He just ordered injen dual intake...

 

I don't think the VQ series is some incredible motor. Afterall, it's just a 24v V6 that doesn't even have direction injection, variable cm lift, or variable intake design. What makes it so effective is that Nissan understands powertrain tuning. They gear the cars correctly to match powerband characteristics, they put in high stall torque converters, etc. The side effect is ill mpgs. Honda tunes more for ecomony.

The facts are, stock for stock, mod for mod, the VQ cars are faster and quicker than same year TL. I don't know about J-series motors, but VQs get faster and faster with age. My old VQ30, even with 117K miles, showed no signs of slowing down. This Car & Driver longterm 07 G35 6MT only got quicker, posting a 13.7@104mph with 40k miles (http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...term_road_test). Motor Trend got a 13.5@105mph out of a bonestock G37 sedan 7AT (http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...est/index.html). The G sedan is about 170lbs lighter than the sme year G coupe (13.8-13.9@102mph).

My 03 5AT sedan went 14.3@100mph with just a plenum spacer in 1,500' DA conditions. That rivals what most TL 6MT and TLS 6MT owners are getting. I have yet to go back to the strip and test out my 3.54/LSD setup and additional intake and exhaust mods.

 

lol!!

I think you are correct if you are talking about the newer G with the HR and/or VQ37.

You stated earlier that you like to use mag times for consistency. From Car and Driver, the 2003 5AT G35 is as fast as the 2002 TL-S. Both get to 0-60mph in 6.2s, and 1/4 mile at 14.8@96mph (14.9@96mph for G35). I know, the Car and Driver test driver didn't use the +/- so the car would shift before the redline. May be that's true, may be not. Like you've said, car magazines do many runs. As for C/D, my understanding is that they try many different methods to get the best time. They launching the car normally, they try brake torquing, they try full auto mode, and they also try +/- mode.

6MT vs 6MT? Well, the 03 G35 6MT sedan according to C/D gets from 0-60mph in 5.9s, and 1/4 mile in 14.2@99mph. TL 6MT does the above in 5.6s and 14.3@99mph. Again, very close.

Most Honda cars get faster after a while too.

 

this is so heated. it all comes down to the driver and the individual car. i beat many many g's and i have been beaten by a few G's but i never once lost by 8 cars. every single race i have lost to a G was because they got a better launch.

only highway pull i lost was by 2 cars to 135 GPS mph.

so dave i dont know why you refuse to believe that a TL-s with similar mods can keep up with a G when im down .3 in the displacement category and still manage to pull.

none of these G's were stock either


reese runs 13.7 and showed a video of him pulling a g37 and you STILL refuse to admit that its possible

 

Just the fact that one can even claim 8 cars difference between the two as if it's normal and would happen on a regular basis with nothing having gone wrong means they have no idea about either cars' abilities.

Again there is a margin for error when you are talking about a car being faster and being able to run better times. It's not tremendous but it does exist.

 

No timeslip for comparison sakes. A video showing nothing other than the TL-S reaching the end of the track means nothing to me. Reaction time and launch are key. Mess one or both of those up and you're getting smoked by the slower car.

 

Seriously, how many stock or near stock 6MT TL and TL-S have come even remotely close to 13s? We can count the number of NA TLs on this site that have hit 13s on one hand. 13s for Gs and Zs, even 12s for 370Zs and bolt-on Zs (VQ35 and HR) are common place on G35driver and My350Z. Going 13s in a bolt-on 5AT 03-06 G isn't uncommon at all. 90% of the 6MT TL/TL-S (stock or bolt-ons) are hitting 96-101mph. A car pulling 96-101mph in the 1/4 mile isn't magically going to start pulling like an LS1 after 100mph. I don't know why in the world so many TL owners have this notion in their minds that these J-series motors spring to life in the higher mphs. It must be a Honda owner thing because the Civic crowd thinks much the same way. It's simply not true. The TL-S pulls like it should from 0-120mph based on it's 1/4 mile performance. Nothing magical is happening here.

What makes the VQ35HR and VQ37HR so effective on topend is that the motors have decent mid range power plus a serious wallop of sustained power to 7500rpms. Based on the dynos I've seen posted here, J-series in the TL-S runs out of steam at ~6200-6300rpms and power nose dives. The HR on the otherhand, peaks at around 6700rpms and holds about 90-95% of it's power to the 7700rpm fuel cut. Simply put more power is sustained in the HR. It's powerband is much wider and deeper and the overall average power across the HR's powerband is higher. Average power wins races and with the HR, it's ability to breath gives it legs the J-series simply doesn't have. Gear after gear, the HR keeps pulling. As the gears get longer, the HR pulls more and more distance because it has a much fatter powerband to ride and that's why it gets to 120mph 1.1 seconds earlier. It's not rocket science.

 

Dave,

.. didn't you know we only do roll racing here?

 

Where's the smiley that's shows me coming into a thread and walking right back out?? lol

 

http://s32.photobucket.com/albums/d4...ent=Mydyno.jpg

That's my dyno on a hot/humid day. Peak power is around 6200, but stays within 2hp to the 6800RPM redline. That's with the RV6 V1 restrictive Jpipe, and my OBX catback (< 2.5in). Not that it's a beast, but it makes good power for a SOHC V6. The torque curve is extremely flat from 4K to redline. It loses maybe 5% torque at most throughout that range. With my 3in exhaust, I expect power to continue to climb up to at least 6500, and then plain off. I'd love to see a J series rev to 7200 to see if it continues to maintain power like the VQ, it very well might.

The HR is a great motor, no one is denying that. Stock vs. stock there is no comparison, especially with the 350z HR. It's a low 13 @106-108mph car. The dual intakes probably help top end as well, although older VQs make power until 7200 without much issue.

With that said, I ran a modded revup G35 6MT. He said he had the Motordyne ART pipes (advanced resonance tuning), and a Motordyne exhaust. From what I could see, it was a single 3in setup with a dummy muffler. So Idk if he had anything else, but I'll say no. We did 2 runs, 40 roll and 20 roll. Both runs I edged him out by less than a car to 115. J series can hang

 

From what I can see, both VQ and J have really flat torque curve. It's just that the newer VQ that can rev to 7500rpm can sustain the torque longer, hence, higher peak hp and faster. As for the bottom and mid range torque, I think they are very close.

And there's also a 9 second CL with a J series. Check this thread:
https://acurazine.com/forums/car-talk-5/9-60-140mph-acura-cl-j-series-815009/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TXcMEG2ru4

 

I agree with you as far as the J30 not falling flat on its face after our power peak at 6200. My dyno plot mimics yours but with less whp and wtq thanks to my automatic tranny! The J35 might be a different story as we have a high profile cam with the 3 rocker VTEC setup on our 3.0L. I am not sure of the setup on the J35 engines. I believe that the J35 TL-S has a higher profile cam then the J35 on the new accord.

 

Let's not forget that dyno numbers are corrected for conditions so high temp and humidity doesn't hold much bearing in the numbers for the most part. If conditions are super bad, then the corrective factor can skew the numbers a bit since the CF is so large.

You do make an excellent point about your J30 and it's power above 6000rpms. There's no doubt in my mind that your car would be quicker and faster if you could increase the rev limiter. Even though peak power occurs at 6200rpms, the car will keep accelerating strongly as long as power doesn't fall off. This is largely why the VQ35DE and VQ35/37HR are so effective. Power is sustained for a longer period than most other motors. Nissan has achieved this mostly through fancy intake manifolds, high flowing cylinder heads, and well sized exhaust piping.

To show demonstrate the significance of extending the rev limiter on a motor that wants to breath, take my old VQ30 Maxima for example. The VQ30 in that application peaked at around 5900rpms and power plummented hard after 6100rpms. By 6600rpms (rev limiter), the engine had lost 45% of it's power. I installed an OEM variable intake manifold off the European Maxima. Power now peaked at 6200rpms, the car gained about 7whp/wtq in the upper rpms (lost 8whp/wtq in the midrange), and 95% of the power was sustained right to the limiter. When you looked at the data, it showed the car making over 55whp/wtq more from 6200rpm to 6600rpms than the stock manifold. Surely the car would be quicker. It wasn't. It was no faster and I was perplexed. The reason being that loss in midrange power and the fact that the increase in power wasn't sustained for a long period at the strip (only 400rpms). I calculated out the average power and it was really no different than stock. I then bought an ECU flash which extended the limiter to 7100rpms and restored the lost midrange power. With that simple change, the car immediately started going .3 to .4 seconds quicker and nearly 4mph faster in the 1/4 mile. That 500rpm in limiter increase allowed my VQ to ride a much fatter powerband. Instead of a 4800rpm-6600rpm powerband, it became a 5000rpm-7100rpm powerband. Average powerband increase with the extended limiter was ~15% across the board. That's huge.

With all that said, the J32/J35 doesn't seem to breath as well in the upper rpms. It packs a healthly punch, but power drops off fairly quickly after 6200rpms.

 

hater. I ran this g37 twice and we compared slips. he had his excuses on the run in the video and I had mine on why I didnt walk him even worse.lol. I agree with you that launches are key. On our other run he ran a 13.9 and i edged him with a 13.8 again. On that run we had pretty close reaction times except I had again a horrible 60ft 2.3. he on the other hand had a 2.1 sixty and I still took him. His best trap I believe was 102 for the night. VS me trapping 103 every run even with terrible 60fts. By the way I put 280 to the wheels.

 

Dave, very good points. I would've been just as shocked as you were with the new manifold for the VQ30. Increasing trap speed by 4mph and lowering ET by .3-.4 seconds is huge. Must've felt like a different car.

I do agree that the VQ holds its power better in the upper rev range for sure. It's also a very strong motor and doesn't seem to be stressed even after revving 500RPM past the limiter. I'd love to find out how a higher rev limiter would work on the J series with some aftermarket cams. I'd venture to say it would react similar to the HR in terms of holding power much longer.

Slow03Maxima (if he still ventures over to AZine) is a perfect example of 'holding' power up top. He is at >90% peak power from I believe 5500-6800RPM. That's crazy. He puts down around 285whp I believe on his current setup (stock cams). However, he is almost always in the fattest part of the powerband. That results in a great track car.

Reese good job taking the G37 280whp with those mods is great. You should try out a 3in exhaust

 

2nd gear felt stronger, but after that, I really couldn't tell much difference. Since the acceleration G's taper off significantly in each gear, the sensation of acceleration is reduced. The only thing that's really different is that you're holding on to the gears a bit longer.

IMO, my modded VQ30 and VQ35 don't feel all that powerful. It's largely because they have flat torque curves and sustain the power in the high end. The VQ35 definitely has a bit more punch in 1st though. Revving VQ35s and VQ37s above 5000rpms doesn't feel good at all. My VQ30 was like a sewing machine at all rpms. It felt like an inline 6. The punched out, the long stroke VQ35/37s are buzzy and mechanical. The VQ35HR feels downright awful if you've got a 6MT because you feel tons of vibration through the shifter and clutch pedal. These larger VQs lack refinement. The The J30 and J32 I've driven are far more refined.

There's no doubt in my mind a 500rpms extended limiter would have a huge impact on your car. Is there any way to extend the limiter on the J series?

The limiting rev factor on the VQs is the oil pump and valve springs. The VQ30 valve springs float at 7300rpms and the oil pump is good to ~7500rpms. The VQ35/Revup/35HR/37HR oil pump is good to ~8000rpms.

 

I've also heard the HR VQ motors have some vibration at high RPMs.

The only way to increase the rev limiter is through a standalone. I'm not sure how much higher we would be able to rev safely though. I don't know of even 1 person who has revved the J series over 7K lol.

 

^can the J&R ecu lower vtec while moving the rev limiter?

*edit. well, I guess we wont know unless some one plays around with the new ecu.

 

Don't forget the the VQ37HR has VVEL, so yes there is a VQ with variable cam lift.

I'm a fan of both motors, my one gripe is the use of a timing belt on the Jseries. Is there a reason behind this? Just curious as to why honda never updated that aspect of the engine. Both my dad's pilot and my gfs TL-S are due.

 

The J32A2 from the TL-S and CL-S have a fuel cut-off of 7100rpm ha!!

 

Yessir. J&R got 20-25whp/tq without changing the VTEC point. I expect at least another 5-8whp from changing the VTEC point alone, along with a fatter powerband. You should see the midrange gains the SI gets after changing the VTEC engagement w/FlashPro...
Lol. Good find! If they can do it, we can too!!!

 

Put the limiter to 7500 RPM with a tune and you'll see mid-high 13 sec 6MT J30/32/35 with bolt ons all day...

 

Especially looking at what is in bold, your logic doesn't make sense, haven't we also talked about roll races? And Dave, you protest too much. Nobody is talking about LS1 fast and this is not a sub 200 HP civic vs the 11 and 12 second cars.

In most cases we are talking about a margin of .3 and 3 mph. Not definitive enough so you are not keeping any order here, you are just a Infiniti and Nissan guy and there is nothing wrong with that but you are trying to dictate to Acura and Honda guys that yours is better (faster), competely disregarding anything that goes against what you think and only using info and data that helps your cause, never the other way.

The difference is, I don't disagree with the times and what the cars' run compared to each other, I don't agree with what it means and what you try to imply or infer from that which is something you know nothing about on a first hand experience basis.

How many real world examples do we have all over this board? Even a G37 6MT owner himself admits a TLS walked him and in another example there is a video and it's even in your langauge, 1/4 mile. So how is what you list, copy and paste, or look up, any better than all the other info that suggest otherwise?

The only consistent counter we hear from you on a regular basis is numbers or dyno data and if you think those things and drag racing and 1/4 mile times are the holy grail of acceleration data, then I don't know what to tell you.

Think outside the bubble. For once give the benefit of the doubt and think how it might be possible, invest the same effort into why it isn't (according to you) to why it could be, just for arguments sake.

Let me help, does your car accelerate the same in every gear? How many gears does each car in discussion run through in a 0-1320 ft race? Do RWD, FWD, and AWD cars have the same exact time running tendencies? What about how times are measured in both magazine and at tracks that would allow room for error or not 100% correlation to real world racing?

It's also not rocket science, your perspective is just very narrow. It's like talking to someone who interprets a law the way it is written, black and white with no grey but that doesn't mean there is no grey area.

 

You sure seem to harp a lot about this "real world racing" which apparently is street racing. I don't agree at all that street racing serves a basis as to which is the faster car, from a stop or from the infamous Honda roll race. Street racing means jack to me for the numerous reasons I've posted.

Secondly, I'm far from a Nissan/Infiniti diehard. The debate is about a TL 6MT vs an 07 G35 6MT. I'm sorry it hurts to see it from another perspective. I also spend a lot of time on this site and read plenty about the capabilities of the TL/TL-S. If both cars are driven to their full potential, the TL is going to get walked badly, same goes for the 6MT TL-S which doesn't seem to be much quicker than the 6MT TL.

 

I take it you don't like roll races... Take my car to a track and it probably get beat by a 6MT G37S, but if I catch it on the street, I'll win a street encounter is way more likely to happen then meeting someone at a track.

Exactly why I love trap speeds a modded TL may not post a fast 1/4 time but it'll get the job done on the open road.

 

Btw, to the posts that a full bolt-on 6MT TL can't trap 102/103mph...it can and I honestly think it can trap as high as 104mph with full bolt-ons.

This thread just makes me wanna throw on my exhaust and pulley again just to go to the track.

If I only trap 100mph, according to some people, how would I walk a GS350, G35, S60R, 350Z, murder a Speed3, etc....I don't make up these races. I was dead even with a 335i convertible and I'm sure that thing traps at least 102mph, what does that tell you! Maybe a few of the races are driver errors but for the most part I've ran them multiple times.

 

Don't forget some drag radials, Alex. I ordered a set of Nitto 555R's that should be here Wednesday and hopefully Richie has my HFC's to me this week too since open test n tune is next Sunday. I don't see 104 mph happening, but I did get 99.5 mph with just I/E back in '08.

 

^^ reese's 2nd gen hit 13.7 @ 102!

from the description, it seems he could do better also.

 

Why not the NT05?

*edit, never mind I see its the radials.

 

Yeah, they're drag radials. They tend to wear well at the expense of a little less grip than MT or BFG, so I'll just run them till fall.

 

Yes real world, drag is like testing done in a lab and then when you apply the same methods in real scenarios and not just controlled samples and environments, you get another outcome altogether. And just because YOU don't like them doesn't mean there is no credibility to street racing and it's results, which often show another side to the story. This board is 90% based on street racing in case you didn't notice.

Drag and magazine races mean crap to me because some cars can achieve better times at the expense of reaction time and/or by lauch effectiveness and ability with the combination of staging which could otherwise cost one in a regular race or is rarely considered when comparing times in the first place. No doubt about it, some cars can manipulate this process better than others and therefore reflect better times that otherwise would not be the case unless this MEASURING method is used. Most would say that manipulation could yield an average of .3 quicker and 3 mph higher.

It's for those reasons I don't directly compare times measured in this way unless it's the same platform. Lots of people don't buy into this or that much but it's true and the concept is proven. Roll races, often times take that part out of the equation as do off idle races and you can't try to tell me there wouldn't be a difference, big difference. There is too much evidence for too long now based on other forms of racing even if it is street but still it can give you three dimensions, drag and magazine times are only one. Why do you think there is such an emphasis to roll racing with these cars and taking it to higher speeds? It's not for nothing, that's personal experience talking and most of the other guys around here know what I mean on BOTH sides of the debate.

It doesn't hurt me to hear another perspective, it seems to hurt you more, I already know your perspective, thought the same way for a long time myself as it comes form the typical magazines and timslips and I didn't disagree with them, only what people make out of them or how conclusive they get about the results when you are talking about close competitors. Personally I don't care, don't even have a TLS anymore, no dog in the fight, just setting things straight.

And finally, you keep proving my point even further. The last thing you say is the TLS doesn't even seem much quicker than a TL and based on how you judge and measure quickness from only times and numbers, I agree but there is a whole other side to that in which you are missing and will continue to miss. Where a TLS is markedly quicker would not be respresented in how you view them but it doesn't change the fact that it is. Not 0-60, 1/4 mile or trap, some dyno yes but other than that you need to have had personal experience with both to REALLY know.

Walked badly? You sound like you are rooting for you favorite team. Many here have had personal experiences and not basing it on numbers or just timeslip racing. Driven to the same potential? You can't keep making these excuses for only one side unless they don't exist for the other. Like how the TL's dyno is always high and the G's time always low and the low TL time is the normal according to you and at various websites the rarest of times is never out of the question but the TL one is a freak and the track is generous. C'mon bro, you are not fooling anyone.

 

Well said Alex and you are doing just fine without those traps or numbers.

 

Well said Dave.

 

Just thought I'd share .. thought it would be relevant to the thread.

I was coming home from work and I noticed a 2003 - 2005 G35 Coupe in front of me and he was the first one at the light. I slowly creep behind him and thought nothing of it.

As soon as the light turns green to merge onto the freeway, he has a semi- aggressive start so I follow his lead. I left it in 2nd up to about 40mph and sure enough he punches it.

I was ready and floored it, I merged a couple lanes over and sure enough started pulling him as soon as I shifted 3rd ..I had about 1.5 cars as soon as I shifted 4th. Had I left it in 4th and went to 120, I think I would have been even further ahead.

Cliffs: 40-100 pull, 1.5 car lengths ahead and the G35 floored it first.

This is one of my first races with my suspension and I can tell a big difference between shifts. Despite the stupid checkvalve, my car puts down power very quickly.

On a side note, I wish I could run a 350Z VQ35 HR and see how I fair .. I wouldn't expect to win but I think the Z driver would be a little surprised to say the least.

 

^^ Nice run. Do you know if it was 5AT or 6MT? Btw the HR Zs would punish us lol. Bolt on/tuned we'd have a shot I think. They are about 300lbs lighter than the G37, and keep up with 370z's.

Let's try to keep this civil guys. Not that it's not, but this is actually a good debate and I'm kind of enjoying it. No one seems to be shooting flames yet, let's try to keep it like that so it doesn't get locked.

I agree and say given equal circumstances, the G37 should win. But to say the TL/TL-s 6MT would get walked badly is going too far I think. But that also goes by what you consider 'walked badly' means. To me it's 3+ cars. I doubt the 37 would be 3+ cars ahead a TL-s 6MT (equally driven), even in the 1/4 mile.

"Infamous Honda roll racing?" I see plenty of Z06/GTs/Lambos/GT2s/Skylines/etc doing roll races. Is a 'real' race from a dig? Yes, I agree. But to put it on the Honda guys is a little off. What about the Altima/Maxima/MS3 (we won't go there ) guys that can't hook? It's true for FWD cars in general, not just Hondas.

Case in point here: the G37 is undoubedtly the faster car. But in some situations, the TL-s will definitely hold its own.

Like I said, I ran a revup G35 6MT coupe w/full exhaust and I was 1/2 car ahead at the end of both runs, and he was shifting well. Stock I've seen them trap over 102, modded 104-105. Who knows.

 

Ummmm....no Shallow staging will not net you .3 seconds and 3mph. Try maybe ~0.05 seconds and maybe ~0.5mph. It hurts reaction time though which is why you deep stage if you're bracket racing. There's no other "manipulation" you can do at the strip in terms of "tricking" the equipment for your gain.

Shallow staging works for any car, FWD, AWD, or RWD. It doesn't matter.

 

This I have to agree with. In no way, shape or form will deep staging net you .3 or 3mph in the 1/4. I thought it was more for trap purposes than ET.

At the same time I don't think winstrol was saying you can trick the equipment by .3 or 3mph. I think he was stating that given 2 cars of similar performance (within .3 and 3mph) is a good comparison, and that neither would "get walked badly." But I could be wrong.

 

I didn't actually say that, roll out as opposed to no roll out, staging compared to no staging, can make up an average of .3 tenths and 3 mph which is not only fact but also manipulation and is a trick and is the grey area in the numbers and time racing discussion.

Yes, staging works for any car obviously but the kicker is some cars benefit form staging (much) more than others, that should be a no brainer. Now combine that with an affected reaction time in general or as a result of trying to get the better time in some cases and that is a large reason why numbers don't translate 100% to street races. Especially of cars that are within an average of .3 tenths and 3 mph. You can't expect foolproof results or comparisons of street races when that is your basis.

That's good when you have a much larger time discrepancy removing the margin for error and for when comparing 1/4 mile running times alone, plus it still has little to do with roll and higher speed outcomes which is the other part of the discussion.

Your example of shallow staging results might be correct when based on a single car or sample, compared to itself, not compared to another vehicle which brings more variables and factors into the equation like FWD or AWD platforms which tend to benefit less from doing so or open differential vs LSD which is even more variation. Those things affect the results of staging.

Even if you don't agree with variation in a car's staging ability and how much it can offset the outcomes in comparison, just the fact that you admit that there is such a thing as better times at the expense of reaction, suggests that you admit there is a trick to the measuring system whether you realize it or not, and that should prove to you that timed runs don't tanslate to untimed runs and there is a margin of error when comparing the two.

 

cool story

can't believe I read through all that lol

 

It was at 1 point, I can't believe that this is still going on... Time for it to be laid to rest, as the same stuff is being said over and over and over again. NEXT!