seems like there is more bang/buck out of a fi engine (evo, wrx). and there are definitely reliable and affordable turbocharged cars out there. so why the choice to go with na for the z? just wondering.

 

it would drive the cost of the car into what the 300ZX was. just too much. if you add the cost of motor reinforcment, and tubro it raises the price up to over 40 grand. that kinda tosses the affordable sports car into corvette range.

 

I agree, Nissan wanted to keep the cost down

 

I think you're actually seeing the more bang for the buck of taking an existing economy car and adding the go-fast parts.

 

Maintence would be a lot more expensive. That is another reason why the Z wasn't turbo.

 

Whats the answer to 99 out of 100 questions? Money.

 

a FI 4cyl is going for more than the Z, base evo is 27k base Z is 26. the STI without a stereo is 34-35. these are modified sedans as BDM said; base price well under 20k.

to put a turbo or 2 into a Z when you see its base price is 26k, your suddenly at 40k or more. they could have done it Im sure, but simply put, they dont have the resources for it. they needed this to be a medium production car, not a short run. some cars like the corvette and S2000 are status symbols, flagships meant to flex their brand power. the Z was meant to make money plain and simple.

 

Because it'd eat into the 2007 Skyline sales....

 

You know, I think the auto industry has flashed back into the early-mid 80s when almost every car with even the slightest sporting intentions had a turbo model. Do we remember what we learned from those days? Before I begin, let the usual disclaimers apply that this is just what I have observed, and I am by no means an expert on turbocharged cars, despite having owned 5. So, I'll review:

#1) Turbo cars are usually quick from the factory and are very easily modded. (The modding part is actually a drawback for manufacturers)

#2) Turbo cars need a lot of maintenance - even when beautifully engineered.

#3) Turbo cars typically (note I said typically) have a narrow power range, so day to day driving in traffic doesn't feel as good as ratings would have you believe.

#4) Turbo cars (at least turbo motors) usually have a shorter lifespan than NA equivalents - Just look at the rotaries mazda made.

#5) Manufacturers rarely make a lot of money on turbocharged cars b/c they have a limited market, are expensive to develop, and usually have many problems.

The bottom line is Nissan needed a car that would be a success without huge overhead. As it is it looks like the Z needed a little more testing, as judging from the feathering, seatbelt probs, etc. Last thing Nissan needed was a 1/2-*** turbo design.

Just my $.02

 

Looking back at the 1980's, there was another reason for the turbo charged cars. Manufacturers simply didn't have a supply of 6 cylinders engines they could use. There were 4 cylinders and V8 engines and nothing in between. They had to get more gas mileage so they were opting for more and more 4 cylinder engines and putting turbos on them for more power. The switch over to front wheel drive could not happen with the large V8 everyone was used to. Basically, 1992 was when the turbo engines stopped being produced and that was the first year with a large number of V6 engines available. The switchover from V8's and rear wheel drive to the smaller cars with front wheel drive took most of the 80's to accomplish. This scenario isn't true for the high perfomance machinery, just witness the 300ZX TT, the 3000GT VR-4, the Stealth Twin Turbo, the Porsche turbos. They were produced for most of the 1990's and the Porsche turbo is still with us. For the most part, turbo charging was a stop gap measure used to fill a void when good lightweight V-6 engines were not available.

Just my .02.

Les

 

oh right, good point. i had evo, wrx, srt4 in mind when i posted. and they're all tuned econoboxes, like you're talking about.

i just started wondering about it because my wrx is perfectly reliable, affordable, and works well as a daily driver, so it contradicts most of the other points here which are the ones i've always heard in the past. but the tuned econobox thing makes sense.

 

The WRX does manage to escape most of the probs w/turbos. That said it has quite a bit of lag. Having driven a 02 WRX extensively (ie 3mos), I can say that they are fastest when slipping the clutch. From a roll or on a gentle takeoff, it feels like a regular economy car until about 3.5-4k.

Plus, what you gain in performance in the WRX you give up in refinement. The engine is very noisy, the power non-linear. This is perfectly acceptable in a hot econobox, but the Z was designed to be a muscular sports car from the beginning. The idea behind the Z (at least in my head) is effortless performance and athleticism.

I really like the WRX, and if I needed a 4 door I would strongly consider one. You're right in that it's one of the best turbo'd cars out there - relatively reliable, fast, and cheap for what it has to offer.

NzZ

 

when modified it loses some reliability, to a point of course, little bit wont matter.

the WRX is not particarly "tuned". 227hp, there are 240hp NA 4cyl. on the other hand, 287 and 300 are a bit more extreme for a 4cyl. just as for this to ring true for a V6, youd need to be talkin about 340 or more with the turbos.

 

Actually I am kinda sick of random people coming up and either asking if it is a turbo or why isnt it a turbo. Gr...

 

A regular WRX's tranny can only take so much HP before a new tranny is needed so as for modding the crap out of the WRX people should think twice.

 

Amen!

I don't have people asking me...but I think the term "turbo" is sometimes overused and thrown around.

"You going to throw a turbo into that Z ?"

I ask people if they even know what a turbo technically is and they give me this blank stare.
Some people think it's a magical box that goes inside the engine and makes it faster.

I made a promise with some of my buddies though...

"When you guys can keep up i'll drop the cash for a Greddy TT"

I guess no turbo for a looooong time.

 

I believe the turbo 4 craze of the 80's was a direct result of the gas crisis of the 70's. The theory being that in normal everyday driving, you had the economy of a 4, but when you needed the power the turbo would kick in to assist the otherwise unimpressive engine. This led to turbo 4's in Mustangs, Thunderbirds, and, of course EVERY vehicle Chrysler produced in the 80's.

 

so does that mean the future upgrades to the z will likely not be FI since the price would raise enough to remind people of the 300ZX TT days? Im not too knowledgable on this but the engine in the Z now seems like something nissan wouldnt want to drop anytime soon and it seems like people here are putting a good amount of money in improvements with minimal power increases. future model power increases dont seem that hopeful... or am i way off

 

ohhh one more question ive been wondering. if the sti and evo are econoboxes made to go fast but have a price of around 30k, what makes the Z cost 27k base? what is it that makes the 287 hp Z such a great value when you could get an sti or evo for the same with the same if not better power albeit in a worse looking package?

 

The current Z has a 200k motor, and runs good...got to love it.