no hurry so even though it's tedious work, it felt ok.
Last edited by Augustus Maximus; 03-22-2010 at 07:15 PM.
03-27-2010, 12:59 AM
#269
Anyway I transplanted the 92 harnesses in the 90 shell. Everything works except the indicators. The hazard light works but the alarm is going off. The engine is not in yet as I want to get the electrical problems squared away first. I'm swapping the steering assembly along with the SMJ harness that goes to it. I also have a hard copy 1990 FSM en route.
03-27-2010, 08:09 AM
#270
Anyway I transplanted the 92 harnesses in the 90 shell. Everything works except the indicators. The hazard light works but the alarm is going off. The engine is not in yet as I want to get the electrical problems squared away first. I'm swapping the steering assembly along with the SMJ harness that goes to it. I also have a hard copy 1990 FSM en route.
Last edited by CapedCadaver; 03-27-2010 at 08:18 AM.
03-27-2010, 06:23 PM
#271
That's why I'm swapping the entire steering assembly because of the big difference between two.
03-27-2010, 06:39 PM
#272
03-31-2010, 05:27 PM
#273
You're right...I'm tracing the horn, turn signal and ASCD wires into the SMJ plug then connect it like it is on the VG harness.
Today:
Found them. For the indicator...two pins need to be put into the SMJ connector on the VE harness. For the horn and ASCD...I'll have to splice on the VG connector.
Last edited by Augustus Maximus; 04-10-2010 at 11:17 AM.
04-15-2010, 08:35 PM
#274
A Few more Things
Fuel pump circuit and connector is different. Have to swap the cooling unit to make the hose from the AC compressor bolt up because of size differences. I have a hard copy 1990 FSM in hand and a 1992 version on the way. You need precise info if you're gonna smash the VE into the VG and expect it to work right. I think. I am taking pics of the process so the next shmuck won't fall for the oversimplified writeup the way I did.
Last edited by Augustus Maximus; 04-15-2010 at 09:19 PM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
James92SE
3rd Generation Maxima (1989-1994)
142
01-02-2024 09:23 AM
hez8813
5th Generation Maxima (2000-2003)
11
03-12-2020 12:06 AM