Nissan teases a buttload of new cars, including Z

[565]

The 3.0TT hugely under performs.

I'm not sure that the 3.0TT underperformed.

In the C&D direct comparo the manual Z trapped only 3mph slower than the auto Supra, 111mph trap vs 114mph.  They retested the manual Z on 93 and got a 115mph trap.  That 114 mph trap for the Supra seemed low so they must have gotten some bad 91.

In the Hagarty drag video of Supra auto vs Z auto the Supra trapped 117 mph and the Z trapped 116 mph.  The Supra is that test weighed 3350lbs and the Z weighed 3610lbs with auto.  Which gives a power to weight ratio of 8.7 for the Supra and 9.0 for the Z.

Everyone considers the B58 in the Supra and various other BMWs underrated however the 3.0TT VR must be underrated by a similar amount in order to pull the numbers it does.

I think the manual numbers look slow for the Z because we aren't used to seeing numbers for manual cars anymore.  For example Car and Driver only got a 117 mph trap out of their M3 manual sedan,  with a power to weight of 8.0 (3789 and 473hp) and that is with the S58 motor, an engine that is thought to be severely underrated. The hagarty Z drag race video got 112mph out of the manual Z when tested against the auto Z at 116mph.  Especially with turbo engines that can't maintain boost between manual shifts, autos are just faster in the trap. 

Anyway looking at the numbers Nissan must have underrated this thing similarly to what the B58 is underrated to.

[GoCougs]

I'm not sure that the 3.0TT underperformed.

In the C&D direct comparo the manual Z trapped only 3mph slower than the auto Supra, 111mph trap vs 114mph.  They retested the manual Z on 93 and got a 115mph trap.  That 114 mph trap for the Supra seemed low so they must have gotten some bad 91.

In the Hagarty drag video of Supra auto vs Z auto the Supra trapped 117 mph and the Z trapped 116 mph.  The Supra is that test weighed 3350lbs and the Z weighed 3610lbs with auto.  Which gives a power to weight ratio of 8.7 for the Supra and 9.0 for the Z.

Everyone considers the B58 in the Supra and various other BMWs underrated however the 3.0TT VR must be underrated by a similar amount in order to pull the numbers it does.

I think the manual numbers look slow for the Z because we aren't used to seeing numbers for manual cars anymore.  For example Car and Driver only got a 117 mph trap out of their M3 manual sedan,  with a power to weight of 8.0 (3789 and 473hp) and that is with the S58 motor, an engine that is thought to be severely underrated. The hagarty Z drag race video got 112mph out of the manual Z when tested against the auto Z at 116mph.  Especially with turbo engines that can't maintain boost between manual shifts, autos are just faster in the trap. 

Anyway looking at the numbers Nissan must have underrated this thing similarly to what the B58 is underrated to.

In the C&D test I posted, the manual Z managed only 0-60 in 4.5s and 13.0s @ 111 mph. With that power/weight ratio and tiny size (172"), it should be well into the 12s. The base M3 sedan, base 911, and mid range Cayman, are turbocharged, have similar PWRs +/- and with M/T, each is well into the 12s. The V8 pony cars, far larger, and with only a very slight PWR advantages, are in the mid/low 12s in M/T guise. Perhaps it's a car or gas issue in these recent tests, but the the Q50 RS400 has consistently under performed since 2016 (vs. its numbers plus vs. the class) with A/T. I've not driven the new Z, but have driven the Q50 RS400 - lots of lag (plus it didn't sound good), and it just didn't feel quick (the Jatco A/T is partly to blame, but that won't affect acceleration from a dig). The various 1/4 mile calculators predict the Z should run 12.5s at 117 mph.

I loved my G and was my best car to date (even better than the SQ5 really). I was so expectant and then so disappointed in the Q50 RS400's performance, so admittedly I'm biased here.

[afty]

It sounds like a fuel problem and not a fundamental limitation of the car: "Nissan lent us another car to try in Michigan on 93 octane, and its 60-mph performance improved to 4.1 seconds on the way to a quarter-mile time of 12.6 seconds at 115 mph."

[afty]

It does seem disappointing that the Z performs so much worse than the Supra in the Hagerty track test (1:22 vs. 1:25 IIRC).  Everyone is complaining about the tires; I wonder how it would do with a set of Pilot Sport 4S's.

[565]

In the C&D test I posted, the manual Z managed only 0-60 in 4.5s and 13.0s @ 111 mph. With that power/weight ratio and tiny size (172"), it should be well into the 12s. The base M3 sedan, base 911, and mid range Cayman, are turbocharged, have similar PWRs +/- and with M/T, each is well into the 12s. The V8 pony cars, far larger, and with only a very slight PWR advantages, are in the mid/low 12s in M/T guise. Perhaps it's a car or gas issue in these recent tests, but the the Q50 RS400 has consistently under performed since 2016 (vs. its numbers plus vs. the class) with A/T. I've not driven the new Z, but have driven the Q50 RS400 - lots of lag (plus it didn't sound good), and it just didn't feel quick (the Jatco A/T is partly to blame, but that won't affect acceleration from a dig). The various 1/4 mile calculators predict the Z should run 12.5s at 117 mph.

I loved my G and was my best car to date (even better than the SQ5 really). I was so expectant and then so disappointed in the Q50 RS400's performance, so admittedly I'm biased here.

ET is mostly about the launch, trap speeds are about power.  The rear engined and mid engined cars with stickier tires are going to launch much harder than the Z with less aggressive tires.

They also said that slower Z was on a preproduction state of tune. It also only trapped 3mph slower than the Auto Supra which usually traps higher than 114mph.

The base M3 has a better power to weight, 8.0 in C&D tests and that traps 117mph on 93 (C&D long term tester) vs the second Z they tested with 93 octane with 115mph trap and 8.7 power to weight ratio.  Plus it's well known that the S58 and the B58 are both underrated. 

[565]

Also I'm not sure if the VR30DDTT in the RS400 is identical to the VR30DDTT in the Z.  The RS400 motor runs 14.7 psi max.  The Hagarty video focused on how the new Z turns up the boost even more midway up the Rev range, displaying 16psi on the gauge.

Maybe the gauge is wrong, but I wouldn't be surprised if Nissan is running a more aggressive tune, letting the boost get higher so that the Z can run with the Supra ( which is notoriously underrated).

[GoCougs]

Also I'm not sure if the VR30DDTT in the RS400 is identical to the VR30DDTT in the Z.  The RS400 motor runs 14.7 psi max.  The Hagarty video focused on how the new Z turns up the boost even more midway up the Rev range, displaying 16psi on the gauge.

Maybe the gauge is wrong, but I wouldn't be surprised if Nissan is running a more aggressive tune, letting the boost get higher so that the Z can run with the Supra ( which is notoriously underrated).

There's bound to be slight differences (the Q50 RS400 debuted in MY2016) but they're both rated at 400 hp @ 6.400 RPM and 350 ft-lb at 1,600 rpm.

There could be boost games, and it's not uncommon in lower gears.

Factory boost gauges are historically inaccurate. Boost jumps all over the place so there is a lot curation of what is actually displayed by a factory boost gauge. A popular hack with Audis is remapping the gauge such that it is accurate (but it'd be annoying to all but the enthusiast).

[r0tor]

There's also an issue sometimes on where the boost is being read... Turbo outlet, after intercooler, intake manifold