I have a 4.0 liter 6 cylinder in my GC. The Infinity FX35 has 3.5 liter 6
cylinder that delivers 280 hp and about the same mileage as my jeep.

How is the Infinity getting so much more HP and the same gas mileage with
smaller displacement?

We're talking 40% more HP.

Is it better Technology or Engineering or both?

Or is Infinity less than truthful about thier HP rating?

Thanks

 

Wow! Now there's a good question! Talk about opening a can of worms.
There is so much going on in a motor that is design adjustable that it
cannot be explained too easily in one post. As far as motor design,
Straight six, V6, cam degrees, stroke, piston number, piston size,
timing, aspiration, fuel delivery system, etc. etc., all can be altered
for vastly different results. Gearing is also a factor in gas mileage.
The two motors you are comparing are apples to oranges as far as design
and each is designed for a niche purpose. Where the Jeep is designed for
more low end torque, the Nissan is designed for smoothness and more HP
through a higher RPM range. It all comes down to a small explosion in
each cylinder and how the surrounding metal is moved by that explosion.
I suggest searching and reading up a bit, then come back with some more
specific questions or you may max out the Usenet with opinions and flame
wars. :)

Brian Foster wrote:
> I have a 4.0 liter 6 cylinder in my GC. The Infinity FX35 has 3.5 liter 6
> cylinder that delivers 280 hp and about the same mileage as my jeep.
>
> How is the Infinity getting so much more HP and the same gas mileage with
> smaller displacement?
>
> We're talking 40% more HP.
>
> Is it better Technology or Engineering or both?
>
> Or is Infinity less than truthful about thier HP rating?
>
> Thanks


--
__________________________________________________ _________
tw

71 Bill Stroppe Baja Bronco
03 TJ Rubicon - Rubicon Express 4.5"
01 XJ Sport

There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness."
-- Dave Barry

Pronunciation: 'jEp
Function: noun
Date: 1940

Etymology: from g. p. (G= 'Government' P= '80 inch wheelbase')
A small general-purpose motor vehicle with 80-inch wheelbase,
1/4-ton capacity, and four-wheel drive used by the U.S. army in
World War II.

(Please remove the OBVIOUS to reply by email)
__________________________________________________ _________

 

Wow! Now there's a good question! Talk about opening a can of worms.
There is so much going on in a motor that is design adjustable that it
cannot be explained too easily in one post. As far as motor design,
Straight six, V6, cam degrees, stroke, piston number, piston size,
timing, aspiration, fuel delivery system, etc. etc., all can be altered
for vastly different results. Gearing is also a factor in gas mileage.
The two motors you are comparing are apples to oranges as far as design
and each is designed for a niche purpose. Where the Jeep is designed for
more low end torque, the Nissan is designed for smoothness and more HP
through a higher RPM range. It all comes down to a small explosion in
each cylinder and how the surrounding metal is moved by that explosion.
I suggest searching and reading up a bit, then come back with some more
specific questions or you may max out the Usenet with opinions and flame
wars. :)

Brian Foster wrote:
> I have a 4.0 liter 6 cylinder in my GC. The Infinity FX35 has 3.5 liter 6
> cylinder that delivers 280 hp and about the same mileage as my jeep.
>
> How is the Infinity getting so much more HP and the same gas mileage with
> smaller displacement?
>
> We're talking 40% more HP.
>
> Is it better Technology or Engineering or both?
>
> Or is Infinity less than truthful about thier HP rating?
>
> Thanks


--
__________________________________________________ _________
tw

71 Bill Stroppe Baja Bronco
03 TJ Rubicon - Rubicon Express 4.5"
01 XJ Sport

There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness."
-- Dave Barry

Pronunciation: 'jEp
Function: noun
Date: 1940

Etymology: from g. p. (G= 'Government' P= '80 inch wheelbase')
A small general-purpose motor vehicle with 80-inch wheelbase,
1/4-ton capacity, and four-wheel drive used by the U.S. army in
World War II.

(Please remove the OBVIOUS to reply by email)
__________________________________________________ _________

 

Wow! Now there's a good question! Talk about opening a can of worms.
There is so much going on in a motor that is design adjustable that it
cannot be explained too easily in one post. As far as motor design,
Straight six, V6, cam degrees, stroke, piston number, piston size,
timing, aspiration, fuel delivery system, etc. etc., all can be altered
for vastly different results. Gearing is also a factor in gas mileage.
The two motors you are comparing are apples to oranges as far as design
and each is designed for a niche purpose. Where the Jeep is designed for
more low end torque, the Nissan is designed for smoothness and more HP
through a higher RPM range. It all comes down to a small explosion in
each cylinder and how the surrounding metal is moved by that explosion.
I suggest searching and reading up a bit, then come back with some more
specific questions or you may max out the Usenet with opinions and flame
wars. :)

Brian Foster wrote:
> I have a 4.0 liter 6 cylinder in my GC. The Infinity FX35 has 3.5 liter 6
> cylinder that delivers 280 hp and about the same mileage as my jeep.
>
> How is the Infinity getting so much more HP and the same gas mileage with
> smaller displacement?
>
> We're talking 40% more HP.
>
> Is it better Technology or Engineering or both?
>
> Or is Infinity less than truthful about thier HP rating?
>
> Thanks


--
__________________________________________________ _________
tw

71 Bill Stroppe Baja Bronco
03 TJ Rubicon - Rubicon Express 4.5"
01 XJ Sport

There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness."
-- Dave Barry

Pronunciation: 'jEp
Function: noun
Date: 1940

Etymology: from g. p. (G= 'Government' P= '80 inch wheelbase')
A small general-purpose motor vehicle with 80-inch wheelbase,
1/4-ton capacity, and four-wheel drive used by the U.S. army in
World War II.

(Please remove the OBVIOUS to reply by email)
__________________________________________________ _________

 

"Brian Foster" <brianfoster@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:V5VBd.43168$yv2.40568@fe2.texas.rr.com...
>I have a 4.0 liter 6 cylinder in my GC. The Infinity FX35 has 3.5 liter 6
>cylinder that delivers 280 hp and about the same mileage as my jeep.
>
> How is the Infinity getting so much more HP and the same gas mileage with
> smaller displacement?
>
> We're talking 40% more HP.
>
> Is it better Technology or Engineering or both?
>


Both. The GC uses an ancient design that has been reconfigured numerous
times over 50+ years but does not benefit from overhead cams, 4 valve/cyl
etc. There is a lot more resistance inside the 4.0 than the 3.5. It's unfair
to compare 21st century technology with an engine designed in the early to
mid 1900's.
You can not bring fuel consumption into the arguement because now we are
comparing the GC to the FX... a brick to a bullet. There is added weight and
rolling resistance in the GC... if you had the 3.5 in the GC, the fuel
consumption would probably be almost comparable.

-Brian

 

"Brian Foster" <brianfoster@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:V5VBd.43168$yv2.40568@fe2.texas.rr.com...
>I have a 4.0 liter 6 cylinder in my GC. The Infinity FX35 has 3.5 liter 6
>cylinder that delivers 280 hp and about the same mileage as my jeep.
>
> How is the Infinity getting so much more HP and the same gas mileage with
> smaller displacement?
>
> We're talking 40% more HP.
>
> Is it better Technology or Engineering or both?
>


Both. The GC uses an ancient design that has been reconfigured numerous
times over 50+ years but does not benefit from overhead cams, 4 valve/cyl
etc. There is a lot more resistance inside the 4.0 than the 3.5. It's unfair
to compare 21st century technology with an engine designed in the early to
mid 1900's.
You can not bring fuel consumption into the arguement because now we are
comparing the GC to the FX... a brick to a bullet. There is added weight and
rolling resistance in the GC... if you had the 3.5 in the GC, the fuel
consumption would probably be almost comparable.

-Brian

 

"Brian Foster" <brianfoster@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:V5VBd.43168$yv2.40568@fe2.texas.rr.com...
>I have a 4.0 liter 6 cylinder in my GC. The Infinity FX35 has 3.5 liter 6
>cylinder that delivers 280 hp and about the same mileage as my jeep.
>
> How is the Infinity getting so much more HP and the same gas mileage with
> smaller displacement?
>
> We're talking 40% more HP.
>
> Is it better Technology or Engineering or both?
>


Both. The GC uses an ancient design that has been reconfigured numerous
times over 50+ years but does not benefit from overhead cams, 4 valve/cyl
etc. There is a lot more resistance inside the 4.0 than the 3.5. It's unfair
to compare 21st century technology with an engine designed in the early to
mid 1900's.
You can not bring fuel consumption into the arguement because now we are
comparing the GC to the FX... a brick to a bullet. There is added weight and
rolling resistance in the GC... if you had the 3.5 in the GC, the fuel
consumption would probably be almost comparable.

-Brian

 

From Infinity websight. FX35 with 2wd is 4,110 lbs

from my GC ownersmanual 2wd 4.0liter weight is 3791 lbs

The Infinity is 319 lbs heavier and has a smaller engine and gets same gas
milage with 80 more HP.


"Cherokee-Ltd" <nospam@home.com> wrote in message
news:T4mdnWRS1OLwtEXcRVn-gA@rogers.com...
>
> "Brian Foster" <brianfoster@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:V5VBd.43168$yv2.40568@fe2.texas.rr.com...
>>I have a 4.0 liter 6 cylinder in my GC. The Infinity FX35 has 3.5 liter 6
>>cylinder that delivers 280 hp and about the same mileage as my jeep.
>>
>> How is the Infinity getting so much more HP and the same gas mileage with
>> smaller displacement?
>>
>> We're talking 40% more HP.
>>
>> Is it better Technology or Engineering or both?
>>
>
>
> Both. The GC uses an ancient design that has been reconfigured numerous
> times over 50+ years but does not benefit from overhead cams, 4 valve/cyl
> etc. There is a lot more resistance inside the 4.0 than the 3.5. It's
> unfair to compare 21st century technology with an engine designed in the
> early to mid 1900's.
> You can not bring fuel consumption into the arguement because now we are
> comparing the GC to the FX... a brick to a bullet. There is added weight
> and rolling resistance in the GC... if you had the 3.5 in the GC, the fuel
> consumption would probably be almost comparable.
>
> -Brian
>

 

From Infinity websight. FX35 with 2wd is 4,110 lbs

from my GC ownersmanual 2wd 4.0liter weight is 3791 lbs

The Infinity is 319 lbs heavier and has a smaller engine and gets same gas
milage with 80 more HP.


"Cherokee-Ltd" <nospam@home.com> wrote in message
news:T4mdnWRS1OLwtEXcRVn-gA@rogers.com...
>
> "Brian Foster" <brianfoster@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:V5VBd.43168$yv2.40568@fe2.texas.rr.com...
>>I have a 4.0 liter 6 cylinder in my GC. The Infinity FX35 has 3.5 liter 6
>>cylinder that delivers 280 hp and about the same mileage as my jeep.
>>
>> How is the Infinity getting so much more HP and the same gas mileage with
>> smaller displacement?
>>
>> We're talking 40% more HP.
>>
>> Is it better Technology or Engineering or both?
>>
>
>
> Both. The GC uses an ancient design that has been reconfigured numerous
> times over 50+ years but does not benefit from overhead cams, 4 valve/cyl
> etc. There is a lot more resistance inside the 4.0 than the 3.5. It's
> unfair to compare 21st century technology with an engine designed in the
> early to mid 1900's.
> You can not bring fuel consumption into the arguement because now we are
> comparing the GC to the FX... a brick to a bullet. There is added weight
> and rolling resistance in the GC... if you had the 3.5 in the GC, the fuel
> consumption would probably be almost comparable.
>
> -Brian
>

 

From Infinity websight. FX35 with 2wd is 4,110 lbs

from my GC ownersmanual 2wd 4.0liter weight is 3791 lbs

The Infinity is 319 lbs heavier and has a smaller engine and gets same gas
milage with 80 more HP.


"Cherokee-Ltd" <nospam@home.com> wrote in message
news:T4mdnWRS1OLwtEXcRVn-gA@rogers.com...
>
> "Brian Foster" <brianfoster@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:V5VBd.43168$yv2.40568@fe2.texas.rr.com...
>>I have a 4.0 liter 6 cylinder in my GC. The Infinity FX35 has 3.5 liter 6
>>cylinder that delivers 280 hp and about the same mileage as my jeep.
>>
>> How is the Infinity getting so much more HP and the same gas mileage with
>> smaller displacement?
>>
>> We're talking 40% more HP.
>>
>> Is it better Technology or Engineering or both?
>>
>
>
> Both. The GC uses an ancient design that has been reconfigured numerous
> times over 50+ years but does not benefit from overhead cams, 4 valve/cyl
> etc. There is a lot more resistance inside the 4.0 than the 3.5. It's
> unfair to compare 21st century technology with an engine designed in the
> early to mid 1900's.
> You can not bring fuel consumption into the arguement because now we are
> comparing the GC to the FX... a brick to a bullet. There is added weight
> and rolling resistance in the GC... if you had the 3.5 in the GC, the fuel
> consumption would probably be almost comparable.
>
> -Brian
>