Nissan engine (VQ) rated top 10 for 12th straight year
Thread Starter
|
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
From: Irvine CA
Nissan engine (VQ) rated top 10 for 12th straight year
Looks like the VQ was again rated among the top 10 engine's by Ward's. According to the article below it seems Nissan is the first manufacturer to have a top 10 engine every year consecutively for 12 years. See SEMA eNews article below...
http://www.sema.org/main/semaorghome.aspx?id=54278
http://www.sema.org/main/semaorghome.aspx?id=54278
From the SEMA article: "In both the G35 sedan and coupe, the VQ engine produces 298 horsepower at 6,400 rpm and 260 pound-feet of torque at 4,800 rpm when mated to a six-speed manual transmission."
I have to admit, after coming from a modified Acura CLS putting out 300hp from a 3.2L with a 7200rpm limit, I don't think the VQ is much to talk about. It is nowhere near as smooth or rev happy as the Acura engine and its only real attribute is its torque.
Torque is great, especially for an automatic, but I would rather have a higher revving engine that breaths well all the way to fuel-cutoff mated to a manual--that is a sports car engine IMO. In this instance, the torque difference is not as great since you can rev and drop the clutch at launch to make up for some lost low end.
I would rather have the RLs ultra-smooth 3.5L with 290+ hp and 256+ torque with a 6800rpm redline (but fuel cutoff at 7200) than the VQ truck engine any day of the week. The VQ is just that-an unrefined truck engine.
Not flaming, since I obviously love the G, just saying that the VQ is not the technological marvel that Ward's thinks it is.
I have to admit, after coming from a modified Acura CLS putting out 300hp from a 3.2L with a 7200rpm limit, I don't think the VQ is much to talk about. It is nowhere near as smooth or rev happy as the Acura engine and its only real attribute is its torque.
Torque is great, especially for an automatic, but I would rather have a higher revving engine that breaths well all the way to fuel-cutoff mated to a manual--that is a sports car engine IMO. In this instance, the torque difference is not as great since you can rev and drop the clutch at launch to make up for some lost low end.
I would rather have the RLs ultra-smooth 3.5L with 290+ hp and 256+ torque with a 6800rpm redline (but fuel cutoff at 7200) than the VQ truck engine any day of the week. The VQ is just that-an unrefined truck engine.
Not flaming, since I obviously love the G, just saying that the VQ is not the technological marvel that Ward's thinks it is.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 113
Likes: 2
From: Lovettsville, VA
Originally Posted by JZ39
From the SEMA article: "In both the G35 sedan and coupe, the VQ engine produces 298 horsepower at 6,400 rpm and 260 pound-feet of torque at 4,800 rpm when mated to a six-speed manual transmission."
I have to admit, after coming from a modified Acura CLS putting out 300hp from a 3.2L with a 7200rpm limit, I don't think the VQ is much to talk about. It is nowhere near as smooth or rev happy as the Acura engine and its only real attribute is its torque.
Torque is great, especially for an automatic, but I would rather have a higher revving engine that breaths well all the way to fuel-cutoff mated to a manual--that is a sports car engine IMO. In this instance, the torque difference is not as great since you can rev and drop the clutch at launch to make up for some lost low end.
I would rather have the RLs ultra-smooth 3.5L with 290+ hp and 256+ torque with a 6800rpm redline (but fuel cutoff at 7200) than the VQ truck engine any day of the week. The VQ is just that-an unrefined truck engine.
Not flaming, since I obviously love the G, just saying that the VQ is not the technological marvel that Ward's thinks it is.
I have to admit, after coming from a modified Acura CLS putting out 300hp from a 3.2L with a 7200rpm limit, I don't think the VQ is much to talk about. It is nowhere near as smooth or rev happy as the Acura engine and its only real attribute is its torque.
Torque is great, especially for an automatic, but I would rather have a higher revving engine that breaths well all the way to fuel-cutoff mated to a manual--that is a sports car engine IMO. In this instance, the torque difference is not as great since you can rev and drop the clutch at launch to make up for some lost low end.
I would rather have the RLs ultra-smooth 3.5L with 290+ hp and 256+ torque with a 6800rpm redline (but fuel cutoff at 7200) than the VQ truck engine any day of the week. The VQ is just that-an unrefined truck engine.
Not flaming, since I obviously love the G, just saying that the VQ is not the technological marvel that Ward's thinks it is.
1 - You rather have a 300hp@7200rpm car than a 298hp@6400rpm?!? Aditionally you mention it is modified.
2 - Define smooth? Why do you want a "rev happy" engine and what do you mean by that. I've been in the Acuras among other cars and I don't feel that it is any smoother.
3 - You can have all the hp you want, but if you don't have torque you aren't going anywhere.
All your reasons for not liking the VQ is pretty much why I like it better. I know you said you aren't trying to flame and I'm not accusing you of doing so. However, I don't see how the Acura engine is any better.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 190
Likes: 1
From: North Andover, MA
Originally Posted by JZ39
From the SEMA article: "In both the G35 sedan and coupe, the VQ engine produces 298 horsepower at 6,400 rpm and 260 pound-feet of torque at 4,800 rpm when mated to a six-speed manual transmission."
I have to admit, after coming from a modified Acura CLS putting out 300hp from a 3.2L with a 7200rpm limit, I don't think the VQ is much to talk about. It is nowhere near as smooth or rev happy as the Acura engine and its only real attribute is its torque.
Torque is great, especially for an automatic, but I would rather have a higher revving engine that breaths well all the way to fuel-cutoff mated to a manual--that is a sports car engine IMO. In this instance, the torque difference is not as great since you can rev and drop the clutch at launch to make up for some lost low end.
I would rather have the RLs ultra-smooth 3.5L with 290+ hp and 256+ torque with a 6800rpm redline (but fuel cutoff at 7200) than the VQ truck engine any day of the week. The VQ is just that-an unrefined truck engine.
Not flaming, since I obviously love the G, just saying that the VQ is not the technological marvel that Ward's thinks it is.
I have to admit, after coming from a modified Acura CLS putting out 300hp from a 3.2L with a 7200rpm limit, I don't think the VQ is much to talk about. It is nowhere near as smooth or rev happy as the Acura engine and its only real attribute is its torque.
Torque is great, especially for an automatic, but I would rather have a higher revving engine that breaths well all the way to fuel-cutoff mated to a manual--that is a sports car engine IMO. In this instance, the torque difference is not as great since you can rev and drop the clutch at launch to make up for some lost low end.
I would rather have the RLs ultra-smooth 3.5L with 290+ hp and 256+ torque with a 6800rpm redline (but fuel cutoff at 7200) than the VQ truck engine any day of the week. The VQ is just that-an unrefined truck engine.
Not flaming, since I obviously love the G, just saying that the VQ is not the technological marvel that Ward's thinks it is.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Roblee22
G35 Coupe V35 2003 - 07
5
Jul 30, 2015 12:11 PM
joedaddy1
Engine, Drivetrain & Forced-Induction
0
Jul 28, 2015 02:58 PM
