Nissan Murano Forum banner

Chip Tuning for Murano?

  • Somebody can help me finding a chip tuning for the Murano?

    Votes: 1 33.3%
  • engine modifications for Murano?

    Votes: 2 66.7%
1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Well I serf several hours in the net I cannot believe that I could not find a chip tuning modifications for a Nissan Murano 03, not even in Japan. Somebody has an idea why there is not such a SW modification? In theory the 350Z and the Murano have the same engine the VQ35DE, same bore & stoke95.5 x 81.4, same compression ration 10.3 to 1 etc….The 305Z should have more HP (287 Vs 266) than torque is a Car not an SUV. However, I do not understand why there is still a difference in torque figures 274 the 350Z against 261 of the Murano. Is it a different Camshaft, or just SW of the ECM? Somebody can help me finding a chip tuning for the Murano?

Thanks

Rocco
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,280 Posts
This has sort of been discussed before. I think that is the limitation of the CVT and not the engine. Just like MO's top speed (118 mph) because the OEM tires are not designed to go faster than that, again, a limitation of the tire and not the MO.
 

·
SHIFT_FASTER
Joined
·
1,437 Posts
But it's been stated that the CVT is designed for a max torque equivalent to what the Murano produces. It WILL shorten the life of the transmission, and at a cost of $6000 plus labour for a new one, do you really want to risk it?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Wondering if the transverse/FWD config of the Murano vs. the inline/RWD on the Z might let the latter engine breathe a little better. However, RWD setups do tend to have more drivetrain loss so that extra 13ft-lb of torque at the crank may be a smaller difference at the wheels. :8:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Thanks to all for the answers. I am not very familiar with the forums format replay:
1) The tires are not an issue, replace them.
2) In theory if SW is correct, and specifically made for MO's technosquare should make an increase in HP at top RPM not the Torque all over the RPM for not damaging the CVT. On top of this usually the manufacturers do not make transmission with such slim margin for power and torque gains 5%. I am quite sure that the transmission it should handle much power and torque. If this is the case I am quite disappointed with Nissan!!! All transmission must be rated for more power and torque otherwise it would be a very weak point. What do you think??
3) I agree the AWD should andle more Power but have more Power loss a the wheels

Thanks

Rocco
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
792 Posts
Pazz - because Americans like to hold others accountable for our misfortune - Nissan's lawyers (as well as other car makers) require the speed to be limited to whatever the rating of the tire is. It sure would suck to have a blow out at 120mph.

As far as chip tuning - I prefer to have a bit more torque lower in the RPM curve. I don't spend much time driving around at/above 4500 rpm. The average person probably doesn't either. Give me off idle torque over high HP at high RPM any day.
 

·
SHIFT_FASTER
Joined
·
1,437 Posts
Bateman said:
Wondering if the transverse/FWD config of the Murano vs. the inline/RWD on the Z might let the latter engine breathe a little better. However, RWD setups do tend to have more drivetrain loss so that extra 13ft-lb of torque at the crank may be a smaller difference at the wheels. :8:
Based on what I've read, the 350Z has a poorly designed intake plenum that gives more air to 3 othe the cylinders in order to fit the plenum under the hood. According to one source this results in about 20hp being lost.
 

·
SHIFT_FASTER
Joined
·
1,437 Posts
pazz said:
Thanks to all for the answers. I am not very familiar with the forums format replay:
1) The tires are not an issue, replace them.
2) In theory if SW is correct, and specifically made for MO's technosquare should make an increase in HP at top RPM not the Torque all over the RPM for not damaging the CVT. On top of this usually the manufacturers do not make transmission with such slim margin for power and torque gains 5%. I am quite sure that the transmission it should handle much power and torque. If this is the case I am quite disappointed with Nissan!!! All transmission must be rated for more power and torque otherwise it would be a very weak point. What do you think??
3) I agree the AWD should andle more Power but have more Power loss a the wheels

Thanks

Rocco
The AWD will not have more power loss under normal conditions, because it's part time, as in off unless there's tire slippage at the front.

The TechnoSquare ECU was designed like the rest of the ones for the VQ35DE engine, and not specifically for the Murano. It has power increases from 0 to the increased redline of 7100. Personally, I'll take that extra torque, and if I feel it's risky to the transmission, I'll go easy until I reach a certain speed, say 35mph.

This is not a case where you have to lose low RPM torque to gain high RPM horsepower. They could increase the power at RPMs above say 4000, and leave the lower end alone. This would probably be a good compromise between longevity and performance. I'll take the performance anyway, thank you. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
GMTURBO43 said:
Pazz - because Americans like to hold others accountable for our misfortune - Nissan's lawyers (as well as other car makers) require the speed to be limited to whatever the rating of the tire is. It sure would suck to have a blow out at 120mph.

As far as chip tuning - I prefer to have a bit more torque lower in the RPM curve. I don't spend much time driving around at/above 4500 rpm. The average person probably doesn't either. Give me off idle torque over high HP at high RPM any day.
GMTURBO- In most of the cases I would say that quite am unfortunate to live in Mexico. However for this particular question regarding speed limits, and tires blowing at 120 MPH, as you are probably aware there is no real speed limit neither control on tires in Mexico.

Regarding torque I also rather have more torque in lower RMP, but to me it seems crazy but I would rather say unrealistic that the transmission cannot handle it, it is just a tiny bit 5-10 % more. Do not you agree with me , came on the Nissan Engineering team did not have even a 5-10% margin on the safe side for the transmission… I do not believe it!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,402 Posts
pazz said:


GMTURBO- In most of the cases I would say that quite am unfortunate to live in Mexico. However for this particular question regarding speed limits, and tires blowing at 120 MPH, as you are probably aware there is no real speed limit neither control on tires in Mexico.

Regarding torque I also rather have more torque in lower RMP, but to me it seems crazy but I would rather say unrealistic that the transmission cannot handle it, it is just a tiny bit 5-10 % more. Do not you agree with me , came on the Nissan Engineering team did not have even a 5-10% margin on the safe side for the transmission… I do not believe it!
Its not that the transmission cannot handle it, its just that the life of the transmission is based on the collective load on the CVT belt. More torque = shorter belt life. How much, no one knows.

As for tires, the Murano comes with T-rated tires in North America I believe, and thats limited to 118mph. The ECU has a limiter at 116mph, at which point fuel shutoff occurs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,092 Posts
Fuel shutoff? You mean if I got that fast the engine dies? Do you mean throttle limited or set to maintain 118 MPH?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,402 Posts
Gonzo said:
Fuel shutoff? You mean if I got that fast the engine dies? Do you mean throttle limited or set to maintain 118 MPH?

ECU shuts down the fuel injectors so you cannot accelerate anymore. Its sort of like a rev limiter, except its speed based.
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top