Why not bring back the turbos?
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
From: NJ
the new trannies in the evo ten excite me. they should be in the z.
along with the 3.7 vq making 350 na hp and revving to 7.5k rpm.. and losing maybe 100 lbs= what i would like to see.
i've done the turbo car thing over and over now.
i AM an enthusiast. the last thing i want added to the z is turbos. i cant be the only one.
along with the 3.7 vq making 350 na hp and revving to 7.5k rpm.. and losing maybe 100 lbs= what i would like to see.
i've done the turbo car thing over and over now.
i AM an enthusiast. the last thing i want added to the z is turbos. i cant be the only one.
It's definitely more impressive to have a 300hp n/a than a turbocharged 300hp. I was impressed with the Z when it came out in 03' with 287hp v6 and the 05' stang was 300hp v8. Not to shabby. Just something about Evo's and Sti's (4 door 4 seater) dont beat a 2 door 2 seater sports car. I am worried about that new camaro coming out. God I hope I dont want one. That would be really bad. And the gt-r price tag? I think 74,000, that's almost porche style. But is it porche competition?
Registered User
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
From: SoCal
Originally Posted by Manchester
I am worried about that new camaro coming out. God I hope I dont want one.
I am really excited about the Camaro coming. Not only because it should be a pretty cool car, but it will force Nissan to step up its game. A win-win from my perspective.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
From: Henderson
A lot of you are saying that with turbos the price will go up and kill the sales of the Z cause it will be too expensive. I think most who are asking for factory FI are saying to keep the n/a version around for the low bargin price but have a FI version available for those who have the extra money and want to.
You guys are right that the 90's era cars got so expensive that it didn't seem like a bargin to buyers when they could just get a vette or porsche with more prestige. My theory would be to keep the n/a Z and then offer a FI Z at right at 40k, just under cutting the Vette. Make it with 380-420hp and it would be good to go. Other car companies do this and sell cars. Look at the mustang and chargers. They have thier cheap base price cars and for those who want to pay more you can step up to the 400+hp versions. I'm just saying nissan should at least make it an option and let the consumer decide
You guys are right that the 90's era cars got so expensive that it didn't seem like a bargin to buyers when they could just get a vette or porsche with more prestige. My theory would be to keep the n/a Z and then offer a FI Z at right at 40k, just under cutting the Vette. Make it with 380-420hp and it would be good to go. Other car companies do this and sell cars. Look at the mustang and chargers. They have thier cheap base price cars and for those who want to pay more you can step up to the 400+hp versions. I'm just saying nissan should at least make it an option and let the consumer decide
Originally Posted by 280z/300zx
You guys are right that the 90's era cars got so expensive that it didn't seem like a bargin to buyers when they could just get a vette or porsche with more prestige. My theory would be to keep the n/a Z and then offer a FI Z at right at 40k, just under cutting the Vette. Make it with 380-420hp and it would be good to go. Other car companies do this and sell cars. Look at the mustang and chargers. They have thier cheap base price cars and for those who want to pay more you can step up to the 400+hp versions. I'm just saying nissan should at least make it an option and let the consumer decide
What you're saying is to create one engine specifically for that one car.
That in itself is a cost issue and therefore one would have to price that vehicle higher than the others and it would be much higher. It's not as simple as saying "let's make a 400HP Z for $40K", let's be realistic here.
As for other manufacturers doing this, the reason they do this is for brand image and not for making money. They make very little if any money on some of the more specialized versions of their cars. If you don't believe this then please do some reading on how much money is actually made on selling said specialty line cars.
Originally Posted by 280z/300zx
Look at the mustang and chargers. They have thier cheap base price cars and for those who want to pay more you can step up to the 400+hp versions. I'm just saying nissan should at least make it an option and let the consumer decide
Of course, the Z could be something different. Just keep the price as is now and just have a FI version for around 45-50k.
With 400hp it'd sell beautifully imo
Forget about the F/I version, 345HP V6 and 400+HP V8 N/A versions would make the most sense. When's the last time Nissan made a F/I model in their line-up? 10, 11, 12 years ago? Maintenance and reliability issues for F/I would be a pretty tough ordeal. I don't think they would have 2 turboed models in their line-up at the same time either.
Guest
Posts: n/a
reasons why not
1 Turboed price range almost killed the Z back in 1996
2. 350 HP can be made from a 3.8 liter NA VQ (see 380Z RS)
3. GT-R - with the intorduction into the US market it gives nissan even less of a reason especially now that we know the TTed GT-R isnt a VQ engine
1 Turboed price range almost killed the Z back in 1996
2. 350 HP can be made from a 3.8 liter NA VQ (see 380Z RS)
3. GT-R - with the intorduction into the US market it gives nissan even less of a reason especially now that we know the TTed GT-R isnt a VQ engine
Last edited by **; Oct 10, 2007 at 12:56 AM.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
From: Ohio/Florida
Originally Posted by black06z
Forget about the F/I version, 345HP V6 and 400+HP V8 N/A versions would make the most sense. When's the last time Nissan made a F/I model in their line-up? 10, 11, 12 years ago? Maintenance and reliability issues for F/I would be a pretty tough ordeal. I don't think they would have 2 turboed models in their line-up at the same time either.
Why does everyone make such a big deal out of the maintenance and reliabiliy? Change your oil regularly and let your turbo cool after running it hard and that takes care of 85% of your problems right there. Why is having 2 turbo cars in the line up a bad thing One cost double of the other. They are 2 different levels of performance. That's like Ford saying they couldn't make a Shelby gt500 because they have the FORD GT out, or chevy saying they shouldn't make the Camero because they have the Corvette.
Originally Posted by Rooftop voter
Why does everyone make such a big deal out of the maintenance and reliabiliy? Change your oil regularly and let your turbo cool after running it hard and that takes care of 85% of your problems right there. Why is having 2 turbo cars in the line up a bad thing One cost double of the other. They are 2 different levels of performance. That's like Ford saying they couldn't make a Shelby gt500 because they have the FORD GT out, or chevy saying they shouldn't make the Camero because they have the Corvette.
Those cars you mentioned are both performance and high performance cars. The Z is a performance car and the GTR is the high performance car. I don't see what point you're trying to make with Nissan vs them with turbos.
Originally Posted by MC
reasons why not
1 Turboed price range almost killed the Z back in 1996
2. 350 HP can be made from a 3.8 liter NA VQ (see 380Z RS)
3. GT-R - with the intorduction into the US market it gives nissan even less of a reason especially now that we know the TTed GT-R isnt a VQ engine
1 Turboed price range almost killed the Z back in 1996
2. 350 HP can be made from a 3.8 liter NA VQ (see 380Z RS)
3. GT-R - with the intorduction into the US market it gives nissan even less of a reason especially now that we know the TTed GT-R isnt a VQ engine
Originally Posted by Rooftop voter
Well I'm not sure of the reliablity of previous Zs, but there are other cars out there running turbos, and although they may not be the most reliable cars, I don't hear a lot of complaints about the turbos. WRX, WRX STI, EVO, SRT-4, VW jetta, VW bug, previous cars were the eclipse gst, and gsx line, 3000gt vr4 or stealth. Now some of these cars were not known to be the best, but problems with the turbo were rare weren't they? Build the engine a little better, lower compression a little and I think it would be OK. I think with modern technology they could make them a lot more reliable than early on. Plus, reliablity in sports cars has never really been extremely high, look at the camero and mustang. I would be much happier with a 3.5 TT turning out 350 bhp than I would be with a 3.7 turning out 350bhp as long as it wasn't maxed from the factory for some reason, I.E crappy tranny. With the present motor bieng almost maxed out NA at 308 with the 3.5, I would have to assume that at 350 the 3.7 will be close to maxed.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
From: Ohio/Florida
I don't really think the 3000gt, supra, srt-4 or the eclipses are that ugly. I think the 350 looks the best, but I'm gonna be looking at STIs anyway. I'd rather look slow and be fast, then look fast and be slow, then again, I'm more performance minded. Plus it sucks even worse when you get walked by an "ugly" car.
i feel nissan shouldve put a tt setup from the factory, but that would probably make low cost appeal of the z non existent. a tt would jack the price up. not to mention, we make avg. 250 at the wheels n/a. add a source of f/i, and the numbers quickly jump. i think nissan did pretty good with the z...maybe lacking alittle power. i just hope the next gen z is more substance than fluff, and doesnt come molested with all the elctronic gizmos that add useless weight
Everyone keeps saying that if Nissan added a TT option, that the affordability factor goes out the window. That's why in the 90's, you had the option to get an NA version. Why couldn't they do the same now? And don't tell me it would invade the GTR's space....totally different platforms and price bracket. Someone give me a great reason why Nissan couldn't offer a TT "option" priced around 45k for those that wanted it? Perhaps in somewhat limited numbers? Those that want cheap sub-30k performance would still have the NA version, and those that wanted factory turbos could pony up more dough and opt for the FI version. Just makes too much sense to me not to.
I bet only a handful of us will seriously be looking into the GTR, but more than half of the forum would seriously look into buying a 45k dollar factory TT Z.
I bet only a handful of us will seriously be looking into the GTR, but more than half of the forum would seriously look into buying a 45k dollar factory TT Z.
