Nissan studying turbochargers for future vehicles?
2009 Nissan 370Z - Click above for high-res gallery
As much as we've grown to love Nissan's award-winning line of VQ six-cylinder powerplants, reality dictates that time marches on and a replacement will soon be needed. According to Tetsuya Takahashi, a manager at Nissan's Powertrain Engineering Division, a switch to smaller displacements may be in the offing along with a return to forced induction – much like what Ford has done with its EcoBoost series of engines.
Nissan and Renault have well-known plans to share virtually all powerplants from this point forward, and this move would likely allow for both small and fuel efficient powerplants for passenger car duty – which is especially important in Europe – along with somewhat larger and much more powerful engines for high-performance models. Drawbacks include the additional cost of the turbocharging hardware and a more difficult path to emissions approval, so future turbo Nissans are far from a sure thing.
For those old enough to remember Nissan's pre-2002 series of Z cars, which received its first turbocharger way back in 1981 and reached its horsepower apogee in the form of the 300-horsepower 300ZX Turbo in 1990 (not to mention the incredible RB and SR powerplants), this news may be welcomed with open arms. As far as we're concerned, a slightly detuned version of the VR38DETT V6 powering fire-breathing GT-R would look mighty fine under the shapely hood of the next-gen Z.
Gallery: Review: 2009 Nissan 370Z
[Source: Motor Trend]
_opt_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg "2011 Audi A8: Live from Miami")
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Hamhock 1:38PM (8/03/2009)
it would be great if Nissan could build a small high revving inline 6 turbo motor.....
Reply
Mike 3:54PM (8/03/2009)
Buy a BMW...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_N54
BinaryTerror 4:40PM (8/03/2009)
Mike,
Hamhock was talking about Nissan's already known and well loved series of Twin Turbo inline engines in use before the N54.
The RB26DETT in their Nissan R32 to R34 series of vehicles
VW GTi 1:40PM (8/03/2009)
Twin turbo 370z anyone?
Reply
Affalterbach 2:15PM (8/03/2009)
That would be stepping on the GT-R's toes. But then again, if anyone can pull turbo engines off nicely, its Nissan.
MikeW 3:29PM (8/03/2009)
Yes, if Nissan uses the VQ25hr as the base.
Add VVEL
Add direct injection
Add twin turbo
Add 1 bar of boost.
350hp 350ft-lbs
BigMcLargeHuge 1:49PM (8/03/2009)
Twin-turbo G-sedan please.
Reply
why not the LS2LS7? 1:47PM (8/03/2009)
'a switch to smaller displacements may be in the offing along with a return to forced induction – much like what Ford has done with its EcoBoost series of engines.'
Ford has not switched to smaller displacements! The only EcoBoost engine offered is 3.5L, and it is the largest and most powerful engine offered in all the vehicles it is offered in. It is entirely inaccurate to say Ford has switched to smaller displacements with EcoBoost (or indeed in any of their non-EcoBoost cars either), at least when talking about the US market.
Reply
Tagg 1:57PM (8/03/2009)
We all know you are not a fan of the Ecoboost but whatever.
Look at the vehicles the Ecoboost is in first. They are all huge, V8 sized autos. They NEED the 3.5 engine to move them. Where Ford will use lower displacement, turbocharged engines are in the upcomming Focus (why waste it on the current model?) new Escape, new Fusion etc.
Before you say "it hasn't happened yet!" yes I know. It's a future plan, which is something good to see.
BigMcLargeHuge 2:05PM (8/03/2009)
I think they meant smaller than their competitors' engines that they are meant to be in the same class against.
Chris O 2:45PM (8/03/2009)
@LS2
It probably would have made more sense if they had cited EcoTec, rather than EcoBoost. The 2.0L EcoTec engine could legitimately be considered to give legitimate V6 power (with warranty-friendly, OEM stage 1) with I4 economy. It will be interesting to see if that powerplant makes it to the Camaro, or other applications like mid to large sedans and/or CUVs.
MikeW 3:27PM (8/03/2009)
The Taurus should have used the 3.7 V6, albeit with taller gearing so it would not step on the MKS's toes [MKS 3.16 & 3.39, so-Taurus 2.77 & 3.16]
Then putting the Ecoboost in the SHO would still have been 'downsizing'
Ford 'fixed' the axle ratios on the Edge for 2010, so the 3.5 will be fine here. Let the Lincoln version [MKX] use the 3.7.
For 2010 in the F-150, the 3.7 V6 with 6 speed auto should have replaced the 4.6 V8 (2 valve) and 4 speed auto. Then for 2011 the Ecoboost will be the 'downsized' option.
The Flex should have used the 3.7 V6 (with 3.16/3.39 axle ratios), and Ecoboost with 2.77 axle ratio. The Lincoln [MKT] should have used 3.7 V6-3.39 for front drive, and E.B. 3.5 with 3.16 for Haldex
why not the LS2LS7? 12:30AM (8/04/2009)
The turbo EcoTec is no better. GM has never offered a turbo EcoTec in anything but a performance applications in the US. Yeah, some might say the Sky/Solstice were candidates for V6s, but still, the EcoTec is only used in performance applications and isn't offered as a replacement for a larger normally aspirated engine in any vehicle it is in.
The cars talked about as V8 cars must not really be V8 cars since Ford offers a normally aspirated V6 in all of them but one. With V6s making 300HP now (like in the Cadillac CTS) it's tough to argue any car cannot be reasonably powered with one.
Tagg:
It hasn't happened yet. When it has happened, I'll speak of it as if it has. Until then, no. Autoblog would do well to do the same. And besides, Ford hasn't given any details yet that an EcoBoost will be offered in an economy situation. For all we know, the Focus coming up is a 2.0L turbo like the EcoTec turbo.
BigMcLargeHuge 1:51PM (8/03/2009)
I think they meant smaller than their competitors' engines that they are meant to be in the same class against.
Reply
BigMcLargeHuge 2:06PM (8/03/2009)
oops.
Tagg 2:01PM (8/03/2009)
I don't care what engines they put in Z cars. Those are great looking, great driving cars that have finally received an interior worth sitting in. The new NISMO Z could even make Porsche's just a little scared.
Reply
BoxerFanatic 2:44PM (8/03/2009)
I was with you until you said good looking.
"If the frog.. er, 370z had wings, it wouldn't bump it's ass when it hops."
and somehow a mid-engined Porsche Cayman S, I doubt is too worried about a 370Z.
A frog vs. a croc...
Affalterbach 2:57PM (8/03/2009)
@BoxerFanatic
Even though your username says it all, but you're taking your love of all things flat too far.
How the hell is a Cayman a good looking car? Ive seen a 370Z and a Cayman in person, together and the Z is by far a more handsome and dramatic car.
BoxerFanatic 3:10PM (8/03/2009)
The cayman could look better in the roofline, rear quarter window area. Otherwise it looks like a porsche... What else is it supposed to look like?
But the 370Z is HORRIBLE. The G37 looks FAR better.
The 370Z puts out more peak horsepower, that may be true. But a mid-engine RWD car has much better inherent handling balance, and probably better traction due to weight distribution, just as a matter of physics.
And a boxer engine is smoother than an offset-crank V6, just in engine layout and firing order... Doesn't make it more powerful, necessarily, but the Porsche engine is nothing to scoff at.
Handling and chassis balance is where Cayman S doesn't really have much to worry about from the 370Z's front-weight-biased layout.
I would buy a used Cayman S on it's chassis benefits before buying a 370Z, it only further cements my preference that the 370Z looks as bad as it does.
BigMcLargeHuge 3:49PM (8/03/2009)
Boxerfanatic,
That's great that you like the mid boxer layout, but you are not
accurate.
The base 370Z has performed very similar to the Cayman and Cayman S.
The NISMO 370Z will likely be a notch above in terms of track performance.
Platform and layout aren't everything. The Z has 40% more chassis stiffness than the old Z. That's something you can't account for in your 'mid-engined always better' analysis.
Results are in, and they really have been tested as being similar.
Not that Porsche has to 'worry' about the Nissan, since they are not
cross-shopped often, IMO, but as far as performance goes, the Z is a
better bang/buck.
You really shouldn't base performance assumptions on theory.