Nissan Z, step aside

That's a deal-breaker right there. Well, that and the price. :)

Why deal with turbo lag, engine parts that glow bright orange after you drive your car and melt if you don't cool them down properly when you can just get a larger NA engine?

Ha! That means the car NEEDS regular tuning in order to remain streetable. What happens after the warranty runs out? Do I need to hire my own full-time personal mechanic? No, thanks - just give me a Z-06. :)

I was thinking something completely different; why would you have a V-6 when both Nissan and Toyota in the past have had perfectly good I-6 designs that they chose not to develop and/or replace with updated versions of the same architecture. Guess I have to buy a Bimmer to get my fix of creamy smooth I-6 goodness (Ford pickup technically qualifies but is not nearly as satisfying.) Or find an old Supra that hasn't been "Fast and Furioused" to death. Or an original Z-car, or Triumph TR-6... (I'd be happy with any, probably...)

Drive a VW with the 1.8T engine (I guess now it's a 2.0T) and you will begin worshipping at the Church of Forced Induction. That sucker has a torque curve that looks like my kitchen table. It is, indeed, a beautiful thing. I hope my mom gets sick of my old car soon so I can buy it back :)

Of course this new GT-R is going to never be imported to the US (case in point, the previous Skyline GT-R) so any praises or complaints are really academic at this point.

Also, to respond to the initial article - isn't the Z a little porky to be considered a "sports car?" I'd consider it a 2-person GT myself. It's a nice car, don't get me wrong, but it just doesn't push my "sports car" buttons.

nate

Nah, i'd rather have this 608hp awd sentra

and keep the savings for blown engines...heck, I thought I was doing good with 310 hp at the wheels of my SE-R.......

Ford quit selling an I-6 in pickups a decade ago. The last application was 1996 F250 2WD. I had a 4.9L I-6 in my 1992 F150 - great engine, but it made the truck very nose heavy. You can still get an I-6 diesel in a Dodge pickup truck. GM sells a DOHC I-6 in the intermediate sized SUVs (TrailBlazer etc.).

Ed

Yeah, all of my vehicles (save for the company car) are well broken in :)

nate

Apparently you haven't driven any modern, cooled, high power turbo's. With a 3.8L there will be more than enough takeoff torque and the (modern design, and especially twin) turbo will kick in plenty soon. A good turbo driver will have it spinning off the line and the challenge will be keeping the wheels down rather than generating power.

Nothing glows anymore and nothing melts or requires specific cool down. I think you need to drive a newer turbo for a few days and appreciate what it adds.

You're right, I haven't. But I was thinking of test-driving a 335i in the next few days.

There's no question a turbo will generate power at higher revs. The question is, given all the drawbacks, what's the advantage of a smaller turbocharged engine vs. a larger, normally-aspirated engine? Sure, you save a little weight, but is that worth all the hassles?

My understanding is that the cool-down is still necessary, but the cars just come with "turbo timers" to take care of the cool-down automatically, making the process less error-prone.

Got one to loan me? :)

Most turbo's today blow heavy by about 2K RPM, so it's really not "higher revs" anymore. Once you are off the line, it's cranking. I have to admit, it took me over a year to figure out how to have it blowing as you take off. When you first drive most turbo's you worry about things like pulling out across traffic safely. It's also worth noting that most turbo cars today actually have the boost tuned down in 1st and 2nd gear by the factory to reduce wheel spin and make the cars more like NA cars. That can be "corrected" through hardware or software.

I confess to not checking out this particular car in detail but most twin setups are not usually what you'd expect - that is, they are not two matching turbos, one on each manifold. One turbo can produce way more boost than you can use on the street. But, the bigger the turbo, the more spin up required. So most twin turbos usually have a small turbo and a large turbo. The small one spins up very fast (but runs out of boost), the big one spins up slower but generates lots of boost. While a single turbo car these days does compromise a little, most stock turbos and injectors can easily produce 100->125hp/liter with limited/reasonable spin up time.

Back to your question "is it worth the hassle?". Traditionally, the turbo will get better mileage than the non-turbo for the same amount of power as it is more efficient.

Also, they aren't really very complicated. Every car is already fuel injected and run by a computer metering fuel and/or air these days. Engine controls throw feedback to the computer and it adjusts. Same old thing. The turbo system just adds a little plumbing and a couple more controls. It's actually very simple and easy to get your hands around.

I think the real draw is the incredible torque in mid to upper range. With most NA engines I've driven, they can pull pretty hard but the pull is fairly straight then it drops off. With the turbo, as boost builds, the pull just starts increasing as the boost builds, like an invisible hand pushing you along. It's fun (and that's the reason people like turbo and SC engines... the fun factor.)

Editor's note: (not that I don't find an twin cam motor that will pull

8K RPM any less fun!)

I don't think any designs have used that since the mid-90's, but I'm no industry expert. Synthetic oil has made a big difference as dino oil will coke up turbo bearings at shutoff. Previously, turbos guys would let the engine idle for a little bit when pulling in to let the turbo cool. I haven't heard of that being an issue in any recent model turbos.

Naw, but you local dealer would probably be happy to strap you in!

By brake-torquing it? :)

Then turbos are different than belt-driven superchargers. My 2003 Cobra had a 4.6L engine with a Roots supercharger, and its gas mileage sucked so bad I had to pay a $1000 Gas Guzzler Tax when I bought it. The fuel economy was MUCH worse than the normally-aspirated 4.6L engine in my previous Cobra (or in the Mustang GT).

All right, you've convinced me to not dismiss a turbocharged car out-of-hand.

Kinda like a Honda VTEC engine. :)

Good to know. Thanks for the info!

No.

Yes.

Somewhat.

Enjoy your chevy.

Dustin

Nope. I haven't exactly diagrammed it, but my feet know the routine :-) It's more like a rev just before takeoff to kick up the turbo, then hit it fairly hard, then back off. The rev has to be just right because you need the turbo spinning but you don't want to be clutch slipping from a high rev when you actually hit it. At the same time, you have to control the throttle (usually by backing off once you get moving) to avoid spinning the tires as th boost kicks in. It's a little bit of a balancing act. Sounds complicated, but your feet figure it out after a while and then it's just instinctive like most of serious driving.

Well, one issue is matching engines, the other is driving style. If the NA 4.6 has less power, then it's not an equal MPG test. Also, a SC uses engine power to drive the SC which is much less efficient than using the waste exhaust stream like a turbo does. The advantage is that the SC has no lag.

But much bigger in whoosh, depending on the application.