Nissan 370Z Forum
Page 12 of 27 « First 21011 12 131422 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Nissan 370Z Forum (http://www.the370z.com/)
-   Nissan 370Z General Discussions (http://www.the370z.com/nissan-370z-general-discussions/)
-   -   Automobile Magazine: 40th Anniv 370Z versus new Mustang GT (http://www.the370z.com/nissan-370z-general-discussions/26149-automobile-magazine-40th-anniv-370z-versus-new-mustang-gt.html)

ninous26 10-12-2010 05:17 PM
I guess I got used to the GT being the slower car stock for stock and it being a crappy straight line no handling car.

It would just be weird to have to worry about a GT in the twisites.. But hey, I'm a car guy and thats not a bad thing.. If anything major props to Ford for this..

After thinking about it some more the Z is still my top choice.. I guess reading that one post from the guy who said Z's are slow got to me a little bit.

Zsteve 10-12-2010 05:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImportConvert (Post 762573)
No, the 'vette is getting a 5.5L-ish DI engine that will put out about 440bhp in the base C7, per GM. That much has been confirmed. That's about all we know, though.

The only car I know of doing what you say is the BMW M3.

Would a 2JZ fit better in the Z than the LSX, a full-assembled LSX motor is around 450#, give or take a few, IIRC. What does the Z's motor weigh, and what does a 2JZ/hair dryer weigh?
I found this article while researching for a vette, now it was back in May so who knows but the pic is cool as hell, I might have to save up for this.

2014 Chevrolet C7 Corvette - Sneak Peek - Automobile Magazine

ImportConvert 10-12-2010 05:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by theDreamer (Post 762584)
Who told you the Vette is getting a 5.5L-ish DI engine?
Public announcement from GM. It's all over the place.
http://www.autoblog.com/2010/01/02/c...8-for-sebring/
http://www.corvetteblog.com/archives...-440hp-v8.html
http://motorpulse.com/story/view/mot...-v8-powerplant

ImportConvert 10-12-2010 05:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by m4a1mustang (Post 762583)
But that's really more a reversion to the mean with the BMW. The e92 never really should have happened.
BMW shoves V8's in their "smaller" cars from time to time. Z8, etc.

theDreamer 10-12-2010 05:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImportConvert (Post 762770)
Public announcement from GM.
Link? I have heard nothing yet from GM saying what engine, platform, etc. they have decided for the C7. All they have said is it will based off the stingray concept car a bit and not be AWD.

Zsteve 10-12-2010 05:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by theDreamer (Post 762773)
Link? I have heard nothing yet from GM saying what engine, platform, etc. they have decided for the C7. All they have said is it will based off the stingray concept car a bit and not be AWD.
I think the GTR made companies rethink the V6 TT with its 0 100 in 8 secs. I would love a stingray V6 TT if they come out with it.

Zsteve 10-12-2010 05:49 PM
Noooo I want the TT V6, tell them to redo it.

theDreamer 10-12-2010 05:50 PM
Personally I would think a 4 or 5L V8 with a TT kit at low boost would be unbeatable. I sort of wish Nissan did this with the GT-R, but cannot complain on well the V6TT is working for them. A 4L V8 revving to 8k with a TT would be a great combo, in my opinion. They get to keep the idea of a 'V8' and get good fuel economy while keeping that power.

ImportConvert 10-12-2010 06:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zsteve (Post 762778)
I think the GTR made companies rethink the V6 TT with its 0 100 in 8 secs. I would love a stingray V6 TT if they come out with it.
I think that it's just that turbo-chager technology has evolved to the point where turbo-lag isn't nearly as bad as it used to be. Nissan went gunning for Porsche and also used a 6-cylinder TT setup, barrowing the technology from Ford to build the engine, and did a whole ton of suspension/AWD/computer work to keep the nearly 4,000# car competative, which they did a marvelous job of on the track at least.

ImportConvert 10-12-2010 06:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zsteve (Post 762778)
I think the GTR made companies rethink the V6 TT with its 0 100 in 8 secs. I would love a stingray V6 TT if they come out with it.
Why a TT? Why a small engine? The Z06 has more power than the GT-R, and gets better mileage. All without the complexity or heat of a turbo-system. It's just one less thing to break, and based on posts in this forum, and every other automotive forum, less things to break are a GOOD THING considering modern dealership's and their propensity to wiggle out of warranties.

I think people get caught up in the CDI factor rather than the "what works" factor a bit much at times. The GM solution is a cam-in-block design, yet it's very light, makes more power than anything else in its class, and gets 24mpg on the highway and 16 in the city.EPA ratings. Actual owners report 2-3mpg more.

ProfessorDave 10-12-2010 07:49 PM
^My guess would be reduced weight (?)

optiontrader 10-12-2010 08:33 PM
^^^ Yes - less weight, better gas mileage.

Bigger engines? Higher displacement at low revs with mad power is achieveable at low price points. Once you start trying to spin that crank faster, high revvin' engines are more expensive to develop (but less so to manufacture - but still $$$). The E92's redline above 8k is a good example. High revvin' supercars with V8/10/12 that rev above 8k are another.

Extending that power band between shifts is a golden rule - the more time you're on the pedal and not swinging that lever, the faster times you'll get. But now with dual-clutch transmissions getting easier and cheaper to manufacture - it's gets less critical. But that's another discussion in itself... :rolleyes:

ImportConvert 10-12-2010 11:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by optiontrader (Post 762939)
^^^ Yes - less weight, better gas mileage. Well then they failed. The GT-R's 608# engine (fully dressed with turbo's) out-weighs the fully dressed LS7 by a whopping 150#.

Bigger engines? Higher displacement at low revs with mad power is achieveable at low price points. Once you start trying to spin that crank faster, high revvin' engines are more expensive to develop (but less so to manufacture - but still $$$). The E92's redline above 8k is a good example. High revvin' supercars with V8/10/12 that rev above 8k are another. The BOSS mustang is getting a 7500rpm 5.0. If the mustang is getting it, it can't be TOO cost prohibitive. Especially for a car like the GT-R/'Vette, etc. Further, the cost of developing the cooling system, piping, turbo's, etc. and then warrantying all those extra parts...

Extending that power band between shifts is a golden rule - the more time you're on the pedal and not swinging that lever, the faster times you'll get. Check out the gearing. It's the same time swinging the lever. Auto manufacturers gear those 8K rpm cars so they can hit the powerband fast. But now with dual-clutch transmissions getting easier and cheaper to manufacture - it's gets less critical. But that's another discussion in itself... :rolleyes:
Comments in red.

m4a1mustang 10-12-2010 11:04 PM
I was about to say. My 5L V8 is revving to 7,000 in stock trim, only 500 rpm short of the stock Z. And all the tunes are bumping the limiter up to 7,500.

It's pretty cool, actually, because I remember the optimal shift-point in my 4.6L was only 5,400. :icon17:

WarmAndSCSI 10-12-2010 11:05 PM
This thread is really still going? :rolleyes:


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:55 AM.
Page 12 of 27 « First 21011 12 131422 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2