the tech at the dealership told me about the variable exhaust timing. He said that we probably cant make our 03/04 engines to have the same setup.

as for the 298 hp, if there is a loss of torque, then that means that the engine wont last as long. a perfect setup for long life would be equal torque and hp.

Id be interested to race an 05. My car dynod at about 300 hp at the crank so we should be pretty even. Mods: Stillen Dual, Kinetix cats, popcharger and Z-tube(since then, ive taken that out and am running a K&N and z-tube), and TS ECU.

last thing, my car is an 03 6MT sedan. baseline dyno was about 277 hp at the crank. =)

 

And you are lighter too, Prof.

 

So you ran 277 at the crank stock?

 

Couple of questions:

1.
"a perfect setup for long life would be equal torque and hp."

Not contesting the truth in this statement, however, I'm curious as to why this is so. I don't see how the two correlate.

2.
If say the 04 Sedan and coupe are making the same RWHP, then why is the Coupe faster to 60mph by a 1/2 second (this is somewhat substantial) ? Are the two geared differently ?

 

I don't know where he got that from. I've never heard such a thing. If that was case, then why are Hondas so reliable

Is there verified proof of this? I'm assuming you're talking about auto to auto. From the dynos I've seen posted in here, the sedans are within 5whp and usually equal to the coupe, mod for mod, stock for stock. Factor in the additional 70lbs for the coupe and you've got two cars that should accelerate the same. Motor Trend got a 5.8 0-60 and 14.3@99mph out of a stock coupe 6 speed and 6.5 0-60 and 14.6@97mph out of the a sedan auto. Both cars were tested under the same conditions and same day (MT 2003 Car of the Year issue). What's interesting is that the 0-30mph times are where the auto suffers. After that, auto is matching the 6 speed acceleration for every 10mph increment. Usually if a car is .7 slower to 60mph than the other car, it's well over 1.3 seconds slower in the 1/4 mile. Interestly, the auto is only .3 and 2mph slower which indicates some pretty substanial topend pull for an auto. MT actually got a 6.2 0-60 out of the sedan auto, but not during the 2003 COY test.

 

I was referring to an Auto-Auto setup, but at the time I had confused the 6MT coupes numbers with the 5AT Coupe. I had no idea these were so close to the similar numbers for the sedan.

Here's the 2003 COY numbers your referring to:

http://www.motortrend.com/oftheyear/...yw/index3.html

Also, could you point me to a few other threads that discuss this topic.

I tried searching but I keep getting the 'file not found' screen.

This is an interesting topic.

 

I started this thread and no one has yet to answer my question....which is what is the 03-04s putting out at the crank? 260 or 280??

 

Actually, this is your original question and I believe several people made very good efforts to answer your question.

 

Do a search and you'll find this topic has been covered here before almost to the point of ad naseum. Bascially the difference is the '05 6MT motors got variable exhaust timing. That means different cams for the exhaust. And because of that the ECU will have changes for the mappings including a new raised 7000 rpm redline. Here is an excerpt from one of Infiniti's press release.

"For 2005, several modifications have been made including a new electronic exhaust valve timing, improved cooling and air flow and strengthening of several components,"

http://www.infinitinews.com/

As mentioned before peak torque has been dropped slightly for higher end horsepower. I think people are jumping to conclusions here and are caught up in the new peak numbers. What is more interesting is to compare a dyno chart of a stock '04 6MT and a stock '05 6MT. What happens under the curve throughout the entire powerband is more important than just the peak numbers alone.



Nothing that is cost effective short of dropping in an '05 6MT motor with the ECU.

 

Hmmm i wonder if the plenum was improved on the '05... and if so, if it's a direct bolt on replacement. I assume it would be cheaper than the crawford plenum... something I might be interested in switching out.

Anyone have any information on that?

 

And I thank you guys for filling me in.