Quote:
Originally Posted by Turbowned
I would argue that the motor in the 370Z is it's Achilles heel, also. It's so coarse and rough I found myself extremely disappointed after test-driving one. I couldn't even talk to the poor sales guy sitting next to me as I revved the motor up. I quite liked the rest of the car, but it's as if the Nissan engineers sacrificed all NVH and quality concerns in the name of squeezing out every last horsepower and foot-pound they could. I wish they would have left the 3.5L in there; I'd take the 32hp hit for a little bit of refinement. Seriously. I don't expect it to sound as good as the triple-carbed L-series in my 240Z, but come on!
As for the boxer engine, 100hp-per-liter is nothing to sneeze at. The torque dip can and has been tuned out with aftermarket parts. The cam issue will be rectified with a TSB and eliminated on the assembly line shortly, you can count on it. Just my .02
|
Sound aside, the VQ is a pretty good motor, and churns out power and torque equivalent to a small V8.
Now the issues that matter -- the VQ37HR has some oil burning issues and oil temp issues -- the former being inexcusable, but rare, and the latter being manageable, but common.
A more refined engine wouldn't be a bad thing for the Z.
That said, it's not an Achilles heel -- the #1 purpose of an engine is to produce torque and make power, ideally, reliably, which the VQ does admirably. Even with the oil issues, it will still perform like a champ, although the reliability issues are indeed important to address.
Toyota's choice of a 4-cyl Subaru boxer motor leaves much to be desired on all three fronts, and that's why it's a huge limiting factor on an otherwise well designed car, and IMO a legitimate Achilles' heel.
Drop the 2.5 in there, sort out the cam issues, and now we're talking.
Defending the merits of an engine that produces modest power and torque (and lacks a flat torque curve), and has major reliability issues cropping up within the first few hundred miles makes no sense.
It's also not especially fuel efficient, requires premium fuel, and has been compared to a tractor in sound -- if we want to get nitpicky.
It sits low in the chassis and isn't too heavy -- that's the about all the 2.0 boxer has going for it.
Oh, and to be fair, it has a far better torque curve than the 2ZZ -- but then so does an electric pencil sharpener.