All this talk of RPM and BHP from NA motors - anyone else noticed the
facelifted SLK is now a 3.5l, 305bhp at 6500 rpm V6, and fits into the 210
quid road tax band with the 7 speed auto (not the manual - that's 400 quid)

And the 200K is no longer the poor relation - 0-62 in 7.6 and 170 quid road
tax...

That in my reckoning beats Nissan 350z, (300 bhp at 7500rpm) - yet they have
the same peak torque, which begs the question as to how the 350 can rev 15%
higher yet get lower power output?

On 8 Aug, 21:43, "Tim S Kemp"
wrote:
All this talk of RPM and BHP from NA motors - anyone else noticed the
facelifted SLK is now a 3.5l, 305bhp at 6500 rpm V6, and fits into the 210
quid road tax band with the 7 speed auto (not the manual - that's 400 quid)

And the 200K is no longer the poor relation - 0-62 in 7.6 and 170 quid road
tax...

That in my reckoning beats Nissan 350z, (300 bhp at 7500rpm) - yet they have
the same peak torque, which begs the question as to how the 350 can rev 15%
higher yet get lower power output?

Because more revs don't necessarily equate to more power - it's not
exponential, and BHP can fall off even though the revs are going
higher, which is exactly how mine is mapped.

Try looking at a few dyno printouts of bhp vs torque curves sometime.

--
JackH

wrote:
That in my reckoning beats Nissan 350z, (300 bhp at 7500rpm) - yet
they have the same peak torque, which begs the question as to how
the 350 can rev 15% higher yet get lower power output?

Because more revs don't necessarily equate to more power - it's not
exponential, and BHP can fall off even though the revs are going
higher, which is exactly how mine is mapped.

Try looking at a few dyno printouts of bhp vs torque curves sometime.

I /know/ that, it just seems that Nissan haven't kept up with the
competition - the 350 remains one of my favourite cars and the engine is
wonderful, but MB have just beaten them on emissions and power...

"Tim S Kemp" wrote in message
. uk...
wrote:
That in my reckoning beats Nissan 350z, (300 bhp at 7500rpm) - yet
they have the same peak torque, which begs the question as to how
the 350 can rev 15% higher yet get lower power output?

Because more revs don't necessarily equate to more power - it's not
exponential, and BHP can fall off even though the revs are going
higher, which is exactly how mine is mapped.

Try looking at a few dyno printouts of bhp vs torque curves sometime.

I /know/ that, it just seems that Nissan haven't kept up with the
competition - the 350 remains one of my favourite cars and the engine is
wonderful, but MB have just beaten them on emissions and power...


The French engine is wonderful, eh?

--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com

"DervMan" wrote in message
...
"Tim S Kemp" wrote in message
. uk...
wrote:
That in my reckoning beats Nissan 350z, (300 bhp at 7500rpm) - yet
they have the same peak torque, which begs the question as to how
the 350 can rev 15% higher yet get lower power output?

Because more revs don't necessarily equate to more power - it's not
exponential, and BHP can fall off even though the revs are going
higher, which is exactly how mine is mapped.

Try looking at a few dyno printouts of bhp vs torque curves sometime.

I /know/ that, it just seems that Nissan haven't kept up with the
competition - the 350 remains one of my favourite cars and the engine is
wonderful, but MB have just beaten them on emissions and power...


The French engine is wonderful, eh?



the french only got what, 150bhp out of the 3.5 V6? think nissan did a
little better with it

"Vamp" wrote in message
...

"DervMan" wrote in message
...
"Tim S Kemp" wrote in message
. uk...
wrote:
That in my reckoning beats Nissan 350z, (300 bhp at 7500rpm) - yet
they have the same peak torque, which begs the question as to how
the 350 can rev 15% higher yet get lower power output?

Because more revs don't necessarily equate to more power - it's not
exponential, and BHP can fall off even though the revs are going
higher, which is exactly how mine is mapped.

Try looking at a few dyno printouts of bhp vs torque curves sometime.

I /know/ that, it just seems that Nissan haven't kept up with the
competition - the 350 remains one of my favourite cars and the engine is
wonderful, but MB have just beaten them on emissions and power...

The French engine is wonderful, eh?
the french only got what, 150bhp out of the 3.5 V6? think nissan did a
little better with it


De-clogged the intake of cheese maybe? :-p

--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com

wrote:
On 8 Aug, 21:43, "Tim S Kemp"
wrote:
All this talk of RPM and BHP from NA motors - anyone else noticed the
facelifted SLK is now a 3.5l, 305bhp at 6500 rpm V6, and fits into the 210
quid road tax band with the 7 speed auto (not the manual - that's 400 quid)

And the 200K is no longer the poor relation - 0-62 in 7.6 and 170 quid road
tax...

That in my reckoning beats Nissan 350z, (300 bhp at 7500rpm) - yet they have
the same peak torque, which begs the question as to how the 350 can rev 15%
higher yet get lower power output?

Because more revs don't necessarily equate to more power - it's not
exponential, and BHP can fall off even though the revs are going
higher, which is exactly how mine is mapped.

Try looking at a few dyno printouts of bhp vs torque curves sometime.

Yours does that because it's a diesel, which has an almost triangular
torque curve/ flattish power curve. A decent non-strangulated NA petrol
has an essentially flat torque curve, and thus an essentially linear
proportionality between rpm and power.

In answer to tim, it rather sounds as if the inlet/exhaust on the 350Z
is a bit restrictive, and limits torque at higher revs.

"Vamp" wrote in message
...

"DervMan" wrote in message
...
"Tim S Kemp" wrote in message
. uk...
wrote:
That in my reckoning beats Nissan 350z, (300 bhp at 7500rpm) - yet
they have the same peak torque, which begs the question as to how
the 350 can rev 15% higher yet get lower power output?

Because more revs don't necessarily equate to more power - it's not
exponential, and BHP can fall off even though the revs are going
higher, which is exactly how mine is mapped.

Try looking at a few dyno printouts of bhp vs torque curves sometime.

I /know/ that, it just seems that Nissan haven't kept up with the
competition - the 350 remains one of my favourite cars and the engine is
wonderful, but MB have just beaten them on emissions and power...


The French engine is wonderful, eh?



the french only got what, 150bhp out of the 3.5 V6? think nissan did a
little better with it

Close. 241bhp. But what's 91bhp/60% between friends ;-)? Also, the lowest
output version of that engine currently on sale is 231bhp, and is in a
Nissan Teana. [1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_VQ_engine#VQ35DE

It's used in the FWD Espace, shame they felt it couldn't have the full fat,
300bhp version hehe.

Youngish guy in, oooo, let's say, an E36 328i - "There's a **** French
people carrier sat on my arse, I'm going to blow it away" RARRRRRRRR loud
engine noise "It's not there anymore" smug grin turning to shocked
horror "It's alongside, no, it's in front and pulling away...!
...........It's gone" sweet, sweet tears

(Note: Above scenario may not be a 100% accurate simulation)

:-D


[1] Actually there is a Nissan Teana based car called the "SM7" (catchy...)
sold in Korea by Korean based "Renault Samsung Motors", and Nissan supply
that with a 217bhp version of the engine as well. Presumably it's low power
can be blamed on keeping costs down for the Korean market.

--
Dan B
Clio R27