RE: New Nissan 370Z finally in development
Discussion
Prestonese said:
By the way, there was a fair amount of development for the original 240z. From memory, the chassis was new and the suspension set up was multi link and fairly novel at the time. The engine I think was the development of an existing lump with two cylinders added.
The S30-series Z's suspension - as launched in 1969 - was classic MacPherson strut at the front (almost identical to the C30-series Laurel which preceded it) and a rear strut design that was similar to the 'Chapman strut' of the Elite and Elan, but without the Chapman strut's driveshaft used as a link. The Z used a wide based lower arm instead.Edited by Prestonese on Friday 29th May 00:23
The S30-series Z used three engines at launch: L20(A) six, S20 twin cam six and L24 six. When the Z was being introduced in north America, Nissan's advertising editorial took to describing the 'new' L24 engine as a version of the 510 Bluebird's L16 four "with two added cylinders" because north America already knew the L16 and it was seen as a successful, modern alloy-head SOHC design with good performance. That's how they marketed it, but in fact the very first of Nissan's 'new' SOHC L-series engines was the L20 six of 1964/5. It might be more accurate to describe the L16 as an L20 "with two cylinders removed".
The Z's L24 six had already been used in the Cedric sedan, with the same bore and stroke as the L16 four, so wasn't really an 'all new' engine for the Z. The 400cc extra capacity over the L20 six was part of an effort to mitigate the plethora of anti-emissions equipment that the engine would require to be legal for certain parts of the market.
cerb4.5lee said:
Bright Halo said:
With all the bad news in the industry this is brilliant and we should be celebrating it!
Very brave by Nissan/Renault in current climate.
Completely agree. Very brave by Nissan/Renault in current climate.
It is a bit of a shock to be fair given how things are currently in the industry for sure.
the three drivetrains are BEV, Hybrid, both e-power series hybrid and ex Mitsi PHEV and ICE. I think this is a good strategy, most car buyers want good gas mileage, so are going to look at BEV where there is the charging infrastructure, or Hybrid where there isn't, or if they have range anxiety. That leaves ICE ( diminishing) but for performance product ( in Nissan's case). So my view is that Nismo will continue to make high output ICE, to be placed as halo or at the top end of the Nissan product range as it will only be enthusiasts that buy ICE.
Unfortunately I don't think this will mean that the product range might be, BEV Qashqai, H-B Qashqai, Nismo Qashqai for example but we can hope.
Prestonese said:
My point really was about manufacturers using parts bin specials and playing on "heritage" to market a new car. Perhaps it stems from my frustrations falling for it in the past.
What cars specifically are you referring too?By and large, even the interesting cars use parts bin items. And it is a little unrealistic to expect someone to continually re-invent the wheel. There is only so much that can really be done to be different.
300bhp/ton said:
Prestonese said:
My point really was about manufacturers using parts bin specials and playing on "heritage" to market a new car. Perhaps it stems from my frustrations falling for it in the past.
What cars specifically are you referring too?By and large, even the interesting cars use parts bin items. And it is a little unrealistic to expect someone to continually re-invent the wheel. There is only so much that can really be done to be different.
You are right about not reinventing the wheel though and that is exactly why I don't think the new zed would be that interesting. By contrast, Alpine with the new A110 has gone about things probably as far as they could whilst keeping the some of the spirit of the original car. Granted there are still shared parts with other areas of the group and there are some things about it which aren't perfect but it's generally seen as a breath of fresh air. The current Mazda MX-5 is another good example and so is the GT86.
Edited by Prestonese on Friday 29th May 11:03
For me this might be the last hurrah for a performance car that I can afford. While there will always be Ferrari, Porsche etc they now cost big money a 911 is realistically £100k now and even a boxster is over £50k. while this may be £50k new used it will be more affordable an potemtial for big BHP from FI engine is an exciting prospect
PZR said:
Prestonese said:
By the way, there was a fair amount of development for the original 240z. From memory, the chassis was new and the suspension set up was multi link and fairly novel at the time. The engine I think was the development of an existing lump with two cylinders added.
The S30-series Z's suspension - as launched in 1969 - was classic MacPherson strut at the front (almost identical to the C30-series Laurel which preceded it) and a rear strut design that was similar to the 'Chapman strut' of the Elite and Elan, but without the Chapman strut's driveshaft used as a link. The Z used a wide based lower arm instead.Edited by Prestonese on Friday 29th May 00:23
The S30-series Z used three engines at launch: L20(A) six, S20 twin cam six and L24 six. When the Z was being introduced in north America, Nissan's advertising editorial took to describing the 'new' L24 engine as a version of the 510 Bluebird's L16 four "with two added cylinders" because north America already knew the L16 and it was seen as a successful, modern alloy-head SOHC design with good performance. That's how they marketed it, but in fact the very first of Nissan's 'new' SOHC L-series engines was the L20 six of 1964/5. It might be more accurate to describe the L16 as an L20 "with two cylinders removed".
The Z's L24 six had already been used in the Cedric sedan, with the same bore and stroke as the L16 four, so wasn't really an 'all new' engine for the Z. The 400cc extra capacity over the L20 six was part of an effort to mitigate the plethora of anti-emissions equipment that the engine would require to be legal for certain parts of the market.
PZR said:
Prestonese said:
By the way, there was a fair amount of development for the original 240z. From memory, the chassis was new and the suspension set up was multi link and fairly novel at the time. The engine I think was the development of an existing lump with two cylinders added.
The S30-series Z's suspension - as launched in 1969 - was classic MacPherson strut at the front (almost identical to the C30-series Laurel which preceded it) and a rear strut design that was similar to the 'Chapman strut' of the Elite and Elan, but without the Chapman strut's driveshaft used as a link. The Z used a wide based lower arm instead.Edited by Prestonese on Friday 29th May 00:23
Prestonese said:
Quite a few. Plenty of Porsches - they market trim levels excessively using this approach - granted this is just the parts bin bit and my gripe with them is more the marketing BS. VW group where hatchbacks, SUVs and "sports" cars share lots. The Toyota Supra and Fiat Spider sharing parts and platform from other brands. Nothing wrong with that economically and they may well be decent cars but marketing some of these on it's heritage is a bit misleading.
You are right about not reinventing the wheel though and that is exactly why I don't think the new zed would be that interesting. By contrast, Alpine with the new A110 has gone about things probably as far as they could whilst keeping the some of the spirit of the original car. Granted there are still shared parts with other areas of the group but generally, and there are some things about it which aren't perfect but it's generally seen as a breath of fresh air. The current Mazda MX-5 is another good example and so is the GT86.
Isn't the Alpine about double the price of the 370z though? Not really a sensible comparison IMO.You are right about not reinventing the wheel though and that is exactly why I don't think the new zed would be that interesting. By contrast, Alpine with the new A110 has gone about things probably as far as they could whilst keeping the some of the spirit of the original car. Granted there are still shared parts with other areas of the group but generally, and there are some things about it which aren't perfect but it's generally seen as a breath of fresh air. The current Mazda MX-5 is another good example and so is the GT86.
Yes the MX-5 and GT86 are pretty cool, but both use a lot of stuff from other vehicles too.I don't really see how the 370z is any less bespoke than they are???
As for the Porsches and the like, I think maybe chill a little
and don't worry so much. In reality the vast majority of these are not doing anything any different to past models. Porsche was arguably just a modified VW saloon car anyway!!Also I don't get the hate or gripe for the new Supra. So what if it is a bit BMW. Every car maker shares parts or buys stuff in these days. Hell, a McLaren F1 used a BMW engine. The new Supra clearly harks back to the likes of the 2000GT and has a very bespoke chassis setup, considering Toyota could have based it on the GT86 platform...
And if you want to get real picky about the Supra legacy, then it was 1986 3rd Gen (A70) that buggered up the heritage, as it was split from it's Celica origins. Thus the 3rd and subsequent 4th Gen (A80) where both based on marketing BS of a completely different line up. On this basis, I do not see what the fuss is over the new one.
300bhp/ton said:
Prestonese said:
Quite a few. Plenty of Porsches - they market trim levels excessively using this approach - granted this is just the parts bin bit and my gripe with them is more the marketing BS. VW group where hatchbacks, SUVs and "sports" cars share lots. The Toyota Supra and Fiat Spider sharing parts and platform from other brands. Nothing wrong with that economically and they may well be decent cars but marketing some of these on it's heritage is a bit misleading.
You are right about not reinventing the wheel though and that is exactly why I don't think the new zed would be that interesting. By contrast, Alpine with the new A110 has gone about things probably as far as they could whilst keeping the some of the spirit of the original car. Granted there are still shared parts with other areas of the group but generally, and there are some things about it which aren't perfect but it's generally seen as a breath of fresh air. The current Mazda MX-5 is another good example and so is the GT86.
Isn't the Alpine about double the price of the 370z though? Not really a sensible comparison IMO.You are right about not reinventing the wheel though and that is exactly why I don't think the new zed would be that interesting. By contrast, Alpine with the new A110 has gone about things probably as far as they could whilst keeping the some of the spirit of the original car. Granted there are still shared parts with other areas of the group but generally, and there are some things about it which aren't perfect but it's generally seen as a breath of fresh air. The current Mazda MX-5 is another good example and so is the GT86.
Yes the MX-5 and GT86 are pretty cool, but both use a lot of stuff from other vehicles too.I don't really see how the 370z is any less bespoke than they are???
As for the Porsches and the like, I think maybe chill a little
and don't worry so much. In reality the vast majority of these are not doing anything any different to past models. Porsche was arguably just a modified VW saloon car anyway!!Also I don't get the hate or gripe for the new Supra. So what if it is a bit BMW. Every car maker shares parts or buys stuff in these days. Hell, a McLaren F1 used a BMW engine. The new Supra clearly harks back to the likes of the 2000GT and has a very bespoke chassis setup, considering Toyota could have based it on the GT86 platform...
And if you want to get real picky about the Supra legacy, then it was 1986 3rd Gen (A70) that buggered up the heritage, as it was split from it's Celica origins. Thus the 3rd and subsequent 4th Gen (A80) where both based on marketing BS of a completely different line up. On this basis, I do not see what the fuss is over the new one.
You keep going on about costs and price as though it matters to everyone but that is not always the case. I am happy driving an MX5 or an Alpine or in this case, the MZR. For the latter, I'm sure it offers something the modern zed can't. I wouldn't consider many of the modern super cars either regardless of whether I can afford it or not. They are just not that interesting to me but that's just my preference. I'm not sure how we got here anymore.
PS. The Supra is just a Z4 though no matter the bespoke chassis set up. In many respects this car is the most guilty of marketing BS in my view. I'm not that hung up about it as it was never a car I was that interested in. Ditto many of the more recent Porsches.
Hub said:
400z? So it's a 4 litre then? 
Well at least it isn't a 2 litre turbo.
I'd be surprised it we see it in the UK given the 370z was a slow seller and coupe sales are tiny now, especially given the medium term global financial outlook...
It hasn't stopped the Toyota, Alpine, Porsche, Audi.... so why wouldn't Nissan sell it here? Well at least it isn't a 2 litre turbo.
I'd be surprised it we see it in the UK given the 370z was a slow seller and coupe sales are tiny now, especially given the medium term global financial outlook...
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff