RE: Nissan 370Z | Spotted
Discussion
scottyfocus said:
How tunable are these? Not going down the FI route. Had a test drive of one i just felt like it needed an extra 10%, but i am used to turbo'd cars so think i have been spoiled by the torque.
Look at the torque curve above, it’s not exactly shabby - are you sure it’s not just the surge of boost coming on you missed?
samoht said:
It's interesting how close the 370Z is on paper to the new Supra - power, weight, layout - yet it's massively cheaper and has the normally aspirated engine and manual gearbox everyone apparently wants. Would make an interesting twin test I think - I mean, I'm sure the Supra is better, but it would be enlightening to describe exactly what's better about it, and if it's worth the extra cash.
Yes indeed - sadly this 370Z test is an auto rather than manual ( which the test mentions would run the numbers quicker than this style autobox ) .....but factor in the always super quick C&D test times ( wouldn’t be surprised to see a UK tested Supra be a bit slower but who knows yet ) and they might be close enough if you like a n/a engine plus a manual at a cheaper priceAt least it is auto vs auto though
scottyfocus said:
How tunable are these? Not going down the FI route. Had a test drive of one i just felt like it needed an extra 10%, but i am used to turbo'd cars so think i have been spoiled by the torque.
Adding 10% to the peak power doesn't actually mean anything other than a pub chat reference point. The important thing is area under the power curves and where the curves peak and hold that peak. A remap might not give your peak power an extra 10% but it will sort out flat spots etc. which will make the drive much better.Also bear in mind the delivery, turbos will give that rush but an NA will give linear delivery. The NA might reach 60 at the same time as a turbo but the turbo might feel quicker if thats all you are used to.
And be wary of chasing that 10% when I got my mapped VX220 turbo it felt very quick (0-60 something like 4.5 seconds or less) now it feels quite normal
Edited by coldel on Wednesday 19th June 09:17
Edited by coldel on Wednesday 19th June 09:31
otolith said:
No, it was bought about 3 years old.
It didn’t hide its mass very well, which may be why people want to further stiffen it, but in pure ride comfort terms it wasn’t great. Not “broken” just poor. Not as bad as sitting in the back of a Civic Type-R, but not as good as my Elise, or RX-8, and a bit worse than the Z4M which gets some stick for the harshness of its suspension.
I suspect you may have had the spacers in there still - lots of reports on the forum of 370z driving around with them in for 10k miles or more. Unless you are talking about handling rather than ride? The ride on the 370z is good soaks up the road well - the handling though needs aftermarket work. It didn’t hide its mass very well, which may be why people want to further stiffen it, but in pure ride comfort terms it wasn’t great. Not “broken” just poor. Not as bad as sitting in the back of a Civic Type-R, but not as good as my Elise, or RX-8, and a bit worse than the Z4M which gets some stick for the harshness of its suspension.
And yes, they do not try to hide the mass as they are a GT car and focus is on straight line decent performance long distance driving, as some said very suited to the US market which the 350z was originally intended for.
Edited by coldel on Wednesday 19th June 09:26
s m said:
Yes indeed - sadly this 370Z test is an auto rather than manual ( which the test mentions would run the numbers quicker than this style autobox ) .....but factor in the always super quick C&D test times ( wouldn’t be surprised to see a UK tested Supra be a bit slower but who knows yet ) and they might be close enough if you like a n/a engine plus a manual at a cheaper price
At least it is auto vs auto though
The Supra as per most modern autos puts in impressive off the line stats. But I wonder, how much of that is really down to the launch control systems?At least it is auto vs auto though
i.e. if you didn't use Launch control, would it be more on par with the 370z? Or even from a 5mph roll.
coldel said:
Also bear in mind the delivery, turbos will give that rush but an NA will give linear delivery. The NA might reach 60 at the same time as a turbo but the turbo might feel quicker if thats all you are used to.
I really like the way that a turbo engine always feels quick(lots of torque low to mid range), but you also can't beat being near the redline with a N/A engine and that is so enjoyable and something that a turbo engine can't match. coldel said:
otolith said:
No, it was bought about 3 years old.
It didn’t hide its mass very well, which may be why people want to further stiffen it, but in pure ride comfort terms it wasn’t great. Not “broken” just poor. Not as bad as sitting in the back of a Civic Type-R, but not as good as my Elise, or RX-8, and a bit worse than the Z4M which gets some stick for the harshness of its suspension.
I suspect you may have had the spacers in there still - lots of reports on the forum of 370z driving around with them in for 10k miles or more. Unless you are talking about handling rather than ride? The ride on the 370z is good soaks up the road well - the handling though needs aftermarket work. It didn’t hide its mass very well, which may be why people want to further stiffen it, but in pure ride comfort terms it wasn’t great. Not “broken” just poor. Not as bad as sitting in the back of a Civic Type-R, but not as good as my Elise, or RX-8, and a bit worse than the Z4M which gets some stick for the harshness of its suspension.
And yes, they do not try to hide the mass as they are a GT car and focus is on straight line decent performance long distance driving, as some said very suited to the US market which the 350z was originally intended for.
otolith said:
Think I would have spotted that when changing discs and pads, and it went through plenty of MOTs and services, had a wheel bearing fitted, full exhaust system fitted, etc without anyone noticing. The firmness of the ride is mentioned in a lot of contemporary reviews, perhaps it just depends what you're comparing it to.
Yes its all about context, although I have a VX220 with Elise 111r suspension and have to say the ride is definitely not better but the handling infinitely is!300bhp/ton said:
s m said:
Yes indeed - sadly this 370Z test is an auto rather than manual ( which the test mentions would run the numbers quicker than this style autobox ) .....but factor in the always super quick C&D test times ( wouldn’t be surprised to see a UK tested Supra be a bit slower but who knows yet ) and they might be close enough if you like a n/a engine plus a manual at a cheaper price
At least it is auto vs auto though
The Supra as per most modern autos puts in impressive off the line stats. But I wonder, how much of that is really down to the launch control systems?At least it is auto vs auto though
i.e. if you didn't use Launch control, would it be more on par with the 370z? Or even from a 5mph roll.
Partly gearbox and the B58 always seems to dyno higher and the torque is lower down and much higher anyway due to being turbocharged.
https://www.autoblog.com/2019/06/12/toyota-supra-h...
The BMW would utterly mince a 370Z based on the figures an the fact the power outputs are b
ks ! Its funny, when things were more NA, numbers were talked up by manufacturers, or they never quite met the headline figure, with turbo stuff they seem to actively downplay the power figures.
cerb4.5lee said:
coldel said:
Also bear in mind the delivery, turbos will give that rush but an NA will give linear delivery. The NA might reach 60 at the same time as a turbo but the turbo might feel quicker if thats all you are used to.
I really like the way that a turbo engine always feels quick(lots of torque low to mid range), but you also can't beat being near the redline with a N/A engine and that is so enjoyable and something that a turbo engine can't match. My S13 was as flat as pancake at low rpm, but once you hit the boost threshold it screamed to the redline. It was fun, but meant you always ragged it no stop, because it drove so badly off boost.
My Impreza Turbo wasn't as bad off boost, but really didn't wake up until 3000/3500rpm range and then also did it's best work at the top end of the rev range.
I think it's only the more modern era and common rail diesels that have this instant shove from low rpm.
300bhp/ton said:
cerb4.5lee said:
coldel said:
Also bear in mind the delivery, turbos will give that rush but an NA will give linear delivery. The NA might reach 60 at the same time as a turbo but the turbo might feel quicker if thats all you are used to.
I really like the way that a turbo engine always feels quick(lots of torque low to mid range), but you also can't beat being near the redline with a N/A engine and that is so enjoyable and something that a turbo engine can't match. My S13 was as flat as pancake at low rpm, but once you hit the boost threshold it screamed to the redline. It was fun, but meant you always ragged it no stop, because it drove so badly off boost.
My Impreza Turbo wasn't as bad off boost, but really didn't wake up until 3000/3500rpm range and then also did it's best work at the top end of the rev range.
I think it's only the more modern era and common rail diesels that have this instant shove from low rpm.
cerb4.5lee said:
Yes and I can relate to that when I had my S14a 200sx and not much happened until well after 3000rpm but that engine liked to be revved out. Whereas the modern 2 litre petrol turbo I have in the Cooper S is really lively low down(torque in at 1200rpm) but it isn't very enthusiastic up at the top of the revs.
Yes modern turbos are much more lively and waiting for that boost is largely confined to older cars. The Celica GT4 I recently sold had to get to around 2800 revs then suddenly the surge was immense. But below that you had to manage the gears a lot more to ensure you made progress, was hard work on the mountains of Italy!coldel said:
Yes modern turbos are much more lively and waiting for that boost is largely confined to older cars. The Celica GT4 I recently sold had to get to around 2800 revs then suddenly the surge was immense. But below that you had to manage the gears a lot more to ensure you made progress, was fun & engaging hard work on the mountains of Italy!
EFA 
J4CKO said:
I think the gearbox is perhaps the main advantage but doesn't explain how a slight power/weight adantage can give a 3.3 second disparity in the 0-100 times, the BMW would pull away.
Partly gearbox and the B58 always seems to dyno higher and the torque is lower down and much higher anyway due to being turbocharged.
https://www.autoblog.com/2019/06/12/toyota-supra-h...
The BMW would utterly mince a 370Z based on the figures an the fact the power outputs are bks !
Yes, the Supra seems to be putting out considerably more than quoted. No doubt the modern autobox helps .....but so does an extra 50-60bhp!Partly gearbox and the B58 always seems to dyno higher and the torque is lower down and much higher anyway due to being turbocharged.
https://www.autoblog.com/2019/06/12/toyota-supra-h...
The BMW would utterly mince a 370Z based on the figures an the fact the power outputs are b
ks ! Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff