VQ loses power as rpm's rise?
#1
VQ loses power as rpm's rise?
Someone said this on a forum I frequent. I've never heard this before, ever. I have heard the VQ can be soft under 3500, I know it's gas thirsty, I know it's not the most efficient engine, but I've never heard anyone even infer that it doesn't have a really flat torque curve or loses power at high rpms.
Any insight?
Any insight?
#2
Our engines don't have a very flat torque curve. The torque rises up to about 5500 rpm and then starts to fall off. Does the engine "lose power" at higher RPM? No, it loses (some) torque. Power probably peaks within a couple hundred RPM of redline. Find a dyno graph, it tells the whole story.
#3
#5
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: South
Posts: 3,671
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#6
Dudefish - I'm not disagreeing with you, I've just never seen a dyno that indicated a drop-off at 5500 rpm. We used to own a '96 Maxima and it was almost exactly the same as above, +/- 3 or so all the way from 2400-6600. Just weird I guess, until the poster on that other forum mentioned a power decline at high rpms I'd never heard anything of the sort before. Perhaps he was talking about HP, or was referring to cars that redline at 8-9k.
#7
Trending Topics
#8
Originally Posted by TBone24
So one anonymous guy somewhere on a board said something about the VQ and you took it as gospel ... good lesson not to believe everything you read or hear
If I took it as gospel I wouldn't be asking, would I? Unlike most of the troll-like whack jobs that frequent internet forums, when someone says something I haven't heard, or disagree with, I don't just call them a down-syndrome kid then run away giggling to my mom. I check it out and make sure I'm right before I let them know that they're wrong. Interesting concept, isn't it?
Last edited by Picus; 10-07-2005 at 01:06 PM.
#9
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: South
Posts: 3,671
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#10
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: South
Posts: 3,671
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Had my 05 Dynoed today for other reasons I can not say at this moment. I needed a baseline. The car is stock except for a ztube. The car is exceptionally powerful. Even more powerful than my 04 G35 6mt.
Basically the dyno speaks for itself. Take a look.
FYI:
Stock DYNO for 2005 G35 Sedan 6mt with 7351 Miles, outside temp 60 degrees, shop temp 75~ degrees. Car could not go above 6800 rpms due to speed limiter at 145 mph kicking in.
Car was dynoed in 5th gear for 1:1 ratio.
One above shows rpms, one below shows speed.
Basically the dyno speaks for itself. Take a look.
FYI:
Stock DYNO for 2005 G35 Sedan 6mt with 7351 Miles, outside temp 60 degrees, shop temp 75~ degrees. Car could not go above 6800 rpms due to speed limiter at 145 mph kicking in.
Car was dynoed in 5th gear for 1:1 ratio.
![](http://www.sah2o.com/russ/g35/05g35dyno1.jpg)
One above shows rpms, one below shows speed.
![](http://www.sah2o.com/russ/g35/05g35dyno2.jpg)
![](http://www.sah2o.com/russ/g35/dynotune1.jpg)
![](http://www.sah2o.com/russ/g35/dynotune2.jpg)
#11
#12
#13
Originally Posted by G35_TX
Had my 05 Dynoed today for other reasons I can not say at this moment. I needed a baseline. The car is stock except for a ztube. The car is exceptionally powerful. Even more powerful than my 04 G35 6mt.
Basically the dyno speaks for itself. Take a look.
FYI:
Stock DYNO for 2005 G35 Sedan 6mt with 7351 Miles, outside temp 60 degrees, shop temp 75~ degrees. Car could not go above 6800 rpms due to speed limiter at 145 mph kicking in.
Basically the dyno speaks for itself. Take a look.
FYI:
Stock DYNO for 2005 G35 Sedan 6mt with 7351 Miles, outside temp 60 degrees, shop temp 75~ degrees. Car could not go above 6800 rpms due to speed limiter at 145 mph kicking in.
#14
STD numbers are worthless for comparison purposes. Have the shop give you the dyno files. You can then download the Dynojet software off their web site (free) and you can convert to SAE corrected.
Just to give you an example, my Mustang GT numbers in STD form were 260/300 and 250/292 in SAE form.
Your car probably ran about 250/230 in SAE corrected form which makes sense if you consider about a 15% drivetrain loss.
Your torque curve looks pretty flat to me which is good.
Just to give you an example, my Mustang GT numbers in STD form were 260/300 and 250/292 in SAE form.
Your car probably ran about 250/230 in SAE corrected form which makes sense if you consider about a 15% drivetrain loss.
Your torque curve looks pretty flat to me which is good.
#15
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: South
Posts: 3,671
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 4DOORFUN
STD numbers are worthless for comparison purposes. Have the shop give you the dyno files. You can then download the Dynojet software off their web site (free) and you can convert to SAE corrected.
Just to give you an example, my Mustang GT numbers in STD form were 260/300 and 250/292 in SAE form.
Your car probably ran about 250/230 in SAE corrected form which makes sense if you consider about a 15% drivetrain loss.
Your torque curve looks pretty flat to me which is good.
Just to give you an example, my Mustang GT numbers in STD form were 260/300 and 250/292 in SAE form.
Your car probably ran about 250/230 in SAE corrected form which makes sense if you consider about a 15% drivetrain loss.
Your torque curve looks pretty flat to me which is good.
Here is the SAE ones I picked up today.
![](http://www.sah2o.com/russ/g35/dynosae1.jpg)
![](http://www.sah2o.com/russ/g35/dynosae2.jpg)
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post