Nissan 370Z Tech Forums banner

1 - 20 of 32 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
303 Posts
Am I reading right? 1.7M yen for the stage 3 kit!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
562 Posts
The stage 3 consists of the following:
Nismo Spec 2 Head
Nismo Spec 2 Cams
Rod Bolts
I think they are using the Nismo bearings since they have an arrow pointing to the rods. But it's only speculation and it doesn't say Nismo, They could also be new rods.
VTC pulley
Amuse ecu.

The funny thing you'll notice is that they are using very aggressive Spec 2 camshafts and their maximum power is at 6116rpm. I think if you tune the intake runner length and the headers it would be possible to move the torque curve a lot higher up the rev range, which would equal a lot more power. A start could be the new lower plenum manifold (not to mention ITBs).

So if it was possible to shift 257kW at 6116rpm (the amuse figures are at the flywheel by the way) to 7000rpm we would end up with something around 294kW at the flywheel, maybe more and more likely it would be less.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,120 Posts
The funny thing you'll notice is that they are using very aggressive Spec 2 camshafts and their maximum power is at 6116rpm

So the peak power is even lower in the rev-range than in the stock 206kW 350Z? That is really odd. The 221kW engines have maximum power at 6,400rpm, and even most of us with custom exhaust have moved the power peak to 6,400 - 6,500rpm. Why would the Amuse peak power be so low if they put in agressive cams?! It does not make sence.

Also 257kW at 6,116rpm implies that this engine has 399Nm of torque at these exact revs. Not only that, but I pressume that the torque peak is not at 6,116rpm, but a lot lower in the rev-range... the 206kW engines have ~10% more torque at the torque peak compared to the power peak. Going by that it would mean that this Amuse engine has around 440Nm of torque at the torque peak ... I don't think that is possible to extract out of a 3.5L engine as F1 cars (which are also 3.5L) produce around 410 - 420Nm of torque. M3 comes closest to that kind of efficieny and if this Amuse engine was as efficient then it would have 399Nm at the torque peak.

I think that there is something wrong with those Amuse figures ... either the power reading is wrong, or the revs where this power was achieved. I'd guess that it's the later (ie. the revs stated). Going by my calculations, if the Amuse 257kW engine had the same efficiency as M3, then the peak power of 257kW would be achieved at 6,800rpm where is would have around 360Nm of torque (and 399Nm at the toque peak).

So if it was possible to shift 257kW at 6116rpm (the amuse figures are at the flywheel by the way) to 7000rpm we would end up with something around 294kW at the flywheel, maybe more and more likely it would be less.

Yep, if the Amuse car produces 257kW at 6,116rpm then it has 399Nm at 6,116rpm. If we pressume that the car could rev higher (lets say 6,800rpm) then it should not loose more than 5% of torque over the extra ~700rpm. If that was the case then it would produce 271kW at 6,800rpm. If it had the 5% drop to 7,000rpm (and could rev that hight), then it would produce 279kW. In order to produce 300kW @ 6,800rpm it would need to retain 100% flat torque-curve from 6,116rpm to 6,800rpm.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,154 Posts
NUFF:

The arrow pointing at the con-rod says.... "Normal Piston and Con-rod"... so they are using the standard con-rod and pistons.... even in the descriptiong... the part that has the most relation to the piston is Piston Recess and possible all 3 have "racing block" (appear to be the last description in the both job for 318HP and 337HP spec)

Zuffy:

Yes... it is 1.7M Yen... which is more than 20K AUS according to the higher AUS exchange rate now still...

Here are some translation done by my sister... some of the words that we cannot figure out what they are:

318PS:
1. Hi-Tech ECU
2. R1- VTC Camshaft
3. Nismo VTC pulley, Stengthen Con-rod bolts, Sports Cats
4. R1 Front pipe
5. R1 X-something
6. Racing Block

337HP:
1. Hi-Tech Rom for Nismo Head spl.
2. Nismo Sepct2 Head, Stengthen Gaskets, Soec 2 cams, Valve systems, Stengthen Con rod bolts, Sport Cats
3. R1 Front Pipe
4. R1 X-something
5. Racing Block

349HP:
Including Nismo Spec 2 Heads mods with the following changes:
1. R1- Ex-Manifold (for racing application)
2. Nismo High Angel VTC pulley
3. Piston Recess
4. F112 Metal
5. Oil pump, fule pump

cheers,

richie
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,158 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
[/quote]

Based on what we've seen, the Nismo VTC pulleys with the appropriate ECU changes remove any of the normal side effects associated with big cams.

Also the Nismo heads raise the compression ratio to 12.0:1 so this would give more torque everywhere in the rev range. If they are using the stock rods and pistons they may have to remove ignition timing / de-tune it in the higher rpm range it to protect everything.

This might result in a higher than stock torque reading lower in the rev range.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,154 Posts
With nismo spec 1 cams, my max. output shifted from 6400rpm to 6800rpm though.... and it is weird to see the power figure got shifted down.... but somehow my torque curve looks nearly the same to what they have with the Spec 2 cams and heads... most probably due to the operation on the same VTC units...

Also note that at the end of the descrption.... I think they said that those figures are from the ENGINE Power output on the wheels x 1.15 on the Dyno Pack type dyno.... so you can calculate their rough dyno rear wheel figure by the formula shown above...

ps. all the power figures on the amuse website are shown as FLYWHEEL POWER!

cheers,

richie
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
562 Posts
[/quote]

I'm not sure how the Newtons on the DynoDynamics graphs relate to Nm, but to give you some idea, on average a stock 350z gets around 4000N on dyno dynamics. Peter's race car gets 5000N on dyno dynamics. I guess it means that he's getting around 450Nm instead of the 360Nm that you have mentioned above. So the numbers are likely correct. I guess we have to recognise the VQ35 has plenty of torque, the only matter is finding out how to extract it. Also F1 engines try to extract highest torque at the highest RPM (maximum power), I would assume it would be harder to get high torque numbers at higher revs then lower revs. The power losses (and torque as well) would be a lot higher at the high rpm because of friction.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,719 Posts
Originally posted by Nuff@May 8 2005, 06:02 AM
I'm not sure how the Newtons on the DynoDynamics graphs relate to Nm, but to give you some idea, on average a stock 350z gets around 4000N on dyno dynamics. Peter's race car gets 5000N on dyno dynamics. I guess it means that he's getting around 450Nm instead of the 360Nm that you have mentioned above.


The dyno measures tractive effort (hence the N instead of Nm). To calculate the Nm accurately, there is a formula but you need to know everything (which gear, final drive ratio, circumference of the tyre, circumference of the rollers in the chassis dyno) to be able to calculate, from the measured tractive effort, to actual torque.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,120 Posts
Peter's race car gets 5000N on dyno dynamics. I guess it means that he's getting around 450Nm instead of the 360Nm that you have mentioned above.

I don't think that is possible in todays world. Torque is very much limited by the size of the engine ... it can only by 'optimazed', but there are very much physical limits to what can be acheived. 450Nm is well above the limit of what seems possible out of 3.5L engine. Any engine that can produce 100Nm/liter (or more) of torque is very efficient and I'm not sure if 1% of all (road) engines are in that category. In order to produce 450Nm from 3.5L, the engine would need to have 128.6Nm/liter efficiency. That seems impossible to me as the current leader in this respect is the e46 M3 with 113Nm/liter. S2000 is right up there with 109Nm/liter and there's not many other cars that are around the 110Nm/liter mark ... besides Ferrari and Porsche engines I can't think of any others. Even the standard 350Z engine is pretty high up in terms of effiency with 103.7Nm/liter.

F1 engines use the best materials, best technology, best manufacturing and there's no limit to the budget spent on them. So I'd say that they show what is possible if you have limitless resources and only need the engine to last 1 day (maybe not even). As I mentioned before, their efficiency is around 120Nm/liter. I can't see a road engine (ie. the Amuse engine) bettering that with 128.6Nm/liter ... to me that seems right on impossible as I've never seen anything on the road come close (with M3 being the closest).

Also as far as I know there's no real issue with moving the torque peak highter up the rev-range. That is pretty easily done via cams. What is difficult is to ratain 'reasonable' torque across the whole rev-range ... and F1 cars have not been able to achieve that. They idle at around 5,000rpm and need around 9,000rpm just to be able to get off the line. So there's no torque to speak of bellow 9,000rpm.

Torque is not like power where there is no upper ceilings to what you can extract. Torque is given by displacement and this can be opimized with efficiency ... but the ceiling is very much limited. 128Nm/liter is something that I'd maybe expect from F1 technology/budget in the years to come ... not from a road going engine.

Again, let me say that I'm just stating what I know ... if someone knows otherwise or knows of other engines exceeding these 'limits' then please let me know.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,158 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
David,

I think we should ignore the F1 figures as Im not sure they have any relvance here.

I dont see why our motor when tuned couldnt better the M3.

We are rasing the compression ratio higher than a standard M3, using high flow heads, high lift long duration camshafts with continously changing variable valve timing, tuning ECU etc. All torque friendly mods which could boost the already good torque output.

Couldnt this result in an nm/l efficicncy higher than a stock M3?

Also Amuse isnt using an engine dyno they are assuming a 15% loss of power at the hubs. The dyno could be returning a slightly higher than normal result, like US dynos. So I wouldnt consider these figures to be 100% accurate.

EDIT, Removed part which didnt make sense :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,158 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
I just noticed that the M3 has a 87mm bore and 91mm stroke while the 350z has 95.5mm bore and 81.4mm stroke.

This is interesting as the M3 revs alot higher than the 350z in stock form but you'd think by looking at the above figures that the zed would be a higher rever due to its shorter stroke.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,437 Posts
Can someone translate those stage upgrades to HP and USD?? Its been a while since physics.. cant really remember the conversion to NM, and I definately don't know how much 1.7M yen is..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,899 Posts
not sure about the HP...but the $$ conversion is:

May 8th's exchange rate - 1,700,000 (Yen) X 0.0095 (conversion rate) = $16,139.75 (US)

that's pretty expensive!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,154 Posts
[/quote]

Murray:

Correct me if I am wrong... I remembered correctly that the M3's (both E36 and E46) engine was design to have the stroke larger than the bore for the higher engine revving ability...

And also the M3 engine is a straight inline 6 design and it should be revving higher easier than the V6 design...

cheers,

richie
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,120 Posts
Also Amuse isnt using an engine dyno they are assuming a 15% loss of power at the hubs. The dyno could be returning a slightly higher than normal result, like US dynos. So I wouldnt consider these figures to be 100% accurate.

That is very much true. In a way that means that the Amuse claims are totaly irrelevant unless they provide a base dyno figure for a standard 350Z on their dyno. Though, you would pressume that they would have run a standard Zed on it and that's where they got the 15% figure from.

I dont see why our motor when tuned couldnt better the M3.

Just simply because noone else has bettered the M3's 113Nm/liter. I'm sure it can be bettered, but I just find it hard to belive that a (relatively) small tuning house would so.

Still, matching the M3 is one thing and I find that a lot more believable that suprassing it by such a huge margin. 128Nm/liter still seems very much impossible to me. 115Nm/liter maybe, but even 120Nm/liter is pretty far from reality from what anyone has managed.

As I mentioed before, at the momewnt there is no Ferrari, Porsche or Honda (including S2000) engine that can better 110Nm/liter efficiency. 110Nm/liter is (in a way) the 'holly grail' of what engine manufacturers are trying to achieve. I don't know if there are 5 (road) engines in the world that can better 110Nm/liter. Can you see why I find 128Nm/liter so gard to believe ... I don't even know if that is physicaly possible no matter what materials/resources/trechniques?

ps. The efficiency of an 'average' engine that is fitted for road use is around 90Nm/liter.

We are rasing the compression ratio higher than a standard M3, using high flow heads, high lift long duration camshafts with continously changing variable valve timing, tuning ECU etc. All torque friendly mods which could boost the already good torque output.

Yes, all of that should increase the torque ... maybe except for the cams which only increase power (as they are high-lift cams). Still, what I would hope for with all that is maybe 110Nm/liter and would be happy with 105Nm/liter.

As I mentioned before, displacement is what determines the ceiling of the maximum achievable torque. All one can do is get close to that 'ceiling'. I'd put that 'ceiling' at 120Nm/liter, but that is just am educated guess. And I'm not sure if that 'ceiling' is achievable in todays road-cars as they don't use the most serious materials/techniques because due to the extreme costs.


I just noticed that the M3 has a 87mm bore and 91mm stroke while the 350z has 95.5mm bore and 81.4mm stroke ... Correct me if I am wrong ... I remembered correctly that the M3's (both E36 and E46) engine was design to have the stroke larger than the bore for the higher engine revving ability.

It's the other way around (ie. as Mchapman implied) - short stroke engines are able to rev higher. That is because short-stroke engine does not generate as much heat as a longer-stroke one at the same revs. Longer stroke gives the engine more torque. So the M3 is designed with large torque in mind (as the 113Nm/liter shows), but also if was designed/built so well that it can spin to 8,000rpm. That probably shows how good the M3 engine is that it can spin that high with such a long stroke. I'm sure that the VANOS system that BMW uses helps here greatly, but I'm not sure how they've resovled the cam issue. ie. ie. 'low' cams generate torque at low revs, but cannot suspain it at higher revs, while 'high' cams do move the torque to the upper revs, but at the same time make the lower-revs weak. Honda uses VTEC to get around this, not sure if VANOS changes the lift of the cams as well. It probably does, but that is just a guess.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,154 Posts
DavidM:

VTEC only operates at the intake side, doesn't it? If that's the case, M3 has Double Vanos which operates on both intake and exhaust... and that might help producing more power of course.

cheers,

richie
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
562 Posts
I agree with Murray, you have to remember that the nismo heads have 12:1 compression, higher then 11.5:1 M3 has and compression ratio directly translates into how efficient engine is. Also, since in Japan they have a lot better fuel then we do, they can advance ignition a lot more then we can. I would have to say that it would be a lot harder to achieve this figures with our fuel. This factors would increase the efficiency of the engine a lot. I wouldn't be surprised if the program is very aggresive the efficiency would be a lot higher then what M3 is getting.
 
1 - 20 of 32 Posts
Top