Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

We wondered where Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. possibly could go with its VQ-series 3.5L DOHC V-6 after winning a 10 Best Engines award for a dozen consecutive years. After all, most contemporary engine families don't last this long, much less last this long at the top.

So where is Nissan going? To the podium for its 13th award.

The company's engineers apparently don't intend to relinquish the VQ's now-legendary status as the definitive V-6 benchmark because this year, the fourth generation of the VQ is 80% new, flaunting revised design features that address the one development aspect in which the VQ had been slipping refinement and brewed in a fresh new level of performance, just to be certain everybody knows they're serious.

In recent 10 Best Engines competitions, Ward's editors have been straightforward about the VQ's benchmark role: It's tough to rag on a legend, but ever since the 02 model year, when Nissan bored the sweet original 3L VQ to a brawnier 3.5L, we've noted an erosion of refinement. Noise, vibration and harshness levels had been sacrificed at the altar of increased horsepower and torque.

The modular DOHC V-6 that launched in 1995 in the U.S. at 3L and 190 hp gradually had grown to 3.5L and as much as 298 hp - a 50%-plus hike in power from just a 17% increase in size.

But for the fourth-gen 07 variant, the VQ35HR, there's a critical new structural ladder frame, an enlarged crankpin and crank journal diameter, a new cylinder-head design, a trick new asymmetric piston skirt and longer connecting rods, in addition to a raft of friction-reducing updates.

The engineers out there easily will assemble the puzzle to see improved NVH was a prime target. It worked. The VQ has regained much of its hallowed silkiness. Once again, it's easy to forget to upshift, it revs so smoothly, Editor Drew Winter says.

But all that refinement attention bore gifts even better than those best appreciated by the J.D. Power quality fanatics. The HR designation for this latest-generation VQ stands for high revolution, meaning there are more revs available from an engine that always preferred the high-altitude section of the tach to begin with.

The VQ35HR now offers a luscious 7,500-rpm redline (up from 7,000 rpm with the manual transmission for the old VQ) and revs so passionately that a gearshift feels unnecessary before 6,000 rpm.

A 6,800-rpm power peak would be a warning sign in less religiously detailed engines. But for the new VQ, that region of the tach is fully and invitingly exploitable.

All those revs mean extra power, too, and the HR variant of the VQ (a fourth-gen VQ35DE with fewer of the high-rev ministrations will be fitted for several models) loads up with 306 hp and 268 lb.-ft. (363 Nm) of torque / power that matches the class-leading Lexus IS 350's 3.5L DOHC V-6, but lags it slightly in torque.

Nissan engineers say they developed the high-rev variant of the 3.5L DOHC V-6 to be a more emotional experience, and we're down with that, too.

Anytime you can spin a V-6 to 7,500 rpm, get more power and refinement and bask in magnificent new sounds specifically targeted for the HR, there's nothing to do but once again award the champion its hard-earned belt.

Source: Wards Auto

post-20773-1167866229.gif

Edited by scathing

Still, its only making an extra 8hp with that extra 500rpm of redline, and new internals. Although the shot on the Wards site doesn't show it, I believe its meant to have a dual intake rather than the single the older VQ's have had.

I would have expected far more power than just 8hp at the flywheel, especially if it spins more smoothly.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Hi...a bit a "development" on the brakes. I spoke to the guys where i get brakes from...and they are saying that 296mm EBC are for R34 GT-T. I then went to their site: https://www.ebcbrakes.com/vehicle/uk-row/NISSAN/Skyline (R34)/ and search for my car(R34 GT 1998 - it has GTT brakes) and it show me this USR1229 number and they are rly 296mm rotors... So now iam rly confused... The rotors i have now on the car are 310mm asi shown... So where is the problem? Does the whole EBC got it wrong or my calipers are just...idk know what?  
    • Oh What the hell, I used to get a "are you sure you want to reply, this thread is XX months old" message. Maybe a software update remove that. My bad.
    • This is a recipe for disaster* Note: Disaster is relative. The thing that often gets lost in threads like this is what is considered acceptable poke and compromise between what one person considers 'good' looks and what someone else does. The quoted specs would sit absurdly outside the guards with the spacers mentioned and need  REALLY thin tyres and a LOT of camber AND rolling the guards to fit. Some people love this. Some people consider this a ruined car. One thing is for certain though, rolling the guards is pretty much mandatory for any 'good' fitment (of either variety). It is often the difference between any fitment remotely close to the guards. "Not to mention the rears were like a mm from hitting the coilovers." I have a question though - This spec is VERY close to what I was planning to buy relative to the inboard suspension - I have an offset measuring tool on the way to confirm it. When you say "like a mm" do you mean literally 1mm? Or 2mm? Cause that's enough clearance for me in the rear :p I actually found the more limiting factor ISNT the coilover but the actual suspension arms. Did you take a look at how close those were?
    • @GTSBoy yeah sorry i know thery are known for colors bud those DBA are too in colors 🙂 Green will be good enough for me  
    • That's my life. Past-Duncan has a lot to answer for
×
×
  • Create New...