[BMW269]

Nissan 370Z replacement must be ‘revolutionary’ to survive, says design head

The head of design at Nissan global has revealed that the replacement for the now-six-year old 370Z needs to be “more revolution than evolution” in order to have a future.

Potentially likely to mirror the three-year gap seen between the 300ZX and its 350Z successor, Nissan chief creative officer Shiro Nakamura says the replacement for the 370Z — long speculated to drop the reference to engine displacement and simply be called ‘Z’ — must bring with it significant changes, or it will not survive.

“I mean 350Z, 370Z… I don’t think the next one is going to be the 390Z,” Nakamura told Australian media during this weekend’s 24 Hours of Le Mans.

“It’s not growing because it’s already big enough. You know, 350 started with 240, 300, 350 and [then came] 370.

“I don’t think we should go higher,” Nakamura said while pointing upwards. “Maybe backwards,” he added, pointing down.

“We haven’t yet decided anything about next-generation Zed should be anything larger, or more power. We need to take another path.

“We have GT-R. If you compete with the high performance, we have GT-R. You cannot beat GT-R, so Zed has to be fine it’s own way.”

And unlike his view on the next-gen GT-R, Nakamura says the Zed can’t simply evolve like its bigger four-wheel-drive supercar brother.

“I feel [next-gen] GT-R is more evolution but I feel Zed needs more revolution than evolution.”

Quizzed on the potential of future product being related or inspired by the IDx concept unveiled at the 2013 Tokyo motor show, Nakamura laughed, saying, “Such a nice car. But at the moment, no IDx” – echoing recent reports to the same effect.

“IDx [has so much support] but financial decision is a different story… but that could be a next-generation Zed – [it’s] one of the options.”

Asked if an entry-level Toyota 86-type rival – one more affordable than the $60K 370Z – is something Nissan is considering, Nakamura suggested the Zed’s current role is as a more affordable option for enthusiasts.

“I don’t think we’d have three cars. Because we already have two sports cars – that should be more than enough, more than many.

“I think GT-R has to stay most high performance symbol of Nissan technology and Zed is [below it] to be more affordable sports car or sporty car to get the younger people [interested].”

After being informed of the naturally aspirated six-cylinder 370Z’s circa-$60,000 retail price in Australia, Nakamura was taken aback, saying, “That’s too expensive!”

“That’s very, very expensive. Therefore we have to make a revolution: repositioning. Reposition the Zed, otherwise I don’t think that we have a future with that kind of, you know, [package]. $60,000 and a 3.7-litre engine – it’s very, very expensive.

“And I think it’s not only price but also running costs with that that kind of a car,” Nakamura said before suggesting that Nissan is not wholly tied to six-cylinder-powered Zed cars, with a turbocharged four-cylinder most definitely a future option.

Attempting to spruik some of Nissan’s more affordable entry-level Nismo cars, Nakamura gets another shock learning that none of the performance division’s models are sold in Australia, with the sub-brand still yet to launch locally.

“None yet [in Australia]?,” the senior Nissan executive asked. “Why not? No GT-R Nismo? No Zed Nismo? We even have the Nismo March/Micra in Japan. We have such a nice range of Nismo…”

In markets such as Japan and the UK, punters keen for some sporting flavour below the 441kW/652Nm GT-R Nismo can choose from the likes of the Micra/March, Note and Sentra (known locally as Pulsar) Nismos as well as Nismo versions of the Juke and 370Z.

“Nismo is sort of a core, or heart of Nissan. We want to have Nismo everywhere,” he said.

Nissan Australia is due to make an announcement about the launch of Nismo by the end of this year.


Source: CarAdvice

[ORIGIN M.]

Originally Posted by Levi

Nissan 370Z replacement must be ‘revolutionary’ to survive, says design head

The head of design at Nissan global has revealed that the replacement for the now-six-year old 370Z needs to be “more revolution than evolution” in order to have a future.

Potentially likely to mirror the three-year gap seen between the 300ZX and its 350Z successor, Nissan chief creative officer Shiro Nakamura says the replacement for the 370Z — long speculated to drop the reference to engine displacement and simply be called ‘Z’ — must bring with it significant changes, or it will not survive.

“I mean 350Z, 370Z… I don’t think the next one is going to be the 390Z,” Nakamura told Australian media during this weekend’s 24 Hours of Le Mans.

“It’s not growing because it’s already big enough. You know, 350 started with 240, 300, 350 and [then came] 370.

“I don’t think we should go higher,” Nakamura said while pointing upwards. “Maybe backwards,” he added, pointing down.

“We haven’t yet decided anything about next-generation Zed should be anything larger, or more power. We need to take another path.

“We have GT-R. If you compete with the high performance, we have GT-R. You cannot beat GT-R, so Zed has to be fine it’s own way.”

And unlike his view on the next-gen GT-R, Nakamura says the Zed can’t simply evolve like its bigger four-wheel-drive supercar brother.

“I feel [next-gen] GT-R is more evolution but I feel Zed needs more revolution than evolution.”

Quizzed on the potential of future product being related or inspired by the IDx concept unveiled at the 2013 Tokyo motor show, Nakamura laughed, saying, “Such a nice car. But at the moment, no IDx” – echoing recent reports to the same effect.

“IDx [has so much support] but financial decision is a different story… but that could be a next-generation Zed – [it’s] one of the options.”

Asked if an entry-level Toyota 86-type rival – one more affordable than the $60K 370Z – is something Nissan is considering, Nakamura suggested the Zed’s current role is as a more affordable option for enthusiasts.

“I don’t think we’d have three cars. Because we already have two sports cars – that should be more than enough, more than many.

“I think GT-R has to stay most high performance symbol of Nissan technology and Zed is [below it] to be more affordable sports car or sporty car to get the younger people [interested].”

After being informed of the naturally aspirated six-cylinder 370Z’s circa-$60,000 retail price in Australia, Nakamura was taken aback, saying, “That’s too expensive!”

“That’s very, very expensive. Therefore we have to make a revolution: repositioning. Reposition the Zed, otherwise I don’t think that we have a future with that kind of, you know, [package]. $60,000 and a 3.7-litre engine – it’s very, very expensive.

“And I think it’s not only price but also running costs with that that kind of a car,” Nakamura said before suggesting that Nissan is not wholly tied to six-cylinder-powered Zed cars, with a turbocharged four-cylinder most definitely a future option.

Attempting to spruik some of Nissan’s more affordable entry-level Nismo cars, Nakamura gets another shock learning that none of the performance division’s models are sold in Australia, with the sub-brand still yet to launch locally.

“None yet [in Australia]?,” the senior Nissan executive asked. “Why not? No GT-R Nismo? No Zed Nismo? We even have the Nismo March/Micra in Japan. We have such a nice range of Nismo…”

In markets such as Japan and the UK, punters keen for some sporting flavour below the 441kW/652Nm GT-R Nismo can choose from the likes of the Micra/March, Note and Sentra (known locally as Pulsar) Nismos as well as Nismo versions of the Juke and 370Z.

“Nismo is sort of a core, or heart of Nissan. We want to have Nismo everywhere,” he said.

Nissan Australia is due to make an announcement about the launch of Nismo by the end of this year.


Source: CarAdvice

Good read.

Back to basics.

Like the good old 240 days.

I bet it becomes Electric as well.

[fecurtis]

Originally Posted by Rated ///M Power

I've driven the car. The car operates on FWD until the electric motor kicks in. The car is NOT sporty. It's a car that shows you've arrived.

You got it backwards, it operates on FWD only when ONLY the electric motor is on since the electric motor is connected to the front wheels.

The gasoline engine, mounted around back, powers the rear. So if both are being used, the car is actually AWD. If only the gasoline engine is being used, it's RWD.

[The Automotive Enthusiast]

Originally Posted by fecurtis

You got it backwards, it operates on FWD only when ONLY the electric motor is on since the electric motor is connected to the front wheels.

The gasoline engine, mounted around back, powers the rear. So if both are being used, the car is actually AWD. If only the gasoline engine is being used, it's RWD.

Sorry, you're right. My fingers got ahead of my thoughts.

[ORIGIN M.]

.

[SakhirM4]

Originally Posted by red-sauerkraut

.

The wheelbase looks too short on those - they look like hot wheels.

[ORIGIN M.]

.

[ORIGIN M.]

Originally Posted by SakhirM4

The wheelbase looks too short on those - they look like hot wheels.

Yeah some wacky renders floating around.

[Asbjorn]

Originally Posted by FilipMPower

I see your point, but there is still no doubt that the Z4 isn't the car it should be. You would expect the engine, for example, to be placed behind the front axle due to the huuuuge bonnet, but for some reason, BMW pushes the thing right forward. The seating position is good I guess, I don't like that the bonnet is thaaat long, really made me nervous when parking cars like the viper. And with dynamics I meant steering precision as well as balance. In my experience, the Z4 liked to understeer mid-corner at almost every turn, and the steering is still fake like any other BMW steering nowadays, but for some reason it didn't have the precision of the 3 series EPS unit. And I don't like the combination of poor steering and understeer as you never feel the understeer through the wheel, you have to hear the tyres squeeling first.

I respect your decision on owning one, of course I believe you love the car, and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. In my own opinion it isn't what I wished it was.

I guess they moved the engine forwards because the car is already 51+/49% towards the rear. Ie rear heavy, especially with the roof down. So moving the engine further backwards would only make it less 50/50, which is probably against the BMW philosophy.

Driving in sport+ or with DSC=off helps to increase the communication through the steering, and I personally don't think the steering in this mode is any worse than the new M4. Still, I am biased of course, but I agree the old hydraulic racks were more communicating. On the positive side I think the brake-pedal communication is better in the Z4 compared to the old 3-series.

The problem with under-steer is usually related to running oem RFTs. The Z4 is still sold with the old generation types and especially the rubber used with 19" is just too stiff. Fortunately it is not difficult to change the rubber and I personally experience over-steer much more than under-steer with my Z4.

And btw I think they bonnet is the same length as an M6 no?

[Asbjorn]

Originally Posted by Rated ///M Power

If the head of M called the M3 the world's fastest car, does that make it true too?

I've driven the car. The car operates on FWD until the electric motor kicks in. The car is NOT sporty. It's a car that shows you've arrived.

Alright, you want more sport with your sports car than the i8 offers. Other people, like me, often think even the M135i or a regular 3-series with M sport suspension, is too hard and uncomfortable for longer road trips.

Lets agree that we should be happy BMW offers sports cars for both types of people. There is an M2 coming along with the M4 GTS. 1M coupes and older M3s are available on the used market as well.

[BMW269]

Originally Posted by Asbjorn

I guess they moved the engine forwards because the car is already 51+/49% towards the rear. Ie rear heavy, especially with the roof down. So moving the engine further backwards would only make it less 50/50, which is probably against the BMW philosophy.

You know that 50/50 is just marketing and rear bias is better?

Originally Posted by Asbjorn

Lets agree that we should be happy BMW offers sports cars for both types of people. There is an M2 coming along with the M4 GTS. 1M coupes and older M3s are available on the used market as well.

BMW doesn't offer sports cars, just sporty cars. RWD doesn't makes a car a sports car. By that definition the Rolls Royce Phantom would also be a sports car.

[kprocivic]

Originally Posted by Levi

You know that 50/50 is just marketing and rear bias is better?



BMW doesn't offer sports cars, just sporty cars. RWD doesn't makes a car a sports car. By that definition the Rolls Royce Phantom would also be a sports car.

lol that was one of the funniest things I've heard in a while. if bmw's m lineup aren't sports cars, I'm not sure what a sports car is.

[BMW269]

Originally Posted by kprocivic

lol that was one of the funniest things I've heard in a while. if bmw's m lineup aren't sports cars, I'm not sure what a sports car is.

Sporty car: M235i

High-perforance car: M2, M4, M&

Sports car: i8

[The Automotive Enthusiast]

Originally Posted by kprocivic

lol that was one of the funniest things I've heard in a while. if bmw's m lineup aren't sports cars, I'm not sure what a sports car is.

The M are just Sport Sedans/Convertibles. BMW has made a Sports car in a long while.

[bradleyland]

The line between sports car and a sporty car is a fuzzy one. The reason most people consider BMWs to be sporty cars, rather than sports cars, is because BMW makes sporty versions of their normal cars. Some say that a true sports car is designed as such from the beginning, not altered to become one. That's why a car like the Miata or BRZ could be considered a sports car where the M3 would not. It's not about overall performance, it's about design purpose. I'm not saying I agree with that evaluation, but there is an argument to be made.

Personally, I don't give a shit what label anyone puts on my car. What matters is how much I enjoy the experience of driving it. The M3 puts a smile on my face every single time I drive it. Whether it's to the grocery store, or storming down a back road, this car delivers every time. Sports car or not.

[FilipMPower]

Originally Posted by Asbjorn

I guess they moved the engine forwards because the car is already 51+/49% towards the rear. Ie rear heavy, especially with the roof down. So moving the engine further backwards would only make it less 50/50, which is probably against the BMW philosophy.

Driving in sport+ or with DSC=off helps to increase the communication through the steering, and I personally don't think the steering in this mode is any worse than the new M4. Still, I am biased of course, but I agree the old hydraulic racks were more communicating. On the positive side I think the brake-pedal communication is better in the Z4 compared to the old 3-series.

The problem with under-steer is usually related to running oem RFTs. The Z4 is still sold with the old generation types and especially the rubber used with 19" is just too stiff. Fortunately it is not difficult to change the rubber and I personally experience over-steer much more than under-steer with my Z4.

And btw I think they bonnet is the same length as an M6 no?

I guess you are right, 50/50 weight distribution. It is not smart to counter rear bias by making the car more nose heavy. I am sure that the one I drove must have had these bad runflats, as the understeer wasn't terrible like in most audis, it was controlled, but definitely present. To be honest, I think you are right, the M6 has a huuuge bonnet and the engine however is pushed way back against the firewall, at least 80% of the V8 is behind the front axle.

[undecided]

Originally Posted by SakhirM4

I have no idea what a good amount of sales would be for a low volume 2-seat roadster, but BMW sold 297,088 Z3s and 197,950 E85/6 Z4s.

What is your source for this info? I am assuming you're talking worldwide but it still sounds very high.

[SakhirM4]

Originally Posted by undecided

What is your source for this info? I am assuming you're talking worldwide but it still sounds very high.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_Z3
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_Z4_(E85)

[Asbjorn]

Originally Posted by Levi

You know that 50/50 is just marketing and rear bias is better?

Rear bias is better for slalom, braking and acceleration. Boring stuff that only matters to people who own stop watches.
It is not better for drifting, doing burn-outs or high speed stability. Things that make life worth living.

[bradleyland]

Originally Posted by undecided

What is your source for this info? I am assuming you're talking worldwide but it still sounds very high.

Those numbers have to be world wide. I plotted some data from GoodCarBadCar and Z4 sales have really gone flat over the last couple of years:

http://www.m3post.com/forums/showpos...&postcount=102