New 240Z Confirmed for Nissan's 80th Anniversary! [Video]

[rice_classic]

The revolutions has begun indeed....

This is the car I desire most at this point in time: ALFA 4C E' STATA ELETTA LA CONCEPT CAR PIU' BELLA DELL'ANNO




Unlike most people I'm exciting about new powertrains.

The things that make the cars exciting (in the sub $40k market) have all been done, over and over and over and over.

FR, MR, FF, RR... AWD, RWD, FWD. LSD, no LSD.. Manual or automatic. N/A, Turbo or Supercharged... all burning gasoline.

We've been doing this for over 100 years can daddy get something new?

I want Electric sports car (yeah, I said it) with powerful electric motors on all 4 wheels with a small turbo diesel generator (or Micro-Turbine like Jag Developed) and the ability to press a button and switch between RWD/AWD/FWD at my desire (why not?).

I want the car to LOOK SEXY, like a 240z, a FRS, an S2000 or an Alfa 4c.
I want it to have 0-60 of 6.5 or less, turn .9-1g on a skid pad on street tires.
I want it to get similar MPG to the Chevy Volt.
I want it to be light-ish (aka under 3k lbs)
I want it to be a plug-in.

Why should this be possible?
1: Electric motors exist, and there's plenty of R&D already
2: Since there's an extremely efficient generator on board (turbo diesel) it could use a small fuel tank as well, as small as 5 or 6 gallons and drivers could opt to use Bio-Diesel. Better yet, get those micro-turbines better developed!
3: Since the car is small and light-ish the batteries don't need to be massive to scoot the car along 40-60 miles on all electric before the generator even pops on.
4: Without the need for a big heavy engine or a big heavy transmission, drive line and differential (depending on design) and the location of the battery pack on the bottom most part of the car the the CoG should be very very low so turning 1G on street tires should be easily doable.

The hard part: Under $30k. Heck, even under $40k.

BIG PICTURE:
What should take place... Multiple governments (USA, Canada, Britain etc etc) should use military dollars to develop battery technology to the point of which it is:
A: easily and cheaply source-able (no damage to environment, no 3rd nations need to be occupied for the resource).
B: extremely efficient storage of energy and drastic increase in life span
C: Ability to charge quickly
D: easy to recycle or "regenerate".

This type of technology may help the military regarding efficiency of military vehicles in the future with transport, drones, flight etc etc. It's a worthwhile enterprise for DARPA imho.

From an Automotive point of view:
Batter packs should be "relatively" easy to replace in a vehicle and should have some degree of standardization. All our PC's including Apples have USB ports and that's worked wonders. We need this type of standardization regarding how these battery packs install and connect in our electric or hybrid vehicles.

Would you want small, fun, sporty car like an S2000 or FRS that you only have to fill up once a month? Where do I sign up?

[SkullWorks]

Originally Posted by rice_classic

It's a worthwhile enterprise for DARPA imho.

Been there done that, but they don't share, or talk...sorry...wait 2 decades.


Electric motors were in alot of early cars, we still haven't overcome the problems that prevented them from overtaking gas engines...

A chevy Volt is a stupid car and a lie...i will not start that rant here.

Batteries are highly detrimental to the environment, and costly, I would be far more excited about gas/ethanol/diesel micro turbines that vary load based on required current, with capacitors for current draws that exceed the instant output of the generators.

electricity is not as clean as people would have you believe, remember the conservation of energy laws...alot of electricity comes from coal and petrochemicals anyway...


I feel the real solution is ethanol, you have to realize that infrastructure changes are as much a part of the cost of the vehicle as the purchase price is...plug in stations are still few and far between even here in hippy-centric-Kalifornia. Not to mention the inconvenience of road trips ETC (granted we agree that turbines help to solve such issues atleast temporarily)

Anyway, Ethanol doesn't come from the kitty litter box of bad peolpe and ignorant religious Zealots trying to kill us... it comes from people who work hard, and the supply can be adapted in multiple ways to the projected demand. not to mention the performance benefits. the fact that it helps the environment during the growth process (if you are concerned about the evidence free co2 is gonna ruin the world ranting of nut jobs everywhere)


sorry i'll stop now.

[BRAWL]

The new Z needs some sort of green tech to offset the fact that it should have a 6 cylinder engine in it.

Electric is not the answer and Ethanol/Hydrogen are still work in progress (at least as far as mainstream rollout is concerned).

Something has to give eventually I guess

[rice_classic]

Originally Posted by SkullWorks

electricity is not as clean as people would have you believe, remember the conservation of energy laws...alot of electricity comes from coal and petrochemicals anyway...

I believe that myth has been debunked. The environmental problem with Hybrids and all Electric cars lies primarily on the battery technology.

The act if charging an EV from a coal-fired fired plant doesn't mean that the EV driving 40 miles puts more CO2 in the atmosphere than an IC vehicle. In fact, there's proof this is not the case, by a large margin. In fact the EV, even being charged with electricity from a coal fired plant contributes only a small fraction of the CO2 an IC vehicle does.

But here's where the "Coal-fired-plant" argument holds water: The EV vehicle has a significantly larger Carbon-Footprint just to be built (before it ever does its first mile) than a traditional IC vehicle that in order for it to offset that delta the EV would need to be charged with as clean electricity as possible (Wind/solar/hydro), otherwise it never makes up for its initial carbon detriment.

So going back to the whole point I made about why can't I have a fun electric vehicle is also heavily tied into the development and clean-resourcing of much more advanced battery options.

Originally Posted by SkullWorks

Anyway, Ethanol doesn't come from the kitty litter box of bad peolpe and ignorant religious Zealots trying to kill us... it comes from people who work hard, and the supply can be adapted in multiple ways to the projected demand. not to mention the performance benefits. the fact that it helps the environment during the growth process (if you are concerned about the evidence free co2 is gonna ruin the world ranting of nut jobs everywhere)

Ethanol is an of itself is not evil. Corn Ethanol on the other hand is.

If you're defending Corn Ethanol specifically and you don't own/operate a corn farm or you're not a member of the Corn Growers lobby in Washington then please enlighten us, because the problem with Corn Ethanol from an Energy, Environmental, Social, Economic and Health perspective has been so apparent for so many years any argument to the contrary ought to be really good fun to hear.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/25/op...25Rattner.html
http://archive.mises.org/7861/the-ma...ls-of-ethanol/
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily...110457357.html
http://voices.yahoo.com/ethanol-corn...ol-327974.html

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MeIgaRfyD4"]CNN feature on algae derived biofuel - YouTube[/ame]

[einzlr]

Originally Posted by rice_classic

I believe that myth has been debunked. The environmental problem with Hybrids and all Electric cars lies primarily on the battery technology.

The act if charging an EV from a coal-fired fired plant doesn't mean that the EV driving 40 miles puts more CO2 in the atmosphere than an IC vehicle. In fact, there's proof this is not the case, by a large margin. In fact the EV, even being charged with electricity from a coal fired plant contributes only a small fraction of the CO2 an IC vehicle does.

But here's where the "Coal-fired-plant" argument holds water: The EV vehicle has a significantly larger Carbon-Footprint just to be built (before it ever does its first mile) than a traditional IC vehicle that in order for it to offset that delta the EV would need to be charged with as clean electricity as possible (Wind/solar/hydro), otherwise it never makes up for its initial carbon detriment.

So going back to the whole point I made about why can't I have a fun electric vehicle is also heavily tied into the development and clean-resourcing of much more advanced battery options.

Also keep in mind that a fossil-fuel powered car will *always* run on fossil fuels, whereas electric cars have the *potential* to be run on clean electricity as it becomes available. And, of course, the more electric vehicles there are out there, the bigger the incentive to both produce more renewable electric power and to improve (including clean up!) battery technology.

I do love your electric car ideas! Diesel locomotives work on a similar principal, with "small" electric motors at the axles. What if Nissan brought us this car for its Anniversary

[SkullWorks]

corn ethanol is not evil, the people writing articles with zero actual knowledge are.

The government disallowing import of cheaper more sustainable ethanol crops is Evil.

The gas companies limiting the acceptance and paying for editorial pieces about how people are starving because of evil ethanol...are evil.

and lastly the people who are getting rich in the middle east because we are buying their oil are evil

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by SkullWorks

corn ethanol is not evil, the people writing articles with zero actual knowledge are.

The government disallowing import of cheaper more sustainable ethanol crops is Evil.

The gas companies limiting the acceptance and paying for editorial pieces about how people are starving because of evil ethanol...are evil.

and lastly the people who are getting rich in the middle east because we are buying their oil are evil

Sad corn thanks you for sticking up for him.



Is this the face of evil?





Sucks that availability of E85 in Canada, er... sucks.




I don't think hybrid on the Z is going back to its roots.

[SUB-FT86]

Its funny how people say the Z is heavy yet they worship the 911 by Porsche and it weighs around the same. Its like Porsche can do no wrong but let another manufacturer do it and its flat out wrong. The only problem the current Z needs to overcome is about 200-250 lbs of weight reduction without losing the powerful 6 cylinder. It is actually .2 inches lengthier than a FRS.

http://www.insideline.com/porsche/91...carrera-s.html

[usptwins]

This thread went from "New Z car!!!" to "Green"... SMDH....

[cyde01]

Originally Posted by Dimman

There is no reason that Nissan couldn't make a less luxurious, smaller, lighter, more engaging, less expensive Z car, and still keep the 6 cylinder powerplant.

no reason? i could think of some reasons, namely modern crash test safety standards, horrible exchange rate, high cost of lightweight materials, consumer expectations of luxury concerning 6 cylinder cars..

toyota tried to make the 86 as light as possible and skimped on the luxury features, and the car still weighs 2700 lbs and costs over $25k! how much weight and cost could nissan realistically shave off the Z while keeping it 6 cylinders?

[SkullWorks]

lets just hope the engineers are smarter than our forum warriors and realize that high feature small displacement motors are the way of the future if they want to meet fuel mileage mandates imposed by Brobama...

not to mention they are lighter, more fuel efficient, cheaper, better weight distribution, less internal friction...should I continue?

why do you people all think the car NEEDS a 6 cylinder? I would rather see them continue the inline theme of the originals than keep the number of holes the same....

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by cyde01

no reason? i could think of some reasons, namely modern crash test safety standards, horrible exchange rate, high cost of lightweight materials, consumer expectations of luxury concerning 6 cylinder cars..

toyota tried to make the 86 as light as possible and skimped on the luxury features, and the car still weighs 2700 lbs and costs over $25k! how much weight and cost could nissan realistically shave off the Z while keeping it 6 cylinders?

Nissan has been overbuilding the Z chassis to share with the Infiniti vehicles. It has to meet the standards of strength of the biggest FX.

They could do it with a dedicated platform.

But I guess that enters a vicious cost circle. Oh well.

[cyde01]

Originally Posted by SkullWorks

why do you people all think the car NEEDS a 6 cylinder? I would rather see them continue the inline theme of the originals than keep the number of holes the same....

tell that to the folks at nissan, they're the ones that canned the 4 cylinder z-concept back in 99. i certainly wouldn't mind a straight 4, but i would prefer the 86 of course.

[SkullWorks]

Originally Posted by cyde01

tell that to the folks at nissan, they're the ones that canned the 4 cylinder z-concept back in 99. i certainly wouldn't mind a straight 4, but i would prefer the 86 of course.

that was well over a decade ago...times they are a changing....