where are your so called articles?

 

I have an idea. Why don't you do a so called search online?

 

because I couldnt find any thats why I'm asking you to show it to us?

 

Because if its on the internet it must be true!

 

i hope he dosnt post some forum post and call it his source as an article :p

 

Internet arguing.....

 

...is like a vw golf cabrio... hahahah, I really couldn't help it.

Anyhow, I'd like to read these publications about the VQ being so crappy, you know, for technical interests.

 

The key article is a technical site. No one said the VQ is crappy. Compromises were made from, presumably, the VG to save cost in the VQ.

 

"Only" 7500 rpm. What a crappy reciprocating engine to spin to "only" 7500 rpm. If it doesn't spin past eight grand like an M3 V8 or an F430 then it must be a pile of ****.

You sound like one of those Honda fanbois. Next you'll be telling us what a piece of junk it is because it doesn't make 100 HP/L.

By the way, the VQ37DE has a 500 RPM higher redline than the VG30DETT.

Let's see... the VQ37DE has a 500 RPM higher redline (hey, your criteria, not mine), makes more power and torque without resorting to forced induction, it costs less to manufacture, and it meets today's stringent emissions guidelines. Tell me again why this engine is inferior to the VG30DETT?

 

Not only does the VQ have a higher redline than the old VG but it makes much more HP per liter. This is because of natural developments in a basic engine design's evolution, such as variable valve developments, forged steel rods, micro-finished surfaces and low-friction coated pistons, for example. Notice also that I don't mention factors such as the natural increase in displacement of a basic engine design over its life. As the VQ has increased in displacement, Nissan has chosen to increase bore relatively more than stroke, which decreases the smoothness. But this same pattern probably would have been done with any other engine, including the VG.

The technical article I read maybe 2 years ago (and referred to on this site) indicated something to do with the engine block or counterbalancing or something else that I can't remember. I clearly remember that the article stated that the basic design was less complex (simplified) to reduce cost and one of the consequences is that it isn't quite as smooth and has a lower redline. I do not remember if the article said the previous design is the VG, but I assume it is. I can not find that article (continuing to search for it) but I think it was on a technical website such as Wardsauto.com.

I never make fanboi statements but sense the disbelieving responses (to what I reported) typical of fanbois.

 

If you can make an engine with higher redline, more HP per liter, less polluting and all that without using previously known expensive methods... how can you say the new engine is inferior than the older one?

I don't get it...



I've never drove a 300ZX, but was it as smooth as a rotary? Cuz if a smoother engine = superior engine, then the rotary engine should be considered the mother-pwnage of all engines, no?


I'm so freakin' confused... someone please explain.

 

I'm not sure either. I've checked a ton of Wardsautoworld.com articles and the original article from a few years ago is not there (besides, that website isn't very technical).

The complaint on the lack of refinement and smoothness started when the VQ went up to 3.5L and the 3.0L, which was touted as the model of NVH and smoothness and refinement, was discontinued. The complaint is well known and well reported. It might then be inferred that the original block design may have been at its design limit or edge at 3.0L. Up to the 3.0L, Nissan had constantly been refining the engine, including notably taking weight/mass off of many reciprocating components such that it lost an astounding 108 lbs versus previous iterations. Because a V6 is inherently relatively "unbalanced," my guess is then that there is such a thing as losing too much mass, especially in combination with increased cylinder displacement and the shape of that cylinder displacement increase (e.g., the ratio of stroke increase versus bore increase). All other developments and refinements being equal, an ancient iron block might be more immune than an aluminum block like the VQ. Wards mentions something like this regarding the inline-6 in the older M3, which had iron cylinder liners. It mentioned that even though people might grouse about the iron cylinder liners, it might have something to do with the engine being able to rev up to 8000 rpm.

Moving from an iron block to an aluminum block, is that a change in basic engine design that warrants a change in the name of the engine, like changing the name from VG to VQ? What is the fundamental difference between the VG and the VQ? I don't know. The original article I read said a change to a less complex design that reduced cost. Is an aluminum block less complex than an iron block and does it cost less? I don't see how that could be. Therefore, the fundamental change must have been something else, which unfortunately I do not remember.

 

Nissan Fairlady Z "Stylish" package - white w/ white tails improves the looks of rear quite a bit IMO

 

The rear white out lights look great.

 

yulp, still not digging it. I think its shaped wierd.

 

Agreed! No, color makes it better....

 

Who cares if it's shaped weird? All the most beautiful sports cars in the world ever made were shaped weird. That's part of the allure.

I really like that white pearl. Nissan has always had great white and off-white pearls. Wonder what the silver looks like.

 

I like the overall shape of the body and how the roof is raked like the GT-R. Headlights and taillights are a little odd though. My 2 cents...

 

 

^ That scared the hell out of me as I scrolled down...

 

 

sexy car. love it

 

First look at Mine's 370Z - I think this is the best one I've seen so far next to the S-Tune




Source: GTChannel

 

Jeez, the car isn't even out yet and Mine's mods one.

 

The fish looks better than the car.....