I already started a thread w/ pix of the swap here. I wasn't in today, but I'm sure the welder came in and finished off the last of the mounts. Here's a thread w/ pix:
http://forums.maxima.org/showthread.php?t=512205

I needed some Qs answered b/c there are some minor things I don't know about the VQ35. I'm more at home with the SR20.

First of all, AEM standalone is my final choice b/c it supports all 6 coil-on-plug drivers. All wiring in the car will be done by hand as I'm quite knowledgeable in electrical.

Unfortunately, CVTCS is a no-go. Management for that is too costly and I already know IMMU prevents me from using the stock ECU. I assume these 2 items control the CVTCS and I should just leave disconnected, correct?


Next up, cam position sensors. Prolly goes without saying but I'm sure the following picture is them. Do I need to use both or are the cams in sync when I don't use the CVTCS?


It would seem that the VQ uses dual runner lengths at low/high RPMs. Can anyone tell me which position is low RPM and which position is for High RPM? What's the best way to actuate the valve?


Last question for now, I plan to do all the exhaust by hand. I'm thinking either 3" single or 2.25" dual. Has anyone done full dual in which both pipes run next to rachother and split at the rear axle?

Check the boosted forum. One person ran dedicated dual all the way back and around the spare tire well.

I can help you with the Variable intake actuator, check the "v-afc2 in a 99es" thread the answer is ALL in there. Go with the V-afc2 for the tuning abilities and integrated rpm switch for VI actuation. Forget about the ''oh-so-popular'' msd8969 or harlan rpm switch. Buy yourself a v-afc2.. super project by the way, looking forward to get 1/4 mile results, and I would like to see the looks on the faces of people who's gonna hear you sentra with 3.5 dual exhaust rumble, priceless!! keep it fast!!

Here are a couple of pics of my 2.5" dual with X-pipe. I am using 3" collectors on out of my modified Hotshot headers.

Is the Sentra's tunnel as spacious as the Maxima's?

3” Collector coming from Hotshot headers…


X-pipe and Wideband O2 bung


Panoramic view of undercarriage....

The cams will be in sync but they will be at the most retarded position, pushed up againt the stop in the VTC pulley. This will result in a 64* intake valve closure ATDC full time. Just for reference, with operating VTC the ECU doesn't reach full retard until 6200 RPM. You will lose a ton of low-end and midrange unless you can advance the cams somehow. I don't see how you can do it without resorting to using VQ30 timing equipment.
Not quite. It uses variable suction port length.
The power valve is open by default. Applying vacuum closes it.
Window switch, hands down.

I said it once and i'll say it again....you cannot properly control the 3.5 VIAS using a V-AFC II.

And i've always wondered this.....why didn't people ever try to install the VQ30 into other cars? I think i know why, and it disgusts me...

Because...it's not as powerful? Lol, that's my reasoning at least. I want the torque given in a 3.5 along with the power.


I don't really have anything worthwhile to contribute to this thread but 1997 GA16DE, are you 94alti on NissanClub? Just curious, good luck with the prokject so far.

Wrong. The VQ30 had been out for 7 years before the VQ35 really came on the scene. Furthermore, it was still more powerful than any sentra or 240 motor to date.

ah, I see what you mean now, why didn't people think of swapping in VQ30's instead of always being obsessed with SR's or RB's, etc.? I think some of it has to do with hype, people always thought the SR was an invincible engine and of course the RB is the oooh soo cooool Skyline engine. In my car's community people used to say you couldn't fit a V6 where an I4 sat, not really taking into consideration the V6 is the same length. I guess it just takes some daring people to open other's eyes.

Im putting a VQ30 in my 240sx. Wont be low NA either.

And a VQ is shorter then an SR/KA

~Alex

the VQ30 is a nice torquey motor, I know, I drive one pretty often. The reason I did the 3.5 is pretty simple though. Newer engine, less miles, fell into my hands at the time. And of course the obvious, 60-70 more hp than the one in my 96, at least going by Nissan's numbers. If I'm going to go all out I'm going to get the biggest beast I can fit under the hood. I know the 2000-2001 VQ30 is very nice, but it happened how it happened. I would've preferred the 3.5 anyway, it's hard to believe that little car houses 3.5Litres while still looking completely stock (once all put back together).

The main reason I could see going VQ30 is either cost, convenience, or staying within certain regulations. My buddy almost did the same swap I did in a 200sx. He called it quits because it was going to be a competition car and they would not allow anything over 3000cc.

Despite how the pictures may look, I'm quite amazed how much room I have to work around the engine, actually, the only close part is at the radiator support and on the rear header.

Anyway, car's home, all 4 mounts are done, shifter is installed, looking for a P11 Clutch petal b/c the A33 one comes up too much.

Red Lion, no, I'm not 94alti, I typically go by Ninety-Nine SE-L or Ninety-9. I've been on here for so many years (I rarely post), that I still have my old GA16DE name. I believe 94alti is a guy who came by the shop the other day. He was asking me about SR and VQ swaps into his U13. I told him it would be no more difficult than what I went through. I was fine with him taking pictures. Where did you see his thread?

Meximax. That exhaust looks badass, I am definitely going to look into that but no bigger than 2.25".

I see. So the the cams are typically electronically advanced in the low, reach full retard just before redline. w/o the VTC connected, it'll remain at full retard all the time.

I heard of management for the VTC, but that stuff can cost well over 3 grand. You say the VQ30 ECU can help manage this stuff. Can you elaborate a bit on this?
I took it apart today just to see what makes it tick, I get it more now. It's somewhat like a dual plenum where a butterfly valve opens at higher RPMs to connect the two plenums. I now see how it works, I just don't quite understand the concept of that valve opening and closing, it seems like it only creates more turbulence.

LOL, it's not you?
http://www.nissanclub.com/forums/gen...ma-sentra.html

The guy says he bought a Sentra and posted pics of it with the engine swapped in. It's obviously your car in the pics, I can even see one pic with you in the background wearing the same shirt you have in your thread. Lol, sorry to jack your thread, but that's great though, I can give some hell to whoever is claiming to be you.

Exactly.
The VQ30 timing equipment will allow you to advance the cam timing. It will be static however since the VQ30 ECU can't control variable valve timing.
What do you mean?

Use the Emanage Ultimate with the VManage to control the Nissan CVTCs.

http://www.mohdparts.com/emanage/index.html

So the V-manage is a standalone VTC controller? And to my understanding the EU isn't necessary to alter the cam timing and datalog.

I was going on old info that wasn't clear on this. I guess we'll all know for sure when it comes out.

well, from the TB, the flow splits to separate plenums. Basic understanding of fluid dynamics says this in fine, Flow is quite linear and uninterrupted in both sections. Connecting the two plenums, to me, doesn't seem like any advantage, that The butterfly valve looks like it would block more flow or create more resistance when open.

If you had to choose, would it be best to leave it closed or open? I'm thinking of just removing the valve or welding it shut.

What if you remove the butterflies in the runner and running ''open runners(high and low)'' at the same time. Maybe you will loose a bit of low-end but imagine the potential in forced induction. twice the runners...tell me if i'm wrong...

It basically adds volume to the plenum and shortens runner length to the actual runners insteads of the entire length of the intake tract. The FSM explains it in detail. The point is it works, dyno proven. Doesn't hold power to redline to most would like, but when it engages around 3800 RPM it does give a torque boost.
Welding it shut would KILL your top end power. I'd leave it open or remove the valve if you don't want to control it.

I think I'm just going to remove it. I'd like to just hook it up to the I.M. and let the suction hold it closed, but as soon as I even touch the gas, it'll open. it seems that there's a canister and valve that holds the suction when there's not enough in the I.M. to run off of. I think I'm just going to take it off.

As far as VTC, since I don't want it at full retard or full advance, is there any way, I can hold it at a happy medium using straight up voltage/resistance going into the plugs? for example,
pin 1 = 12V
pin 2 = ground
pin 3 = variable (0-5V)

The FWD VQ35 IM is variable plenum volume. It has nothing to do with the runners.
I know some people have removed the plenum divider and had a nice increase in top end at the expense of some low end. On a lightweight B14 sentra I would say give it a try.

I'm ASSuming you're saying my description was incorrect. The runner length does not physically change, but it does change IN EFFECT. I should have said it shortens "effective runner length". It's like the SSIM modication on a smaller scale. Removing the shelf essentially adds volume to the plenum and shortens runner length, hence the top-end gain. With the shelf in place and the VIAS butterfly closed, suction port length (what the FSM calls it) starts from the back of the manifold where the elbow connects and ends at the lower intake manifold. With the shelf removed, suction port length is the length of the individual "runners" alone. The stock unmodified 2k2 VIAS works on a similar principle. Read the FSM's description. The way the 2k2 VI is designed you can't change plenum volume without affecting effective runner length.

I don't think he was saying you were wrong. I think he was just making a point that there are no longer runners like a true VI and like you said it just simulates the effect of shorter/longer runners through the use of a butterfly valve. Just making things a bit more clear is all...

His tone said otherwise.
I never said there were traditional long/short runners in the first place. He saw the word "runner" in my post and decided to show me up for whatever reason.
My description is clear (if you take the time to actually understand what it's saying and can visualize how the VI works) and is in agreement with the FSM's description.

You're getting a little too defensive...sounds like a personal problem to me

Well you did say 'shortens the runner length' and indeed it does, in effect, but not literally. That's all he was trying to make clear. Nothing wrong with that.

Not saying the description itself isn't clear, I'm just saying re-enforcing what you said in your follow-up post that you should have mentioned the word "in effect" in your first post. No need to get bent over it.

Disagreeing respectfully = quoting someone and offering an alternate explanation with equal or more detail. He did neither.
I should have put "effective" before runner, yes.
I disagree. All he was making clear was that "it has nothing to do with runners."
I reciprocate respect. Nothing more, nothing less.



I don't have any problem with you LA02MAX. Let's get this back on topic, shall we...

Won't work like that. The VTC solenoids use PWM to alter the cam phasing.

So how bout that B14!

As for the VI: I really think you should keep it activated. I'm pretty sure Nmexmax got the modified FWD VQ35 IM on the dyno and it showed very little improvement up top and a considerable loss of low-end. Hopefully he'll chime in as I can't find that post :

Wasn't that just the power valve removal? Removing the divider is another animal altogether.

Oh, could be. I'll try to find that post because I can't recall what was done. He did say it was back to back so unless he had 2 upper IM's I would think your explanation would hold more water.

EDIT: Ah yes it was: http://forums.maxima.org/showthread.php?t=512483

Maybe I'll be the first to dyno the shelf removal I've been looking for an upper IM in junk yards for that reason until I saw his post and thought he already did it to see no gains...

Ok, on the I.M., I'm just going to take that valve out, or rather just the round plate and 2 screws, much easier this way since it's too much work to ***** with it.

VTC solenoids. Yea, Travis informed me that they use some sort of stepping thing that makes it impossibly to directly control. So there's no way I can replicate the signal sent by the ECU? Even if I just want to keep it fixed? Anything I can do inside the motor? Oh well, if anyone discovers a controller that will manage them regardless of ECU choice, let me know.

One more thing, I need to choose a radiator. Which side of the engine is the hot side and which is the cold side? Since radiators typically flow from top to bottom, I need to make sure the connections are on the correct side.

my entire shelf is 100% gone ,even the butterfly plate and the aluminum around it is gone i had the plate tig welded shut (butterfly rod left some holes)

anyone know which side of the engine the hot water comes out?

Flywheel side.

damn, that's opposite to the SR20. looks like I'll need to get mine custom.

I don't particularly like the idea of water flowing upward in the radiator.

We have a VQ30DE-K, 6-speed 92 civic hatch in the works sometime this summer. Ill leave it at that. It weighs 2200 stock. He wants the 3.0 rather than the 3.5 (so the honda guys wont cry that it cant rev). And me and my buddy have NO reservations about putting a Nissan engine in a Honda

Sounds like a fun project What are you going to do as far as making it rev high? Or would you rather not say? Either way you can't lose with either a VQ30 or a VQ35, ESPECIALLY in a <2500 lb. car

minor setback As far as you know, are you the first to do this? If so it's going along really smoothly. I'm definitely impressed with the amount of wiring you've already done (as seen in your other thread) and given the amount of room you have to work with (not terrible, but it's definitely not in excess). Good luck on fixing the radiator situation!