rotarygreg

potentiated....no offense but it sounds to me like your talking out of your ***. you've based this opinino on an article you read, which would be based off of someone elses opinion. and dont say its not. the media, especially the online media is always slanted with opinion. they leave out facts that are against their opinon and stress the ones that are for it. also, you keep talking about the what if the VG were to continue being developed, thats neither here nor there. what if the 4ag was still made? that would be the best engine ever. it would be smoother, higher reving, more power down low and more fuel efficient. fact. im obviously being sarcastic about that last bit to show how obtuse you are being. things change. companies progress. look at honda, they put an end to the D series engine which was a great little setup. very reliable and they sip fuel. now we have the K from honda and its good too. different, but good in its own right. my sister has a maxima with a VQ in it and the car has so much torque down low...it comes on very strong. although at speed, the engine feels so smooth becaues of that. What part of an engine not reving high makes it crappy? to me, its about usable power. i love my rotary, but its really lacking in usable power. you have to rev the living hell out of it to get in the powerband which you can fall out of very easily. a 6spd maxima with a VQ on the other hand has gobs of power anywhere in the rev range (which is almost half that of the 8). there are pluses to both ways IMO. again, no offense. just chill. why do you think you have to prove something to all the "VQ fanbois" as you put it? sometimes its okay to keep your opinion to yourself. this time however, i felt i needed to chime in.

Greg

Potentiated

Unfortunately for you and some others, I'm not talking out of my ***.

You've mentioned some good things about the VQ. Sounds accurate to me. But you've never mentioned anything about how the VQ compares to the VG. Because you have no idea. Nissan engineers know the answer. The answer is there but right now we can only try to infer it. What happens for you if my inference matches the Nissan engineers' knowledge and that both reiterate what the original article said: that Nissan purposely went to a simpler design IN ORDER TO CUT COSTS and the result is an engine that is not as smooth and has a lower ultimate redline capability? That is either the reality or not the reality, right?

Both engines went through many iterations. That's why a scientific comparison CAN NOT go there. I want to know what the fundamental (basic) differences are between the 2 engines. I want to know what the designers' motivations were. I want to know this reality.

I am in a position only to be able to try to infer the reality the best I can. I believe I've done that...years ago. I originally read a technical report on the evolution of the Nissan V6 into the VQ. The article was bare bones and to the point, descriptive, objective, no evaluation purpose, no salesmanship one way or the other. There is no inference on my part here. People who have either owned or driven both continue to say the same things. Here I can and do infer that, because what they report is consistent with the article I had originally read, that there is something substantive there.

Now we can conclude (based on strong inference) that the owners and drivers are not delusional. Next, we can all ask (once again) the critical question: What are the differences between the 2 basic engine designs that are responsible for the observed differences? I am still asking this question and trying to find a definitive answer. DailyDriver's comments are important. The original article I read IS important and starts it all off. It's the beginning to an answer.

The VQ is a good engine but back in the 3.0L Maxima, it was GREAT (like you say). It's not as great anymore in its 3.5 and 3.7 iterations because of its roughness at high rpm. The roughness has been repeatedly reported by magazines and owers. We can ask: What has changed between VQ iterations? Is it a design flaw, a shortcut in terms of R&D and cost, or simply reaching a certain design limitation?

I'm not only interested in what has changed in the VQ itself but I'm also interested in, more importantly, how is the basic design different between the VQ and VG. The 2nd question is more important here actually. But you people aren't even asking the 1st question.

Why are you not asking the same critical questions I ask? And then expending some energy, like I am, to find out the answer? It's really obvious that I'm not talking out of my ***, so why would you say that? Is it because it takes very little energy and much less energy than trying earnestly to process ONLY 3 posts that I've written?

rotarygreg

man, were you high when you typed that ^ ? Im now completely sure you are talking out of your *** as i stated before. just give it up. you are arguing a point that is a what if basically. you are basing your argument on other poeples opinions and not even showing us where you got that from either.

Ive done some searching and he main differences i can find between the engines is the VGs are closer to being a square engine (stoke and bore are closer to the same dimensions) and the VQ usually has a large bore and a much shorter stroke. other than that they are very similar. The VG being an iron block, the VQ having aluminum. both had alot of the same technology in various versions of each engine. both at some point had direct injection. both at some point used twin throttle bodies....the only thing ive found though is that the VQ has been praised world wide for smoothness, reliability and power production. I did come across any such claims for the VG in my searches. I dont have an opinion on the comparison of the engines as my experience with the VQ far outweighs the experience i have the VGs, but i would never call a VQ "rough" as you claim they are. it runs amazingly anywhere in the powerband and IMO, is the redeaming factor to the POS that my sisters maxima actually is. lol.

Greg

Potentiated

Ok greg guy, are you stupid? Seriously, are you a total idiot? Don't be an *******. It's bad enough that you're projecting your lack of intelligence onto me, BUT you're also being an *******, and I'm not going to tolerate that. Now shoot yourself.

DailyDriver2k5

Actually Greg there has been claims to the VG, ever since its been introduced in 1984, i was looking at some articles on the web yesterday, should have bookmarked the site, but i will try to find and post the claims for you. The VQ outputs a smooth power delivery,take the VQ to redline and it becomes brash in sound and slightly vibrates the chassis , depending what vehicle your in. My Maxima never shook like my friends 350Z in the upper rpm range , but both cars in the upper rpm range was very ruff sounding.

My (Twin Turbo Z)VG30TT in sound had a hint of a exotic sound coming from the engine, and from idle to full tilt, the output was butter smooth with no noticable vibration from the cabin area or chassis.

To me I think both engines were marvels for there time,they both have pros and cons that enthusiast can love or hate. From a modding standpoint I favor the VG over the VQ because of the tunning factor and for the main fact, the internals are tried and true to hold up to 500HP. And with 500HP you could still drive the car safely or as a daily driver without worrying about sending a rod through the hood.

The VQ is a different story , pushing those levels in a standard VQ, your asking for the motor to go boom without upgrading the internals, which can be very costly to upgrade the internals for that motor.

rotarygreg

bwahahahaha! thanks, that made me laugh. I dont think i need to make a rebuttal, you've said quite enough.

Daily, you seem to have alot of first hand experience with these engines. great argument by the way, unlike someone who shall remain nameless. *cough* potentiated *cough*

I stated my personal experience with the VG was very limited. All i said was that i didnt find the same sort of praise for the engine as i did for the VQ in the little searching i did. My experiences with the VQ however didnt yeild the same issues that have been pointed out. as for the vibrations present in the high revs on a 350Z and not a maxima, that could easily be due to stiffer engine/tranny mounts. I hear what you are saying about the sound though.

Greg

Potentiated

DailyDriver, you have no idea how much I appreciate your presence here.

DailyDriver2k5

No prob man! I am a Nissan man at heart , although becoming more fonder of the rotary power plant. Suppose to tear one down over the holiday break, watching my good buddy who eats, sleeps and breath rotaries tear a 13B down and do a bridge port on it or I think he mentioned doing a peripheral port on it. Its going in a second gen RX-7. Should be interesting to watch the process and to see the final results.

My dream though is to get a 1979 280Z and stuff a heavily modified VG twin turbo in it. Lots of fab work but it could be done!

Make it a true Devil Z like that of the Wanagan Devil Z car!

Razz1

!

Potentiated

Let me add that in the 350z thread, I mentioned the VG in the 300zx. How did I know about it? I read articles and owner's reports that it's smoother than the VQ, including the critical article that Nissan went to a less complex design specifically in order to reduce cost, which resulted in a less smooth engine with lower redline capability. And I read these years ago. DailyDriver simply reinforces what I said from an actual owner's point of view who ALSO read articles/reports saying the same thing he's observed firsthand. This is all old news. It's not even debated anymore among people who are "in the know." I'm not really one of these people; I simply used my intellect to make strong inferences. It's not that difficult really.

Another thing that I want to mention is that DailyDriver also reinforced my earlier statement that the VG and VQ must be compared and that that comparison must be done on equal terms. This is why you can't consider all the "natural" technological advances that were applied to the VQ, advances that were not availabe to the VG. Because these factors would be confounding. However, just because the VG doesn't exist anymore doesn't mean these comparisons can't be done, because they can, at least on hypothetical terms. The strongest hypothetical evidence would be what Nissan engineers KNOW to be the truth in the comparative engineering of the two engines.

But DailyDriver provided the strongest type of comparison based on empirical evidence in his post above. He said that he and others have "built up" both engines and not only does the VG have a higher ceiling but building up a VQ would have a number of obstacles that would require large sums of money to solve. Building up both engines IS a way to compare both engines' capabilities on equal terms. I had failed to even think about this possibility when I made my original general statement that the truth about the superiority of either engine is out there and can be inferrred! I was and am correct, which I already knew, of course. DailyDriver's empirical observations add yet another layer of reinforcing evidence (actually the most important kind, as it turns out). Dummies need not apply, but I'll still accommodate. Dummies who are ********, don't even think about wasting my time, I will shiet on you, you wastes of human resources who nevertheless must retain ridiculously unfounded egos.

And, yeah, I'm annoyed.

StealthTL

iTrader: (1)

VG, VQ it's two friggin hunks of Datsun!

So no need for any personal insults - righty right?

S

Potentiated

Yeah, I agree. Why even initiate those kinds of knee-jerk insults from knee jerks that take about zero brain energy to produce. It's pretty annoying.

rotarygreg

oh wow. this is why i dont venture into the general automotive section very frequently. lots of nonsense about things that dont matter that much and i get sucked into it so easily. Im done though, sorry, StealthTL, to have lit the fuse on this one.

Greg

neit_jnf

isnt the Ford 2.5 I-4 made by Mazda??

Nick R

I still think the 6G72 from Mitsu is smoother than the VQ for what its worth. Both power plants put out great low end torque however :-)

StealthTL

iTrader: (1)

I needed a starter motor for my Nissan Pathfinder (with the Renault VQ, you did know it was French, right?) so I asked the dealer for a new one.

He said nobody buys new, they get a 'rebuilt' - for $490!

OK, I'll bite - how much IS a new one?

$1219.

I just bought a set of brushes and cleaned up the old one......

S

DailyDriver2k5

Smart man, parts for the VQ are very expensive. In my 02 Maxima my MAFS(mass air flow sensor) blew out on me twice. Too replace $425 bucks... no thank you. The first time I swapped it out for another 02 in the salvage yard, but after further reading the 03 Maxima shared the same MAFS as the 350Z did, the heavy duty A300 MAFS. The second time the MAFS blew , i got a price quote on how much the A300 would cost me for ***** and giggles, Nissan added a $100 dollar premium! So the MAFS cost $525 bucks!

I called around my salvage yards intown and picked a A300 for $125 bucks. Needless to say I was a happy camper as well as my wallet, and the A300 never went bad on me.

77mjd

I'll tell you I test drove an '09 Jetta TDI just for giggles last week and I was more than pleasantly surprised. In fact I was amazed with the ride. Gobs of torque available in every gear, plenty of passing power, and very smooth and quiet. I am seriously considering getting one. It was my first experience ever driving a diesel engine.