Quote:
Originally Posted by SS_Firehawk
Caveman, how is an inline 6 with turbo's lighter than a naturally aspirated V6 with no turbos? Displacement doesn't necessarily change the size of the motor. The physical size of the VQ hasn't changed, just it's displacement. Same with the LSx motors range from 5.3 all the way to 7 liters... physical dimensions are the same. Then you add the weight of the turbo's, intercooler, piping, strengthened components. It will not be lighter. 4 cylinder turbo motors don't save much weight over a V6. And to make an existing engine physically smaller, well that's pretty much impossible without redesigning it entirely.
|
I am no newby when it comes to engines but I appreicate where your coming from. Your argument is understandable BUT consider today's technology and the fact that I was implying a complete redesign for the engine. The VQ is not exactly on the weight loss plan especially when ancient pushrod technology like the LSx series motors with more displacement are coming in lighter. Now also consider that those motors were designed to allow for varrying displacement. You can only go so far due to the size/design of the block. I further realize turbo equipment will add weight to any engine bay but your talking about perhaps 30 to 40 lbs if done right. With that said if you build a physically small, efficient, light v or i 6 block and add a turbo I believe 1) if Nissan chooses they can make a smaller chasis 2) this design would be easier to cram against the firewall 3) displacement will be up to design and physical dimensions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SS_Firehawk
I think you failed to read through this thread entirely. Not only that, your comparing an RX-8 of all things. It had a chassis specifically engineered for only one car, had a rotary that weighs very little, again used on only one car, and a drivetrain made to handle it's puny 159 lbft of torque. The RX-8 was an expensive vehicle to engineer. They did it out of passion, not because it made any sense. Remember that Renault is running Nissan, they won't even entertain the idea. From an engineering and bean counter standpoint, Nissan is not going to move the Z to a dedicated chassis. One thing Nissan can take from Mazda is their skyactive idea. Improve mileage from a combination of sources, which has been posted by myself and others multiple times.
|
Actually, I did read this thread entirely and I saw a lot of bad ideas...Sorry. You missed my point entirely. The irony is that Mazda designed the Rx8 on a McDonalds budget. They only had a hand full of engineers and designers working on it. And you are 100% incorrect as that chasis was shared with the Miata. It is a streched Miata chasis. As far as the drivetrain...Let's see Tranny handles 400 to the wheels (ask the 3 rotor guys)...Drive shaft over 600 wHP...Rear end unknown...I know this because there is a crazy dude I know running a 3 rotor in my neck of the woods and that car was nuts...All being run off the Rx8 drivetrain. You are right though it was out of passion but id did make total sense just look at some of the NAtional Autocross champions and what they are driving Miata's and Rx8's to name a few. It's sales sucked because the engine tech just wasn't there.
As far as the Z going to a dedicated chasis your making assumptions on my part. I assume Nissan is going for a redesign here. They've already implied a smaller platform so I assume they will have a BRZ/FRS competitor with a Z badge and a stretched version of that platform for the Infinity G so I would say the G is going on a diet as well.
My point is that Mazda did something right...They engineered an amazing chasis capable of handling much more power then it came with. Nissan would be wise to pay such attention to detail in there chasis. Small/strong turbo 6 cyl as close to mid-engine layout as possible (attached to the firewall and low) and over engineered drivetrain.