Chrysler Crossfire 3.2 V6 vs Nissan 350Z vs Mazda RX8 vs Alfa Romeo GTV 3.2 V6 [Archive]

Coventrysucks

07-07-2004, 04:11 AM

The Crossfire really is a bad car, it doesn't really fulfill the brief.

It is supposed to be a sports car, so they based it on a 10 year old Mercedes that was continually critiqued for its lack of sporting ability.
The cabin quality is shocking, I've seen a lot better in cars costing 15-20k less.

The GTV is also about 10 years old, and is due for replacement shortly.
Best thing about it is the engine, the rest of the car is an Alfa Romeo = Italian build quality, dodgy electrics, understeer.

The RX8 and 350Z are in a different league to the other two, in terms of overall performace and in general.

The 350Z is my favorite of the four.
I think it looks better, has a V6 and can easily be supercharged, which gives it the power the chassis needs to be enjoyed to the fullest.
:)

Pliz

07-07-2004, 04:49 AM

my fav is a 350Z...2nd is RX8...besides where is the R34 GT-R VSPEC II in all of this???

Matra et Alpine

07-07-2004, 05:11 AM

The GTV :) The sound :) :) the LOOK :) :) :)

Especially the look , coz after all, being Italian electrics you wouldn't be driving it much :)

Quiggs

07-07-2004, 06:46 AM

RX8. Having been driven in one (my uncle's, in that awesome metallic blue), there is no sound like that rotary... At the New York Auto Show, I was able to sit in the 350, RX8 and Crossfire. The Crossfire was too small, my head hit the ceiling. The 350 was nice... But sitting in the driver seat of the 8, everything is right where it needs to be. Center mounted tach has the red line just past 12oclock. The shifter was just in the right spot. I could go on and on and on about it...

SPN:DOC

07-09-2004, 09:08 PM

ahh hard choice.. i like Nissan for its engine, silky smooth V6 ( came from the Renault :D ), but I m not a fan of its looks.. :( don’t get me wrong its a great looking car just not my cup of tea.. The RX8 is one fine looking car, but not a fan of rotaries, cost, complexities, economy, and i have been hearing allot of problems with the engine... :( The Alfa well I m not a fan of the GTA the front is gr8 and the back is mahhh.. but the badge is a winner, finally the crossfire, there is something about it that appears to me, duno what the performance, look and style.. so i guess i would go for the crossfire, its not a perfect car but what is ay... ;)

taz_rocks_miami

07-14-2004, 05:12 PM

I'm torn between the Alfa and the Z. The Z is a fine car, looks great, performs well and since it's a Nissan it won't break on you. But there is something about the Alfa, the engine sound is so sweet (typical of Italian cars) , sterio? Who needs it, lol.

ALEXV6T

09-02-2005, 09:43 AM

sORRY.... :)

GTV 3.2 V6 24v

Top speed 255 Kph
0-100 6.3
0- 1000 mt 25.8 sec

kennyknoxville

09-02-2005, 09:51 AM

the z

Revo

09-02-2005, 10:04 AM

The GTV :) The sound :) :) the LOOK :) :) :)

Especially the look , coz after all, being Italian electrics you wouldn't be driving it much :)
Couldn't say better myself. Spot on, Matra :)

Esperante

09-02-2005, 02:23 PM

I think the GTV is one of hte most beautiful cars ever built.

h00t_h00t

09-02-2005, 04:26 PM

A combination of the GTV and lots of walking I think.

nota

09-02-2005, 06:08 PM

ahh hard choice.. i like Nissan for its engine, silky smooth V6 ( came from the Renault :D )
I'm sure Nissan & Renault V6s are unrelated

Easy choice for me, as compared to others (including Pontiac GTO) the RX8 manages to be both a modern interpretation of focussed sporty car plus it doubles as a reasonably practical 4-seater as well, and being rotary is of absolutely unique design & drive experience

Matra et Alpine

09-02-2005, 06:15 PM

I'm sure Nissan & Renault V6s are unrelated
For the 350 they aren't. The V35 engine pre-dates the Renault buy-in.

Renault getting access to Nissan's V6 was the sweet part of the deal and the Vel Satis is the Nissan 3.5l engine. Nissan got all of Renaults direct injection diesel technology.

nota

09-02-2005, 06:39 PM

For the 350 they aren't. The V35 engine pre-dates the Renault buy-in.

Renault getting access to Nissan's V6 was the sweet part of the deal and the Vel Satis is the Nissan 3.5l engine. Nissan got all of Renaults direct injection diesel technology.
Yes, so some Renault models now use the excellent Nissan-designed V6 - not the other way around as was alluded (eg 350Z using old PVR V6 derivative)

Matra et Alpine

09-02-2005, 06:45 PM

Yes, so some Renault models now use the excellent Nissan-designed V6 - not the other way around as was alluded (eg 350Z using old PVR V6 derivative)
The Nissan is oft-cited as THE best V6 going.

The rumours are that IF Renault resurrect Alpine then they'll contune the V6 tradition for the range with an uprated version of the V35 :D :dreaming:

henk4

09-03-2005, 12:42 AM

The Nissan is oft-cited as THE best V6 going.

Many times that has also been said of Alfa's V6.

Matra et Alpine

09-03-2005, 02:15 AM

Many times that has also been said of Alfa's V6.
true, but the Nissan possibly stays that way even when wet ??

Italian electrics :D

6'bore

09-03-2005, 03:05 PM

GTV. Aweosme looking thing.

Vic Vega

09-03-2005, 04:53 PM

I would burn all my money instead of buying Alfa. It would, most probably, save me alot of headache, and not only because of Italian eletronics, but also because of Italian engineering. I don't need my car sitting in repair shop...

Mazda RX8

Kumacho

09-07-2005, 10:40 PM

When I was looking for a car that I would enjoy driving daily and still be able to race it on the weekends, I looked at several cars.

I looked at the S2000, Z06, 350Z, Evo, Z4 and RX8.

The first car I drove was the S2000 and my impressions were:

The S2000 is a fun car to drive hard. But not a fun car to drive normally. The lack of torque makes this car a drag to drive daily. Handling was excellent in very tight corners. It didn't however, feel quite as well planted on high speed corners as did some of the others I tested.

Next I drove the Z06 and I was very impressed by all performance aspects of the car. It was forgiving if you selected the wrong gear entering a corner (torque is grand!) and straightline it was brutal. It was not as impressive in tight corners as was the S2000 and didn't seem to be as forgiving if your line was slightly off. But it was rock solid on high speed corners and when exiting any corner it was a force to be dealt with. What I didn't like about the car was fit and finish of the interior. It just didn't feel like the interior was up to par with the other cars I tested. The other drawback was being priced $20k higher than the others.

I then tested the Mitsubishi Evo and I have to say I was really surprised by this car! Never in my wildest dreams did I think a sedan would compete with a group of coupes. The Evo had good accelaration out of each corner and it was good at slow speed, tight corners and good on high speed corners as well. Much like the pipey S2000, gear selection needed to be right on and you needed to keep the car up in the boost. Really the only reason I looked at this car was because a friend insisted I test it. Since I wanted a 2 seater coupe I guess I tested the car with a bias and it didn't become my choice.

The RX8 was much the same as the S2000. You step on the accelarator and for the first bit of the powerband you are wondering what the fuss is about. But the RX8 just keeps building power as the RPMs increase. It still lacked the punch that the other cars had and really it was not a 2 seater either. It does handle very well and is quite neutral on highspeed corners. On the tight corners it had a tendancey towards understeer. It did not exit corners as wickedly as some of the others, but you could carry a higher speed entering the corners. Mazda really needs to make a pure 2 seater with good power. If the Miata MX5 had reasonable power and wasn't so cute, it would have been one of the cars I would have tested.

What can I say about the Z4? The one I tested had electrical problems! Imagine a brand new BMW with electrical problems... The feel of the car was super. It was very neutral in all types of corners leaning just a bit towards understeer in most. It had reasonable power and exited well. I just couldn't get past the lights on the dash that kept blinking at me!

Finally I drove the 350Z. Since my intentions were to find a car I could track, the model I tested was the Track. The others didn't have the Brembo brakes and in order to race in the T2 class I would need something with rock solid brakes. The Z tended towards understeer on tight corners and was extremely good on highspeed corners. The VQ35 is a solid engine with linear power. The good torque on the low end made it feel great exiting any corner. Gear selection on this car was not as crucial as with some of the others.

My final choice boiled down to the Z06 or the 350Z. With the $20k difference in price, I ended up making the Z my choice.

2ndclasscitizen

09-08-2005, 03:03 AM

The Nissan is oft-cited as THE best V6 going.

The rumours are that IF Renault resurrect Alpine then they'll contune the V6 tradition for the range with an uprated version of the V35 :D :dreaming:
There's a couple of 300+hp NISMO versions running around, and there is the 30DETT version of VQ and i think a 35 one as well. The VQ has been right up there in best engine awards for the last 10 years, in 30 and 35 forms. I think it only got knocked off the top spot this year by the BMW 3.5 TT Diesel from the 535d and other models. The M-Technik 3.2 I6 is always a challenger to nissan as well

quattro_20v

09-08-2005, 07:16 AM

Top Speed 254.3 kph / 158.0 mph
0 - 60 mph 5.2 seconds
0 - ¼ mile Not Available
0 - 100 mph Not Available
Lateral Acceleration Not Available
EPA City/Hwy Not Available

These stats are from the crossfire srt6 not the 3.2 with 218 hp

2ndclasscitizen

09-09-2005, 10:42 PM

MOTOR gave the SRT-6 a good rap, it was pretty quick

Esperante

09-10-2005, 07:55 AM

quattro_20v

09-10-2005, 10:44 AM

MOTOR gave the SRT-6 a good rap, it was pretty quick

I know its quick but its in another price class, The normal V6 is in this price class, and for being a sports car it isnt the best buy...

dave_fonz_164

09-11-2005, 12:32 PM

the alfa for the sound, feel, look, uniqueness and performance. That V6 may be old news and short on power compared to the others, but it still hauls ass, and none of those engines pull hard to the red line like an alfa V6......

as for reliabilty comments, sure the car might not be as fool proof as a Jap, but were talking about a european car here so a few quiggles are expected. The V6 has been around for so many yrs, its a very reliable unit.

sunk

09-12-2005, 07:11 AM

The RX8. No sound like the rotary.

FITZY

10-06-2005, 08:33 AM

Quote ``0 - 60 in 5.2 seconds`` you must be joking. More like 7.5 on a good day!

Piacki_117

10-06-2005, 01:04 PM

no hesitation, Alfa

Guest

10-06-2005, 01:13 PM

my fav is a 350Z...2nd is RX8...besides where is the R34 GT-R VSPEC II in all of this???
having a lie down seeing as its alot more money than the other 4

BMW325

10-06-2005, 04:50 PM

i drove both the RX-8 and the 350Z on Monday...a used G35 Coupe (Skyline) too :D

anywho...both are great cars...but the 350Z would be my choice

i'd post photos from the test drives but im lazy...and pics are already on my Xanga (http://www.xanga.com/item.aspx?user=Visionary_Mark&tab=weblogs&uid=360700824)

gikaseixas

10-06-2005, 08:19 PM

350Z, it handles really well (so does the RX8) and you gotta love that V6 punch

Radoman

10-06-2005, 09:04 PM

RX-8 for me. I'm just waiting to see if and when they'll bring out a version with forced induction of some kind.

2ndclasscitizen

10-07-2005, 03:48 AM

RX-8 for me. I'm just waiting to see if and when they'll bring out a version with forced induction of some kind.
i'd imagine not, thats the RX-7s job, the RX-8 was only ever sposed to take on the 350Z, a turbo or s/c would take it outta the price/performance range. Mazda hasn't said no more to the RX-7 so i reckon we'll still see a new one, MOTOR had a small column about Mazda building a bored out 16B Renesis, and with an GTR supposedly coming, the RX-7 should logical follow

clutch-monkey

10-07-2005, 03:58 AM

RX-8 for me. I'm just waiting to see if and when they'll bring out a version with forced induction of some kind.
going with 2ndclasscitizen here.....
mazda australia built 2 RX-8 turbo's, and they're awesome. Then they said no we're not gonna build it. way to build up our hopes, guys....

2ndclasscitizen

10-07-2005, 04:04 AM

those were the purple one's with white wheels? cause those were fat.

There are few RX-8 turbo kits round though, MOTOR had the Rotormaster one in a Hot Tuner article a while ago and they fair loved it

clutch-monkey

10-07-2005, 04:11 AM

those were the purple one's with white wheels? cause those were fat.

maybe.. the two i know of one is black with white rims, the other red. they have small vents on the bonnet and a slightly bigger spoiler

2ndclasscitizen

10-07-2005, 04:39 AM

i swear i remember an RX-8 with white wheels being shown off, maybe it wasn't a Mazda one

clutch-monkey

10-07-2005, 04:43 AM

i swear i remember an RX-8 with white wheels being shown off, maybe it wasn't a Mazda one
yeah, both turbo prototypes had white rims :)

seanjuk

06-09-2009, 12:00 AM

clutch-monkey

06-09-2009, 02:23 AM

if you buy a car for attention you're doing it wrong...

Niko_Fx

06-09-2009, 03:21 AM

The Crossfire seems to have taken a beating on this, however look at the overall spec at the top.... Crossfire wins on all accounts, this is before we even start to go into the srt-6. Nissan 350z... well no more need to be said... its a nissan??? no good. People do not stair when you are in this car, not interested as it has no appeal, looks like everyday car, dont forget that for the large % of people who know nothing about cars, you drive past in a nissan or a crossfire, i know which one would get the most attention... crossfire all day long. The only competitor in my eyes is the beautiful Alfa, as alfa are quality, and like chrysler you are recognised everywere you go. I have test drove the alfa and crossfire, alfa was better to drive, but the crossfire was so much quicker and the looks just sent it my way slightly.

I hate it when people try to bash other cars to prove that theirs is better. You, significantly fail at it, "Just a Nissan..." dude, you are comparing it to a CHRYSLER! Not a Ferrari! I don't know about over there, but it in the US the Crossfire is a failure, ugly, does NOT turn heads, the plastic interior is absolutely cheap and hideous, and the car is nothing special.

A Tata Nano (or whatever is called) will also get you some attention.

LeonOfTheDead

06-09-2009, 04:08 AM

I hate it when people try to bash other cars to prove that theirs is better. You, significantly fail at it, "Just a Nissan..." dude, you are comparing it to a CHRYSLER! Not a Ferrari! I don't know about over there, but it in the US the Crossfire is a failure, ugly, does NOT turn heads, the plastic interior is absolutely cheap and hideous, and the car is nothing special.

A Tata Nano (or whatever is called) will also get you some attention.

Dig the Nano!

I think I saw less Crossfire than Zondas. And I tur my head when I see one, but in the opposite direction.

clutch-monkey

06-09-2009, 04:21 AM

I think I saw less Crossfire than Zondas. And I turn my head when I see one, but in the opposite direction.

yes, don't want to throw up on your shoes, haha.

cmcpokey

06-09-2009, 07:00 AM

my mother drives a crossfire, i have a G35 (a big fat Z) and i have to say that the crossfire is a horrible car. as previously mentioned, the interior is horrible. seats are uncomfortable, and the proportions of the car around you are all wrong, you simultaneously feel huge and tiny. it is fairly quick, but it doesnt have the confidence in handling that you get from the FM chassis cars.

all in all.. avoid the crossfire, get a Z.

cargirl1990

06-09-2009, 07:47 AM

cmcpokey

06-09-2009, 07:57 AM

i'd pick the 350Z. the RX8 is a car i would never really want to drive. im not a fan of rotary engines. i don't like the way their built let alone how they suck up fuel and what not. the GTV is a very nice looking car. the Crossfire. i like that car. but i don't love it. i'd love it if it wasn't on the ancient SLK platform/ chassis. lets not forget those awful interiors.
i like the 1st one, but the bottom right looks like something out of a Kia and the one on the bottom left looks like a poor excuse for a " luxury " sports car.

have you ever driven a rotary? for their power, they aren't too bad on fuel (please lets not go into another huge debate again guys), are very smooth, and rev super fast. i really like them, and feel that they shoudl be more popular than they are.

cargirl1990

06-09-2009, 08:01 AM

have you ever driven a rotary? for their power, they aren't too bad on fuel (please lets not go into another huge debate again guys), are very smooth, and rev super fast. i really like them, and feel that they shoudl be more popular than they are.

sorry, i just never liked rotary engine. thats just the way i am. i like inline engines and V power. but i guess i'd have to give it a shot.

Ferrer

06-09-2009, 11:11 AM

Dig the Nano!

I think I saw less Crossfire than Zondas. And I tur my head when I see one, but in the opposite direction.
You aren't being fair though. ;)

I'd want the GTV on the Z's rear drive chasis. Failing that it'd be a hard time deciding between the Z and the Alfa, altough in the end it'd probably be the Alfa.

LeonOfTheDead

06-09-2009, 11:48 AM

You aren't being fair though. ;)

I'd want the GTV on the Z's rear drive chasis. Failing that it'd be a hard time deciding between the Z and the Alfa, altough in the end it'd probably be the Alfa.

I saw two Zondas while not being in Modena or San Cesario sul Panaro (Pagani's town), and I saw two Crossfire in my while life (one being a light blue SRT-6). Still impressive isn't it?!:D

The Alfa for me too, I couldn't resist to save that lovely V6.

Ferrer

06-09-2009, 11:57 AM

The Alfa for me too, I couldn't resist to save that lovely V6.
Even if perhaps it is the worse driver's cars of the group...

Yes, it's hard to say no.

Kitdy

06-09-2009, 12:01 PM

if you buy a car for attention you're doing it wrong...

I saw a Benz ad in a magazine saying how many looks a GLK would get as if this would be a good reason to buy one.

Sad.

Badsight

07-23-2009, 04:13 AM

have you ever driven a rotary? for their power, they aren't too bad on fuel (please lets not go into another huge debate again guys), are very smooth, and rev super fast. i really like them, and feel that they shoudl be more popular than they are.

the RX8 standard is EXTREMELY restricted with the exhaust

ive seen the power jump 30 - 35 % on 2 different RX-8s with just header/muffler swops (no cats) , no intake work

Matra et Alpine

07-23-2009, 05:40 AM

^^^ Best we've sen in the UK spec ones is about 10bhp and NOT noticable on the road/track.
Who was claiming 35% ? Hopefully not one of these .... SAVE PETROL FITS Mazda MX-5/MX-6/Premacy/RX-7/RX-8 +31% on eBay (end time 24-Jul-09 19:56:06 BST) (http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/SAVE-PETROL-FITS-Mazda-MX-5-MX-6-Premacy-RX-7-RX-8-31_W0QQitemZ370231161377QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUK_Cars Parts_Vehicles_CarParts_SM?hash=item56337f3221&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=65%3A12%7C66%3A2%7C39%3A1%7C72%3A1683%7C 293%3A1%7C294%3A50) :)

G35COUPE

07-23-2009, 06:34 AM

Chrysler Crossfire 3.2 V6

Top Speed 254.3 kph / 158.0 mph
0 - 60 mph 5.2 seconds
0 - ¼ mile Not Available
0 - 100 mph Not Available
Lateral Acceleration Not Available
EPA City/Hwy Not Available

Nissan 350Z

Top Speed Not Available
0 - 60 mph 6.1 seconds
0 - ¼ mile Not Available
0 - 100 mph Not Available
Lateral Acceleration Not Available
EPA City/Hwy Not Available

Mazda RX8

Top Speed Not Available
0 - 60 mph Not Available
0 - ¼ mile Not Available
0 - 100 mph Not Available
Lateral Acceleration g
EPA City/Hwy Not Available

Alfa Romeo GTV 3.2 V6

Top Speed 250.0 kph / 155.3 mph
0 - 60 mph 6.7 seconds
0 - ¼ mile Not Available
0 - 100 mph Not Available
Lateral Acceleration Not Available
EPA City/Hwy Not Available

You may want to adjust the data on the Z. I have never heard of any Z or seen it, doing 0-60 in 6.1 seconds or more. Maybe if you were talking abou the heavier G-35 Coupe, maybe that would be understandable. Over 60% of the Zs and Gs I know, will generally do the 0 -60 run in about 5.5 - 5.8 seconds. The quartermile times can range from 13.9 to 15 seconds depending on the humidity and temperature on the track. The Zs performance is sometimes very sensitive to weather conditions. The Z does have a maximum speed of about 160 miles per hour. And, it can reach that peak fairly easily without problems.

I own a G-35 coupe and the hardest constraint I have about giving up the car is the bullet proof engine in that car---best NA engine ever, at least, in my opinion. You really have to drive the 350z or the G-35 Coupe to understand how formidable and reliable the VQ35DE engine really is. Nissan loved this engine to death. Auto tuners love the engine as well. Very few stock engines can stay stock and handle boost up to 9 psi, with the correct tuning. Most who blow their engines, with boost, do so because they exceed the 9psi or 380 RWHP stock limit, or they did not tune the engine properly or skimped on some crucial components that makes the boost levels safe. Beyond this boost level, you will need to rebuild the engine. Most smart folks tend to keep the boost level at about 350 RWHP. With a rebuilt VQ35DE engine, with a single turbo or supercharger, 450RWHP - 500 RWHP is very very possible.

In fact, you can actually buy a G-35 Coupe or 350Z today, pick up a phone and call a company callled "Stillen", buy one of the safest superchargers in the market, get it installed by a trained mechanic, on the G or Z, without any expert tuning on the car, and voila, you now have at least 325RWHP on the G and with at least 305 lb/ft of torque, and you do not need to rebuild the engine. The only problem with this specific supercharger is that you may need to change the hood of the car so that it fits. It uses a roots type supercharger system.

I have been torturing my (G-35 Coupe ) car from the very first day, and I am getting to the point where I am getting tired of doing so with each passing day. I am almost at 50,000 miles. The VQ35DE engine will wear you down. I bought my car for looks, initially, until i realized I had bought something really special. My opinion is that leaving the car N/A with bolts on modifications, will sattisfy anyone for daily driving without sacrificing too much of engine reliability.

Nissan has switched to a new engine called the VQ35HR and the VQ37HR. The 370z has the VQ37HR engine in it. It revs up more quickly than the VQ35DE engine, and it is like twice as responsive. Only time will tell if the VQ37HR engine will be as reliable as the VQ35DE engine. They made the VQ37HR engine to address the harshness of the VQ35DE engine, rawness of the VQ35DE engine, as well as to improve gas mileage and emissions. What I do know is that Nissan may still be in love with their veritable VQ35DE engine, RB26DETT engine, and their SR20DET engines. I won't be surprised if they go back to either in the future. I don't think the VQ35DE engine is gone. It maybe undergoing some future small changes, in order to get more power and effciency out of it.

Badsight

07-25-2009, 12:20 AM

^^^ Best we've sen in the UK spec ones is about 10bhp and NOT noticable on the road/track.
Who was claiming 35% ?

the people i gave exhaust building advice too . there is something badly wrong with the "extractor" (" " meaning its not) you are using if it cant give more than 10 hp increase . just the cats missing alone would do that

if its not hand-made , its not perfectly suited to your current tune

Drones

07-26-2009, 04:24 AM

In the United States for the same money, you can take Chevrolet Camaro SS ;)

Power - 426 hp
Torque - 420 ft lbs / 569 Nm
Top Speed 249.4 kph / 155 mph
0 - 60 mph 4.7 seconds

Niko_Fx

07-26-2009, 05:22 AM

In the United States for the same money, you can take Chevrolet Camaro SS ;)

Power - 426 hp
Torque - 420 ft lbs / 569 Nm
Top Speed 249.4 kph / 155 mph
0 - 60 mph 4.7 seconds

Or a 2010 Mustang GT. Just as fast as the Camaro, looks better, weighs 300lbs less :)

But if we are going with new models I'd rather get a 370Z sport package.

whiteballz

07-26-2009, 07:01 AM

But if we are going with new models I'd rather get a 370Z sport package.

QFT..

Drones

07-26-2009, 10:52 AM

Or a 2010 Mustang GT. Just as fast as the Camaro, looks better, weighs 300lbs less :)
both normal :)

But if we are going with new models I'd rather get a 370Z sport package.
He look, not so good, and his engine - V6, not V8 as the Americans.

Torque 374.2 nm / 276 ft lbs :(

G35COUPE

07-26-2009, 11:26 AM

Or a 2010 Mustang GT. Just as fast as the Camaro, looks better, weighs 300lbs less :)

But if we are going with new models I'd rather get a 370Z sport package.

I agree completely. It has the same or similar 0-60 numbers as the Mustang GT and Camarro SS---lighter than both cars. The difference is that, on a track, it will flog the Camarro SS and Mustang GT, hands down.

I have test driven the 370z sports package, and it is a beast. The handling and response of the car, is phenomenal. The shifting is so smooth and thrilling, the body is so rigid, and the steering response is so sharp. This is a car you should never ever test drive, because once you do, the chances that you will buy one is almost 90 - 95 %. It almost happened to me. So, I know. I don't know if Nissan is ever going to be able to top the handling and performance of the 370z as a naturally aspirated engine. The 370z is too good to be true.

And while the regular 370z comes with 332 horsepower, the NISMO 370Z which looks awesome, comes with 350 horsepower--naturally aspirated. The regular sports 370z can be bumped up in power to 350 horsepower by adding a dual cold air intake and a "Stillen" after market catback exhaust.

Remember, Nissan is one of the few companies that make a naturally aspirated 3.7 litre V-6 that produce 350 horsepower. If this is not confidence and insane daring, I wonder what is. This sort of power is the territory of V-8 engines.

:)

Drones

07-27-2009, 12:51 AM

The difference is that, on a track, it will flog the Camarro SS and Mustang GT, hands down.

On the racing track, perhaps, but how often do you go on it?
Most of the time, the car holds on civilian roads, where extreme mode, do not drive.

Remember, Nissan is one of the few companies that make a naturally aspirated 3.7 litre V-6 that produce 350 horsepower. If this is not confidence and insane daring, I wonder what is. This sort of power is the territory of V-8 engines.

V6 engine is by definition worse than a V8.

LeonOfTheDead

07-27-2009, 06:03 AM

V6 engine is by definition worse than a V8.

I'm curious about this definition.

G35COUPE

07-27-2009, 09:34 AM

On the racing track, perhaps, but how often do you go on it?
Most of the time, the car holds on civilian roads, where extreme mode, do not drive.

V6 engine is by definition worse than a V8.

1. I visit my track or should I say, pseudo track, twice a week, depending on how good my tires look. And I have the honor of telling you with great confidence, that I have beat a Dodge R/T V-8, hands down, with my G-35 Coupe V-6 on a track, even with less than 50 horsepower than the Dodge R/T. It wasn't even close on a track. The same Dodge R/T spanked me on a drag strip by a good 3 - 4 car lenghts. Unfortunately, people think drag racing is the same as track racing. They are two entirely different activities. i always welcome any Dodge Charger R/T to the track, even with modifications, and the result will be the same, guaranteed.

2. A V-6 engine is not worse than a V-8 engine. On a track, you will look at many many factors before making the decision to go with a V-6 versus a v-8 or vice versa. On thing is clear, a v-6 is gonna be lighter than a v-8, and thus generally easier to handle and throw around on a track, but not always. On the other hand, a v-6 would naturally work harder than a v-8, higher rpms for the same amount of work. In some cases, but not all the time, the V-6 should have better fuel efficiency than a V-8, depending on the volumetraic efficiencies of the engines. However, a V-8 should be better at handling endurance than a V-6. There are many more factors to consider here, beyond what i have just stated. Other considerations would include the intended goal of entering the race, budget, the length of the race, maintenance, etc. The deicison to go with either v-6 or v-8, on a track, is not as easy as it might appear.

Even I, on my pseudo track, is constantly worrying about all these things when i hit my pseudo track---brake pads, brake fluid temperature, engine temperature, state of the engine oil, differential cooling, differential oil, clutch wear and cooling, tire wear, etc. There is no way you are not gonna worry about these things on any track. For this, I plan every moment, I go to the track. It can get expensive really fast, even for a pseudo track. It is not unusual for me to change my brake pads every 3- 4 months, which is really taking it easy with the breaks, and change my engine oil every month with Royal Purple oil, each time. My spark plugs are supposed to last over 60,000 miles but they get replaced every 20, 000 - 25, 000 miles. And my clutch is barely making it to 30,000 miles before each replacement, which is excellent and I am thankful for it---there are some cars you can't even get 12,000 miles out of the clutch, if at all---Check out the Mistubishi Evo IX clutch that can go ut at 15,000 miles or less.

cmcpokey

07-27-2009, 12:25 PM

what is this pseudo track you are talking about?

G35COUPE

07-27-2009, 01:23 PM

what is this pseudo track you are talking about?

It is a 2-mile road with 8 beautiful twist and turns, with a very very large set of shoulders on eithyer side of the road, with grass on both shoulders, and one undulating section. It is close to where I live, and I can't beleive they built a road that is virtually empty early in the morning from 7 am - 10 am, and from 6 pm to 8 pm, everyday. No houses, no structures, absolutely nothing--just plain road and grass. Just gun the car and make it home in one piece. This is where I go to disgrace drag cars when I am lucky to come across one. Beleive it or not, serious little car drivers are hardest to pass on turns and twists, until you get the small chance needed to pass them on the straight way.

cmcpokey

07-27-2009, 04:35 PM

It is a 2-mile road with 8 beautiful twist and turns, with a very very large set of shoulders on eithyer side of the road, with grass on both shoulders, and one undulating section. It is close to where I live, and I can't beleive they built a road that is virtually empty early in the morning from 7 am - 10 am, and from 6 pm to 8 pm, everyday. No houses, no structures, absolutely nothing--just plain road and grass. Just gun the car and make it home in one piece. This is where I go to disgrace drag cars when I am lucky to come across one. Beleive it or not, serious little car drivers are hardest to pass on turns and twists, until you get the small chance needed to pass them on the straight way.

you should really try taking it to a real track. much safer and less likelihood of anything bad happening. plus, the surface is often a bit better and therefore more grip on a real track, i know laguna is that way.

G35COUPE

07-27-2009, 07:56 PM

you should really try taking it to a real track. much safer and less likelihood of anything bad happening. plus, the surface is often a bit better and therefore more grip on a real track, i know laguna is that way.

This is true.

clutch-monkey

07-27-2009, 08:57 PM

2. A V-6 engine is not worse than a V-8 engine. On a track, you will look at many many factors before making the decision to go with a V-6 versus a v-8 or vice versa. On thing is clear, a v-6 is gonna be lighter than a v-8, and thus generally easier to handle and throw around on a track, but not always. On the other hand, a v-6 would naturally work harder than a v-8, higher rpms for the same amount of work. In some cases, but not all the time, the V-6 should have better fuel efficiency than a V-8, depending on the volumetraic efficiencies of the engines. However, a V-8 should be better at handling endurance than a V-6. There are many more factors to consider here, beyond what i have just stated. Other considerations would include the intended goal of entering the race, budget, the length of the race, maintenance, etc. The deicison to go with either v-6 or v-8, on a track, is not as easy as it might appear.
agree with this
also power/torque curve are relevant; my car is just as fast/faster than several turbo models of the same generation, simply because i can floor it straight away from the apex and not worry about it so much, whereas they have to feather the throttle a little.
if i had the torque/torque curve of a V8, it'd just break the rear end loose an slow me down.

Badsight

07-27-2009, 10:11 PM

Remember, Nissan is one of the few companies that make a naturally aspirated 3.7 litre V-6 that produce 350 horsepower. If this is not confidence and insane daring, I wonder what is. This sort of power is the territory of V-8 engines.
thats not even 100 Hp / L

now if it had 100 hp / L at the wheels , that would be an impressive stock NA

Drones

07-28-2009, 01:01 AM

I'm curious about this definition.

The point is that the configuration V6, in principle, very unbalanced. To improve the situation, they have to apply the balancing shafts. In addition, there is provided a uniform rotation of outbreaks in the cylinder.
All this results in severe vibration and rapid wear.

V8, no such deficiencies.
In addition, V8 engine, has a pleasant sound ;)

1. I visit my track or should I say, pseudo track, twice a week, depending on how good my tires look. And I have the honor of telling you with great confidence, that I have beat a Dodge R/T V-8, hands down, with my G-35 Coupe V-6 on a track, even with less than 50 horsepower than the Dodge R/T. It wasn't even close on a track. The same Dodge R/T spanked me on a drag strip by a good 3 - 4 car lenghts. Unfortunately, people think drag racing is the same as track racing. They are two entirely different activities. i always welcome any Dodge Charger R/T to the track, even with modifications, and the result will be the same, guaranteed.

Good, but you are an exception. Most people do not drive on the track and the difference in the extreme mode, is not as important as the appearance, engine sound, comfort for everyday use, start with a traffic light. :)

DesmoRob

07-28-2009, 01:15 AM

For argument's sake, every maker has their good and bad apples. There are plenty of great V6 engines out there, just as there are V8s. Every motor has its purpose and its stomping ground in which it outshines other engine sizes.

I too love a V8 more than any other engine, but only because its in my favorite cars. If it really were the engine to end all other engines, there'd be one in every performance car.

Drones

07-28-2009, 01:47 AM

For argument's sake, every maker has their good and bad apples. There are plenty of great V6 engines out there, just as there are V8s. Every motor has its purpose and its stomping ground in which it outshines other engine sizes..

You do not understand - a good V6 can not be, in principle, like the V10. Configuration does not allow this. Their use is justified only in part, on racing cars.
At the moment, the best scheme for civil motor vehicle - R4, and V8. Others, are more disadvantages.

LeonOfTheDead

07-28-2009, 03:35 AM

The point is that the configuration V6, in principle, very unbalanced. To improve the situation, they have to apply the balancing shafts. In addition, there is provided a uniform rotation of outbreaks in the cylinder.
All this results in severe vibration and rapid wear.

V8, no such deficiencies.
In addition, V8 engine, has a pleasant sound ;)

Not again the balance argument.

How many race cars are there with I4, I5, V6, V10, V5 and so many other layouts?
Are they all teared apart at the end of the race? No.
Road going engines? are they smooth to drive? yes. Are they noisy? no. Are they going to break before of an I6 or V8? no.
The main issues when choosing an engine layout designing a car is the displacement.
While theoretically the more cylinders the better, the fluid-dynamic and frictions don't allow that, even if there are some cases of 2.0 V10 engines, road going I mean, or 1.6 V6.
A performance car can has a stroke/bore ratio of about 0.8, but this keeping in mind that even maintaining this ratio the bore can't reach too high values, otherwise the combustion won't be efficient.
So if you are aiming for a certain displacement, the number of cylinders is basically given.
Direct injection can help, obviously turbocharging or supercharging the engine does even more, but simply having a V6 of 7.0 liters is silly.
On the other hand, a 2.0 V10 is a bit excessive, as the friction itself will ruin the gaining in fractioning the displacement, while the engine should always rev quite high to allow a good combustion, so it won't be really road friendly.
Nissan designed a good engine, but as everyone should always keep in mind, what we are considering it's not the engine, but the car, and our judgment should be about the whole package.

No one can really say how good a certain engine is.
Talking about smoothness just doesn't make sense if considering only the engine, or the same for its power delivery, which relays on the gearbox, flywheel and ECUs much more than on the engine itself.

So the new Ferrari 458 Italia's V8 is a better engine just because it has 127 bhp/liter?
No, first of all because the purpose of the two engines is completely different, but most of all, the two cars are completely different.
If one would really like to compare two engines, they should be taken out of the car, and then analyzed.
With which purpose though?
We already know which one is going to have more power, or revs, or torque. What we are interested is the performance of the car, being the speed or the smoothness.
So just stick judging the car, not a part of it. I never read fanboys fighting against the type of clutch used in different cars (let alone knowing what they are saying).

Drones

07-28-2009, 04:25 AM

Not again the balance argument.

How many race cars are there with I4, I5, V6, V10, V5 and so many other layouts?
Are they all teared apart at the end of the race? No.

We are not talking about racing cars, but a civilian. This is a principled difference.
Most racing series are a little distance, and the resource engine does not play an important role. Vibration, no interest. There is indeed more important power and weight distribution.
Another cause - road vehicles. Consumers not willing to experience discomfort, or change the engine in the car for 60,000 miles.

So the new Ferrari 458 Italia's V8 is a better engine just because it has 127 bhp/liter?

High power density, it is a negative quality, but not positive.
If you need a high specific power, buy a superbike. There has long been, more than 200 bhp/liter :)
Only, why?

P.S. At long distances, such as the "Le Mans 24", most teams prefer to use V8 and V12 engine.

LeonOfTheDead

07-28-2009, 04:33 AM

We are not talking about racing cars, but a civilian. This is a principled difference.
Most racing series are a little distance, and the resource engine does not play an important role. Vibration, no interest. There is indeed more important power and weight distribution.
Another cause - road vehicles. Consumers not willing to experience discomfort, or change the engine in the car for 60,000 miles.

Sure, vibrations aren't an issue on a racing car...

High power density, it is a negative quality, but not positive.
If you need a high specific power, buy a superbike. There has long been, more than 200 bhp/liter :)
Only, why?

So we can't talk about racing cars, but bikes are allowed.
Fyi the 458 has about 450 Nm of torque since 3.250 rpm, not bad I'd say.
Also "high power density" isn't a bad thing at all on a car like a V8 Ferrari. On an S-Klasse maybe, surely not on a Ferrari. Once again, it's the car what we should consider, not only a prt of t which we can't consider on it own.

P.S. At long distances, such as the "Le Mans 24", most teams prefer to use V8 and V12 engine.

They use V8 and V12 because they use larger displacement than what would be suitable for a V6, and because the road cars they use as the basis aren't V6. It's not a mater of the engine excluding them, just the level of work to apply to a 350Z to make it compatitive against a Corvette, DB9 or MC12 is simply pointless.
Also there are plenty of V6 engines performing endurance racing, as the same 350Z.

Drones

07-28-2009, 05:26 AM

So we can't talk about racing cars, but bikes are allowed.
Fyi the 458 has about 450 Nm of torque since 3.250 rpm, not bad I'd say.
Also "high power density" isn't a bad thing at all on a car like a V8 Ferrari. On an S-Klasse maybe, surely not on a Ferrari. Once again, it's the car what we should consider, not only a prt of t which we can't consider on it own.
:)
Simply, I do not understand the admiration of people, high power density.
You need to be aware that this directly affects the resource engine.
There are examples of great power, but how long that engine is to serve?
I doubt that the new Ferrari engine, will be as reliable as the Corvette V8.

They use V8 and V12 because they use larger displacement than what would be suitable for a V6, and because the road cars they use as the basis aren't V6. It's not a mater of the engine excluding them, just the level of work to apply to a 350Z to make it compatitive against a Corvette, DB9 or MC12 is simply pointless.
Also there are plenty of V6 engines performing endurance racing, as the same 350Z.

Nissan V6 engine, could be used in the categories of LMP2 and GT2.
Why no one uses in a race BMW V10?

LeonOfTheDead

07-28-2009, 05:40 AM

:)
Simply, I do not understand the admiration of people, high power density.
You need to be aware that this directly affects the resource engine.
There are examples of great power, but how long that engine is to serve?
I doubt that the new Ferrari engine, will be as reliable as the Corvette V8.

Likely not, but what's the point of this?
If I want a Ferrari, I expect a small engine, high revs, in a Corvette, a large V8 with plenty of torque.
Again, it's the overall product that makes the difference.
Such an expensive engine on a Corvette, which is somehow cheap, wouldn't make any sense.

Nissan V6 engine, could be used in the categories of LMP2 and GT2.
Why no one uses in a race BMW V10?

Using the Nissan V6 in a GT2 car would mean using the 350Z as the car...not going to happen against 911 GT3s and F430.
LMP2 cars already have more race oriented engine from AER and Mazda.
Only Aston Martin went with the weird idea of using a road going derivated engine for their LMP project, and I guess it was just to give the car a more Aston Martin friendly appeal.
The BMW V10 engine isn't the top of the line as reliability is concerned on road going cars in first place, and it isn't a mater of layout. It's also quite a complicated (electronically wise) engine, not really what you would like to have on a race car which is mad to last mroe than 24 hours of racng with easy to fix problems.
I think it's also veery expensive, tuning it and using it on a race car for a customer team would probably be a pain, less value for money than a race ready engine.
The Viper V10 is used since 10 years with successful results thoguh.

G35COUPE

07-28-2009, 06:01 AM

agree with this
also power/torque curve are relevant; my car is just as fast/faster than several turbo models of the same generation, simply because i can floor it straight away from the apex and not worry about it so much, whereas they have to feather the throttle a little.
if i had the torque/torque curve of a V8, it'd just break the rear end loose an slow me down.

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Well said!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Your explanation is the number one reason I have hesitated in moving forward with forced-induction application (turbo or supercharger). Including these items can significantly change the handling characteristics of the car. This automatically means more money in suspension parts.

Surprisingly, the lag in turbos and superchargers is amazing. I actually ran on a third gear roll, with a supercharged Jaguar that weighed about 600 pounds more than my car. Again, he could not bolt away from me. My NA car held its own. I was impressed. Now, from a dead stop, the story would be a lot different as they have more torque than NA cars.

LeonOfTheDead

07-28-2009, 06:08 AM

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Well said!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Your explanation is the number one reason I have hesitated in moving forward with forced-induction application (turbo or supercharger). Including these items can significantly change the handling characteristics of the car. This automatically means more money in suspension parts.

Surprisingly, the lag in turbos and superchargers is amazing. I actually ran on a third gear roll, with a supercharged Jaguar that weighed about 600 pounds more than my car. Again, he could not bolt away from me. My NA car held its own. I was impressed. Now, from a dead stop, the story would be a lot different as they have more torque than NA cars.

supercharger doesn't suffer of lag as much as turbos.
Actually, the lag is basically inexistent.

G35COUPE

07-28-2009, 06:29 AM

thats not even 100 Hp / L

now if it had 100 hp / L at the wheels , that would be an impressive stock NA

What are you talking about???? Why would any sane person want to make an NA V-6 street car that powerful without sacrificing reliability??? Can you name any other NA current street going 6 cylinder engine besides Porshes H-6 engines that produce that sort of power??

2009 Nismo 370z V-6 is putting out 94.59 Hp/L

2009 370z V-6 is putting out 89.72Hp/L

2009 Chevy Corvette LT1 V-8 is putting out 69.35 Hp/L

2009 Dodge Charger SRT 8 V-8 is putting out 69.67Hp/L

2008 Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution I-4 is putting out 145 Hp/L (turbo)

2009 Porsche Boxter S H-6 is putting out 91.17Hp/L

2009 Porsche 911 Carrera S coupe H-6 is putting out 101Hp/L

2009 BMW 1 - series (135 Coupe) I-6 is putting out 100Hp/L (turbo)

2009 Lexus IS 350 V-6 is putting out 87.42Hp/L

So, what is not impressive about Nissan's feat of engineering considering that its a Japanese car that makes performance cars as good or even better and cheaper than its German competitors???? The Porsche Boxter S may be at least 300 pounds lighter than the Nismo 370z but it costs at least $17,000 more than a Nismo 370Z. Is that worth the additional price?

G35COUPE

07-28-2009, 06:32 AM

supercharger doesn't suffer of lag as much as turbos.
Actually, the lag is basically inexistent.

This is true up to a point. A poorly tuned supercharger could have some lag. I have gone at it with an older super charged 3.25 i. His supercharger was fouling up his sparkplugs so badly that the very very small lag created was all i needed to keep up. Without the lag, I would have been toast.

Drones

07-28-2009, 06:32 AM

Likely not, but what's the point of this?

Probability of being deserted road with a broken machine, much less ;)
And money saved.

Using the Nissan V6 in a GT2 car would mean using the 350Z as the car...not going to happen against 911 GT3s and F430.
Porsche 911, is too far from perfect.

LMP2 cars already have more race oriented engine from AER and Mazda.
Only Aston Martin went with the weird idea of using a road going derivated engine for their LMP project, and I guess it was just to give the car a more Aston Martin friendly appeal.
There is also, Porsche, Radical, Acura...
However, no one has the V6 engine.

The BMW V10 engine isn't the top of the line as reliability is concerned on road going cars in first place, and it isn't a mater of layout. It's also quite a complicated (electronically wise) engine, not really what you would like to have on a race car which is mad to last mroe than 24 hours of racng with easy to fix problems.

The problem with this engine, it started with a choice of configurations, which was dictated by the market - that was like in Formula 1, not engineering problems.
BMW M3 used V8, and now it is already in the race ;)

The Viper V10 is used since 10 years with successful results thoguh.

In Viper, reliability is achieved, it is due to low returns 57 bhp/liter. His engine was originally designed for use in trucks. In this case, even a bad configuration could not prevent.
Furthermore, in those days, the competition was weak. Now, they no longer pull.

LeonOfTheDead

07-28-2009, 09:04 AM

I'd like to answer, but it's probably better to follow an advice I got, and that's to say, stop bothering.

Badsight

07-28-2009, 10:40 PM

Why would any sane person want to make an NA V-6 street car that powerful without sacrificing reliability??? Can you name any other NA current street going 6 cylinder engine besides Porshes H-6 engines that produce that sort of power???
i know its not a V6 (but so what) Honda released their 9000 rpm 2.0L 4 cylinder with 240 Hp

120 Hp per Liter with Honda's 3 year service warranty

im just letting you know that less than 100 hp/L isnt impressive . especially at the crank

clutch-monkey

07-29-2009, 02:14 AM

100hp/l isn't very impressive either, if you have to rev to 9000 to get any decent measure of torque
absolutely useless measure of performance

G35COUPE

07-29-2009, 08:44 AM

i know its not a V6 (but so what) Honda released their 9000 rpm 2.0L 4 cylinder with 240 Hp

120 Hp per Liter with Honda's 3 year service warranty

im just letting you know that less than 100 hp/L isnt impressive . especially at the crank

Can you tell us which Honda you are referring to?? Are you referring to the Honda Civic Si or the Honda S2000?

2009 Honda S2000 I-4 is putting out 107.7 Hp/L (2.2 litre engine)

2009 Civic Si Coupe I-4 is putting out 98.5 Hp/L (2.0 litre engine)

2010 Mazda Speed3 I-4 is putting out 114.34 Hp/L (2.3 litre engine - Turbo)

2009 Subaru WRX H-4 is putting out 106 Hp/L (2.5 litre engine - Turbo).

First of all, what has horsepower/Litre got to do with anything?? The american made cars, noted above, provide far fewer horsepower/litre than their japanese and german breeds, and yet, there are few cars out there that can touch them, pound for pound, when it comes to sheer horsepower.

In fact, one could even conclude that higher Hp/L maybe a good measure of the stress that the engine maybe experiencing, and thus, suggestive that reliability maybe a concern for cars with high Hp/L, in the long run.

If you are suggesting that Hp/L has anything to do with real world performance, think again. And if you want to see how erroneous it is to accept Hp/L as any indication of performance, perhaps you may want to take a look at Porsche 911 GT3 (RS) and Porsche 911 Turbo.

2008 Porsche GT3 (RS) H-6 putting out 115.27 Hp/L (Turbo with 415 bhp but weighs 3031 pounds). Power to weight ratio--- 7.3 pounds/Hp

2009 Porsche (coupe) H-6 putting out 133.33 Hp/L (Turbo with 480 bhp but weighs 3490 pounds). Power to weight ratio--- 7.27 pounds/Hp

Clearly, a difference in 70 horsepower and the ambiguos Hp/L basis you have suggested, should ordinarily make the 911 GT3 RS significantly inferior to the 911 Turbo. Unfortunately, this isn't the case in reality.

Yet, the Porsche 911 GT 3 (RS) is the preferred car of choice on track days than the Porsche 911 Turbo, and it may outhandle a 911 turbo on a track becasue it is lighter and has less torque which can cause handling issues. On a track, horsepower isn't everything. It is handling, relative to power output, that is everything. Thats one reason why the 911 GT3 RS is detuned in horsepower, and is lighter than its heavier and slightly more expensive sibling, the 911 Turbo.

So, again, I don't have an idea why you think so much about Hp/L. Where did you get this questionable idea from?? If I had a choice of either Porsches for a track event, I won't even think twice in selecting the Porsche 911 GT3 (RS) eventhough it has less horsepower or Hp/L than the Porsche 911 Turbo.

f6fhellcat13

07-29-2009, 06:04 PM

Spell "liter" correctly you commie plant! :p

Kitdy

07-29-2009, 06:26 PM

Spell "liter" correctly you commie plant! :p

He did spell it correctly...

f6fhellcat13

07-29-2009, 06:35 PM

He did spell it correctly...
I don't want to get into this, as you pretty much know my feelings on the matter. But, I think it is stupid when Americans spell things the commmonwealty way because it somehow makes them feel more sophisticated and/or, in the case of -ter versus-tre, because t-r-e is in a nice line on the keyboard.
The poster above me has suggested that, in the online car community, Americans spell that way because they desire to be Clarkson, there is some credence to this, and I think that it is a pretty pathetic reason for spelling things in a British manner.
If a non-American says it I am fine, which is why I don't just rage at the majority of the members here.:p
Rant over, hooray for linguistuc relativism.

Matra et Alpine

07-30-2009, 01:35 AM

f6 ... the LITRE is an accepted SI term and as such it is ONLY spelt one way ... LITRE.

Now, you know I'm the first to point out the Frenchification of the English language took the UK there ... but you can't argue SI :)

3rd CGPM, 1901
Declaration concerning the definition of the litre (CR, 38-39)*
…
The Conference declares
1. The unit of volume, for high accuracy determinations, is the volume occupied by a mass of 1 kilogram of pure water, at its maximum

G35COUPE

07-30-2009, 06:25 AM

I don't want to get into this, as you pretty much know my feelings on the matter. But, I think it is stupid when Americans spell things the commmonwealty way because it somehow makes them feel more sophisticated and/or, in the case of -ter versus-tre, because t-r-e is in a nice line on the keyboard.
The poster above me has suggested that, in the online car community, Americans spell that way because they desire to be Clarkson, there is some credence to this, and I think that it is a pretty pathetic reason for spelling things in a British manner.
If a non-American says it I am fine, which is why I don't just rage at the majority of the members here.:p
Rant over, hooray for linguistuc relativism.

Dear F6:

Tell me, is it wrong to be american and yet respect and be part of a larger world?? Why should I as an american tolerate mediocrity because our constitution says it is okay to seek one's farthest virtues and yet one farthest's vice??

I grew up learning to use the following words differently----"Center" and "Centre". Both mean very different things in my vocabulary---the former is geometrically half a diameter, and the latter is simply a physical location with a purpose, designated as such. Now, some really don't care if they use "Centre" or "Center". In fact, the distinction between both is almost non-evident in the dictionary----one is chiefly british and the other is cheifly american. And I am aware we americans just simply use "Center" to describe both situations in all conditions.

However, there is such a thing as the semantics and syntax of writing and speaking. Just because something is okay to say or write, does not mean it fits the purpose at hand. So, while you are syntatically correct by suggesting "Liter", semantically speaking, "Litre" is the most appropriate term.

When I travel to Britian, I will use words like "Cheque", and when i am here in america, I use the term "check". Either is syntatically correct, but both are not semantically valid in every situation. And so, as a member of planet earth, I strive to respect the nuances of different people, regardless of my personal beleifs and inclinations. When in Rome, we do as the Romans do.

In fact, I have also heard a few of our american intellectuals provide outlandish comments such as "Percentage points". What is a "percentage point" for goodness sake? Percentage, points, fractions, ratios, are different ways of describing operations in the decimal system. So to use two similar terms in one phrase, this way, is what we call tautology. And yet, some of us accept this level of medicority, for reasons that continue to baffle me.

So, I feel your frustration and I think it is well placed. However, that frustration must also measure up to some level of reality and propriety.

nota

07-30-2009, 06:52 AM

But, I think it is stupid when Americans spell things the commmonwealty way because it somehow makes them feel more sophisticated and/or, in the case of -ter versus-tre, because t-r-e is in a nice line on the keyboard.

The commonwealthy way of expressing '(to) converse' seems imho a tad more sophisticated than the US clanger of '(to) conversate' :eek: along with other such recent New World crimes inflicted unto the English language.

cmcpokey

07-30-2009, 07:02 AM

The commonwealthy way of expressing '(to) converse' seems imho a tad more sophisticated than the US clanger of '(to) conversate' :eek: along with other such recent New World crimes inflicted unto the English language.

umm... that's not right. we still use converse. if you're going to talk smack about the US, please use correct arguments.

LeonOfTheDead

07-30-2009, 07:41 AM

umm... that's not right. we still use converse. if you're going to talk smack about the US, please use correct arguments.

Converse are too expensive here, I don't use them anymore.

cmcpokey

07-30-2009, 12:29 PM

Converse are too expensive here, I don't use them anymore.

i generally prefer pumas

DesmoRob

07-30-2009, 12:41 PM

And back to the original purpose of the thread, I'll have a 350Z because it looks great, performs great, and sounds great. I had an opportunity a few years ago to put the pedal to the metal in a G35 coupe, and those things go pretty good, so I'll have no problem opting for the cheaper, more performance oriented alternative from Nissan themselves.

LeonOfTheDead

07-30-2009, 01:49 PM

i generally prefer pumas

Agree on that, still expensive over here though. Then I went for a limited edition pair of Puma (180 € iirc), but I only have one pair of shoes...what were we talking about?!

nota

07-30-2009, 02:30 PM

umm... that's not right. we still use converse. if you're going to talk smack about the US, please use correct arguments.
Talk smack yo, eh?

I recently heard this appaling 'conversate' expression used twice, by a professional communicator no less, in one of the US TV news programs shown here. So I correctly assume that it must be in popular use to some extent.

cmcpokey

07-30-2009, 02:32 PM

Talk smack yo, eh?

I recently heard this appaling 'conversate' expression used twice, by a professional communicator no less, in one of the US TV news programs shown here. So I correctly assume that it must be in popular use to some extent.

really? what news show is that? i haven't heard it other than jokingly, and i've spent a little bit of time in the US.

IBrake4Rainbows

07-30-2009, 03:28 PM

I think conversate is used (I've seen it on Dr. Phil) but it's certainly not proper or correct, and the people using it were somewhat...thick.

cmcpokey

07-30-2009, 05:12 PM

please do not base your opinions on america (or any other opinions for that matter) on Dr Phil. in fact i would say is lowers your stature to even refer to him as though you had seen him before.

IBrake4Rainbows

07-30-2009, 05:15 PM

It wasn't him, it was his guest.

For the record thanks to my fathers employment I have had many dealings with some very intelligent, normal American folk. They do speak funny, is all :D

f6fhellcat13

07-30-2009, 05:34 PM

f6 ... the LITRE is an accepted SI term and as such it is ONLY spelt one way ... LITRE.

Now, you know I'm the first to point out the Frenchification of the English language took the UK there ... but you can't argue SI :)
I really don't want to get into this, and this response is somewhat in jest ;), but by your argument any language that doesn't spell liter "litre" is spelling it wrong. For instance, are Spainiards wrong in referring to the volume displaced by one kg of water as "un litro"? I think not. Besides, aren't the SI whosits all in French? (Yes, I know it's "litre" in French) :)
All my previous chauvinistic comments aside, I will admit that America has spawned one of the worst accents in the English language, the heavy Midwestern one. I wanted to kill myself after about 20 minutes of Fargo (the movie, that is).:p

cmcpokey

07-30-2009, 05:41 PM

They do speak funny, is all :D

says the aussie...

Matra et Alpine

07-30-2009, 05:42 PM

SI is INTERNATIONAL agreed standard. Just because it's based in Paris doesn't make it "French" or wrong :) Guess for some tho' it will be in the same bucket as "freedom fries" :) ( so keeping the humour level high for the thread -- and expecting a further debate ont he spelling of humour :) )
It is the agreed way to specify and share the units.
Yes ... to SI standards litro is wrong, but clearly is SPanish and ok for Spanish use, but in international use it should be litre.

IBrake4Rainbows

07-30-2009, 05:49 PM

I don't quite understand it really.

I understand it's a simplified version of the facts but is it not true the French assisted the US in gaining independance by funding the war against the english (to their own detriment?)

And that the language (Websters specifically) was dumbed down to assist in educating the new world folk?

And I'll have you know I speak proper english, like.

cmcpokey

07-30-2009, 05:56 PM

I don't quite understand it really.

I understand it's a simplified version of the facts but is it not true the French assisted the US in gaining independance by funding the war against the english (to their own detriment?)

they provided funding, weapons, and some troops. and whine not really to their detriment economically or any other way, it did spark their own revolution, so probably a bad call in the long run for them.

And that the language (Websters specifically) was dumbed down to assist in educating the new world folk?

And I'll have you know I speak proper english, like.
it actually started as an anti-British movement to create a standard american english. up to that point there hadn't been a world standard, and webster wanted to create a version that captured the american accent, and was differentiated from the british english.

IBrake4Rainbows

07-30-2009, 06:00 PM

...Which in turn had become french british english.

Still, There was an American accent at the time? or was it simply a conglomeration of the multitude of accents from immigrants?

It works I suppose - english is a constantly evolving and thieving language, but there are some standards, surely.

Matra et Alpine

07-30-2009, 06:00 PM

English at the times of occupation of the lands of the American continent was pretty much as used in America now. Britain became obsessed with all things French and decided to fix spelling to appear superior == French.
So as said a few posts back. It's the Brits who screwed the spelling and the Americans held on to the old spelling and generally England was sending people who couldn't read/write to the colonies so none of the changes crossed the pond :)

f6fhellcat13

07-30-2009, 06:12 PM

G35COUPE

07-30-2009, 06:52 PM

Talk smack yo, eh?

I recently heard this appaling 'conversate' expression used twice, by a professional communicator no less, in one of the US TV news programs shown here. So I correctly assume that it must be in popular use to some extent.

Nota:

You are absolutely correct. We do have a large amount of educated illiterates in our nation. Thats why we are at the bottom of the totempole when compared to the edcucational achievements of other nations.

What you see on Dr Phil, while not representative of the general behavior of people in our nation, however, it does expose certain idiosyncracies and proneness of many in our nation.:D

wwgkd

07-31-2009, 12:30 AM

I read somewhere that the somewhat isolated (hence well-preserved linguistically) dwellers of the Appalachians have an accent closer to English commonfolk during the 18th century. I have no idea where I read that though, so it is probably false.

I'm guessing that's probably only said by someone who reads a lot of books on anthropology without visiting places. The people in the appalachians who aren't too drunk from moonshine to talk do not sound at all brittish. Mostly what I hear is a southernish sounding accent as they ask if I want lard with my toast. WHich really does taste better than it sounds, if you haven't tried it. Then again the kerosene (for flavor) in the moonshine probably permanently messes with your tastebuds so who knows.

Badsight

07-31-2009, 04:37 PM

First of all, what has horsepower/Litre got to do with anything??
its to do with you . you making a big deal out of the 350 Hp figure for the 3.7 litre Nisan V6

less than 100 Hp per litre is not impressive & easy to achieve

only New Zealanders speak proper english , moreso than the english :P . you foreigners from australia & america mess it up with ya accents!

Matra et Alpine

07-31-2009, 04:41 PM

The people in the appalachians who aren't too drunk from moonshine to talk do not sound at all brittish. Mostly what I hear is a southernish sounding accent as they ask if I want lard with my toast
Soudns about right for ye olde Englishe :)
Comparing it to current British accents and dialects that you hear won't help.
Spoken English of 400 years ago was a LOT different than todays.

The other issue is that the accents of "original" colonies is mainly made up for those who were criminals and from low social standing families. eg clearing of the Scottish Highlands !!

f6fhellcat13

07-31-2009, 04:59 PM

Soudns about right for ye olde Englishe :)
Comparing it to current British accents and dialects that you hear won't help.
Spoken English of 400 years ago was a LOT different than todays.

The other issue is that the accents of "original" colonies is mainly made up for those who were criminals and from low social standing families. eg clearing of the Scottish Highlands !!

Is this why my untrained and ignorant ears hear a tinge of Cockney in Australian accents?

Surely the southern colonies here had slightly more aristocratic upstanding folk, though? There seems to be a disconnect, because higher-class British accents today seem to be very over-enunciated (perhaps with the slur of alcohol making them slightly less sharp), whereas the southern drawl is nowhere near as crisp. I'm not talking hicks here either, I'm talking about the upper social echelons down souf'. Interesting stuff. The crazy number of accents on a tiny little island in the north Atlantic never ceases to amaze me. :p

Matra et Alpine

07-31-2009, 05:14 PM

^^^^ that's because we hate anyone who lives more than 50 miles away from where we live :)

THe English snobs do over-enunciate as they all try to speak "Received Pronunciation English" to sound important. Thankfully some of that nonsense is being dropped as the BBC are broadcasting more regional accents !

f6fhellcat13

07-31-2009, 05:22 PM

The Irish need to do the same thing.
I'm tired of hearing the exact same accent in Hollywood flicks regardless whether the character is from Cork, Dublin, or Belfast.
This regional-accent affirmative action stuff sounds interesting, surely a better way to go about preserving languages than setting off a carbomb in Mallorca. :(

Matra et Alpine

07-31-2009, 05:50 PM

accent in Hollywood
ROFL :) Hollywood can't get a non-US accent right and even some of your own it screws up !!

G35COUPE

07-31-2009, 08:26 PM

its to do with you . you making a big deal out of the 350 Hp figure for the 3.7 litre Nisan V6

less than 100 Hp per litre is not impressive & easy to achieve

only New Zealanders speak proper english , moreso than the english :P . you foreigners from australia & america mess it up with ya accents!

To each, his own. I never made a big deal out of anything. I just presented data to you. Fight with the data and not with me.

There is an old english adage that says, "penny wise, pounds foolish". In the current context, it means, why worry over immaterial Hp/L, when power-to-weight ratio, gear ratios, volumetric efficiencies, heat transfer coeficients, stress, etc, which are more relevant, are there for our consumption?:)

What good is a 1000Hp/L car if the gearing of the car makes it only as fast as a Chevy Aveo or its volumetric efficiency causes it to run rich all the time, and thus fouling and destroying its sparkplugs, and possibly its fuel injectors, hypothetically, every 500 miles or less ???????????????? What if the 1000Hp/L car explodes under test conditions, becasue the PC valve could not handle the additional pressure from the crankcase, what do you do????????????????