this is the stupidest thing i have ever heard!elwesso wrote:, if you want to go the easy route and not mess with a VH45 go with an LS1... At least thats only 1 step backwards vs about 3 with a VG.. The VG is a great motor, but you'll even see twin turbo Z guys taking it out for other motors.
please expand on this statement.Rex wrote:
Not per the "letter of the law" of the Clean Air Act.
They both provided about the same torque peak. The VK is has a little more area under the curve due to the more advaced engine mangement across the RPM range.ViruzOne wrote:What about a VK45DE off a F50?? 340HP stock! all motor! doesn't sound too bad.
Basically, you can only "legally" put in the same motor or one that was offered in a newer version of the car .... may even require it have been the same chassis, but I'd have to dig it up again.irax wrote:please expand on this statement.
EXACTLY. HP is a function of torque and RPM and provides little useful info on it's own. Torque is a measurement or FORCE, not POWER (which is a RATE) and therefore provides much more useful info alone than HP does. HP looks good on paper, but torque is the figure that represents the real energy a motor outputs.maxnix wrote:HP, being a calculated number from peak torque, is a generally useless concept kind of like the DJIA.
Obviously, there's some room for interpretation, but it seems that the intent behind the CAA was that the "replacement" engine had been certified for the chassis.Clean Air Act wrote:It should be noted that while EPA's policy allows engine switches as long as the resulting vehicle matches exactly to anv certified configuration of the same or newer model year as the chassis ...
That right there, really does make a ton of sense tech. Unfortunately, to compete with one another, manufacturers have to follow the downward quality tendency until the line reveals itself as you stated above so painfully. Then it's too late.Q45tech wrote:I think not, it is much easier to over build [over spend] for longevity than to cost control an engine so that it just survives warranty pr 100k. Too expensive if you make a mistake and end up replacing engines like Nissan found out in 2.5, 3.5, and 4.5.
And I think this one "closes" the loop holes created by the statement you referenced??CAA wrote:In many cases, proper emission testing according to the Federal Test Procedure would be necessary to make this determination.
Of course it's all moot, if the person swapping the engine doesn't care or feels no pressure to comply with the CAA.CAA wrote:State or local programs which pass illegally engine switched vehicles may mislead federally regulated parties into believing that engine switching is allowed by federal law.
Yes. But the reason for the weight difference is that the VG has an iron block while the VH is aluminum.Haitian_King wrote:
Wow. VH's rule!
Let's hope your new daughter has a better future fate than your car!rps13dn wrote:ok im back i was busy adding a new member to my family 2 week old baby girl lol, ok here was going on i decided to stick with the vh45 so far what i got is a 90 q45 ac, heater, emission remove somewhat gutted interior custom intake jic coilovers and of couple of misc. suspention parts. also i mite go with s14 seats does anybody know if they bolt right on? i need to put the q on a weight lost program i was also thinking of aftermarket oil and transmission coolers. got a little illegal battle going on cant get into details but i need to make my q faster without any force induction need help asap any idea would help