Aackshun's VQ35DE Swap Plans...
04-20-2012, 08:13 AM
#522
(and assembled properly 
)
04-20-2012, 08:26 AM
#524
04-20-2012, 09:41 AM
#527
04-20-2012, 11:17 AM
#529
Oh noes now everyone knows where your stuff is at
04-20-2012, 11:21 AM
#530
im just busting your ***** aaron lol bored at work
plus after a chat with krazy6 this 6th gen well be -3000 lbs :7
04-20-2012, 11:47 AM
#531
http://www.fedex.com/Tracking?langua...79810215053508
Oh noes now everyone knows where your stuff is at
Oh noes now everyone knows where your stuff is at
04-20-2012, 12:23 PM
#532
I'm working getting the 4th gen in the 2400 range (still daily-able in the Houston summer w/ all the seats), by a few weight saving tips he might have missed on
Now if I can get that driver weight mod too we can have a 2500-2600lb race caw
04-20-2012, 03:23 PM
#533
I'd be damned if you can put all of that to the ground in 1400ft
I'm working getting the 4th gen in the 2400 range (still daily-able in the Houston summer w/ all the seats), by a few weight saving tips he might have missed on
Now if I can get that driver weight mod too we can have a 2500-2600lb race caw
I'm working getting the 4th gen in the 2400 range (still daily-able in the Houston summer w/ all the seats), by a few weight saving tips he might have missed on
Now if I can get that driver weight mod too we can have a 2500-2600lb race caw
04-21-2012, 10:01 PM
#535
The K20 makes less power at any rpm level than a stockish VQ35. There's people here that get close to 300whp with the VQ35. The K20 won't get near that without forced induction.
300k miles on a modded K20? Not if you run it hard and do things like extending the redline. Yes, even hondas break. If it has wheels, t1ts, or a switch, it WILL give you problems.
Not that you'll even get close to even wanting to put 300k miles on it. Think about it. That's 20 years worth of driving. Who has daily driver cars that are 20 years old with 300k on them that are driving them willingly and happily even if they could afford something much nicer/newer?
Most of the people driving 4th gen maximas are teenagers and college students. The older a given car gets, the younger its drivers get.
Also, with the new tech coming out in the next 20 years with **** like electronic valves, variable compression ratios, variable displacement, direct injection, HCCI, and hybrid drivetrains, you won't want a 20 or 30 year old car especially if gas is $10-20/gal.
Last edited by Weimar Ben; 04-21-2012 at 10:04 PM.
04-22-2012, 10:44 AM
#536
260/250 would be the goal.
With an emphasis on the 250 ft/lbs that's my real goal, as for the HP goal knowing I have a will have an undersquare motor this will probably be harder or easier to achieve, there are some physics to an engine I don't quite understand yet onto which exactly would be easier because undersquare motors in general have been low end TQ monsters, but have also been high end TQ-less wonders too.... Just depends on the head I guess.... Which is one thing that I need to address but after some thought just too much work for a little gain.
But after some ricer math my wtq goal should be easily achievable based on where my VQ30 left off, we'll see in due time with a dyno sheet.
With an emphasis on the 250 ft/lbs that's my real goal, as for the HP goal knowing I have a will have an undersquare motor this will probably be harder or easier to achieve, there are some physics to an engine I don't quite understand yet onto which exactly would be easier because undersquare motors in general have been low end TQ monsters, but have also been high end TQ-less wonders too.... Just depends on the head I guess.... Which is one thing that I need to address but after some thought just too much work for a little gain.
But after some ricer math my wtq goal should be easily achievable based on where my VQ30 left off, we'll see in due time with a dyno sheet.
From my understanding all VQs are oversquare, the bore is bigger than the stroke.
Obviously the extra TQ on the VQ35 is from extra displacement, but the difference between the higher powerband of the 3.0s and the mid range powerband of the 3.5s is rod/stroke ratio.
The higher the R/S ratio the slower the piston speeds and the higher RPM that peak power will occur. This design also puts less side load stress on the piston rings & cylinder walls as the angle the connecting rod is less.
The advantage to a lower R/S is more power in a useable RPM range and a more compact design. Piston speeds are quicker so the engine will reach peak output at a lower RPM range. You can also run larger ports and valves with a lower R/S. VQ30 R/S = 2.012, VQ35DE R/S = 1.772, and VQ HR R/S = 1.96 IIRC.
The cylinder head design is sometimes based on the geometery of the engine block. Smaller ports and valves for engines with a higher R/S and larger valves/ports for a lower R/S. However this isn't always the case, for example there are some Honda engines running a fairly low 1.6x~1.7x R/S and revving to the moon. This is a case were the height of the block and rod length was kept short to keep the engine size compact along with more useable TQ down low. The ability to make power up top comes from VTEC. So with the advent of variable valve timing, variable intake manifolds, variable lift, etc there are ways to work around engine geometery and make power where you want it to be.
Last edited by 98SEBlackMax; 04-23-2012 at 08:27 PM. Reason: Corrected the VQ35 R/S Ratio
04-22-2012, 11:53 AM
#537
260/250 would be the goal.
With an emphasis on the 250 ft/lbs that's my real goal, as for the HP goal knowing I have a will have an undersquare motor this will probably be harder or easier to achieve, there are some physics to an engine I don't quite understand yet onto which exactly would be easier because undersquare motors in general have been low end TQ monsters
With an emphasis on the 250 ft/lbs that's my real goal, as for the HP goal knowing I have a will have an undersquare motor this will probably be harder or easier to achieve, there are some physics to an engine I don't quite understand yet onto which exactly would be easier because undersquare motors in general have been low end TQ monsters
For a given displacement, an undersquare engine might make 5-10% more torque than an oversquare engine, everything else being equal. It's not like a 50% difference. An undersquare engine will also get slightly better mpg because it is making 5-10% more torque for a given amount of fuel.
You're over-analyzing all of this. Just drop in a vq35 with basic mods and be done with it. There's peeps making 300whp with it now.
04-22-2012, 11:57 AM
#538
Also, you're not turning over any new stones here. The VQ and K20 engines are great engines for the applications they were put in. The CBR1000RR engine is an engineering marvel. It makes more power with 1000cc than the K20/24. It's great for a bike, but if you put it into a 3000lb car, it wouldn't be very streetable and wouldn't be reliable. It's mpg would be MUCH less than a larger displacement V6 or 4cyl because it wouldn't have to work as hard and rev as high.
Also if you look at some of these older engines that were labeled as "torque monsters" and compare them to the VQ35, you'll see that they really weren't. The Ford 300 inline 6 was deemed a torque monster and was massively undersquare and is indestructible. But it makes less torque with 4.9L than the VQ35 does. But it also had only a 8.0:1 CR, crappy induction, exhaust, fueling, etc.
Also if you look at some of these older engines that were labeled as "torque monsters" and compare them to the VQ35, you'll see that they really weren't. The Ford 300 inline 6 was deemed a torque monster and was massively undersquare and is indestructible. But it makes less torque with 4.9L than the VQ35 does. But it also had only a 8.0:1 CR, crappy induction, exhaust, fueling, etc.
Last edited by Weimar Ben; 04-22-2012 at 12:07 PM.
04-22-2012, 04:03 PM
#539
Who says they're 100lb lighter? Hondatech says that the KA20 engine/tranny combo weighs 403lb. The VQ35 longblock weighs 313lb. They're going to be about the same give or take 10-20 lb depending on the flywheel and clutch combo.
Checked on a palleted weight of a K20 + Harness+ ECU + Tranny from another salvage yard was 378 soo... Ok maybe not 100 but about 70lbs..... give or take.
The K20 makes less power at any rpm level than a stockish VQ35. There's people here that get close to 300whp with the VQ35. The K20 won't get near that without forced induction.
Cool... But I'm not talking about 3.5's.....
300k miles on a modded K20? Not if you run it hard and do things like extending the redline. Yes, even hondas break. If it has wheels, t1ts, or a switch, it WILL give you problems.
Not sure where we're going with this, but ok!
Not that you'll even get close to even wanting to put 300k miles on it. Think about it. That's 20 years worth of driving. Who has daily driver cars that are 20 years old with 300k on them that are driving them willingly and happily even if they could afford something much nicer/newer?
I'm sure I'd love to do that w/ the red car when it's running again
Also, with the new tech coming out in the next 20 years with **** like electronic valves, variable compression ratios, variable displacement, direct injection, HCCI, and hybrid drivetrains, you won't want a 20 or 30 year old car especially if gas is $10-20/gal.
Well if this motor runs as good as the old 3.0 did then I'm still beating today's top Gasoline motors in the MPG department and performance department.
Checked on a palleted weight of a K20 + Harness+ ECU + Tranny from another salvage yard was 378 soo... Ok maybe not 100 but about 70lbs..... give or take.
The K20 makes less power at any rpm level than a stockish VQ35. There's people here that get close to 300whp with the VQ35. The K20 won't get near that without forced induction.
Cool... But I'm not talking about 3.5's.....
300k miles on a modded K20? Not if you run it hard and do things like extending the redline. Yes, even hondas break. If it has wheels, t1ts, or a switch, it WILL give you problems.
Not sure where we're going with this, but ok!
Not that you'll even get close to even wanting to put 300k miles on it. Think about it. That's 20 years worth of driving. Who has daily driver cars that are 20 years old with 300k on them that are driving them willingly and happily even if they could afford something much nicer/newer?
I'm sure I'd love to do that w/ the red car when it's running again
Also, with the new tech coming out in the next 20 years with **** like electronic valves, variable compression ratios, variable displacement, direct injection, HCCI, and hybrid drivetrains, you won't want a 20 or 30 year old car especially if gas is $10-20/gal.
Well if this motor runs as good as the old 3.0 did then I'm still beating today's top Gasoline motors in the MPG department and performance department.
Should be easy to get with a VQ35 and some bolt ons with tuning.
It is, but that's not my concern anymore, no longer going the 3.5 route as of right now.
From my understanding all VQs are oversquare, the bore is bigger than the stroke.
Crap I do not know what happened to my #'s I misread them but yeah this motor is still oversquared so I should just be getting more TQ out of it and sacrificing some top end
Obviously the extra TQ on the VQ35 is from extra displacement, but the difference between the higher powerband of the 3.0s and the mid range powerband of the 3.5s is rod/stroke ratio.
The higher the R/S ratio the slower the piston speeds and the higher RPM that peak power will occur. This design also puts less side load stress on the piston rings & cylinder walls as the angle the connecting rod is less.
The advantage to a lower R/S is more power in a useable RPM range and a more compact design. Piston speeds are quicker so the engine will reach peak output at a lower RPM range. You can also run larger ports and valves with a lower R/S. VQ30 R/S = 2.012, VQ35DE R/S = 1.855, and VQ HR R/S = 1.96 IIRC.
The cylinder head design is sometimes based on the geometery of the engine block. Smaller ports and valves for engines with a higher R/S and larger valves/ports for a lower R/S. However this isn't always the case, for example there are some Honda engines running a fairly low 1.6x~1.7x R/S and revving to the moon. This is a case were the height of the block and rod length was kept short to keep the engine size compact along with more useable TQ down low. The ability to make power up top comes from VTEC. So with the advent of variable valve timing, variable intake manifolds, variable lift, etc there are ways to work around engine geometery and make power where you want it to be.
Good food for thought, so if I'm making this out correct in my head... Longer stroke brings the peak power down lower right?
It is, but that's not my concern anymore, no longer going the 3.5 route as of right now.
From my understanding all VQs are oversquare, the bore is bigger than the stroke.
Crap I do not know what happened to my #'s I misread them but yeah this motor is still oversquared so I should just be getting more TQ out of it and sacrificing some top end
Obviously the extra TQ on the VQ35 is from extra displacement, but the difference between the higher powerband of the 3.0s and the mid range powerband of the 3.5s is rod/stroke ratio.
The higher the R/S ratio the slower the piston speeds and the higher RPM that peak power will occur. This design also puts less side load stress on the piston rings & cylinder walls as the angle the connecting rod is less.
The advantage to a lower R/S is more power in a useable RPM range and a more compact design. Piston speeds are quicker so the engine will reach peak output at a lower RPM range. You can also run larger ports and valves with a lower R/S. VQ30 R/S = 2.012, VQ35DE R/S = 1.855, and VQ HR R/S = 1.96 IIRC.
The cylinder head design is sometimes based on the geometery of the engine block. Smaller ports and valves for engines with a higher R/S and larger valves/ports for a lower R/S. However this isn't always the case, for example there are some Honda engines running a fairly low 1.6x~1.7x R/S and revving to the moon. This is a case were the height of the block and rod length was kept short to keep the engine size compact along with more useable TQ down low. The ability to make power up top comes from VTEC. So with the advent of variable valve timing, variable intake manifolds, variable lift, etc there are ways to work around engine geometery and make power where you want it to be.
Good food for thought, so if I'm making this out correct in my head... Longer stroke brings the peak power down lower right?
250wtq is physically impossible on an NA K20 engine or VQ30.
Good thing I'm not going with either of those motors then
Torque monsters? Torque is more dependent on displacement than it is on the geometry of the engines. When an engine has its cylinders filled 100% with air at a given RPM, it is making its peak torque. Intake manifold design can actually pressurize the cylinders above atmospheric pressure at certain RPMs. The 350z engine achieves up to a 105% volumetric efficiency.
Hrmm this may explain why dyno's I'm finding only G/Z's acheive the flatter TQ lines than it's fwd bretheren, we may need to look into the RWD IM again... Oh wait... Too late mwahahahahaha
For a given displacement, an undersquare engine might make 5-10% more torque than an oversquare engine, everything else being equal. It's not like a 50% difference. An undersquare engine will also get slightly better mpg because it is making 5-10% more torque for a given amount of fuel.
Dag nabbit! Now I wish I didn't mess up those numbers and really had an under motor instead of an over.... But by increasing the ratio I should make more TQ and get slightly better mpg..... Mayyybeee.....
You're over-analyzing all of this. Just drop in a vq35 with basic mods and be done with it. There's peeps making 300whp with it now.
No matter what I do... This build will make more power than the 3.5 will given the same amount of $$$ either way.
Good thing I'm not going with either of those motors then
Torque monsters? Torque is more dependent on displacement than it is on the geometry of the engines. When an engine has its cylinders filled 100% with air at a given RPM, it is making its peak torque. Intake manifold design can actually pressurize the cylinders above atmospheric pressure at certain RPMs. The 350z engine achieves up to a 105% volumetric efficiency.
Hrmm this may explain why dyno's I'm finding only G/Z's acheive the flatter TQ lines than it's fwd bretheren, we may need to look into the RWD IM again... Oh wait... Too late mwahahahahaha
For a given displacement, an undersquare engine might make 5-10% more torque than an oversquare engine, everything else being equal. It's not like a 50% difference. An undersquare engine will also get slightly better mpg because it is making 5-10% more torque for a given amount of fuel.
Dag nabbit! Now I wish I didn't mess up those numbers and really had an under motor instead of an over.... But by increasing the ratio I should make more TQ and get slightly better mpg..... Mayyybeee.....
You're over-analyzing all of this. Just drop in a vq35 with basic mods and be done with it. There's peeps making 300whp with it now.
No matter what I do... This build will make more power than the 3.5 will given the same amount of $$$ either way.
Also if you look at some of these older engines that were labeled as "torque monsters" and compare them to the VQ35, you'll see that they really weren't. The Ford 300 inline 6 was deemed a torque monster and was massively undersquare and is indestructible. But it makes less torque with 4.9L than the VQ35 does. But it also had only a 8.0:1 CR, crappy induction, exhaust, fueling, etc.
I was thinking more slant-6 didn't know about ford's motor.
I was thinking more slant-6 didn't know about ford's motor.
wth man! jk LOL 
04-22-2012, 09:29 PM
#544
Generally speaking if you increase the stroke while mainting the same rod length you decrease the R/S ratio and lower the power band. Also it lets more air fill the cylinders so you would get a greater TQ output. Sounds like your working a VQ33 if I had to guess.
In terms of oversquare, undersquare, or square. Assuming rod length stays the same and block height is raised about 20 mm a "squared" VQ30 engine would be 93 mm bore x 93 mm stroke and displace 3790 CC with a R/S of 1.585. So to have an undersquare VQ30 it would be have to 93 mm bore x > 93 mm stroke.
In terms of oversquare, undersquare, or square. Assuming rod length stays the same and block height is raised about 20 mm a "squared" VQ30 engine would be 93 mm bore x 93 mm stroke and displace 3790 CC with a R/S of 1.585. So to have an undersquare VQ30 it would be have to 93 mm bore x > 93 mm stroke.
04-23-2012, 11:08 AM
#545
Generally speaking if you increase the stroke while mainting the same rod length you decrease the R/S ratio and lower the power band. Also it lets more air fill the cylinders so you would get a greater TQ output. Sounds like your working a VQ33 if I had to guess.
In terms of oversquare, undersquare, or square. Assuming rod length stays the same and block height is raised about 20 mm a "squared" VQ30 engine would be 93 mm bore x 93 mm stroke and displace 3790 CC with a R/S of 1.585. So to have an undersquare VQ30 it would be have to 93 mm bore x > 93 mm stroke.
In terms of oversquare, undersquare, or square. Assuming rod length stays the same and block height is raised about 20 mm a "squared" VQ30 engine would be 93 mm bore x 93 mm stroke and displace 3790 CC with a R/S of 1.585. So to have an undersquare VQ30 it would be have to 93 mm bore x > 93 mm stroke.
The pistons have to be fly cut correct? I don't want to sacrifice any compression or make the block weaker by getting a thicker head gasket, there is potential for this motor seeing a 100 shot..... I also don't what to cut the pistons... But the pistons aren't bishes so I figured it'd be safer to cut the pistons instead of introducing a weak point by getting a thick HG....
Or hell I could cut the pistons more and get a thinner HG.....
Pros and Cons on a thicker or thinner hg?? This car is going to see weekend road coursing as how the 3.0 died the first time around....
I imagine a thicker HG would keep temps down because it spaces out the block from the heads but it also introduces a weak point into the motor which I do not want either...
And a thinner HG would keep the compression up (or maybe even increase it?) but would heating and cooling be a problem? Also piston clearances are to worry too...
As for your second paragraph.... Man that'd be too long of a rod for my liking, long strokes affects the motors ability to rev IIRC and I <3 the way the VQ30 responds to the throttle, even w/ the 3.5 it's noticeably slower (It could be the egas though).
Last edited by aackshun; 04-23-2012 at 11:12 AM.
04-23-2012, 11:14 AM
#546
Woops looks like le chat is out of le bag.....
The pistons have to be fly cut correct? I don't want to sacrifice any compression or make the block weaker by getting a thicker head gasket, there is potential for this motor seeing a 100 shot..... I also don't what to cut the pistons... But the pistons aren't bishes so I figured it'd be safer to cut the pistons instead of introducing a weak point by getting a thick HG....
Or hell I could cut the pistons more and get a thinner HG.....
Pros and Cons on a thicker or thinner hg?? This car is going to see weekend road coursing...
I imagine a thicker HG would keep temps down because it spaces out the block from the heads but it also introduces a weak point into the motor which I do not want either...
And a thinner HG would keep the compression up (or maybe even increase it?) but would heating and cooling be a problem? Also piston clearances are to worry too...
As for your second paragraph.... Man that'd be too long of a rod for my liking, long strokes affects the motors ability to rev IIRC and I <3 the way the VQ30 responds to the throttle, even w/ the 3.5 it's noticeably slower (It could be the egas though).
The pistons have to be fly cut correct? I don't want to sacrifice any compression or make the block weaker by getting a thicker head gasket, there is potential for this motor seeing a 100 shot..... I also don't what to cut the pistons... But the pistons aren't bishes so I figured it'd be safer to cut the pistons instead of introducing a weak point by getting a thick HG....
Or hell I could cut the pistons more and get a thinner HG.....
Pros and Cons on a thicker or thinner hg?? This car is going to see weekend road coursing...
I imagine a thicker HG would keep temps down because it spaces out the block from the heads but it also introduces a weak point into the motor which I do not want either...
And a thinner HG would keep the compression up (or maybe even increase it?) but would heating and cooling be a problem? Also piston clearances are to worry too...
As for your second paragraph.... Man that'd be too long of a rod for my liking, long strokes affects the motors ability to rev IIRC and I <3 the way the VQ30 responds to the throttle, even w/ the 3.5 it's noticeably slower (It could be the egas though).
And the VQ35 stock e-throttle calibration is designed to be a little laggy. Once it is tuned correctly there is no way in hell a 3.0 with its cable setup will be more responsive then a 3.5 with the e-throttle.
04-23-2012, 11:32 AM
#547
Strange a motor with more moving parts and longer rods is going to be more responsive than a 3.0..... Okayyyyyyyy......
04-23-2012, 11:51 AM
#549
It will come in due time, I'm getting the 3.0 heads to the shop this weekend when I get around to the 3.5 stuff. Your need for 3.5 stuff will come after this week when I get around to dismantling it for t3h g00ds...
Strange a motor with more moving parts and longer rods is going to be more responsive than a 3.0..... Okayyyyyyyy......
Strange a motor with more moving parts and longer rods is going to be more responsive than a 3.0..... Okayyyyyyyy......
you need to drive a tuned 3.5, like properly tuned 3.5, not something somebody did on the street. They are incredibly responsive and very sensitive to your right foot.
04-23-2012, 12:08 PM
#552
I'm balancing it for sure because of the change in rods and crank with different pistons, if I was using 3.5 pistons I'd cheap out and not do it but this is not the case.
But first thing is first, I have to get the head checked out because of the coolant consumption on this motor, the gasket looked fine so I am going to assume the head is warped.
Along with getting the head checked out there will be some port matching done to match my lower intake manifold....
Food for thought a full gasket kit from nissan @ Courtesy's Prices is only like $260
And I get about %5-10 less than Courtesy w/ my Wholesale discount too
Last edited by aackshun; 04-23-2012 at 12:15 PM.
04-23-2012, 12:15 PM
#553
You are not understanding what i said.A VQ30 WITH a cable throttle WILL NOT be more responsive than a VQ35 WITH a tuned E-throttle. You can try and tune that cable as much as you want its just not happening.
If both motors have cables or the E-throttle thats a different story, even then i think the VQ35 might have the edge.
04-23-2012, 12:21 PM
#554
You are not understanding what i said.A VQ30 WITH a cable throttle WILL NOT be more responsive than a VQ35 WITH a tuned E-throttle. You can try and tune that cable as much as you want its just not happening.
If both motors have cables or the E-throttle thats a different story, even then i think the VQ35 might have the edge.
So much clearer now, thanks....
04-23-2012, 12:27 PM
#555
Dont be an idiot. Responsiveness is not the speed in which the motor revs, it is how fast it will react to the input from your foot.Until you have driven a properly tuned E-throttle you will not understand how quickly those things react. It is next to telepathic, dont argue with me about that because i own a few cable throttle cars i know. But the responsiveness, the actual time it takes for the car to react to your inputs there is no comparison.
04-23-2012, 12:30 PM
#556
Dont be an idiot. Responsiveness is not the speed in which the motor revs, it is how fast it will react to the input from your foot.Until you have driven a properly tuned E-throttle you will not understand how quickly those things react. It is next to telepathic, dont argue with me about that because i own a few cable throttle cars i know. But the responsiveness, the actual time it takes for the car to react to your inputs there is no comparison.
04-23-2012, 12:36 PM
#557
i know you still dont believe me so here, if you want to test what im saying, unmodified either a +E39 M5 or +E46 M3. Test drive one of those, when its out of sport mode that is similar to a cable throttle, put it in sport mode and you will know what im talking about.
04-23-2012, 12:42 PM
#558
i know you still dont believe me so here, if you want to test what im saying, unmodified either a +E39 M5 or +E46 M3. Test drive one of those, when its out of sport mode that is similar to a cable throttle, put it in sport mode and you will know what im talking about.
04-23-2012, 12:51 PM
#560
i know you still dont believe me so here, if you want to test what im saying, unmodified either a +E39 M5 or +E46 M3. Test drive one of those, when its out of sport mode that is similar to a cable throttle, put it in sport mode and you will know what im talking about.
feels jerky and like complete a$$.
if you want similar effects you can get that jet chip or whatever. like a year ago someone put it on their car and loved it (was it even rochester?)
I like my cable that when i put 10% throttle on the pedal, it's 10% plate opening. And to know when 100% is 100%, makes so much more for a natural feel, IMHO