Anyone wish G37 gained tq instead of hp?
 

Applies to all G37s, but since I have a sedan, I'll post it here. When Infiniti went from the 3.5 to the 3.7, hp went up 22 but torque only went up 1. Now, that's great for marketing and all-out driving (1/4 mile runs seem to be about .2 quicker). But I'm guessing, since I haven't owned a G before, that for everyday, not going over 4000 rpm driving, that there isn't much of a difference. So I was wondering if anyone else feels that Infiniti should have increased the tq instead of hp with the displacement increase? Just thinking out loud.

yes it would have been nice if both went up proportionally, but in terms of everyday driving I go well over 4000 rpm every single time I drive...

I go over 4,000 rpm every day and I'm trying hard not to. :icon09: (break-in period).

... but yes, I would love some more torque and would sacrifice some HP to get it.

They did flatten out the torque curve quite a bit versus the VQ35HR.

270 torque is a lot to get out of a V6 motor before going FI.

Ah, ok. That was something I was thinking, even though peak tq didn't really increase, maybe they flattened the curve. Glad to hear that's what happened. Like I said, I haven't owned a G35, so I can't compare but it sounds like the 35 (especially the first-gen) was more peaky than the 37?

And yes, 270 lbs/ft of tq is good for a N/A V6. I realize it's not a V8, it needs to rev more, so I'm adjusting my driving accordingly. I was just spoiled by the RS6's 415 tq from 1950-5600 rpms. :)

still... a little more torque wouldn't hurt

I got an awesome mod to get loads of torque.



............ traded the G37 for a 2009 CTS-V 551 lbs torque. :drivingskid: Sorry, had to do it.

In all fairness, they did bump up the redline as well meaning the powerband is larger now (you spend more time there), I dont know why everyone ignores that and just looks at numbers

I still hate you. :mad: :banghead: :11: :D

Bench racing

Well that would certainly do it -lol. I test-drove a C63 and IS-F a couple weeks ago, and while the wheels of nonsense were turning in my head for a few days, crunching the numbers and all that, I realized I would right back into the maintenance hell that comes with those super sedans. A major reason I sold my RS6.

Anyway, it's apples to oranges. Those cars are a whole different can of worms to a G37. Compared to its actual competitors, i.e. C300, 328i, IS 350, etc., it's still the best choice, IMO.

In it's class G37 is the best IMO as well. That's why I bought it. Dead sexy car.

I feel we need more torque in our cars because once you get used to it, it seems to get slower and slower. this is the reason i will be Supercharging my sedan once the Still supercharger kit is released then i wouldnt mind enjoying the 340-360 ft lbs of torque (depending on how much boost is applied)

if torque was an issue then why not get a bare bones brand new 335i?

Because we arent douchebags lol

I'm curious, which NA V6 produces the most torque (at least rpm)? I think this is one of the advantages of diesel, monstrous low end torque which you can feel and enjoy every day.

Take my 7500rpm horsepower away and give me 1500rpm torque! My car never sees 7500rpms anyway. If it was not for the crazy MPG killing gearing in our cars, they would never be anywhere close to fast.

yah i think the torque should be close to the hp ratings. whats the use of a lot of horsepower if u cant turn the wheels fast enough?

but the G feels plenty torquey to me, maybe b/c my last ride has only 170 lbs/ft (acura tsx). the 135i's low end grunt must be nice...

I just wish the car would push out more tq that it already has, at lower RPM. :)

nothing two extra cylinders couldn't handle!

That's one thing I miss about my mustang. The Mustang GT had 20 less HP but 70more ft. lbs of torque and as such it was very fun to drive. It's hard to beat that seat of the pants feeling you get from a high tq. vehicle.

The way the G is set up, it's meant to be reved & pushed. Unfortunately, in todays traffic, that's not always possible. That's not to say more torque wouldn't be welcomed, but what did we expect with a bump in displacement of .2 L.

I truly agree with having torque in the lower rpms. Nevertheless, the G is the best bang for the buck in it's class.

I think adding DI on the 3.7 would also have a better flow of torque, what do you guys think?

That is something you'll see in the next gen. 350HP with 300lb/ft, still with 3.7L. Woot.

400lb/ft TOARK!!!!! :bowrofl:

WOW! :eek: Those are pretty good gains by just adding DI!

Where'd you get those numbers from?

hell no.. it's all about HP

All in my head :bowrofl::bowrofl:

You're also comparing a 5AT to a 7AT sedan. I've driven both and I prefer my 7AT. To me there's more pull.

I think what we will see instead is a beefy 100+ kW electric motor in the next gen hybrid G. Let that motor fill in the low RPM torque, while improving MPGs also - as will be required under the new EPA regulations which begin in MY2011 and really ramp up by MY2016.

The G is a fast car already. It has tire chirping acceleration, and 7200 rpm red line to use; sure there are always faster cars out there, but the best way is to improve the nut behind the wheel.
DI is great, until you have to replace expensive fuel pump or components.

As a G and a 3 owner, I resent that statement :icon42:

:BOUNCE:

My giant, lard-assed G8 GT was doing 4.9 0-60s with just a tune. IMO, the G could stand to have a little more tq down low, although
in most ways the vq37 was a step in the right direction.

Yeah but that's such a old man car, and when I say old I'm talking like 60's, if it had to be American I would took the new SS.

Really, do you think the car below is an old man's car? You know the average age of a G37 owner is like 50. It's all good though I'll blow by you in my old man's car.

http://i722.photobucket.com/albums/w...G_7607_800.jpg

My trunk:
http://i722.photobucket.com/albums/w..._photos/10.jpg

I'd sport a CTS-V over a G any day of the week. It isn't like that's a DeVille or anything, wtf.

I would ditch the chrome wheels though, but that's just me. PC those and they'd look sick.

trying to convince my older brother to get one.

it's pretty much a detuned ZR1

I would love more torque! It's ok when driving solo, but when I got the wife and 2 kids in the rear it freakin sucks.

They should offer the Ms v8 but beefed!

Yeah I sti does look grandpaish, I never said it wasn't fast, you can't even copare the 2 engines, yeah the caddy is by far faster, but for that amont of money hmmm I would personally jmo into something else, don't get me wrong when it comes to American I'm a GM guy, I've owned 2 MC SS's in my lifetime and own a 64 ss that I'm rebuilding, so I Know the GM Torgue, it's just caddy does not make a sexy car. Just my opinion.

ElLayG37s - your sure welcome to your opinion. Well, at least we agree that the G37 is sexy. I still love the Gs.

Also, for the money you would be hard pressed to find anything new and faster for the money.

Remo 101 that is a monster you have.

Not only is it drop dead mean looking, its got the balls to back it up.

:bowrofl::bowrofl::bowrofl:

One word answer: EVERYONE

I love the 2008+ CTS-Vs. Very cool indeed. Love that engine. You could tune that, and up the PSI on the SC, and get like another 30/30 hp / tq if 500+ isn't enough, lol....

Guys are easily getting over 650 HP at the wheels with around 660 lbs of torque in the 2009+ CTS-V. That's with minor mods. Crank pulley to increase boost, CAI, Headers, exhaust, and tune.

^^ I don't want to hear about it. Leave me alone, lol!

OK, no more V talk. The Sillen supercharger was looking good. I was thinking about getting one if the V deal didn't go through.

That SC kit would give a nice boost in TQ. I would love to drive a boosted G to compare.

The CTS-V is around $65K though. It's not like we could have had all that torque for the same price as the G.

I'd love to get my hands on one of the CTS-V wagons though. There's something oddly sexy about a torque/hp monster disguised as a utilitarian car.

Is CTS-V coupe gonna come out anytime soon? I actually quick like the coupe's design... not saying that I'm not liking the sedan either. hahaha

The coupe should be hitting show rooms next month. I like the coupe as well. Need the 4 doors though. I have 2 kids I drive to school every morning. That's one the the main reasons I switched.

Torque
 

Just want to remind all of the bench racers that the 2003 G35 sedan im my garage delivers 260 ft-lb of torque. You will have to wind your 3.7 liter engines a lot more than 4000 prm to see much difference, making the 328 hp rating all a numbers game. Sure, there is more go available for those that want to wind the piss out of the G37 engine, but where does one go to do it safely?

Over an 8 year period, is raising the torque rating of the G engine from 260 to 270 ft-lbs really much of an achievement?

Stop raining on my parade. :p

There is no magic when it comes to engine output. Either you rev the engine to get the power or up the displacement, or forced induction. Dropping in larger motor will give you more torque, but fuel economy will suffer. Force induction will be great but cost more to produce and cost more to maintain. Some people will tell me about direct injection, that will give you some more power at higher cost too. In any case, a rev happy engine make more enjoyable driving experience. The G37 is not gutless in acceleration in any way, most of us do not have the skill to use the car to its full potential. And I do not understand the fascination with 4000rpm; it only takes a few seconds more to rev to 7000rpm.

^^ Well, that's exactly it - lots of torque makes up for lack of skill. Seriously, In everyday traffic, it just gets tiresome revving to 5k just to accelerate quickly to get past so and so so you can get to the turn or the exit or whatever. It's nice to generate lots of torque in the 2-3500k range so one can be in a lower gear and just sort of step on it a little without making a huge fuss in order to slip into a desired traffic area. revving beyond 4k is loud and noisy and a lot more fun in a track situation. Revving above 4k all the time in traffic to get where you want to go tends to make one look like an immature @sshatt. vroom vroom vroom is not how I want to spend my commuting day. Plus, if you ahve passengers, they too do not want to be assaulted by all of the NVH mess constantly as you battle traffic.

A but more torque down low would have been / be nice.

I have a friend that has a 2008 CTS-V - horsepower and tq is unbelievable, but he finds it hard to get it to the ground as it has really bad wheel hop due to the multi-link rear. Takes a really good driver to get the most out of that car. Most people just slip slide away...

I couldn't have said it better. But damn this thing loves to be revved! Seems like it just keeps on revving till the next gear! But i do agree that having the engine scream through town isn't ideal and some more down low tq would've been nice. Nevertheless it is still fun to drive. :driving:

T vs HP
 

Yeah, if your torque and HP are low enough, traction is no problem!:driving:

Sorry, could not resist!

The first generation CTS-Vs did have an issue with wheel hop. A 2008 CTS-V is still the first generation.

The first year of the 2nd Gen CTS-V was 2009. The wheel hop issue has been corrected. The suspension with the magnetic ride control is unbelievable in the 2nd Gen! I do have to control the throttle on launch still or I will just be sitting with the wheels spinning. Hitting the gas at 30mph in first gear is AMAZING. I have only felt similar acceleration on a motorcycle. My wife hates it, she says it feels like she is going to cough up her stomach. I love it:JAMIN:!

One thing you missed, your #'s are based off of the old SAE ratings. The revised "SAE-certified" ratings in 2005 usually translated to lesser hp and tq for those cars tested under the old criteria. (Mostly imports, for some reason, several domestics ended up with higher hp/tq ratings with the revised test).

If you were to test the new engines using pre-2005 criteria, it would likely be making much more power than your VQ or even the advertised present-day #'s.

^^good point.

yes, very true. 260tq on the dyno is more like 220tq

The SAE rating is voluntary, see here: Horsepower - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And I don't believe Infiniti is using it. Plus, going by the examples in the link, I don't think the old VQ engine would drop from 260tq to 220tq even using the new rating method. A drop of 40lbs/ft is a hell of alot.

ever heard of hp and tq number can be over rated?

FWIW.
Infiniti G35 Review - Edmunds.com

and

Infiniti G - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also, several of Nissan's press releases for the Altima/Maxima refers to SAE J1349 AUG 2004 which is the revised standard. Compare that to the 1st gen coupe ratings which is based on the J1349 JUN1995 standard. I see no reason why they'd do that for the Nissan line-up but not the Infiniti.

For the record, SAE J2723 = certified is built upon the new standard and basically just outlines how the new standard should be followed (needs a third party certification/witness, for example).

Haven't read the whole thread so sorry of this has been posted already, but I would gladly switch in an instant to an engine that had the torque and HP numbers reversed.

The HP is useless off the track or below 100 mph. The lack of torque shows up every single time I drive the car.

If the numbers were reversed, we could also have a 7th gear ratio that resulted in 2,000 rpm at 80 mph (like many other cars have) instead of the still-too-high rpms we have now. They designed the gears to compensate primarily for the lack of low-end torque and secondarily for the general lack of torque. We get more noise and worse fuel economy as a result.

I would definitely love more torque. There is a huge difference between my 335i and G37.

Love the uneducated comments in this thread.

Torque is a direct function of displacement in a naturally aspirated 4 stroke gasoline engine. Bigger engine = more torque. 70-80 ft/lbs of torque per liter of displacement.

Mustang V6? check.
Mustang V8? Check.
Corvette? Check.
Z06? Check.
Ferrari Enzo? Check.
Porsche Boxter? Check.
F1 car? Check.
Honda Civic? Check.
370Z? Check.

The only way to add torque is to add displacement (or artificial displacement via Forced Induction, or less realistically, improving volumetric efficiency).

HP is a function of torque. Take a given level of torque(work), and multiply with a time factor (the M in RPM), and you get horsepower (work done over time). Double the RPM while keeping torque constant, and you get double the HP (double the work over time).

Those "hp = torque" engines tend to have low redlines. Ever notice that?


Also, everyone tends to quote engine torque numbers, but the real enthusiasts know that torque to the wheels is what really matters. Aggressive gearing can create additional wheel torque. Alternatively taller gearing can be used to alleviate traction issues from too much power output at low RPMS (refer to any ultra high performance car; their 1st gear is likely close to your second).

Most people complain S2000's have low torque. Did you know they have a 1.206 secondary reduction and a 4.1 final reduction? That's a LOT of mechanical torque gained to the wheels.

Many domestics offer a more aggressive final drive from the factory for this exact reason: It makes the car faster.

That's not really a fair comparison, but i get your point. Your 335i has a flatter TQ curve across a wider band and starts at a lower rpm than the G37. A byproduct of FI. If your 335 had the same peak TQ as the G37, it would still feel peppier than the G because of where the power is in the rpm range.

Yes indeed, not a fair comparison because of the FI. I knew that before posting, but to answer the question, yes I wished the G37 gained TQ. You make a great point on the flat TQ curve of the 335i.

Physics aside, I wished the G37 developed more TQ and approached the "peppiness" of the 335i.

so? they're still slow as sh*t below 6K rpms....i think people are talking more about power on tap rather than torque itself.

I find this thread a bit funny. If everyone wanted more torque why not go with the 335i, GTO 6.0, Challenger SRT-8, Camaro SS, New Mustang 5.0, ISF, CTS-V 2nd gen or 1st gen. Or get FI for you G.

The G37 is a great value for what you get. Sporty ride, nice power, luxury, and dead sexy looks. Sorry, torque not included.

Sorry we are all so uneducated here, but you make my point in your comments. Twice in fact. Yes, torque is related to displacement and Infiniti increased the displacement of the G from 3.5 to 3.7 liters but chose to raise the redline and add horsepower instead of torque. I had been thinking lately that maybe I would have rather they left the hp at 306 and added 10-15 lbs/ft of torque instead, and was just wondering if anyone else felt the same, that's all.

Peak torque barely changed, but if you compare VQ35HR and VQ37VHR dynos, the 3.7 has a significantly bigger area under the curve. The HP gain doesn't come from RPM. Rather, it comes from the torque not dropping off as much as you approach redline.

So you're saying that just about every performance car out there has more torque?

ACtually to be fair, I've been reading a lot in the web about the 35 vs the 37, and its application in the cars themselves, and it appears that the G37 is making ~around~ 260 to 270 HP at the wheels, and 230 or so tq at the wheels, while the 35s and 350z's only made 220 or 230 or so hp at the wheels, and less tq. So the G37 is somehow making a lot more whp than the actual increase would suggest,a dn more tq to the wheels while retaining the same amount, essentially, at the crank.

:bowrofl: :bowrofl:

Here's some education:

Look at an F1 car's HP and torque. All power, less torque, ridiculously high rpm's. Works beautifully on a race track driven at 10/10ths all the time with gearing designed specifically for track conditions.

Back in the real world, a usefully low and broad torque curve will result in a much more pleasant car to drive in all around conditions. Someone mentioned the new turbo diesels as a good example.

The G is amazing when really pushed to high rpm's...the performance squeezed out of 3.7L of naturally aspirated engine is pretty good! The gearing is explicitly designed (with higher-gear ratios getting closer together like in a sports car) to maximize the performance of this sort of engine.

But, for the 99% of the time we are not driving as if we were on a race track, 269 hp and 328 ft.-lbs. of torque would be a much better choice. However, the car would likely not "feel" as fast as the current one, even though performance in the normal speed range (between 0 and 100 mph, with gearing designed for lower revs) would likely be identical or even better. Fuel economy would be better due to the lower gearing. Noise would be less due to the lower revs.

The car would be slower in a drag race. Period.

Everyone is so concerned about the PEAK tq figure for some reason, when it really doesn't matter how much peak torque an engine makes unless you're WOT.

What??? It's peak HP that doesn't mean squat unless you're at WOT. Torque is what you feel in the seat of your pants when you stab the throttle.

And I was about to agree that the example car (269hp and 328 tq) would probably be slower in a drag, but, once again, that's a WOT example. But when I think about it, maybe it wouldn't be. A 335i has 30 less hp than our cars, but 30 more tq, and it spanks our car. So who knows? But it's all moot, because our cars are what they are - high hp (for a V6) at high revs.

were just a top end car... end

Again, looking only at the peak figures. The reason the BMW is faster is because it has a larger area under the curve. The peak is definitely lower.

That's why the G starts to pull as you get to higher speeds.

Just thought of this.

If low end torque is THAT much more important to you, go buy a genesis coupe.

https://img27.imageshack.us/img27/115/dynocomp555.jpg

Since you put it in that sense....il take the extra hp. :bowrofl::biggthumpup:

That's interesting; I would have thought that the 335i would have a flatter torque curve.

By "spanked," we're only talking about less than half-a-second difference in the quarter mile time based on the figures I've read from various auto reviewer sites. Yes, that's a lot in terms of drag racing, but nevertheless both cars can do under 14 seconds. And that comparison doesn't seem like it would make a huge "seat-of-the pants" difference.

I love for the G to have more torque, but not at the expense of horse power. I dont't know why people want the driving feel of a 1979 Cadilac Devile; it was all ye hall (lots of torque) until 4000 rpm then the engine just roll over and snore like a senior citizen.
Think more torque with less rpm horse power is better? The 335d diesel have 400 bf of torque at < 2000 rpm but slower then the 335i because the lacks of top end.

The G has the same image where I live -- especially the coupe. lol

this may be a stupid question, but is there a spacer that we could run between the intake manifold and the exhaust manifold? may be a runner from a different vq series motor? should give a good bump in torque, but it would most likely raise the intake manifold up a bit, to the point where a hood spacer would be needed...(yuck)

You're thinking VQ35DE.

^ so it's a no go on our blocks? completely new to infinitis as you already probably know from having to respond to my other posts hahaha (thanks again!!!!)

To get any real effect from a throttle body spacer, it'd have to be about a metre (3 ft.) long. If it was that easy to "bump up the torque" don't you think manufacturers would put throttle body spacers on all their engines?

Spacers used to have a use back when carbs were popular becuase it gave the air/fuel mixture more time to mix before it entered into the combustion chamber; now with fuel injection and direct injection that reasoning is no longer there.

Bench racing.

Jesus, half a second is a huuuge difference. That's like a bus length in the quarter mile. And a half-second is a huge seat-of-the-pants difference. Drive a 13.7 car, and then drive a 13.2 car - the acceleration difference is remarkable - I own the 13.7 car, and used to own the 13.2 car - it's night and day. Okay, I'll get off my rant. :NOOO:

Yeah no kidding. Here's what a couple of tenths in the 1/8th looks like so you imagine what a full 1/2 second looks like.

YouTube - 2011 Mustang GT 5.0 vs. Camaro SS Drag Race - Bonus VIdeo