Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

**I would've posted this in the Next Skyline section but I thought it was too special.

At the New York Show it was revealed that a V36 Skyline Coupe Convertable is on the cards for a 2009 release, at the very least as an Infiniti in the US, with a domestic Japan release as yet undecided. Not since the Prince Skyline Sports of 1961 has there been a Skyline Convertable of any sort:

gallery_4816_8_14487.jpg

gallery_4816_41_373609.jpg

Yes it's just CG but it gives a good idea of what to expect.

The convertable will obviously be based on the V36 Skyline Coupe, but with updated running gear as the Series II V36 will be scheduled for sale by then. One other ineteresting thing is the engine, a VQ37*VHR* from the Coupe, with a new VVEL 'electric motor driven camshaft switching' valvegear... more on this later when I get a chance to fully translate the article. The new engine is more efficient, produce less emissions, still have the high response of the current VQ35HR, and have higher capacity and torque to boot. I don't know, but this seems like the last hurrah of the conventional petrol engine for some reason...? Theres ALOT of technology going into it and theres not a turbocharger in sight... more later.

*Edit: The VQ37VHR is even more environmentally friendly than the current engine, but with even more response and torque right throughout the rev range. Reduced 'pumping loss' and reduced total exhaust emissions, with CO2 reduced by 10% aswell make this a very green enigine but still producing 330HP. Internal friction is another area which has had even more attention paid to, resulting in even higher response and acceleration which is sensitive to even minor throttle input. these points were touched on but not divulged completely, so more and more information about these improvements will be cleared up later in the year.

**Edit: VVEL DC motor controlled camshaft profile prounced 'Vee-Vell'

A DC motor is connected via threaded shaft to a 'control shaft' with a rocker arm attached, which then, via a link (shaped much like a conrod) moves another driveshaft which is positioned side by side to the previous mentioned 'control shaft'. The driveshaft had cam lobes positioned along the driveshaft, but are able to spin around freely on it, their profile is governed by the position of the driveshaft in relation to the control shaft; either being positoned closer or further away from it. What this essentially means is that the 'cam profile' is infinitely variable... there is no cam switching here, nor is there a 'switching point' or limits to the the camshaft profile (within reason). Variable Valve Event and Lift system or VVEL. My translation wasn't so good so... Check (if you live in usa): Publix Weekly Ad, or Big W toy catalogue.

Link to Nissan's VVEL explanation

gallery_4816_41_246561.jpg

The VVEL diagram

gallery_4816_41_63865.jpg

A better pic of the VVEL mechanism.

gallery_4816_41_152701.jpg

The VVEL page... sorry the flash covered the diagram with the electric motor mechanism and cams.

love it how nissan is finally looking into camshaft switching!!!

next step is 3d profiled camshafts - bring on ferrari technology!

on a downside - i can see this messing with alot of aftermarket turbo/tuning options.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • First up, I wouldn't use PID straight up for boost control. There's also other control techniques that can be implemented. And as I said, and you keep missing the point. It's not the ONE thing, it's the wrapping it up together with everything else in the one system that starts to unravel the problem. It's why there are people who can work in a certain field as a generalist, IE a IT person, and then there are specialists. IE, an SQL database specialist. Sure the IT person can build and run a database, and it'll work, however theyll likely never be as good as a specialist.   So, as said, it's not as simple as you're thinking. And yes, there's a limit to the number of everything's in MCUs, and they run out far to freaking fast when you're designing a complex system, which means you have to make compromises. Add to that, you'll have a limited team working on it, so fixing / tweaking some features means some features are a higher priority than others. Add to that, someone might fix a problem around a certain unrelated feature, and that change due to other complexities in the system design, can now cause a new, unforseen bug in something else.   The whole thing is, as said, sometimes split systems can work as good, and if not better. Plus when there's no need to spend $4k on an all in one solution, to meet the needs of a $200 system, maybe don't just spout off things others have said / you've read. There's a lot of misinformation on the internet, including in translated service manuals, and data sheets. Going and doing, so that you know, is better than stating something you read. Stating something that has been read, is about as useful as an engineering graduate, as all they know is what they've read. And trust me, nearly every engineering graduate is useless in the real world. And add to that, if you don't know this stuff, and just have an opinion, maybe accept what people with experience are telling you as information, and don't keep reciting the exact same thing over and over in response.
    • How complicated is PID boost control? To me it really doesn't seem that difficult. I'm not disputing the core assertion (specialization can be better than general purpose solutions), I'm just saying we're 30+ years removed from the days when transistor budgets were in the thousands and we had to hem and haw about whether there's enough ECC DRAM or enough clock cycles or the interrupt handler can respond fast enough to handle another task. I really struggle to see how a Greddy Profec or an HKS EVC7 or whatever else is somehow a far superior solution to what you get in a Haltech Nexus/Elite ECU. I don't see OEMs spending time on dedicated boost control modules in any car I've ever touched. Is there value to separating out a motor controller or engine controller vs an infotainment module? Of course, those are two completely different tasks with highly divergent requirements. The reason why I cite data sheets, service manuals, etc is because as you have clearly suggested I don't know what I'm doing, can't learn how to do anything correctly, and have never actually done anything myself. So when I do offer advice to people I like to use sources that are not just based off of taking my word for it and can be independently verified by others so it's not just my misinterpretation of a primary source.
    • That's awesome, well done! Love all these older Datsun / Nissans so rare now
    • As I said, there's trade offs to jamming EVERYTHING in. Timing, resources etc, being the huge ones. Calling out the factory ECU has nothing to do with it, as it doesn't do any form of fancy boost control. It's all open loop boost control. You mention the Haltech Nexus, that's effectively two separate devices jammed into one box. What you quote about it, is proof for that. So now you've lost flexibility as a product too...   A product designed to do one thing really well, will always beat other products doing multiple things. Also, I wouldn't knock COTS stuff, you'd be surprised how many things are using it, that you're probably totally in love with As for the SpaceX comment that we're working directly with them, it's about the type of stuff we're doing. We're doing design work, and breaking world firsts. If you can't understand that I have real world hands on experience, including in very modern tech, and actually understand this stuff, then to avoid useless debates where you just won't accept fact and experience, from here on, it seems you'd be be happy I (and possibly anyone with knowledge really) not reply to your questions, or input, no matter how much help you could be given to help you, or let you learn. It seems you're happy reading your data sheets, factory service manuals, and only want people to reinforce your thoughts and points of view. 
    • I don't really understand because clearly it's possible. The factory ECU is running on like a 4 MHz 16-bit processor. Modern GDI ECUs have like 200 MHz superscalar cores with floating point units too. The Haltech Nexus has two 240 MHz CPU cores. The Elite 2500 is a single 80 MHz core. Surely 20x the compute means adding some PID boost control logic isn't that complicated. I'm not saying clock speed is everything, but the requirements to add boost control to a port injection 6 cylinder ECU are really not that difficult. More I/O, more interrupt handlers, more working memory, etc isn't that crazy to figure out. SpaceX if anything shows just how far you can get arguably doing things the "wrong" way, ie x86 COTS running C++ on Linux. That is about as far away from the "correct" architecture as it gets for a real time system, but it works anyways. 
×
×
  • Create New...