 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / General Car Topics / October 2007Nissan Z, step aside
Nissan Z, step aside Lindsay Chappell Automotive News October 24, 2007 - 6:22 am ET Details of a supercar Nissan's GT-R will include: 480 hp 3.8-liter twin-turbo V6 Dual-clutch transmission Independent transaxle 4-wheel-drive Free annual engine and transmission tuning for three years Base price (Japanese market): $67,800 TOKYO-Nissan Motor Co. has entered the world of testosterone-fueled supercars with the unveiling here today of its new GT-R sports car. The car's expected $67,000 price tag will double the price of the brand's current sportscar offering, the 350Z, and triple the price of its best-selling Altima family sedan. The GT-R will reach U.S. dealerships next June with a new 480-horsepower engine, specially designed 20-inch racing tires, and two extra coats of paint. The car's uniquely designed powertrain system rests the engine over the front axle and the transmission over the rear axle in order to dampen vibration at speeds of up to 180 miles an hour. It will require U.S. dealer service technicians to travel to Japan for two weeks of training to become certified to work on the model. An automaker that was on the doorstep of bankruptcy seven years ago, Nissan has been developing the GT-R under closely guarded security for the past four years. Today at the Tokyo Motor Show today, Nissan CEO Carlos Ghosn introduced the GT-R as Nissan's new technology flagship. "This is no mere muscle car," Ghosn told a crowded audience of mostly Asian and European journalists here. "We wanted to make a car that stretched our engineering abilities to the limit." As far as sales go, the GT-R will barely make a blip on Ghosn's global three-year push for 600,000 new Nissan sales. The Japanese production line created to build the GT-R will only turn out 30 to 50 cars a day-a capacity of just 12,000 globally. But Ghosn believes the supercar will stimulate sales floor traffic in Nissan dealerships around the world. He said the company has already sold out the first three months worth of GT-R production, and orders are coming from markets as far-flung as Russia and Qatar. U.S. pricing on the car has not been announced. >Nissan's GT-R will include: > >480 hp 3.8-liter twin-turbo V6 That's a deal-breaker right there. Well, that and the price. :) Why deal with turbo lag, engine parts that glow bright orange after you drive your car and melt if you don't cool them down properly when you can just get a larger NA engine? >Dual-clutch transmission > >Independent transaxle 4-wheel-drive > >Free annual engine and transmission tuning for three years Ha! That means the car NEEDS regular tuning in order to remain streetable. What happens after the warranty runs out? Do I need to hire my own full-time personal mechanic? No, thanks - just give me a Z-06. :) > On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:53:18 -0400, "C. E. White" > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > you drive your car and melt if you don't cool them down properly when > you can just get a larger NA engine? I was thinking something completely different; why would you have a V-6 when both Nissan and Toyota in the past have had perfectly good I-6 designs that they chose not to develop and/or replace with updated versions of the same architecture. Guess I have to buy a Bimmer to get my fix of creamy smooth I-6 goodness (Ford pickup technically qualifies but is not nearly as satisfying.) Or find an old Supra that hasn't been "Fast and Furioused" to death. Or an original Z-car, or Triumph TR-6... (I'd be happy with any, probably...) Drive a VW with the 1.8T engine (I guess now it's a 2.0T) and you will begin worshipping at the Church of Forced Induction. That sucker has a torque curve that looks like my kitchen table. It is, indeed, a beautiful thing. I hope my mom gets sick of my old car soon so I can buy it back :) Of course this new GT-R is going to never be imported to the US (case in point, the previous Skyline GT-R) so any praises or complaints are really academic at this point. Also, to respond to the initial article - isn't the Z a little porky to be considered a "sports car?" I'd consider it a 2-person GT myself. It's a nice car, don't get me wrong, but it just doesn't push my "sports car" buttons. nate > get my fix of creamy smooth I-6 goodness (Ford pickup technically > qualifies but is not nearly as satisfying.) Ford quit selling an I-6 in pickups a decade ago. The last application was 1996 F250 2WD. I had a 4.9L I-6 in my 1992 F150 - great engine, but it made the truck very nose heavy. You can still get an I-6 diesel in a Dodge pickup truck. GM sells a DOHC I-6 in the intermediate sized SUVs (TrailBlazer etc.). Ed On Oct 25, 7:18 am, "C. E. White" <cewhi...@removemindspring.com> wrote: > > get my fix of creamy smooth I-6 goodness (Ford pickup technically > > qualifies but is not nearly as satisfying.) [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Ed Yeah, all of my vehicles (save for the company car) are well broken in :) nate ewhi...@mindspring.com> wrote: > > Nissan's GT-R will include: Free annual engine and transmission tuning for three years > > Ha! That means the car NEEDS regular tuning in order to remain > streetable. Spurious conclusion; it may require that tuning to maintain peak performance Or not. It may require no tuning and the warranty is mere marketing for those who don't know sh.t about turbos. Or not. It may require tuning to maintain optimum fuel efficiency. Or not. It may require no tuning and Nissan may just want to monitor those components. Or not. It may require no tuning and Nissan is involved in a conspiracy to download your driving data and provide it to law enforcement.... > What happens after the warranty runs out? Nothing, probably, or maybe it explodes. > Do I need to > hire my own full-time personal mechanic? Did somebody indicate it's manufactured by Jaguar...? ----- - gpsman > ewhi...@mindspring.com> wrote: > > > Nissan's GT-R will include: Free annual engine and transmission tuning for three years [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Spurious conclusion Predictability, thy name is GPStroll. I figure Scott probably knows as much if not far, far more about the vehicle under discussion than your dumb a.s, so why did you bother to post? just to be an a.shole? Oh, wait, that was a dumb question. nate >> ewhi...@mindspring.com> wrote: >> > > Nissan's GT-R will include: Free annual engine and transmission tuning for three years [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Oh, wait, that was a dumb question. Now THAT conclusion was most definitely not "spurious." More like "obvious." :) >>480 hp 3.8-liter twin-turbo V6 > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >you drive your car and melt if you don't cool them down properly when >you can just get a larger NA engine? Apparently you haven't driven any modern, cooled, high power turbo's. With a 3.8L there will be more than enough takeoff torque and the (modern design, and especially twin) turbo will kick in plenty soon. A good turbo driver will have it spinning off the line and the challenge will be keeping the wheels down rather than generating power. Nothing glows anymore and nothing melts or requires specific cool down. I think you need to drive a newer turbo for a few days and appreciate what it adds. >>>480 hp 3.8-liter twin-turbo V6 >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Apparently you haven't driven any modern, cooled, high power turbo's. You're right, I haven't. But I was thinking of test-driving a 335i in the next few days. >With a 3.8L there will be more than enough takeoff torque and the >(modern design, and especially twin) turbo will kick in plenty soon. A >good turbo driver will have it spinning off the line and the challenge >will be keeping the wheels down rather than generating power. There's no question a turbo will generate power at higher revs. The question is, given all the drawbacks, what's the advantage of a smaller turbocharged engine vs. a larger, normally-aspirated engine? Sure, you save a little weight, but is that worth all the hassles? >Nothing glows anymore and nothing melts or requires specific cool >down. My understanding is that the cool-down is still necessary, but the cars just come with "turbo timers" to take care of the cool-down automatically, making the process less error-prone. >I think you need to drive a newer turbo for a few days and >appreciate what it adds. Got one to loan me? :) >>With a 3.8L there will be more than enough takeoff torque and the >>(modern design, and especially twin) turbo will kick in plenty soon. A [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >smaller turbocharged engine vs. a larger, normally-aspirated engine? >Sure, you save a little weight, but is that worth all the hassles? Most turbo's today blow heavy by about 2K RPM, so it's really not "higher revs" anymore. Once you are off the line, it's cranking. I have to admit, it took me over a year to figure out how to have it blowing as you take off. When you first drive most turbo's you worry about things like pulling out across traffic safely. It's also worth noting that most turbo cars today actually have the boost tuned down in 1st and 2nd gear by the factory to reduce wheel spin and make the cars more like NA cars. That can be "corrected" through hardware or software. I confess to not checking out this particular car in detail but most twin setups are not usually what you'd expect - that is, they are not two matching turbos, one on each manifold. One turbo can produce way more boost than you can use on the street. But, the bigger the turbo, the more spin up required. So most twin turbos usually have a small turbo and a large turbo. The small one spins up very fast (but runs out of boost), the big one spins up slower but generates lots of boost. While a single turbo car these days does compromise a little, most stock turbos and injectors can easily produce 100->125hp/liter with limited/reasonable spin up time. Back to your question "is it worth the hassle?". Traditionally, the turbo will get better mileage than the non-turbo for the same amount of power as it is more efficient. Also, they aren't really very complicated. Every car is already fuel injected and run by a computer metering fuel and/or air these days. Engine controls throw feedback to the computer and it adjusts. Same old thing. The turbo system just adds a little plumbing and a couple more controls. It's actually very simple and easy to get your hands around. I think the real draw is the incredible torque in mid to upper range. With most NA engines I've driven, they can pull pretty hard but the pull is fairly straight then it drops off. With the turbo, as boost builds, the pull just starts increasing as the boost builds, like an invisible hand pushing you along. It's fun (and that's the reason people like turbo and SC engines... the fun factor.) Editor's note: (not that I don't find an twin cam motor that will pull 8K RPM any less fun!) >>Nothing glows anymore and nothing melts or requires specific cool >>down. > >My understanding is that the cool-down is still necessary, but the >cars just come with "turbo timers" to take care of the cool-down >automatically, making the process less error-prone. I don't think any designs have used that since the mid-90's, but I'm no industry expert. Synthetic oil has made a big difference as dino oil will coke up turbo bearings at shutoff. Previously, turbos guys would let the engine idle for a little bit when pulling in to let the turbo cool. I haven't heard of that being an issue in any recent model turbos. >>I think you need to drive a newer turbo for a few days and >>appreciate what it adds. > >Got one to loan me? :) Naw, but you local dealer would probably be happy to strap you in! >Most turbo's today blow heavy by about 2K RPM, so it's really not >"higher revs" anymore. Once you are off the line, it's cranking. I >have to admit, it took me over a year to figure out how to have it >blowing as you take off. By brake-torquing it? :) >Back to your question "is it worth the hassle?". Traditionally, the >turbo will get better mileage than the non-turbo for the same amount >of power as it is more efficient. Then turbos are different than belt-driven superchargers. My 2003 Cobra had a 4.6L engine with a Roots supercharger, and its gas mileage sucked so bad I had to pay a $1000 Gas Guzzler Tax when I bought it. The fuel economy was MUCH worse than the normally-aspirated 4.6L engine in my previous Cobra (or in the Mustang GT). >Also, they aren't really very complicated. Every car is already fuel >injected and run by a computer metering fuel and/or air these days. >Engine controls throw feedback to the computer and it adjusts. Same >old thing. The turbo system just adds a little plumbing and a couple >more controls. It's actually very simple and easy to get your hands >around. All right, you've convinced me to not dismiss a turbocharged car out-of-hand. >I think the real draw is the incredible torque in mid to upper range. >With most NA engines I've driven, they can pull pretty hard but the >pull is fairly straight then it drops off. With the turbo, as boost >builds, the pull just starts increasing as the boost builds, like an >invisible hand pushing you along. Kinda like a Honda VTEC engine. :) >I don't think any designs have used that since the mid-90's, but I'm >no industry expert. Synthetic oil has made a big difference as dino >oil will coke up turbo bearings at shutoff. Previously, turbos guys >would let the engine idle for a little bit when pulling in to let the >turbo cool. I haven't heard of that being an issue in any recent model >turbos. Good to know. Thanks for the info! >>Most turbo's today blow heavy by about 2K RPM, so it's really not >>"higher revs" anymore. Once you are off the line, it's cranking. I >>have to admit, it took me over a year to figure out how to have it >>blowing as you take off. > > By brake-torquing it? :) No. >>Back to your question "is it worth the hassle?". Traditionally, the >>turbo will get better mileage than the non-turbo for the same amount [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The fuel economy was MUCH worse than the normally-aspirated 4.6L > engine in my previous Cobra (or in the Mustang GT). Yes. >>Also, they aren't really very complicated. Every car is already fuel >>injected and run by a computer metering fuel and/or air these days. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Kinda like a Honda VTEC engine. :) Somewhat. >>I don't think any designs have used that since the mid-90's, but I'm >>no industry expert. Synthetic oil has made a big difference as dino [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Good to know. Thanks for the info! Enjoy your chevy. Dustin >>Most turbo's today blow heavy by about 2K RPM, so it's really not >>"higher revs" anymore. Once you are off the line, it's cranking. I >>have to admit, it took me over a year to figure out how to have it >>blowing as you take off. > >By brake-torquing it? :) Nope. I haven't exactly diagrammed it, but my feet know the routine :-) It's more like a rev just before takeoff to kick up the turbo, then hit it fairly hard, then back off. The rev has to be just right because you need the turbo spinning but you don't want to be clutch slipping from a high rev when you actually hit it. At the same time, you have to control the throttle (usually by backing off once you get moving) to avoid spinning the tires as th boost kicks in. It's a little bit of a balancing act. Sounds complicated, but your feet figure it out after a while and then it's just instinctive like most of serious driving. >Then turbos are different than belt-driven superchargers. My 2003 >Cobra had a 4.6L engine with a Roots supercharger, and its gas mileage >sucked so bad I had to pay a $1000 Gas Guzzler Tax when I bought it. >The fuel economy was MUCH worse than the normally-aspirated 4.6L >engine in my previous Cobra (or in the Mustang GT). Well, one issue is matching engines, the other is driving style. If the NA 4.6 has less power, then it's not an equal MPG test. Also, a SC uses engine power to drive the SC which is much less efficient than using the waste exhaust stream like a turbo does. The advantage is that the SC has no lag. >>I think the real draw is the incredible torque in mid to upper range. >>With most NA engines I've driven, they can pull pretty hard but the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Kinda like a Honda VTEC engine. :) But much bigger in whoosh, depending on the application.
|
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.