I wonder if the extra power is coming through an alternate head design that incorporates variable lift and duration. That's the one thing that I really think Nissan hasn't incorporated that it should. Honda's iVTEC is still a superior technology because of this (someone tell me I'm wrong for some reason).I hate the aluminum looking handles on the 350Z. First I thought they were actually aluminum, then I went to open one on a test drive and I was like, "Oh, it's plastic!" Well it makes sense to avoid the 5th degree burns that would come from metal door handles, but they don't feel right.

 

MPG on the new monZter, anyone?

 

I actually like the fact the entry price is higher. That means there will be less Z's on the road, making it even more of a treat to drive one. I would like the Z, but I see far too many of them.

My brother used to say "Ahhh, the Z is an entry level sports car' mockingly. Now, it has elevated itself some IMO. Kudos to Nissan; now just deliver a product I can use the aftermarket to work with if I do not like the stock look. Even more, drop a Nismo version!!!

 

I'm hoping that its about $28,999 base same engine, $34 - $39k for the best performance Nismo just another option in this price range.

I would like the base being 330hp version and the E and up being 350hp version; plus a Roadster and a 2+2 use that space for seats instead of speakers, put the speakers in the side walls. Wider tires, adjustable struts for the ride, heavier suspension and other performance items on the high end cars.

I think the MPG might be the same or better somewhere around 17 city and 27 highway and 11-12 mpg if you got a heavy foot just like it is now.

 

iVTEC only offers 2-stage variable valve lift (by alternating between two different cam lobe profiles) while VVEL achieves steplessly variable valve lift on the intake side. The only other similar technology is BMW's Valvetronic. I think it's easier to argue that VVEL is superior.

 

I was actually refering to the fact that iVTEC's applications alter the duration as well, and is found on both intake and exhaust cams. If Nissan (or anyone) incorporated VVEL on all cams, and allowed it to change the duration, that would be the ultimate variable valve timing system.

 

Freaking double post. The site's acting funny.

 

great... 370z....

 

I see what you mean.

The same can be said about duration. As valve lift increases, duration has to increase accordingly, or the ramp angle will be too steep.

The graphs below, one for VVEL, one for Valvetronic, should help to illustrate the variable duration.

http://bp3.blogger.com/_8MPCKJQzPA8/...600-h/VVEL.gif



A major purpose to vary the duration is to control the intake/exhaust overlap. Both VVEL and iVTEC can achieve variable valve overlap with their variable camshaft phasing systems. Correct me if I'm mistaken. I believe iVTEC only has variable cam phasing on the intake side, where the VQ37 varies both intake and exhaust.

Of course, iVTEC's dual personality nature could be tuned to deliver that rush at switch-over, but a continuously variable system would deliver optimized valve actuation over a wider range of operating conditions.

Regarding variable valve lift on the exhaust side, the benefit is less than on the intake. We have to go back one step and look at why variable valve lift was implemented in the first place. A high-lift cam would allow more air into the cylinder, but it causes high pumping loss at partial throttle and slows down the intake velocity into the cylinders at low rpm, which compromises air/fuel mixture. A low-lift intake cam profile ensures high intake air velocity and reduces pumping loss at low-throttle/rpm. Both issues are irrelevant for the exhaust phase. There might be marginal benefit in adopting VVEL for the exhaust side as well, but the engineers probably found the complexity and cost to be unjustified.