I guess I see your point...but I think when we talk about a sporty image I believe we are only referring to production vehicles (more specifically in the U.S.) Nissan is trying to portray a sporty image here. That is what they want to be about here. Thats what they have always been about here. when they stopped in the 90's, it started the downfall of nissan. Now they are back to that image and they have been regaining market share for the past 2 years. I know honda uses a lot of its f1 tech. in production vehicles, but they arent necessarily known to have a sporty image to your average consumer. They are known to be higly reliable, dependable, fuel effecient, and very very environment friendly. While nissan also makes reliable and dependable cars..honda is better known for it and may even be a notch above in reality. but they do definately shine in being fuel effecient and environment friendly well above all others.

We all know honda makes just as reliable cars as toyota...but we all also know that's toyotas main image. their image is they make the most reliable cars bar none. I have differing opinions on that image but that is what their image is.

 

the murano will be the mid sized car based suv while the xterra will be truck based...the pathfinder will grow to a fullsized suv built off the titan platform...that makes sense...i just didn't know if they would discontinue it

 

Yeah the Sentra starts closer to 13k, so any car that would be placed under the Sentra would have to start around 10-11k. I *think* that only the March fits that criteria, unless they'd be willing to sell these other vehicles at a loss to gain market share?

 

The Pathfinder is gettin' a major move upmarket (and will now be like the Expedition/Tahoe/Tundra vehicles). It would make sense to move the XTerra up, although it would most likely ruin it's "Generation X" image (and price points). Also, I think the XTrail looks like a peice of s**t. It's bland as f**k. I'll take the Cube. I think that article must have a typo about making the Frontier the size of the Tundra (that'll be way to close to the new Titan). I could see making it Dakota/Colorado/Canyon sized. I love the styling of the Frontier, I think it's the best looking pickup out there. If it was the size of the Dakota and offered with a V8, I woulda' bought that.

 

I think you're contradicting yourself a little here. First you're going off saying how Nissan needs a bigger engine to achieve the same level of power, but then you brought the in the comparison of the NSX and the GT-R. Last I checked, the GT-R has a 2.6L I6 engine. That's much smaller than the 3.2L from the NSX. Also, I don't get your argument about turbo. What's wrong w/ turbo? Nissan never use a big block in its sport car. It's most powerful engine still comes from a 2.6L I6. Then the 3.0L V6 from the 300ZX... Last but not least, their famous SR20DET. If I'm not mistaken, those are pretty small engine.

What do you mean about efficiency? If you start say turbo is old school and NA is much better than turbo, then you should ask yourself why Porsche use turbo for their 911 turbo, Mercedes and their supercharged V8, Toyota w/ their Supra, and Nissan w/ their GT-R. There's only two way to get more power....1) bigger engine and 2) forced induction. F/I is the answer to the statement of there's no replacement for displacement. A built RB26DETT can be able to handle over 1000HP. Almost 500HP/L is nothing to discard as old school to me. If you can say turbo is cheating... then what do you call VTEC? VTEC is another way to get more air into the engine... adding more fuel and you'll get a stronger combustion = more HP. Same w/ turbo.... forced more air in + more gas = more HP. Two technique reaching the same goal.

Your argument says larger engines weigh more.... but the NSX has a larger engine than the GT-R... yet the NSX is lighter than the GT-R. However, both can handle its own. How can you explain that? Also, your arguement about JGTC doesn't really explain anything about the cars. If anything, it shows that the driver of the NSX-R is better of the bunch. Those car are so close in performance that the driver is the one that set them apart.

By the way, the SR16VE N1 has 197hp and the SR16VE has 176hp and the SR20VE has 205hp now. Just wanna straight up some info.

 

first of all he said, "nissan on the other hand uses big block or forced induction as its main route". so your first argument is a joke since the gt-r uses forced induction. i dont think theres anything wrong with that, but you didnt get jaje's point.

there is a third way, techonolgy. i-VTEC, VVTL-i, Vavletronic, Double Vanos and others have proven that.

while the nsx's engine might weigh more (does it?) you must forget how much two turbos and their piping weighs. for example, audi says the V8 in the new S4 weighs less that the old biturbo V6. some food for thought.

 

...let's disect this into n/a forms versus forced induction...honda doesn't make any if at all cars with forced induction anymore (honda city turbo, and some motorcycles also had it long ago)

n/a forms...what engine does nissan have that compares to an f20c?...sr20ve but it only makes 200hp. The first 3.0 nsx engine of 270hp?...only the vq 3.5 liter makes near or over 270hp...as for the sr16ve n1...it was a street ready race engine sold in limited numbers to be raced in the n1 class...it's idle was at least ~1,500 rpms meaning it was tuned for all out power...however, you could buy a spoon civic ctr in japan with a 210hp 1.6 that was tuned for n1 racing too...however b/c both were tuned to make so much hp it makes little power at lower rpms...i wish i had a dyno of these two engines side by side to show torque curves...both are impressive

turbos and other forced induction...aren't avail from factory hondas anymore so it's not fair to compare a honda engine with an aftermarket unit (tuned for more power than a factory turbo would)...that's why i separated out to not discuss forced inducted models

...the total number of warranty claims on a failed vtec system = 0 (astonishing reliabilty record)...turbos add more complexity which means more engine problems in the long run (it is also harder on the engine in boost transition)

as for comparing race engines i was not doing...nissan never sold the rb26dett with 1000hp from the factory so it's not the point

as for porche's 911 turbo...why are most racing porshes n/a 911 gt3s...again this is off topic of honda/nissan

i'm not dogging on turbos either...i'm helping a shop build a t3 for my 2.0 protege5...n/a improvement is pretty weak due to no avail variable valve timing or etc to make a revvy daily driver

nsx is lighter it's frame, engine block and head, and body are all aluminium (one of the first cars to sport all this lightweight material), it is a mr layout which means less drivetrain loss of power and lower weight along with better weight distribution...where the rb26dett r34 gt-r is a front engine awd layout, iron block/alloy head, plus all the weight from the twin turbos, piping and intercoolers, etc. adds up to a lot of extra weight

my point is nissans overall strength is in turbo engines where hondas is in n/a forms...where nissan usually doesn't have a turbo model for its lineup it usually uses extra displacement...such as the 3.5 in the altima, or the k2.5 in the sentra

and i agree that nissan may have a public perception as a more sporty car maker but in reality honda was one of the few companies bred on racing (very elite category such as porsche, bmw, ferrari, lotus)...though honda never really drove that fact home over its 50 years of existence and became too successful selling docile commuter vehicles

 

So about them Nissan mini cars they might bring over to the states...

I think Nissan USA will try and gauge the success of Scion before they bring out very similar cars. Honda hasn't announced any plans to bring the Fit/Jazz over although they might.

Comparing a bunch of cars that aren't sold in this market and nobody here has ever sat in, and then getting into a debate about the overriding philosophies of their manufacturers is a bit excessive, no?

 

I think you kinda answered yourself later on in your argument. Nissan's strength is in turbo engine and Honda's strength is in NA engine. Both chose different route but tries to achieve the same goal. So therefore your question about what's nissan's answer to the f20c? it's the SR20DET. Also, don't forget about the SR20VET. that's variable valve timing, lift and also a Turbo. I'm not even going to delve into the comparison of the Spoon CTR vs the SR16ve N1 because I don't know much about either one to make any good comments.

Quote:

turbos and other forced induction...aren't avail from factory hondas anymore so it's not fair to compare a honda engine with an aftermarket unit (tuned for more power than a factory turbo would)...that's why i separated out to not discuss forced inducted models

turbos and f/i aren'ts available from the factory hondas but VTEC was. They chose VTEC over f/i. Both has strength and weaknesses. What is not fair about that? Honda spends $$ in improving N/A while Nissan spends $$ improving F/I. Nissan could cry about the same unfairness in the N/A segment... "not fair because Honda has VTEC and we don't"

Quote:

...the total number of warranty claims on a failed vtec system = 0 (astonishing reliabilty record)...turbos add more complexity which means more engine problems in the long run (it is also harder on the engine in boost transition)

I don't know about the exact warranty claims on all the cars but I know the Supra built the Engine pretty strong so I doubt there were that many complaint about the engine. I don't know if you ever had a car w/ VTEC before but alot of GS-R owner complains about oil burning. Alot of time due to bad rings. Constantly revving your car to 8k will kill your piston rings and your gas millage, no doubt. The amount of complexity of add a turbo is probably alot less than adding stuff like VTEC. Turbo put extra stress on the engine, I'm not arguing about that, but if the engine was built from the factory for turbo, then that extra stress shouldn't matter as much. Just like high revving put extra stress on the engine. But if the engine was design and built to rev to 9k, then it shouldn't matter as much. If you take the S2000 and turbo it, of course it won't be too good for the engine, because it was built and design for N/A (high compression, high revving, etc). Same apply w/ an engine that was built for turbo, if you increase compression and raise the redline, it won't be too good for it because it wasn't built for that. So what's your point about complexity? Stress or warrantee? I don't think Toyota would have the image of most reliable car company if the turbo supra isn't reliable.

Quote:

i'm not dogging on turbos either...i'm helping a shop build a t3 for my 2.0 protege5...n/a improvement is pretty weak due to no avail variable valve timing or etc to make a revvy daily driver

Good for you. I always like the p5, and w/ msp parts, you should have little problem building a good turbo p5. if anything, you can always buy a msp engine and just plop it in there.

Quote:

nsx is lighter it's frame, engine block and head, and body are all aluminium (one of the first cars to sport all this lightweight material), it is a mr layout which means less drivetrain loss of power and lower weight along with better weight distribution...where the rb26dett r34 gt-r is a front engine awd layout, iron block/alloy head, plus all the weight from the twin turbos, piping and intercoolers, etc. adds up to a lot of extra weight

I agree that turbo add extra weight, no doubt. But the HP you'll gain off it will compensate.

Quote:

my point is nissans overall strength is in turbo engines where hondas is in n/a forms...where nissan usually doesn't have a turbo model for its lineup it usually uses extra displacement...such as the 3.5 in the altima, or the k2.5 in the sentra

You've just help me explained my point. Like I said before, there's only so much you can do before you need to either increase the size of the engine, add a turbo, or add variable valve timing and lift. All three achieve more power the same way, add more air and gas = bigger combustion = more HP.

Quote:

and i agree that nissan may have a public perception as a more sporty car maker but in reality honda was one of the few companies bred on racing (very elite category such as porsche, bmw, ferrari, lotus)...though honda never really drove that fact home over its 50 years of existence and became too successful selling docile commuter vehicles

You make it sound like Honda is the only car company that has a racing history. They're not in racing lately because of $$ problem and we all know that, but Nissan has a pretty robust history of racing as well. I agree that Honda has a very successful racing history. But you gotta see that alot of the company bring new technology to the racing first, then slowly bring it into their production car. Just like Honda bringing VTEC from racing into their production cars, Nissan is bringing their turbo engine design expertise from their racing into their production cars. This can be said about alot of the companies.

 

What, you don't think turbo is technology? All those you've just listed are all of similar things, variable valve timing and lift. If you don't think turbo is technology, then explain yourself. You can always improve turbo to make it even more efficient. Then there's also the new stuff that's going around about electronic assist turbo that nissan is developing. If that's not technology, I don't know what is. Yet, it still involve turbo.