Ugh. Okay Nismo I guess it's spell it out time. I for one don't precisely know which engine "sits" lower. BUT if you have to consider this. RB26DETT's intake manifold sits on the SIDE. The VQ35's intake manifolds sit on TOP. Thus making the engine APPEAR to sit "higher". If you look at the valve train covers, you will see they sit right about the same place. Plus the intakes are ALUMINUM, thus not making too much difference.

The fact that the RB26DETT comes in at nearly 2x the weight (from what I read) and 2x the cylinder length, hurts the car more than anything else.

 

Oh, I did. I had two posts here fanboy.

 

Jeff, I’m not trying to start ANOTHER argument with you, but I do think that you need some medications to calm your belligerent mental issues of becoming angry so quickly.

Now talking about which engine sits lower it doesn’t matter if the VQs manifold is on top or not the manifold is still part of the engine. If the VQ didn’t have a manifold then hey, yes the VQ engine would sit at about the same height, but guess what? The VQ motor needs a manifold to operate thus making it sit higher than the RB. I don’t care if the RB weighs in at nearly double the weight, since it has I think an iron block.

The whole question was "Does the RB26 sit lower then the VQ35?" And the answer to this question is - YES, the RB26 does sit lower than the VQ35. End of story. It doesn’t matter if the engine is made of titanium, iron, aluminum, plastic, marijuana, or cocaine. It’s the fact that from the pictures provided above the RB26 does sit lower.

Now if we were going into weight discussion, which I personally myself wasn't, then yes we would care if the engine was made out of iron, aluminum, marijuana, or cocaine, but my point still none of these “weight factors” have anything to do with how high the engine sits.

-Sean

 

Which engine sits LOWER. One would have to take pics and compare the BOTTOM of the engines right? Not the top. That's a discussion on which engine is TALLER. Not the same.

Point being, what does it matter which engine has a taller intake manifod? It's aluminum. It's like arguing about which engine has a blue cam cover and which has a black cam cover. Who really cares?

Unless there is some PERFORMANCE point to your statement. Please state that so I know exactly why you state one engine sits "lower" than the other.

Off hand, I don't see how you can really state one effectively sits lower/higher than the other. I assume it would entail identifying the centerline of both engines and comparing how high they both sit. As that would actually make a difference. But from the pictures, it's not clear at all.

IMHO. From a performance standpoint, the heaviest parts of the engine (short block) sits right about the same in both applications. To me anyway. Even of the RB was way lower (which it isn't), it would still be way heavier.

 

Jeff, it doesn’t matter if the VQ sits higher in the engine bay and the RB sits almost on the ground. The point being made is that the RB sits lower in the engine bay Vs the VQ. If the bottom of the RB engine is dragging on the ground then the RB still has a lower center of gravity. The RB might not be as balanced as the VQ for cornering in the g35, but it still sits lower. You don’t need measurements, you don’t need to physically see it, and you don’t need someone else to tell you. You can simply look at the 2 photos and automatically tell by the VQs intake manifold that the RB does in fact sit lower to the ground.

This is turning into a question similar to mine with the MREV, I don’t see what you’re missing here…?

-Sean

 

What I'm missing is the actual POINT of your statement. If one has this, the discussion can continue. So what if the RB appears to sit lower? What was the point of you making that statement?

 

Here...

You're turning this into a conversation that doesn't need to be...

He said that "The RB sits further back than the VQ" and i said "It also sits lower". That is the point, that since the RB sits lower, it might have it's advantages as well. Lower to the ground = lower center of gravity, which means POSSIBLY less body flex into and out of corners.

-Sean

 

I see. BTW I think he's dead wrong on the weight



Sits futher back. I can concede that. cool. But I'm not sure the center line of the engine sits further back than the VQ. Which would be the point.

Okay so it's performance statement. Cool now we know. My contention is that the top of the engine isn't determining the performance factor via the following:
1) That the engine actually sits lower. As IMHO, you need to see the bottom of the engine. Not the top. As both engines can sit exactly the same height at the bottom. That would mean neither engine sits lower. But one sits higher.
2) That the weight of the engine will make the body more than the position of the engine. Especially when I observe that the RB's block doesn't seem to sit any lower than the VQs.