Let's discuss the new VQ37HR-VVEL.
#31
03-28-2007, 02:06 PM
#32
03-28-2007, 02:24 PM
#34
03-28-2007, 02:30 PM
Its just the styling sucks; oops, thats for another thread; my bad! 
#35
03-28-2007, 03:05 PM
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In regards to the e46 m3's engine:
It was a 3.2L that peaked HP very high in the RPM's. The 3.5HR/3.7HRVVEL will have much better torque curves than the 3.2L BMW engine and better fuel consumption. Not only that but the e46 was rated using the old system. These engines are rated on the new SAE system which brings the e46 M3 hp down even lower.
It was a 3.2L that peaked HP very high in the RPM's. The 3.5HR/3.7HRVVEL will have much better torque curves than the 3.2L BMW engine and better fuel consumption. Not only that but the e46 was rated using the old system. These engines are rated on the new SAE system which brings the e46 M3 hp down even lower.
#36
03-28-2007, 03:09 PM
#37
03-28-2007, 07:51 PM
j/k
#38
03-29-2007, 01:34 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: ATX
Posts: 660
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Diesel350
So what do you guys think of boosting this engine?
On the other hand, with a rebuild and lower compression pistons... this design is stouter than the old 3.5VQ... so it should do well. The only issue I see is controlling the VVEL functions. Will be interesting to see the dual turbos going into dual intakes... nice.
#39
03-29-2007, 01:40 AM
#41
03-29-2007, 11:20 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Albuquerque
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More info on VVEL technology at www.nissansportmag.com.
Dave Bexfield
Managing Editor, Nissan Sport
www.nissansportmag.com
Dave Bexfield
Managing Editor, Nissan Sport
www.nissansportmag.com
#42
03-29-2007, 11:39 AM
Mechanically, it might not be that hard to modify the engine. But controlling the injector rates on a fuel system running extremly high pressures is going to be difficult
Originally Posted by trebien
Actually, it's going to be a bit of a pain in stock form with such a high compression ratio and without the benefits of direct injection to help curb possible detonation. That is... in stock form without lowering the compression.
On the other hand, with a rebuild and lower compression pistons... this design is stouter than the old 3.5VQ... so it should do well. The only issue I see is controlling the VVEL functions. Will be interesting to see the dual turbos going into dual intakes... nice.
On the other hand, with a rebuild and lower compression pistons... this design is stouter than the old 3.5VQ... so it should do well. The only issue I see is controlling the VVEL functions. Will be interesting to see the dual turbos going into dual intakes... nice.
#43
03-29-2007, 05:12 PM
A few question i have ... maybe someone can answer them here
Questions are inline
* Higher fuel efficiency
At low-to-mid load ranges, the system controls air intake at the intake-valve, immediately before it enters the combustion chamber, in contrast with conventional engine air intake via a throttle valve, leading to increased efficiency by easing airflow through the cylinder.
In the low- and medium-rpm ranges*3, intake-valve lift is kept low to reduce camshaft friction and improve fuel efficiency.
Is this feature negated by a turbo installation I mean with a possitive pressure system would it really make any differnce
* Better response
Controlling air intake at the intake-valves improves acceleration response by allowing more dense air into the cylinders from the start of acceleration.
Here again your density charge is much higher that what would be accomplished via this system alone
* More power
In the low-rpm range, the intake-valves open for a shorter period, preventing blowback of the air-fuel mixture and improving torque.
Blowback would not happen in a turbo application right ?
In the high range, greater intake-valve lift allows increased air intake to deliver greater torque outputs.
A possitive charge system would not see gains from this right ?
* Cleaner emissions
Intake-valve timing is optimized on startup, when the engine is still cool, to quickly raise the temperature of exhaust gases and more quickly activate the catalytic converter.
I don't have a cat .... well I do but she stays home
Hydro-carbon emissions are reduced in the low-to-medium range by keeping intake-valve lift low, speeding intake flow and dispersing the fuel into a finer mist, resulting in more efficient full combustion.
I get more effecientcy by running slightly lean on idle and low range... Its somewhat a drawback of a turbo system and the UTEC you will get about 1 or 2 PSI over NA in when the UTEC is not fully engaged
the reason I ask is because I have an '06 Coupe and really don't love the new design ..... I was thinking about just sleeving a block, boring to 100 (giveing me about 4 liters) and moving my mods over to the new block (well ok my piston and head will of course need to be reworked... for obvious reasons) and using that instead .... besides then I can go for something a bit more ...... agressive
Questions are inline
* Higher fuel efficiency
At low-to-mid load ranges, the system controls air intake at the intake-valve, immediately before it enters the combustion chamber, in contrast with conventional engine air intake via a throttle valve, leading to increased efficiency by easing airflow through the cylinder.
In the low- and medium-rpm ranges*3, intake-valve lift is kept low to reduce camshaft friction and improve fuel efficiency.
Is this feature negated by a turbo installation I mean with a possitive pressure system would it really make any differnce
* Better response
Controlling air intake at the intake-valves improves acceleration response by allowing more dense air into the cylinders from the start of acceleration.
Here again your density charge is much higher that what would be accomplished via this system alone
* More power
In the low-rpm range, the intake-valves open for a shorter period, preventing blowback of the air-fuel mixture and improving torque.
Blowback would not happen in a turbo application right ?
In the high range, greater intake-valve lift allows increased air intake to deliver greater torque outputs.
A possitive charge system would not see gains from this right ?
* Cleaner emissions
Intake-valve timing is optimized on startup, when the engine is still cool, to quickly raise the temperature of exhaust gases and more quickly activate the catalytic converter.
I don't have a cat .... well I do but she stays home
Hydro-carbon emissions are reduced in the low-to-medium range by keeping intake-valve lift low, speeding intake flow and dispersing the fuel into a finer mist, resulting in more efficient full combustion.
I get more effecientcy by running slightly lean on idle and low range... Its somewhat a drawback of a turbo system and the UTEC you will get about 1 or 2 PSI over NA in when the UTEC is not fully engaged
the reason I ask is because I have an '06 Coupe and really don't love the new design ..... I was thinking about just sleeving a block, boring to 100 (giveing me about 4 liters) and moving my mods over to the new block (well ok my piston and head will of course need to be reworked... for obvious reasons) and using that instead .... besides then I can go for something a bit more ...... agressive
#45
03-29-2007, 09:58 PM
Originally Posted by picus112
You know, it's interesting. At G35 driver folks seem really concerned with straight line speed. Over at e90post *most* (not all) guys seems more concerned about suspension. No real point to make, just interesting.
I personally think if Infiniti can make a car that *handles* as well as the 3 series, they will have accomplished something quite spectacular, regardless of a tenth in the 1/4 mile. In fact, given the ease of modding the 335i to move much quicker in a straight line, I think it is smart of Infiniti to try to topple it dynamically rather than in acceleration. So far it seems like they may have done that, so good on em.
I personally think if Infiniti can make a car that *handles* as well as the 3 series, they will have accomplished something quite spectacular, regardless of a tenth in the 1/4 mile. In fact, given the ease of modding the 335i to move much quicker in a straight line, I think it is smart of Infiniti to try to topple it dynamically rather than in acceleration. So far it seems like they may have done that, so good on em.