R50 engine showdown

[tekazgtr1984]

So here's the showdown ya'll...

The R50, as we all know, came with two different engine variations throughout it's lifetime. The two boast very different numbers/specs and this is where the contrast comes into play.

The VG33E is a SOHC type producing 180HP and approx. 200 ft.lbs. of torque. The VQ35DE, on the other hand, is an award-winning Nissan engine and has been used in several vehicle applications since its inception in 2000. Its development and technological aspects are more advanced than the VG33E, consequently boasting higher numbers and performance. Variable valve timing, coated pistons, etc. just to name a few...

Having driven both variations of the R50, the VQ-equipped version is, without question, leaps and bounds ahead of its VG-equipped sibling. The power output alone is night and day; the VQ R50 is a race car in comparison. From an economic standpoint however, the VQ is also considerably more thirsty. In retrospect, it is an SUV, so expecting car-like gas mileage is somewhat trivial.

For me, the VG does manage to get the job done in terms of powering the R50. Its onroad capability is more than sufficient. Offroad,the VG gets the job done but there are those times when I long for the VQ and its higher torque. If I had to choose, the VQ is clearly the victor; the gas mileage appears to be its only shortfall. Well, that and the valve screw problem.

The reason for this thread is purely opinion-based. I think R50 owners everywhere have tinkered with this topic, and as such I'd like to hear your input. The members of this forum make up a unique and excellent collective of automobile enthusiasts so it is always great to read up on what everyone thinks of their Pathfinders.

That was my Let's hear yours!

[laxman0324]

The automatic makes the VG feel extremely sluggish when trying to drive sporty, its either go slow or floor it, no in between...and the VG33 was just under 170hp (168), dont give it too much cred ...I feel like the VQ is quieter, smoother, and leaps and bounds more powerful, the manual VQ puts out 250hp and 240 ft/lb of torque with NO power valve screws, whilst the auto variant puts out 240hp and 265ft/lb torque...I love the VQ and would reccomend it to anyone who wants an R50, the VG33 makes it feel archaic...

 

One thing I should point out, VG is iron block and VQ is aluminum block...

[tekazgtr1984]

Werd Lax, thannks for the input!

What's your take on the gas mileage?

[01silvapathy]

Yeah for sure I love my VQ, unfortunatly it is an auto and i have yet to secure the power valve screws- I really got to get on that,

It would be a shame to loose my beloved Pathy to some little screw

[laxman0324]

Werd Lax, thannks for the input!

What's your take on the gas mileage?

I average 18 in the 97, maxed out at 22 once...those numbers are all with manual hubs...i will post mileage on my 01 AFTER I get manual hubs on it...

[02silverpathy]

I have had both vehicles and would quickly agree about the VG...I really miss the spunk of the engine and the sound in particular is extra sweet....I now own the VQ and love it, however it seems more sterile as far as power and character--but it is a beast comparitively!

 

Go VQ and those of us lucky enough to have found a 5 spd (a-hem, I wish), are the real winners!

[nissandoms47]

In my 02 with a a 5 speed and 33s i average like 19 hwy and 15 city. lol. When it was stock it was getting almost 350 miles a tank.

Edited November 27, 2008 by nissandoms47

[tekazgtr1984]

Killer feedback, thanks ya'll!

Keep it comin'

[alexrex20]

even in Fuel Conservation Mode, the best i have EVER gotten was 14.98mpg

 

'nough said.

[MichiganAve]

Who said the VQ gets worse gas mileage? It is a better engine in terms of both power output and efficiency. Edmunds says the 99 with 3.3L VG is rated 14/17. The 01 with 3.5L VQ is rated 14/18. Those ratings are both with automatic. I believe those ratings are relatively correct as my friend's 2001 QX4 got slightly better gas mileage than my 98 QX4 even when it was stock...

[laxman0324]

I firmly believe gearing is a big factor too, my VG is always spinning high on the highway from the 4.6's and the VQ has 4.3's, so hopefully that will help too...

[BowTied]

According to this, the fuel economy is essentially the same?

 

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/compx2008f....nField=Findacar

 

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/compx2008f....nField=Findacar

 

There is a factor of gearing as mentioned, but also the factor of what grade of fuel used and what elevation the owner lives at, and if it is being measured in the winter vs. summer. But even at 1 or 2 MPG better, in a year/12k miles of driving, the dollar value of the fuel purchased is not monumental.

 

Outside of the power valve screws, (01Silvapathy - see my write-up and git er done!!!!) I like the VQ. I wish the OD gear was a little deeper... it would be killer with a 5 speed manual or maybe the 5 speed auto from the next gen.

 

The problem I have with the 5 speed manual is that it derates the towing capacity. I will not likley tow near the limit anyway, but still it bugs me for some reason. No VG experience to comment on though, sorry.

Edited November 28, 2008 by BowTied

[systemf]

So who has a butt-load of miles on the VQ? more than 150k?

[tekazgtr1984]

I've read up on the fuel mileage of both, and on paper the VQ is said to have better mileage. That would be expected: newer engine=newer technology and therefore improved output as well as efficiency.

In light of those two aspects, I'd say the VQ's power/economy ratio is way better than the VG's; there is no point in trying to contest that.

But paper statistics aren't always the reality. Since having my '98 with the 2" lift and 32" tires, I've had people ask me how my mileage is compared to stock specs. Upon telling them, they're surprised their VQ-powered R50's still get worse mileage. Not sure why that is... maybe a lack of maintenance, or a heavy foot...? In any case, projected statistics on paper are usually open to interpretation.

 

 

**Just a side note here, but in Japan, the R50 never came with the VQ35DE as engine variation. Aside from what Wikipedia alleges as legitimate info, the JDM version had three engine options. From 1996-2004, the only options were:

- gas (VG33E);

- and two diesel variations (QD32DTi '96-'99, ZD30DDTi '99-'04)

I've always wondered why these variations weren't available here, and why the VQ wasn't a variation over there...

[csutke]

In my experience with both the VQ wins hands down. More power, more torque, can actually pass on the highway and on mountian highways, and better MPG.

[tekazgtr1984]

In my experience with both the VQ wins hands down. More power, more torque, can actually pass on the highway and on mountian highways, and better MPG.

 

With my VG, I've never had an issue passing on the highway or on mountainous roads... thankfully

[BowTied]

I've always wondered why these variations weren't available here, and why the VQ wasn't a variation over there...

 

Just guess, but I bet it is the same reason all those great MPG diesels in Europe don't come here - emissions. I dunno about Japan, but Europe measures differently or not at all, I think it is NOx, and Canada/US does.

[tekazgtr1984]

Just guess, but I bet it is the same reason all those great MPG diesels in Europe don't come here - emissions. I dunno about Japan, but Europe measures differently or not at all, I think it is NOx, and Canada/US does.

 

That crossed my mind... but with the VQ's newer technology, I thought it had better emissions than the VG...?

[Thunderbolt]

When my pathfinder 3.5l vq was stock the best I've seen once was 24mpg at driving like a old person and not going over 55mph, but the average was 20-21(Most of my driving is highway) and now with the ARB front bumber, 9500 warn wench, warn off road lights, rocky road super sliders, warn hubs and CSUTKE AC lift that I took off his retired Pathfinder (Sorry). with all that I think added an extra 300lbs and getting about 19 MPG to 20 MPG, Tomorrow I going to discount tires tent sale and see about putting on some BFG 32" on 15" rims. I wonder how bad that going to drag the mileage down and by the way, she has 138500 miles on her and have had only one problem, and that was the MAF (Don't use K&N filter) other than that the normal routine maintance.

Edited November 28, 2008 by Thunderbolt

[nissandoms47]

Well hopefully I can find some 4.6 gears and swap those in and see what it does with the power/MPG thing with my r50 since im running the 33s. Im hopeing that'll put it back around stock.

[KLL]

i am sure vq has much better emission values but vg is much known as world engine. vg has low compression ratio and it can use low quality gasoline. its torque band is wide and starts before VQ does. so it is much suitable for small movements during offroad activities. vq is faster, like a car, and when you go fast consumes lot. VG is sluggish and low performance engine but i can use it with LPG without a hassle. But it makes me crazy when i decide to pass a car on hills... it s better to save fuel and wait for straight roads to pass

 

of course automatic transmission is another reason of losses in performance figures. it is very ordinary type transmission with no lock in convertor. so upper revs are not its favourite.

[tekazgtr1984]

Well hopefully I can find some 4.6 gears and swap those in and see what it does with the power/MPG thing with my r50 since im running the 33s. Im hopeing that'll put it back around stock.

 

I'm running 32" tires, and I'm assuming with the automatic transmission in the R50, it's 4.3 gears? Would changing to 4.6 be wise? Would that affect putting in a LSD? I'll do whatever it takes to stretch a tank of gas... Aside from getting rid of my Pathy, of course

[laxman0324]

wouldnt 4.6's kill mileage on the highway since you are revving higher at the same speed than with 4.3's?

[02silverpathy]

**Just a side note here, but in Japan, the R50 never came with the VQ35DE as engine variation. Aside from what Wikipedia alleges as legitimate info, the JDM version had three engine options. From 1996-2004, the only options were:

- gas (VG33E);

- and two diesel variations (QD32DTi '96-'99, ZD30DDTi '99-'04)

I've always wondered why these variations weren't available here, and why the VQ wasn't a variation over there...

I always thought the main reason for not offering the VQ world wide was lack of quality fuels, be it scarce or expensive. I actually believe that I read this from some sort of Nissan exec. before.

 

 

Well hopefully I can find some 4.6 gears and swap those in and see what it does with the power/MPG thing

I'm running 32" tires, and I'm assuming with the automatic transmission in the R50, it's 4.3 gears? Would changing to 4.6 be wise? Would that affect putting in a LSD? I'll do whatever it takes to stretch a tank of gas... Aside from getting rid of my Pathy, of course

The 4.6's are great for putting the pep back into the truck..MPG's...well I drove slooooow for a week around town and captured 15MPG (AC + 1" Spacer + 32" HEAVY REVO's + Open Hubs) On Highway with the Scangauge I found with my gears that the engines most efficient territory is 2250-2500 RPMs, limiting me to about 65...would be more like 70 with the 4.3s....that being said those of us with the automagic need to keep the OD OFF until you break 40-45 mph...this will keep the engine in its most efficient rev-band.

 

Yeah the OD could be waaaay deeper than, what is it, 5-600 RPMs ?

[tekazgtr1984]

wouldnt 4.6's kill mileage on the highway since you are revving higher at the same speed than with 4.3's?

 

Not sure... My knowledge of that mech. stuff is very, very limited. I do very little highway driving; regardless, I'd hate to sacrifice that mileage just for 4.6's...

 

I always thought the main reason for not offering the VQ world wide was lack of quality fuels, be it scarce or expensive. I actually believe that I read this from some sort of Nissan exec. before.

 

Quality fuel wouldn't be the issue, at least not based on my understanding of the situation

Japanese fuel companies do not run anything lower than 91 octane at the pumps. They run 91 and 94 (99 at some pumps is available too), as well as diesel. Furthermore, the VQ35DE was available in other JDM vehicles: the Z33 Fairlady Z (350Z), the V35 Skyline 350GT (Infiniti G35). But yet not in the late model R50 Terrano... I don't get it!

 

The 4.6's are great for putting the pep back into the truck..MPG's...well I drove slooooow for a week around town and captured 15MPG (AC + 1" Spacer + 32" HEAVY REVO's + Open Hubs) On Highway with the Scangauge I found with my gears that the engines most efficient territory is 2250-2500 RPMs, limiting me to about 65...would be more like 70 with the 4.3s....that being said those of us with the automagic need to keep the OD OFF until you break 40-45 mph...this will keep the engine in its most efficient rev-band.

 

Yeah the OD could be waaaay deeper than, what is it, 5-600 RPMs ?

 

So, with my 4.3's and 32" tires, anything below 45 mph (80 km/h) I should have the OD off? That could increase my city mileage?