flohtingPoint wrote:
Or Lamborghini, or Porsche as they have AWD/4WD options. Or the Veyron.

Does Lambo or Porsche make a FWD? How about Veyron? Is AWD or 4WD the same thing as FWD? Are any of those examples affordable? No to all of the above? Ok, just checking.

The topic is AFFORDABLE RWD Sports Car guys. Stay focused. We don't want Nissan to build another FWD car, they have enough of those already.

flohtingPoint wrote: Or Lamborghini, or Porsche as they have AWD/4WD options. Or the Veyron.

Right.

I think the definition of a "sports car" has been muddied over the years, and now seem to include (any wheel drive) sporty coupes like a 240sx or Prelude.

WDRacing wrote:

flohtingPoint wrote:
Or Lamborghini, or Porsche as they have AWD/4WD options. Or the Veyron.

Does Lambo or Porsche make a FWD? How about Veyron? Is AWD or 4WD the same thing as FWD? Are any of those examples affordable? No to all of the above? Ok, just checking.

The topic is AFFORDABLE RWD Sports Car guys. Stay focused. We don't want Nissan to build another FWD car, they have enough of those already.

I refer you to your previous quote.

Sports cars are RWD...period.

You've just been told four models that are sports cars and not RWD.

Honestly, drivetrain has little to do with a lot of things if the vehicle is good (think EF Civic). Nissan shouldn't build another terrible FWD car, but I would welcome something competent, regardless of whatever wheel drive it is.

Joel is also seriously spot on, the term "Sports Car" has been pretty much destroyed.

I'll concede that AWD and 4wd can be applied to a sports car. However, the vast majority are rwd. When I think about any model Civic, I don't think sports car.

What we want is a rwd sports car...hence the title

I agree that the definition of sports car is blurry. The Camaro, the Z, the Stang and the RX7 all scream sports car when you see one. That's what I'm looking for, something that says sports car. Just my .02

WDRacing wrote:I'll concede that AWD and 4wd can be applied to a sports car. However, the vast majority are rwd. When I think about any model Civic, I don't think sports car.

What we want is a rwd sports car...hence the title

I agree that the definition of sports car is blurry. The Camaro, the Z, the Stang and the RX7 all scream sports car when you see one. That's what I'm looking for, something that says sports car. Just my .02

EF Civic is definitely not a sports car, I was just giving an example of a FWD car that is extremely competent. Stang/Camaro are not sports cars either, both have back seats.

An inspired product from Nissan would be nice, but I think you'll see a lot more iterations of the same stuff they've been putting out at the 20k range before they give us something below the 370Z.

I don't think you can say a backseat removes the vehicle from sports car status. Especially since the rear seats are hardly even useable. Example, the RX7 FD.

What I should have said earlier was sports cars aren't fwd.

Not to go down the rabbit hole, but...

BMW M3, Nissan GT-R, Ferrari FF, Cadillac CTS-V Coupe, Mustang Boss 302, and the McLaren F1 are all examples of track-proven cars feature a back seat. Not sure that you'd call any of these sports cars though

Back on topic -

PapaSmurf2k3 wrote:Supposedly Nissan has stated it'll be a polarizing "you'll either love it or hate it" type design, and that it isn't meant to compete with the BRZ/FRS (so maybe it'll be FWD or something).

Sounds like another version of the Juke. lol.

Basically yes. Hell, it'll probably even be based on the same chassis (although as Greg pointed out in this thread or another, Nissan is horrible at parts commonization so very little will probably be directly swappable).

flohtingPoint wrote:
EF Civic is definitely not a sports car, I was just giving an example of a FWD car that is extremely competent. Stang/Camaro are not sports cars either, both have back seats.

So in the same sense my 2+2 twin turbo 300zx (from factory) isn't a true sports car because its a 2+2??
I think that the definition of a sports car has been diluted as well, but not in a bad way. I believe it's been broadened in a sense with how far forward cars and technology has come. I will however never see a fwd as any form of a sports car (I'm looking at you prelude).

WDRacing wrote:I don't think you can say a backseat removes the vehicle from sports car status. Especially since the rear seats are hardly even useable. Example, the RX7 FD.

What I should have said earlier was sports cars aren't fwd.

Actually a back seat does technically remove the vehicle from a being a sports car. That is, if you subscribe to the traditional definition. The drive wheels and performance are considered irrelevant, but the back seat is very relevant, even if they are all-but unuseable. Of course nowadays, many believe a "sports car" is anything that's sporty. Heck, Nissan tried to market a FWD/CVT only/4door family sedan as a "4 door sports car". Is it a good thing to have such a muddied definition of a sports car? Depends. If you own a Mustang or Prelude and want to believe it's a sports car, then it's good. But if you're a purist, then it's probably not so good.

The Z32 is a Grand Tourer. Always has been.

Along with most of Ferrari, Maserati, Aston Martin, and Lamborghini. A true sports car doesn't have all the luxury crap that most cars have now. If you want a true sports car in modern times, you'll end up in a Koenigsegg or a Noble, or a stripped down bare bones car, like an Ariel Atom. Of course, Ferrari and Lamborghini still claim to be sports cars, but they are, and have been, Grand Tourers for quite a while now.

GTs have their engines in front. If we're getting semantic.

True. So what would a modern Ferrari be classified as?

$150,000.00 turds of speed

supercars.

Bear in mind that sports cars can be designed for "sport" in a broad, more english sense of the word. A gentleman's dangerous (but luxurious) weekend leisure can be sport, as much as driving around traffic cones in a parking lot can be sport.

Being late to the game and having to catch up on all ten pages of reading, this thread brings up some interesting thoughts. First, the decision making at Nissan is very much driven by current thinking in metrics, generational buying tendencies and other data-driven information points. While we as enthusiasts may critisize that thinking (rather than just listening to us...), it's what most current full-line, mass car companies do.

Consider that as far back as 1996 (while attending the SCCA Runoffs as a competitor), NNA officials told us not to expect Nissan back...ever. The company was that close to going under. Combine that with the ensuing exodus from SoCal shortly after Carlos Ghosn came to the fore and the resulting reconstruction of Nissan NA in Nashville. The company has essentially been rebuilt from management on down, even as the few SoCal refugees left enter retirement.

What's this got to do with Nissan developing an affordable RWD sportscar? Nissan engineers can certainly accomplish that goal. The level of engineering excellence in the company remains high and are second to none when given the right design specs. But such recent turmoil can't be easy for NNA product planners, managers and staff assigned to bring new product to market. They've certainly hit the mark in terms of sales and making money for the company in the majority of cases. Yes, we can talk about Cube or Murano CC sales until we're blue in the face, but those are the outliers.

The tricky thing about planning a new model is managing risk. I'd suggest that the odds of a new S16 coming to market in the next few years is a balancing act for the team at Nissan. Sure, there's a limited market (right now) for this segment, but American's appetite for crossovers continues at such a frenzied pace that Nissan can't help but look at this ample opportunity and hit it with everything they have! There's also the new Z coming down the line and whether Nissan wants to return to its 240Z roots with an affordable, RWD, manual tranny option sportscar or take it further up market. This decision will have a huge effect on what a future 240SX will, or won't be.

I don't pretend to have any of the answers to any of this. But it is revealing to read the diversity of opinion expressed in this thread. Hopefully, Nissan will continue to recognize that enthusiasts come with a lot of passion (both positive and negative) on the subject. Nissan enthusiasts (and count me in as one of the biggest) in particular are both fans and ardent critics. We're also that demographic who can impact sales in so many ways.

Awesome to hear Dave's 2 cents on this matter... if anyone has his finger on the pulse of Nissan and their history of sports cars, he's the guy.

Side note: Keep this topic on track, please. Swordfighting about semantics can be done elsewhere - it's a big forum.

That's a realistic look at things.

But one thing that you don't mention, and that car companies no longer seem to see, is that THEY have a huge amount to do with driving the market, determining what's popular and who's into cars, and all that sort of thing. They help chisel out the car market, there is no innate human NEED of cars, and if the cars are not desirable people won't choose to spend extra money to drive for fun.....

If you follow the safest choice forever, you kill your own market down to a more bare level, you might sell the most crossovers, but nobody will sell as many fun cars.

As for crossovers, that's one I don't understand, because they make me puke in my mouth.

It's true, nissan's made an amazing comeback, but not a balanced one. They've jumped headlong into flashy soccer-practice-mobiles. Z's are neat, but a lame single point in a sports car range, and the GTR.... on one hand, it's a supercar, on the other, it's a bit lame for the price, and it's totally irellivent to most people, it's a gimmick, and a gimmick isn't supposed to be that freaking ugly, it took the classic skyline ques and made them boring looking.

All I can say is this:

I'm a real big fan of a minimalist car... not necessarily feature-wise, but dimensionally. In other words, if the back seat is vestigal at best, ditch it and shorten the wheelbase 6". If the overhangs are empty space for styling purposes, ditch them - even at the expense of appearance. If the roof is 5" above my ball cap, drop it 4".

The most beautiful designs, in my opinion, are the ones that take the necessities and wrap the sheetmetal taut over them. No unnecessary voids, spaces or cavities.

It's no secret, I prefer a small vehicle - the smaller the better. Maneuverability and agility are SO much more important to me than comfort or roominess. As long as I fit in it, and it handles great, I can overlook a lack of power. It seems silly to haul around all that extra weight / space when my primary purpose for a vehicle is to get ME from Point A to Point B safely, and hopefully, enjoyably.

With all that said, it takes us right back to the FR-S / BRZ - Those cars fit the bill.

AZhitman wrote:
With all that said, it takes us right back to the FR-S / BRZ - Those cars fit the bill.

Yes they do fit, as does the Miata. Hopefully Nissan will do it right, and not offer a FWD, CVT only crossover and attempt to label it a sports car.

That Foria concept car IMHO would have been a good chassis to build off of, but the styling sucked. I'd like to see something similar, but blend some styling from the essence and esflow concepts, not from the Juke, or Cube. The nismo leaf rc styling was decent also.

Speaking of the Miata (which is in the segment relevant to which the Nissan FR car would slot), Alfa Romeo and Mazda are co-developing the next Miata.

I know this has been mentioned before, but I think this could further fuel the idea of Nissan pairing up with Honda and co-developing a car. I would consider that combined force able to produce something that could absolutely crush the competition. Honda needs to revive something like the S2000 and they could share the R&D with Nissan as Subaru and Toyota did. Nissan engine and Honda transmission (I have driven an S2000 - the shifter action and overall transmission experience/performance was wonderful on it.)

If Nissan would just reverse engineer a Miata and use their 1.8T motor they'd be good to go.

IMHO, they don't need to engineer a new engine. They have one, that will take little to convert for RWD use. I think the current MR engine series could easily be used on this platform (MR20DDT anyone?). I can't image designing a bellhousing to use the Z34 trans could be that hard for Nissan as well as using the Z34 rear subframe. Simple Mac Pherson strut in the front, get some styling that doesn't make people throw up in their mouths, and I'll bet at least 10% of this forum will buy the car.

float_6969 wrote:IMHO, they don't need to engineer a new engine. They have one, that will take little to convert for RWD use. I think the current MR engine series could easily be used on this platform (MR20DDT anyone?).

Agreed! It's a shame that Nissan's first decent 4-cylinder in a decade or more is being relegated to hotted-up crossovers.

I'd prefer NOT MacPherson struts, though.

No one PREFERS a MacPherson, LOL! But for the sake of cost, I would accept it. I think we could all agree on a double wishbone front suspension, but now you're into Z territory and using an S-chassis style front end suspension would easily cut a good chunk of the cost of the car. And if it's not 4x4 status like the S13 and S14 were, then it won't suck as much because it won't need lowered as much.

I've been sitting here watching this space and all I see is space.

Rev_D21 wrote:I've been sitting here watching this space and all I see is space.

Someone said what we all are thinking.

I've seen a new Juke, a new Murano concept, a Versa hatchback, and an odd a** brazilian crossover since I was told to watch this space

float_6969 wrote:No one PREFERS a MacPherson, LOL! But for the sake of cost, I would accept it.

You can do DWB and have it still be fairly inexpensive and move mass lower on the chassis, Chevy has been doing it for quite some time now, you'd just have to accept a transverse leafspring. Heck, you can even adjust the ride height in stock format and dial in a decent amount of camber.

Something I wish car companies would do to cut costs is stop having cars run these obnoxiously huge wheels. They make sport tires in 15's, pretty good sport tires too, go back to that. They'd be cutting costs while cutting rotational mass and unsprung weight, win/win.