the real deal is that who cares if any nissan v6 can make 600, 1,000, or even 1,500 hp on stock this-or-that... unless you plan on actually pushing one that far, stop talking about how high the sky is and worry about what you want to do with your engine. Jeremy has 400WHP on a stock bottom end on a VG. Well within limits. And the car is fast as a stabbed rat. Want more? Make more. You can do it on a VG30, VE30, VQ30 or VQ35. All of them can do at least 600hp. Can you, or your MAXIMA handle 600hp? Probably not. And if not, then why do you care if your block can? It's like putting V-rated tires on a Civic......


moral of the story: If you like the appearance of the letter G, make your 300HP on a VG. If you like the appearance of the letter E, make your 300hp on a VE. If you like the number 5 better than the number 0, then make your 300hp on a VQ35. Because most nobody in here will be going past 300hp anyways.

 

You do know there is a VQ40DE right? Not alot of people have played with it since last I checked it wasn't made before 2005 at which time it was put on the Xterra and with my little knowledge of the VQ and how strong they are I would assume the big displacement engine would be the one with the big dyno numbers. if you do the math 2/3s of 4.0 is about 2.6, the stock displacement of the best RB. If you notice I said something along the lines of "with a full liter more displacement than a VG maybe". 3.0+1=4.0.

 

 

*sniff sniff* I smell a challenge

 

lol

 

I started this whole debate, but my main point was, why would you swap a VQ for a VE or a VG, when the VQ is better.

Oh and BTW, I am planning on pushing the limits of an unopened vq30det and it's not in a fwd car.... I wouldn't want anything more than 400whp in a maxima.

 

my slow DD probably makes that much as it sits...

 

ntrly.... just a statement of fact

keyword most

 

I know..

 

95 VQ 190 hp @5600 rpm 205tq @4000 rpm
93 VE 190 hp @5600 rpm 190 tq @4000rpm
93 VG 160 hp @5200 rpm 182 tq @2800 rpm

thats why

 

peaks mean nothing. they are only meant as selling points. it's kindof crappy actually to start losing torque from 3k onward.... i'd rather have 170 at 2800 and 190 at 5000, than have 182 at 2800 and 120 at 5000. VE and VQ make more power over more revs. the fact that my car is anemic over 5000 is strange to me having driven my mom's car where 4000rpm shifts are 'normal' and 6200 is flat-out. it's hard to get good use of the gearing when you have a shallow cieling.

seriously try racing someone that has the same HP and Tq numbers as a VG just at higher rpms. you are shifting at 5500ish and well out of the torqueband, meanwhile they are shifting at 6500 and right in the goodies of theirs. they win.

 

So I have a thought and or question for you VE guys if a VG30DE=VE30DE could you wire in a ecu from a 300zx for a extra 30hp or is the power drop due more to the intake/head change even though the Max had VI

 

from what I have read thats just bolting on a SC or turbo, around 400hp is when you need to start putting some ARP bolts in

 

it has to do with flow characteristics that you eluded too.
I'm also fairly certain that camshaft selection played a part as well.

 

The VE30DE being the VG30DE is far from accurate. They are to some degree similar but they aren't the same engine. It's just like say comparing a 427ci mustang engine to a 427ci camaro engine. Same size, same configuration, drivetrain layout, etc but thats where the similaries end. The VE and VG would be much closer since they share a common cylinder bore but I can't recall hearing about VG30DE owners with clacking VTCs for example.

 

The VE engine is a 3.0 L V6 piston engine from Nissan. It is based on the Nissan VG engine and was only used for the '92, '93, and '94 model years. This engine has an iron block, aluminum cylinder heads with 4 valves per cylinder and dual overhead camshafts, variable valve timing on the intake camshafts, coil on plug ignition, and an available variable intake manifold. (5spd only)

A major difference between the VE30DE and the VG30DE engine are the heads. The low underhood clearance on the 1992–1994 Maxima demanded a special head to be developed with 30°, rather than 46°, between the valves. Lack of space also demanded a redesigned camshaft drive system, so a special chain drive was developed. The engine is otherwise similar to the VG30DE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_VE_engine

but yea the the VTC clacking seems to be a issue with the FWD, I wonder if the air flowing over the engine in a RWD set up kept them cool enough to keep them from having issues

 

These arent air-cooled engines, and the VTC has no direct thermal contact with the timing chain cover anyway.

Instead of stabbing in the dark, do some searching and reading on VTCs first.

 

What the huh? VE in a RWD?

 

yu kan doo nething 4 10g's, yo.

</gangsta>

 

I have and from what I have read the main issue is that the oil passages get clogged causing the VTC to not get enough oil there for ruining the springs so with the timing chain cover facing the the front of the car with the cooling fan right there in theory the heat build up in the timing cover would be less with the air flowing over it due to radiant heat loss.

and no I'm not confused the VG30DE was used in the RWD (300ZX) and the VE30DE was only used in the maxima due to hood/head clearance. Both engines have the same equipment VTC, 4 valves per cylinder, chain driven cams, and so on, the VTC issue seems to be a FWD issue.

 

well it would be a easy swap for a 300zx but then you would lose like 30hp so not worth it

 

That obviously makes me the confused one!

 

i think what vern is saying is that the VTC system on the VG30DE rwd engine didn't have problems even though it was similar to the FWD-implementation on the FWD-only (well, 92-94 max se-only) VE

 

LOL yeah, I was skimming through in stead of actually reading. Guess I can't pay attention to work and the .org at the same time. No offense intended.

 

I don't believe the Z VTCs were identical to the maxima units.

And the VG30DEs on the Z were belt driven

As for the hp/torque @ whatever rpm as far as the SOHC VG goes, that just means the VG is running out of breath that much sooner.

A 18 wheeler semi make WAY more hp/torque at a much lower rpm. You don't see that winning any drag races do ya?

 

well i've always wondered why a diesel wouldn't be at least moderately fast if put on a lighter weight vehicle and geared appropriately. of course, you multiply the tq by the final gearing to get wheel tq figures... so i dunno what it would come out to be in reality.

and are the VG vtcs on the z still oil-controlled?

 

you mean like this
http://youtube.com/watch?v=z4BrHzlOOQg&feature=related

 

give or take, yea

 

So you think because of that a VG will hang with a VE?

 

Give or take a turbo?

 

who's that to? if me, i don't remember implying that

 

heh true. but like, i know that some diesel engines make like, what, 150 lbft/L at around 2000rpm? well can't they just gear it so that the gears are twice as long? making it like 75 lbft/L @ 4000 on a gas engine

 

well 150 for a small engine just for a idea here is a few nissan diesels
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_YD_engine

I can't wait to see what the 2010 diesel with CVT with limiters removed and maybe a turbo is going to do.

 

I have been giving consideration to a diesel swap for my car, it would be just as much work as a VQ swap set up to run on E100

 

good point

 

It's good stuff for sure. I saw a show on TV where a diesel hummer was being run on canola oil and on that episode I saw it snap 2 axles. Insane crap right there, you would either have to get super thick aftermarket axles to even hope to get through the quarter mile. I think this hummer ran like 11-12 seconds and from what I gathered was a pretty much stock diesel engine and drivetrain. An H2 weighs 6400lbs according to wikipedia so I can only imagine what would happen if they put this engine in lets say...a 240SX or something else that weighs below 3000lbs. It would at least kill the "10 second cars" from The Fast and The Furious