The next gen Z!

cavemancan · 12-13-2012, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SS_Firehawk

You all are insane if you bought this car and didn't think it's outstanding, or you already bought the wrong car for you. And you cannot possibly be serious about a V8 not being able to fulfill the role of powering this vehicle. Let me just shake this down for you

Is it outstanding? Depends...for the money and what you get out of the package...Hell Yes! Knowing they could have designed it better...then not really outstanding. I love my car but coming from a slightly built car previously I can tell you it handled better then the 370z (puts on flame suit). This not to say if I do a little work to the Z I can bring it up and beyond that level though. MY BIGGEST point here is dropping a heavier engine in a car that is already front heavy is a mistake. Can the heavier weight be compensated with suspension? Yes...crap load of negative camber up front with an expensive suspension. However, it is not the right way to do things dude sorry. THE ONLY 2 ways I would agree with a v8 is if they also install a rear mounted transmission like they do in the Corvette's and other Super Cars to compensate for engine and passenger weight or they redesign the current Nissan v8 to be lighter then the 3.7 VQ but we all know this is impossible with the current price point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SS_Firehawk

The VK56VD is an already built and engineered direct injected and running VVEL. It's sitting in trucks and luxury cars in a very detuned state. The power curve is comical when compared to any NA V8 it squares off against (Coyote ,Tau, LSx). What you guys want in a Turbo V6, that motor does in spades. All of this cheap modifications for power your talking about? It's easy pickings when you mod a V8, let alone a 5.6 liter. That torque you've all been moaning about, yea, it's all there, off idle, no lag, no waiting for turbo's. In a 3800lbs-4,000lbs car, it's already getting 26mpg.

Look I am not saying that your views are wrong. I will say they are misguided. An engine to engine comperison is not valid here. Nissan engineers total packages and thus all components need to work together in harmony to create something special. I WISH they would install the 5.6 v8 WITH a rear mounted transmission to even out weight distribution. The Z would be marveled all over the world in it's bad arsedness! This wont happen...too much money (Nissan please prove me wrong here!!!!).

With Nissan making the chasis lighter a ligher motor is mandatory or else chasis and suspension engineering will be a pain in the butt and much more expensive. If the engine goes heavier you run the risk of crappy mustang handling (not including Boss 302).

Quote:

Originally Posted by SS_Firehawk

These last few posts were just comical. You all fail to realize some of the best sports cars in the world use V8's, they don't turn into Mustangs because it had one. It won't weigh any more than the turbo's and intercoolers you want to put on.

Really!?!? LOL!! Comeon dude!

Let's name some examples of value (Price point is the key here) V8 sports cars that fall in the handling category:

- Base Corvette - $49,600
- Mustang Boss 302 - $42,995 - $49,990

Thats it...Dont include the Pontiac GTO's or the Holden's or even a Camero (ZL1 is way to expensive) cause they all suck handling wise with exception to the ZL1 which is way out of this price point.

Now what do those cars have that we dont?

Vette: rear mounted transmission with epically expensive suspension and really lightweight v8 (lighter then the VQ).
Boss 302: expensive adjustable suspension, they had to add a multilink suspension in the rear, it's a heavy car (3632 lbs).

The point here is Nissan spent it's money on the chasis instead of adding horse power and extensive suspension improvements compared to the Mustang and the Vette well they did it right but both cars cost on average between $10k and up to $17k more then the Z does today. Thats the cost of v8 power and handling the way you want it. If Nissan can keep the Z under $40k and do what corvette has done then go for it I'll be there to buy it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SS_Firehawk

There really is not a replacement for displacement when it comes to performance. Turbo's? Put that on the VK56VD and watch it make 600+whp with less than 5psi. Oh you don't want turbo's on it? Some bolt on's and it should easily push 500whp without touching the motor.

This thing made 380whp and it didn't even get to redline! Lost cause man.
I give up, I'm talking to a lost cause. It's like that bum you try to help and he is so f@cked up in the head, he can't comprehend your helping him. That's how I feel. (Not like the bum lol)

Last time I checked, the Vettes are dominating GT class races on a detuned motor. <<<

Just say it...your a muscle car guy. It's ok.

I refer back to my previous agrument above regarding this is not about power on it's own.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SS_Firehawk

And Turbo's don't? I would be embarrassed in a turbo V6 making 400hp in today's age of sports cars. A NA 380-400 hp V6 would still be something special. I'm pretty sure the first year Corvettes came with a wimpy a$$ straight 6. It made the jump. May not have been legendary at the time, but it still made the change. Look what happened in the 60's when they started shoehorning massive engines in small cars. I'm pretty sure manufacturers are doing the equivalent, but with turbo's. The Mustang gained 100hp from one model year to the next. I'm not saying your wrong, but I'm arguing the absurd statement.

What happened when they put in bigger engines?
- Tire companies started making more money
- Muscle car fans were happier going in a strait line
- Drifting could have REALLY taken off if they knew what it was
- Cars became poorly balanced and had shitty handling

The Cobra was the only exception but that car was engineered to the best ability and technology available those days. Even then that car was impossible to drive considering how easily it could kill you...I want one! LOL!

You know the funny part? We agree but for different reasons. I agree with you a v8 would be epic but not if Nissan can't afford to do it right. You agree a v8 would be epic and think Nissan could do it right at the current price point. Someone please prove me wrong or else a low displacement turbo engine will be in our future.

SS_Firehawk · 12-13-2012, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cavemancan

You know the funny part? We agree but for different reasons. I agree with you a v8 would be epic but not if Nissan can't afford to do it right. You agree a v8 would be epic and think Nissan could do it right at the current price point. Someone please prove me wrong or else a low displacement turbo engine will be in our future.

Haha. I don't think they can maintain the current price point. The V8 would be a $40k+ car. Thats why I still vouch having a V6 option. I just want to

moar faster!

cavemancan · 12-14-2012, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SS_Firehawk

Haha. I don't think they can maintain the current price point. The V8 would be a $40k+ car. Thats why I still vouch having a V6 option. I just want to

moar faster!

I think I'm joining you...everyone is in LALA land here LOL! I can't believe anyone would be in there right mind to compare our car to a Mustang (sorry if your a fan...I'm alergic to sold axels and bad handling).

EDIT...My GAWD...some of the comments about Mustangs are making me laugh I can't take it!

SS_Firehawk · 12-14-2012, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cavemancan

I think I'm joining you...everyone is in LALA land here LOL! I can't believe anyone would be in there right mind to compare our car to a Mustang (sorry if your a fan...I'm alergic to sold axels and bad handling).

EDIT...My GAWD...some of the comments about Mustangs are making me laugh I can't take it!

I actually have a distaste for everything about them, but their motor is pretty delicious.

cavemancan · 12-14-2012, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SS_Firehawk

I actually have a distaste for everything about them, but their motor is pretty delicious.

The Shelby (Eleanor 1967) was the only Mustang I liked and it was an amazing car. Actually most of the 1960's mustangs were nice looking. They were thin/sleek and not bulky looking like the ones today. American car makers just dont understand how to make a sleek body anymore (except late model corvettes which are nicely done).

SS_Firehawk · 12-14-2012, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cavemancan

The Shelby (Eleanor 1967) was the only Mustang I liked and it was an amazing car. Actually most of the 1960's mustangs were nice looking. They were thin/sleek and not bulky looking like the ones today. American car makers just dont understand how to make a sleek body anymore (except late model corvettes which are nicely done).

I passed on on the Gen 5 SS's because I couldn't get past the size and weight. The Z had 8/10ths the speed and could drive circles around it. Now that I have two superchargers getting installed, it's way more car than needed, all the better.

cavemancan · 12-14-2012, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SS_Firehawk

I passed on on the Gen 5 SS's because I couldn't get past the size and weight. The Z had 8/10ths the speed and could drive circles around it. Now that I have two superchargers getting installed, it's way more car than needed, all the better.

Good luck with traction...I sometimes have traction issues with the VDC off...LOL!

b1adesofcha0s · 12-14-2012, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cavemancan

I think I'm joining you...everyone is in LALA land here LOL! I can't believe anyone would be in there right mind to compare our car to a Mustang (sorry if your a fan...I'm alergic to sold axels and bad handling).

EDIT...My GAWD...some of the comments about Mustangs are making me laugh I can't take it!

You do realize that the new mustangs are faster than a Z in a straight line and around a track, right? Hate them all you want, but it won't change the fact that it will post better lap times than the Z.