https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiqOLRJi7nU
Looks like it's gonna be retro. If they do 400hp 3.0 V6 and manual transmission for under 40k, it could be a winner.
Any idea what platform this will be on? Please don't tell me it's more FM...
Wow, signs of life! I thought they had just given up
I was so distracted by the confusing alphabet going on in the background that I barely looked at the cars.
They are all trucks, and two cars.
Nissan really is out of ideas and money for decent products.
Well, I'm glad there will be a new Z.
Nissan brand should be disbranded
The new Z should be a Renault.
Quote from: Char on June 13, 2020, 07:16:39 PM
They are all trucks, and two cars.
Nissan really is out of ideas and money for decent products.
Murano convertible is being rebranded as a Z car. A fixed-roof version will replace the Z coupe.
Quote from: MX793 on June 15, 2020, 10:25:59 AM
Murano convertible is being rebranded as a Z car. A fixed-roof version will replace the Z coupe.
:rockon:
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on June 15, 2020, 10:23:03 AM
Nissan brand should be disbranded
The new Z should be a Renault.
Renault Alpine? Sure, I'll take one.
I'm glad they're making a Z. I've always been a fan of most of the Z cars. And I'll pull for it to be better then the German Supra.
I also hope this pushes Mazda into making a sports car.
Quote from: Onslaught on June 15, 2020, 05:42:19 PM
I'm glad they're making a Z. I've always been a fan of most of the Z cars. And I'll pull for it to be better then the German Supra.
I also hope this pushes Mazda into making a sports car.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/tLql6mMHC6wvK/giphy.gif)
:lol: Mazda makes THE sports car. But yeah we know he meant a new RX-7-8-9 model. I wonder if they're still working on that hybrid Wankel-electric. Seems like a perfect hybrid combo.
I think he means sports GT, like that super purty inline six concept they teased a few months ago.
Quote from: Laconian on June 15, 2020, 07:43:35 PM
I think he means sports GT, like that super purty inline six concept they teased a few months ago.
What super purty inline six concept??? From Mazda?
Edit: Oh yeah that one. Nice, but I like the earlier RX-7 concept better.
I'd greatly prefer a new rotary, but I can get excited by a RWD I6 Mazda too.
?
(https://i.postimg.cc/q7SSnV1w/https-api-thedrive-com-wp-content-uploads-2017-09-mazda-rx-vision.jpg)
Sleek.
Needs more rotors
I noticed a GTR isn't in there, meaning that it's going to soldier on 9years old at this point. Goodness Nissan sucks so bad now
Quote from: Char on June 16, 2020, 12:13:59 PM
I noticed a GTR isn't in there, meaning that it's going to soldier on 9years old at this point. Goodness Nissan sucks so bad now
9 years? It came out in the 2009 MY.
Quote from: MX793 on June 16, 2020, 12:20:44 PM
9 years? It came out in the 2009 MY.
Came out in the US in 2008.
Let's see; 2008 plus 9...
Yep, that's 2020 for sure.
Quote from: MrH on June 16, 2020, 06:42:30 AM
I'd greatly prefer a new rotary, but I can get excited by a RWD I6 Mazda too.
Why? As neat as rotaries are, they kind of suck, make no torque, and are unreliable.
Quote from: Char on June 17, 2020, 08:04:30 AM
Came out in the US in 2008.
As a 2009 MY. 2009 MY starts summer 2008 calendar year.
(2008 or 2009) +9 still isn't 2020.
I forgive him for thinking it's 2018 still because I still think it's like 2010 in the back of my head.
Quote from: CaminoRacer on June 18, 2020, 09:31:34 AM
I forgive him for thinking it's 2018 still because I still think it's like 2010 in the back of my head.
Pfft. Barely passed into the 2000s. :lol:
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on June 18, 2020, 09:02:21 AM
(2008 or 2009) +9 still isn't 2020.
Yes, it's 12 years. Even worse.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5ZgwW7hETY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBlHM41wnL8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_LpUFf6j6o
Twin turbo V6, manual transmission. Actually Japanese car. The Z proto going to be unveiled Sept 15 or 16th.
However I think the last time they released a Z concept, they had a better commercial for it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vG16WUV4Moo
Is it going to be retro? With a name like "proto" it sounds like it might be a throwback? The "roar" sounds pretty tepid, like a Corolla AT revved in neutral.
I've been reading "modern with nods to past models". The tail lamps look to be a throwback to the Z32 generation of the 90s.
Twin turbo V6? Goddamn it, this is going to be another overkill and overpriced GT-R.
Twin turbo V6 and a manual? Now I'm interested.
Quote from: Raza on September 13, 2020, 12:18:53 AM
Twin turbo V6 and a manual? Now I'm interested.
+1
As long as it's not a porker weight wise.
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on September 13, 2020, 09:07:17 AM
+1
As long as it's not a porker weight wise.
You know it will be, though. Lightweight cars are a thing of the past. Technology, crash regs, modular platforms. The only way to build a lightweight car is to go out of your way to build a lightweight car.
Quote from: Raza on September 15, 2020, 06:55:05 AM
You know it will be, though. Lightweight cars are a thing of the past. Technology, crash regs, modular platforms. The only way to build a lightweight car is to go out of your way to build a lightweight car.
It's platform sharing, more than safety regs, that resulted in the last Z being such a porker. When you build your small, 2 seat sports car on the same platform that is also intended to underpin a full size sedan and/or midsize SUV, you don't end up with a particularly weight-optimized package.
Power is the other part of it. If you have a powerful, 400 hp / 400 lb-ft motor, everything in the driveline needs to be beefier than a 300 hp, 280 lb-ft motor. Transmission gears, clutch, driveshaft, half-shafts, u-joints, differential... All of it gets heavier.
The 370Z was like 3300 lbs and had 350hp. Not exactly a porker and its lighter than most things this side of a 86/Miata/718. Not sure why people keep calling it a porker when it was pretty light considering the age it was built in.
Quote from: Xer0 on September 15, 2020, 08:41:08 AM
The 370Z was like 3300 lbs and had 350hp. Not exactly a porker and its lighter than most things this side of a 86/Miata/718. Not sure why people keep calling it a porker when it was pretty light considering the age it was built in.
Really? That's not bad at all. Thought it was much heavier than that.
Quote from: Xer0 on September 15, 2020, 08:41:08 AM
The 370Z was like 3300 lbs and had 350hp. Not exactly a porker and its lighter than most things this side of a 86/Miata/718. Not sure why people keep calling it a porker when it was pretty light considering the age it was built in.
It's not as heavy as a Mustang or Camaro, but it was still quite heavy for what was a small car. A Z4M coupe of that era was 3100 lbs. 987 Cayman was just under 3000. Both offered similarly powerful, 6 cylinder engines and neither were constructed from exotic materials like carbon composites and unicorn farts.
Quote from: MX793 on September 15, 2020, 09:02:34 AM
It's not as heavy as a Mustang or Camaro, but it was still quite heavy for what was a small car. A Z4M coupe of that era was 3100 lbs. 987 Cayman was just under 3000. Both offered similarly powerful, 6 cylinder engines and neither were constructed from exotic materials like carbon composites and unicorn farts.
Both Germans were also twice as expensive to start and went up from there. The Mustang didn't have an independent rear and the Camaro was like 150lbs heavier still. At the end of the day, the 370Z was really not that heavy for what it was; a 350hp, RWD performance car that cost about 30K to start.
The 350-370Z were bulky, heavy looking designs. I find the previous Supra looked porky too. In contrast, the RX-8 looked like a lightweight.
I dig the 370z, its not practical but I am sure it is fun to drive (compared to the Camaro/Mustang, not necessarily the Miata).
That being said I think the last time I drove one was more than a decade ago (and it was a 350z). For me though, if I am getting something that small I either want it to be a convertible (or more practical, like my Golf).
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=B6zkx4xEQ6M
I remember watching this commercial in a movie theater before the movie back right before it came out. Too ballsy to shoot something like this today. They "shut down" the streets of Prague but it doesn't really look shut down. I wanted one.
Quote from: SJ_GTI on September 15, 2020, 01:08:25 PM
For me though, if I am getting something that small I either want it to be a convertible (or more practical, like my Golf).
I've never really cared for convertibles. They're OK, but coupes are just as good IMO.
https://www.caranddriver.com/photos/g33970241/nissan-z-proto-revealed-gallery/
They just reskinned the 370. The A pillars and windshield are the same. The dash and doors have the same structure. Hard pass as they say
Junk
Quote from: 565 on September 15, 2020, 07:09:52 PM
https://www.caranddriver.com/photos/g33970241/nissan-z-proto-revealed-gallery/
The profile looks good, but they might've put a little more thought into the grille.
(https://i.postimg.cc/mZ0yPYhf/nissan-z-proto-dynamic-exterior-7-source-1600218214.jpg)
Quote from: FoMoJo on September 15, 2020, 07:44:29 PM
The profile looks good, but they might've put a little more thought into the grille.
(https://i.postimg.cc/mZ0yPYhf/nissan-z-proto-dynamic-exterior-7-source-1600218214.jpg)
It looks like a generic starter car from a second rate video game
I'm just happy it's been updated and not killed
Quote from: Soup DeVille on September 15, 2020, 08:06:42 PM
It looks like a generic starter car from a second rate video game
It's one of those free games that looks like shit and sucks to play, and makes you think about how much of your life has been wasted so far.
I like the profile. Adding a bit of front and rear overhang makes it seem less stubby. The rear deck appears lower than the 370. The new rear fascia and tail lamps are very 90s. Reminds me of the S14 Silvia/240SX. I dig it.
The front fascia, woof. The grille is a sorry attempt at evoking the original 240Z, but comes off as looking unfinished. The whole front end seems kind of unfinished. The headlamps just look odd. Very bland and they don't seem to fit the rest of the design. You have a very rectangular grille, the wide, vertically narrow, rectangular tail lamp bar, and then these round, upward-swept, doe-eye headlamps. I feel like a more circular headlamp would have looked better. Or a vertically stacked oval like the Panoz Esperante. I also feel like it needs a set of driving lamps or turn signals or something to break up those large, body-color expanses to either side of the grille.
I'm kind of disappointed that this is, from what I can tell, a heavy face lift rather than an all new car. Maybe there's more changes under the skin besides the power train. I quite like everything from the front axle back.
Quote from: MX793 on September 15, 2020, 08:52:23 PM
I like the profile. Adding a bit of front and rear overhang makes it seem less stubby. The rear deck appears lower than the 370. The new rear fascia and tail lamps are very 90s. Reminds me of the S14 Silvia/240SX. I dig it.
The front fascia, woof. The grille is a sorry attempt at evoking the original 240Z, but comes off as looking unfinished. The whole front end seems kind of unfinished. The headlamps just look odd. Very bland and they don't seem to fit the rest of the design. You have a very rectangular grille, the wide, vertically narrow, rectangular tail lamp bar, and then these round, upward-swept, doe-eye headlamps. I feel like a more circular headlamp would have looked better. Or a vertically stacked oval like the Panoz Esperante. I also feel like it needs a set of driving lamps or turn signals or something to break up those large, body-color expanses to either side of the grille.
I'm kind of disappointed that this is, from what I can tell, a heavy face lift rather than an all new car. Maybe there's more changes under the skin besides the power train. I quite like everything from the front axle back.
Bang on assessment, 100% agreement.
This isn't the official car but rather a "proto Z", and these photos look like renderings, so there is still hope that Nissan puts a couple more little touches here and there to bring it all together. The rear looks retro and kinda cool, the side profile looks about as good as a hatch will ever look, while the front headlights look nice and modern but the front grill is....well, its missing. I've warmed up to the Vantage, but it had an actual shape and design to its front, this is literally just a rectangle cut out in front. I don't think the chrome outline of the roof is a good design decision either.
Its a little disappointing honestly, hopefully Nissan doesn't get too ambitious with pricing and keeps it closer to the outgoing 370Z and not the Supra.
The exterior is just too incongruous. It feels like they ran out of money when evolving the 370Z. Are they trying to reuse existing tooling, perhaps?
(https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Nissan_Z_Proto_dynamic_exterior_9-768x512.jpg)
Yup, profile is good.
Quote from: MX793 on September 15, 2020, 08:52:23 PM
I like the profile. Adding a bit of front and rear overhang makes it seem less stubby. The rear deck appears lower than the 370. The new rear fascia and tail lamps are very 90s. Reminds me of the S14 Silvia/240SX. I dig it.
The front fascia, woof. The grille is a sorry attempt at evoking the original 240Z, but comes off as looking unfinished. The whole front end seems kind of unfinished. The headlamps just look odd. Very bland and they don't seem to fit the rest of the design. You have a very rectangular grille, the wide, vertically narrow, rectangular tail lamp bar, and then these round, upward-swept, doe-eye headlamps. I feel like a more circular headlamp would have looked better. Or a vertically stacked oval like the Panoz Esperante. I also feel like it needs a set of driving lamps or turn signals or something to break up those large, body-color expanses to either side of the grille.
I'm kind of disappointed that this is, from what I can tell, a heavy face lift rather than an all new car. Maybe there's more changes under the skin besides the power train. I quite like everything from the front axle back.
I can't disagree with any of the points you've made, but to me it looks good.
Profile is nice. But yeah, that front end is a disaster. Looks like an unfinished punch out for the grill.
Awful color to debut it with too.
Quote from: Rich on September 15, 2020, 07:23:00 PM
They just reskinned the 370. The A pillars and windshield are the same. The dash and doors have the same structure. Hard pass as they say
Wait, is this really just another FM platform car?!
Quote from: MrH on September 16, 2020, 07:53:59 AM
Profile is nice. But yeah, that front end is a disaster. Looks like an unfinished punch out for the grill.
Awful color to debut it with too.
Wait, is this really just another FM platform car?!
Compare the vent locations, overall dash form, and the side windows/windshield/a pillar to the 370. They don't have another front engine rwd platform I don't think?
Ugh. This is dead on arrival to me then. The FM platform is outdated, heavy, and feels like garbage compared to its competitors. It's impossible to drive a miata, BRZ, or S2000 back to back with a 350 or 370Z, and choose the Nissan. All the controls are really heavy, the car feels heavy. It feels like you're sitting in a massive plastic bin.
Quote from: Rich on September 16, 2020, 08:09:04 AM
Compare the vent locations, overall dash form, and the side windows/windshield/a pillar to the 370. They don't have another front engine rwd platform I don't think?
They could have simply carried that over into a new platform, but I also strongly suspect this is still FM. Hopefully they heavily reworked it (a la Fox to SN95 Mustang). Guess we'll have to wait and see.
And it's not like FM is a bad platform. Some suspension updates, maybe adaptive dampers, transmission update, and some tech refresh for modern amenities and you still get a pretty decent sports car, provided the price isn't outlandish.
https://twitter.com/BoziTatarevic/status/1306244736991268872
It's interesting to compare this to the Supra, considering the cost pressures of building a low production sports car and how Toyota and Nissan each dealt with them. Toyota chose to rebadge a completely unrelated car from a different manufacturer. Nissan chose to do essentially a significant update and reskin to the existing but dated car. But at least it's actually a Nissan.
Quote from: afty on September 16, 2020, 12:19:45 PM
It's interesting to compare this to the Supra, considering the cost pressures of building a low production sports car and how Toyota and Nissan each dealt with them. Toyota chose to rebadge a completely unrelated car from a different manufacturer. Nissan chose to do essentially a significant update and reskin to the existing but dated car. But at least it's actually a Nissan.
Fair point, but how potentially awesome would a Nissan Z / Renault Alpine collaboration have been?
Quote from: Rockraven on September 16, 2020, 04:45:50 PM
Fair point, but how potentially awesome would a Nissan Z / Renault Alpine collaboration have been?
I love the Alpine, but a mid-engine Z just isn't a Z.
Quote from: MX793 on September 16, 2020, 04:51:39 PM
I love the Alpine, but a mid-engine Z just isn't a Z.
Oof, did not think that one through. :lol:
Quote from: MX793 on September 16, 2020, 04:51:39 PM
I love the Alpine, but a mid-engine Z just isn't a Z.
Mid-engine Vette is still a Vette :huh:
I've come around a lot to pure definitions of brands. I'm okay with the Supra being a BMW, a Vette being Mid-engine, and M cars being turbo charged. Progress is progress :huh:
Hell, I've almost accepted the Mustang E.
Quote from: Xer0 on September 16, 2020, 07:34:18 PM
Mid-engine Vette is still a Vette :huh:
I've come around a lot to pure definitions of brands. I'm okay with the Supra being a BMW, a Vette being Mid-engine, and M cars being turbo charged. Progress is progress :huh:
Hell, I've almost accepted the Mustang E.
Yeah, I suppose I could see that. I've always viewed the Corvette as more of an apex sports car. It's defined more as a high performance car that offers near exotic performance for a working man's budget. The layout doesn't really matter as much as the function. The layout was more a constraint of making it fit within a certain price point. And they've teased mid-engine Corvettes for over 50 years. Zora wanted to make the car mid engine back in the late 1960s or early 70s (but it was deemed too expensive at the time). Now mid engine can be done within the target price, so they did it.
Quote from: MX793 on September 16, 2020, 07:58:45 PM
Yeah, I suppose I could see that. I've always viewed the Corvette as more of an apex sports car. It's defined more as a high performance car that offers near exotic performance for a working man's budget. The layout doesn't really matter as much as the function. The layout was more a constraint of making it fit within a certain price point. And they've teased mid-engine Corvettes for over 50 years. Zora wanted to make the car mid engine back in the late 1960s or early 70s (but it was deemed too expensive at the time). Now mid engine can be done within the target price, so they did it.
Yeah. Like the Corvette can do whatever it wants as long as its the peak of GM performance. That's more important than being FR.
The Z is important for it to be attainable. If that can happen with MR then cool.
IF they had made the headlights more 240z-ish by cutting them back into the body a bit it would have helped so much make the grill make sense.
(https://preview.redd.it/w6am9verkln51.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=37a7218010b9e32a5d243596c6d81762a15b7d04)
Quote from: CaminoRacer on September 17, 2020, 09:17:20 AM
(https://preview.redd.it/w6am9verkln51.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=37a7218010b9e32a5d243596c6d81762a15b7d04)
It's a start. Headlights still need some attention.
Quote from: CaminoRacer on September 17, 2020, 09:17:20 AM
(https://preview.redd.it/w6am9verkln51.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=37a7218010b9e32a5d243596c6d81762a15b7d04)
Take the sag out of the top of the side intakes, and give the outer edges an angle instead of vertical. I'm thinking backward angle, like a Ford GT40.
I really think the lower arc in the headlights ruins the front. The rest of the car tries to look muscular with lots of planes and lines parallel to the ground. Then you have the tired-looking eyes... they should be butched up, maybe turned into aggressive slits... it's LED lighting - why not?
Someone photoshop the headlights with the arc on the top and flat on the bottom.
Love it from this angle:
(https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/images/nissan-z-proto-102-1599674381.jpg?crop=0.721xw:0.661xh;0,0.0587xh&resize=980:*)
Quote from: Raza on September 17, 2020, 01:31:13 PM
Love it from this angle:
(https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/images/nissan-z-proto-102-1599674381.jpg?crop=0.721xw:0.661xh;0,0.0587xh&resize=980:*)
Yes! It's a total butterface, though. Rotate the design and the excitement just plummets. I wish they went retro the whole way around.
Quote from: Laconian on September 17, 2020, 01:32:28 PM
Yes! It's a total butterface, though. Rotate the design and the excitement just plummets. I wish they went retro the whole way around.
I also think the puke ugly color they debuted it in isn't helping. In a proper color, it might look quite good.
Quote from: Raza on September 17, 2020, 01:33:46 PM
I also think the puke ugly color they debuted it in isn't helping. In a proper color, it might look quite good.
"Meconium Yellow Mica"
I bet that grill would look a lot less crappy in black.
Quote from: Rich on September 17, 2020, 03:28:47 PM
I bet that grill would look a lot less crappy in black.
The grille needs something to break up the black space. Some thin, horizontal chrome or aluminum stripes or something.
Quote from: Laconian on September 17, 2020, 01:37:50 PM
"Meconium Yellow Mica"
As long as no one looks that up, that could be a legit color name.
I have to say, it kind of reminds me of the current Aston V8. They both look like there's too much sheetmetal, but they both look decent. I think it looks much better than the 370Z with those weird pointy boomerang headlights.
Heh heh heh, the forum abbreviates this topic as
"Re: Nissan teases a butt..."
Quote from: Laconian on September 17, 2020, 03:58:16 PM
Heh heh heh, the forum abbreviates this topic as
"Re: Nissan teases a butt..."
:lol: :lol: :lol:
I'm gonna go against the grain and say I like the weird yellowish color.
Quote from: Raza on September 17, 2020, 03:48:27 PM
I have to say, it kind of reminds me of the current Aston V8. They both look like there's too much sheetmetal, but they both look decent. I think it looks much better than the 370Z with those weird pointy boomerang headlights.
Adding a bit of rear overhang, continuing to drop the roofline down to create a lower trunk decklid height, did wonders for the profile. The 370 looked like of stubby with it's tall, blunt rear end. This looks much more lithe. And I really love the 90s-esque tail lamps. If you're going to pull inspiration from a design era, early/mid 90s JDM is a good one to choose from.
I'm curious if Nissan will follow Toyota by offering two different power train options. ~400 hp TTV6 for the top dog and maybe a lesser powered (250-300hp) entry model like the 4-popper Supra? Maybe just shed the turbos and give us a ~275 hp NAV6?
Quote from: afty on September 16, 2020, 12:19:45 PM
It's interesting to compare this to the Supra, considering the cost pressures of building a low production sports car and how Toyota and Nissan each dealt with them. Toyota chose to rebadge a completely unrelated car from a different manufacturer. Nissan chose to do essentially a significant update and reskin to the existing but dated car. But at least it's actually a Nissan.
I would easily take the Supra
Quote from: r0tor on September 17, 2020, 05:40:27 PM
I would easily take the Supra
No manual. No contest. Z.
Manuals are dead and what ones exist are largely trash
Walkaround
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uax0JxzbUzY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uax0JxzbUzY)
Quote from: r0tor on September 18, 2020, 12:07:24 PM
Manuals are dead and what ones exist are largely trash
Miata
Quote from: Laconian on September 24, 2020, 07:55:40 PM
Miata
The Tremec in the Camaro and GT350 (and Mach1) is quite good. The MT-82 in lesser Mustangs is OK (unless you are a drag racer). The Frisbee twins are pretty good, from what I hear. Most FWD econocars are OK. Maybe not ultra snickety great, but certainly not unpleasant.
The only "trash" MT I've ever driven was the Genesis Coupe. The biggest issue was the light-switch clutch and overly aggressive initial throttle tip in, but the shifter itself was pretty notchy and high effort.
The best manuals are in rather lightweight front engine rear wheel drive cars - which is limited basically now to the MX5 and frisbee. The RX8 which shared a layout with the S2000 and Miata was about as good as it gets - short throws and the shifter in your hand is directly controlling the forks in the transmission (you can actually fill the manual transmission fluid if you remove the shifter boot). It's a rifle bolt precise setup.
Tremecs in muscle cars feel industrial grade. BMWs are always rubbery. FWD cars all have linkages or cables which all feel crappy.
A good DCT or ZF is is better than an average or worse manual.
Honda Accords used to have amazing gear shifters.
Quote from: r0tor on September 25, 2020, 08:05:25 AM
The best manuals are in rather lightweight front engine rear wheel drive cars - which is limited basically now to the MX5 and frisbee. The RX8 which shared a layout with the S2000 and Miata was about as good as it gets - short throws and the shifter in your hand is directly controlling the forks in the transmission (you can actually fill the manual transmission fluid if you remove the shifter boot). It's a rifle bolt precise setup.
Tremecs in muscle cars feel industrial grade. BMWs are always rubbery. FWD cars all have linkages or cables which all feel crappy.
A good DCT or ZF is is better than an average or worse manual.
Have you driven any FWD Honda manual? They're pretty much all great.
Not as good as an s2000
I mean if your bar is one of the greatest feeling manuals ever, then ok, everything sucks.
Quote from: r0tor on September 25, 2020, 08:46:12 AM
Not as good as an s2000
This is an unrealistic and elitist bar to apply to every manual sold.
The Tremecs are fine. Nearly all manuals not in medium duty trucks or larger made in the last 20 years are perfectly fine.
Quote from: r0tor on September 25, 2020, 08:05:25 AM
The best manuals are in rather lightweight front engine rear wheel drive cars - which is limited basically now to the MX5 and frisbee. The RX8 which shared a layout with the S2000 and Miata was about as good as it gets - short throws and the shifter in your hand is directly controlling the forks in the transmission (you can actually fill the manual transmission fluid if you remove the shifter boot). It's a rifle bolt precise setup.
Tremecs in muscle cars feel industrial grade. BMWs are always rubbery. FWD cars all have linkages or cables which all feel crappy.
A good DCT or ZF is is better than an average or worse manual.
Have you driven any of the latest generation muscle/pony cars?
Honestly, the RX8 shifter didn't feel much better to me than the latest MT82 Mustangs. Throws might have been the slightest bit shorter on the Mazda, but both are tight shift patterns with similar effort.
Quote from: MrH on September 25, 2020, 08:48:31 AM
I mean if your bar is one of the greatest feeling manuals ever, then ok, everything sucks.
As I said, a good DCT or ZF 8 speed is as good or as rewarding as an average or worse manual... So yea, I hold things to a high standard because modern automatics are amazing
I've had two manual shift yourself cars, a Beetle and my current Crosstrek. They're both nothing great. I've also driven some pretty good automatics. My brother in law used to own an S5 with a dual clutch automated manual (S-tronic) and in sport mode that car was a hoot.
There's something about "the process" of shifting through the gears of an old school manual that I find very gratifying however. I also love that the car is mine and mine alone to drive because my wife can't drive it :lol:
There are two times I wish I had an autotragic transmission. When it's stop and go traffic for a long time and when I'm trying to get going from a stop in deep snow (like if I park my car outside in my driveway and it snowed a lot overnight). I find it hard to finesse the clutch, gas pedal, and shifts so that I don't start burning my clutch.
Quote from: veeman on September 26, 2020, 10:41:01 AM
I've had two manual shift yourself cars, a Beetle and my current Crosstrek. They're both nothing great. I've also driven some pretty good automatics. My brother in law used to own an S5 with a dual clutch automated manual (S-tronic) and in sport mode that car was a hoot.
There's something about "the process" of shifting through the gears of an old school manual that I find very gratifying however. I also love that the car is mine and mine alone to drive because my wife can't drive it :lol:
There are two times I wish I had an autotragic transmission. When it's stop and go traffic for a long time and when I'm trying to get going from a stop in deep snow (like if I park my car outside in my driveway and it snowed a lot overnight). I find it hard to finesse the clutch, gas pedal, and shifts so that I don't start burning my clutch.
I have a couple of complaints with automatics and automated manuals (SMGs, DSG, etc) based on the examples I've driven. And, interestingly, my preference for a manual transmission actually has little to do with the "fun and engagement" of moving a shift lever through the gates.
1. Automatics aren't clairvoyant, nor are they aware of road conditions. They can't see that there's a sharp corner approaching and they should just hold the gear they are in, or that the incline that the car has encountered is short and there's no reason to downshift for more power because they'll be over the hump in a few seconds, or that the road is icy and a downshift will overload the tires. They frequently do the opposite of what I want in a given situation when left to their own devices. This includes upshifting or downshifting when I want them to stay in the gear they are in, which in turn results in the car either hesitating to accelerate and/or some herky-jerky gear hunting. To a degree, some of this (unintended downshifts, in particular) can probably be mitigated by familiarity and adjusting driving style to the car.
2. Lack of control when taking off from a standing start. This becomes especially apparent in slick/snowy conditions. I grew up driving manuals, without traction control, in the snow. I never even bothered with snow tires. I won't say it was as easy as driving on dry pavement, but I never got stuck anywhere. I would frequently hear people complain that their FWD car, with traction control, was "not very good in the snow" and that they needed AWD. I always thought it was hyperbole or that these people were just bad drivers. I'd see people with 2WD vehicles in traffic frantically spinning their tires in bad weather when trying to take off from a stop, while I was able to roll away with little wheelspin. Never got it, until I bought a winter car with an automatic. I get it now. It's actually harder to take off from a stop with an automatic in slick/snowy conditions without spinning the tires. Even in dry conditions, I find it easier to dial up exactly the right launch aggressiveness I want with a manual than in an automatic, be it wanting to dart off the line quickly to beat traffic, a hard launch at the drag strip or track, or a gentle roll-away because I have bags of groceries in the trunk that I don't want to tip over.
I have other complaints specific to examples I've driven, such as sluggish responses, or non-response, to manual inputs, but recognize that most of the examples I've driven are not the creme de la creme of auto-shifting gearboxes and that better examples don't have some of those issues. The DSG I drove was actually quite good with respect to responsiveness to commands. However, the above two issues hold true for all of them.
EDIT: I will also add that for track use, where I'm trying to get the maximum performance and set the fastest lap time, I actually would prefer a "good" 2-pedal setup to a traditional manual. And by "good" I mean something that is responsive to commands and doesn't do anything unless the driver tells it to, that includes riding the rev limiter instead of automatically upshifting.
My MIL's Renault Captur has one of the worst manuals I've ever used. You move the rubbery shifter into the rough vicinity of the gear you want, pray to 6MT Jesus that the gears successfully meshed, and then you disengage the clutch. At that point there is a _possibility_ that you can resume accelerating. The shifter detents are super vague and the clutch disengages very high on the pedal travel. Echh.
I do love coming home and driving the Miata afterward. :mrcool:
Quote from: MX793 on September 26, 2020, 11:10:11 AM
I have a couple of complaints with automatics and automated manuals (SMGs, DSG, etc) based on the examples I've driven. And, interestingly, my preference for a manual transmission actually has little to do with the "fun and engagement" of moving a shift lever through the gates.
1. Automatics aren't clairvoyant, nor are they aware of road conditions. They can't see that there's a sharp corner approaching and they should just hold the gear they are in, or that the incline that the car has encountered is short and there's no reason to downshift for more power because they'll be over the hump in a few seconds, or that the road is icy and a downshift will overload the tires. They frequently do the opposite of what I want in a given situation when left to their own devices. This includes upshifting or downshifting when I want them to stay in the gear they are in, which in turn results in the car either hesitating to accelerate and/or some herky-jerky gear hunting. To a degree, some of this (unintended downshifts, in particular) can probably be mitigated by familiarity and adjusting driving style to the car.
2. Lack of control when taking off from a standing start. This becomes especially apparent in slick/snowy conditions. I grew up driving manuals, without traction control, in the snow. I never even bothered with snow tires. I won't say it was as easy as driving on dry pavement, but I never got stuck anywhere. I would frequently hear people complain that their FWD car, with traction control, was "not very good in the snow" and that they needed AWD. I always thought it was hyperbole or that these people were just bad drivers. I'd see people with 2WD vehicles in traffic frantically spinning their tires in bad weather when trying to take off from a stop, while I was able to roll away with little wheelspin. Never got it, until I bought a winter car with an automatic. I get it now. It's actually harder to take off from a stop with an automatic in slick/snowy conditions without spinning the tires. Even in dry conditions, I find it easier to dial up exactly the right launch aggressiveness I want with a manual than in an automatic, be it wanting to dart off the line quickly to beat traffic, a hard launch at the drag strip or track, or a gentle roll-away because I have bags of groceries in the trunk that I don't want to tip over.
I have other complaints specific to examples I've driven, such as sluggish responses, or non-response, to manual inputs, but recognize that most of the examples I've driven are not the creme de la creme of auto-shifting gearboxes and that better examples don't have some of those issues. The DSG I drove was actually quite good with respect to responsiveness to commands. However, the above two issues hold true for all of them.
EDIT: I will also add that for track use, where I'm trying to get the maximum performance and set the fastest lap time, I actually would prefer a "good" 2-pedal setup to a traditional manual. And by "good" I mean something that is responsive to commands and doesn't do anything unless the driver tells it to, that includes riding the rev limiter instead of automatically upshifting.
Doesn't sound like you drove anything worth a damn with a manual mode then
Quote from: r0tor on September 26, 2020, 01:43:28 PM
Doesn't sound like you drove anything worth a damn with a manual mode then
I've driven a DSG and the manual mode was very good. I've not driven the new ZF 8 speed, no idea what the manual mode is like. Most autos I've driven with manumatics were either older or not in sporty/performance vehicles. However, as noted, responsiveness to commands is not my main complaint, because I recognize not all 2-pedal setups are that way.
A good manual mode does not address my enumerated complaints. Maybe you can argue that simply leaving it in "M" addresses item 1, but item 2 is an issue for anything without a third pedal.
I had an '02 Altima with the worst manual. It was like moving a screwdriver through a bowl of rocks.
I do enjoy a good manual, but I don't like how it's so difficult to take off quickly from a stop without jerking your head in the 1-2 shift. Maybe I'm a terrible manual driver, I don't know.
Quote from: afty on September 26, 2020, 04:30:06 PM
I had an '02 Altima with the worst manual. It was like moving a screwdriver through a bowl of rocks.
I do enjoy a good manual, but I don't like how it's so difficult to take off quickly from a stop without jerking your head in the 1-2 shift. Maybe I'm a terrible manual driver, I don't know.
Maybe all the MTs you've driven have had too big of a ratio spread between 1st and 2nd?
Hyperbole like this is killing automotive enthusiasm, a car does not have to be perfect to be enjoyable and insistance of that being the case IMO makes people perpetually dissatisfied.
(See: Subaru BRZ)
I prefer an automatic with full shifting control for driving fast/autocross. And a good torque converter. I'm actually gonna swap an overdrive automatic into the El Camino this winter... helps in autocross to not have to worry about the transmission/clutch at all. As long as the gear ratios are good and the converter has a good high stall to give you nice torque out of the corners. And doesn't shift on its own
Quote from: CaminoRacer on September 26, 2020, 10:03:16 PM
I prefer an automatic with full shifting control for driving fast/autocross. And a good torque converter. I'm actually gonna swap an overdrive automatic into the El Camino this winter... helps in autocross to not have to worry about the transmission/clutch at all. As long as the gear ratios are good and the converter has a good high stall to give you nice torque out of the corners. And doesn't shift on its own
Yes, the best automatic will have optional full manual control of shifting and torque converter lockup.
Quote from: CaminoRacer on September 26, 2020, 10:03:16 PM
I prefer an automatic with full shifting control for driving fast/autocross. And a good torque converter. I'm actually gonna swap an overdrive automatic into the El Camino this winter... helps in autocross to not have to worry about the transmission/clutch at all. As long as the gear ratios are good and the converter has a good high stall to give you nice torque out of the corners. And doesn't shift on its own
Most courses I've run on, outside of the initial 1-2 upshift, you can just leave the car in second gear. We've had a few faster venues where, in my car, I needed 3rd. Usually it's the last stretch before the finish line, so I don't have to worry about a downshift during the run. We ran on an actual road course last year with a few cones to keep speeds down on the straights, and there were multiple places where I had to grab 3rd, then back down to 2nd. Wished I'd had a 2-pedal for those events.
Quote from: MX793 on September 27, 2020, 05:44:40 AM
Most courses I've run on, outside of the initial 1-2 upshift, you can just leave the car in second gear. We've had a few faster venues where, in my car, I needed 3rd. Usually it's the last stretch before the finish line, so I don't have to worry about a downshift during the run. We ran on an actual road course last year with a few cones to keep speeds down on the straights, and there were multiple places where I had to grab 3rd, then back down to 2nd. Wished I'd had a 2-pedal for those events.
Next time, just change your rear end to suit the course.
;)
:popcorn:
:whatshesaid:
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on September 27, 2020, 05:49:46 AM
Next time, just change your rear end to suit the course.
;)
:popcorn:
:whatshesaid:
I've actually toyed with the idea of switching the rear-end gear to 3.55s or even 3.31. My second gear, with my race tire (slightly smaller diameter than stock) tops out at 60. If I could get 65-70 out of second gear, that would cover 99% of tracks I've run on.
But, gear swaps put me out of stock and into a modified class with a far worse handicap. I'd need to throw a lot more money into the car to be competitive.
Quote from: MX793 on September 27, 2020, 07:03:44 AM
I've actually toyed with the idea of switching the rear-end gear to 3.55s or even 3.31. My second gear, with my race tire (slightly smaller diameter than stock) tops out at 60. If I could get 65-70 out of second gear, that would cover 99% of tracks I've run on.
But, gear swaps put me out of stock and into a modified class with a far worse handicap. I'd need to throw a lot more money into the car to be competitive.
Taller tires, then?
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on September 27, 2020, 07:26:03 AM
Taller tires, then?
Nobody makes them. 200TW autox tire selection in sizes over 18" are hard to find. Very little selection in 19". 18" rims won't clear my front brakes, so the tires I've got are the closest to factory size I can get.
Quote from: MX793 on September 27, 2020, 08:41:34 AM
Nobody makes them. 200TW autox tire selection in sizes over 18" are hard to find. Very little selection in 19". 18" rims won't clear my front brakes, so the tires I've got are the closest to factory size I can get.
So just put them in the back. The ABS will get confused. Oh, well
:lol:
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on September 27, 2020, 08:45:13 AM
So just put them in the back. The ABS will get confused. Oh, well
:lol:
They also don't make tall sidewall race tires (more than 45 aspect ratio), so 18s would end up smaller anyway, since stock are 40 AR.
Quote from: r0tor on September 18, 2020, 12:07:24 PM
Manuals are dead and what ones exist are largely trash
Just because you gave up doesn't mean the rest of us have to.
Looks like the concept was pretty much spot on.
https://www.motortrend.com/news/2022-nissan-400z-sports-car-leaked-photos/amp/ (https://www.motortrend.com/news/2022-nissan-400z-sports-car-leaked-photos/amp/)
Grille looks a bit better with the brightwork. Definitely in the running as my next car.
Pretty clean looking on the exterior. Not so sure about the interior.
If it drives anything like the FM platform cars of the past, I can't get too excited about it.
Final reveal for the production version is tonight. As a Z car fan, I'm tentatively excited. So few fun, M/T equipped cars that a working class guy like myself could afford these days that I've been losing my enthusiasm for cars.
New Zzzzzz car
Not a terrible effort. Will test the waters to see if anyone in the US still cares about a moderately priced 2 seater ICE car.
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a37304208/2023-nissan-z-revealed/
No slippy diff unless you spring for the Performance model? This car is way too powerful to have an open diff. Hope you at least get a Torsen...
Quote from: MX793 on August 17, 2021, 06:44:15 PM
No slippy diff unless you spring for the Performance model? This car is way too powerful to have an open diff. Hope you at least get a Torsen...
Maybe base just relies on an E-diff setup and the Performance gets a real LSD?
Quote from: CaminoRacer on August 17, 2021, 07:10:58 PM
Maybe base just relies on an E-diff setup and the Performance gets a real LSD?
E-diff is a more sophisticated and expensive form of real LSD (LSD with electronically controlled clutches). Doubt base Zs are getting an E-diff while the top dog model gets an traditional LSD. Unless by "E-diff" you just mean traction control that can't be disabled (a la the Golf GTI), which is a garbage system that only serves to overheat and eat up brakes.
The 90th percentile driver won't notice an lsd vs a brake based system
Quote from: r0tor on August 17, 2021, 07:31:20 PM
The 90th percentile driver won't notice an lsd vs a brake based system
Other than they'll notice their rear brakes burn up fast if they drive in a spirited fashion.
Quote from: MX793 on August 17, 2021, 07:39:27 PM
Other than they'll notice their rear brakes burn up fast if they drive in a spirited fashion.
The ones that drive spirited will order the correct options?
Quote from: r0tor on August 17, 2021, 07:45:55 PM
The ones that drive spirited will order the correct options?
Who buys a 400hp sports car and doesn't "get on it" semi frequently?
The Mustang comes standard with LSD on all trims. The GR86/BRZ have a Torsen on all trims. The Z should have a proper LSD as standard (and a Torsen on the Performance oriented model).
Infiniti Q50 RS400 RWD was not available with any sort of LSD, so hold onto yer unagi!
Quote from: MX793 on August 17, 2021, 07:29:12 PM
Unless by "E-diff" you just mean traction control that can't be disabled (a la the Golf GTI), which is a garbage system that only serves to overheat and eat up brakes.
Yeah that's what I meant
Quote from: MX793 on August 17, 2021, 07:49:47 PM
Who buys a 400hp sports car and doesn't "get on it" semi frequently?
The Mustang comes standard with LSD on all trims. The GR86/BRZ have a Torsen on all trims. The Z should have a proper LSD as standard (and a Torsen on the Performance oriented model).
It only makes a huge difference if you "get on it" coming out of a corner.... In which case an open diff is more predictable for the average newb driver who will probably have traction and stability control engaged anyway which makes it further a moot point.
400 hp, and a manual. Supra who? Probably 20 grand cheaper too.
(https://i.postimg.cc/9Dtg9DPN/2023-Nissan-Z-30.webp) (https://postimg.cc/9Dtg9DPN)
My gripes about the differential aside...
The car looks really sharp in blue. Grille still seems awkward, but the lighter/brighter finish on the mesh elements so they pop more helps. It looks less like a giant, empty rectangle now. Curious how a front license plate might be installed. I don't see where one could be placed that won't either block cooling to the engine/intercooler, brake cooling, or the radar emitter. I suppose in street use, brake or IC airflow aren't imperative and those of use who take these to a track will have to deal with taking plates on and off. Seems like only upper trims get the black roof. Curious what it looks like when it's all one color. I think the black has a trimming effect that makes the car appear leaner/sleeker.
Interior looks good, but I feel like an oil temp or water temp gauge would have been more useful than a turbo tach, though you get this info in the main instruments (along with diff fluid temp).
I was hoping the full reveal was going to come with some pricing details and more complete info (like weight).
It looks good. Like the GR86 its not really something is on my shortlist but I can see why someone else would want it.
I'd love to be able to drive this back to back with the GR86. Obviously the Z is more powerful but everyone seems to love the way the GR86 handles. It would be interesting to see which is more fun overall.
Quote from: r0tor on August 18, 2021, 05:48:23 AM
It only makes a huge difference if you "get on it" coming out of a corner.... In which case an open diff is more predictable for the average newb driver who will probably have traction and stability control engaged anyway which makes it further a moot point.
This is not correct. An open diff can often lock when turning left (or in any scenario that (roughly) evenly weights the drive tires - more below), which makes it unpredictable. This is why it's so terrible for performance - the lack of traction is secondary. This is one of the reasons moderately powerful vehicles with an open diff have the nannies turned up and are way less defeatable. The Z w/out LSD will suck arse for virtually anyone who drives it. My 99% bet is it will have some sort of LSD however.
Engines typically rotate CW (when standing at the front of the vehicle looking at the crank). As a longitudinal engine torques against the engine mounts under load this unweights the right side of the car (and why open diff burnouts are always the right rear). So, when turning left, the weight on the right rear tire due to body roll is counteracted by the engine torquing, whilst simultaneously unloading the left rear tire. This ultimately results in both drive tires receiving approximately equal weighting, and this is when the open diff will act like an LSD. This phenomenon is whey the countless vids of open-diff cars sliding, drifting and doing donuts are always doing so turning left.
One of countless vids:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rucs1DFAz6k
Quote from: GoCougs on August 18, 2021, 10:34:08 AM
This is not correct. An open diff can often lock when turning left (or in any scenario that (roughly) evenly weights the drive tires - more below), which makes it unpredictable. This is why it's so terrible for performance - the lack of traction is secondary. This is one of the reasons moderately powerful vehicles with an open diff have the nannies turned up and are way less defeatable. The Z w/out LSD will suck arse for virtually anyone who drives it. My 99% bet is it will have some sort of LSD however.
Engines typically rotate CW (when standing at the front of the vehicle looking at the crank). As a longitudinal engine torques against the engine mounts under load this unweights the right side of the car (and why open diff burnouts are always the right rear). So, when turning left, the weight on the right rear tire due to body roll is counteracted by the engine torquing, whilst simultaneously unloading the left rear tire. This ultimately results in both drive tires receiving approximately equal weighting, and this is when the open diff will act like an LSD. This phenomenon is whey the countless vids of open-diff cars sliding, drifting and doing donuts are always doing so turning left.
One of countless vids:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rucs1DFAz6k
Nissan has announced that only the performance trim will get LSD. This is consistent with the 350Z and 370Z, where only the performance oriented trims received an LSD. Base and "Touring" trims were open diff on the previous cars. Hopefully the LSD on the new car is a proper mechanical unit and not the crappy viscous diff of the previous generations.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 18, 2021, 10:34:08 AM
This is not correct. An open diff can often lock when turning left (or in any scenario that (roughly) evenly weights the drive tires - more below), which makes it unpredictable. This is why it's so terrible for performance - the lack of traction is secondary. This is one of the reasons moderately powerful vehicles with an open diff have the nannies turned up and are way less defeatable. The Z w/out LSD will suck arse for virtually anyone who drives it. My 99% bet is it will have some sort of LSD however.
Engines typically rotate CW (when standing at the front of the vehicle looking at the crank). As a longitudinal engine torques against the engine mounts under load this unweights the right side of the car (and why open diff burnouts are always the right rear). So, when turning left, the weight on the right rear tire due to body roll is counteracted by the engine torquing, whilst simultaneously unloading the left rear tire. This ultimately results in both drive tires receiving approximately equal weighting, and this is when the open diff will act like an LSD. This phenomenon is whey the countless vids of open-diff cars sliding, drifting and doing donuts are always doing so turning left.
One of countless vids:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rucs1DFAz6k
Open diff equals predominantly understeer... Of course you can still drift under certain conditions.
LSD or locking diff equals predominantly oversteer...
LSDs can catch an inexperienced driver off guard way more easily then open diff - especially in the wet or snow when cornering.
https://youtu.be/yA6AiyZP3H8
Great Icons video featuring the Z. Also some good commentary on the status of performance cars in today's world.
The having a kid thing is exactly what happened to me and the z06 isn't ideal anymore. I fell into the trap of the performance SUV and I gotta tell you that it's such a guilty pleasure. Ridiculous amounts of fun that I honestly didn't expect.
I don't think that vid was some of Jason's better work.
The Z gets absolutely stomped by the Supra... Maybe I didn't like the vid because it tried so hard to make the Z seem like more than it really is.
Fuck Nissan
There was a lot of extra in the video (hot hatches, economics, SUVs). I didn't really get the graph, we apparently went from sports cars (50s-60s) to coupes (70s), to hot hatches (80s), and then sedans... what about all the coupes of the 90s?
Quote from: 565 on June 16, 2022, 05:14:24 PM
https://youtu.be/yA6AiyZP3H8
Great Icons video featuring the Z. Also some good commentary on the status of performance cars in today's world.
The having a kid thing is exactly what happened to me and the z06 isn't ideal anymore. I fell into the trap of the performance SUV and I gotta tell you that it's such a guilty pleasure. Ridiculous amounts of fun that I honestly didn't expect.
I think that's a great video—puts into words and visuals some thoughts I've also had about the proliferation of the small SUV over the midsized sedan and gives plenty of eye candy.
Frankly, despite the Z's shortcomings, it's one of the most desirable cars on the market for me today. I am super excited about the Supra getting a manual and even though that's my number one lust item at the moment, I don't think I'd be disappointed one bit by the Z. I mean, Supra and Z—you're looking at the shortlist of new cars I'd like to replace my Z4 with.
On the other hand, many, the WRX and Veloster are unbelievably ugly, aren't they? I think this has to be the worst looking WRX we've ever had.
Camissa's Hagerty videos are pretty great. It tries a bit too hard to be some epic film though. Feels like it's an Avengers movie half the time. :lol:
800 lbs more than a BRZ. No thanks.
C&D just tested the new Z: https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a39969206/2023-nissan-z-drive/ (https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a39969206/2023-nissan-z-drive/). In short, a decent performance car, but short of pretty much everything +/- its price point and class.
Nissan just hasn't been able to pull it together since about 2010. CVT is a disaster. The 3.0TT hugely under performs. The GT-R and 370Z languished. T Q was a nothing burger vs. the G (the Q60 is a looker though), the second gen Titan was last in class at debut and the Frontier was only just replaced.
The new Frontier looks pretty sick, but I still wouldn't want one.
Quote from: GoCougs on June 18, 2022, 03:35:01 PM
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.
Quote from: 565 on June 19, 2022, 06:45:54 AM
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.
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."
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.
Quote from: GoCougs on June 20, 2022, 12:11:43 AM
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.
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).
Quote from: 565 on June 20, 2022, 11:33:36 AM
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).
There's also an issue sometimes on where the boost is being read... Turbo outlet, after intercooler, intake manifold