Automotive News, Media & Press - **2008 Nissan GTR Update**

Figured at least some of you would find this interesting...

*Rumoured 480HP 3.7L V6
*Redline at 8000rpm
*Rumours of three derivations initially not confirmed, but there will be different versions over time
*New 'Super MFD' - advanced controls relating to the set up of car
*Wheel sizes unknown - thought we could read from pics but they appear 20"
*Japan and USA first for deliveries
*Official unvieling at the Tokyo motor show this year.
*The test driver was a French VP of Nissan and he thinks it will be a smash hit
*Test driver commentted that Porsche have a lot to be worried about
*Other test drivers have desrcibed it as "frighteningly quick" and "very smooth" certainly from the way it pulled away it was effortless.
*3 buttons on dash: "T", "S", "V"
*Bose sound system
*Gauge: 340kmh(211MPH)
*Steering wheel has other controls on it such as stereo etc.
*There appears to be a lap timer as well linked to buttons on the wheel
*Door handles have a push in button for them to pop out to pull on
*Quad exhaust system to mirror the twin round lights
*Brembo 6 pot callipers
*Bridgestone Potenza RE070
*Satellite Navigation screen in with MFD

http://www.blowdogfiles.com/08gtr/10b.jpg
http://www.blowdogfiles.com/08gtr/11b.jpg
http://www.blowdogfiles.com/08gtr/20b.jpg
http://www.blowdogfiles.com/08gtr/25b.jpg

this car is going to be sick...i can't wait to see it in person

Damm... I haven't seen any pics like that yet. Cool. :cool:

Good find. Let's see if this version can kick some ass in the USA. I'll be waiting in the wings with a lil surprise for them :devil: by the time they come out.

It will have its work cut out for it thats for sure. What kind of price? I would think something like 80K.

Depends on what model. Starting at 55-60 all the way to 80k.

Thanks, I just found the other thread, sorry for not searching.

High 50s is not bad really. I think it will be a great competitor to the LS3 C6. They will probably be pretty close in terms of in-gear acceleration. Handling is hard to say, I dont buy into rumors that its god gift to the ring just yet.

I think a lot of 30-40 year old will have a hard time deciding between the two if they are on the fence. Shoot I would have a hard time. Probably go for the Vette though.

Thanks, I just found the other thread, sorry for not searching.

High 50s is not bad really. I think it will be a great competitor to the LS3 C6. They will probably be pretty close in terms of in-gear acceleration. Handling is hard to say, I dont buy into rumors that its god gift to the ring just yet.

I think a lot of 30-40 year old will have a hard time deciding between the two if they are on the fence. Shoot I would have a hard time. Probably go for the Vette though.


I think it would far exceed the vette(non Z06), since it has already surpassed the 911 in all acceleration test. I just watched a vid on supra forums, where it was announced that it ran under 8:00 at Nuremburg(sp), but wouldnt confirm the time. So if this is true, it should run mid to low 120 traps. With all the hype, Nissan isnt going to disappoint. Bringing the Skyline to the States, it has to make a showing.

I think it would far exceed the vette(non Z06), since it has already surpassed the 911 in all acceleration test. I just watched a vid on supra forums, where it was announced that it ran under 8:00 at Nuremburg(sp), but wouldnt confirm the time. So if this is true, it should run mid to low 120 traps. With all the hype, Nissan isnt going to disappoint. Bringing the Skyline to the States, it has to make a showing.

Certainly we don't have enough info to really know...but I would have to say that the Corvette's 436hp V8 is going to run damn close to a 480hp V6 all other things being equal. You have to remember the torque curve of the LS V8s, and consider what that V6 will have in comparison. If their weights are close, I bet the new C6 and this GTR run pretty close in just about every respect.

But again, that's just based on what we know, which isn't alot.

Certainly we don't have enough info to really know...but I would have to say that a 436hp V8 is going to run damn close to a 480hp V6 all other things being equal. You have to remember the torque curve of the LS V8s, and consider what that V6 will have in comparison. If their weights are close, I bet the new C6 and this GTR run pretty close in just about every respect.

But again, that's just based on what we know, which isn't alot.



Bigger motor doesnt mean it will have more of a linear torque curve. If that were the case, a viper would be a hell of alot faster than a Z06, given its larger motor and more cylinders

Bigger motor doesnt mean it will have more of a linear torque curve. If that were the case, a viper would be a hell of alot faster than a Z06, given its larger motor and more cylinders

I didn't say "bigger motor". I said "LS V8". Different world.

Its still a datsun

Looking good, so far.

480 out of a VQ will be pretty mild boost and compressor sizing. Basic TT kits for the 3.5 VQ engines could lay down about 400WHP (albeit through a RWD tranny) with something like 10PSI. Thats about 440-450 crank HP. Add in the fact that the new VQs are much much better in terms of cylinder head and valve train, and that high redline, and it wont take much boost to hit the 480 crank HP mark.

Why this is relevant to us is that it means they can use some modest turbos that spool quickly. My personal reference point is my 1G DSM. I have 2L to spool a 16G. I can get 11PSI (stock boost) by the mid 3KRPMs easy. Two such turbos would easaly flow enough for 480HP on any engine, each one getting just about 1.9L to spool it. And with modern technology, that 1.9L is going to spool them better than my 15 year old engine design.

This means that there will be a lot flow on tap in the 4000-5500 range and that means good TQ numbers.

I really do think a bolt-on LS3 Vette will have similar WHP numbers and more strikingly, similar WTQ numbers.

Then too, thats some serious guess work LOL.

I think most of you would be suprised at the powerband a properly setup turbo V6 will provide. With a 8,000RPM redline I would expect this car to have a better torque curve then the LS3 in the new C6. Also like already mentioned for a 3.7-3.8L V6 with excellent head flow like the new VQ to be making 480HP with a twin-turbo setup it is almost indefinetly running very low boost. With just a boost controller this engine could see 100++HP gains easily. Remember the 3.0L Supra\300ZX could see 100++WHP gains from just bolt ons and boost.

Im predicting low 12's, high 11's at 122

I can only imagine the problems this car is going to have. Its a crappy Nissan VQ engine, boosted, spinning to 8,000RPM?? With what kind of trans and driveline??

When they start blowing up and breaking right off the showroom floor, well, see ya later. Nissan sucks, no reason this car shouldn't too.

I think most of you would be suprised at the powerband a properly setup turbo V6 will provide. With a 8,000RPM redline I would expect this car to have a better torque curve then the LS3 in the new C6. Also like already mentioned for a 3.7-3.8L V6 with excellent head flow like the new VQ to be making 480HP with a twin-turbo setup it is almost indefinetly running very low boost. With just a boost controller this engine could see 100++HP gains easily. Remember the 3.0L Supra\300ZX could see 100++WHP gains from just bolt ons and boost.

You think a boosted (low compression) 3.7L V6 is going to have a better torque curve than an N/A 6.0L Pushrod V8 engine?? Lay off the crack, its going to be a gutless POS until the turbos spool up, and then you have to rev it to 8K to get all the power. Its not going to be a comparison in terms of the powerbands and driveability.

Here's what can happen that would affect vehicle performance before it sells here. These are actual, first hand experiences I have had when doing vehicle development for a Japanese auto manufacturer.

The vehicle will be brought here or tested in Japan for FMVSS and other test to have it legal for sale in the US market.

1) It will fail one or more crash test criteria. Additional bracing or patch panels will be applied to the vehicle. (Weight will be added affecting performance).

2) Vehicle will fail noise passby test. Many performance vehicles have problems passing this test. (A more restrictive induction and or exhaust system may be added reducing horsepower).

3) It will fail more than one durability tests, Chassis, Engine, susp, etc (I could go on and on here). As above, pencil bracing and patch panels. Parts that are affected by high thermal loads (Exhaust related) will require shielding. (More weight).

4) It may fail emissions testing. Again, no surprise for a performance vehicle. A less than ideal AF and timing curve will be installed to pass emissions test along with a more restrictive converter. (additional reduction in power).

5) It will have NVH issues. Tuned asorbers, mass damping, induction resonators will be added. (more weight).

6) There are also internal criteria that the vehicle will have to pass, which is based on their perception of what the market wants. Typically a Japanese manager will make the final decision on what they feel is important to the American market. Much of what they see as important will be unnoticed by the final buyer. Ex: Higher frequency tire noise, wind noise are typical Japanese pet peeves. Low frequency inputs are usually more objectionable to an American driver (This is very typical but not an absolute).

End result will be a vehicle that doesn't live up to performance expectations, and this is just a small glance of the many test that are require before bringing a new vehicle to market.

You think a boosted (low compression) 3.7L V6 is going to have a better torque curve than an N/A 6.0L Pushrod V8 engine?? Lay off the crack, its going to be a gutless POS until the turbos spool up, and then you have to rev it to 8K to get all the power. Its not going to be a comparison in terms of the powerbands and driveability.

LOL. You have obviously never driven a properly setup twin-turbo V6. For best comparison just look at the 997 Turbo since it is the GTRs benchmark. The 997 is a 3.6L six cylinder making 480HP and 460 lb-ft at 1950 rpm. Yes the 997 Turbos engine has a better torque curve then the all mighty LS3 :jest:

Heres what can happen, that would affect vehicle performance before it sells here:

The vehicle will be brought here or tested in Japan for FMVSS and other test to have it legal for sale in the US market.

1) It will fail one or more crash test criteria. Additional bracing or patch panels will be applied to the vehicle. (Weight will be added affecting performance).

2) Vehicle will fail noise passby test. Many performance vehicles have problems passing this test. (A more restrictive induction and or exhaust system may be added reducing horsepower).

3) It will fail more than one durability tests, Chassis, Engine, susp, etc (I could go on and on here). As above, pencil bracing and patch panels. Parts that are affected by high thermal loads (Exhaust related) will require shielding. (More weight).

4) It may fail emissions testing. Again, no surprise for a performance vehicle. A less than ideal AF and timing curve will be installed to pass emissions test along with a more restrictive converter. (additional reduction in power).

End result will be a vehicle that doesn't live up to performance expectations, and this is just a small glance of the many test that are require before bringing a new vehicle to market.


Nissan has been working on the upcoming GTR since 2001, they have done their homework and set the benchmark high. The GTR is aimed to be as fast or faster in every genre then the 997 Turbo. The 997 turbo does 0-60 in 3.4 and has a top speed of 193MPH mixed in with its superb braking and handling abilities. The GTR has ALREADY been seen besting the 997s lap times on SEVERAL world renowned race tracks including the venerable Nurburgring course. For the first time in the GTRs long history it will be available in the US, and this time the US is its PRIMARY target. Since the begining this car has been tested and built to meet all US regulations, what ever adjustments were needed were done LONG ago before they started testing with the 997 Turbo.

Recent interior shot...

http://www.middlehurst.com/uploads/20070627/New_GTR_(8).jpg

I heard you gotta be a cum guzzler to order one

For the first time in the GTRs long history it will be available in the US, and this time the US is its PRIMARY target. Since the begining this car has been tested and built to meet all US regulations, what ever adjustments were needed were done LONG ago before they started testing with the 997 Turbo.
I was a Development Engineer for Nissan in the late 90's and GM before that. Vehicle development work is conducted up to and many times past when you are doing early production runs. There is no mainstream vehicle in the world that is ready for production years in advance.
I'm sure some of the smaller manufacturers may use out of date data on last years vehicle (as equivalent) to qualify a new vehicle, but I can assure you, Nissan is not one of them.

I was a Development Engineer for Nissan in the late 90's and GM before that.

I do believe this gives TT632 MORE credability/credence than ALL of the "import experts" on here COMBINED!! :owned: (Especially on this last topic of vehicle development/testing. :D )

I was a Development Engineer for Nissan in the late 90's and GM before that. Vehicle development work is conducted up to and many times past when you are doing early production runs. There is no mainstream vehicle in the world that is ready for production years in advance.
I'm sure some of the smaller manufacturers may use out of date data on last years vehicle (as equivalent) to qualify a new vehicle, but I can assure you, Nissan is not one of them.


We will just have to see when the car comes out late this year :). With Nissan pubically saying the 997 turbo was the benchmark to meet and surpass I highly doubt it will be an unimpressive car.

We will just have to see when the car comes out late this year :). With Nissan pubically saying the 997 turbo was the benchmark to meet and surpass I highly doubt it will be an unimpressive car.

Somebody needs to tell Nissan that they are putting the engines in the wrong end already...lol.

Even though, most of us on this board won't be buying a GTR or a Z06 for that matter, it makes good reading for a dream car. I'll spring for the new Camaro when it comes out or a used LS7 Z06 down the road, more in my price range.
Maybe RedBeauty84ZX can trade in his 84ZX for a GTR 10 years down the road and race my 10 year old Z06 :jest: .

Even though, most of us on this board won't be buying a GTR or a Z06 for that matter, it makes good reading for a dream car. I'll spring for the new Camaro when it comes out or a used LS7 Z06 down the road, more in my price range.
Maybe RedBeauty84ZX can trade in his 84ZX for a GTR 10 years down the road and race my 10 year old Z06 :jest: .






:jest:

http://cars.ign.com/articles/798/798833p1.html

Ok, I'll come clean....

I'm a sucker for NACA vents....

LOL. You have obviously never driven a properly setup twin-turbo V6. For best comparison just look at the 997 Turbo since it is the GTRs benchmark. The 997 is a 3.6L six cylinder making 480HP and 460 lb-ft at 1950 rpm. Yes the 997 Turbos engine has a better torque curve then the all mighty LS3 :jest:

You're talking about a Porsche, its German, not Japanese, and its much more expensive and exotic and some crappy Nissan with a V6. Your comparison is irrelevent, a Nissan GTR is in no way, shape, or form a Porsche 911 Turbo.

I've never driven nor heard of a Japanese car that made 460ft/lbs of torque at 1950RPM. It doesn't happen. The turbos are't going to spool that low, thats not how the Japs tend to build their cars. They build them for high RPMs, not low end torque.

You're talking about a Porsche, its German, not Japanese, and its much more expensive and exotic and some crappy Nissan with a V6. Your comparison is irrelevent, a Nissan GTR is in no way, shape, or form a Porsche 911 Turbo.

I've never driven nor heard of a Japanese car that made 460ft/lbs of torque at 1950RPM. It doesn't happen. The turbos are't going to spool that low, thats not how the Japs tend to build their cars. They build them for high RPMs, not low end torque.


Do you even know anything about forced induction or Japanese cars? One of the main reasons the 997 Turbo makes so much torque down low is because of its variable turbine geometry(VTG) technology which uses movable vanes that directs the exhaust driectly onto the turbine blades for a much more effective spool effect through out the RPM range. The new GTR is supposed to use this same technology. In 1991 Mitsubishis 3000GT VR4 made 307 ft/lbs of torque at 2450RPMs out of a 3.0L, thats over 1500RPMs faster then the LT1 reached its peak torque and it still had a higher redline and more broad torque curve then a LT1. Turbochargers are notorious for building lots of torque fast, even more so then a super charger, modern OHC turbo 6 cylinders are able to offer a better power band then most V8s. The reason you think Japanese cars all make their power up high is because they generally use better flowing and more efficient engines which allows them to take their peak torque curve higher in the RPM range allowing for a higher peak horse power. Let me give you an example...

Ford 4.0L in the new V6 Mustang
210HP@5300RPMs
240TQ@3500RPMs
Nissan 3.7L in the new G37
330HP@7000RPMs
270TQ@5200RPMs

Now I'm sure you look at these #s and think "Gee the mustang makes more torque down low and it must be a torquier car while the Nissan must be a high RPM car and make no low end power" Right? Well you are wrong. Let's look at a dyno chart of the Nissan VQ37HR done by Automobile:
http://www.automobilemag.com/features/news/0705_c+2008_infiniti_g37+dyno_chart.jpg
As you can see by the graph the VQ37 makes almost 230 WHEEL torque by the same 3500RPMs the 4.0L in the mustang makes its peak CRANK torque. The VQ37 is actually making around 270TQ at the crank by 3500RPMs. So not only does the Nissan 3.7L make more top end power but it also makes more low end power then the ford 4.0L...it simply makes more power every where.

With Nissan setting the Porsche 997 Turbo as the bar you can expect it too be at least equal in performance of all aspects...

Its still a datsun :jest:

Where have I been? A nissan outhandlingand out powering a porsche on a racetrack. Try to tell me that about 10 years ago and I'd have laughed.

Where have I been? A nissan outhandlingand out powering a porsche on a racetrack. Try to tell me that about 10 years ago and I'd have laughed.


Where were you in 1990 when both the 300ZX TT and R32 GTR were out powering and out handling the Porsche 911s...?

3 years old at that point, I was referring to american models, and would the 300z outhandle a porsche?

3 years old at that point, I was referring to american models, and would the 300z outhandle a porsche?


Around a track both the Z32 and R32 were faster then the Porsche 911 at the time. They were also both more powerful and got better gas mileage. The Z32/R32 were what started the so called Japanese super cars of the early-mid 90s....

Interesting side note in reference to the 300Z - the guy in charge of Pontiac's sports cars in the 80s laid the ground work for what would become the GTA. He wanted the Grand National GNX engine to go in all of them. He understood that people at the time (and still to this day, sadly) didn't care about facts like performance, they cared about HOW that performance was achieved, and the more unecessary gadgets (like OHC and turbos) the better.

He stated that he wanted to chase the 300Z and RX-7 markets, leaving old-school US V8 gearheads to the camaro.

The '89 Anniversary was a BEAST. It would be interesting to see how things would have turned out if GM top-brass had had a clue. (they were only willing to spend the money for a short special edition run)

Interesting side note in reference to the 300Z - the guy in charge of Pontiac's sports cars in the 80s laid the ground work for what would become the GTA. He wanted the Grand National GNX engine to go in all of them. He understood that people at the time (and still to this day, sadly) didn't care about facts like performance, they cared about HOW that performance was achieved, and the more unecessary gadgets (like OHC and turbos) the better.

He stated that he wanted to chase the 300Z and RX-7 markets, leaving old-school US V8 gearheads to the camaro.

The '89 Anniversary was a BEAST. It would be interesting to see how things would have turned out if GM top-brass had had a clue. (they were only willing to spend the money for a short special edition run)

Well its well known that turbochargers increase torque much faster and easier then displacement could efficiently. All you need is a moderatly sized engine(i.e. V6) and boost to make plenty of power. Look at the 2000+HP/TQ Grand nationals.

Well its well known that turbochargers increase torque much faster and easier then displacement could efficiently. All you need is a moderatly sized engine(i.e. V6) and boost to make plenty of power. Look at the 2000+HP/TQ Grand nationals.

I didn't say they didn't work, only that they were unecessary - look at the 505hp LS7 revving to 7K (limited with a large safety margin, it'll spin faster), beating the gas guzzler tax and shipping with a great warranty (and being small enough to stuff into a Miata), all while being quite light at that.

On top of that, you get the sound that only an Ameircan V8 can give you, and zero boost lag, no need for ridiculous amounts of plumbing and huge front openings (for the oil coolers and FMICs), less stuff to break or go wrong, and oil that lasts longer.

I'd love to have an '89 Anniversary T/A, and I don't really dis-like turbos or V6s making huge power, I'd just rather have the LS7 with DoD added to it. If it can be made even lighter (say ceramic block or something), that would be the icing on the cake.

(Previous Skylines sound awesome when boosted and beaten on, but NOTHING sounds as nice as a 427 Cobra :drive: )

I didn't say they didn't work, only that they were unecessary - look at the 505hp LS7 revving to 7K (limited with a large safety margin, it'll spin faster), beating the gas guzzler tax and shipping with a great warranty (and being small enough to stuff into a Miata), all while being quite light at that.

On top of that, you get the sound that only an Ameircan V8 can give you, and zero boost lag, no need for ridiculous amounts of plumbing and huge front openings (for the oil coolers and FMICs), less stuff to break or go wrong, and oil that lasts longer.

I'd love to have an '89 Anniversary T/A, and I don't really dis-like turbos or V6s making huge power, I'd just rather have the LS7 with DoD added to it. If it can be made even lighter (say ceramic block or something), that would be the icing on the cake.

(Previous Skylines sound awesome when boosted and beaten on, but NOTHING sounds as nice as a 427 Cobra :drive: )


subjective

^ His entire post? :confused:

My $0.02

One factor why the Japanese GT's have declined since the 90's is their weight.

The LS7 doesn't weigh anything. Does it have forged internals inside an iron block that can support 30 psi of forced induction from the factory? Nope... That's why the car doesn't weigh much for its size, and that's why it beats all the cars we've been mentioning on the 'Ring. This new GTR will hopefully be our new Japanese GT *fingers crossed* but it still won't beat an NA RWD front/mid engined GT AS A PLATFORM (Of course it will be faster than MANY NA rwd cars... I know)... I mean, look at all the cars on the top 15 of Nurburgring records and you'll notice a trend. Either way, it will be very unique as the GTR's have always been.

But yeah, it's a good thing they're making this car here in the states, and I can appreciate how good it will be... Without getting carried away.

^ His entire post? :confused:


No, just the part about the sound of a cobra. Sorry

The GTR has always been one of the few cars that is AWD with RWD Bias. Unlike Evos/WRXs/etc. etc. which are all FWD biased the GTRs have all the attributes of a RWD car but with AWD grip.

Evos IIRC are about 60/40 rear to front most of the time. But they are laid out even in the newest iteration in a FWD manner.

WRXs can be adjusted to up to 70% rear. Kinda cool.

In the end its about engineering goals. The more useable clean power/TQ you can make over as big a rev band as possible in as small, cheap, reliable a package as allowed by modern tech.

The LS7 is pretty good for that, as it is compact light etc with great power. However. that does neccesarily make it simple. OHV layouts are actually more complex than OHC. For one thing, OHC does not have to worry about provisions for a cam in the block. Thats a huge advantage in any layout. For another, no pushrods. BUT, the heads are much larger and heavier, exactly where you dont want size and weight in the engine bay too.

Lots of trade offs. I will say that its probably going to be easy as hell to run a 600WHP LS7 or 600WHP GTR. Simple mild upgrade to the turbos and fuel will probably do it on the GTR with a tune, and the usual old bolt-ons will do it for the LS7. Either way will make some killer mid-range power.

Cam in the heads not only means heavier heads from the presense of 2 or more cams, they have to be stronger to support it, which means heavier, and that means the block has to be made stronger, which again means heavier.

So an OHC engine is quite a bit heavier than an OHV engine, with a higher center of gravity on top of that (double whammy). And insult to injury, they are much bulkier as well - even before you get to the add-ons that tend to go with OHC engines (turbos and associated piping, oil coolers, etc, etc).

Again, that doesn't mean that OHC is inherently bad, but from an engineering stand-point (since you mentioned it), it's a little sloppier with all the inherent negatives.

Now if you want to spin to 10K, or you have the room for an Inline block, then it's the way to go.

No, just the part about the sound of a cobra. Sorry

Ah... Gotcha.


The GTR has always been one of the few cars that is AWD with RWD Bias. Unlike Evos/WRXs/etc. etc. which are all FWD biased the GTRs have all the attributes of a RWD car but with AWD grip.

Yup... Truly unique. It's the ONLY AWD sports car I'd ever call a true roadgoing GT. Regardless of it's performance overall, it truly is in a class all of its own.

Cam in the heads not only means heavier heads from the presense of 2 or more cams, they have to be stronger to support it, which means heavier, and that means the block has to be made stronger, which again means heavier.

So an OHC engine is quite a bit heavier than an OHV engine, with a higher center of gravity on top of that (double whammy). And insult to injury, they are much bulkier as well - even before you get to the add-ons that tend to go with OHC engines (turbos and associated piping, oil coolers, etc, etc).

Again, that doesn't mean that OHC is inherently bad, but from an engineering stand-point (since you mentioned it), it's a little sloppier with all the inherent negatives.

Now if you want to spin to 10K, or you have the room for an Inline block, then it's the way to go.


OHC design, offer superior flow characteristics, over OHV. The fact that it weighs slightly less, than my V6, doesnt impress me that at all. The motor might weigh less, but the overall car, doesnt.

OHC design, offer superior flow characteristics, over OHV. The fact that it weighs slightly less, than my V6, doesnt impress me that at all. The motor might weigh less, but the overall car, doesnt.

Tryin' hard to live up to that name, aren't ya? Japanese car diehards aren't impressive at all.

I love how you can't refute the space and weight savings (which make it a great solution from an engineering perspective) with anything substantial and resort to "but the car's not".

What car? The C6 Z06? What's lighter than that? An S14? A Solstice weighs the same. No points for you.

OHV can use VVT and DoD, but the real point is, it DOESN'T NEED TO. And those are just ways to increase the complexity, expense, and add things to break. Get's back to the earlier point, those things work but are work arounds to a problem that already had a solution.

Sad that people have so little life that they have to join a board just to "piss on" everybody. You'd be a happier person if you went and found something productive offline to do. Seriously.

Tryin' hard to live up to that name, aren't ya? Japanese car diehards aren't impressive at all.

I love how you can't refute the space and weight savings (which make it a great solution from an engineering perspective) with anything substantial and resort to "but the car's not".

What car? The C6 Z06? What's lighter than that? An S14? A Solstice weighs the same. No points for you.

OHV can use VVT and DoD, but the real point is, it DOESN'T NEED TO. And those are just ways to increase the complexity, expense, and add things to break. Get's back to the earlier point, those things work but are work arounds to a problem that already had a solution.

Sad that people have so little life that they have to join a board just to "piss on" everybody. You'd be a happier person if you went and found something productive offline to do. Seriously.



OHV engines have the camshaft below the cylinder head, and thus use lifters and pushrods to help actuate the valves that are in the cylinder head. Compared to OHC engines, they allow for better packaging, but are less efficient compared to OHC designs due to increased valvetrain mass. To open a valve, the camshaft pushes on a lifter, which pushes a pushrod, which pushes on a rocker am, which opens the valve. OHC engines don't have the weight of the pushrod to overcome. While the weight of a pushrod & lifter is seemingly insignificant, when you consider it can account for more than 15% of the valvetrain mass, and it has to open a valve up to 6000 times a minute (or more), it adds up to measurable difference. It's all about inertia - the less weight it has to move, the less energy is required to open the valve, and thus, there is more energy that can be transferred to the crankshaft - meaning more HP to the wheels. +1 for me

+1 for me

Only in your own delusional, trolling mind.

OHC is older than OHV. Back when it was made, companies didn't add needless complexity to things just to sell them, that's a recent phenomena.

The point you're failing to grasp is - you don't need to spin to 40,000 rpm. 6,000 is MORE than enough for everything other than race engines - and then only when they are limited through other means by rules and regulations (the only reason F1 teams spin their engines so fast is because rules limits in other areas). The LS7 will spin well past 7K in stock trim (electronically limited to 7K though) anyway.

With enough power, you can use gearing and make an ass-kicker and not need to spin the engine very fast. It's only when you deal with tiny engines that you have to start getting into gimmicks like VVT, variable intakes, and spinning to stupid speeds to generate power.

No +1 for you.

Only in your own delusional, trolling mind.

OHC is older than OHV. Back when it was made, companies didn't add needless complexity to things just to sell them, that's a recent phenomena.

Actually the first OHV engines were built in 1902 by David Dunbar Buick, the first OHC engines were built in 1912 by Fiat.

The point you're failing to grasp is - you don't need to spin to 40,000 rpm. 6,000 is MORE than enough for everything other than race engines - and then only when they are limited through other means by rules and regulations (the only reason F1 teams spin their engines so fast is because rules limits in other areas). The LS7 will spin well past 7K in stock trim (electronically limited to 7K though) anyway.


The point you're failing to grasp is - OHC/Forced induction/VVT/etc. all help to do one thing. Keep the torque curve from falling as late in the RPMs as possible. This generates more horsepower which in turn allows better use of gearing. Refer to the Nissan 3.7L vs. Ford 4.0L comparison I made on the previous page. Or if you would like compare the L98 to the LT1, both make the same peak torque but the LT1 does it much later in the RPMs allowing for more horsepower to take advantage of gearing. LT1 vette > L98 vette even though they make equal torque and the L98 makes it sooner. Torque curves naturally shoot up early in the RPMs, the key is to keep it from falling too early. These technologies not only make more power and better use of gearing but also produce better gas mileage and better emmissions.


With enough power, you can use gearing and make an ass-kicker and not need to spin the engine very fast. It's only when you deal with tiny engines that you have to start getting into gimmicks like VVT, variable intakes, and spinning to stupid speeds to generate power.

Power is horsepower, torque is force. Horsepower is what lets you take advantage of gearing and it is always better to make torque at high RPMs vs. low RPMs. Though you are correct in that smaller engines need more efficient valve trains/head flow to be able to produce similar power to a bigger engine. Though the point you seem to be missing is that forced induction levels the displacement playing field. The torque curve from a turbocharged OHC V6 is usually longer and more broad then the torque curve from a NA OHV V8.

Actually the first OHV engines were built in 1902 by David Dunbar Buick, the first OHC engines were built in 1912 by Fiat.


The point you're failing to grasp is - OHC/Forced induction/VVT/etc. all help to do one thing. Keep the torque curve from falling as late in the RPMs as possible. This generates more horsepower which in turn allows better use of gearing. Refer to the Nissan 3.7L vs. Ford 4.0L comparison I made on the previous page. Or if you would like compare the L98 to the LT1, both make the same peak torque but the LT1 does it much later in the RPMs allowing for more horsepower to take advantage of gearing. LT1 vette > L98 vette even though they make equal torque and the L98 makes it sooner. Torque curves naturally shoot up early in the RPMs, the key is to keep it from falling too early. These technologies not only make more power and better use of gearing but also produce better gas mileage and better emmissions.


Power is horsepower, torque is force. Horsepower is what lets you take advantage of gearing and it is always better to make torque at high RPMs vs. low RPMs. Though you are correct in that smaller engines need more efficient valve trains/head flow to be able to produce similar power to a bigger engine. Though the point you seem to be missing is that forced induction levels the displacement playing field. The torque curve from a turbocharged OHC V6 is usually longer and more broad then the torque curve from a NA OHV V8.



:judge:

Of course a turbocharged OHC v6 will have a broader curve than a motor that's NA... Why even mention that? That's more than obvious.

Displacement, Forced Induction, VVT, OHC, etc. are technologies that increase efficiency/power... Sometimes, you only want to pick a couple from the list because the more you add, the more complex/heavy you get.

GM has not fallen for the recent trend of "The more technology the better."


Can you gentlemen agree, as performance enthusiasts, that the faster the car is the better?

If you can, then you can appreciate how many different methods there are to make a car fast around a road course. Look at the C6 Z06 or the Viper, cars that currently outlap our current, mass-produced Japanese cars on a road course. They only have displacement, OHV displacement to be exact (which is physically small)... Sure, they could have added OHC, FI, etc. but then they would weight too much or be too complex... For these specific cars, it wouldn't work. Alot of it depends on the platform too. From a strict design standpoint, putting the engine in the back is stupid... But it works for the 911. Some domestic cars go nuts with complexity... 03/04 Cobras for instance, viz. OHC and Roots blower from the factory.

Appreciating the technological benefits of OHC and the like is easy. However, if you fail to see how OHV can succeed in areas where OHC can't, then you're just biased obviously.

Real world results can't be denied... The outdated LS7 is doing just fine on a road course, besting all reasonably streetable cars except those much more expensive for most of us.

Don't knock it if it works.

And don't toot something as the only smart way to do something if doesn't work as well.

Everyone is comparing this to the current car models, the viper and next Z06 (Z07,SS,Blue Devil) are both going to have more than 600hp. With the rumors of the new Z06 being around 2900lbs its going to be a lot faster, that would be my educated guess.

Only in your own delusional, trolling mind.

OHC is older than OHV. Back when it was made, companies didn't add needless complexity to things just to sell them, that's a recent phenomena.

The point you're failing to grasp is - you don't need to spin to 40,000 rpm. 6,000 is MORE than enough for everything other than race engines - and then only when they are limited through other means by rules and regulations (the only reason F1 teams spin their engines so fast is because rules limits in other areas). The LS7 will spin well past 7K in stock trim (electronically limited to 7K though) anyway.

With enough power, you can use gearing and make an ass-kicker and not need to spin the engine very fast. It's only when you deal with tiny engines that you have to start getting into gimmicks like VVT, variable intakes, and spinning to stupid speeds to generate power.

No +1 for you.


Why would Dodge, feel the need, to incorporate VVT into the new Viper?

Why would Dodge, feel the need, to incorporate VVT into the new Viper?

Ask them. You do realize that corporate management often does things that don't make sense, right? Especially in American companies. Could be any number of reasons, but you desperately want to beleive that it supports your biased, flaming troll cause.

A buddy of mine has an S14, had a WRX, and is a Skyline NUT. His brother had a WRX and now has an STi, and their cousin has a late model MR-2. It's because of them that I have gotten past the point of blindness and can appreciate the other side. Not that I would have ever felt the need to go and troll on their forums in the first place though. Conversely, he now appreciates this side as well and can admit to advantages where they exist as well. He may not feel that the LS1 is the engine that was touched by god, but he knows it's a marvel of achievement, excellent for performance applications, and that you DON'T NEED OHC and FI or 90,000 rpm to get the job done.

Just shows how sad, shallow, and blind you really are.

Hey - if you're making an engine and you have no ruling body to restrict you. You have to get MAXIMUM power, and your only limits are physical dimension, power to weight ratio (and to some extent, maximum weight as well), and service life. The service life and reliability are *paramount* because peoples lives will be depending on it. How would you go about it? (this oughta be good. lol)

Actually the first OHV engines were built in 1902 by David Dunbar Buick, the first OHC engines were built in 1912 by Fiat.

Nice try, the first DOUBLE OHC production engine was in 1912, the first OHC engine was made in the 1800s.


The point you're failing to grasp is - OHC/Forced induction/VVT/etc. all help to do one thing. Keep the torque curve from falling as late in the RPMs as possible. This generates more horsepower which in turn allows better use of gearing. Refer to the Nissan 3.7L vs. Ford 4.0L comparison I made on the previous page. Or if you would like compare the L98 to the LT1, both make the same peak torque but the LT1 does it much later in the RPMs allowing for more horsepower to take advantage of gearing. LT1 vette > L98 vette even though they make equal torque and the L98 makes it sooner. Torque curves naturally shoot up early in the RPMs, the key is to keep it from falling too early. These technologies not only make more power and better use of gearing but also produce better gas mileage and better emmissions.

...and add weight, cost, size...

Why would Dodge, feel the need, to incorporate VVT into the new Viper?
Ever heard of marketing?

^ Yeah... My mom's Camry certainly did not come with a spoiler for high speed downforce. :lol:

Sadly, whether we like to believe it or not, motors are designed in the same way sometimes... To please what the public thinks (many times wrongly) is best, which changes very often...

A few times, a motor is actually built around what works around the track for a given platform...

Nice try, the first DOUBLE OHC production engine was in 1912, the first OHC engine was made in the 1800s.

Nice google buddy...the first OHC engine WAS DOHC. Nice try :jest:


...and add weight, cost, size...

With modern aluminum engines weight isnt near of a big deal especially with the increased power output the engines produce for the minor 30-40lbs of more weight. With mass production the cost isnt much more if any for manufacturers which is why 98% of the world now uses OHC engines. Again manufacturers don't mind the slightly wider engine for the increase in power/mileage/cleaner emmissions.

Ever heard of marketing?

Actually the V10 in the Viper likely incorporated VVT to pass emmision requirements. Only about .0000001% of people even know or care what VVT is so it would make a horrible marketing ploy.

Nice google buddy...the first OHC engine WAS DOHC. Nice try :jest:

1898, Wilkinson motor car company, OHC engine...

With modern aluminum engines weight isnt near of a big deal especially with the increased power output the engines produce for the minor 30-40lbs of more weight. With mass production the cost isnt much more if any for manufacturers which is why 98% of the world now uses OHC engines. Again manufacturers don't mind the slightly wider engine for the increase in power/mileage/cleaner emmissions.
I find it kinda ironic, that when asked about weight, most Japanese car fanboys would say "every pound counts," yet when shown that OHV (v configured) engines are lighter than OHC, they just brush it off saying that OHC engines will be more powerful. And then they try and make fun of heavier muscle cars, although more powerful than their lighter cars... *sigh* its like being in high school all over again...

Actually the V10 in the Viper likely incorporated VVT to pass emmision requirements. Only about .0000001% of people even know or care what VVT is so it would make a horrible marketing ploy.
Its a great marketing tool because the more "high tech" crap you can spew from your mouth on TV, the better. "This car has variable valve timing, I dont know what it is, but it sounds high tech!"

Actually the V10 in the Viper likely incorporated VVT to pass emmision requirements. Only about .0000001% of people even know or care what VVT is so it would make a horrible marketing ploy.

I teach high school, dude.

There are three questions my freshmen ALWAYS ask me when they find out I'm into cars:

1. Does it have NAWZZ?

2. Does it have TOURBbooooz???

3. Does it have VTAK?

Even though I am turbocharged, I tell I have none of the above. Then, they proceed to tell me how their older brother's Civic with the above three will smoke my car... They don't know what ANY of the above are/do, but they spew it nonetheless.

Take it from me... That marketing is working real good for variable valve timing.

Again manufacturers don't mind the slightly wider engine for the increase in power/mileage/cleaner emmissions.

You better believe that some do mind, some that build incredible sports cars btw.