Im glad Nissan decided that a Nissan should be made by Nissan with Nissan parts. Not just slapping their name on a car completely made by a different company that isn't up to the task.
Im glad Nissan decided that a Nissan should be made by Nissan with Nissan parts. Not just slapping their name on a car completely made by a different company that isn't up to the task.
I don't expect the car to answer this question, but maybe someone from Nissan's press group can.
How is it that tiny Mazda can clean sheet design an excellent sports car like the Miata but a big company like Nissan reuses a 20 year old chassis and even bigger Toyota has to partner with BMW to make theirs?
jimbob_racing said:I don't expect the car to answer this question, but maybe someone from Nissan's press group can.
How is it that tiny Mazda can clean sheet design an excellent sports car like the Miata but a big company like Nissan reuses a 20 year old chassis and even bigger Toyota has to partner with BMW to make theirs?
I think you partially answered your own question. As someone who has worked at both ends of the size spectrum, it is usually a lot easier to do "new" things faster in a small company, but often with a great risk of messing something up. Big companies with a lot of history tend to also have a lot of guardrails up around things from mistakes they have made in the past, and as new people take ownership of that ESW, it often ends up applied in ways that minimize perceived risk at the expense of everything else.
Mazda is still big enough that I wouldn't think they are much different than a Toyota or BMW, but corporate culture also counts for a lot and we have a long history of Mazda's support of amateur racing and production of the Miata that suggests they have the culture to make it work. BMW has been somewhat off the rails from an enthusiast perspective for 10+ years, and Toyota for significantly longer than that.
And reusing an old chassis or design isn't always a bad thing if it means you keep optimizing and building recognition instead of making big changes that may throw some of the good out with the bad. Lately, Chrysler/FCA/Stellantis has been capitalizing on old platforms in a pretty impressive way.
When the 240Z came out, for the price it SORT OF blew away the competition; TR6, 911, Corvette, MGB, Spitfire - you know the players back then.
Does the new 400Z give the same vibe?
Does it blow away the competition? Supra, Twins, Miata?
$70k dealer upcharge means I have zero interest. Not that I have ever purchased a new vehicle.
How much will the 400 sell for in 2-5 years with that much of a mark up?
Z06 C8 can be added to the never column too for the same reason.
They cost a fair bit (sometimes even more - one dealer doubles the price tag - https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a40850471/nissan-z-dealer-markup/ but why do they look like lumps compared to the original 240Z?
Fer Krisake hire an Italian (or other) designer to make the cars stand out from the other lumps out there. These shapes have none of the attractiveness of the original. Anyone that looks at the new one and thinks "Man, I just have to own one of those!" must have had a restricted automotive background.
But then how many Japanese cars have been able to elicit that sort of 'gotta have that' attitude? The 240z, the Toyota 2000 GT, last generation RX-7, original Acura NSX, and not much else.
jimbob_racing said:I don't expect the car to answer this question, but maybe someone from Nissan's press group can.
How is it that tiny Mazda can clean sheet design an excellent sports car like the Miata but a big company like Nissan reuses a 20 year old chassis and even bigger Toyota has to partner with BMW to make theirs?
The Miata/MX-5 is Mazda's halo car. It sets the tone for the whole line up. Nissan's halo is the GT-R. That's where they spend their performance vehicle development money.
In reply to wspohn :
Most cars are designed by a sphincter now. Look at how all the crossover SUVs look now.
I eat mexican and can design a better car the next morning.
In reply to jimbob_racing :
Toyota has a very long history of "design by committee." Group agreement is deeply ingrained in many Asian cultures, so when you get the lawyer, accountant, engineer, etc all in a room together, performance and design tend towards the median. Toyota recognized this as an internal issue about a decade ago, and also recognized that designing great niche sports cars just wasn't possible with their current culture. Hence the collaboration and outsourcing. Personally I believe they could have chosen much, much, much better partners, but that's another rant entirely.
jimbob_racing said:How is it that tiny Mazda can clean sheet design an excellent sports car like the Miata but a big company like Nissan reuses a 20 year old chassis and even bigger Toyota has to partner with BMW to make theirs?
You forget that Mazda had to partner with Fiat to make the ND happen.
BlueInGreen - Jon said:Face off on track against the LS 350Z?
Throttle House ran it against a 1LE on their test track, and the 1LE was five seconds faster. I suspect at a track like The FIRM, the LS 350Z would beat it by pretty much the same margin, maybe a little more.
Keep in mind the 1LE ran a lap of 1:11.xxx, so it's not a big test track at all, and the extra 55 horses don't come into play as much as it would at Sebring or Watkins Glen.
preach (dudeist priest) said:$70k dealer upcharge means I have zero interest. Not that I have ever purchased a new vehicle.
How much will the 400 sell for in 2-5 years with that much of a mark up?
Z06 C8 can be added to the never column too for the same reason.
That is one dealer.
And I'll bet you a steak dinner it was done purely for publicity.
As I understand it, all new Japanese cars will have wheel and tire combinations that cable chains will/must fit inside the stock fenders. Given how high the cars are sitting in their factory promotional pictures, I would guess this is true.
You'll need to log in to post.