Dyno Comparison: VQ30DE-K vs VQ35DE
01-06-2005, 12:08 AM
#3
Dyno plot says I have the most area under the Administrator curve
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 7,060
30-40 wtq from idle to 5500rpm says the VQ35DE is the "better" engine. 
The 3.0L is probably better in terms of refinement (lower piston speeds and vibration levels) though, but the 35 is a full second faster in the 1/4 mile.
The 3.0L is probably better in terms of refinement (lower piston speeds and vibration levels) though, but the 35 is a full second faster in the 1/4 mile.
01-06-2005, 05:45 AM
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 885
Originally Posted by zack342
Big diffrence Nice work. But the 3L is still a sweeter engine.Why is the 3.5 power delievery kinda lumpy?
My thoughts exactly, the 3.0 is almost has a linear power , i am assuming the pull is probally smooth as silk. I think that is crazy how the 3.5 has almost 200 wtrq from the start then climbs. Funny how where the trq starts to fall off the Hp picks it up almost creating a non exitent feeling of power loss.
So many dips in the 3.5 , almost scary...
Does anybody have a dyno with a intake and exhaust of the 3.5, wonder if those mods cleans it up alittle or is it worse?
01-06-2005, 06:07 AM
#8
They make similar power at redline 
the 3.5 owns the 3.0 everywhere else though. The peaks and valleys on the 3.5 is cause by intake resonance. That big spike in power at 4,000rpms is VI switchover. The 3.0 has a smooth transition.
the 3.5 owns the 3.0 everywhere else though. The peaks and valleys on the 3.5 is cause by intake resonance. That big spike in power at 4,000rpms is VI switchover. The 3.0 has a smooth transition.
01-06-2005, 06:27 AM
#11
Dyno plot says I have the most area under the Administrator curve
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 7,060
Originally Posted by Daily Driver2k2
Funny how where the trq starts to fall off the Hp picks it up almost creating a non exitent feeling of power loss.
Horsepower = (Torque x RPM) / 5252
That's also why the amount of horsepower and torque an engine has is always the same at 5252 rpm, and will always cross on the dyno at that point as long as the scales are the same. Setting RPM to 5252 rpm, the function becomes HP = TQ
01-06-2005, 07:18 AM
#12
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 885
Originally Posted by SteVTEC
No, not funny. Because horsepower is merely a function of torque output and RPM.
Horsepower = (Torque x RPM) / 5252
That's also why the amount of horsepower and torque an engine has is always the same at 5252 rpm, and will always cross on the dyno at that point as long as the scales are the same. Setting RPM to 5252 rpm, the function becomes HP = TQ
Horsepower = (Torque x RPM) / 5252
That's also why the amount of horsepower and torque an engine has is always the same at 5252 rpm, and will always cross on the dyno at that point as long as the scales are the same. Setting RPM to 5252 rpm, the function becomes HP = TQ
So at that point , you are telling me that the Hp and trq made are the same at that point? Could this be the reason why our cars(3.5) pull so hard at that rpm on the highway because both the HP and Trq are the same? Please enlighten me....
Also do you have any graphs of a 3.5 with a intake and cat-backexhaust modifications?
01-06-2005, 07:37 AM
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 885
Originally Posted by mjg
oh man : here comes this silly debate again.
The 3.5 is a more powerful engine. The 3.0 has more mods available. Let's all just deal with that, and have a cookie... and no bickering : /
The 3.5 is a more powerful engine. The 3.0 has more mods available. Let's all just deal with that, and have a cookie... and no bickering : /
Nah , no debate will come out of this, were just talking about HP and TRQ.
01-06-2005, 08:38 AM
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 292
there's no bickering, however I'm interested to see these side by side with equal mods. It would seem that perhaps the high end pull of the 3.0 would just be further accentuated, as the 3.5 would probably benefit both in gaining some of the hp it loses, and perhaps remedying that massive drop in torque at 5800. As well the gear ratios are different(obviously) in the 5spds and 6spds. The ratios of the 6spd will give it more mechanical advantage all the time, meaning more power to the wheels, however the 5spd is amazingly matched the maxima's powerband. Overall though, the 3.5s average or 'area under the curve' will cause the car to win out.
01-06-2005, 09:15 AM
#17
Originally Posted by mjg
oh man : here comes this silly debate again.
The 3.5 is a more powerful engine. The 3.0 has more mods available. Let's all just deal with that, and have a cookie... and no bickering : /
The 3.5 is a more powerful engine. The 3.0 has more mods available. Let's all just deal with that, and have a cookie... and no bickering : /
I think they have the same amount of mods now......
01-06-2005, 09:21 AM
#18
Supporting Maxima.org Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posts: 5,432
yeah the 3.0 does look a lot more refined, but damn, i knew my 3.5 had a lot of low end torque, but i had no idea it had that much! i dont really notice the power surges on hard acceleration though...feels pretty smooth to me, just as smooth as my mom's 2k 3.0
01-06-2005, 09:25 AM
#19
Originally Posted by GreenSeMax
there's no bickering, however I'm interested to see these side by side with equal mods. It would seem that perhaps the high end pull of the 3.0 would just be further accentuated, as the 3.5 would probably benefit both in gaining some of the hp it loses, and perhaps remedying that massive drop in torque at 5800. As well the gear ratios are different(obviously) in the 5spds and 6spds. The ratios of the 6spd will give it more mechanical advantage all the time, meaning more power to the wheels, however the 5spd is amazingly matched the maxima's powerband. Overall though, the 3.5s average or 'area under the curve' will cause the car to win out.
Actually, if you were to look at 3.5 dynos with headers, they look just like the 3.0, but higher up. The reason the 3.5 has horrible top end stock is the
exhaust system. The piping diameter is the same size as the 3.0 with all kinds of nasty bends in it. Trying to force all that extra air through absolutely kills exhaust air velocity and consequently power. The massive drop in torque is also attributed to this. The 5spd vs 6spd gearing is irrelevant, as both trannies have a 1.00:1 ratio. Also, the 5 speeds are acutally more efficient (15% power loss through the drivetrain, vs 18% for the 6 speed) so the 5 speed wins out on efficiency. This is why 3.0s with manuals are so quick. They put down their power more effectively, even though they dont make as much. (also dont forget the fact that they dont make the tire roasting low end that the 3.5s make, so grip at launch isnt as much of an issue). As for area under the curve, the 3.5 will win both on that and peak power if they are modded the same (headers vs headers, full exhaust, stock cams, udp, etc...). Sorry for the long post, but It had to be cleared up.
01-06-2005, 09:53 AM
#20
Originally Posted by Daily Driver2k2
So at that point , you are telling me that the Hp and trq made are the same at that point? Could this be the reason why our cars(3.5) pull so hard at that rpm on the highway because both the HP and Trq are the same? Please enlighten me....
Also do you have any graphs of a 3.5 with a intake and cat-backexhaust modifications?
Also do you have any graphs of a 3.5 with a intake and cat-backexhaust modifications?
The fact that HP and TQ cross at 5252 is a mathematical phenomenon, and has nothing to do with what you feel in your seat--Torque is the only piece of influence at that instant. HP is just merely math, although it's useful when looking at performance from a wholistic perspective.
01-06-2005, 09:58 AM
#21
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,554
how is horsepower merely math? Sure it's derived, but it's application is obvious.
It's the time derivative of work. Work over time, how is this just math, it seems
to make sense to me. Torque is math also if you want to think about it that
way, even distance is.
It's the time derivative of work. Work over time, how is this just math, it seems
to make sense to me. Torque is math also if you want to think about it that
way, even distance is.
01-06-2005, 10:00 AM
#22
Originally Posted by E55AMG2
Actually, if you were to look at 3.5 dynos with headers, they look just like the 3.0, but higher up. The reason the 3.5 has horrible top end stock is the exhaust system. The piping diameter is the same size as the 3.0 with all kinds of nasty bends in it. Trying to force all that extra air through absolutely kills exhaust air velocity and consequently power. The massive drop in torque is also attributed to this. The 5spd vs 6spd gearing is irrelevant, as both trannies have a 1.00:1 ratio. Also, the 5 speeds are acutally more efficient (15% power loss through the drivetrain, vs 18% for the 6 speed) so the 5 speed wins out on efficiency. This is why 3.0s with manuals are so quick. They put down their power more effectively, even though they dont make as much. (also dont forget the fact that they dont make the tire roasting low end that the 3.5s make, so grip at launch isnt as much of an issue). As for area under the curve, the 3.5 will win both on that and peak power if they are modded the same (headers vs headers, full exhaust, stock cams, udp, etc...). Sorry for the long post, but It had to be cleared up.
exhaust system. The piping diameter is the same size as the 3.0 with all kinds of nasty bends in it. Trying to force all that extra air through absolutely kills exhaust air velocity and consequently power. The massive drop in torque is also attributed to this. The 5spd vs 6spd gearing is irrelevant, as both trannies have a 1.00:1 ratio. Also, the 5 speeds are acutally more efficient (15% power loss through the drivetrain, vs 18% for the 6 speed) so the 5 speed wins out on efficiency. This is why 3.0s with manuals are so quick. They put down their power more effectively, even though they dont make as much. (also dont forget the fact that they dont make the tire roasting low end that the 3.5s make, so grip at launch isnt as much of an issue). As for area under the curve, the 3.5 will win both on that and peak power if they are modded the same (headers vs headers, full exhaust, stock cams, udp, etc...). Sorry for the long post, but It had to be cleared up.
01-06-2005, 10:21 AM
#23
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 292
Originally Posted by E55AMG2
Actually, if you were to look at 3.5 dynos with headers, they look just like the 3.0, but higher up. The reason the 3.5 has horrible top end stock is the exhaust system. The piping diameter is the same size as the 3.0 with all kinds of nasty bends in it. Trying to force all that extra air through absolutely kills exhaust air velocity and consequently power. The massive drop in torque is also attributed to this. The 5spd vs 6spd gearing is irrelevant, as both trannies have a 1.00:1 ratio. Also, the 5 speeds are acutally more efficient (15% power loss through the drivetrain, vs 18% for the 6 speed) so the 5 speed wins out on efficiency. This is why 3.0s with manuals are so quick. They put down their power more effectively, even though they dont make as much. (also dont forget the fact that they dont make the tire roasting low end that the 3.5s make, so grip at launch isnt as much of an issue). As for area under the curve, the 3.5 will win both on that and peak power if they are modded the same (headers vs headers, full exhaust, stock cams, udp, etc...). Sorry for the long post, but It had to be cleared up.
exhaust system. The piping diameter is the same size as the 3.0 with all kinds of nasty bends in it. Trying to force all that extra air through absolutely kills exhaust air velocity and consequently power. The massive drop in torque is also attributed to this. The 5spd vs 6spd gearing is irrelevant, as both trannies have a 1.00:1 ratio. Also, the 5 speeds are acutally more efficient (15% power loss through the drivetrain, vs 18% for the 6 speed) so the 5 speed wins out on efficiency. This is why 3.0s with manuals are so quick. They put down their power more effectively, even though they dont make as much. (also dont forget the fact that they dont make the tire roasting low end that the 3.5s make, so grip at launch isnt as much of an issue). As for area under the curve, the 3.5 will win both on that and peak power if they are modded the same (headers vs headers, full exhaust, stock cams, udp, etc...). Sorry for the long post, but It had to be cleared up.I can easily see the detriment of the stock exhaust, hell it's like night and day between my open exhaust and a 00 stocker. I also agree with the powerloss over the 5 spd because of several elements, mostly due to more rotational mass. However neither tranny has a 1:1 ratio anywhere, here are the ratios.
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th
5spd 3.285 1.850 1.206 0.954 0.759
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th
6spd 3.153 1.944 1.392 1.055 0.809 0.630
01-06-2005, 10:49 AM
#25
Originally Posted by mjg
how is horsepower merely math? Sure it's derived, but it's application is obvious.
It's the time derivative of work. Work over time, how is this just math, it seems
to make sense to me. Torque is math also if you want to think about it that
way, even distance is.
It's the time derivative of work. Work over time, how is this just math, it seems
to make sense to me. Torque is math also if you want to think about it that
way, even distance is.
I think people talk about torque when they actually mean power at low rpm, and it is easier to look at idfferences in the torque curve because it tends to be flatter.
01-06-2005, 10:50 AM
#26
THANK YOU Steve~!
Finally, a fresh breath of air in this forum. We need more technical posts.
I think Tilleys' hybrid VQ30 heads/VQ35 block dyno and SR20DENs' VQ35 dyno would be nice additions to the comparison.
Finally, a fresh breath of air in this forum. We need more technical posts.
I think Tilleys' hybrid VQ30 heads/VQ35 block dyno and SR20DENs' VQ35 dyno would be nice additions to the comparison.
01-06-2005, 11:06 AM
#28
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 235
Originally Posted by spirilis
For all intents and purposes, HP is irrelevant in this situation. It's torque that you "feel." HP is just a computation.
The fact that HP and TQ cross at 5252 is a mathematical phenomenon, and has nothing to do with what you feel in your seat--Torque is the only piece of influence at that instant. HP is just merely math, although it's useful when looking at performance from a wholistic perspective.
The fact that HP and TQ cross at 5252 is a mathematical phenomenon, and has nothing to do with what you feel in your seat--Torque is the only piece of influence at that instant. HP is just merely math, although it's useful when looking at performance from a wholistic perspective.
01-06-2005, 11:36 AM
#30
Originally Posted by Daily Driver2k2
So at that point , you are telling me that the Hp and trq made are the same at that point? Could this be the reason why our cars(3.5) pull so hard at that rpm on the highway because both the HP and Trq are the same? Please enlighten me....
Originally Posted by spirilis
For all intents and purposes, HP is irrelevant in this situation. It's torque that you "feel." HP is just a computation.
The fact that HP and TQ cross at 5252 is a mathematical phenomenon, and has nothing to do with what you feel in your seat--Torque is the only piece of influence at that instant. HP is just merely math, although it's useful when looking at performance from a wholistic perspective.
The fact that HP and TQ cross at 5252 is a mathematical phenomenon, and has nothing to do with what you feel in your seat--Torque is the only piece of influence at that instant. HP is just merely math, although it's useful when looking at performance from a wholistic perspective.
For that statement, HP is irrelevant--What he's feeling is torque. The relationship between HP and torque has NO BEARING on why "our cars(3.5) pull so hard at that rpm"--it is torque producing this phenomenon. This phenomenon, after all, is referring to a STATIC situation at one point in time--"why our cars(3.5) pull so hard at that rpm". If he was at 2000RPM and putting out 240 ft/lbs of torque (which is 91HP), he'd feel the same amount of push in his seat as if he was at 5252 doing 240 ft/lbs of torque (which is 240HP). If you assume HP is the cause of the "pushing in your seat" phenomenon, then this situation would be impossible, because it would suggest that 91HP is equal to 240HP, which is fundamentally false. So my statement was correct, and some of you just took it way out of context and blasted it
01-06-2005, 11:58 AM
#31
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 885
Originally Posted by spirilis
and then...
By "in this situation," read Daily Driver2k2's post first. He was referring to "Could this be the reason why our cars(3.5) pull so hard at that rpm on the highway because both the HP and Trq are the same?"
For that statement, HP is irrelevant--What he's feeling is torque. The relationship between HP and torque has NO BEARING on why "our cars(3.5) pull so hard at that rpm"--it is torque producing this phenomenon. This phenomenon, after all, is referring to a STATIC situation at one point in time--"why our cars(3.5) pull so hard at that rpm". If he was at 2000RPM and putting out 240 ft/lbs of torque (which is 91HP), he'd feel the same amount of push in his seat as if he was at 5252 doing 240 ft/lbs of torque (which is 240HP). If you assume HP is the cause of the "pushing in your seat" phenomenon, then this situation would be impossible, because it would suggest that 91HP is equal to 240HP, which is fundamentally false. So my statement was correct, and some of you just took it way out of context and blasted it
By "in this situation," read Daily Driver2k2's post first. He was referring to "Could this be the reason why our cars(3.5) pull so hard at that rpm on the highway because both the HP and Trq are the same?"
For that statement, HP is irrelevant--What he's feeling is torque. The relationship between HP and torque has NO BEARING on why "our cars(3.5) pull so hard at that rpm"--it is torque producing this phenomenon. This phenomenon, after all, is referring to a STATIC situation at one point in time--"why our cars(3.5) pull so hard at that rpm". If he was at 2000RPM and putting out 240 ft/lbs of torque (which is 91HP), he'd feel the same amount of push in his seat as if he was at 5252 doing 240 ft/lbs of torque (which is 240HP). If you assume HP is the cause of the "pushing in your seat" phenomenon, then this situation would be impossible, because it would suggest that 91HP is equal to 240HP, which is fundamentally false. So my statement was correct, and some of you just took it way out of context and blasted it
Very true..... i know gearing has something to with it too. Because one day myself and a new Acura TL were playing cat and mouse on the highway, but it seemed like everytime we got on it, i would always walk him. Now theoretically and on paper he is toting a "underated" HP figure. 270 is what Acura has put out but from what others on Temple of Vtec that dynoed there Tl's there putting out close too a healthy 285+/-at the crank. Me, i just have a intake and cat-back exhaust and i know i am not putting anywhere close to that number at the crank but yet i walked him more than one occasion. In theroy and on paper he should have been wiping the floor with my Max, what gives?
What gearing ratio does Nissan use for there 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th gears? The maxima gears always seem more aggressive than many cars out there on the road, unless a car that has high HP /highTrq i can usually walk away from them with ease.
Do our cars use the power (hp/trq)better though the rpm band more effectively or what?
01-06-2005, 12:02 PM
#32
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 292
both torque and hp are work measurements, torque is a better figure to judge acceleration, or pull. Because hp is a function of torque, and increases with rpm even if the torque stays the same, hp is a better judge of the overall flexibilty of the engine. ie as you rev the engine it continues to make more power, which is not how internal combustion engines operate, only in recent years due to fuel injection and airflow research have engines such as the VQ peaked hp at or around redline without forced induction, which boosts functional to rpm. Meaning that an engine that makes 220hp@4200rpm and one that makes 220@6500 won't have the same performance. In fact i'd bet the latter would hammer over the first engine, because when you put your foot down, you climb revs, and if you lost power as you climb, what good is it to rev your motor? its not, so you stay low with close ratios(the wonderful world of diesels, hence the 18+ gears on east coast trucks). this is why back in the 90s those honda's scared everyone with 108hp. that 108hp occured at a very useful rpm. sorry for the long post, but it was worth noting.
01-06-2005, 12:06 PM
#33
I guess even power delivery on the Maxima VQ35DE and G35 6 Speed Coupe VQ35DE dyno are diffrent. Must be the Intake Manifold designs. Also Nissan tuned the Z/G cars engines very lean look at his all stock A/f
This is my brothers stock G35 6 Speed Coupe dyno. Smooth and linear power delivery.
This is my brothers stock G35 6 Speed Coupe dyno. Smooth and linear power delivery.
01-06-2005, 12:12 PM
#34
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 292
and to add to daily driver, a couple weeks ago i raced n 05 TL A spec, 6 speed. We rolled at like 85-90, then I heard him downshift, I threw 3rd, began to catch up cuz he hit it first, shifted 4th, and hung next to him til like 115, then i began to walk away, and then like 125-135 in 4th I blatantly 'ran' away. we made one more run from 75-110 when he caught up, and when i walked him there, i left and he got hung in traffic.
01-06-2005, 12:30 PM
#36
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 141
I've owned 4 Maximas, a 1994 SE, a 1997 SE, a 2000 SE, and now a 2003 SE. Of all of these engines the 2000 was the smoothest, but nothing can replace the 3.5 and its sheer power. Yes, might idle a little rougher, but thats overlooked the first time the pedal hits the floorboard.
01-06-2005, 12:31 PM
#37
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 885
Originally Posted by GreenSeMax
and to add to daily driver, a couple weeks ago i raced n 05 TL A spec, 6 speed. We rolled at like 85-90, then I heard him downshift, I threw 3rd, began to catch up cuz he hit it first, shifted 4th, and hung next to him til like 115, then i began to walk away, and then like 125-135 in 4th I blatantly 'ran' away. we made one more run from 75-110 when he caught up, and when i walked him there, i left and he got hung in traffic.
Yeah it seems the the max can hold its own with cars that are not over 300HP + on the highway. Even G35's/350's Z's the max hangs right there with them,if not even edging the G35 sedan by a car or two. Now the new powerplant (298Hp)G35 and the Special edition Z(300Hp) , i don't think our max could hang with unless they gained a few pounds with there new power rating.
I am really amazed what are cars can do against other cars that are on paper suppose to be more "powerful".
01-06-2005, 12:39 PM
#38
Originally Posted by Daily Driver2k2
Very true..... i know gearing has something to with it too. Because one day myself and a new Acura TL were playing cat and mouse on the highway, but it seemed like everytime we got on it, i would always walk him. Now theoretically and on paper he is toting a "underated" HP figure. 270 is what Acura has put out but from what others on Temple of Vtec that dynoed there Tl's there putting out close too a healthy 285+/-at the crank. Me, i just have a intake and cat-back exhaust and i know i am not putting anywhere close to that number at the crank but yet i walked him more than one occasion. In theroy and on paper he should have been wiping the floor with my Max, what gives?
What gearing ratio does Nissan use for there 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th gears? The maxima gears always seem more aggressive than many cars out there on the road, unless a car that has high HP /highTrq i can usually walk away from them with ease.
Do our cars use the power (hp/trq)better though the rpm band more effectively or what?
What gearing ratio does Nissan use for there 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th gears? The maxima gears always seem more aggressive than many cars out there on the road, unless a car that has high HP /highTrq i can usually walk away from them with ease.
Do our cars use the power (hp/trq)better though the rpm band more effectively or what?
01-06-2005, 01:11 PM
#39
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 292
the max is just hard to beat. It's light, it's got gobs of torque, a decent, albeit primitive suspension, and it screams through redline, what more could you want. Oh yeah, and you can beat 'em up with you seat heaters on..........don't forget that's worth something too
01-06-2005, 04:20 PM
#40
Originally Posted by E55AMG2
.... Also, the 5 speeds are acutally more efficient (15% power loss through the drivetrain, vs 18% for the 6 speed) so the 5 speed wins out on efficiency. .