I find the power output of the Max (VQ30) somewhat disappointing.
By comparison to one of my old cars:
I had a Triumph TR6, an ancient British sports car. 1972 model I think it was. 33 years old!
That car had a straight-6 2.5L cast iron motor. With *pushrods*. Only *2* valves per cylinder. With 9:1 compression instead of the 10.5 the Max has. And primitive mechanical fuel injection!
It produced 150HP. Do the math: that is 60HP per litre.
And the VQ30 with DOHC, 4 valves per cylinder, 10.5:1 produces 190HP, do the math: 63HP per litre. A whole 5% more power than the old fashioned pushrod motor, which was running on 20W/50 not 5W/30, probably the change in oil alone would give 5% more power!
Verdict: The Max engine sucks. For all the technology, it produces no more power than a 33 year old design with a cast iron block.

 

Your tongue better be in your cheek pretty hard right now.

 

Oh hel! yea. I'm not even gonna get started on this one...


The ignorance is astounding...

 

please consider the following:
1. power under the curve
2. torque
3. USIM

 

you had better watch it if you want an assessment about the VQ's it should go something like this

1:VQ30DE = brute power just hit yu like crazy
2:VQ30DE-K = mild mannered reporter until that damn VAIS kicks in
3:VQ35de = haven't driven one yet someone else can fill in

dont compared some old car engine to current engines and also remember back then who worried about emmisions and all thos power restricting components (not like we give a damn today either) the VQDE30's were ahead of their time and still the same engine just a half liter more in the so called 350Z,G35,and upcoming GT-R so dude show some damn RESPECT

 

:

 

150hp? And you know this how? I bet even on a good day, it was hard pressed to make 130hp. Let's not even mention that probably produced 1000x times more emissions than the VQ.

 

There you go.

 

I'll have to check it out. The redline was at 5500 as I remember, the motor relatively undersquare. And I did have to use 99 octane in it.
But my TR6 easily beat the most popular hot Ford of its time, the 3.0 V6 Ford Capri. (Same engine used in the US Fords but without the emissions stuff)
Of course I did have one advantage: seven forward speeds in the gearbox. A 4-speed box with electrical overdrive is far, far slicker than a 5 speed. If I buy another Max I am definitely not going to accept an auto. It's horrible. My old Aerostar has a better auto tranny than the Max.

 

Remember that 190hp is in stock form with severe modern day emissions restrictions.

Its easily a 265 bhp motor with bolt ons (assuming 15% drivetrain loss, 22x whp) which equates to 88.33hp/litre

My last dyno with only y-pipe, intake, ecu and 18" wheels was 201hp/201tq. Roughly 240hp, which is 80.00hp/litre

If you added cams, modified IM, headers, flywheel, udp, 17" wheels, fuel controller.....

 

would that 150 be to the wheels? i highly doubt it, as old transmissions had massive drivetrain loss. the 150 was crank, the 190 you stated was for the wheels. i bet that triumph only made 100 to the wheels, which is a measly 40hp/L. thats about half of a max engine. that was a good try though. oh and for whoever said you dont know about a vq35...hp=ehhh better than vq30, torque= better

 

TR car brake horsepower, Maxima SAE net.

 

That's correct, BHP = 150. I just checked and noticed for the first time that after my model year, 1972, they detuned it to 125 BHP.
The powerful six-cylinder engine is a reliable unit, whether with UK-market petrol injection (150bhp) or US-market carbureted (104 bhp) fuel delivery. The UK petrol intected version was de-rated to 125 bhp in 1973 by by camshaft alterations and revised fuel injection metering. http://www.vtr.org/TR6/TR6-history.shtml
- actually NOT reliable. Crank too long and thin. Mine ran its mains and ends.

I can see I'm up against some experts here, I need some more ammunition. OK I'll try to reinforce my point:
Let's move back in time 13 years more, to 1959, model year for my XK150S:
The 'S' model featured three SU HD8 carburetors and a modified cylinder head bringing the horsepower rating to 260.
http://www.conceptcarz.com/vehicle/z8144/default.aspx
Let's see, that's 3.8L, 300cc bigger than the VQ35, but with 260 BHP! And not with injection, it's with carbs. And that's a 47 year old car. It was a beast to drive. I had it up to 140 on the M6. The hitchhiker was paralysed with fear. And if you start modding . . . well, the same argument holds. That was a stock jag, same as in the showroom. Those XK150S cars, modded, won the Le Mans 24 hours race for several years running. So, I really don't think the Max engine is that special in stock form. I like the car, but in stock form, there are an awful lot of cars in the traffic around me that I can't beat. Like the Camry or the Malibu. I'm surrounded by them, and by 325i's. Argh, I am going to have to start modding it...

 

Back in those days they rated HP with gross HP ratings, that is with no accessories bogging the engine down, no emissions equipment stifling it, no exhaust to rob power, etc. You cannot compare HP ratings from yesteryear and modern SAE net HP ratings.

Also the VQ30 has 10.0:1 compression, not 10.5:1

Finally if you can't beat a malibu then you should never race again, ever lol.

 

Cripes. Any old motor can make power if you up the compression enough, keep it from detonating with octane and use enough carb. Not a big feat. UNTIL YOU HAVE TO PASS 1995 EMISSIONS, GET DECENT GAS MILEAGE AND BE ABLE TO RUN FOR 200K MILES+ BEFORE NEEDING ANY WORK.

Get the Jag to pass modern emissions and get it OBDII compliant and MAYBE you will have something.

 

75hp FTL....

 

Mine makes 201 whp. about 240 at the crank and still passes MA state emissions and 25Mpg

 

You completely neglected emissions and fuel consumption.
The VQ30, DOHC 4 valve per cylinder easily burns only 1/2 the fuel that old 2.5L cast iron junk needs to produce the HP and TQ it does.
Engineers aren't simply designing for power, they are designing for maximum economy, reduced emissions and power all combined.
Something that old Triumph can't even come close to.

By todays standards, that old Triumph motor flunks big time in efficiency.

 

Now that is funny! It is rare to hear Triumph or British cars for that matter referred to as reliable.

Lucas makes or to used make many of the UK cars electrical components, Lucas also makes refrigerators, thats why the English drink warm beer.

 

Would your TR6 be somewhat comparable to today's TVR's? Since their 3.6 litre i6 puts out 350BHP, that's 97.2 BHP per litre. Keep in mind that these cars aren't/weren't design to save gas like 4th gen Max's were.

 

I will continue to dispute this wherever i see it. There are no factory freaks and your car certainly is no exception to that rule.


OT i know...but this thread sucked to begin with...

 

Pick a dyno in massachusetts. I will be more than happy to go and dyno. I will pay. I have been wanting to dyno since my misshift anyway.

No need to be jealous it just makes you seem

 

Has nothing to do with jealousy. The point is those numbers are abnormal and you speak of them in absolute terms. They're anomalous until they are repeated by not only your car on different dyno's, but other cars with similar mods. That's just how it goes...

 

In no way trying to credit the Maxima's engine, but comparing engines HP per liter is worthless and one of the gayer things people do.

 

I personally think TQ/Liter is a much more worthwhile observation but even that doesn't tell the entire story alot of times.

 

My offer stands. It would be nice for someone to duplicate my mods on a 199 cali spec and dyno but i cannot control if anyone does or not. All i can do is redyno my car. Weather you believe it or not means little to me. I know what the car is capable of and what it did

 

 

I guess three years worth of dyno's that show MEVI/STOCK ECU 4th gen's struggling to make 190 WHP mean nothing...

A 4th gen making 201 WHP. Check out the mod list. SAE corrected BTW...http://forums.maxima.org/showthread.php?t=422998

And one of your old dynos...http://forums.maxima.org/showpost.ph...46&postcount=1

I guess the MEVI adds 25 WHP peak.........................NOT. I don't understand how people can make numbers that are much higher then usual and assume their cars are just "better" than other cars with similar mods somehow. But since HP numbers are a "mine is bigger than yours" competition of sorts, it makes sense...

 

too much power

 

I'm making that kind of power

 

Don't forget these dynos when I made between 179-182whp
http://forums.maxima.org/showthread.php?t=358548

Consistency is key and as usually i have always used the same dyno.




If anyone wants to read about the 200+ whp dynos

http://forums.maxima.org/showthread....81#post4248681

 

I'm not even sure what his point is, as the Maxima is a FWD car, how much power do you really want? If Nissan were smart, they could offer up a 4 cyl. model, with higher mpgs, and probably around what, the orig. 190 HP that the 4th gen had from 95-99?

 

This fact alone invalidates your numbers. There are DEFINITELY peak torque losses when the MEVI is installed.

 

Its funny when data is present to you that you continue to dispute it. I am not going to debate with you any longer. All i have to say is being jealous is I am sure your car performs well and i am happy for you.

 

You're familiar with the term "statistical anomaly", i presume?

 

Hell, even I think my numbers are wrong and overboosted

 

I'm not hating on anybody or jealous. I just firmly believe that there are no factory-freak maximas that magically make more power than others mod for mod. Is that wrong?

 

Too many factors. Like many have said(in other threads), dyno numbers mean nothing. Track times tell all

 

This is true at times but there are many variables at the track as well. The good thing about dyno numbers is that it removes driver skill from the equation. I have no problems with people posting numbers. But if i made 230 WHP n/a with the USIM and stock internals (just an example) i wouldn't be like "oh snapz muh car is elite y0 and this is teh new power standard". I'd be more like, "wtf is wrong with these numbers?" Get me?

 

The way I see it. Who gives a ****? I just want my car to make me happy. Could care less about the "numbers" it puts down as long as I am happy with it. I just want to keep up with all these new cars with too much stock power

Damn I need a VQ35...