backtop


Print 49 comment(s) - last by mehcin.. on Sep 2 at 2:35 PM

Nissan eventually plans to phase out the V6 for a turbocharged four-banger

Looming EPA regulations have resulted in big changes in the automotive world. We've seen a number of V8 engines give way to turbocharged V6s, while V6 engines in midsize sedans are being tossed or replaced with turbocharged inline-4s.
 
We're also on the cusp of seeing huge weight reductions for iconic automotive nameplates. The Ford is reportedly eyeing a 700-pound weight reduction for the next generation F-150 and a 400-pound weight reduction for the next Mustang.
 
According to a new report from Motor Trend, another fan favorite is going on a diet all in the name of performance and fuel economy concerns. The next generation Nissan Z (codenamed Z35) will lose two inches in width and a whopping 400+ pounds. The huge weight reduction would put the next generation Z below 2,900 pounds.


2013 Nissan 370Z
 
Motor Trend's sources indicate that while Nissan plans to offer the next generation Z with a V6 when it launches, the "master plan" is to phase out the V6 entirely in favor of a turbocharged, 2.5-liter inline-4. The turbo four will reportedly pump out 330hp, putting it on par with the 3.7-liter V6 used in the current 370Z.
 
The weight reduction and move to four-cylinder power should allow the new Z to achieve EPA numbers far better than the current car’s 18/26 mpg (city/highway) with a manual transmission.

Source: Motor Trend



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Now the question is
By FITCamaro on 8/27/2013 11:55:54 AM , Rating: 2
What will it do to the price. Losing 400 pounds of weight amidst the plethora of NHTSA regulations for safety equipment isn't easy. And simply cutting 2 inches off the width of the car isn't going to do much. I'd rather see them cut off the length though as a narrow sports car isn't a great sports car.




RE: Now the question is
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 8/27/2013 12:02:02 PM , Rating: 3
According to MT, it's supposed to start under $30,000. And the 370Z is already pretty short; it's 167" long -- 1" longer than a Scion FR-S. Why would you want it any shorter?

So this will basically be FR-S size and weight, but with more power. The FR-S starts at $25,000, so $29,995 base MSRP for the next gen Z seems doable.


RE: Now the question is
By FITCamaro on 8/27/2013 12:19:26 PM , Rating: 2
Yes and you can't fit much of a tire on a FR-S either. A serious problem for a car that you want to have a lot of grip.


RE: Now the question is
By lelias2k on 8/27/2013 6:33:25 PM , Rating: 2
That is not limited by width, but the engineering behind the project.

You can have a narrow car with wide tires, as long as it was designed that way.


RE: Now the question is
By Captain Awesome on 8/27/2013 12:10:09 PM , Rating: 2
I'm happy as long as they don't make it as small as a Miata or S2000.


RE: Now the question is
By Cheesew1z69 on 8/27/2013 12:31:56 PM , Rating: 5
The S2000 was a pretty bad ass car IMO...


RE: Now the question is
By Souka on 8/27/13, Rating: 0
RE: Now the question is
By Samus on 8/28/2013 3:29:42 AM , Rating: 2
The S2000 is also substantially bigger than the Miata of the time. The Miata now is about the size the S2000 was 10 years ago.


RE: Now the question is
By lelias2k on 8/28/2013 11:03:41 AM , Rating: 3
The current Miata is 5cm (2") longer than the original...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazda_MX-5


RE: Now the question is
By Dr of crap on 8/27/2013 12:12:23 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed.
These narrow cars they make now are stupid looking and cramped to be in. AND a sports car is supposed to be wide to have that great handling.


RE: Now the question is
By Jeffk464 on 8/27/2013 1:32:56 PM , Rating: 2
Companies are finally starting to get it, sports cars should be light. Hopefully they will be able to keep the same wheel bases and width by using lighter materials rather than shrinking the cars. Ford is following suit the next mustang is suppose to be under 3000 lbs.


RE: Now the question is
By FITCamaro on 8/28/2013 9:58:56 AM , Rating: 2
Had nothing to do with them not "getting it". Has everything to do with many older sports cars having an aging audience that wants a comfy ride and seats. Also crash standards have made all vehicles heavier. A Camaro used to be 3200-3300 pounds. Now its 3600-3700 for the V6 and higher for the V8. Some of that is better interiors and subframes. Some of that is mandated equipment weighing it down.


RE: Now the question is
By Jeffk464 on 8/27/2013 1:35:35 PM , Rating: 2
400 lbs shouldn't be hard, how about an aluminum chassis and more composites in the body panels. Ditch luxury items in sports cars like power seats, heated seats, etc.


RE: Now the question is
By FITCamaro on 8/28/2013 9:59:52 AM , Rating: 4
Maybe you're cool with dying in accidents, but I'm not. I'll keep my steel frame thank you.


RE: Now the question is
By Jeffk464 on 8/29/2013 10:58:14 AM , Rating: 2
Why do you think you can't make an aluminum chassis safe?


RE: Now the question is
By Rott3nHIppi3 on 8/28/2013 2:46:45 PM , Rating: 2
LOL... My '79 280zx has none of these 'luxury' items and it still weighs in at 2800lbs! She sure is pretty though!

http://carphotos.cardomain.com/ride_images/1/2210/...


RE: Now the question is
By Reclaimer77 on 8/28/2013 3:19:14 PM , Rating: 2
Oh man nice! What a beauty.

It reminds me of my old '77 Z that got totaled :( *sniff*


RE: Now the question is
By Reclaimer77 on 8/27/2013 2:11:12 PM , Rating: 1
The Government doesn't care about the price of vehicles. Actually Obama would love it if most people were forced to live within the meager means he's left for them and didn't own a vehicle. He's said so himself to anyone who actually pays attention.

Nissan is making the current Z they way they are because that's what people who buy Z's want. Nobody buys a Z car for fuel efficiency. And who are all these people who wanted to trade that wonderful six cylinder for another generic torque-starved laggy boosted 4 banger? Nobody, that's who. Nobody except the Government.

So the Mustang is being transformed into some kind of European crap-can Now the Z is well, a Z in name only. I'm sure soon Subaru will announce the cancellation of the WRX/STI models, as it's flat out impossible for them to meet this absurd fleet CAFE requirement with those in the group.

Who's next on the Government chopping block?


By 91TTZ on 8/27/2013 3:12:50 PM , Rating: 2
Smaller turbocharged engines don't always get better MPG. I have a 300ZX TT and it has a 3 liter V6, smaller than the 3.7 liter V6 in the 370Z. Yet I only get 22 mpg highway with it.

300ZXTT, 3.0 liter V6, 22 mpg
370Z, 3.7 liter V6, 26 mpg
Corvette, 6.2 liter V8, 29 mpg

Remember when Ford switched to the EcoBoost V6 in their trucks and claimed how much more efficient it is than a V8? Chevy's trucks stayed with V8s and get better fuel efficiency than Ford's ecoboost engines, all the while being simpler and less expensive.




By Sivar on 8/27/2013 4:43:54 PM , Rating: 2
You can't compare displacement of overhead cam engines to pushrod engines (Corvette).
Your point is still interesting, though.


By freedom4556 on 8/27/2013 5:50:54 PM , Rating: 2
Why the hell can't he? What does the actuation mechanism for the valves have to do with the swept volume of the cylinders? Mind boggling!


By Alexvrb on 8/28/2013 1:10:24 AM , Rating: 3
Well, displacement isn't important by itself. Otherwise you get these idiots that think that having a 300HP 2.0L is somehow automatically "better" or "more efficient" than a bigger engine with the same output - even though this isn't necessarily true!

DOHC engines tend to have higher output at the same displacement, so he is partially correct - it's silly to compare apples to apples using displacement numbers like that's supposed to mean anything. Especially given that OHV "V" engines are physically more compact than their DOHC brethren and thus very power dense.

So really, engine output (HP, Torque, and the associated curves) and actual real-world efficiency is what really matters. With that being said... the 6.2L LS3 (and new LT1) is a good example of how you can get good mileage AND power out of a naturally aspirated pushrod V8. The new 5.3L (LT1-derived) in their 2014 trucks is also similarly powerful and efficent. Oh, and they also build turbo L4 and V6 engines, so it's not like they're adverse either route.


By Samus on 8/28/2013 3:34:54 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with his point, as well. Why does Nissan's 3.7L V6 only get 26MPG Highway in such a slender vehicle?

Our 2012 Escape with a 240HP V6 does better than that, and it's a box on wheels. The engine is also a remnant of the 90's, still using coilpack ignition, MPFI, fixed cam gears and fixed intake runners. It isn't the epitome of efficiency.


By FITCamaro on 8/28/2013 10:01:30 AM , Rating: 2
The Corvette is both lighter and has lower highway gear ratios. The Nissan weighs more and is geared higher for better acceleration. Simple as that.


By 91TTZ on 8/28/2013 5:19:23 PM , Rating: 3
Part of the benefit to using a large displacement engine is that you can produce your torque down lower. When cruising at highway speeds RPM because one of the main factors in fuel consumption. If you can cruise at 1600 rpm instead of 3000 RPM that's a pretty big difference in fuel economy.

When you graph out the different factors in engine efficiency you see that some things increase linearly while some things square with speed.


By Skywalker123 on 8/30/2013 3:43:57 PM , Rating: 2
The only replacement for cubic inches is cubic money.


By Jeffk464 on 8/27/2013 6:45:31 PM , Rating: 2
I guess that means this will be a 250Z, the numbers are going backwards.


By Jeffk464 on 8/27/2013 6:48:52 PM , Rating: 3
Hey wait a second, that's suspiciously the same displacement as the 4cyl in the altima. Sounds like this is not going to be a new from the ground up engine.


By Chaser on 8/27/2013 7:46:14 PM , Rating: 4
The 1990's, 300ZX TT (VG30DETT) engine wasn't designed to break any fuel economy records.

2010 BMW 335i twin turbo V6: 320hp/332lb-ft 28mpg hiway
2013 Audi S5 Supercharged V6: 333HP/325lb-ft, 27MPG hiway.
2013 Ford Focus ST: 252HP/270lb-ft 32mpg hiway

And don't let the Ford fool you: I've driven both it and the 300Z ZXTT. The Focus ST will eat it for lunch off the line up to 85mph. (both stock)

Technology matters, 20 years later.


By SeeManRun on 8/27/2013 7:54:49 PM , Rating: 2
Power takes gas. Your comparison here isn't ideal. You're comparing a turbo 3 litre to a 3.7 litre naturally aspirated.

Why not compare the eco-boost 3.5 litre with the naturally aspirated 3.7 litre on an F150? Well, it makes no sense, that is why. The 3.7 puts out a fraction of the horse power and torque.

So, does your 3 litre turbo charged in your comparison put out the same HP and torque as the 3.7 litre? And what highway speeds are you running?

When Ford switched they claimed power of a V8 and fuel economy of a V6, but not in all situations. If you are towing 10k pounds up a hill, you will get V8 numbers, but if you're just idling along the freeway, your numbers will be comparable to a V6. That is the beauty of turbo, it is there when you need it, and only adds a bit of weight when you don't.


By 91TTZ on 8/28/2013 4:59:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Power takes gas. Your comparison here isn't ideal. You're comparing a turbo 3 litre to a 3.7 litre naturally aspirated.


Even the 3L NA V6 in the non-turbo Z gets poor fuel economy. That only has 222 HP but it still doesn't do much better than the TT version.

quote:
If you are towing 10k pounds up a hill, you will get V8 numbers, but if you're just idling along the freeway, your numbers will be comparable to a V6.


That's not how it works at all. Your required fuel is going to be proportional to the efficiency of the engine and the power it needs to produce. The Chevy V8 in their truck gets better fuel economy than the Ford Ecotec even when cruising on the highway.

quote:
That is the beauty of turbo, it is there when you need it, and only adds a bit of weight when you don't.


The turbo requires that your engine run a lower compression ratio than the non-turbo version would. This means that you lose some efficiency. Also, the turbo is a bit of a restriction in the exhaust stream.


Turbo vs Naturally aspirated
By chillingrsx on 8/27/2013 12:19:57 PM , Rating: 2
I don't believe this is true with turbo have better gas mileage than the non turbo. If you look at the Acura RDX, it was the coolest thing ever when it first came out. A turbo 4 bangers CUV. It didn't do so well. So what did Honda do, switch it up a v6 and it's selling like hot cakes. I know because I own one. I did test drove the turbo and boy it was day and night difference. The v6 is more refine. Guess what, the v6 still have better gas mileage.




RE: Turbo vs Naturally aspirated
By Pneumothorax on 8/27/2013 1:16:04 PM , Rating: 2
Yup, many of these forced-induction direct injection 4-bangers have great EPA numbers on paper, but in RL barely get 1-2MPG better than their V6 forebears. They also add a ton of complexity with the addition of turbos/HPFP along with worse NVH.


RE: Turbo vs Naturally aspirated
By lagomorpha on 8/27/2013 1:50:09 PM , Rating: 2
A lot of the reduced efficiency comes from forced-induction engines requiring lower compression ratios. It wouldn't be a problem if GM had not killed off Saab's variable compression ratio research just before it was ready for production.


RE: Turbo vs Naturally aspirated
By Jeffk464 on 8/27/2013 6:53:21 PM , Rating: 2
You sure, I think you can put a 6psi turbo on any factory engine. When you start getting into 12psi turbos the engine has to be designed all the way around for the turbo. I'm pretty sure ecoboost engines are lightly boosted, don't know what they will do for the Z a 12psi turbo would be a lot more fun.


RE: Turbo vs Naturally aspirated
By UnauthorisedAccess on 8/27/2013 9:30:22 PM , Rating: 2
It has a lot to do with the engines compression. Secondly, you need to have the injectors/fuel pump able to supply the increase in fuel and thirdly the ECU mapped accordingly.

You cannot just bolt on a turbo running 6 PSI and have a bunch of extra horsepower without risk. Some engines this might be possible if you start using a higher octane fuel, though some engines the ECU might not cope with the change.

If you've got a high compression engine (11:1 etc) then you'll be riding the fine line of detonation even with low PSI.

In my experience and imho, you either by an engine that is turbo or you leave it NA. Don't turbo an NA engine unless you're doing a full house rebuild.


RE: Turbo vs Naturally aspirated
By lagomorpha on 8/28/2013 8:17:39 AM , Rating: 2
It really depends on the engine. If you've got something that's already pretty solidly built and has pretty big injectors but has a high compression ratio (for example a Hayabusa engine) then you can usually get away with just installing a thicker headgasket to reduce the compression ratio and you can use a turbo without knocking. On the other hand if you feel like installing a turbo in a Hayabusa you might consider seeing a psychologist.


RE: Turbo vs Naturally aspirated
By 91TTZ on 8/28/2013 5:08:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In my experience and imho, you either by an engine that is turbo or you leave it NA. Don't turbo an NA engine unless you're doing a full house rebuild.


I agree with you. The turbo engines usually have several subtle differences to increase reliability. Differences between the NA Z engine and the TT engine:

1. The TT has a lower compression ratio.
2. The NA Z has stainless steel exhaust valves while the TT version has inconel exhaust valves to withstand the higher exhaust temperature
3. The turbo version has different pistons with holes on the bottom for oil squirters to cool the bottom of the pistons
4. The oil squirters are different.
5. The fuel pump is larger to flow more fuel. This isn't on the engine but you'll need it.
6. The ECU is different and uses fuel maps that go beyond vacuum-0 psi.


RE: Turbo vs Naturally aspirated
By Jeffk464 on 8/27/2013 1:38:33 PM , Rating: 2
It really depends how you drive, if you have a lead foot they do about the same but if you drive more mileage the turbo does better. When you are just humming along the turbo isn't really spooled up where a V8 always has the drag of a huge engine.


A turbo I4 always loses to a V6 with VCM
By greenchinesepuck on 8/27/2013 1:18:31 PM , Rating: 2
If you have a V6 with VCM (see 2013 Honda Odyssey for an example) you can shut off from 2 to 4 cylinders depending on the torque/power you need, so you'll get V6 power with I4 fuel economy. Turbo is not necessary, with turbo you'll get the same economy plus much higher maintenance costs. No, thank you but no.




By sorry dog on 8/27/2013 9:52:07 PM , Rating: 2
Speaking of complexity... I'm sure all that variable lifting timing stuff adds a few moving parts here and there.

...and while I don't think your assertion about fuel economy is necessarily wrong, one thing about most factory turbo motors is that they deliver full torque at lower rpm's than a similar powered NA motor. Unless your talking about much bigger displacement, a 4 stroke NA motor has to spin up to get a few more bangs in to deliver the power.


By macca007 on 8/28/2013 3:49:51 AM , Rating: 2
Agree,V8's now have this as well, Displacement on Demand/Active Fuel management just a few terms used for it, Shuts off 4 cylinders when you are cruising lightly around town, Floor it and within a fraction of a second it goes back to V8 mode, On freeway have had it down to 9 litres/100 not bad for a 6 litre V8 with 500+nm torque.
Even when it's not in economy mode it still gets around 11-12 litres per 100 in stop/start traffic, Impressive.
If you want more hp then the turbo or super charger is the way to go, Fuel economy wise I am just not convinced unless you are putting it on a go cart type car that is small and weighs nothing, Which it seems is the way it's all going!
Buzz boxes and death traps, I'll take a large car with crumple zone with large V8. I look forward to the next Gen V V8 with Direct injection which will bring the fuel numbers down even more, Entering V6 territory while still pumping out around 450hp


good trade
By Captain Awesome on 8/27/2013 12:01:58 PM , Rating: 2
Seems like a good trade, a 330hp V6 for a 330hp four cylinder engine in a 400 pound lighter car.




Silvia?
By rhangman on 8/28/2013 12:22:26 AM , Rating: 2
Surely if they want a light RWD coupe with a S4 turbo, they should just release a new Silvia?




wel earning project
By mehcin on 9/2/2013 2:35:36 PM , Rating: 2
upto I saw the paycheck 4 $7383, I be certain that...my... brothers friend was realey bringing in money parttime
from there new laptop.. there great aunt started doing this for under 6 months and just now paid the depts on there
apartment and purchased a top of the range Ford Mustang. image source www.star48.com




FAT
By headbox on 8/27/13, Rating: -1
RE: FAT
By euler007 on 8/27/2013 12:07:02 PM , Rating: 2
How is he coming out?


RE: FAT
RE: FAT
By greenchinesepuck on 8/27/2013 4:48:17 PM , Rating: 2
eh, scroll to 0:50 if you wanna see how he gets out of a car


"We shipped it on Saturday. Then on Sunday, we rested." -- Steve Jobs on the iPad launch














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki