# Engine Poll



## 6speed (Jul 18, 2006)

I see this car as a true up and comer in the high performance category. However, I don't like this idea for global engine sharing by Nissan Co.

Now as I'm only 17, I can't say that my decisions are very important in mainstream adult marketing culture.

However, I believe that Nissan will lose some loyal customers who are used to the tremendous strength of the venerable RB26DETT powerplant. There is no way the VQ37, or whatever it may be called, will hold 1000hp reliably. There is no way you'll be able to fit Turbos the size of kitchen sinks around it.

To truly maintain a cult following, in my head, a GT-R must have this.

1. Same powerplant, until a change is minor, and not as abrasive, or sudden, as the VQ powerplant change.
2. Squared off styling, suggesting a timid car, in which a beast lies beneath.
3. A hint of tackiness... the car should absolutely maintain it's JDM look, and mainstream Anime and Manga appearence (Initial D).
4. The most important to me, is that it should continue the Skyline name. That name goes back to the Prince Era, and to just shove it off on the high performance version is ludacris.

So this is where I ask you to make a decision. Would you have preferred the RB26, or do you mind having the VQ inside the engine bay.

Thanks,
Steve.


----------



## GRP (Feb 7, 2007)

The reason Nissan won't be using a RB engine is due to emissions. The straight six is not as environment friendly as the v6's they have been producing recently.


----------



## matt j (Oct 19, 2001)

6speed said:


> There is no way the VQ37, or whatever it may be called, will hold 1000hp reliably.


When was the last time you honestly saw a reliable 1000hp RB26DETT?

If the new engine is near 500hp that's a saving of about £6k in parts to make the RB26DETT 500hp....

I can't really see many people looking at the new GT-R as a drag car either TBH, I could be wrong but it's just not that kind of car in my opinion.


----------



## 6speed (Jul 18, 2006)

Who says that having 1000hp is needed for a drag car? I'd love to see a car that can carve hills with it's wheels, holding 1000hp.


----------



## matt j (Oct 19, 2001)

6speed said:


> Who says that having 1000hp is needed for a drag car? I'd love to see a car that can carve hills with it's wheels, holding 1000hp.


Read what I wrote mate!

Again, how many reliable 'genuine' 1000hp RB26's have you ever seen? 

Pointless discussion.


----------



## 6speed (Jul 18, 2006)

Ahhh... True that is wise one.

You're absolutely right, I haven't seen ANY Genuine Reliables.

Only people who claim they're reliable.


----------



## GTRJack (Aug 27, 2005)

I bet the new VQ (if to the new GTR) pact with extra displacement 3.8 liter will be more reliabel then the 2.6 liter RB26 ever will be at the same level of horsepower.

Let's hope the year to come that the new GTR engine will be a pinacle tuning engine as the RB26 and the 2JZ


----------



## Rain (Apr 8, 2006)

1) The RB is an amazing Engine, but its old. It will never meet the current world standards that are required to sell cars. So unless Nissan willingly want to go out of business its a necessary evil to drop the RB.
2)Squared off styling and flowed styling can be used as both. Their choice to go with that style obviously portrays their willingness to keep up with their competition. not to mention the fact that is far more aerodynamic than older shoebox styles.
3)...what...
4)It still holds the GTR Emblem, and i think if you are a true aficionado of the current Skyline, you will recognize that they are in fact keeping up with what it stood for, a high performance coupe with an amazing engine and an amazingly capable handling dynamic.

I am a loyal Nissan Customer ive had too many damn Nissans in my family, and the Skyline has been my pinnacle of performance. I doubt ill be giving up the chance to buy a New GTR. I have faith in Nissan and I know they will deliver. if not, Nismo will send in their team and fix it up good haha. So either way, i know im getting one, maybe not the 1st off the line but i know i will get one soon enough. Its simply a question of when, not, if.


----------



## Rain (Apr 8, 2006)

PS: Its nothing to do with mainstream culture, if you actually understand the current availabilities and abilities of Car makers you can easily see WHY Nissan, Toyota, Mazda are starting to revamp their higher performance cars. If you want to compete, you gotta put in the time and research in to, what will be, some of the meanest supercars to come out of Japan in a long time. Look at who they are up against not only for sales, but also by technological advancements. It doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out why these companies had to drop their products.


----------



## GRP (Feb 7, 2007)

Ill admit, it is going to suck seeing the RB engine go. But, thinking about a car that is the fraction of the cost of a 911 but built to rival its preformance is quite exciting. With that said im sure the engine will most likely not be a let down, and considering the displacment is reportedly higher than a RB's 2.6 im sure it will be more reliable. Also im pretty sure nissan won't want to be outdone by other companies when it comes to building a super car (ie. toyota and honda) so im sure they are using all their resources into creating a wonderful car.


----------



## tuRBy (Feb 8, 2006)

6speed said:


> . There is no way the VQ37, or whatever it may be called, will hold 1000hp reliably.


i think top secret/jun hks etc may prove you wrong  but i suppose it depends on your take on how reliable 1000bhp should be ?

an extra 1100cc will certainly help it to achive that :clap: and i think in the future you will be seeing vq37s going into the older gtr's, as a lower bhp/litre should prove more reliable for the same power output.


----------



## King Nismo (Sep 22, 2006)

So its pretty much pointless for people to buy the old GT-Rs then? Me myself...am not a big fan of the V6 but if it has the power and can live up to the hype I will think about getting one also...after my current build LOL. From what I see Id have to get a JDM version for the fact that the car will be very rare and won't be as easy to pick up like a Z or G35/V35 coupe.


----------



## Chuck_H (Jul 28, 2006)

I think the VQ is going to be a great engine. Look what is being accomplished with the Z. 855 rwhp @ 22psi, Not bad for a NA based motor. 



> We are pleased to announce our latest accomplishment, As many of you know we have a 4.24L Z shop car that you have all been anxiously waiting to see what we do with it. Last night I decided to pull a 24 hour shift and begin tuning our beast. The engine had almost 1,000 miles on it and I felt was ready for some dyno time (breaking in the engine properly is VERY important for any built high performance engine!) I started at 12psi (waste gate pressure on APS Extreme kit) and ended the tune SEVERAL hours and countless dyno pulls later at 20 PSI, all the way to dawn
> 
> The last run for the night ( run #43, that's right 43 back to back dyno runs in one night/morning!) yielded our goal of 800rwhp, on 105 octane UNLEADED, on a very conservative tune. As stated before our number one priority is to have our engines LAST! Anyone can make power on a dyno, but not everyone can make it last in the real world. The car was very stable at these power levels and I feel we have more room left to push. As a matter of fact we will be driving the car today to Auto Crave 2007. After a few thousand more miles on the car and some real world condition tests we will be back on the dyno with some C16 and Red bull , reaching to break the 4 digit mark!(1,000rwhp+ coming soon!)
> 
> ...


UPDATED!! GT MOTORSPORTS Sets the bar! VQ35DE 855RWHP @ 22 PSI - MY350Z.COM Forums


----------



## King Nismo (Sep 22, 2006)

Sounds pretty good. Any pictures of video?


----------



## Chuck_H (Jul 28, 2006)

Video - GTMl.flv - Video - Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Have not seen any pics. Video has some good shots though.


Also check out the block of the new HR engines. Looks pretty stout.









NissanPerformanceMag.com


----------



## bonzelite (May 14, 2006)

the V6 will be a charmer. i'm not worried.


----------



## VQ3.6TWINTURBO (Feb 24, 2007)

*Engine poll*

It would seem all the negative comments for the new GTR and its prospective engine (Vq something twin turbo) is due to a combination of ignorance and whats old is the best frame of mind is preventing consumers from seeing outside the RB26DETT BOX. BY no means am I trying to discredit the RB 14+ years of tuning. The vq Is lighter bigger and is fully capable of outperforming the Rb in the near future. Dont forget Nissan Knows what type of shoes the Gtr has to feel. In the super gt serious the last year of the gt500 R34 saw overall better times with the vq twin turbo. The 350z is coming close to five years being on the market and when properly built it is fully capable of Rb or better numbers and reliability. The Gtr engine will be refined and fully capable. I own both a built vq35deturbo and Rb26dett so I have no bias just experience with both. In my opinion the twin turbo Gtr VQ WILL definitely be a better power plant then the RB. Give it time and you will see its potential cheers, Ben


----------



## bonzelite (May 14, 2006)

^^^i agree

the naysaying and hating is couched in fear and in a reluctance to accept change. the VQ is one of the best V6 engines on the planet earth.


----------



## King Nismo (Sep 22, 2006)

Yeah but that is just it....its a V6. It is going to take R32~R34 GT-R owners time for it to sink in that a V6 is better than the mighty RB but who cares...its still a nissan haha. I personally can't see it better than a 2JZ but time will tell.


----------



## bonzelite (May 14, 2006)

well, there have been RB swaps into Supras, so the 2JZ isn't the "best." if you're a fan of a certain make, your admiration can make your vehicle of choice --Subaru, Toyota, Nissan, Chevrolet, Ford-- the 'best.' 

the VQ strikes me as a more refined engine than the RB in general.


----------



## King Nismo (Sep 22, 2006)

I hate to say it but I somewhat agree..but there are different levels of RB. 
Standard
N1 block (which what I have)
Nismo GT block (what I am getting soon)
So it really isn't too safe to say the new VQ will be that much better than the RB. I love the way the VQ sounds..smooth and silky exhaust note. But it isn't a down right monster like the RB IMO. I could care less about the new GT-R my interest is in that engine. I want to know more about that engine more than anything else about the car. I want to know full potential of the engine. I have seen pro drag cars with VQs that blew up well before the 2JZs did so this new "high response" engine makes me very curious. I can't wait until it comes out so we can see how powerful it is...but then again power isn't everything and it will HAVE to live up to or be higher ranked than the R34 GT-R.


----------



## R.I.P.S NZ (May 7, 2004)

I'm looking forward to the new GTR, I think with the 350Z being around for a while its going to help out the new GTR owners as alot of research has been done and a few good mods are well and truely tested.
The extra cc's can only be a good thing and some guys are getting over 4.2l from them, just look at the previous dyno plots, 850+whp at 6000 rpm!!!, thats got to be a pretty reliable engine.


----------



## King Nismo (Sep 22, 2006)

R.I.P.S NZ said:


> I'm looking forward to the new GTR, I think with the 350Z being around for a while its going to help out the new GTR owners as alot of research has been done and a few good mods are well and truely tested.
> The extra cc's can only be a good thing and some guys are getting over 4.2l from them, just look at the previous dyno plots, 850+whp at 6000 rpm!!!, thats got to be a pretty reliable engine.


Yes true...I am looking forward to the new GT-R as much as the next guy. But Horsepower alone don't make a car. I know Ken H. (2JZ with HKS 3.4L making 1100whp at 7500 rpm). As it stands now...hate me or not but, I truely can't see the new GT-R beating a C6 Z06 stock vs. stock. maybe on a drag strip....maybe but on a track I don't think so (based of the current lap times). The new GT-R beats the 997 Porsche Turbo. wupppeee...but the 997 turbo didn't beat the Z06 either. So IMO Nissan has a little bit more to go. The car will be heavier and less powerful than the C6 Z06. As I hear Chevy is bring out an even more power Z06 by the time the Nissan GT-R comes out so until all hell breaks loose. I will be waiting and watching. Please don't bash or hate me for it but I stand strong behind the R32~R34 GT-R's. But it shouldn't take me long to accept and love the new GT-R since they won't be sold in huge numbers. All I am looking for from the new GT-R is that it is just as powerful and hi tech as the R34. I don't want to see it every single day like a G35 and 350Z...it will get plain boring. No one wants to see a car like the GT-R everyday. Would you want to see a Ferrari Enzo or Bugatti Veyron everyday??? NO! I just hope I rarely see then so when I do see then it will bring joy to my soul  :thumbsup:


----------



## gtrlux (Mar 8, 2006)

King that's an interesting reflection.
I am from europe and other then in the UK and Australia the GTR only got famous through Fast and Furi and the Tuning press after that movie . . .
I have known about the japanese car scene before I had a driving license, as I was (am) a japan-geek.
So when I first pulled up with my Top Secret R32 GTS here in Europe mainland I was more popular then any Ferrari-supercar cruising around, I never experienced such a hysteria around a car , that nobody should be supposed to know. . . . .
Driving a tuned R34 GTR around here is like the cherry on the cake, YOU are god in that moment . . . 

Seeing the GTR in a few years every where around, or just need to look at one at the local dealers breaks the myth . . . I am happy the R34 will still look better in it's way next to the modern cars of the next years (any Porsche, New M3, Audi still looks like a sheep next to a Nismo kitted R34GTR on 19inches). . . . . but I am sad the myth will disapear:bawling: 

I am going to Japan soon and finally I will buy again a Skyline, I hope the japanese will still see the old GTRs with the same honorable eye, they saw it before, also when the new GTR will again rule the japanese new sports car market soon . . . . .


----------



## King Nismo (Sep 22, 2006)

Haha I am glad you didn't bash me I just wanted to share my thoughts. Yeah, I know the new GT-R has the potential to wup a R34 but ask me do I care NO! It will take more than power and hi tech gadgets here and there to make me leave the mighty R34. I am just curious how the car will shine in the states. knowing that it won't be sold in huge numbers makes me happy but who would want to put a body kit on a $80k car. I am sure the car will cost a lot more if there is a premium option..and when I think about it I see upward $100k. Yes the skylines did shine because of movies this and that. But you can't blame fast and furious because of it. EVERYONE wants to blame fast and furious when Gran Turismo started it all. I just hope the car does well but at the same time not take the glory away from the old ones. To this day I still can't say the new GT-R looks better than a R33 and R34 GT-R. I just love old school lol. I see now why Corvette owners from the 60's didn't like the 2006 Z06 as much...It just isn't the same. But until then....time will tell and the new GT-R will have to show me in heavily modified form what it can do...and what that new VQ is truly capable of.


----------



## gtrlux (Mar 8, 2006)

indeed GT on PS . .too for the popularity


----------



## King Nismo (Sep 22, 2006)

I think one of the BIGGEST reasons why people can't accept the new GT-R is simple...it doesn't have an RB. I know thats one of my reasons because if it did. Id be all over the new GT-R like white on rice lol. I wish they would bring it back but stronger than ever before but we all know this isn't going to happen.


----------



## kingsley (Aug 26, 2002)

The RB is a lovely engine but I've always wished it had bigger capacity. I'd sooner see another straight six or V8 but technology moves on so I expect the new V6 will be good - Nissan surely know there's a lot to live up to.

Let's hope they just don't kill it by making the car too heavy.


----------



## bonzelite (May 14, 2006)

King Nismo said:


> Yes true...I am looking forward to the new GT-R as much as the next guy. But Horsepower alone don't make a car. I know Ken H. (2JZ with HKS 3.4L making 1100whp at 7500 rpm)....Please don't bash or hate me for it but I stand strong behind the R32~R34 GT-R's. But it shouldn't take me long to accept and love the new GT-R since they won't be sold in huge numbers. All I am looking for from the new GT-R is that it is just as powerful and hi tech as the R34. I don't want to see it every single day like a G35 and 350Z...it will get plain boring. ...rarely see then so when I do see then it will bring joy to my soul  :thumbsup:


king, i feel similarly to you. and i wouldn't worry too much about integrity or heritage issues; the GT-R will simply continue to embody the iconic status of the GT-R cult. no matter what engine is in it, it will maintain it's niche dominance. remember that the original GT-Rs didn't have an RB either. i believe the KPGC10 and 110 GTRs have a variant of the S20.

and indeed, the Blue Devil Z07(?) Corvette is looming on the horizon. Corvette has attained to world-dominance level in LeMans and ALMS, others. i'm more concerned about Corvette than Porsche. but i'm not too worried about either. i expect the GT-R will break the sacred 7:40 mark on Nurburgring :chuckle:


----------



## bonzelite (May 14, 2006)

in all likelihood, the engine for the GT-R will not be shared by other Nissans. it is more than likely specifically built for the GT-R only, even if it is a V6. this has been alluded to in recent interviews with the designers, ie, it shares no parts with other cars. 

this is largely why the driveline has been kept top-secret. and people cannot figure out what it is because it's specific to the GT-R.

the RB v VQ argument may rage on forever, but both are great engine platforms, each offering pros and cons.


----------



## King Nismo (Sep 22, 2006)

True...the VQ vs RB will be going on for a long time. As was and still is with the RB vs 2JZ-GTE. From what I hear from most people that truly know their stuff...the RB is still king compared to the VQ. I was told the cylinders on the VQ are too close together this and that. Even here in the states shops that work on VQ equip cars say the RB is still a better motor...heavier but still better. But I am waiting on more info from the VQHR that will be in the new GT-R. We will get a taste of it soon with the new "G37" that is coming out in August :smokin:


----------



## bonzelite (May 14, 2006)

we don't know if the VQHR will be in the GT-R. if it is, it will be a GT-R specific variant of that one more than likely. i am of the belief based on what Nissan has been saying that the GT-R will not share anything with any other Nissan in it's current lineup.

the RB being an I-6 is allegedly more balanced an engine, with less harmonic vibration, than any V configuration can offer. and there are less moving parts in an I-6.


----------



## Justin (Aug 8, 2006)

gtrlux said:


> King that's an interesting reflection.
> I am from europe and other then in the UK and Australia the GTR only got famous through Fast and Furi and the Tuning press after that movie . . .
> .


Sorry to discredit your view here Chris but the GTR was made famous because it won in every single race series in motorsport that it was entered in for so long that they eventually found a way to ban it from competing!!!!! :flame: :flame: :flame: FACT. 

Look it up fella - YOU might have seen it for the first time in a movie but the WORLD has been celebrating it since '89 ( someone correct me please) - and it didn't need five years development or tweeking to get it there either... Released - WIN - EVERYTHING - simple !!!:smokin:


----------



## R.I.P.S NZ (May 7, 2004)

Nothing to correct there Justin, you are 100% correct.


----------



## R33_GTS-t (Apr 27, 2005)

It will be a 3.8.

Don't get me wrong, I love the RB26, but an extra 1.2 litres will make a tremendous improvement. I'm also betting that the money required for a semi-reliable (which is all it ever it) 1000bhp is similar.

The VQ's big issue is its open-deck construction.


----------



## gtrlux (Mar 8, 2006)

Justin said:


> Sorry to discredit your view here Chris but the GTR was made famous because it won in every single race series in motorsport that it was entered in for so long that they eventually found a way to ban it from competing!!!!! :flame: :flame: :flame: FACT.
> 
> Look it up fella - YOU might have seen it for the first time in a movie but the WORLD has been celebrating it since '89 ( someone correct me please) - and it didn't need five years development or tweeking to get it there either... Released - WIN - EVERYTHING - simple !!!:smokin:


I am not talking about the car maniacs,　but about all the people out there. The GTR is inexistant in the EU and before the Fast and Furi and european Playstation GT genereation, nobody knew what a Supra, RX7 or even an import GTR was. 
Now every boy knows how a GTR looks like, thanks trough the Movie and the PS.

You all mistake the car passion community with the real world, every body, even my grandma knows what a Ferrari is, what F1 is. . . . only freaks ,like us in the EU, knew what great cars were running in japan, before the Fast and PS generation came . . .


----------



## Samuel Cross (Aug 2, 2002)

gtrlux said:


> I am not talking about the car maniacs,　but about all the people out there. The GTR is inexistant in the EU and before the Fast and Furi and european Playstation GT genereation, nobody knew what a Supra, RX7 or even an import GTR was.
> Now every boy knows how a GTR looks like, thanks trough the Movie and the PS.
> 
> You all mistake the car passion community with the real world, every body, even my grandma knows what a Ferrari is, what F1 is. . . . only freaks ,like us in the EU, knew what great cars were running in japan, before the Fast and PS generation came . . .


Lux,

What research did you undertake to come up with this astounding generalisation?


----------



## kingsley (Aug 26, 2002)

R33_GTS-t said:


> It will be a 3.8.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I love the RB26, but an extra 1.2 litres will make a tremendous improvement. I'm also betting that the money required for a semi-reliable (which is all it ever it) 1000bhp is similar.
> 
> The VQ's big issue is its open-deck construction.


I'm glad they've massively increased the capacity - I've always thought that's the RB26's biggest weakness. I just hope they make the new engine with the same high revving ability of the RB. If so, it ought to be truly astounding.

What do you mean by "open-deck construction"?


----------



## gtrlux (Mar 8, 2006)

Samuel Cross said:


> Lux,
> 
> What research did you undertake to come up with this astounding generalisation?


what generalization????? Do you want to say that every body out there had to know and knew the GTR???? The problem on this forum is that most stuff told counts for the UK only. Butas I live in the middle of europe, I can tell you without needing an opinion that the GTR is an unknown car, more rare then a Ferrari or Lambo in the EU.

Fact is that most people, non car passionated or car passionated didn`t know a god damn crap about what was or still is running in japan. Since about 8 years now there has been a dramatic increase of japanese sports car popularity , do to the tuning scene in the US and the reports in online or paper mags. from japan.Increased by the 150million of GT games and related goods and the Fast and Furi movies . .sadly.

I am happy for you in the UK that you could be aware of the japanese performance car evolution since decades, but that`s not the case in the EU, only the few jap. car maniacs knew about that.


----------



## Samuel Cross (Aug 2, 2002)

gtrlux said:


> what generalization????? Do you want to say that every body out there had to know and knew the GTR???? The problem on this forum is that most stuff told counts for the UK only. Butas I live in the middle of europe, I can tell you without needing an opinion that the GTR is an unknown car, more rare then a Ferrari or Lambo in the EU.
> 
> Fact is that most people, non car passionated or car passionated didn`t know a god damn crap about what was or still is running in japan. Since about 8 years now there has been a dramatic increase of japanese sports car popularity , do to the tuning scene in the US and the reports in online or paper mags. from japan.Increased by the 150million of GT games and related goods and the Fast and Furi movies . .sadly.
> 
> I am happy for you in the UK that you could be aware of the japanese performance car evolution since decades, but that`s not the case in the EU, only the few jap. car maniacs knew about that.


Lux,

I'm just being a little argumentative

It just seems sometimes that you have a tendency to over-generalise and group all of Europe together into one homogeneous mass, I hope you'd agree that this simply isn't the case?

Anyway I'm really not having a go at you, despite the fact I don't agree with a lot of what you write I find your opinions interesting 

Right, now back to the original topic- engines!!


----------



## gtrlux (Mar 8, 2006)

Well if we all agree on the same things and have the same tastes and views, we don't need a forum, would all drive BMWs and be happy.


----------



## bonzelite (May 14, 2006)

the GT-R has been renown and legendary for decades in enthusiast circles. and for the most part, the GT-R and the Skyline have not been _widely known_. it has only been due to the explosion of the import/tuner culture in general, notably incited by the Hollywood film Fast & Furious years ago, in the USA, that has begotten the domino effect of continuing awareness of the GT-R culture. 

but even at that, the GT-R culture is still extremely unknown, as many would-be buyers of the new GT-R will arrive at Nissan having very little idea as to what a "GT-R" even is, as if it has never existed. as well, a good proportion of new GT-R buyers will not be Nissan "loyalists" (sadly), but will be the well-heeled types seeking alternatives to Porsche and BMW and the like, having not much mind payed to the Nissan GT-R previously, with very little idea about it's history and prestige. 

so, yes, the GT-R is much farther along in it's brand awareness globally, but scarcely. most people to this day have no idea what a Skyline or GT-R is, including many staffed salespeople at Nissan and Infiniti dealerships as i have seen this first-hand.


----------



## Wink (May 29, 2007)

Hi, new member here, I joined up to add a bit of "light" to this forum on the new GTR.....which I worked on for 3 years! I know exactly what the engine details are:chuckle:, but am a little concerned about giving too much away. 

One thing is for certain, it has been optimised to it's target power (actually, there were 2 target powers to allow up-grade throughout the life of the vehicle), and it certainly won't tolerate power "up-grades" like the old engine due to this. 

Sufficient to say that it can produce 200 bhp more than the "std" last generation of RB26 engine, if you know what this actually made off the production line? It is, however, a much more driveable engine in direct comparison around the test track.


----------



## diddy_p (Oct 5, 2006)

why do so many fools write stuff on this forum? everyone seems to know something about the new gtr and its all speculation or bolloks


----------



## gtrlux (Mar 8, 2006)

Wink said:


> Hi, new member here, I joined up to add a bit of "light" to this forum on the new GTR.....which I worked on for 3 years! I know exactly what the engine details are:chuckle:, but am a little concerned about giving too much away.
> 
> One thing is for certain, it has been optimised to it's target power (actually, there were 2 target powers to allow up-grade throughout the life of the vehicle), and it certainly won't tolerate power "up-grades" like the old engine due to this.
> 
> Sufficient to say that it can produce 200 bhp more than the "std" last generation of RB26 engine, if you know what this actually made off the production line? It is, however, a much more driveable engine in direct comparison around the test track.


Sorry but at least 100 other new members also worked on the upcoming GTR for the last 3 years . . .


----------



## Wink (May 29, 2007)

Diddy P, GTR Lux, just for you....!

The engine concept was started in 2002, and was project managed out of Nissans Technical centre in Atsugi for the first two years. It was briefly given to Nissan Keoki for just over a year (for the phase 2 prototypes), before being taken back "in house". 

The idea was to base the engine off the current VQ35, well, carrying over the cylinder heads, but with an all new cast block and bed plate arrangement, rather than the deep skirted block arrangement for the VQ35 engine. The carry over heads were used for the first phase, but re-designed for the second phase to improve both the mechanical structure of the head and the cooling jacket. The engine targets also changed so that it became more like the VQ40 (US engine derivative) so that an increased engine volume could be protected for (it also adopted the cam drive arrangement of this engine with mechanical VCP on the inlet and electric on the exhaust). It was started as a 3.5L (same bore and stroke as the VQ35), but both the block deck height and crankcase area for the crank counter weight meant it would not be possible to significantly increase the swept volume if based on the VQ35 block dimensions (if you check the figures you can see that the VQ40 has a significantly high deck height that the VQ35). The capacity increased in the third phase (to 3.8L) to improve "off boost" performance. The final iterations of block design were to convert it back into being a High Pressure Diecast block design, as is the VQ35 block. 

I'm sure you can guess that the engine had twin turbochargers, but the arrangement was not conventional in that the bank feeds swap over to balance the system....i.e. the LH compressor feed the RH bank of cylinders, and vice versa. This gives a self balancing system that enables the turbos to calibrated to operate closer to surge than with a conventional arrangement, which was also tried in Phase 2. 

The first engine performance targets were *40PS @ 6800 rpm, but were increased significantly to *50PS @ 6800 rpm for the second stage in order to get under 8mins around the ring. A huge amount of effort was put into improving turbocharger transient response so that Pk torque could be achieved at only 2400 rpm (well, as close to that under dynamic conditions), which is obviously unlike the RB26 engine, particularly in the R34. Quite a few other patented technologies were used in the engine, particularly with regards to the oil system arrangement which is designed to work at very high corner forces....lets just say that it is not quite a dry sump, but still uses scavenge rotors in the system. I have loads more info but should stop now!

One more thing then, it has Ti inlet valves which are half the weight of those in the VQ35 engine (33grams versus 65 grams).


----------



## gtrlux (Mar 8, 2006)

I have some info for you too. I was the one who engineered the Bismarck 70 years ago: here's the proof:

ARMOR TYPES

The types of armor used on the BISMARCK were similar to that used an contemporary warships, though with some unique features.

HOMOGENEOUS ARMOR

Armor used for horizontal protection (armored decks and turret or conning tower roofs) and for vertical protection from 1-4 inches (25.4-101.6 mm) thick was of a soft, ductile, homogeneous steel manufactured by Krupp and called by the German Navy "Wotan Harte n/A" (Hardened 'Wotan' steel New Type), abbreviated "Wh n/A." Wh was first used in the German cruisers and "Pocket Battleships" of the late 1920's and remained in use through the end of WWII. The steel was a slightly improved form of the original medium-carbon (0.2-0.4 percent carbon) nickel-chromium steel introduced in 1894 by Krupp and later forming the basis of all high-grade armors made of steel even today by all nations. Wh n/A used some molybdenum to improve manufacturing results and was slightly tougher (crack resistant) than the original "High-Percent Nickel-Steel," also called "Krupp Soft" or "Quality 420" (Krupp's own label) steel, used through the end of WWI. Otherwise, there was little to choose from between the older armors and Wh n/A armor. British "Non-Cemented" armor (NCA) and U.S. "Class 'B'" armor or "Special Treatment Steel (STS) were similar materials, to name just a few. My information indicates that WWII U.S. Class 'B' armor was slightly superior to German Wh, though the difference is so slight as to be of little significance compared to all other sources of error during most evaluations.

Homogeneous (the same everywhere inside and out) armor is usually kept soft and ductile, with the hardening (strengthening) kept an high as possible with the restrictions that (1) the armor does not got so hand as to crack prior to the projectile being completely stopped or deflected, if the projectile is rejected, or prior to the last possible moment, if the projectile is going to penetrate anyway; (2) the armor remains in one piece with as few fragments being thrown from it as possible if a hole is made, so that complete penetration of the projectile itself is needed for major damage behind the plate; and (3) the armor does not cause major damage to the impacting projectile at high obliquity where such damage might allow pieces of a broken projectile through a hole it made in the plate, but where an intact projectile would be rejected entirely if it could not fit through that hole. Values of 225-250 on the Brinell hardness scale was the usual range for homogeneous Krupp-steel naval armor (soft wrought iron is roughly 100 and mild steel roughly 120-150 on this same hardness scale).

This form of armor uses its toughness to stay in one piece and continue resisting the projectile for the longest possible time as the projectile causes the plate to bend and stretch and finally tear open entirely through. While projectile damage (especially nose damage) may reduce projectile penetration at low (near right-angles) impact obliquities, at angles of impact above about 45o from right angles the projectile is "defeated' by causing it to be deflected away like a stone skipping off of the surface of a pool of water. The force on the projectile is caused by the high-leverage push on the nose's side in contact with the plate which forces the projectile to rotate in a direction parallel to the plate's face. At high obliquity, unless the projectile is able to dig into the plate deep enough at the start to be held by the material surrounding it until it can push open a hole entirely through, the projectile nose will tear from the plate and the projectile will ricochet off, leaving a long groove, with or without a slot-like tear at its bottom. As long an the projectile remains in one piece, if the nose glances off, so does the entire projectile (only in extremely thin plates hit at very high velocity can the projectile tear through sideways even if the nose fails to dig in). The blunter the projectile's nose, the less leverage the force has and the more the force decelerates rather than deflects the projectile, so the less effect increasing the impact angle has on the penetration. Also, if the projectile breaks apart, deflection of the nose pieces does not prevent the lower portion of the projectile from pushing on into the plate region already weakened by the stress of deflecting the nose and piercing the plate there, so for projectile deflection rather than deceleration to be fully utilized as a means to keep projectiles out, they must remain in one piece at high obliquity.

The armor-piercing (AP) cap used by most large-caliber armor piercing projectiles since circa 1898 to greatly improve penetration against face-hardened armor causes just the opposite effect against thicker (over about 0.4 times the projectile's diameter in thickness) homogeneous armor at low obliquity (the thicker and harder the cap, the worse the degradation is). The negative effects of using an AP cap against homogeneous armor are much reduced at high obliquity, where the usually blunt cap shape helps the projectile by inhibiting ricochet (but never as helpful as not having a cap and making the projectile nose itself as blunt as the cap face is, though such a blunt nose reduces penetration ability against thick armor at low obliquity).

For plates under 4 inches thick, making extremely high hardness steel armors that damage high-quality AP projectiles at low obliquity ("KC" armors to be discussed below) was difficult to realize reliably during the time frame that we are talking about, so homogeneous steel armor was the best against smaller AP projectiles at all obliquities. When armor plates are inclined, such as is the case for horizontal armor for protection against large ("over-matching") gun projectiles at short to medium ranges where impacts are highly oblique, the use of the deflection effects is critical and homogeneous armor is the only correct choice. This is true for all thicknesses of armor above roughly 45o obliquity (zero degrees obliquity is right angle -- "normal" -- in my measurement scale).

For plates under about 1 inch (25.4 mm), it is possible to control the hardening process with more reliability and to harden the armor to higher levels without too much loss in toughness (crack resistance). This thickness of armor was designed to resist machinegun fire with lead bullets from strafing aircraft and small fragments of nearby exploding projectiles, not to defeat hardened armor-piercing projectiles. The high hardness allowed added strength while the ability to keep adequate toughness prevented the plates from being holed by punching out plugs of armor (the usual failure mode of brittle materials). As mentioned, for small-caliber solid-shot-type projectiles like machinegun bullets, if the impacting projectile were to be rejected, but the plate itself had pieces punched out of it, those pieces can cause much the same damage that the projectile would have, which means that the armor has accomplished nothing by stopping that projectile (at least in the region immediately behind the plate holed). For this purpose German WWII ships used a Krupp homogeneous armor called "Wotan Starrheit" (Extra-hard 'Wotan') (Wsh) that was similar in composition to Wh n/A but hardened to 250-280 Brinell (at 300 Brinell hardness cracking became a major problem in thicker plates). Many light gun and director shields, including the spherical shields of the BISMARCK's four stabilized anti-aircraft gun directors, used Wsh armor.

For thin plates that made up the BISMARCK's internal anti-torpedo bulkheads, impact by projectiles or fragments was not a concern, but the maximum ability to resist tearing under the water hammer effect of a torpedo or mine hit was paramount. Krupp developed a form of armor called "Wotan Weich" (Soft 'Wotan') (Ww) for these 1.97-inch (50 mm) and less bulkheads that was kept at roughly 200 Brinell, about the softest possible for this kind of steel. However, later tests showed no significant difference between Ww and Wh, which I believe was due to the loss of strength from the low hardness offsetting the increase in toughness that was gained by keeping the material so soft -- Wh was already very tough and equal to the best foreign armor steels. Also, trying to soften such metal to this extreme can be just as difficult as trying to harden it to its maximum, with just as unreliable results. Ballistically, I rate Ww as 1" (25.4 mm) Ww equals 0.95" (24.1 mm) Wh.

FACE-HARDENED ARMOR

In the BISMARCK, vertical or near-vertical armor designed to resist low-obliquity impacts by major-caliber projectiles was made up of "Krupp Cemented n/A" ("Case-Hardened and Decrementally-
Hardened Nickel-Chromium-Molybdenum Armor made by Krupp, New Type") (KC n/A). This form of armor is called 'face-hardened' in general. Chemically similar to Wh n/A and made in thicknesses from just under 4 inches (100 mm) to 14.96 inches (380 mm) - thicker plates were experimented with - this armor had its interior hardened in a manner that makes it much more hard and brittle on the forward surface facing the enemy (circa 650-700 Brinell, about as high as the Brinell scale can reach and equal to or higher than any other foreign face-hardened armors), while keeping it similar to Wh at the back of the plate (circa 240 Brinell, which is slightly higher than the average foreign armor of this type).

The first inch or so from the face surface of a KC n/A plate is carburized ("cemented") in a special oven to allow such a very high surface ("case") hardness and then the armor is heated in such a manner that the face layer of 41% of the plate's thickness is above a critical hardening temperature, but the remaining 59% stays below it (very careful control of temperature and time allows this). When all conditions of heat and time have been met, the plate is removed from the oven and quenched with high-pressure water until it is completely cold. The deeper the cooling occurs, the slower the heat is extracted and the slower the transition to the hard ("martensite") crystal structure, causing a gradual ("decremental") softening as one moved back from the face. Just behind the thin 650-700 Brinell cemented layer, the steel has hardened to 500 Brinell and this hardness gradually drops until the 240 Brinell level soft ("pearlite") crystal structure is reached at 41%.

The soft back soaked up shock transmitted through the face and kept the hard material from being punched out by fracture at its back like a b-b hole in a plate of glass; with such back support the hard face must be punched out from the front, which is much more difficult and results in attacking projectiles having their noses smashed to pieces by shatter, as well as suffering other forms of damage that either reduce penetration ability or prevent the projectile from exploding properly or both. The development and use of the AP cap on virtually all 20th Century anti-battleship armor-piercing projectiles was a direct effort to prevent such degrading projectile nose damage, with considerable success in some designs and less so in others.

Krupp developed the special nickel-chromium composition in 1894 (molybdenum was added only to KC n/A and a few foreign forms after WWI) to increase the metal's basic strength and to prevent the plate from cracking or forming inferior crystals when it cooled deep inside, which had prevented the deep decremental hardening process from being used with steel before this (only special super-thick high-carbon-content cast-iron domes for land forts made by the German firm of Gruson could be so hardened prior to this). By 1900, virtually all heavy side armor for all warships was made using variants of the original KC process-later called by Krupp "KC a/A" (KC Old Type) to distinguish it from its superior KC n/A successor. Foreign forms varied considerably in composition and hardening technique over the years from 1890 through 1945, with a few types, such as Japanese Vickers Hardened used on the WWII YAMATO Class warships, even eliminating the thin cemented layer to reduce the cost of manufacturing. These changes had various results on the armor's resistance to penetration -- some good, some not so good.

The original KC a/A armor had a softer, but more brittle, back layer than KC n/A due to inferior knowledge as to how to harden steel. Also, Krupp tried to harden the face to the maximum extent possible with much less attention to toughness. Other manufacturers, especially after WWI, found that adequate toughness to prevent the plate from breaking for as long as possible - which was difficult to achieve with such a hard and brittle face layer - was a great aid to improving the armor's strength and even Krupp (which was a very reactionary company) had to finally see the wisdom of this after WWI, which led it and most others to develop tempering (toughening) processes that greatly improved their face-hardened armors by the mid-1930's.

The original KC a/A had a thinner 33% face layer but this was less able to damage projectiles so Krupp increased the layer to 41% in KC n/A. Other manufacturers greatly changed this both ways, with some face-hardened plate types having very thin faces (U.S. 1921-23 Bethlehem "Thin Chill" Class 'A' armor with its 15% face, for example) or very thick faces (U.S. average post-1935 "Thick Chill" Class 'A' armor with its 55% face, for example). The thicker the face, the more effects scaling (making both the plate and projectile larger in step with one-another, but keeping the other properties the same) had on the plate and the weaker the resistance against larger projectiles, though a thicker face may cause more projectile damage and thus offset this in some cases. The change from 33% face to 41% face in Krupp KC armor had a small scaling penalty, but the generally higher steel quality more than made up for this.


On the other extreme, for cruiser-level armor 7 inches (179 mm) or less in thickness, the extreme face thickness of WWII U.S. Class 'A' armor caused the scaling effects to work in reverse to make that armor superior to its thinner-faced foreign contemporaries. U.S. cruisers thus had the best protection of any warships of their size. The thick face was an attempt to allow the armor to break the very superior U.S. armor-piercing projectiles that were developed at the same time. These projectiles were the best in the world at resisting damage, though they were sometimes slightly inferior in penetration ability if they and their foreign contemporary could both penetrate the same plate intact. Eventually the armor manufacturers had to give up trying to damage the best U.S. projectiles, but by then they had gone "over the top" in overall resistance and had made the thick-faced armor inferior to many foreign contemporaries in its thickest grades due to scaling, which had a major detrimental impact an WWII U.S. battleship armor resistance when not compensated for by other methods. The U.S. armor designers had some idea of this problem, as can be seen by certain modifications that they made, such as using Class 'B' homogeneous armor in the thickest plates on the faces of WWII battleship main gun turrets, something that was not done by any other navy, while retaining face-hardened armor on WWII U.S. cruiser turret faces up through 8 inches (203 mm) thick.

I have more info, but I will stop here . . .


----------



## Wink (May 29, 2007)

GTR Lux, why do you have to flame rather than be constructive and ask more in-depth questions to see if what I say is the truth or not? I suspect it is because you have little engineering knowledge, as if you did you could see what I have wrote does not conform with typical information that can be sourced off the internet. 

Anyway, I'm not that bothered, if you don't want to know then fair enough. 

For the more intellegent people out there, hope you find it interesting.....


----------



## gtrlux (Mar 8, 2006)

Actually to clear it up.
My first post was aimed not especialy to you, but to the fact that if the poeple who are daily on this forum should take every new members statements for bargain, we would all have cerebral problems by now.

Especially , the "I am in the industry stuff", is something I read allready 1000000 on here, this section has a reputation for this . . . .
. . . . so I think it is really normal for the old members to not take every single newbie statement for bargain, then for a newbie to think, that with the usual incredible first post statement, to earn roses . . . 

No harm, there . .


----------



## Wink (May 29, 2007)

Fuel System Investigation and Performance Development of a Prototype V6 Gasoline Direct Injection Engine


----------



## callyuk (May 15, 2007)

just wtached that vid and all i can say i WOW listen to the sound from the exhaustwhat a tune


----------



## heavychevy (Oct 2, 2007)

Could the delay on the 6mt be a by product of the weight? I would think that with this power level, and the weight combined, and AWD to increase the possibility of a bad driver burning through a clutch quickly. It happens even on heavier rwd cars that are more limited where traction is concerned. I still dont see how emissions could be affected by the clutch (since that is the rumor from tagoichi)


----------



## NickTO (Sep 26, 2007)

heavychevy said:


> Could the delay on the 6mt be a by product of the weight? I would think that with this power level, and the weight combined, and AWD to increase the possibility of a bad driver burning through a clutch quickly. It happens even on heavier rwd cars that are more limited where traction is concerned. I still dont see how emissions could be affected by the clutch (since that is the rumor from tagoichi)


What about the assumption that the 6MT belongs in a model variant with a different power trim of the engine? 

I've read speculations on one of the 7tune posts that the 6MT variant would be part of a different model offering (V Spec or EVO) so it made a lot of sense to me when I read another article on that same website alluding to 6MT still not certified for emissions.


----------



## bonzelite (May 14, 2006)

NickTO said:


> What about the assumption that the 6MT belongs in a model variant with a different power trim of the engine?
> 
> I've read speculations on one of the 7tune posts that the 6MT variant would be part of a different model offering (V Spec or EVO) so it made a lot of sense to me when I read another article on that same website alluding to 6MT still not certified for emissions.


That's good sleuthing. I think the Nismo or higher performing GT-R variant(s) with 6MT are not (currently) emissions-illegal because of the transmission (which makes little sense) but because the cars that the 6MTs appear in are themselves of higher output of power and pollution.


----------



## H&H Performance (Oct 11, 2007)

RB26DETT all the way baby.......the best engine on the market to highly modifie.......Just ask the Jap lads....


----------



## snake_gtr (Oct 16, 2007)

the sounds of RB26DETT is better and more sweet:thumbsup: :lamer: :smokin:


----------



## ru' (Feb 18, 2007)

Dear god, who dragged this one up?


----------



## rb30r34 (Jun 30, 2008)

Someone must have voted on the pole.....


----------



## ROB_GTR (Dec 5, 2005)

POLL says it all i guess...... new GTR owners voting for theirs and the "classic" GTR owners voting for theirs.....


i still prefer the RB but thats just my taste.... i also think the RB26 "looks" alot nicer! :thumbsup:


----------



## GT-R Glenn (Nov 9, 2002)

> RB26DETT all the way baby.......the best engine on the market to highly modifie.......Just ask the Jap lads....


What ?


----------



## kingsley (Aug 26, 2002)

I think the RB26 is a marvellous engine and has a gorgeous sound but for me there's no arguing with 3.8L vs 2.6L.

Cheers,
Kingsley.


----------



## Kango_V (Jun 24, 2005)

Ok, bolt 2 RBs together in a V to make a 3.2L v12. I think I'm dreaming lol.


----------



## Kevoo (Feb 9, 2021)

GTRJack said:


> I bet the new VQ (if to the new GTR) pact with extra displacement 3.8 liter will be more reliabel then the 2.6 liter RB26 ever will be at the same level of horsepower.
> 
> Let's hope the year to come that the new GTR engine will be a pinacle tuning engine as the RB26 and the 2JZ



You was right damn right of a real monster got one that pushes 680 with a simple tune


----------

