Would the VQ40 be a worthwhile swap?
04-02-2005, 09:29 PM
#82
Supporting Maxima.org Member
iTrader: (17)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Montreal, Qc, Canada
Posts: 5,437
Originally Posted by subs1000w
theres no replacement for displacement but i would assume nissan will not icreasse the VQ past 4.0 they will probobly ride out the rest of decade with the VQ35-40 and then switch over to electric
04-02-2005, 09:35 PM
#83
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by subs1000w
theres no replacement for displacement but i would assume nissan will not icreasse the VQ past 4.0 they will probobly ride out the rest of decade with the VQ35-40 and then switch over to electric
they might come out with a hybrib butnissan wont switch to electric completly. cause if they did they would be no different from toyota and honda.
04-03-2005, 06:59 AM
#85
Originally Posted by Broaner
Does that mean its good? There are many 4.0+ liter engines in SUVs & trucks. That would be due to the necessity for torque in those vehicles.
04-03-2005, 08:35 AM
#87
[QUOTE=spanishrice]
The GM 4.3 90º V6 is a 350 smallblock with two cylinders lobbed off.QUOTE]
How do you just lope off 2 cylinders? You lope off the crank too?
Anything is possible with the right software. Yes, they shorten everything, obviously. Ford does the same thing as well. The Contour SVT used a 2.5L 60^ DOHC V6. The V8 Taurus SHO used a 3.4L DOHC 60^ V8. Same bore/stroke, just more cylinders...
Originally Posted by SR20DEN
The GM 4.3 90º V6 is a 350 smallblock with two cylinders lobbed off.QUOTE]
How do you just lope off 2 cylinders? You lope off the crank too?
Anything is possible with the right software. Yes, they shorten everything, obviously. Ford does the same thing as well. The Contour SVT used a 2.5L 60^ DOHC V6. The V8 Taurus SHO used a 3.4L DOHC 60^ V8. Same bore/stroke, just more cylinders...
04-03-2005, 08:52 PM
#90
Originally Posted by SR20DEN
Lets not forget the 3.0 Liter V10s used in F1. 
Those engines are soooooo awesome, but could you imagine trying to drive them on the streets (in a regular production car)? It just wouldn't work at all...
I love watching those things rev to redline and back down to idle in like half a second though. I've never seen such a responsive engine before...
04-03-2005, 09:07 PM
#92
Supporting Maxima.org Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 3,371
Originally Posted by JClaw
When did they say they were completely switching to electric? I think we'll still have the option between gas and electric for a while. We still have a fair amount of oil left.
04-03-2005, 09:12 PM
#93
Supporting Maxima.org Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 3,371
Originally Posted by Quicksilver
It's a wonderful engine in a terrible car. They should have tried to wedge it into the Contour SVT...
04-03-2005, 09:22 PM
#94
I also thought the Oldsmobile 4.0 liter V8 in the Aurora was a good platform (derived from the Northstar). It's too bad GM decided to kill off Oldsmobile instead of the blan Buick Brand. I know Olds had quality issues but at least they made nice looking cars and were technology driven. IIRC they made the USs first 16 valve DOHC 4 banger (quad4).
04-04-2005, 12:04 AM
#95
Supporting Maxima.org Member
iTrader: (17)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Montreal, Qc, Canada
Posts: 5,437
My dad had a few olds and they were pretty reliable. Had an eighty-eight for a while... damn thing just wouldn't die.
Christ you almost scared me 
I'm not ready to join Greenpeace yet. 
Originally Posted by subs1000w
im not SERIOUS about the electric thing just speculating or making fun of the whole consept
I'm not ready to join Greenpeace yet.
04-04-2005, 12:06 AM
#96
Are they changing the rules next year for F1 to force them to be 8's? I also love to watch and hear them rev up. They idle at what 11K?
Contour SVT's aren't that fabulous looking either.
Contour SVT's aren't that fabulous looking either.
04-04-2005, 10:54 AM
#98
Supporting Maxima.org Member
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Posts: 1,756
Originally Posted by spanishrice
Isnt the V8 in the Q45's like early 90 ones just a V8 version of the VQ?
http://www.freshalloy.com/site/featu...nes/home.shtml
04-05-2005, 03:15 PM
#99
Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 61
you think a 4.3's big for six cylinders? i used to have the 4.9l I-6 in a ford pickup. more torque than anyone would know what to do with (at 400rpm, anyways). show was over about 3krpm, stock heads on those things are HORRIBLE.
Oldsmobile is dead because that was the brand GM used to test all the experimental stuff, they don't really need to do that any more, and it's most of the reason for Olds's quality issues.
M45: 315hp V8, rear wheel drive sofa-on-wheels, great car.
M34 3.5l v6, all wheel drive, better mileage sofa-on-wheels. also great car.
Ford added two cylinders to the 4.6v8, came up with a 351 v-10 that's used in exactly ONE highly-experimental mustang (440wtq all the way to redline)) and also added two to the 5.4, came up with a 429v10 (i think) that's in the newest Shelby Cobra concept car. unfortunately, there's exactly ONE of these, too. But, at least the door swings both ways.
I'm going back to bed
E
Oldsmobile is dead because that was the brand GM used to test all the experimental stuff, they don't really need to do that any more, and it's most of the reason for Olds's quality issues.
M45: 315hp V8, rear wheel drive sofa-on-wheels, great car.
M34 3.5l v6, all wheel drive, better mileage sofa-on-wheels. also great car.
Ford added two cylinders to the 4.6v8, came up with a 351 v-10 that's used in exactly ONE highly-experimental mustang (440wtq all the way to redline)) and also added two to the 5.4, came up with a 429v10 (i think) that's in the newest Shelby Cobra concept car. unfortunately, there's exactly ONE of these, too. But, at least the door swings both ways.
I'm going back to bed
E
04-05-2005, 08:15 PM
#101
Originally Posted by DirtyErnie
you think a 4.3's big for six cylinders? i used to have the 4.9l I-6 in a ford pickup. more torque than anyone would know what to do with (at 400rpm, anyways). show was over about 3krpm, stock heads on those things are HORRIBLE.
04-06-2005, 06:29 AM
#102
Originally Posted by Broaner
Somebody at my school has one of them. Its a real POS with tons of torque. Dumbest thing ever. Pistons have gotta be the size of semis
5.9L I6 Cummins Turbo Diesel...
I love that engine...
04-07-2005, 02:50 PM
#104
Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 61
Somebody at my school has one of them. Its a real POS with tons of torque. Dumbest thing ever. Pistons have gotta be the size of semis
*emissions* heads don't flow for crap(FI, post-87). before i sold my truck, i was on a ford inline-six board (www.fordsix.com), and there was some hot hot engines over there. porting the stock head was good for quite a bit of power, and i believe someone ran the numbers with a buick Grand National t-type turbo and came up with positive boost at 1,000rpm, 8# by 1500rpm, and 450ft/lb from there to about 4krpm. Some other cat had a twin-turbo setup that was putting out obscene amounts of power at 22psi. said he had a problem one day at 23psi, and a couple rods came out looking like the old **** "SS" emblem
some crazy git discovered that symmetrical port SBC heads could be cut and welded to make a hi-po cross-flow performance head on the 240&300 fords. and that's just creepy. wish I hadn't sold my truck now, but it was a rust bucket and it paid the bills. *sigh*
enough rambling
*emissions* heads don't flow for crap(FI, post-87). before i sold my truck, i was on a ford inline-six board (www.fordsix.com), and there was some hot hot engines over there. porting the stock head was good for quite a bit of power, and i believe someone ran the numbers with a buick Grand National t-type turbo and came up with positive boost at 1,000rpm, 8# by 1500rpm, and 450ft/lb from there to about 4krpm. Some other cat had a twin-turbo setup that was putting out obscene amounts of power at 22psi. said he had a problem one day at 23psi, and a couple rods came out looking like the old **** "SS" emblem
some crazy git discovered that symmetrical port SBC heads could be cut and welded to make a hi-po cross-flow performance head on the 240&300 fords. and that's just creepy. wish I hadn't sold my truck now, but it was a rust bucket and it paid the bills. *sigh*
enough rambling
04-12-2005, 08:00 AM
#105
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: NJ
Posts: 417
Does someone have a photo of how the 4.0 engine sits in the new Xtera with the 2 wheel drive trans?
04-12-2005, 11:05 AM
#107
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: NJ
Posts: 417
So, the transmission has a single "output" that goes to a drive shaft with a rear differential??
04-12-2005, 12:04 PM
#109
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: NJ
Posts: 417
In a Prowler, there is a torque tube off of the flywheel.. The transaxle is in the rear of the car!
04-12-2005, 01:37 PM
#112
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: NJ
Posts: 417
Welp, I am looking at doing a transplant project using either the 3.5 or 4.0 engines in the rear wheel drive configuration (to mount to the frame in my application).
I wanted to start a new thread to ask some questions about it, but I am not blessed with this ability.
Looks like I will be using a Porsche transmission instead of the Nissan.
I wanted to start a new thread to ask some questions about it, but I am not blessed with this ability.
Looks like I will be using a Porsche transmission instead of the Nissan.
04-12-2005, 03:34 PM
#115
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 213
ahh yes, the VQ911 turbo
hahahaha...i love south park
Originally Posted by SR20DEN
Too late, the Simpsons already did it.
04-12-2005, 03:58 PM
#116
I'm just waiting until someone trys the 5.7 liter swap into a 5th gen!
The 4.0 block is probably the same since there's a kit to switch the 3.5 to a 4.3 liter (the 4.0 is probably bored larger), however, with all that extra weight in the pistons, rods and crank (needed to match the torque), I doubt this would be a high reving engine. The internals just weigh way too much to not throw a rod at 7 or 8k. There's too much mass to move around. However, the added weight up front would allow you to better take advantage of the added torque. With the right gearing (6 speed), it might be worthwhile, otherwise with the standard ratios in the five and six speeds, you'd be pushing it out of it's power band too much and probably run out of usable gears around 120 or so.
The 4.0 block is probably the same since there's a kit to switch the 3.5 to a 4.3 liter (the 4.0 is probably bored larger), however, with all that extra weight in the pistons, rods and crank (needed to match the torque), I doubt this would be a high reving engine. The internals just weigh way too much to not throw a rod at 7 or 8k. There's too much mass to move around. However, the added weight up front would allow you to better take advantage of the added torque. With the right gearing (6 speed), it might be worthwhile, otherwise with the standard ratios in the five and six speeds, you'd be pushing it out of it's power band too much and probably run out of usable gears around 120 or so.
04-12-2005, 04:52 PM
#117
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: NJ
Posts: 417
Originally Posted by NmexMAX
^And that's the exact reason why you don't have the ability.^
Boy, you know how to make a guy feel welcome!
Originally Posted by SR20DEN
Too late, the Simpsons already did it..
04-12-2005, 05:52 PM
#118
Supporting Maxima.org Member
iTrader: (17)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Montreal, Qc, Canada
Posts: 5,437
Originally Posted by GBAUER
I'm just waiting until someone trys the 5.7 liter swap into a 5th gen!
The 4.0 block is probably the same since there's a kit to switch the 3.5 to a 4.3 liter (the 4.0 is probably bored larger), however, with all that extra weight in the pistons, rods and crank (needed to match the torque), I doubt this would be a high reving engine. The internals just weigh way too much to not throw a rod at 7 or 8k. There's too much mass to move around. However, the added weight up front would allow you to better take advantage of the added torque. With the right gearing (6 speed), it might be worthwhile, otherwise with the standard ratios in the five and six speeds, you'd be pushing it out of it's power band too much and probably run out of usable gears around 120 or so.
The 4.0 block is probably the same since there's a kit to switch the 3.5 to a 4.3 liter (the 4.0 is probably bored larger), however, with all that extra weight in the pistons, rods and crank (needed to match the torque), I doubt this would be a high reving engine. The internals just weigh way too much to not throw a rod at 7 or 8k. There's too much mass to move around. However, the added weight up front would allow you to better take advantage of the added torque. With the right gearing (6 speed), it might be worthwhile, otherwise with the standard ratios in the five and six speeds, you'd be pushing it out of it's power band too much and probably run out of usable gears around 120 or so.
04-12-2005, 06:07 PM
#119
Originally Posted by MarcL
Have I broken some rule already??
Boy, you know how to make a guy feel welcome!
Ya, I get the south park reference.. But serously, has someone bolted a Porsche trans to a Nissan engine with any success? Can you direct me.
Boy, you know how to make a guy feel welcome!
Ya, I get the south park reference.. But serously, has someone bolted a Porsche trans to a Nissan engine with any success? Can you direct me.
I know of a VQ30DE that was crammed into a Porshe 914 but IIRC it still used the RS5F50A. You're 100% alone on the idea of using a Porsche Transmission and converting the car to rear engine.
04-12-2005, 06:07 PM
#120
Originally Posted by JClaw
The crank is bigger in the 4.0. The pistons are the same as the 3.5 (95.5 mm) but the compression is slightly lower (9.7:1 instead of 10.3:1). Not sure if it's the heads or the pistons that make the difference, probably the heads.
The pistons are not the same.