People that have owned 276bhp and RevUp 296bhp car

[Mark@Abbey m/s]

Any of the chaps and girls on here had both above cars , can they give me some feedback with regards how the cars drove i.e midrange TORQUE top end BHP,which car was stronger in what area, just trying to work something out.

[Beavis]

Ebized for one

[Mark@Abbey m/s]

Yes I was speaking to Colin at Brands on Saturday, hopefully he will reply.

[Ebized]

I'm here.......

 

On the road I certainly 'feel' that the mid-range the torque characteristics of the rev-up engine are, if anything and in the twisty bits, slightly worse than the 276. But I have noticed on 'spirited' road driving that the extra revs on 296 does come into its own at the top end.

 

That is not the case when up against the 309 engine - it can easily stay with me when the 276's start to (very marginally) fall away. Overall, I would say that the 276 is more suited to the ZED for road use but on track the 296 (and 309) would come into their own.

 

I always remember Big Phil (ESR) telling me that he found the best engines were those made in 2002-2003 and I have to say that in over 4 years of ZED ownership those engines do seem to hold up well.

 

No doubt some 'mods' might have an effect and with the ECU piggybacks and the likes that will corrupt impressions. But then again some of the modded air intakes are also known to reduce power over standard, although they might sound nice.

 

Hope that helps

[CaptainSensible]

But I have noticed on 'spirited' road driving that the extra revs on 276 does come into its own at the top end.

Should that bit read 296?

[Sarnie]

I've had both too

[Chris`I]

I've had both too

So why dont you give some feedback

 

I havent owned both, but I have driven both, and echo what Colin said. Mid range the 276 has a small, but noticable, bit more poke, but top end the 296 has it. Not sure if it has more power at the rev limit of the 276, but the extra revs certainly make it better top end. IMO, the best combo would be if you can get the 276 to rev as high as the RevUp with a plenum spacer to up the torque slightly.

 

Also spoke to Phil about it quite a lot and he rated the original 276 for its mid range over the RevUp and its extra bit of power top end. Even said he had owners asking what they could do to up the torque of the 296's before the days of UpRev tuning

[rich5259]

You might want to talk to Ian S16 as well, his has the NISMO ecu and about 20 ft-lb of extra torque across most of the rev range

[sunset350z]

Bennet has the GT4 296bhp and he also has the mrev2 lower collector fitted. That would make another good comparison if Abbey did the tune up on it. If it made good gains then i can see more mrev2's being sold, and spacers, as that improves it again.

[Ebized]

But I have noticed on 'spirited' road driving that the extra revs on 276 does come into its own at the top end.

Should that bit read 296?

 

It does

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

now

[IanS16]

This thread may be of some help to you:

 

viewtopic.php?f=25&t=24431&hilit=+dyno

 

Bennet (GT4Zed) has a revup but it didn't do too good on the last dyno. Think he was testing some stuff out though.

[hbwold]

I have driven both and feel the 276 and 296 are very similar day to day driving, but the 296 does have that extra kick at higher revs when you do use all the rev range.

[GT4 Zed]

Hey Ian,

 

that's not entirely true i made 276Hp and 260llft in weston (with an engine checklight that had been there for over a week ) and was disappointed because i had just put the MREV2 as only performance mod. though the was a nice low to mid range poke of torque probably due to the MREV2

 

Anyway i later on found out that i was running rich and the O2 sensors where knackered. Once these was replaced with bosch items and later had my full exhaust system, Short ram the car made 292HP and 270llft at Alan Jeffery engineering plymouth (also dynodynamic rollers). i have got some more stuff (HFC, y-pipe etc) on the car and still have to put the MD Spacer and race manifold before i run it again on the roller again. Then i'll run it with the Utec for a final definitve comparison. Don't think i wll go FI after all

 

As WRT the difference between both 276 and 296 which i have both owned, i can sum it as follows;

 

276(unmodified)

- Eager to please low down and midrange ( still not as pokey as one would have expected from a 3.5 V6) runs out at very top when you are just about to expect armageddon otherwise an all round good car

 

296 (Unmodified)

makes you work hard to get it meanifull low down poke.....so reluctant if you don't give it the beans!!!! but its on a class of its own from 3500k-4K up to redline..... 3-4 gear A/B rods are dispatched with authority and you feel like a racer and so the the car.....was made for those who wanted more but Nissan fell a tad short and so i when to work on the short commings...

 

(Post modifications)

The MREV 2 certainly bumps up the low-mid range shenanigans and the combo of intake and exhaust mods makes mid-top end more manic and a happy place you want to stay at until you remember your petrol bills and .....licence are at stake.

I suspect strongly and from good authority that when all this it tuned up together with the UTEC there will more to be had

 

I am in with my zed now because it is the car it should have been it the first place with more power(though 350-400hp would have been perfect), better brakes and suspension and purposeful exterior modifications

 

Long live zeddom

[Mark@Abbey m/s]

thanks for that boys , it answer,s the question I had , the Revup motor although it gives a good blast top end over the 276bhp car the mid range torque is in kind words "pants" against a 276bhp car in std or tuned spec.

 

We have a 296bhp car on the dyno at the moment , mild mods Y pipe and exhaust system ( got 5/16 spacer to fit and a pop charger as well), but the mid range torque is down from even a STD 276bhp car , we can pack it out with some mapping but it wont give the figures like a 276bhp car does. ( I will post some comparision dyno sheets soon thou ) tweaking the inlet cam map doesnt help at all with torque so there must be something else holding the car back which leads me onto;

 

So I have been reading up about the MREV2 so I think I will be trying that sometimes very soon , maybe on MrSteve,s race car as the 1st thing he said to me I want more mid range torque.

 

I have a few idea,s that "may" help mostly in the induction of the 296bhp car.

 

I will be back with some more info after a few hours more on the dyno today.

 

GT4 Zed , where are you based in the UK?

 

thanks again boys

[Chris`I]

Cams were one of the parts changed between 276 and 296 cars, as well as the plenum. This would explain why you are seeing a loss of mid range torque and gain of high end RPM from what I've been led to beleive. They sacrificed mid range torque to get higher RPM and higher headline figure, which as we all know isnt what you always want in daily driving

 

Theres lots of info on my350z.com and the likes. When the RevUps came out people started to swap out for the MREV2 lower plenum which I beleive was almost a step back to the older lower plenum, which gave owners something like a few HP loss, but gave back quite a lot of the torque from what I remember. It was a while ago I last read about this so a bit flakey, sorry. At a guess its tuning the inlet tracks back to where they were on the older model which losses high end HP but gains torque. Higher lift/duration cams also aided in getting higher HP and I think some other modifications helped them raise the rev limit.

[Mark@Abbey m/s]

Cams were one of the parts changed between 276 and 296 cars, as well as the plenum. This would explain why you are seeing a loss of mid range torque and gain of high end RPM from what I've been led to beleive. They sacrificed mid range torque to get higher RPM and higher headline figure, which as we all know isnt what you always want in daily driving

 

I think Nissan may tuned the car to make a lower but wider spread of torque but a bigger push top end, this makes a RWD car easier to drive in my eyes. Torque is what makes a car tail happy.Just like Chris has said above.

 

I will look into cams spec,s later on between the 2 cars , the cylinder head sare the same thou bar the extra cam postion sensor dont know about compression thou , also lower collector is different as most prople already know.

 

We may well come up against a wall with finding torque without major engine work, but I do know the car will make a better smoother spread of torque , better throttle response. The fuelling as a std car needs a lot of work.

 

again thanks for the replies.

[rich5259]

how about trying the 313 plenum and dual intakes? or will that not fit on the 296?

[Beavis]

Cams were one of the parts changed between 276 and 296 cars, as well as the plenum.

 

 

Also had revised pistons too

[Mark@Abbey m/s]

Yes I did know about the revisied pistons, but dont know if that is a good thing as the 296bhp cars tend to use more oil than the early 276bhp cars.

 

296bhp ecu cant cope with 2 AFM,s and 2 x TB,s.

 

Havent looked into if the 313bhp ecu will fit in a 296bhp car thou , to be honest to much hassle , sure we can sort it using the whats the cars has fitted just dot the i abd cross the T,s as to speak.

 

Bottom end of the HR motor is far superior to the early engines thou , takes more rev,s.

[GT4 Zed]

Yes I did know about the revisied pistons, but dont know if that is a good thing as the 296bhp cars tend to use more oil than the early 276bhp cars.

 

296bhp ecu cant cope with 2 AFM,s and 2 x TB,s.

 

Havent looked into if the 313bhp ecu will fit in a 296bhp car thou , to be honest to much hassle , sure we can sort it using the whats the cars has fitted just dot the i abd cross the T,s as to speak.

 

Bottom end of the HR motor is far superior to the early engines thou , takes more rev,s.

 

 

Hi mark,

Chris I and Beavis are quite correct except that in the US when the 296 ecu was remapped with the MREVs and MD it made up and more the midrange it lost to the 276 and kept the top end advantage

 

i am based on the M5 as i live between plymouth and worcester and i have been planning a visit but don't want to come empty-handed

 

Would like to have everything on the car so we can compare all variables

cheers

Bennett

[Mark@Abbey m/s]

Cheers for that Bennet, been speaking to my friends in the US , and they say the same re Mrev set up and spacer kit can help gain the mid range torque that the 296bhp car lack.

 

Another thing they say is removing the Cats gain a lot of midrange torque , I am worried that the exhaust noise will become obtrusive. But I do have a set of test pipe shere that we will try on a car very soon.

 

Another item they say is that if you remove the Cats the STD exhaust is pretty good re flow and keeping the noise under control. So something to try soon.

 

I have just finished a tune on a 296bhp car , found 10 bhp top end and torque all throught he rev range.Will stick a post on the Abbey Uprev thread very soon with dyno plots.

 

Also have a dyno plot of a 276 v,s 296 v,s a 313 car which is preety good to look at.

[CaptainSensible]

There's quite a good description on the engine changes on this site:

http://www.worldcarfans.com/10512058208 ... issan-350z

 

"The changes have brought about a slight reduction in peak torque, which has fallen from 363Nm to 353Nm at 4,800rpm. However the revised torque curve is far flatter than before and provides greater torque reserves at higher rpm. Torque delivery in the original 350Z fell off comparatively steeply once that 4,800rpm peak had been reached. In the latest evolution the torque curve remains more linear as engine speeds rise: at 6,000rpm, for example, the new engine delivers a full 20Nm more torque than its predecessor could achieve."