PDA

View Full Version : Nissan will build small RWD car based on IDx Concept



Kchrpm
January 15th, 2014, 06:22 AM
http://jalopnik.com/nissan-confirms-the-rear-drive-idx-concept-will-go-to-p-1501793053


Nissan executive vice president Andy Palmer told media there was no confirmation of which of the two concept models would hit production.

"Don't say that we won't do both, but we will definitely do one of them," he said.

He went on to hint that the IDx might have a manual transmission, or at the very least, paddle shifters.

Here is the Nismo version at the Detroit Auto Show, as a reminder.

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/19cmbd9k9v1t5jpg/original.jpg

novicius
January 15th, 2014, 06:23 AM
So very cool. :up: :up:

Fogelhund
January 15th, 2014, 06:51 AM
It will be interesting to see what the final version looks like. I can't see them doing just a two seater, so the car will have to be bigger than this. Good to see some RWD cars coming to the market though.

Kchrpm
January 15th, 2014, 06:55 AM
They wouldn't have to extend the wheelbase much to fit in some tiny buckets, and the styling lends itself to plenty of headroom, so it shouldn't be too much longer.

Impreza
January 15th, 2014, 07:25 AM
More of a squared-off/blocky alternative to the FR-S/BRZ... definitely not a bad idea. A production version will obviously be less out there, but I hope they keep most of the styling cues seen on the concept.

Kchrpm
January 15th, 2014, 07:26 AM
If the production version doesn't keep the side exhaust, it will be a failure

:assclown:

Leon
January 15th, 2014, 09:55 AM
Strangely reminds me of a Fiat 850 coupe ... where's Taimar ...

http://www.rx8club.com/attachments/general-automotive-49/142213d1247579099-fiat-500-headed-us-fiat-850-coupe-jpg

Denetti
January 15th, 2014, 10:03 AM
I love the way these look and will definitely keep them on my radar. If these are decent I'd much rather have one of these then an FRS.

Of course if Mazda were to enter the segment with a Miata hardtop... Unfortunately not gonna happen.

Random
January 15th, 2014, 10:03 AM
Strangely reminds me of a Fiat 850 coupe ... where's Taimar ...

http://www.rx8club.com/attachments/general-automotive-49/142213d1247579099-fiat-500-headed-us-fiat-850-coupe-jpg

Hanging out of helicopters taking pictures of airplanes. I don't think he's made it to the new site yet.

Kchrpm
January 15th, 2014, 10:16 AM
I always thought that was just his hobby, that's his job?

jimeez
January 15th, 2014, 03:59 PM
Reminds me of a 72 Celica

Yobbo NZ
January 15th, 2014, 05:31 PM
The Silbeer returns!

novicius
January 16th, 2014, 05:08 AM
Just another dog to chase down in my MINI. :hard:


Of course if Mazda were to enter the segment with a Miata hardtop... Unfortunately not gonna happen.
But there is a Miata hardtop, Dee -- the Power Retractable Hard Top! ;)

speedpimp
January 19th, 2014, 01:34 PM
I always thought that was just his hobby, that's his job?

Yes.

Kchrpm
January 20th, 2014, 06:50 AM
Related: the 370Z replacement will most likely have a smaller, turbocharged engine.

http://jalopnik.com/nissan-is-probably-cooking-up-a-new-turbo-z-1504981955


On a replacement for the 370Z, he said: "I know what the powertrain will be and I know it will exist. It would be reasonable to assume it will have a downsized turbo engine. There will be normal and Nismo versions."

samoht
January 20th, 2014, 01:49 PM
So, a Silvia by another name? The 'Fairlady' and 'Fairlady Z' lineages come back together again after all these years?

MR2 Fan
January 20th, 2014, 02:12 PM
how about FairSilvia? SilviaLady?

IMOA
January 20th, 2014, 03:56 PM
The way I'm reading that is that the new Z/Fairvia will be on an extended IDX platform rather than a chopped Skyline platform. That's always been the problem with the current Z, they couldn't get the weight down enough using the FM platform. Being a silvia guy rather than a Z guy it's brilliant news to me and if they do it I'd likely jump back into the Nissan camp.

thesameguy
January 21st, 2014, 10:20 AM
That really is good news, and a great way to spread out the development costs of the IDX!

Fogelhund
January 21st, 2014, 06:03 PM
A smaller turbo Z... well that just isn't a Z is it? As others have said, it's a Silvia.

Random
January 21st, 2014, 06:27 PM
Wasn't the S15 about the same size as the current Z?

TheBenior
January 21st, 2014, 06:57 PM
According to Wikipedia, the 370Z is 8" shorter in length, 1" taller in height, has a 1.4" longer wheelbase, and a not insignificant 5.8" wider.

Weight-wise, the 370Z is 586lbs heavier then the lightest (I assume non-turbo) S15. Turbo models were about 100lbs heavier.

IMOA
January 21st, 2014, 07:00 PM
Yeah, in terms of dimensions it's similar however it's about 600lbs heavier which is really quite a lot.

Fogelhund
January 21st, 2014, 07:34 PM
A smaller turbo Z... well that just isn't a Z is it? As others have said, it's a Silvia.

Although, I could see a smaller 6cyl turbo, but that probably isn't what is being talked about.

A RB30DETT would fit the description....

novicius
January 22nd, 2014, 05:01 AM
Eh, is this going to take the place of the Z? I'd expect/want this to be a lightweight turbo-4 2+2 BRZ competitor.

IMOA
January 22nd, 2014, 07:04 AM
Although, I could see a smaller 6cyl turbo, but that probably isn't what is being talked about.

A RB30DETT would fit the description....

Because an imaginary engine based on a more than 30 year old design is what nissan needs to bring in new business. Yes I'm pissed and a cunt but the fact an engine never made it to North America isn't a good reason for it to be reintroduced after its long aver due pasture appointment.RB's are shit.



Eh, is this going to take the place of the Z? I'd expect/want this to be a lightweight turbo-4 2+2 BRZ competitor.

fingers crossed

Rob
January 22nd, 2014, 07:47 AM
long aver due pasture appointment.

I'm glad you mentioned you were drunk, otherwise that looks a bit.....well.....stroke-y.

Kchrpm
January 22nd, 2014, 07:48 AM
Eh, is this going to take the place of the Z? I'd expect/want this to be a lightweight turbo-4 2+2 BRZ competitor.
Two new models, same platform. One will be the Toybaru competitor, the other will be the new Z.

Fogelhund
January 27th, 2014, 05:17 AM
http://www.racer.com/nissan-reveals-revolutionary-gasoline-engine-to-complement-zeos-rc-electric-powerplant/article/331112/

Nissan has revealed their engine for the car that will run unclassified (Garage 56) next year. 1.5l producing 400hp, weighs only 80lbs. I'm not sure if/when such designs will make it to their road cars, but thought it was pertinent for this thread.

Godson
January 27th, 2014, 06:09 AM
That'll do in a small car.

novicius
January 27th, 2014, 06:11 AM
Mmm, another turbocharged triple... :hard:

Fogelhund
January 27th, 2014, 06:27 AM
That'll do in a small car.

Scalability of the technology to a larger engine, and it'll do in a larger car too.

LHutton
February 2nd, 2014, 11:22 AM
More pics:

http://www.seriouswheels.com/pics-2013/nopq/2013-Nissan-IDx-NISMO-Static-7-1680x1050.jpg
http://www.seriouswheels.com/pics-2013/nopq/2013-Nissan-IDx-NISMO-Static-8-1680x1050.jpg
http://www.seriouswheels.com/pics-2013/nopq/2013-Nissan-IDx-NISMO-Exterior-Details-6-1680x1050.jpg
http://www.seriouswheels.com/pics-2013/nopq/2013-Nissan-IDx-NISMO-Static-14-1680x1050.jpg
http://www.seriouswheels.com/pics-2013/nopq/2013-Nissan-IDx-NISMO-Exterior-Details-4-1680x1050.jpg
http://www.seriouswheels.com/pics-2013/nopq/2013-Nissan-IDx-NISMO-Interior-1-1680x1050.jpg
http://www.seriouswheels.com/pics-2013/nopq/2013-Nissan-IDx-NISMO-Interior-Details-5-1680x1050.jpg
http://www.seriouswheels.com/pics-2013/nopq/2013-Nissan-IDx-NISMO-Interior-2-1680x1050.jpg
http://www.seriouswheels.com/pics-2013/nopq/2013-Nissan-IDx-NISMO-Interior-3-1680x1050.jpg
http://www.seriouswheels.com/pics-2013/nopq/2013-Nissan-IDx-NISMO-Interior-5-1680x1050.jpg
http://www.seriouswheels.com/pics-2013/nopq/2013-Nissan-IDx-NISMO-Interior-Details-2-1680x1050.jpg
http://www.seriouswheels.com/pics-2013/nopq/2013-Nissan-IDx-NISMO-Interior-Details-4-1680x1050.jpg

Impreza
February 2nd, 2014, 01:23 PM
Scalability of the technology to a larger engine, and it'll do in a larger car too.

3.0L V6 in a Z-car with 800 hp?

Yes please!

MR2 Fan
March 9th, 2014, 08:43 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rV2Rg3zH5EY

thesameguy
March 9th, 2014, 08:59 PM
I am really liking this car.

Godson
March 9th, 2014, 10:38 PM
Honestly. I'd take this over the FR-S...

Yw-slayer
March 9th, 2014, 11:02 PM
No-one cares what you think. :finger:

Random
March 10th, 2014, 08:39 AM
Commentary on Leno drive: http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2014/03/leno-talks-nissan-idx-whats-left-unsaid-speaks-volumes/

MR2 Fan
March 10th, 2014, 08:59 AM
The one point made about Jay Leno not discussing handling/driving dynamics....it's a concept car, we're lucky it drives at all!

thesameguy
March 10th, 2014, 09:00 AM
Some things in that which caught my eye:


it would mount instead a 1.6 liter four cylinder, something the designer mentions during his ride with Leno. What he does not mention, however, is Nissan’s stated choice of transmissions for the car, their variable ratio automatic.

I think this is a fair move. Nothing precludes a Nismo or GTR or whatever evolution of the car, so bringing it out in the form that is likely to sell the most cars seems wise. Hyundai couldn't keep non-turbo Velosters on the lot for two years, and if this IDx can slot in with cars like the Fiesta, Nissan may claim some customers. It's been a long time since they have had any truly desirable small car... I gotta think that was the Sentra SE-R. Although not the big block powerhouse the SE-R was, maybe this is the starting point. I'm down with that.


Then again, the BRZ/FR-S is not selling in the numbers they expected because Toyota and Subaru decided they knew better than us about what people wanted

I don't understand this comment. What didn't they do that they should have? (I know what my answer is, but I wonder what his is...)


Dodge horribly botched the debut of the new Dart by failing to bring enough automatic transmissions to market.

I think this is more complex than alluded to. My understanding is that Chrysler was positioning the Dart as a sporty car, and it actually failed to deliver. The reason they ended up short on automatics is because they couldn't convince enthusiasts to buy it. Every article I've read about it says it's very nice from a touch & feel perspective, but isn't actually very good to drive. It ends up appealing more to people who have given up on life than people who want to love their commute.

Anyway, while I'd love an IDx in the vein of a Fiesta ST, I think building a car in the vein of the Fiesta is the right financial move.

Also, perhaps oddly, what I found really appealing in that Jay Leno video is the car's greenhouse. It looks like an awesome place to be!

thesameguy
March 10th, 2014, 09:01 AM
The one point made about Jay Leno not discussing handling/driving dynamics....it's a concept car, we're lucky it drives at all!

Totally agreed.

novicius
March 10th, 2014, 10:02 AM
I believe the BRZ/FR-S is not selling in the numbers they expected because Toyota and Subaru decided they knew better than us about what people really wanted in a small sporty coupe.
:twitch:

Do people still feel that if the FRS/BRZ had more horsepower, it would sell in greater numbers?

Random
March 10th, 2014, 10:06 AM
There was just a piece on TTAC or autoblog about trying to buy a BR-S86Z-GT. The author made the point that maybe those cars would sell more if their respective dealers made the slightest effort to, you know, actually sell them. Heh.

novicius
March 10th, 2014, 10:15 AM
Yep, I read that article -- dealer ignorance or using the FRS/BRZ to help sell potential customers in to tC/Imprezas, that sort of logic I can understand.

But the price premium 100+ HP would add to the sticker would not (IMHO) sell more cars.

::

Re: IDx, I think that 99% of the potential buyers cannot discern the difference between a slushbox and a CVT. If the CVT is programmed sporty enough, people won't care and the car will sell. Past sporty coupe sales performance suggests that if it either gets super-shitty gas mileage or starts at $29k+ USD, these will be greater factors in its sales performance than if it does or doesn't have a clutch pedal.

IMOA
March 10th, 2014, 10:26 AM
I've had a few people go on to me about the power thing recently saying that if had the same power as something like the megane or the 370Z they would have sold much more in aus. They don't seem to comprehend my counterpoint that the twins are currently outselling those cars at a ratio of about 20:1. Then I get the 'it should have been like the S15' which ignores the fact last year they sold four times the twins than the best sales year the S15 ever had. Hell, in aus the twins outsell mainstream cars like the mazda6 and the entire volvo brand.

Yes, if they kept the handling, reliability and price the same while adding 100hp it would sell more. But you can't. (unless we're talking europe where they have horribly overpriced them)

edit

lol, posted that before novi's last reply, apparently we think along remarkably similar lines :)

Kchrpm
March 10th, 2014, 10:54 AM
Going just from my test drives, I think the FR-S/BRZ would be better served by better low to midrange output for day to day driving. When I was driving one around a tight little autocross, and through a parking lot, it's great fun. When you're doddling around in traffic on normal surface streets and highways, it's a bit of a chore. Which is perfectly fine for the people who are swung pretty far on the enthusiast side, ready and willing to search out fun roads in their free time purely to justify their $400/month. A large chunk of people want to just make their normal routine more fun, and have additional fun be an option, not a requirement, for justifying the cost.

Merely the viewpoint of someone who was very ready to pull the trigger and ended up spending similar money on something else.

Godson
March 10th, 2014, 11:06 AM
No-one cares what you think. :finger:

I've heard that a time or two.... :p


Which is why I choose hooliganism. I MAKE them care :D





And the greenhouse on this thing is unreal. God I hope they make that. I'd take this over a 4wd in a heartbeat.

novicius
March 10th, 2014, 11:14 AM
A turbo bumps up the base MSRP by $4k, minimum. (http://www.importtuner.com/tech/1307_greddy_t518z_tuner_turbo_kit/) Puts the base price range of both coupes over $30k USD.

It might be faster but it'd definitely be much more expensive than a base Mustang V6/M6 for $22k USD. Pretty much entirely out of the "Sport Economy" conversation altogether.

thesameguy
March 10th, 2014, 11:18 AM
Going just from my test drives, I think the FR-S/BRZ would be better served by better low to midrange output for day to day driving. When I was driving one around a tight little autocross, and through a parking lot, it's great fun. When you're doddling around in traffic on normal surface streets and highways, it's a bit of a chore. Which is perfectly fine for the people who are swung pretty far on the enthusiast side, ready and willing to search out fun roads in their free time purely to justify their $400/month. A large chunk of people want to just make their normal routine more fun, and have additional fun be an option, not a requirement, for justifying the cost.

Merely the viewpoint of someone who was very ready to pull the trigger and ended up spending similar money on something else.

That was my position on the car as well. I get it, I understand it, it just does nothing for me 90% of the time. I can see how the remaining 10% would be magic, but a car payment for 10% of my driving time is not good math. So, yeah, a power deficit for its price is what I think is wrong with the car, but I'm curious if that's what Mr. Kreutzer was referring to. Maybe since we all got there is it. :lol:

Kchrpm
March 10th, 2014, 11:24 AM
A turbo bumps up the base MSRP by $4k, minimum. (http://www.importtuner.com/tech/1307_greddy_t518z_tuner_turbo_kit/) Puts the base price range of both coupes over $30k USD.

It might be faster but it'd definitely be much more expensive than a base Mustang V6/M6 for $22k USD. Pretty much entirely out of the "Sport Economy" conversation altogether.
I wonder what the cost would be to have a smaller, turbocharged engine with the same maximum output but a broader power band, like Nissan is suggesting.

thesameguy
March 10th, 2014, 11:27 AM
A turbo bumps up the base MSRP by $4k, minimum. (http://www.importtuner.com/tech/1307_greddy_t518z_tuner_turbo_kit/) Puts the base price range of both coupes over $30k USD.

It might be faster but it'd definitely be much more expensive than a base Mustang V6/M6 for $22k USD. Pretty much entirely out of the "Sport Economy" conversation altogether.

For me, another approach might be to lower the price of the GT86. If it was $5k cheaper it would fit in a nice space between small, more fuel efficient, less powerful cars and bigger, less fuel efficient, more powerful cars. My "issue" with the GT86 has always been that its special sauce is an intangible, un-salesman-accessible feature that only a small percentage of drivers will inherently "get." Like Road & Track guy said, why not Accord V6 coupe? For its price, to look good on paper, to be something a salesperson can communicate, it really needs to have more. Whether that's power, space, efficiency, or something else probably doesn't matter. But it's just not enough to be an easy $30k sell to most people. IMEG.

That said, I think that's why what Nissan is doing is the smart move - assuming they price it sensibly. If they think they are going to be able to sell the IDx for $25k they're nuts. It'll start strong & end weak just like the GT86 has been. At $20k, when your choices are slightly better than nicely equipped econoboxes it'll have a shot. But "retro RWD" is not enough to sway a big enough chunk of the market away from whatever it was they've already been doing, just like "nicely balanced RWD" clearly isn't in its $30k spot.

novicius
March 10th, 2014, 11:40 AM
For me, another approach might be to lower the price of the GT86.
Cheaper is always gooder. :up:

Kchrpm
March 10th, 2014, 11:40 AM
When I think of the IDx coming to market, and how it will be priced/spec'd, I just open up the Juke model comparison page.

http://www.nissanusa.com/crossovers/juke?next=header.vehicles.postcard.vlp.button

188 hp 1.6 liter turbo - $18,990
197 hp 1.6 liter turbo - $22,990
215 hp 1.6 liter turbo - $26,120

Maybe kick the numbers up a grand or two, but I think the idea is solid. You don't need to sell a ton of the top spec models, and you have enough mid-range to keep people just coming for the look to be impressed at tip-in.

Godson
March 10th, 2014, 01:51 PM
A turbo bumps up the base MSRP by $4k, minimum. (http://www.importtuner.com/tech/1307_greddy_t518z_tuner_turbo_kit/) Puts the base price range of both coupes over $30k USD.

It might be faster but it'd definitely be much more expensive than a base Mustang V6/M6 for $22k USD. Pretty much entirely out of the "Sport Economy" conversation altogether.



Or you could have that power level with an S2000...and still be stock AND cheaper, while still getting great mileage.

Yw-slayer
March 10th, 2014, 02:00 PM
Like Road & Track guy said, why not Accord V6 coupe? For its price, to look good on paper, to be something a salesperson can communicate, it really needs to have more. Whether that's power, space, efficiency, or something else probably doesn't matter. But it's just not enough to be an easy $30k sell to most people. IMEG.

I thought his main point (other than the Accord V6 Coupe point) was that while he allegedly "gets" it - hence the tone of the article - salesmen don't and won't,and it sells in spite of this. You're not on hangouts, but keks told us a horrific and similar story as to what happened when he went to test-drive an FR-S. This was also AFTER he'd experienced my BRZ around the best driving road in HK. The car sells in spite of the salesmen, and in spite (or maybe because, since ll sports cars should have slightly aspirational pricing?) of the price.

thesameguy
March 10th, 2014, 02:19 PM
That definitely wasn't my take away, especially given the article's title was "Clueless dealers do the Scion FR-S and Subaru BRZ no favors - No wonder these things don't sell."

KillerB
March 10th, 2014, 05:13 PM
I wonder what the cost would be to have a smaller, turbocharged engine with the same maximum output but a broader power band, like Nissan is suggesting.

A smaller engine is not inherently cheaper to make, other than using somewhat less in the raw material department, which is not really all that much.

Would an inline-4 + turbo be cheaper than a flat-4? Maybe, but my gut says probably not.

Look, this thing isn't going to be a hit. No one buys cars like this any more, sadly. There was a time when you could build a sport coupe that would satisfy enthusiasts but appeal to enough non-enthusiasts to sell on a reasonably consistent basis. Now, the market for sporty coupes among non-enthusiasts has shrunk to the point where it can support the Mustang. That's it. Anything else has to be an offshoot of another platform, like the Camaro or Challenger. Even among more plebeian FWD cars, the coupe market is down to the Civic, Accord, Kia Forte and Hyundai Elantra.

The days when Toyota could support the MR2, Celica, Corolla coupe, Camry coupe, Tercel coupe, AND the Paseo, not to mention the Supra up top, are gone. At least for right now, nobody buys two door cars. The best of those cars were heaven for enthusiasts, but they paid their way by being appealing to twenty-something women. Those women now either buy Mustangs, compact crossovers, or do the $329 a month lease special BMW. Between the general lack of demand for two door cars and the downmarket moves of the "luxury" makes, there just aren't that many nonenthusiasts willing to pay $300 a month to lease an FR-S when for 10% more you can be in a BMW 320i or X1.

My point that I took way too long to make is that I get that the market for a small, RWD sporty car with an available manual transmission is a small one, but as fewer and fewer cars can be had with three pedals, it will push those remaining vehicles into a smaller competitive set. If you're going to waste resources on a unique RWD car, you might as well cater to the people who actually give a shit about which wheels are driven. If you do this thing with only a CVT, you'll end up with a car that appeals to essentially nobody. Hardly any nonenthusiasts would pick this over a Juke.

Kchrpm
March 10th, 2014, 05:24 PM
Would an inline-4 + turbo be cheaper than a flat-4? Maybe, but my gut says probably not.
I wasn't thinking cheaper, I was thinking the same, or at least close enough to not greatly affect final vehicle cost. Your point still stands, but I wanted to clarify.

I'm under the impression that this platform will be shared with the next Z, and I think they can convince 20-something women to cross shop this with something like the Scion tC (which I admit I don't know the success of).

Perhaps I'm just crazy, but I don't think for a second that this will be available ONLY with a CVT. Maybe the base model, but I don't see any business plan for this platform within Nissan that doesn't include a Nismo version that includes mostly bolt-on and pre-developed hardware in an aggressive wrapper for an extra $4000-$5000. The hardware from the base Z can make up most of the uprated hardware on a Nismo 510.

In my opinion the only discussion to be had is on how well it will turn out and how well it will sell, there's no question that it's coming.

Yw-slayer
March 10th, 2014, 05:51 PM
As in, it sells - but not well. So people do still buy it, but only because it sells itself. My over-simplistic reasoning is that this is because it can't be inherently crap, because if you accept that the the dealers are crap at selling it, no-one would buy it if it were inherently crap.

KillerB
March 10th, 2014, 06:20 PM
Ah, the Scion tC. Totally forgot it still exists. I see you can lease them for $200.

Kchrpm
March 10th, 2014, 06:50 PM
I was reminded today by a friend who told me he is considering getting one. I have to find a suitable replacement. Instead I've been watching YouTube videos.

TheBenior
March 10th, 2014, 06:56 PM
What KB said.

I'd also add young 20-something buyers being broke these days.

Even the pony cars sell quite poorly by historical standards in spite of them being better than ever and offering amazing performance for the money.

Yw-slayer
March 10th, 2014, 07:01 PM
Suitable replacement for a tC? FR-S, duh. Otherwise, what's wrong with a base Mustang or Camaro?

I have to say, the marketing language on the tC webpage is pretty pathetic. http://www.scion.com/cars/tC/ Apparently "muscular look" and "auto transmission with dynamic rev management" give you a "boost in confience", while the Monogram series features "hard-hitting features" at a "knockout price". Yeah, maybe that works if you're trying to sell exercise packages or a gym membership but when you're trying to sell a car, it just sounds pretty pathetic.

Still not as bad as the HK Mini dealer's "0-100km/h in 10.5 seconds = FIRECRACKER SPARKLING PERFORMANCE" though.

Kchrpm
March 10th, 2014, 07:29 PM
Sorry, I should say used tC. ~$15k budget.

Godson
March 10th, 2014, 07:31 PM
Please tell me you are kidding about the mini statement.

Yw-slayer
March 10th, 2014, 07:41 PM
It wasn't an exact quote, but the thing is still there. Not only that, but they can't even get their figures straight. :lol:

http://www.minihk.com/mini_countryman/cooper/index.html
"122hp - 0-100km/h: 10.5s"
"With 90 kW (122 hp), it's raring to go. In the city or off-road. Let the adventure begin."
"Go-kart feeling that never lets the dust settle: 90 kW (122 hp) of power take the MINI Cooper Countryman from 0 to 100 in only 10.5 seconds, with a top speed of 190 km/h."
"Its motto is pure driving fun. With 90 kW (122 hp) and 160 Nm of torque at 4250 rpm. The result is an impressive top speed of 190 km/h and 0 to100 km in 11.6 s.
(emphasis added)

The One Countryman page is hardly any more realistic.

"With its large wheels, flared wings and raised bumpers, the MINI One Countryman is at home in any environment – and really sets the pace with its 72 kW (98 hp) engine. " (emphasis added)

Amusingly enough, the Countryman Cooper S, which is the fastest of the lot, doesn't have as much marketing guff on it about speed.

The Cooper Coupe page also says:

"Thanks to the low unladen weight and the powerful engine with 90 kW (122 hp), the MINI Coupé accelerates from zero to 100 km/h in only 9.0 [10.3] seconds."

Godson
March 10th, 2014, 08:09 PM
...have they been spending time in Colorado?

thesameguy
March 10th, 2014, 08:16 PM
As in, it sells - but not well. So people do still buy it, but only because it sells itself. My over-simplistic reasoning is that this is because it can't be inherently crap, because if you accept that the the dealers are crap at selling it, no-one would buy it if it were inherently crap.

It's not crap (or even remotely close), but the things that it's good at are obvious only to a tiny subset of car buyers, and those things are so ethereal that salespeople can't communicate them to rest of humanity. Yes, people who get what it's good at will transcend the rotten sales experience and bring one home, but the rest of humanity is being directed to an Accord coupe. If you want your car to be "sold" you have to give it some thing for [dumb] sales people to latch onto, a hook. The GT86 has no hook. It's just a really nice car for a situation very few car buyers ever encounter, and even fewer seek out. As is, hook-less, the GT86 isn't being sold. It's being sought out by a select few who have those encounters or seek out those situations, but it's not getting traction with anyone else. Everyone else simply doesn't get it, and there is no salesperson to help them get it. Thus, sales numbers were really strong initially pent up demand from the select few, but once all of these people have their cars there is no obvious way to put more of them into more garages. "Derp, it's not fast or big or particularly fuel efficient, why should I buy this over something that is one or more those things?"

I think Toyota believed that intensity from a specific brand of enthusiasts would be their marketing department, or maybe they just wanted to build this car and nobody was going to tell them otherwise, or maybe they thought there were more of those enthusiasts. I dunno. I don't think that brand of enthusiast was upset about the GT86's price or performance or really anything else. But I don't think they were convincing enough to sway people who just wanted a sporty car and might have got a Focus ST and might have got a Genesis Coupe, and they weren't even heard by the people who might have got a Solara or an Accord coupe. Thus, bad sales numbers.

I think Nissan is taking an alternate approach, possibly even an opposite approach, and not building anything approaching an enthusiasts car. They are building a slightly off-color commuter and seeing how that goes. Maybe they have plans for a Nismo IDx and maybe they don't, but they're clearly building their fort around average commuters looking for a way to act out, just a little. Honestly, I feel like they are building another Veloster - although hopefully they execute it better. I think the Veloster's decline in sales were a result of a bad build build (and the resultant bad press) rather than a bad idea. But I dunno.

In any case, I'm sure enthusiasts were hoping for a Nissan version of the GT86 (I was!), but they are literally getting a revival of the 510... a tiny little shitbox that also happens to be pretty decent to drive. Which really, at the core, is what the AE86 was too. So maybe Toyota just missed their mark after watching just a little too much Initial D. :P

Yw-slayer
March 10th, 2014, 11:04 PM
No, I know what you mean. The immediate hook is that it looks nice on the outside. The inside is pretty horrific (at least on the BRZ). I agree that it's not a particularly easy car to "get" unless you live close to a nice, twisty, open, clear road.

I think what you say about Toyota's belief is probably right. Hence, it denotes the return of the lightweight(ish) Japanese sportscar, for better or for worse and even if the market segment is small.

Having said that, given that it appears most of these salesmen lie through their teeth to make a sale anyway, does it really matter?

IMOA
March 11th, 2014, 01:34 AM
Or you could have that power level with an S2000...and still be stock AND cheaper, while still getting great mileage.

Which interestingly has basically exactly the same hp curve until about 7200rpm, the only thing the S2000 has powerwise over the 86 is 1500rpm. Oh, and costing a lot more money and hasn't been sold for years


My point that I took way too long to make is that I get that the market for a small, RWD sporty car with an available manual transmission is a small one, but as fewer and fewer cars can be had with three pedals, it will push those remaining vehicles into a smaller competitive set. If you're going to waste resources on a unique RWD car, you might as well cater to the people who actually give a shit about which wheels are driven. If you do this thing with only a CVT, you'll end up with a car that appeals to essentially nobody. Hardly any nonenthusiasts would pick this over a Juke.

I would agree with this


It's not crap (or even remotely close), but the things that it's good at are obvious only to a tiny subset of car buyers, and those things are so ethereal that salespeople can't communicate them to rest of humanity. Yes, people who get what it's good at will transcend the rotten sales experience and bring one home, but the rest of humanity is being directed to an Accord coupe. If you want your car to be "sold" you have to give it some thing for [dumb] sales people to latch onto, a hook. The GT86 has no hook. It's just a really nice car for a situation very few car buyers ever encounter, and even fewer seek out. As is, hook-less, the GT86 isn't being sold.

A couple of points.

The GT86 has a hook, it's a drivers car. Now this isn't something you care about but it is something people who want a drivers car experience every time they drive it, the idea that you have to be at the limit to enjoy great turn in, chassis balance etc just underlines how much you're not the target market.

The other point is that it actually is selling well. Everyone talks about how it isn't selling but it's easily outselling it's competitors. It's not selling well in europe where it's priced north of 60% more than US/JP/AU markets. In europe they took the decision of trying to market it as a premium car when it's clearly not, as a result the sales suffered badly. In japan it's exceeded sales expectations, in the US it's within a bees dick of what people here called a widly optimistic sales target and in aus it's selling at around 3 times the sales target. It's selling well.

Yw-slayer
March 11th, 2014, 03:15 AM
Yeah, Tyler, with respect, I never understood your constant referrals to the S2000. It's a great car, particularly as it's a convertible, but it's long gone, so the "cheaper" argument is a bit silly unless you are only looking at secondhand purchases. Some people actually value the option to buy a new car, configured as they want, which hasn't been run by someone else.

In my (admittedly biased) opinion, I agree that it is a driver's car and doesn't have to be enjoyed near the limit (although it is certainly enjoyable near the limit). Its hook is not experienced when sitting in traffic, when pootling in a straight line around town (or even just in relation to straight line driving). But the car can still be heaps of fun in town e.g. if you're first at the traffic lights and have a 90-degree corner in front of you. Not that I'd ever drive it irresponsibly, of course. But even around shorter bends (whether at low to high speeds), the steering, gearbox and general feel of the car do put a smile on one's face.

Oh, and it looks good, particularly from the outside. Have I said that already?

Kchrpm
March 11th, 2014, 05:31 AM
It looks great, that's for sure. The tires are oddly narrow, but aside from that it's just a great little sports car shape, and I like the detailing. I don't think the 510 will look as good, but what does?

Yw-slayer
March 11th, 2014, 05:52 AM
I know what you mean about the narrow tyres, but they're part of what makes the car so fun around 90-degree junctions from a stoplight, and even with a Pilot Super Sport upgrade.

Or so I have been told.

Yw-slayer
March 11th, 2014, 06:02 AM
Oh, and also, this: http://jalopnik.com/everyone-is-wrong-about-subaru-brz-and-scion-fr-s-sales-1540661520

Kchrpm
March 11th, 2014, 06:29 AM
Nice :up: BRING ON THE COMPETITION!

novicius
March 11th, 2014, 06:59 AM
Unlike many of the Toyobaru's Internet critics, I have actually driven it, and I think its power is more than adequate for what the car is supposed to be, and as a whole it's a hell of a lot of fun. I also have to wonder how much money people would really be willing to pay for a faster version of this car; I'm not sure I see them paying into the $30,000 range for that.
This conclusion is/has been pretty universal.

If the IDx can offer even just a decent drive experience with the CVT for the same money (with the assumption of better packaging and MPG than the Twins), it will sell fine. Enthusiasts might stay away but the general public will gobble 'em up easy -- as Kch and TSG alluded to, people won't mind paying $400/mo. for a car that works well and sounds the business 90% of the time and only lets down those people who are searching for that final 10%.

Kchrpm
March 11th, 2014, 08:39 AM
I still give zero merit to the idea that there won't be a manual available at all.

As for would people pay $30k for the faster version, how well do 370Z's sell? That's the closest thing I can think of.

thesameguy
March 11th, 2014, 09:04 AM
The GT86 has a hook, it's a drivers car. Now this isn't something you care about but it is something people who want a drivers car experience every time they drive it, the idea that you have to be at the limit to enjoy great turn in, chassis balance etc just underlines how much you're not the target market.

With all due respect, if you believe a single word of this you have no idea who I am.

KillerB
March 11th, 2014, 09:09 AM
Carlo, I ask this in all seriousness - have you driven a Nissan CVT? I have spent a lot of time in both a Cube and a Juke, and they do NOT sound the business. It's not an exhaust problem, it's how the transmission manages the engine. The way the CVT manages revs is efficient but makes for a moaning, droning engine.

And I vehemently disagree that nonenthusiasts will buy very many of these. The public doesn't care for two doors. Boutique models like the MINI and 500 do okay, but their volume targets aren't high to start with, and the market for such things is only so large - more competitors will just slice up the market too thin for everyone.

Besides, both of those have some enthusiast cred thanks to the Cooper S and Abarth, and both of these are available with a manual transmission; in fact, it's required on the Abarth.

If it's going to be CVT only, Nissan could do the IDX most efficiently by making it FWD. Base it on the Juke and save many millions. Hell, even the Juke can be had with stick.

Based on my experiences with Nissan CVTs, this car would be more fun as FWD+stick than RWD+CVT. IMO.

thesameguy
March 11th, 2014, 09:15 AM
Having said that, given that it appears most of these salesmen lie through their teeth to make a sale anyway, does it really matter?

I dunno. I am perpetually baffled that despite the wide understanding that salespeople can't be trusted, people apparently still listen to them. I can count on one hand the number of reasonably knowledgeable salespeople I've dealt with (the dude at the 500e dealership and the CTS-V dealership come to mind) and everyone else is either dumber than dirt or just lying. But people buy cars, so they're either doing it in spite of salespeople or because of salespeople, and I just can't tell which. ;) With modern, pervasive advertising and ready access to the internet, what I think is that to most shoppers salespeople are just the people that give them the keys for the test drive and to generally be ignored. Most people I know buy a car because they saw an ad on TV. A few people change their minds at the last minute, but of those people it's tough to separate those that were swayed by facts ("this car is much smaller than I thought!") or price ("this car is much more expensive than I thought!) or friends/family/acquaintances ("my friend had a story about this car!") or salespeople ("the salesperson said this car kills baby kittens!"). It that last group of people I feel bad for. :)

thesameguy
March 11th, 2014, 09:31 AM
Carlo, I ask this in all seriousness - have you driven a Nissan CVT? I have spent a lot of time in both a Cube and a Juke, and they do NOT sound the business. It's not an exhaust problem, it's how the transmission manages the engine. The way the CVT manages revs is efficient but makes for a moaning, droning engine.

Broadly true, and Nissan's four cylinders aren't the best sounding engine to start - though maybe some of that could be dealt with via exhaust tuning. But don't forget Nissan's CVT also has a manual, "fixed-gear" mode, so that's something. Also, we've never experienced a longitudinal four cylinder CVT, so maybe they've got something. Maybe.


The public doesn't care for two doors. Boutique models like the MINI and 500 do okay, but their volume targets aren't high to start with, and the market for such things is only so large - more competitors will just slice up the market too thin for everyone.

I think that is overbroad. BMW and MB have no problem moving coupes and Audi actually added a coupe to their lineup. There are mountains of Altima coupes (there are three in our 100-person parking lot), Accord coupes, and Solaras, I don't think there is an inability to sell cars with two doors.

I'd might buy into the notion that people don't like small two doors (as virtually nobody sells their compact as a two door anymore). I think people buying sub-$20k cars are seeking maximum practicality and that's four doors for sure. Perhaps with nobody else making one due to volume considerations, there might be room for one. It'd had the 500/MINI on one side and, what, the iQ and Smart on the other? There is no Civic or Focus or anything like that in two doors.

Edit: To be clear, I'm talking about 'Murica here... because the two door market is clearly different everywhere else!


Based on my experiences with Nissan CVTs, this car would be more fun as FWD+stick than RWD+CVT. IMO.

Everything is more fun with a stick. Everything. ;)

KillerB
March 11th, 2014, 10:00 AM
Broadly true, and Nissan's four cylinders aren't the best sounding engine to start - though maybe some of that could be dealt with via exhaust tuning. But don't forget Nissan's CVT also has a manual, "fixed-gear" mode, so that's something. Also, we've never experienced a longitudinal four cylinder CVT, so maybe they've got something. Maybe.

My girlfriend's Juke has manual mode. One, it's not very responsive - you ask for a gearchange, and it doesn't execute for a good half second. Secondly, even in manual mode, it has this weird slippery power delivery - it feels like a slipping clutch. Maybe they can tune this all out with software; who knows. But ultimately, the manual mode is actually slower than CVT mode, and not just by a little bit. Kinda sucks the fun out of it. So you've got to choose between sounding like a Vespa or feeling like you're not getting the most out of the car.

I don't hate on the CVT like a lot of people do - it's better for a small four-cylinder than a lot of the alternatives - but it's not a sporty transmission.


I think that is overbroad. BMW and MB have no problem moving coupes and Audi actually added a coupe to their lineup. There are mountains of Altima coupes (there are three in our 100-person parking lot), Accord coupes, and Solaras, I don't think there is an inability to sell cars with two doors.

As I mentioned in my earlier post, the people interested in making a statement with their cars have moved on to "prestige" models, thanks to the general cheapening of those brands. It's happening all over retail - hairdressers with Coach bags - and Europe had it before the US did in the car market, but increasingly there's a hollowing out of the middle market. People who might have bought a Toyota, Nissan, or Mazda sporty car now just lease an entry-level BMW or Merc. When you can lease one for $329 a month, why not? This is a market that wants to be seen in the newest car possible, so leasing makes sense for them. These people aren't going to pay $400 a month to buy a Nissan when they can lease a BMW for less.

Nissan Altima coupe - it's so popular, Nissan stopped making it. 2013 is the last model year. The Solara is long out of production. The Audi A5 doesn't even start until $39,000, so it's a bit of a different market. The BMW 4-series is moving upmarket, too.


I'd might buy into the notion that people don't like small two doors (as virtually nobody sells their compact as a two door anymore). I think people buying sub-$20k cars are seeking maximum practicality and that's four doors for sure. Perhaps with nobody else making one due to volume considerations, there might be room for one. It'd had the 500/MINI on one side and, what, the iQ and Smart on the other? There is no Civic or Focus or anything like that in two doors.

They do still make the Civic coupe.

novicius
March 11th, 2014, 10:08 AM
The way the CVT manages revs is efficient but makes for a moaning, droning engine.
No, I have not driven a basic Cube/Juke CVT but tuning six different faux-gears for pure economy in the lower Jukes is bound to be different than simulating the eight "performance" faux-gears in the Juke NISMO models. But there are currently no driving reviews on the Juke NISMO RS w/. CVT to see how the engineers programmed that particular CVT, which would be the closest thing we'd see in the new IDx as has been announced. If, as Kch firmly attests, the fabled IDx NISMO RS model comes with a manual six-speed, then all this hand-wringing is for naught.

Lastly, yes I would agree with you Joe that coupe concerns will dampen sales than if there were also going to be a sedan available. #packaging

Kchrpm
March 11th, 2014, 10:19 AM
As Carlo intimated, I don't see any way Nissan makes this car without charging an extra couple grand for nearly the same thing with stickers, an ECU tune and a manual transmission. To me, all the hand-wringing over it being CVT-only is completely unnecessary, regardless of what has or hasn't been said.

And if it does come out as CVT only, by some tiny chance? Well then I just don't give a damn about the car at all, and neither should any of the rest of us, so it doesn't deserve to be talked about, and we will all just move on.

thesameguy
March 11th, 2014, 10:23 AM
And if it does come out as CVT only, by some tiny chance? Well then I just don't give a damn about the car at all, and neither should any of the rest of us, so it doesn't deserve to be talked about, and we will all just move on.

Shit, I still might give a damn about it. I'll need to replace the 500e with something. A 1.6l CVT hot... um... sedan could be dope. :D

Kchrpm
March 11th, 2014, 10:36 AM
That is the type of car that only shows up in The Garage, not The Open Road, if you catch my drift.

thesameguy
March 11th, 2014, 10:39 AM
#shame

:lol:

Godson
March 11th, 2014, 01:56 PM
Yeah, Tyler, with respect, I never understood your constant referrals to the S2000. It's a great car, particularly as it's a convertible, but it's long gone, so the "cheaper" argument is a bit silly unless you are only looking at secondhand purchases. Some people actually value the option to buy a new car, configured as they want, which hasn't been run by someone else.

I apologize for not being clear, but I am speaking from the current price point argument. I can nab an s2000 that is also an enthusiant car for under 20k without much looking and low miles without a ton of looking. Little harder to do on the FRS being so new, maybe I am wrong.

People often search a price point to see what they want to buy. My parents just recently bought a cmax with the intention of a focus or a fusion. They drove a brand new focus, a brand new fiesta st, a one year old escape, and a one year old cmax. All of the cars they looked at were 21k. They didn't go under or over that number by more than 1k with what they were looking at.




With that being said, if a person 'must' have a brand new cat the only real option for an enthusiast car that offers the gas mileage Is the brz.

I merely go to the s2000 because it is also a Japanese purist car that has had a good record of reliability. It is not an apples to apples comparison, but after car shopping with 3 different groups of people most people shop a price range of vehicle options. A buddy that just bought an s2000 was originally looking between the rx8, s2000, 350z, 370z, cayman, c5zo6, FRS, and a few others. The rx8 was highest on the list for a long time, s2000 was lowest for a while. He eliminated the cayman based on price, as he did on the 370z. Z06 was eliminated because he couldn't find one at the right time. Rx8 was very close to purchase other than the dealer didn't want to deal. He was literally 500 difference that prevented it.

FRS was kicked from the cost and lack of power standpoint. He liked the idea and execution but it wasn't enough for him.

Several people I autocrossed with are going the s2000 route instead of the newer and 'better' FRS point.


Like I said, I am not against this car at all, but if price point shopping with budget in mind and an enthusiant car to choose, I have seen the price point drive a group to chase out the s2000 over the toyobaru.



I say this with the eager hope to pick one up down the road for a dd instead of some big 4wd turd.

novicius
March 12th, 2014, 07:48 AM
2014 Nissan Juke NISMO RS Priced From $26,930 (http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1090648_2014-nissan-juke-nismo-rs-priced-from-26930)


The 2014 Juke NISMO RS will start at $26,930, when equipped with front-wheel drive and a six-speed manual transmission. Adding Xtronic all-wheel drive and a CVT brings the price up to $28,930. Both prices include destination.
Just parking this datapoint here.

KillerB
March 12th, 2014, 08:35 AM
It would be nice if they could get an identically equipped IDX to near the same price.

thesameguy
March 12th, 2014, 08:39 AM
Man, too bad about no AWD 6-speed RS. That would be a nutty little car. Meh, I wouldn't buy it.

But I'd seriously consider a regular IDx to replace the Fiat when that time comes. Assuming we still have petrochemicals to burn. I've often wondered what it would be like to have to go back to gas stations after three years of driving past them. Maybe we'll find out.

novicius
March 12th, 2014, 08:43 AM
My girlfriend's Juke has manual mode. One, it's not very responsive - you ask for a gearchange, and it doesn't execute for a good half second. Secondly, even in manual mode, it has this weird slippery power delivery - it feels like a slipping clutch. Maybe they can tune this all out with software; who knows. But ultimately, the manual mode is actually slower than CVT mode, and not just by a little bit. Kinda sucks the fun out of it. So you've got to choose between sounding like a Vespa or feeling like you're not getting the most out of the car.

I don't hate on the CVT like a lot of people do - it's better for a small four-cylinder than a lot of the alternatives - but it's not a sporty transmission.
I attribute the lack of 'sport' to tuning.

Yes, due to the inherent nature of the CVT we'll never have the hard mechanical engagement of a geared tranny but as technology progresses I think it's safe to say that a CVT can be tuned for snappier response at speed than has been currently provided in the Cube/Juke (one anecdotal test drive of the Juke NISMO RS claims as much (http://www.jukeforums.com/forum/nissan-juke-news-reviews/142929-first-nismo-juke-rs-hit-honolulu-nissan-dealership-today-4.html#post1895993)). Nissan is also claiming an improved mechanical soundtrack, too (http://www.carscoops.com/2014/03/facelifted-nissan-juke-nismo-rs-gets.html). R50 MINI Coopers with CVTs have a pretty loyal following (http://www.mini2.com/forum/first-generation-cvt-automatic/41926-cvt-faq-draft-discussion.html) and are considered quite engaging/enjoyable at speed through the twisties, autoxing and daily driving. No, similar to the GT86 automatic-equipped cars, they are not hard-launching cars from a stop.

Much like the raison d'être of the GT86 Twins (or the CR-Z for that matter), I feel that the logic of the design of a sporty performance-tuned CVT is going to shine at speed only (and in MPGs), not in the numbers generated at the limit. If the IDx offers RWD and somewhat neutral handling, I don't think that former buyers of torque-converter transmissions are going to feel particularly disappointed with a pre-programmed needless throttle blip prior to each "downshift" in their eight faux-gears. :assclown:

Yw-slayer
March 12th, 2014, 09:16 AM
Fair enough, Tyler. Now we see where each of us (Greg included) is coming from. On that list you mentioned:

rx8 - No new ones
s2000 - No new ones
350z, 370z - Different type of car
cayman - Different type/price of car, unless you buy used
c5zo6 - Totally different car and price, no new ones

thesameguy
March 12th, 2014, 09:49 AM
I attribute the lack of 'sport' to tuning.

Yes, due to the inherent nature of the CVT we'll never have the hard mechanical engagement of a geared tranny but as technology progresses I think it's safe to say that a CVT can be tuned for snappier response at speed than has been currently provided in the Cube/Juke (one anecdotal test drive of the Juke NISMO RS claims as much (http://www.jukeforums.com/forum/nissan-juke-news-reviews/142929-first-nismo-juke-rs-hit-honolulu-nissan-dealership-today-4.html#post1895993)). Nissan is also claiming an improved mechanical soundtrack, too (http://www.carscoops.com/2014/03/facelifted-nissan-juke-nismo-rs-gets.html). R50 MINI Coopers with CVTs have a pretty loyal following (http://www.mini2.com/forum/first-generation-cvt-automatic/41926-cvt-faq-draft-discussion.html) and are considered quite engaging/enjoyable at speed through the twisties, autoxing and daily driving. No, similar to the GT86 automatic-equipped cars, they are not hard-launching cars from a stop.

Much like the raison d'être of the GT86 Twins (or the CR-Z for that matter), I feel that the logic of the design of a sporty performance-tuned CVT is going to shine at speed only (and in MPGs), not in the numbers generated at the limit. If the IDx offers RWD and somewhat neutral handling, I don't think that former buyers of torque-converter transmissions are going to feel particularly disappointed with a pre-programmed needless throttle blip prior to each "downshift" in their eight faux-gears. :assclown:

thesameguy likes this post.

Although you were on the edge of complimenting the CRZ, which I cannot abide. :P

novicius
March 12th, 2014, 10:13 AM
Sorry. ;)

More fuel for the fire -- 2010 Nissan Maxima V6 CVT driving impressions (http://www.newcartestdrive.com/review-drive.cfm?Vehicle=2010_Nissan_Maxima&ReviewID=4726).


The only transmission available, much to the chagrin of some critics, is the CVT (continuously variable transmission), a much-improved Nissan innovation. Maxima's CVT offers a manual mode, and we found it a joy to use in either mode. According to Nissan, the Xtronic CVT software contains more than 700 shifting algorithms to cope with every driving situation in every gear from idle to full-throttle, and the transmission can shift 30 percent faster than a human. In the Sport Drive mode, the shifts were lightning quick, and included a very sporty throttle blip on every downshift.

TTAC weighs in. (http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2010/02/review-2010-nissan-maxima/)


Prior to the Maxima, I’d had no experience with Nissan’s variable CVT transmission in any form. I came away from this one impressed. In Drive mode, it feels like an automatic with no shift points. It has the same creep at slow speeds, and the subtle wheel vibration of a car in gear when stopped. Slow acceleration keeps the engine around 2000 RPM. It otherwise loafs at 1200 RPM, imitating the practiced boredom of a Corvette in high gear. This yields terrific mileage. Another more moderate driver in the family reported 28 MPG in a mix of highway and around-town cruising.

Wood the gas and the engine will zing to 4500 RPM, slowly rising to near redline as the car accelerates. If you’re aggressive, the system will assume you want to play and will hold 2500 RPM for a few seconds until it thinks you’ve relaxed. The heightened revs persist if you shift into Sport mode by moving the stick to the left gate. Sport can also add predetermined shift points to the CVT, an affectation that does no favors for acceleration. Even so, shifts are very quick. Holding a low gear and letting off the gas slows the car as if restrained by a giant hand. The connection isn’t quite as direct as a true manual, but it’s an interesting gimmick and sharper than any automanual I’ve tried.

I personally found Drive so effective that Sport was superfluous. If selecting pseudo-cogs has more appeal to you, order the Maxima SV with paddle shifters. It takes much more concentration to keep the car pointed in the right direction at full tilt when you’ve devoted a hand to the gear lever.

Nissan has the tech out in the wild already. The Maxima V6 is rated at 261 ft-lbs. of torque as well. IMO, CVT concerns are a non-factor.

That being said, here's hoping for confirmation of a six-speed manual IDx NISMO. :up:

Godson
March 12th, 2014, 03:22 PM
Fair enough, Tyler. Now we see where each of us (Greg included) is coming from. On that list you mentioned:

rx8 - No new ones
s2000 - No new ones
350z, 370z - Different type of car
cayman - Different type/price of car, unless you buy used
c5zo6 - Totally different car and price, no new ones


Yup, no worries.

novicius
March 13th, 2014, 08:14 AM
Motor Trend has autocross comparison impressions of the current 2013 Nissan Juke NISMO AWD+CVT vs. FWD+M6 (http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/suvs/1305_2013_nissan_juke_nismo_quick_drive/):


After several runs, the CVT-equipped all-wheel-drive model emerged as the faster of the two in the autocross. The manual front-drive Nismo was fun to drive, but the substantial torque steer made it a handful coming out of the turns.

The all-wheel-drive model with its torque vectoring system put the power down more effectively, and clicking off the CVT's simulated gear changes made the absence of a third pedal more bearable. I did wish for a good set of paddle shifters so I could keep my hands at the ready to shuffle the wheel.

A Nissan rep said that's one feature that might be in the works, though a manual-equipped all-wheel-drive Juke isn't in the cards for this generation, as there's currently no gearbox that will mate up to the crossover's system, and developing a new manual would be too costly.
AWD+CVT already beats the current FWD+M6 -- unless your name is Bryan Heitkotter, of course. :D *#beatingadeadhorse

Crazed_Insanity
March 13th, 2014, 08:38 AM
Really? A CVT AWD is faster than FWD MT? I didn't see the article mentioning MPG # between the 2..., wonder if those #s are on par...

Ugly car, but interesting comparisons nonetheless.

thesameguy
March 13th, 2014, 08:52 AM
I think we need to accept that test with a grain of salt. All they're saying is that torque steer limited power transfer - and that would be a function of AWD not CVT. It could also be a situation easily cured with a different alignment or tires or somebody better at driving. :P Along the same lines, that test would also have little or no bearing on a less powerful RWD car - which wouldn't suffer from torque steer in the first place. However, I think the point of posting that (and correct me if I'm wrong Novi) is that the CVT is plenty good - and I'm sure it is. With a set of flappy paddles, you could probably convince yourself you're driving a fancy DSG (without the annoying stoplight behavior). ;)

novicius
March 13th, 2014, 09:17 AM
Pretty much my point -- if one was in the market for a sporty daily driver with automated shifting, Nissan's Xtronic CVT should be fine.

Kchrpm
March 13th, 2014, 09:19 AM
Unless the benefit to the buyer of a manual is less the performance, and more the sensation of a mechanical connection and increased involvement. Which I think it is, and has been for most "I'll buy manual" drivers.

If it doesn't have a manual transmission, it's a Garage car, not an Open Road car. At least for me.

Edit: just noticed that you specified automatic shifting, my bad

novicius
March 13th, 2014, 09:22 AM
That statement doesn't match my criteria for "fine". ;)

Kchrpm
March 13th, 2014, 09:30 AM
Oops, my brain skipped over the "automatic shifting" caveat in your sentence, I apologize.

KillerB
March 13th, 2014, 01:50 PM
Yeah, I'm one guy who doesn't want his "fun car" with automatic shifting, period.

I will keep rolling in my two-ton "pony car" - more like a Clydesdale - but still rowin' my own. ;)

Leon
March 13th, 2014, 02:13 PM
My 2c

Personally I won't own an auto car for anything other than commuting in traffic. They just do anything for me, and as I live close to some fun roads to drive, and that I race cars in the weekends, I have plenty of chances to go play in cars :)

thesameguy
March 13th, 2014, 02:21 PM
I'm onboard with that. I'm fine driving the Benz and XJR around, but I am simply much happier shifting. If I had to have only one car, I'd take a crap car with a manual over a nice car with an automatic.

Of course, maybe we'll all end up driving cars with no transmission. Wouldn't that be interesting... After driving nothing the Fiat for almost three months, the girl commented "I forget most cars have to shift. It feels weird." Heh.

Random
March 13th, 2014, 02:22 PM
Something with a 2-speed Powerglide would feel similar... :lol:

IMOA
March 13th, 2014, 05:02 PM
Fair enough, Tyler. Now we see where each of us (Greg included) is coming from. On that list you mentioned:

rx8 - No new ones
s2000 - No new ones
350z, 370z - Different type of car
cayman - Different type/price of car, unless you buy used
c5zo6 - Totally different car and price, no new ones

To be fair if I was in any other country I would have bought a cayman s but when a brand new 86 with all the options was AUD35k and a 7 year old Cayman S was AUD80k it was difficult to justify. Interestingly, in aus used caymans have dropped massively in price since the 86 has been released and Nissan knocked ~20% off the price of 370Z's. The relative cheapness of the 86 in australia has had a big impact on sales of a lot of other cars.

KillerB
March 13th, 2014, 09:41 PM
I was on board with the Cayman until the whole IMS bearing issue turned out to affect cars up to 2008. The 2009+ ones were just too much, and I wasn't going to spend $35k on a car that had a reasonable chance of needing a $20k engine rebuild. :|

IMOA
March 14th, 2014, 01:53 AM
Yet you're happy to buy a rotary ;)

Honestly, I think the IMS thing has been massively overblown, to say there's a 'reasonable' chance of needing an engine rebuild just isn't reflected in reality.

Yw-slayer
March 14th, 2014, 03:08 AM
The Cayman S is, I think, quite a different car from the 86. It has much more power, a lovely sound from the get-go, and obviously far better suited to high-speed stuff out of the box.

novicius
March 14th, 2014, 04:23 AM
They just do anything for me, and as I live close to some fun roads to drive, and that I race cars in the weekends, I have plenty of chances to go play in cars :)
Yes however we do have people here that choose "sporty automatic" (http://gtxforums.net/showthread.php?106-359-s-BRZ) so the argument can be made that there are enthusiasts who willingly choose automatics -- and maybe even enjoy them equally as much.

KillerB
March 14th, 2014, 09:08 AM
Yes, and they're wrong. ;)

Greg, I love rotaries but I don't think I'd spend $35,000 for one out of warranty. The IMS issue would be different if I'd been paying cash for the car at the time, I think.

Leon
March 14th, 2014, 04:09 PM
Yup, but Novi I was talking only for *me* :)

novicius
March 14th, 2014, 06:44 PM
Yeah, I just didn't want to keep hammering Joe. :D

Kchrpm
July 14th, 2014, 06:47 AM
Bad news for Nissan's BRZ/FR-S competitor, they can't figure out how to get the build price down enough to make it feasible. They don't have a partner in it to spread costs like Subaru and Toyota, and they don't have any other uses for a small, cheap, RWD platform.

http://jalopnik.com/nissan-cant-figure-out-how-to-make-a-rwd-car-cheaply-en-1604596025


"It's not easy to do, (and) if you do something like this and you manage to do a vehicle at (a low) price, what else would you do on this platform? Because frankly to do a platform for 50,000 or 60,000 (units) a year – it's not worth it," Loing tells WardsAuto here during a recent Nissan full-line media event.

novicius
July 14th, 2014, 07:18 AM
Reasonable -- and it's probably not just the cost of the IDx they're thinking about but also the next Z-Car, too. Nissan can't be thinking the IDx will carry Zed sales, can they?

Kchrpm
July 14th, 2014, 07:24 AM
My guess is they thought they could make a business plan by putting both cars on the same platform, but they had the same problem that Cadillac had with the old CTS platform: shrinking it down didn't reduce the costs enough. Cadillac ended up going up a half size on the new CTS platform and down a half size with the new ATS platform, giving them better coverage of two very strong markets (although the ATS isn't selling well, AFAIK) with unique platforms.

The two markets Nissan would be trying to cover are not nearly as strong, so I don't think unique platforms would work for them.

IMOA
July 14th, 2014, 08:27 AM
It puts the '86/FRS/BRZ's should be $5000 cheaper' comments in perspective

Random
July 14th, 2014, 08:29 AM
It puts the '86/FRS/BRZ's should be $5000 cheaper' comments in perspective

Those people are on drugs.

Besides, the FR-Z86 will be $5000 cheaper--if you buy a used one next year. ;)

thesameguy
July 14th, 2014, 09:18 AM
Well, "should be" is very different from "could be."

I still stay Nissan should build their small truck out of it. Zedcamino, Ain't nothing wrong with a light duty unibody truck in these times - improved safety and fuel economy at the possible expense of some load carrying that nobody will ever care about anyway. Hell, build the Xterra on it too. If Jeep can have a credible unibody compact SUV, no reason Nissan can't.

Mostly, I just want the idx.

Kchrpm
July 14th, 2014, 10:18 AM
Well, "should be" is very different from "could be."
Yeah, I believe therein lies the issue of whether these types of cars are viable products in today's market. One could argue that the lack of competition and pent up demand justify the premium on the Toybarus enough, as their sales of "enough" are showing (it's not a failure, it's covering it's costs, but it's not driving them to put more into developing the line, from what has been said).

And that is with two companies sharing the development and marketing load.

As for the small pickup on a shared platform, I'm going to go crazy and say that the potential for an IDx now relies on the success of the Chevy Colorado.

One more thing: I like the concept version of the Nismo IDx, but it's very likely that it could go boring or just plain wrong on the transition to production, it doesn't have the relatively easy sell of "sleek sports car styling."

thesameguy
July 14th, 2014, 11:12 AM
Yeah, I believe therein lies the issue of whether these types of cars are viable products in today's market. One could argue that the lack of competition and pent up demand justify the premium on the Toybarus enough, as their sales of "enough" are showing (it's not a failure, it's covering it's costs, but it's not driving them to put more into developing the line, from what has been said).

I still stand by my original comment that the GT86 will be a one generation car - at least as we know it. MkII will weigh 3500lbs or be FWD or come with a hairdryer or something. I just don't buy into the long-term market outlook. Once the pent up demand has been sated, who are your customers?

And, yeah, all of that completely applies to the IDx as well. However, I think one of the IDx's potential saving graces might be its lack of sleek, sports car styling. It might appeal more to parents buying their kids a first car ("No sports cars, Timmy!") or people who need a more conventionally formatted car. The potential fuel economy of a 1.6l+CVT might slot in better as a fun commuter vs. a sports car. It could be positioned as a viable alternative to any other FWD econoboxes. I dunno. Just guesses. But it's no surprise the IDx can't exist in a vacuum - so bring on the ID CaminoXand and IDerokeeX. Come on Nissan, I've flat out given you the answer - what's the holdup?

Kchrpm
July 14th, 2014, 11:18 AM
It could be positioned as a viable alternative to any other FWD econoboxes.
Not a chance in hell they get the price down enough to do that.

And yeah, keep the Toybarus around with only minor refreshes until some major safety/emissions/whatever legislation change comes across that the car can't hit, and then move on. The last of the F-Body cars (I don't think the new Camaros have that designation) were in that mode, the only reason their production ended was something about the plants lease, the development and tooling had long been paid for so they didn't need to hit a number.

thesameguy
July 14th, 2014, 11:52 AM
You don't think so? Civic, Focus and Cruze are solidly in the mid 20s when fully optioned. I think most of those cars are. I thought the IDx was supposed to be right in there.

I never appreciated how incremental the development of the f-body was until I saw someone bolt a 4th gen interior into a 3rd gen. "Pretty much just goes in." Crazy.

Random
July 14th, 2014, 11:53 AM
Is that "pretty much goes in" like "bone stock (except for headers, a cam, bored out TB, and a 50-shot)?" Or actually "pretty much goes in" like "I didn't need a grinder!")

thesameguy
July 14th, 2014, 12:17 PM
Light modification and obviously wiring, but pretty much goes in - nothing more than hand tools required. Seats bolt in. Center console bolts in. The cabins are *really* similar.

Random
July 14th, 2014, 12:23 PM
Neat!

novicius
July 14th, 2014, 01:58 PM
And yeah, keep the Toybarus around with only minor refreshes until some major safety/emissions/whatever legislation change comes across that the car can't hit, and then move on. The last of the F-Body cars (I don't think the new Camaros have that designation) were in that mode, the only reason their production ended was something about the plants lease, the development and tooling had long been paid for so they didn't need to hit a number.
Not even the Miata gets away with that. No way these cars live in their current form for more than five years. :(

thesameguy
July 14th, 2014, 02:02 PM
Yeah, but hairdressing is an ever-evolving art.

YUP.

IMOA
July 14th, 2014, 04:15 PM
I still stand by my original comment that the GT86 will be a one generation car - at least as we know it. MkII will weigh 3500lbs or be FWD or come with a hairdryer or something. I just don't buy into the long-term market outlook. Once the pent up demand has been sated, who are your customers?

Yeah, but IIRC you also said they'd never sell 15,000/year in the US and they're beating that. From all the discussions I've had the plan is to keep it moving on in the medium term, it's hitting sales targets and on the Toyota side of things has generated more positive vibe/press/whatever you want to call it than anything they've produced in decades. Subaru might drop out as they have other hero models but Toyota are highly motivated to keep it going.

thesameguy
July 14th, 2014, 05:01 PM
the Toyota side of things has generated more positive vibe/press/whatever you want to call it than anything they've produced in decades

Well, that's a fact. It is literally the only interesting thing on the Toyota lot since the MkiV Supra got discontinued. If Honda and Toyota got together... nothing would happen, because they would both just fall asleep.

Kchrpm
July 14th, 2014, 05:53 PM
You don't think so? Civic, Focus and Cruze are solidly in the mid 20s when fully optioned. I think most of those cars are. I thought the IDx was supposed to be right in there.
The Sonic and Fiesta are below that, though, and don't need to be fully optioned for a teen's first car.

thesameguy
July 14th, 2014, 06:39 PM
Sure, of course there are cheaper cars. The Accent and Versa and Fit are all there. But it has the potential to slot in with a group of similarly-featured, similarly-purposed cars. Unless the thing is "tiny" (ha, like anything is tiny anymore) it'd probably feel at home with those midsized compacts (WTF?).

KillerB
July 14th, 2014, 06:54 PM
Miata got away with what effectively was one inexpensive reskin over almost 17 years.

IMOA
July 14th, 2014, 07:10 PM
Yep, silvia was the same, basically just reskins from S13 - S15

KillerB
July 14th, 2014, 08:24 PM
Hell, a lot of people don't realize that there have only been three truly new designs of the Toyota Camry:

1983-1991 (1st & 2nd gen)
1992-2001 (3rd & 4th gen)
2002-present (5th, 6th & 7th gen)

IMOA
July 14th, 2014, 11:36 PM
Hell, Series 6-8 RX7's they didn't even bother to do a reskin! (which does say a lot about how damn right they got it when first released)

Yw-slayer
July 14th, 2014, 11:49 PM
It still looks fresh, sexy, and cool today. The design is so careful and precise that I love it with all of my body (including my pee pee).

Damn, all this talk of RX-7s has me looking at local ones.

novicius
July 15th, 2014, 06:06 AM
Hey, I would be glad to be wrong and have the BFRR-ZS's stick around on this platform for the next 15 years, that would be sweet. :up: :up:

Now let's see if it happens. #pessimist

Yw-slayer
July 15th, 2014, 07:47 AM
15 years? It's possible, I suppose, after all, isn't the Elise S2 essentially a slightly modified S1 platform?

samoht
July 15th, 2014, 02:11 PM
I hadnt realised, but yes apparently both S1 and S2 Elise have the same wheelbase, apparently the sills are 4cm lower to help access, but otherwise its basically the same.

The last MR2 (MRS) ran for eight years, with a tiny facelift halfway. I think a 4+4 cycle is pretty standard. Also, the lack of direct rivals means that its easier to keep a car on sale without major overhauls.

So considering all the precedents, perhaps we should expect a facelift of some kind in 2016, and production to run until about 2020.

YW - think you can get a test drive in an FD? They are very easy to fall for, once you have a drive on a decent road - just so eagerly responsive to steering, throttle and brakes. Only the cost of maintenance really counts against them.

Yw-slayer
July 15th, 2014, 03:05 PM
I probably could, but the problems include driving to a decent road, the interior, and ongoing expenses (parking etc.). The reality is that I'd never buy one unless I struck the lottery.

Kchrpm
October 3rd, 2014, 04:32 PM
Current scuttle butt is that the retro look is being dropped, but production still isn't a lock.

Kchrpm
October 3rd, 2014, 04:41 PM
Was reading an old article on the concepts at Car & Driver, the last line was new information to me.


If Nissan really wants to peddle something excellent, it will hawk the IDx in a whole mess of body styles that parallel the 510’s, which was available not only as a coupe, but also as a sedan and a wagon.

Would that work nowadays? Is there a market for a "tiny" RWD wagon amongst more than enthusiasts?

thesameguy
October 3rd, 2014, 05:02 PM
A couple weeks ago, I would have said no - but over the past week or so I've had two combinations with young-ish people in the market for a new car and one of them said "I really want a hatchback" and the other said "We are going to get a small SUV but we wanted a wagon." Both times, my eyes nearly popped out of my head. I think people are coming [back] around to these functional body designs. I sure hope so!

(And I hope one of those IDx body designs includes an El Zedmino. :D )

Kchrpm
October 6th, 2014, 11:19 AM
I guess I just don't understand how to convince that person they want an IDx wagon and not a Pulsar (as an example). I wish that I did.

Random
October 6th, 2014, 07:17 PM
Was reading an old article on the concepts at Car & Driver, the last line was new information to me.



Would that work nowadays? Is there a market for a "tiny" RWD wagon amongst more than enthusiasts?

1-series in Yerp was a small wagon/5-door.

KillerB
October 6th, 2014, 07:19 PM
Well, it was, until it was replaced with a blown-up MINI platform. :|

Kchrpm
October 7th, 2014, 05:50 AM
http://jalopnik.com/the-next-nissan-z-could-be-more-like-the-idx-because-m-1643094196


"The Z is the affordable sports car, but the current Z has become a little bit more than affordable," lamented Nakamura. "Same as the original Z, it's becoming bigger and more expensive."

Nakamura added that the automaker needs to think about how it can make the Z more affordable and approachable for the customer. And when asked about the success of the Subaru BRZ / Scion FR-S / Toyota FT86 trio, Nakamura acknowledged that it's generated a lot of enthusiasm, and "we have to follow it."

TheBenior
October 7th, 2014, 09:10 AM
Much like how loaded-up Miatas have never been cheap, a lot of people seem to forget that the Z hasn't been a simple, cheap, lightweight sports coupe for about 40 years now. By 1975, the base 260Z was $6,284 while the base Corvette was $6,810 (granted the emissions-strangled 1975 Corvette was terrible, but it didn't seem to hurt image too badly, as GM still sold more than they did in any prior year).

The 370Z's real problem was that it launched in early 2009 (in the US, anyway), right when the worst post-WW2 recession obliterated middle class purchasing power. Sporty cars tend to have fickle audiences, and sales typically drop sharply after a couple years even when times are good. Then there's the generational shift away from coupes in general. The non-sporting coupe is all but dead, and in spite of being better than ever, even pony cars sell terribly compared to their glory days.

21Kid
October 7th, 2014, 09:36 AM
There are a lot more options now-a-days...

TheBenior
October 7th, 2014, 09:54 AM
People are more likely to aspire to crossover SUVs and leasing new/buying CPO luxury nameplate vehicles (I've read that up to 70% of new BMW "purchases" are leases).

Random
October 7th, 2014, 10:18 AM
(I've read that up to 70% of new BMW "purchases" are leases).

That's the smart way to go with the new German cars, IMO, unless you are a tech or are married to one. :p



Don't own a new German car out of warranty.

thesameguy
October 7th, 2014, 10:49 AM
It's also great because there are millions of BMWs on the road, enabled by people who otherwise couldn't afford one, driving down resale value like nobody's business. :up:

KillerB
October 7th, 2014, 11:58 AM
You're kidding, right? What's available in the relatively inexpensive sporty coupe/convertible world these days?

- Mustang
- Camaro
- Challenger
- FRS/BRZ
- 370Z
- Miata
- Civic Coupe
- Accord Coupe
- tC
- BMW 2-series (maybe)
- GTI 3-door (maybe)

Compare this to when Toyota offered 4 or 5 different coupes at a time, Mazda had three coupes plus the Miata, and so forth.

To me it comes down to a couple factors:

- Young style-conscious women that used to buy the base models of some sporty coupes buy small crossovers instead.
- Everyone seems to think they need four doors, despite people having fewer kids. Some of it might be us all getting not just fatter but also taller, and some of it is enhanced safety standards making it harder to build a coupe people can get into and fit comfortably in the back (bulkier seats and chassis, side airbags, etc) but this is only a theory of mine
- As has been mentioned, the proliferation of cheap leases and the cheapening of the luxury brands in general. Taking inflation into account, base model BMWs, Mercs, and Audis are cheaper than ever. With a few grand down, leasing a 3-series is more than a few hundred dollars cheaper than buying something like a 370Z. I don't know how long it can continue, since resale will suffer and make leases more expensive, but it's where we are now.

If I was looking for a car now, not already owning one that's almost paid off, I'd probably end up leasing an M235i or something, even though I prefer to buy cars.

Chances are, though, since I bought my car unlike many people in my position, when the Challenger is paid off, I'm likely to have about $20k in equity that I could use toward moving quite a bit up the automotive food chain if I wanted to.

thesameguy
October 7th, 2014, 01:00 PM
Don't forget that when the Japanese were selling multiple coupe-y cars they were also decidedly the runners-up in the market, and they were gleefully soaking up all the niches that the big domestics had shied away from due to lack of profitability. As was mentioned in the Miata thread, GM dumped the Fiero when it sold only 350k in five years. To folks like Toyota, Nissan, and Mazda that was a lot of US car sales. It made sense for them to pursue niche-ier markets at the time. Now they are behemoths too, and while they offer a coupe or a coupe version of a sedan version just to be in that space, it's certainly not even remotely a focus of their business.

I know a lot of dudes moved to pickups. I'm pretty sure most every female would-be coupe buyer owns a 3-series. I would be interested to see an accounting of <30 car buyers over the last 25 years.

Godson
October 7th, 2014, 03:14 PM
A good looking IDx wagon would be killer.

Kchrpm
May 22nd, 2015, 10:25 AM
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2015/05/nissan-idx-is-super-dead-but-parts-may-live-on-in-fwd-platform/

At this point, according to Nissan's North American VP of Product Planning, the most we can hope for is the styling elements to trickle to other products, including the next Z or a new FWD performance model that will sit below it.


“Small, sporty cars are very attractive for consumers but not in huge numbers. To do them properly – in our case – you can’t rely on an existing rear-wheel drive platform, because its dimensions are for a much larger powertrain. So, for us, it would mean developing a different rear-wheel drive platform and then we are bumping into the same obstacles every other automaker has: the volumes of a small, sporty car are not enough to justify the investment,” said Loing.

With the current Z doing quite well, at least in the eyes of Nissan as top-dollar NISMO models make up nearly 20 percent of units sold, going down-market is going against the market. Also, based on Loing’s remarks about size, it doesn’t look like we will be getting a smaller Z car next time around.

KillerB
May 22nd, 2015, 11:49 AM
Not even remotely surprised.

novicius
May 22nd, 2015, 12:51 PM
Next Z-car platform to be shared with next GT-R?

Kchrpm
May 22nd, 2015, 01:40 PM
Nah, unless they de-content the GT-R's base platform. The Z seems to be better as a basic platform they can sell for $29,999.9999999 with no content, but almost never goes out the door for less than $40k.

neanderthal
May 22nd, 2015, 02:28 PM
Small, RWD platform. hmmm, Mazda?

I wonder how much interest there would be in a sporty Mazda coupe? More than Toyota I think...

KillerB
May 22nd, 2015, 04:11 PM
16X + Miata chassis + coupe body = new RX-7. It makes so much sense.

novicius
May 22nd, 2015, 04:22 PM
Nah, unless they de-content the GT-R's base platform. The Z seems to be better as a basic platform they can sell for $29,999.9999999 with no content, but almost never goes out the door for less than $40k.
I just half-remember reading something-something GT-R to get smaller & lighter. If the Z is getting larger then it makes me guess that the platforms are merging.

Kchrpm
May 22nd, 2015, 04:29 PM
I just half-remember reading something-something GT-R to get smaller & lighter. If the Z is getting larger then it makes me guess that the platforms are merging.
Oh I didn't know that was happening. Maybe, then.

Kchrpm
June 29th, 2015, 05:58 AM
Toyota/Subaru's solution to the problem of developing/maintaining a platform that can only be used on one model? Well, it might be to just buy it from someone else, in this case, Mazda.

Yes, the rumor (of which there are many in regards to the twins and cheap sports cars in general) is that the next Toybaru could be a Toybariata!

http://jalopnik.com/rumor-in-order-to-defeat-the-miata-the-toyobaru-will-1714559005


Toyota says it will produce a successor, and an insider close to Toyota tells us that both the FT86 and the BRZ could switch to the new Miata platform in their next generation.

Rumors are that Toyota has tested the new Miata, and the initial evaluation is promising. Says our source, “If Toyota were to employ the MX-5’s chassis, it would be on the next-generation FT86.”

Maybe Nissan will do the same, and you'll just go to the different manufacturers to have your choice of styling and/or engine.

thesameguy
June 29th, 2015, 08:33 AM
Topless GT after all?

IMOA
June 29th, 2015, 01:07 PM
More importantly, hardtop Miata :)

Kchrpm
March 28th, 2016, 10:05 AM
In case there was any doubt, still dead as a door nail: http://www.autoblog.com/2016/03/25/nissan-small-sportscar-dead-report/


"You need a proper platform because it has to be light and small and also affordable," he told Auto Express. "In reality that is not easy to find. It also has to be rear-wheel drive – if we make it front-wheel drive it would be cheating. It is expensive and we are struggling."

thesameguy
March 28th, 2016, 10:16 AM
I seem to recall someone had a platform that could do FWD or RWD - I want to say it's the platform on the current Mini, but I might be wrong. I know that Lincoln's new, dedicated platform will do either (and, of course, AWD). Maybe within a few years Nissan can put together a similarly flexible platform. Maybe Lincoln has more dollars to spend on such a thing since it'll be every car, but OTOH Nissan has some volume over Lincoln and being able to build something like a Sentra and an IDx on the same shape & suspension could be functional. Meh... it sucks to try and sell RWD cars these days.

Godson
March 28th, 2016, 11:22 AM
This thread being redirected just made me sad

KillerB
March 30th, 2016, 11:52 AM
With the likelihood high that autobraking will become mandatory in the US, which will require even more expense to offer a manual transmission, I'm not optimistic about the medium to long term future of enthusiast cars.

thesameguy
March 30th, 2016, 12:12 PM
Interesting notion. I will bet that if autobrake becomes mandatory, that there will be exceptions either by volume or equipment. I just can't imagine even our government stepping in and demanding an entire segment of the market get axed to implement a feature. With things like ABS, SRS, TPMS, etc. there is nothing sacrificed along the way... even autosteering isn't a problem. If autobrake requires killing manual transmissions (or, maybe implementing an automated clutch) I think it won't be a universal requirement... at least, not for a *really* long time.

Ultimately, doesn't matter to me. Plenty of pre-MY2020 cars to keep me happy long past the point I should be driving. ;)

Kchrpm
September 10th, 2016, 09:47 PM
Oh, you wanted a small, lightweight, turbocharged vehicle from Nissan?

Have this turbocharged Nissan Sentra!

http://nissannews.com/en-US/nissan/usa/releases/2017-nissan-sentra-sr-turbo-makes-world-debut-at-miami-auto-show

http://st.motortrend.com/uploads/sites/5/2016/09/2017-Nissan-Sentra-SR-Turbo-front-three-quarter.jpg

TheBenior
September 11th, 2016, 05:17 AM
So 9 fewer hp and 25 fewer lb-ft than a Fiesta ST gets out of its 1.6L turbo. :|

Alan P
September 12th, 2016, 02:48 AM
And probably a good 200lbs or more heavier to boot.

Kchrpm
September 12th, 2016, 05:30 AM
Yep, the Sentra SR (non turbo) is already 200 lbs heavier (2720 vs 2920) than a Fiesta ST.

21Kid
September 12th, 2016, 05:49 AM
:|

TheBenior
September 12th, 2016, 06:07 AM
In all fairness, this car seems aimed at the niche that the previous couple generations of Civic Si filled: the somewhat sporty compact that makes fewer commuting compromises than more hardcore models.

Sure, the last decade of Civic Si got curb stomped in performance by its competition, but they beat most of the forced induction competitors in fuel economy, price, and reliability.

IMOA
September 12th, 2016, 07:27 AM
We've had it for the last couple of years. Crap car, sales disaster.

Kchrpm
November 15th, 2016, 12:23 PM
"Yeah, um, sorry about that SR Turbo. We were being a little lazy. How about a Nismo version?"

http://www.autoblog.com/2016/11/15/nissan-sentra-nismo-performance-se-r/

http://o.aolcdn.com/hss/storage/midas/d7c567ccc6a77ebab0f50f4e9c52d661/204586315/EMBARGOED+UNTIL+NOV+15+at+1230pm+PST+-+2017+Nissan+Sentra+NISMO+photo+2.jpg


The 2017 Sentra Nismo packs the same motor as the Sentra SR Turbo, which is a 1.6-liter turbocharged inline four-cylinder generating 188 horsepower and 177 pound-feet of torque. It comes with a six-speed manual transmission or a tuned Xtronic gearbox.
------------------
The sedan features a Nismo-tuned suspension that benefits from monotube rear dampers and updated struts and springs at the front. The ride has been lowered by 0.4 inches, while the 18-inch wheels are wrapped in Michelin Pilot Sport all-season tires or, as an option through Nissan dealerships, Bridgestone Potenza RE-71R summer tires. This Sentra can also be fitted with sticky, summer-only tires. The brakes are beefed up with 11.7-inch vented disc brakes at the front and 11.5-inch discs at the back, just like the SR Turbo.

In a similar fashion to the SR Turbo, Nissan fiddled with the Electric Power Steering system to reduce the amount of steering required at low speeds, while ensuring feedback is still there at higher speeds. The new Sentra Nismo, though, has been tuned for a "Nismo feel." When we drove the SR Turbo, we didn't like the sedan's numb and light steering.
------------------
Pricing for the Sentra Nismo hasn't been confirmed, but the sedan is expected to start under $25,000, roughly $3,000 more than the SR Turbo, when it goes on sale early next year.

Better, but likely still far behind the Fiesta ST.

thesameguy
November 15th, 2016, 02:15 PM
Maybe as fast, but I don't think there is anything Nissan could do to make the Sentra drive like a Fiesta. It's just such a poor, poor car. I'd take an Elantra any day of the week... it at least doesn't feel cheap inside.

Kchrpm
April 19th, 2017, 05:57 AM
Overpriced and underwhelming | 2017 Nissan Sentra NISMO

http://www.autoblog.com/2017/04/18/2017-nissan-sentra-nismo-first-drive-review/


Few small cars are as unimpressive as the Nissan Sentra...Still, a NISMO variant was on the way, and we still held onto a little hope that maybe, just maybe, Nissan's in-house performance division could make the little sedan enjoyable. And now that we finally got to drive one, we have an answer: it's still not good. In fact, with the CVT, it's actually rather bad.

*sigh*

novicius
January 30th, 2018, 10:39 AM
The most non-news car news EVAR: NISSAN WILL NEITHER CANCEL NOR REDESIGN THE 370Z ANYTIME SOON (http://www.motortrend.com/news/nissan-will-neither-cancel-redesign-370z-anytime-soon/?sm_id=organic_fb_MT_trueanthem&utm_campaign&utm_content=5a70c0b504d3015d33f34cdc&utm_medium&utm_source)

Uh ok well... carry on then. :lol: :up:

dodint
January 30th, 2018, 11:00 AM
Yeah, they're going to keep up with regulations but nothing else.

TheBenior
January 30th, 2018, 11:10 AM
I initially thought that they could just put a new Z on whatever current platform they're using with the Infiniti Q50/Skyline, but that's just using a revised version of the FM platform that they've been using since 2002 anyway.

Without a significant refresh, it must also be too expensive to engineer it to use the newer 400 hp twin turbocharged VR30DDTT (which I read as "VR30 double D titties") in it.

novicius
January 30th, 2018, 11:51 AM
Noice. :lol:

2848


The Z looks decent on paper but apparently falls on its face in handling.

MT's Head2Head vid (no Z):


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSq5Zb5ZNWY

The359
January 30th, 2018, 11:54 AM
And looks (if you substitute the 86 with a BRZ)

novicius
January 30th, 2018, 12:19 PM
True, the builder on Subaru.com lists a 6-spd BRZ Limited + Performance Pack @ $30,500 USD. That's comparable to a base 370Z.

Surprisingly enough, I couldn't find a 2017 BRZ vs 370Z vid on YouTube. Post 'em if you've got 'em.

TheBenior
January 30th, 2018, 01:18 PM
The Z looks decent on paper but apparently falls on its face in handling.
An extra 400-900 lbs, higher forward weight distribution, and an engine with mass higher up may have that effect...

I sat in this Miata (https://www.citymazdachicago.com/new/Mazda/2017-Mazda-Mazda+MX-5+Miata-e40c0ffb0a0e0aea4a9cbb013b80d786.htm) while getting some hatch struts replaced under warranty at my closest Mazda dealer. Judging by the seat bolster wear, it's probably been sitting in the showroom for over a year. Maybe I'll be in the market in another year or two.

CudaMan
January 30th, 2018, 04:37 PM
Kindof interesting how the 370Z gets left behind being in the middle. Pony car enthusiasts would decry the lack of power and torque from the BR-S and MX-5 for similar money, and not care the pony car doesn't handle as well. Horses for courses. But the Z is an in-betweener. Jack of all, master of none. Sales are down partly because it's been around 8 years (or really 15 if you count the largely similar 350Z), and partly because the indirect competition has made a lot of progress in that time. A redesign/modernization is needed.

It's one of the last remaining old school 2-seat sports coupes with a big NA engine and a real manual box. It's a darn good gearbox too - I don't think it gets enough credit. Of all the cars I've owned/driven, I only place the S2000 shift feel higher.

Having read the MT article, it's not as discouraging as the headline. Still some of the comments are a little scary - short-sighted numbers-driven thinking. Renault-Nissan can certainly afford to invest in their heritage and passion with something that may be a loss leader for a while. It'll add a lot of value to the company as a whole. That kind of stuff is harder to quantify and numbers and justify to non-car-people in places of power.

CudaMan
January 30th, 2018, 05:24 PM
Surprisingly enough, I couldn't find a 2017 BRZ vs 370Z vid on YouTube. Post 'em if you've got 'em.
The model years aren't current, but neither car has changed much...

Chris Harris: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUhLXvxlQR4

Probably a bit unfair to the Z given it was on old tires and was a base model with open diff and narrower wheels. Also if it had quality coilovers, a nice exhaust and a Quaife LSD like the Cayman did, he probably would have liked the Z a lot more than he did.

TheBenior
January 30th, 2018, 06:02 PM
The 370Z had the misfortune of launching in 2009 when the housing market crash was in full swing. Sporty cars tend to sell on novelty with sales declining much more sharply than commuter cars. By the time the economy was recovering, the 370Z was over 4 years old.

I agree that Nissan could afford to invest in their heritage. Mazda keeps the MX-5 around in spite of it cracking 10k US sales in 2017 for the first time since 2008. If tiny Mazda can develop an RWD platform for those paltry sales, Renault-Nissan could utilize existing hardware (like the VR30DDTT) to update the Z.

Freude am Fahren
January 30th, 2018, 06:20 PM
This is one of those self-fulfilling prophecies, just like the current STi. Sales dwindle because they don't update it to compete with others, but they don't update it because sales aren't good enough to justify it. :facepalm:

novicius
January 30th, 2018, 07:48 PM
I agree that Nissan could afford to invest in their heritage. Mazda keeps the MX-5 around in spite of it cracking 10k US sales in 2017 for the first time since 2008. If tiny Mazda can develop an RWD platform for those paltry sales, Renault-Nissan could utilize existing hardware (like the VR30DDTT) to update the Z.
The problem with the Z isn't power, it's apparently handling & refinement. Just sayin'.

TheBenior
January 30th, 2018, 07:54 PM
If they could be assed about to offer a 400 hp engine from the Infiniti Q50, they could also adapt other existing hardware like the optional active suspension and interior trim bits. This, would, of course, be part of an exterior redesign while the FM platform continues to soldier on.

novicius
January 30th, 2018, 07:56 PM
Yeah but then it'd be a $50K Z vs a $30K one.

CudaMan
January 30th, 2018, 09:21 PM
They have options. Perhaps a non-turbo variant of the VR30 to keep costs down, or something. The platform is there, that's the easy part. It just isn't a priority, sadly.

As for the current Z, handling is held back mainly by the VLSD, which is only effective if you have tires with very little grip. We're a decade or two past that point now. The lack of front camber is also a factor. Both of these things are easy fixes for either a new Z platform or by an enthusiast after the fact. I still get amazed at how well my 3100lb front-heavy top-heavy Z slaloms at the autox. The stiff springs and shocks help that a lot, too, but the overall point is you can add grip both front and rear with the camber and diff mods, and make the handling much much closer to world class by those things alone. The suspension geometry is very good, especially for the price, and the chassis is stiff. Steering feel at least in my 350s is very good, I'd rate it up there with anything modern and in fact IMHO it's better than the new MX-5's steering.

I get angry at manufacturers for not doing simple things to realize more potential from a sports car chassis. :lol: Especially when there's very little if any downside. The MR2 Spyder was always begging for the 2ZZ and the TRD Sportivo suspension. It could have been a genuine Elise competitor with more every day comfort and for a lot less money. But noooooo. :)

As for Mazda still selling the MX-5, two things: 1) they pin their entire brand on tactile driving involvement, so they darn well better have a halo car for that. 2) The days of hot-selling MX-5s are not all that long ago. It's a car that arguably saved the company in the not too distant past. The Z-car, on the other hand, has not had such market success since the 70s. That was a long time ago. Some (Z32, Z33) have sold fairly well, but not quite like hotcakes. The culture of the company has been changing. We need another Mr. K. :(

P.S. - Every time I pine for a used Cayman S I'm reminded of how they're too stable. They won't even tuck the nose on lift-throttle. Understeer persists. Still, the idea has tempted me on occasion.

TheBenior
January 30th, 2018, 09:24 PM
Not necessarily. The Z has been sharing a luxury car platform since the 350Z.

While the 400 hp Q50 Red Sport 400 starts at $51k, the 300 hp Q50 Sport starts at $40k. The dynamic suspension is part of a $1500 package with "sport brakes" and paddle shifters (though in typical Japanese car fashion they force you to get another $2500 package in addition to it). There's a $4k difference between the Q50 Sport and the Red Sport when the Sport is given the packages that the Red had standard. I doubt that the Red Sport has anything more than a slightly larger intercooler and slightly larger turbos. That's maybe a $5-600 parts price increase for an OEM. The rest of that 4k price increase is sweet, sweet profit.

Of course, that's going from smaller twin turbos to bigger ones. Ford charges an extra $1000 to go from a 3.3L V6 to a 2.7 twin turbo V6 in the F-150. AFIAK, the 2.7 is using the same K03s as the 3.5 F-150 Ecoboost. Nissan will still need to do model specific durability testing and suspension tuning, but a lot of the difficult work is already done.

Interior wise, Nissan doesn't need to go full on luxury car. They just need to step up to what Mazda's doing on their Grand Touring package cars. If Mazda can do it, Nissan can do it.

novicius
January 31st, 2018, 04:33 AM
While the 400 hp Q50 Red Sport 400 starts at $51k, the 300 hp Q50 Sport starts at $40k.
The Z makes 332 HP right now @ $30K. :erm:

So yeah, it sounds like 400 HP @ $50K would be the result -- in the face of that, I still agree with the plan to just keep making small batches of the current car for years. :up:

TheBenior
January 31st, 2018, 08:10 AM
I guess $1500 in already-developed parts could add $20,000 to the price. If it becomes an Infiniti loaded with almost every nonessential luxury car option.

If Mazda can develop a RWD platform from the ground up with a carryover engine for $25k, Nissan could make a $35k 400+ hp Z from existing parts. They just don't care enough to do it.

novicius
January 31st, 2018, 08:32 AM
Yes, that exactly -- they could do it but IMO they won't. Time will tell.

Kchrpm
March 19th, 2018, 09:17 AM
Here's another leak for a Nissan sports car that will totally be built.

https://www.carthrottle.com/post/nissans-370z-to-be-replaced-with-400z-sports-car-with-up-to-475bhp/

CudaMan
March 19th, 2018, 02:16 PM
Seems like it might be more clickbaity than leaky. They cite a source, and the initial powerplant seems obvious, but a near 500hp AWD version? They kind of already made that under a different name...

Kchrpm
March 19th, 2018, 04:34 PM
To be fair, the GTR is due for an update, too. Maybe they're all just going on the same platform to make the development cost make sense.

FaultyMario
November 19th, 2018, 10:59 AM
I think the future is not looking bright for Groupe Renault after the arrest of Ghosn (https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2018/nov/19/trade-tensions-markets-us-china-clash-pound-brexit-business-live?page=with:block-5bf28ae8e4b0bb700a72fc60#block-5bf28ae8e4b0bb700a72fc60).