Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam_L
370z is about 10 years old now. 400z is next... should be good, not sure about great
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevermore
Oh man, if they made a modern 240 as close to the original as they could manage they could have all my money. All of it.
... Especially if they put an NA 4.0L V8 in the thing.
|
I'd rather they came out with a new 4cyl 200-250Z than an 8cyl 400Z, honestly (and I drove a 6.8 liter LS3 FD for while). A car the size/weight of the FT86 but a cab-rearward 2-seater on a shorter wheelbase for 50/50 distribution. 8200+rpm 2.5 liter should be good for upwards of 300hp, weight could be FT86ish or less.
Quote:
|
I have an unreasonable and unexplained obsession with tiny displacement, high cylinder engines. Never been able to explain it, but I deeply want a V8 that is 4.0 or less. Bonus points for ITBs. All my money, and I'd kill someone for a tiny V8 with ITBs...
|
E90/E92 M3! Bit of a porker though...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dadhawk
For practical reasons and to meet regulations, I think it would have to be closer to the 280, at least in size. The pedestrian hood requirements alone would make the 240 almost impossible.
|
240Z 260Z and 280Z were the same S30 chassis, exactly the same size except for the enormo bumpers on the '74 1/2 260Z and 280Z.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrowsFeast
Is it wrong that at (a possible) 4.0L displacement I'd like it to be a V8?
|
Of course not. Hell, why not V10? More and more $$,$$$ of course. And size and weight...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevermore
I guess that would be okay... I've never cared for the longer body of the 280, but if it was skinnier than the 350/370 I would be happy.
|
The 2-seat 260 and 280Zs did not have a longer body. The 2+2 260Z and 280Z models did, with a longer wheelbase and unfortunately crooked roofline. They shoulda gone shooting-brake stylee!