XenonSE-R wrote:the game is changing. This doesn't have to be a bad thing.

Exactly. Here's a great example:

Our Z was parked next to a gorgeous 280ZX at a show last year. Both hoods are open. We're running a RB25, with a few goodies. He's got an L28ET, with a lot of internal work.

Yet, the crowd gathers around the RB25-powered car, like it's some magical unicorn that poops fanboi candy. The guy's L28 makes more power, has more displacement, and would spank our Z (at least in a straight line).

It's all image and perception, and car people need to pull their heads out and realize that the numbers on the fenders mean nothing - it's what happens when you drop the throttle. I don't give a damn if I have 5.7 liters of displacement or 1.8 liters - if I've got the same amount of hp and torque to play with, I'm a happy camper.

Even if this new Z is just as fast as the current 370Z in this configuration... the price is what will make or break it. If they make it a performer in line with the current 370 at BRZ pricing, they will wreck s*** in a very good way.

I'm happy as long as the powerplant isn't QR based.
In fact, I'm almost positive it wouldn't be... which means maybe we'll finally get a new 4 cylinder (NA version?) to replace the QR.

I'm just glad that Nissan might actually be exciting again.

We'll see how it goes, but my expectations are low.

AZhitman wrote:Our Z was parked next to a gorgeous 280ZX at a show last year.

I'm going to stop you right there. No such thing as a gorgeous 280ZX :P

float_6969 wrote:We'll see how it goes, but my expectations are low.

I'm in agreeance here. Nissan has yet to show any motivation to respond to market demands, so I'm pretty trepidatious about this "spiritual successor". It also misses the point of what people have been clammoring for. We still want the Z in all of its pig like glory, but at the same time want a nimble entry car that plays second fiddle to the Z. A tinkerer's toy. I just get the feeling that if Nissan scales down the Z to make it more like the old S-chassis, they're not going to get the reception they want.

Nissan responds to the market, but definitely not the enthusiast market.

Unfortunately, the unwashed masses want tall wagons of every size and variety for f*** knows what reason.

Usually, an automaker will build large quantities of mainstream vehicles to maintain profitability and occasionally fund the development of the kinds of cars that drivers want to buy. You expect that from auto manufacturers because, traditionally, they've been managed by engineers who moved up the ranks and have enthusiasm for great machines.

Even stodgy and bureaucratic GM churned out millions of dreadfully generic Suburbans, Luminas, Malibus, Cavaliers, and Centurys while still continuing to put performance cars like the Solstice GXP/Sky Redline, Corvette, CTS-V, Grand National, Cobalt SS, G8/Commodore, Firebird, and Camaro on the market.


Carlos Ghosn is no engineer. He's a manager and it shows.

Damn,every time i see one of those Murano cabs i want to puke.

Forget wanting to puke. I couldn't for the life of me figure out why a picture of it was posted in this thread, until I read Jesda's post. I would love to see where the data that gave them the go ahead on the cross-cabriolet came from.

On topic: Being that I grew up in a Nissan during the 90's, I've always considered Nissan to be my first love where cars are concerned. So I would love to see this upcoming concept actually make it to production without being severely watered down. As far as styling goes, I would like to see an aggressive design without the use of a million and one lines, because that only makes the car look confused rather than futuristic or even sporty. I too, along with a few others here, would love for the current Z to remain in all its "pig like glory", but can accept a smaller one (I don't see why) with a turbo 4 making good power.

dre1507 wrote:Forget wanting to puke. I couldn't for the life of me figure out why a picture of it was posted in this thread, until I read Jesda's post. I would love to see where the data that gave them the go ahead on the cross-cabriolet came from.

There was no market research. Ghosn's wife wanted one so he made it happen.

Jesda wrote:

dre1507 wrote:Forget wanting to puke. I couldn't for the life of me figure out why a picture of it was posted in this thread, until I read Jesda's post. I would love to see where the data that gave them the go ahead on the cross-cabriolet came from.

There was no market research. Ghosn's wife wanted one so he made it happen.

I can believe that. Absolutely. A group of women (Ghosn's wife included) fresh out of mid-life crisis, cruising down the highway wreaking havoc in their minivan-sized sports car.

The execution was bad... he should have just paid for a one-off.

I actually saw someone in a Murano cross-cab. I wanted to stop her and shake her violently yelling "WHY DO YOU HATE HUMANITY SO?"

Hijacker wrote:I actually saw someone in a Murano cross-cab. I wanted to stop her and shake her violently yelling "WHY DO YOU HATE HUMANITY SO?"

PapaSmurf2k3 wrote:The execution was bad... he should have just paid for a one-off.

but then my landlord couldn't have one.

frapjap wrote:

but then my landlord couldn't have one.

exactly. And everyone would be better off because of it.

Getting rid of them would probably be the biggest single thing we could do to stem Bulimia in this country.

So, the 2013 Tokyo Auto Show? November 20 to December 1? I was planning to be Stateside for Thanksgiving but now...

Seriously, they can call it a BRZ competitor. I'm cool with that. Because I'd buy a BRZ over a 370Z any day of the week. I'd buy a BRZ and a half for the same price and call it a trailer. This is legitimately exciting, because by the time whatever it is hits the market and gets its first-year kinks worked out, I might actually be geographically settled and in a car-buying mood.

float_6969 wrote: Don't get me wrong, 320Hp is nothing to scoff at....until you remember that is a step BACKWARDS in horsepower... and undoubtedly torque. Unless there is an electric motor attached to the 4 cylinder, that thing is NOT going to have the powerband that a V6 does, and even if it's lighter than the 370, I'll bet at best it's just as fast, but will likely be slower.

Not necessarily. My Focus makes 252 HP but 270 ft-lbs of torque out of a 2.0L turbo I4. Depending on displacement, direct injection, etc. you can get some very respectable numbers out of a turbo four-banger.

AZhitman wrote:I don't give a damn if I have 5.7 liters of displacement or 1.8 liters - if I've got the same amount of hp and torque to play with, I'm a happy camper.

There's more to an engine than power and torque. Not sure when everyone suddenly forgot that.

Refinement matters. Period. I'm not against downsizing. I'm against downGRADING. Fours need balance shafts and other compensation for their inferior design to work even slightly well.

I just can't get onboard with an unrefined FORMAT of engine as the whole future of everything automotive. Decrease displacement all you want. Leave the cylinder count alone.

Loki wrote:

float_6969 wrote: Don't get me wrong, 320Hp is nothing to scoff at....until you remember that is a step BACKWARDS in horsepower... and undoubtedly torque. Unless there is an electric motor attached to the 4 cylinder, that thing is NOT going to have the powerband that a V6 does, and even if it's lighter than the 370, I'll bet at best it's just as fast, but will likely be slower.

Not necessarily. My Focus makes 252 HP but 270 ft-lbs of torque out of a 2.0L turbo I4. Depending on displacement, direct injection, etc. you can get some very respectable numbers out of a turbo four-banger.

There is a big difference between 250hp and 320hp. Because this is an OEM, they're either going to have to increase the displacement of the engine (this equates to more NVH because 4 cyls are inherently vibrating messes because they're not balanced) or run a bigger turbo (more lag). I'm pretty familiar with the latest engine technologies available, and making a 4cyl behave like a v6, although POSSIBLE, is expensive. And there is only so much you can do to "fix" the NVH of a 4 cyl.

If I had my way, it would have a modern I6 in it for the ultimate in smoothness, but too much legislation has probably made the I6 in general go the way of the dinosaur.

The Z has always been a 6. I would have liked for it to have stayed an I6, but was willing to accept the V6, as Nissan did a hell of a job with it, especially in the VG series. Turbo 4's are for the S-chassis cars.

I think Nissan is trying to fill both shoes of the BRZ competitor and the Z.... which equates to bean counters being involved...and bean counters should be relegated to cars like the Altima/Versa/Sentra/etc where their castration techniques don't matter. LEAVE THE FUN CARS ALONE! Bean counters are like a drunk fat girl at a party talking about her abortions. Nobody is enjoying themselves once that s*** starts...

MinisterofDOOM wrote:

AZhitman wrote:I don't give a damn if I have 5.7 liters of displacement or 1.8 liters - if I've got the same amount of hp and torque to play with, I'm a happy camper.

There's more to an engine than power and torque. Not sure when everyone suddenly forgot that.

Refinement matters. Period. I'm not against downsizing. I'm against downGRADING. Fours need balance shafts and other compensation for their inferior design to work even slightly well.

I just can't get onboard with an unrefined FORMAT of engine as the whole future of everything automotive. Decrease displacement all you want. Leave the cylinder count alone.

Our 263-hp Speed3 makes all the right noises, idles smoothly, and has an angry, aggressive roar under load at 3/4 throttle. I don't care if it has 17 neon-colored balance shafts that periodically pop out of the oil cap like a Whack-A-Mole game, as long as it does its job without pissing me off. Not sure what else an engine needs to do, besides move the attached car and occupants forward (preferably with a quickness).

The biggest hurdle to putting an I6 in any modern automobile is packaging.

The 1.8 in our Miatas (03 and 97) is rough and crude, though the power is easily accessible. The 2.0L turbo in my old Saab has a smooth, pleasing buzz, but everything about that car is odd so it really can't be mentioned in the same context.

BMW's 320i received less than stellar reviews recently because of the turbo-4's noticeable lack of refinement, something you expect (and pay extra for) in a BMW. In a Mazda, Ford, Honda, Toyota, or Chevy it's something you can overlook in favor of power and economy. Saabs from the mid 90s through early 2000s (when they still used homegrown Swedish engines) went the extra mile to keep the angry bees muted. The GM Ecotec that replaced them was noticeably less refined though it was much more dependable.

I'm curious to see how the 4-banger feels in the new Mercedes CLA.

Jesda wrote:The biggest hurdle to putting an I6 in any modern automobile is packaging.

Exactly. The restrictions of new pedestrian safety standards, coupled with NHTSA standards for lighting, bumper height, crashworthiness, aerodynamics, etc, all conspire to limit what can go under the hood. A straight six just doesn't lend itself to easy design (or safety).

Frankly, a 350-hp, small-displacement, direct-injected high-compression turbocharged 4-cylinder with supplemental hybrid power isn't an impossible feat. They're ready to roll.

AZhitman wrote:as long as it does its job without pissing me off

And this is exactly my point. I'm still waiting for that magical engine to happen. BMW and Cadillac's fours that were supposed to be the second coming of Nickolaus Otto himself are not. Even the early praise for it has been replaced with mere tolerance. They're good, for fours. But they're not what anyone really wants. Not when there's a six that does all the same things and more. Sure, I'll go drive a 2.0 ATS and not be disappointed. But I'll also drive a 3.6 ATS and be far more impressed. And I could drive a 2 liter 3 series, too. But why? When I can drive the demonstrably superior 3 liter instead?

I'm waiting for the mystical "every bit as good as a six" four cylinder to happen. I will not be holding my breath. I might eat some barbecued Unicorn in the meantime, though.

The 3.6 in the CTS is an impressive powerplant...

I just realized we're going to need to split off all the off-topic chatter in this thread!

Indeed, neither the 2.0T or the 2.5 offered in the ATS are anywhere near as good as the 3.6, though the 3.6 is unusually nice.

The 2.5 NA I4 is a crude turd destined for rental fleets.

Jesda wrote:
The 1.8 in our Miatas (03 and 97) is rough and crude

I think that every time I get in my Prelude after driving the miata for a while.

AZhitman wrote:

MinisterofDOOM wrote:
There's more to an engine than power and torque. Not sure when everyone suddenly forgot that.

Refinement matters. Period. I'm not against downsizing. I'm against downGRADING. Fours need balance shafts and other compensation for their inferior design to work even slightly well.

I just can't get onboard with an unrefined FORMAT of engine as the whole future of everything automotive. Decrease displacement all you want. Leave the cylinder count alone.

Our 263-hp Speed3 makes all the right noises, idles smoothly, and has an angry, aggressive roar under load at 3/4 throttle. I don't care if it has 17 neon-colored balance shafts that periodically pop out of the oil cap like a Whack-A-Mole game, as long as it does its job without pissing me off. Not sure what else an engine needs to do, besides move the attached car and occupants forward (preferably with a quickness).

I'm very much in this boat. In my earlier years I would get hung up on semantics and crap (oh, a motor has to have this and this and this, blah blah blha), when all that really matters is the following:
-Does it go like hell
-Does it NOT break every year/month/day
-Does it make awesome noises
-Does it make you smile

flohtingPoint wrote:

AZhitman wrote:
Our 263-hp Speed3 makes all the right noises, idles smoothly, and has an angry, aggressive roar under load at 3/4 throttle. I don't care if it has 17 neon-colored balance shafts that periodically pop out of the oil cap like a Whack-A-Mole game, as long as it does its job without pissing me off. Not sure what else an engine needs to do, besides move the attached car and occupants forward (preferably with a quickness).

I'm very much in this boat. In my earlier years I would get hung up on semantics and crap (oh, a motor has to have this and this and this, blah blah blha), when all that really matters is the following:
-Does it go like hell
-Does it NOT break every year/month/day
-Does it make awesome noises
-Does it make you smile