Tatanko

iTrader: (34)

I recently wrote an article for my old Maxima website about the VQ. I'm sure most of you have never even seen my old website, so you can find it here:

Maximum Modification

That website was originally started more than a year ago to act as a resource to Maxima enthusiasts, but lately I've been too lazy to work on it The article can be found on the articles page. Feel free to look around the rest of the site.

Also, feel free to let me know if you think any of the information in the article is incorrect or inaccurate, as well as the rest of the site. Enjoy.

SR20DEN

iTrader: (7)

I think you should have done more research first.

The VQ23DE came out when the VQ35DE did.

Tatanko

iTrader: (34)

Well, I can't know everything. But thanks for the somewhat-constructive criticism, that will be noted in the article.

SR20DEN

iTrader: (7)

No one here knows everything.

Tatanko

iTrader: (34)

Exactly. So anyone feel free to correct me if anything else in the article is incorrect. Did you notice anything else besides the VQ23 mistake I made, SR20DEN?

BlueC

iTrader: (5)

Damn you sure sucked the fun out of that article.

bk2kmax

SR20DEN, wasn't saying that to be sarcastic or such, he is one of the more knowledgeable guys on this forum when it comes to the Maxima.

Let's just try and focus on the engine article and hopefully we will all learn something.

SR20DEN

iTrader: (7)

Sorry guys, that wasn't my intention. The way Tatanko has been asking questions lately it seemed that he would concerned about the accuracy of his article. I could have made an attempt to pick it apart more but I didn't and I won't. I just wanted to give him an extra nudge to study the material a little more.

Tatanko

iTrader: (34)

Well, there is some truth to that. I want the article to be as accurate and easy to understand as possible, so please, by all means, pick it apart if you feel the need to (you can also PM me that if you'd like, instead of posting it here). Also feel free to point me in the direction of anything you think I should read. The entire article was pretty much written from my knowledge of the VQ I've acquired over the last year or so.

SR20DEN

iTrader: (7)

Basically do exactly as I do. Just search for different engine codes in google. When you see information posted in other forums take it with a grain of salt. Often times the same bad information will be spread widely such as the AEBS 4.3 liter VQ flyer.

Charts and data on overseas websites are the best places to get information on the engines we don't have here in the US. More specifically checkout www.nissan.co.jp/EN . Austrailian websites have good information on Nissan Diesels.

Tatanko

iTrader: (34)

Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. I have the AEBS 4.3L VQ mentioned in the article, do you think I should just drop it all together?

SR20DEN

iTrader: (7)

No. AEBS really does make the kit so leave it in there. The misinformation is in their advertisement.

SteVTEC

Nice article! I wish more people would contribute stuff like this to the org. I've had a bunch of articles in the works for some time now, but between all of the stuff going on in my life in the past year they've all been back burnered. I'll get to them someday. It's great to see others contributing in the meantime though. Nice job.

Chinkzilla

good job

It was well written and expressed. however, a few suggestions.

The use of "I" in first person reference to the author detracts a bit from the professional tone of the article.

Also it seems like you started off in a very automotive magazine review demeanor and ended in a bit of an enthusiasts tone of writing. Not referring to the shift in subject matter, merely the tone.

Also keep in mind, you are writing this article assuming the reader knows nothing, so you may want to throw in some figures to back up your statements about power output of various versions of the VQ. Hard figures are more compelling than general statements.

just some suggestions, well done

Tatanko

iTrader: (34)

Thanks guys. I'll work on it again a little when I get home from school (yes, I go to school, I'm still 15 years old ).

To explain the tone that you mentioned, I had some concerns about that, but didn't really want to have to reword all of it. The reason it's like that is, I originally started the article off going to explain nothing but the 3.3L stroker engine (I started writing it about the time Dixit came out with that thread). But then I kind of forgot about it and only just last night wrote the rest of it and made it a general VQ article. Sorry for the confusion, I'll try and spruce it up a bit.

Tatanko

iTrader: (34)

Alright, I have now made some changes to it. I got rid of the "I" statements like you suggested, Chinkzilla. I also took your suggestion and added SOME power figures in there with it.

mymaxlvsattn

wow. Hey i wish i knew that much when I was 15. You definitely have my respect.

*edit* about maximas...I knew stuff like US history trivia but thats kinda useless with my car fetish these days.

Y2K2Driver

iTrader: (1)

The only thing I'd point out is F1 does not use the VQ engine. Maybe you mean the IRL? I don't know, other than F1 exclusively uses 3.0L V10 with technology that will likely never see a production car. Also, Nissan is represented in F1 only through its association with Renault which has a team.

Tatanko

iTrader: (34)

Thanks for pointing that out. That's a slight error on my part. The article is not meant to say that it's F1 itself, but it's a series Nissan created called the "World Series by Nissan" which uses the VQ. These are F1-like cars which are known as the "quickest way to F1." Thanks for pointing it out though, I'll correct it.

Also, thanks mymaxlvsattn.

Chinkzilla

good job! now send the article in to Road & Track and demand a 6 figure salary!

BTW...u have a driver's license yet?

Tatanko

iTrader: (34)

Hahahaha...yeah, I should do that

And no, I don't even have a permit yet. Here in PA you can't get your permit til 16, and license at 16 1/2. Doesn't mean I don't do a bit of driving though

Frank Fontaine

What I wonder nowadays, because all of us are relatively young--does anyone know why the V6 is a disadvantaged design? Why a V8 is better, and why an I6 is superior to a V6?

I bet with the right marketing a car co. can sell a V6 powered car to this forum in the $50k+ range!

SteVTEC

Frank, you've been reading too much BMW literature. Shame on you, lol.

An Inline-6 is cheaper to produce and can be fully balanced, but is not packaging friendly at all. It's extremely long - as long as a V12 - so engine bays have to be huge to fit them. A V6 is much more powerful per "cubic foot of engine bay space" than an I-6. The result is a powerful engine that can fit in very small and narrow hoods, and that means you can dedicate more space to passenger area. That was one of the fundamental goals in the design of the original VQ. And you don't see too many companies out there building Inline-6 engines. The V6 is a much more flexible and versatile configuration, IMHO.

SR20DEN

iTrader: (7)

I waited for someone else to come in here and basically say that so I wouldn't have too.

Thank you Steve.


Yes the I-6 seems to be a potent combination that BMW, Mercedes, Toyota and even Nissan has relied upon for many many years. There have been probably more I-6s on the Wards top 10 engines than anything, the bulk of which from BMW, Mercedes and even GM (the Trailblazer silky smooth 4200). But if the I-6 was so far superior to the V-6 then why is the VQ the benchmark for the Wards top 10 lists and essentially it's creator? Even GM keeps it's line of I-6s for truck duty while it's passenger cars are still getting it's 60º V6s (which is killing off the boat anchor L67 90º V6). Now you're not going to get much argument out of me that the 90º V8 isn't the best internal combustion engine configuration ever conceived but I would call the I-6 and the V6 a close 2nd in a tie.

Frank Fontaine

Good point--VQ is the creator, that's why it's not objective. Having driven one for 92k miles, I can say that it's a good engine, and very frugal on fuel consumption. Still delivers 28 mpg minimum on a long highway trip.

Here's why the I-6 is a superior design, which, by the way, as mentioned, simply cannot fit into a FWD car in most cases.

The I-6 by design has both primary and secondary balance. Primary balance is where the counterweights on the crank offset the weight of the pistons and the rods. Secondary balance is when the movement of one piston offsets the movement of another. V6's have a secondary imbalance--that's not dicated by VQ haters, or even V6 haters, that's dictated by physics. So commonly a counter balance shaft is added, which obviously adds complexity, friction, and weight.

Oh yeah, I just made all the above up because I love German cars so much. But what's funny is I-6's were used by GM since 1920.

Long story short is it cannot fit in a FWD car. Drive one and you will see how smoothly a 6 cyl can run. And last time I checked Lexus had one too in the GS and IS. In the FWD ES? Nope, can't fit.

mrnock

very nice article man, you have some writing skills for your age.

hahahaa

SteVTEC

And since upwards of 90% of cars sold are FWD, therefore one could argue that the I-6 is superior in theory, but not in practice. You can't always have your cake and eat it too. Even in mid-sized RWD cars, a lot of passenger space has to be compromised all to make room for that Inline-6 engine.

No 60-degree V6 that I know of actually has a balance shaft because the secondary imbalance isn't great enough to warrant one. 90-degree V6's need one.

Here's a side shot of the VQ30DE. You put the balance shaft in the V-valley. There isn't one here.



And with the 3.0 VQ's nice and extremely short 2.89in (73.3 mm) stroke, lightweight internals, and high 2.00:1 rod:stroke ratio which minimizes side to side forces and vibrations (overall result = minimized reciprocating mass and resulting vibrations), now you have a 60-degree V6 that rivals an Inline-6 in terms of smoothness in a much more compact package that will fit under smaller FWD hoods, and is flexible enough in displacement to scale all the way from a 2.0L V6 in an entry level car all the way up to a 4.0L V6 for a truck/SUV.

So?

The Volvo S80 has a 2.9L transversely mounted Inline-6 engine, as does the Suzuki Verona with a 2.5L transverse Inline-6. The S80 is an extremely wide car, and they said they had to design the worlds shortest gearbox for it to fit - at only 2.9L displacement. On the Suzuki which is mid-sized, I suspected that the Inline-6 had to be extremely short. That means very tight bore spacings, limited cylinder bore, and probably a longer stroke. A quick search on Google revealed that I'm right: Bore x stroke 3.03 x 3.51 in, 77.0 x 89.2mm. (Just for reference to others: a 3.00 bore/stroke is considered small, and 4.0in is considered big). So now we have a 2.5L 155hp/175tq Inline-6 that has the added expense and complexity of a 6-cyl engine, yet does not outperform its 4-cylinder rivals. Actually, its performance lags compared to them. But hey, at least there are no primary or secondary vibrations. Do most economy car buyers even care?

So in summary an Inline-6 CAN fit a FWD car in transverse configuration, but it either has to be an extremely wide car, or the Inline-6 itself has to be so short that you might as well have just gone with a 4-cylinder in the first place. It's much better in practice to sink your R&D money into developing your V6 engines. They're much more space efficient, and can scale to much wider ranges of displacement for widely varying applications, and will fit under almost any hood you throw them under no matter what the drivetrain, layout, or overall vehicle size. Hence we have 2.0L VQ engines powering overseas FWD cars that are about the size of a Corolla, and the same VQ block in 4.0L configuration powering RWD/AWD trucks now. Economies of scale is a beautiful thing since that helps to keep costs and prices lower, and ultimately you can then get a G35 (albeit with a V6) that outperforms a 330i (at least in a straight line) for $10k less.

Yes the Inline-6 is a very smooth engine. But the tradeoffs both in passenger space and displacement made to actually put one in a car are too high to really justify them in anything but high-$$,$$$ luxury cars. And an Inline-6 for the masses will never happen due to lack of flexibility both in displacement and deployment options.

vqman

now that's how you win a debate...

-vq

Chinkzilla

haha much respect to frank and his opinions

but i must say i would not llike to argue with steVTEC at length