All MotorAll Motor Advanced Performance. Talk about Engine Swaps, Internal Engine work. Not your basic Y pipe and Intake Information.
Welcome to Maxima.org!
Welcome to Maxima.org,
You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access
to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to start new topics, reply to conversations, privately message other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join Maxima.org today!
Unfortunatly, the car was never finished. I do not have a time slip or proof of any times. However that really wasnt my point.
My point wasnt that I beat every maxima in existence, it was that with a few hundred bucks the money really showed. The $:HP ratio i guess.
Then you did not get the best hp per dollar people are taking those turbo k-cars i think something like that . putting rods ,pistons . Lots of nitrous and running 10's ,11's 12's. And spending less than you did on your mustang.
People might not want a k-car or a mustang thats why we do it.
Yes there are a lot of cars that can be made faster for less money. But look around you. EVERYONE has done it. I think a lot of the people that seriously mod their max's like the idea of doing something no one else has, to break new ground. It's a challenge. The longer I'm on this board the more I wonder if this is the way it was for Hondas when they first started doing hybrids. Now look how far they've come. Who knows what we'll discover. R&D for anything costs money, sometimes a lot of money. Without people getting tired of doing the same thing over and over, we'd all still be riding horses.
__________________ RIP1996 Pearl White GXE Automatic w/ '00 VI and some other goodies. Auto:
Best dyno: 192.5 fwhp // 192.5 fwtq (Dyno-Jet)
Best 1/4 mile: 14.56 @ 94.10 mph (2.20 60 ft)
Then you did not get the best hp per dollar people are taking those turbo k-cars i think something like that . putting rods ,pistons . Lots of nitrous and running 10's ,11's 12's. And spending less than you did on your mustang.
People might not want a k-car or a mustang thats why we do it.
Then you did not get the best hp per dollar people are taking those turbo k-cars i think something like that . putting rods ,pistons . Lots of nitrous and running 10's ,11's 12's. And spending less than you did on your mustang.
People might not want a k-car or a mustang thats why we do it.
Ofcourse my example didnt work out and I obviously didnt get the best HP per dollar bc it was a total loss.
I can understand your comment and the point about why...
I dont want to get into comparing any v8 vs a maxima. This could get very ugly and Im not interested in making enemies.
your right.
this is a great find for the maxima and hopefully a great alternative to the bottle of NOS used to gain low times. Props to the fellas working on this.
1)Don't know, but that's the least of his worries.
2)Don't think so because of variable valve system on VQ35.
3)Neither, the rods/crank are from a 240hp VQ35 Pathfinder that ate a screw.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BluFlame
1)stock starter may not turn the motor over because of high-compression?
2)can you use the 3.5 heads?
3) this 3.5 from 03 or 04 maxima?
Based on the displacement change alone, its a 10% increase in displacement so you could expect a rough estimate of 10% increase in power output just because its got 10% more air moving. then you have to factor in the compression ratio being 11:1 rather than 10:1.
Based on the displacement change alone, its a 10% increase in displacement so you could expect a rough estimate of 10% increase in power output just because its got 10% more air moving. then you have to factor in the compression ratio being 11:1 rather than 10:1.
so with roughly 10% increase from size, and the fact that the CR increases 10%, does that mean this could increase power by 20%? sounds a little too good to be true....what do you think?
ok with the new parts which ecu do you plan to use since the stock VQ30 ecu may not work and would the starter from a VQ35 engine work and also would it be possible to transfer the injectors from the 35 to the 30?
That pic advertizes the 90mm stroke that I have been saying the new VQ40DE would have to be. This one appears to have the sleeves and bores cut paper thin and they added a custom made one piece deck cap/bore sleeve. Notice the solid iron deck. This is what will carry the VQ into the 1000+ hp 2JZ territory and will propel the 350Z intot he super tuner car catagory. Very nice find.
That pic advertizes the 90mm stroke that I have been saying the new VQ40DE would have to be. This one appears to have the sleeves and bores cut paper thin and they added a custom made one piece deck cap/bore sleeve. Notice the solid iron deck. This is what will carry the VQ into the 1000+ hp 2JZ territory and will propel the 350Z intot he super tuner car catagory. Very nice find.
agreed look out 2JZ's, also notice the options for 8.5:1, 11:1, and 11.5:1 compression ratios. The AEBS website http://www.aebsracing.com/products.pl?product=tsleeves also claims that the sleeves have been tested to 55psi of boost. This coupled with the solid deck will meam some seroius boost or naaaaaaaaaawwwwzzzz potential . Now obviously no one in their right mind will run 55 psi of boost but can you imagine 4.3 liters of nissan v6 running 18psi of boost? i cackle at the very thought.
Turbo 8.5:1 with 100mm bore and 90mm stroke = 4231.16cc
That does not add up. That equals 4241.15cc
NA (Both compressions) 101.5mm bore and 90mm stroke = 4269.35cc
That is also wrong. The correct product for that is 4369.39cc
So my question is which of these posted dimensions are correct and which ones are not?
I should call these people and ask them how they can machine a block to such a degree but they can't do simple auto math.
Turbo 8.5:1 with 100mm bore and 90mm stroke = 4231.16cc
That does not add up. That equals 4241.15cc
NA (Both compressions) 101.5mm bore and 90mm stroke = 4269.35cc
That is also wrong. The correct product for that is 4369.39cc
So my question is which of these posted dimensions are correct and which ones are not?
I should call these people and ask them how they can machine a block to such a degree but they can't do simple auto math.
But seriously, great thread, I'm assuming you would have to remove the engine to swap these parts? Doesn't look like something you can pull the head off etc.
Looks like a good candate for people doing an engine rebuild.
hehe, nice work! 
Linear Mode
