29 Votes

2007 Nissan 350Z Gets New VQ35 V6 Engine

omarrana submitted on 12/5/2006 Official Bell & Ross Timestamp: 4:05:56 PM

44 user comments | Category: Spy Shots | Source: | SOURCE: www.egmcartech.com

Tag Link: Nissan

Nissan has added their new VQ35 V6 engine to the 2007 Nissan 350Z.

The 2007 Nissan 350Z will now produce 306 horsepower just like the 2007 Infiniti G35 sedan that carries the same engine. The VQ35 V6 engine is a 3.5 liter engine that gives the 2007 Nissan 350Z about 17 -20 horsepower more than the 2006 models actual output.

Read Article

2007 Nissan 350Z Gets New VQ35 V6 Engine

About the Author

I hooked up my accelerator to my brake lights. I hit the gas, people behind me stop, and I'm gone.
— omarrana (View Profile)

User Comments

sucks for those who just bought their 350Z
— Sauceboy01 (View Profile)

Posted on 12/5/2006 4:39:24 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 6

Say that to my dad.
— nphas042 (View Profile)

Posted on 12/5/2006 10:57:46 PM | | Votes: 5

kind of the same for those who bright the 2006 325i and the 330i. Thanks BMW for the quiet release of the 328i and 335i. I'm still pissed about that!
— omarrana (View Profile)

Posted on 12/5/2006 4:42:49 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: -2

Flip it!
— S4cabriofoxone (View Profile)

Posted on 12/5/2006 8:22:54 PM | | Votes: -3

I dont know how they can get 306 out of their 3.5 V6 and a random company like....ok...Jeep can only get 210 out of their 3.7 v6
— blueice4589 (View Profile)

Posted on 12/5/2006 5:41:53 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: -1

LOL.

BMW can get that much power out of a 3.0L.

This isn't even 100hp/cylinder. Audi makes 100hp/cylinder in the naturally aspirated RS4. THAT'S engineering.
— S4cabriofoxone (View Profile)

Posted on 12/5/2006 8:23:50 PM | | Votes: -1

I realized.

Read: RS4.
— S4cabriofoxone (View Profile)

Posted on 12/5/2006 11:32:39 PM | | Votes: 3

Lexus had a 3.5 liter V6 with 306hp for about a year before Nissan,they are just now cathing up to Lexus.
But rumor has it that the 3.5liter V6 from Lexus will punch out 350hp very soon!!
— 2JZSoarer (View Profile)

Posted on 12/6/2006 2:20:33 AM | | Votes: -2

(S4) Back in 1993 Toyota had 320hp with a 3.0 in the supra,and the engine is capable 1000hp on a stock block,so where is BWM now!!!
Street glow Solara drag has a 2JZ-GTE with 2,500hp and running 6 seconds in 1/4 mile!!!
— 2JZSoarer (View Profile)

Posted on 12/6/2006 2:26:31 AM | | Votes: -1

Wow you Lexus guys are clueless.

The more hp / liter you have, the less durable your engine becomes due to more wear and tear because of this increased power.

If Kia wanted to, they could extract 270-hp from their 1.8 or 2.0 (whatever engines they have) motors. They don't do this because they first of all know that someone buying a Kia isn't too obsessed with power, and second, because it will affect engine life.

You think the Lancer Evolution's engine was built to last? How long do you think those tuned Skyline or Supra engines last? Not very long. Your average Formula 1 engine is good for a mere 500 km, because of the excessive hp / liter.

Claiming that the BMW 3.0 engine should make over 300-hp is totally idiotic. BMW has balanced the engine output for everyday driving, emissions and fuel economy. The 330i is a fast car, it doesn't need more power. You want more power, get a 335i then.

"Lexus can get extract 380-hp from a 4.6 V8, but MB's technology is so crappy, they need a 5.4-l to get 388-hp. Clearly, the Lexus has the better engine..."

^These comments coming from you Japanese fanboys are just so stupid and ignorant.^

Hp / liter is a poor example of how good an engine actually is. A good engine is characterized first and foremost through durability, reliability and refinement. Cut the crap already.
— BMW530i (View Profile)

Posted on 12/6/2006 7:08:02 AM | | Votes: 2

What does WW2 have to do with this thread, Jake?

FYI, the only Japanese weapons of World War II that were effective were some of their aircraft. German weapons, tanks etc. totally outclassed the Japanese armory.

Japanese tanks? I could smash up a World War II Japanese tank with a baseball bat. Japanese tanks of WW2 were a complete joke. We're talking 1.5 cm frontal armor. An M1 Garand or Thompson submachine gun could take out a Japanese tank, literally.

And you're the dipshit who has no clue. Everytime you post, I get the feeling you're high or drunk. Get some help and stop the crap, JakeKann.
— BMW530i (View Profile)

Posted on 12/6/2006 8:30:43 AM | | Votes: 2

JakeKann, Japanese planes, tanks and guns were more reliable than German and I'm sure you will American to, but how do you know this?

The British had the most advanced radar at the time and America had the best bomber bomb scope, but one place American's did not dominate was against German tanks and you should know that.

America created the first atomic bombs which is very high tech, in fact we created and used 2 different types, one plutonium and the other uranium.

And now we have a bunch of misfit countries that are still working out the details on making an A bomb, they just can't figure out the instructions.

And back during the late 1930's America had a Liberal President, Senate and Congress and they were anti-gun and military just like today.

Germany and Japan on the other hand had leaders that were pro-gun and military and spent to design the equipment.

And if you check about most of the planes & tanks America used during WWII you will discover they were designed before we were involved in WWII, but the Liberal Congress refused spending on what they thought were useless killing machines, but that all changed on Dec. 7th.
— EL34 (View Profile)

Posted on 12/6/2006 11:01:55 AM | | Votes: 1

With 1000hp, the car would explode.

"Back in 1993 Toyota had 320hp with a 3.0 in the supra,"

That's also with twin-turbochargers. You could get 500hp out of a 335i- which is a much smarter choice compared to a 1000hp Supra! Supra was cool, but that would be scary.
— S4cabriofoxone (View Profile)

Posted on 12/6/2006 11:28:16 PM | | Votes: 1

They're gonna give you the liter vs rpm explaination for better engine reliability. Then again, I don't know if I can use the word 'reliability' and 'Jeep' in the same sentence.
— SSP350 (View Profile)

Posted on 12/5/2006 6:07:47 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: -2

The new VQ engine is highly tuned for rpm (aka Hp). Which is nothing new if one takes a look at the Lexus 3.5 (2GR-FSE) in the IS350 (306hp) or more importantly the BMW 3.2 (S54B32) (333hp in US form) from the M3. They use variable valve timing on both the intake and exhaust cams and gasoline direct injection amongst other technologies.

However these engines are not suited to heavy load/ trucks as they achieve they peak torque fairly high up the rev range ( generally about 500/1000 rpm less then redline) . So while its easy to knock the Jeep 3.8 ( there is no 3.7), its probably deasigned to have a longer stroke within its limited (read archaic) engineering headroom . To quote an engineer on the 3.8
"3.3/3.8 are the only remaining Iaccoca-era power plants still seeing active duty" . To think the previous engine was a 4.0 inline 6 with even less power :). Jeep customers seem to dislike change ...
— izfuney (View Profile)

Posted on 12/5/2006 6:39:36 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: -2

I don't think Jeep customers dislike change, they just don't care about horsepower. Except for edge cases like the Jeep Hemi V8, most Jeep owners see their ride as a workhorse, not a racehorse.

As for nissan/infiniti, this "highly tuned" engine is still mediocre. Anything less than 100 horsepower per liter in a performance car is mediocre, and I was unimpressed with the gearing/power band for this engine, didn't do much until you rap it out.

Doesn't seem to be better, if at all, than the 1990 300Z powerplant that was a stellar car 16 years ago, even if it was a twin turbo.
— indoctrin8ed (View Profile)

Posted on 12/5/2006 8:13:03 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: -2

Your missing the point. Small motors with very high hp need to rev.

Have you ever heard the old saying "there's no substitute for cubic inches"? That's because low end torque can only be achieved with turbos, superchargers, or cubic inches.

So 100hp/liter is a great engineering feat as long as you don't mind reving your motor to experience it. But this feat certainly doesn't discount a great motor that may achieve 80 hp/liter for the sake of better low end response.
— golfer38 (View Profile)

Posted on 12/7/2006 2:42:07 PM | | Votes: 1

golfer - You forget about supercharging or turbocharging to best your displacement theory.
— PlanoA4 (View Profile)

Posted on 12/7/2006 3:10:28 PM | | Votes: 1

Nice I guess.
— chewy (View Profile)

Posted on 12/5/2006 9:30:05 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2

So according to you guys (mainily s4), the Honda 2.2 237 Hp I4 in the s2000 is a technological marvel cuz that accomplished 100 hp/liter :) Thanks!

— blueice4589 (View Profile)

Posted on 12/5/2006 10:33:00 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: -2

Honda S2000 was coming with 2.0 litre engine that produced a 240 hp, i.e 120hp/litre. The capicity was increased mainly for better torque. The 2.2L engine was introduced in the USA in 2004. If Honda made a 3.5L variant with the same hp/L rate, that will be 420hp, now this will be an engineering.
— Auto_Fan (View Profile)

Posted on 12/5/2006 11:02:32 PM | | Votes: -4

At the sacrifice of lack of torque. The S2000 biggest problem is you have to stay in the revs. Maybe fine on the track, but hurts you on the street.
— PlanoA4 (View Profile)

Posted on 12/7/2006 3:11:36 PM | | Votes: 1

I've always liked the 350Z. Kind of a slightly more mellow S2000.
— S4cabriofoxone (View Profile)

Posted on 12/5/2006 11:33:04 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2

Hey JakeKann! Actually German and Japanese were secret ally in WWII. German may have supplied the tanks and planes - I think.

Anyway...I agree with BMW530i in some points. I was never a turbo fan but I think cars are getting too heavy. Engineers should look toward turbo and supercharge for smaller engineer in order to keep the weight while having more hp and torque. Ex. the new M3 v8. Why have a heavier enginee when an i6 with turbos can do better from 0-60 with a little tunning plus it would be lighter.

Merry Christmas Everyone!
— Brembo (View Profile)

Posted on 12/6/2006 9:59:08 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

Brembo,

Germany supplied Japan with rocket engine and jet engine designs and blueprints as well as the blueprints for the fearsome MK-108 30mm aircraft cannon and Schräge Musik 30mm upward firing cannon designs. These were all brought to Japan via German submarine or via Japanese submarines that made the trip from Japan to Europe.

The Japanese had no use for tanks, especially in the dense jungles of Asia and in the small islands in the Pacific. The Germans on the other hand needed heavy tanks to counter the excellent Soviet T-34 and later the JS2 Stalin tank. Allied tanks (American and British) were inferior to German and Russian designs. It took 5 Shermans to knock out a German Panther or Tiger tank for example.

Our friend Jake here is just misinformed or a total idiot. ;)
— BMW530i (View Profile)

Posted on 12/6/2006 10:06:57 AM | | Votes: 0

Brembo IMO, Hitler instructed Hideki Tojo to attack Pearl Harbor to take America out of Europe and forcing us to fight in the West (vicious circle), but where they miscalculated was just because we were under anti-war Liberal rule in this country not everyone was a Democrat and the Defense manufacturers were ready to roll out the new American made weapons.

There's no way to deafeat America because there are way to many people here and it's a giant farm land year round to sustain it's people.
— EL34 (View Profile)

Posted on 12/6/2006 11:08:09 AM | | Votes: 0

And near the end of WWII the Germans were trying to get a radiation dirty bomb ready for the Japanese to use against an American west coast city.

But now it's all good.
— EL34 (View Profile)

Posted on 12/6/2006 11:34:09 AM | | Votes: 0

BMW and Audi = big no no in europe

Mercedes and Porsche = big (hell) yeah yeah in europe

:)
— valentino (View Profile)

Posted on 12/6/2006 10:18:13 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

Those German and Japanese were crazy people!
— Brembo (View Profile)

Posted on 12/6/2006 10:19:55 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0

The first time American planes went against Japanese planes was on Dec. 21st. 1941 in China.

FDR had sent a squadron to China of P-40 Warhawks and on that date Japanese bombers were about ready to bomb Chonese targets when the P-40's began diving on them blasting 6 of the 10 bombers out of the sky, the others turned back.

The same scenario happened a few more times and a Chinese newspaper wrote a story that said the Americans have coem to help us and they fight like tigers, like Flying Tigers and that is how the P-40's got the name.

The American in charge of the P-40's in China told his pilots to never dog fight with the Japanese fighters because the odds were they would lose and he told them to climb and dive on them.

The reason is none of the Japanese planes had armor because thier design philosophy was to make the planes light and maneuverable and the P-40 Warhawk had body armor from the front to the cockpit wich lots of weight and could take many hits, but the Japanese planes couldn't take a hit.
— EL34 (View Profile)

Posted on 12/6/2006 11:24:42 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0

Why the hell is EL34 trying to give history lessons?
— answer (View Profile)

Posted on 12/6/2006 11:55:09 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

Because tomorrow is December 7th a date that will live in infamy.
— EL34 (View Profile)

Posted on 12/6/2006 1:02:16 PM | | Votes: 1

Cus jakekann had to spew some misinformation
— Agent009 (View Profile)

Posted on 12/6/2006 12:43:58 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

Dude! I love the History Channel!
— Brembo (View Profile)

Posted on 12/6/2006 1:36:14 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

You better, it's the best thing on all of TV.
— EL34 (View Profile)

Posted on 12/6/2006 2:32:46 PM | | Votes: 1

They had ally tank vs. German tank the other day.
— Brembo (View Profile)

Posted on 12/6/2006 2:34:05 PM | | Votes: 1

I seriously believe the HP output will be more than 306 because nissan HP output is always higher than the infiniti brand.
— shiftless (View Profile)

Posted on 12/6/2006 7:38:33 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

Also has anyone notice the raised hood might have enough room for a gts supercharger that was present at the Good wood festival.
— shiftless (View Profile)

Posted on 12/6/2006 7:40:35 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

More power in an ugly package.. I wished they would have done a retro design instead of this.. what they need to do is re-style the car .. funny thing is I hate retro but it would have made a much better looking car.. but more power is always good.
— austintyson (View Profile)

Posted on 12/8/2006 4:37:22 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

I thought 2006 6 speeds already had 300hp?
— bagwell (View Profile)

Posted on 12/29/2006 3:20:23 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

Add your Comments

Images hosted in your AgentSpace can now be posted in the comments section using the following syntax (case matters): [img]IMAGE URL[/img]
Example: [img]http://agent001.myautospies.com/images/sample.jpg[/img]

Email Me When Someone Replies To My Message

2007 Nissan 350Z Gets New VQ35 V6 Engine

About the Author

User Comments

Add your Comments

Submit an article

Photo Galleries

Cars

Autoshows

Latest Articles