Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hi guys,

this is my first post.

I have a 2005 6MT CV35 in Lakeshore Slate.

I've been playing with the idea of an AWD conversion from a G35X...and wondered if the CV35 is capable of being converted to AWD easily?

Also, if it's possible to upgrade to the twin intakes like on the new 350Z...

forget it. bury it deep and never look back. the cost probably not worth justifying it.

depending how the front transaxle is located, in addition to new gearbox you may need a new floorpan to make some room for the front transaxle. i've seen the same route with r33 where the floorpan is just different between r33 gtr & gtst despite chasis is the same.

AWD is only available on sedans with VQ25DD engine, so even if you get the floorpan, if your car is currently a coupe, don't expect to be able to swap it easily. Also if you get to find the transmission, I am not sure if it will bolt onto your VQ35DE engine if you got a coupe there.

you'd be better off sell your car, and buy a proper AWD sedan version of the V35/G35 if you can find/import one. Remember you will end up with a less-sexy look of a sedan, and only 210HP-ish (155-ish kw) engine from the VQ25DD instead of 280HP (210kw+) of VQ35DE - and power to weight ratio of VQ25DD may not be enough to make the car eligible for low volume SEVS import - good luck.

not sure about the twin intakes, probably again, not worth it unless you can get a new intake plenum which i would imagine cost an arm and leg. the single intake was good enough, heck i had 230rwkw with factory airbox and panel air filter in my r33 gtst - that's estimated 270kw @ flywheel. no pings!

for sure the factory intake is sufficient for 210-220kw @ flywheel for an NA engine!

on a quick note - if you're prepare to spend heaps of $$ to do the conversion anyway, probably import yourself a front half cut of a Stagea 250RX/RS with VQ25DD engine & AWD transmission - and see if the trans will bolt onto your VQ35DE. sell of the VQ25DD afterwards to lessen the $ pain.

there is a website with 350Z awd photos on the net, but keep in mind the car belongs to and was done by a professional big garage, like JUN or something, so cost for them is irrelevant compare to most common mortals like us.

intake wise on an NA engine, most intake modifications including headers etc, probably only gonna yield a few extra kws, not really worth the money spent, unless a forced induction is introduced, e.g. a $7k-$10k HKS S/C kit or turbo kit, or a $17k APS 500HP twin-turbo kit. Believe me, I have been quoted that much. I would rather keep the car standard and nicely driveable in traffic.

The USDM G35 came in a 3.5L AWD version - Sedan only though. Also the M35 Stagea came in AWD with the turbo 2.5L (VQ25DET) and the 3.5L NA (later models). So a couple of options for donor engines/drivetrains there.

However I think that the Coupe drive train is different to the Sedan so this could still be a very difficult conversion.

Here's the AWD 350Z (by Jun):

http://jpcnews.blogspot.com/2007/05/4wd-35...s-of-speed.html

Very much a mish-mash of bits from different cars, not just a simple matter of grabbing an existing drivetrain.

Top Secret did a V35 "GTR" at one point using a Coupe - I can't find a decent article on it but AFAIK it uses a VK45 4.5L V8, not sure of where they got the drivetrain from. But again heavily customised.

intake wise on an NA engine, most intake modifications including headers etc, probably only gonna yield a few extra kws, not really worth the money spent

Not compared to modifying a factory FI setup, but the gains are there. A catback will see you around 15-25rwkW. Picking up a used 350Z intake tube from someone whose gone FI will see some gains for not very much money.

I wouldn't replace the headers (maybe the cats too, I'm not sure) without management, since it tends to really throw the mixtures out on a stock ECU.

I would rather keep the car standard and nicely driveable in traffic.

Simple bolt-ons are still nicely drivable in traffic. Its only if you start going to crazy light flywheels or big cams that you might see issues. But if you do breathing mods the car doesn't become any less drivable through the midrange than stock.

And the twin turbo cars are very streetable. They have better fuel economy than the NA cars if you drive them sensibly, you get to make even fewer gearchanges, and if you don't plan on thrashing the car for long periods you can do a mild clutch upgrade and not worry too much about upgrading the cooling infrastructure.

  • 3 years later...

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

    • Yep super expensive, awesome. It would be a cool passion project if I had the money.
    • Getting the setup right, is likely to cost multiples of the purchase price of the vehicle.
    • So it's a ginormous undertaking that will be a massive headache but will be sorta cool if pulled off right. And also expensive. I'm sure it'll be as expensive as buying the car itself. I don't think you could just do this build without upgrading other things to take the extra power. Probably lots of custom stuff as well. All this assuming the person has mechanical knowledge. I'm stupid enough to try it but smart enough to realize there's gonna be mistakes even with an experienced mechanic. I'm a young bloke on minimum wage that gets dopamine from air being moved around and got his knowledge from a Donut video on how engines work.]   Thanks for the response though super informative!
    • Yes, it is entirely possible to twincharge a Skyline. It is not....without problems though. There was a guy did it to an SOHC RB30 (and I think maybe it became or already was a 25/30) in a VL Commode. It was a monster. The idea is that you can run both compressors at relatively low pressure ratios, yet still end up with a quite large total pressure ratio because they multiply, not add, boost levels. So, if the blower is spun to give a 1.4:1 PR (ie, it would make ~40 kPa of boost on its own) and the turbo is set up to give a 1.4:1 PR also, then you don't get 40+40 = 80 kPa of boost, you get 1.4*1.4, which is pretty close to 100 kPa of boost. It's free real estate! This only gets better as the PRs increase. If both are set up to yield about 1.7 PR, which is only about 70 kPa or 10ish psi of boost each, you actually end up with about 1.9 bar of boost! So, inevitably it was a bit of a monster. The blower is set up as the 2nd compressor, closest to the motor, because it is a positive displacement unit, so to get the benefit of putting it in series with another compressor, it has to go second. If you put it first, it has to be bigger, because it will be breathing air at atmospheric pressure. The turbo's compressor ends up needing to be a lot larger than you'd expect, and optimised to be efficient at large mass flows and low PRs. The turbo's exhaust side needs to be quite relaxed, because it's not trying to provide the power to produce all the boost, and it has to handle ALL the exhaust flow. I think you need a much bigger wastegate than you might expect. Certainly bigger than for an engine just making the same power level turbo only. The blower effectively multiplies the base engine size. So if you put a 1.7 PR blower on a 2.5L Skyline, it's like turboing a 4.2L engine. Easy to make massive power. Plus, because the engine is blown, the blower makes boost before the turbo can even think about making boost, so it's like having that 4.2L engine all the way from idle. Fattens the torque delivery up massively. But, there are downsides. The first is trying to work out how to size the turbo according to the above. The second is that you pretty much have to give up on aircon. There's not enough space to mount everything you need. You might be able to go elec power steering pump, hidden away somewhere. but it would still be a struggle to get both the AC and the blower on the same side of the engine. Then, you have to ponder whether you want to truly intercool the thing. Ideally you would put a cooler between the turbo and the blower, so as to drop the heat out of it and gain even more benefit from the blower's positive displacement nature. But that would really need to be a water to air core, because you're never going to find enough room to run 2 sets of boost pipes out to air to air cores in the front of the car. But you still need to aftercool after the blower, because both these compressors will add a lot of heat, and you wil have the same temperature (more or less) as if you produced all that boost with a single stage, and no one in their right mind would try to run a petrol engine on high boost without a cooler (unless not using petrol, which we shall ignore for the moment). I'm of the opinnion that 2x water to air cores in the bay and 2x HXs out the front is probably the only sensible way to avoid wasting a lot of room trying to fit in long runs of boost pipe. But the struggle to locate everything in the limited space available would still be a pretty bad optimisation problem. If it was an OEM, they'd throw 20 engineers at it for a year and let them test out 30 ideas before deciding on the best layout. And they'd have the freedom to develop bespoke castings and the like, for manifolds, housings, connecting pipes to/from compressors and cores. A single person in a garage can either have one shot at it and live with the result, or spend 5 years trying to get it right.
    • Good to know, thank you!
×
×
  • Create New...