Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

The impression im getting from a few jap friends is since the euros now own nissan, they've been changing their stance on the kind of cars they make. More like trying to break into the markets in the states with SUV type cars.

Just a thought

Wow man, thats just like the total opposite of what I've been told.

My (Japanese) friends think that Nissan is now fresh, and the new approach is more European, and dare they say, more mature, than Nissan pre-1999. They give it the thumbs up... but they miss the Skyline turbo and Silvia obviously.

Oh, and the Nissan turbo isn't dead, the Nissan X-Trail 2.0GT has an SR20VET. I know, it's not a sports car, but there is still hope for other turbo'd models.

different people, different attitude i guess. But im not exactly liking the fact that the trend is tending to NA cars. I know the GTR is coming back with a vengance but NA Z33?? Who knows, might be time for a change after all. Dont get me wrong. I'm not trying to say that i'm correct or anything, just expressing my point of view.

I think that in general Nissan will be better for the change, however i am not a big fan of the euro styling, eg the rear of the new maxima. That said, we will just have to see what happens performance wise with the remaining Skyline and Z. Not happy about the obvious difference between the 2 and 4 door Skylines either, but what can i do about that!! :hellpisd:

Well I think nissan has a bright future. I dont like the euro styling either, i think it just doesnt suit nissan but I could live with it.

The thing that made me sad was when they split Skyline and GTR. Its like splitting someone in half. Why did they do this?

Seeing the new GTR brought tears to my eyes ( i was sad not happy)

I doubt the Z33 will stay an NA for long.

Damn its so hard to explain what i want to say, So hard to put into words.

I think the nissan you saw make the r32,r33,r34 skylines will never be like that again. So much went into those cars, they build them from the ground up.

I dont think that will happen in the future.

But i guess we'll have to wait for the R35 GTR

I couldnt stand to see this on the roads

Nissan is dead in the water as far as sport car is concern, they'll be building purpose dioesel mpv and suv on mass for the euros market, as nissan has a large and very techninical diesel outpost.

We might be spare with the GTR badge being brandied around on some one of $150k+ version of a sportcar, and it wont be coming here.

Do the maths and it just doesn't add up for australia as far as nissan is concern.

well i think nissan sux now. have you seen the S16 Silvia ? OMG IT looks like a ford couger... its so ugly and it still uses the SR20.. but its not DET its VET.. well nissan was good till 1999.

That S16 Silvia you're talking about was some guys photochop of a V35 and a Primera put together... don't worry, thats not the next Silvia.

In my opinion,

Nissan will drop the turbo performance cars shortly and start on more prestige models, eg 350Z. I think NISSANS target audience is no longer the Performance Car Enthusiast, and the company is beginning a transformation into a more luxury motorsport industry.

It's not really a question of good or bad but rather the way that all automotive companies are heading towards more conservative designs mechanically and aesthetically.

I mean I never thought I would live to see the day that Honda would be building a pickup truck.

Nissan think that ATTESSA is best used in 4wd SUV's!

I strongly believe that the Japanese performance car industry took a big change in September 2002 and that in reality, we've been very lucky in the periods 1989-2002.

2003 to 2008 (?) is different era - perhaps N/A, hybrids, turbo Commdores?

But we're being asked to swallow this z33/v35 body style and the VQ series motors. It's too big a change for me so far.

In two years maybe we'll have accepted it.

But who knows. Maybe we'll have Series 3 turbo Falcons and Commodore V6's.

T.

besides the fact that nissan closed down and amalgamated the S Sports Compact and R Sports Compact teams into the Z Sports Compact team (basically meaning no development of Silvia's or Skyline Sport Compact engines). However this dosen't mean the model is dead, as was shown by the Skyline Coupe in Japan (the Infinity to us).

Europeans, Americans and Aussies are more comfortable with larger capacity engines, and the next batch of coupes will most probably have em, coz you do have to remember these cars are no longer Japan only like the Skylines of old, they are a world car from now on. Its a shame, I really hate to think of others having access to our portion of heaven :);)

What really gets me is the nerds that are bored shitless who have to photochop a frikken Tommy Kaira R34 brochure image (i've got it sumwhere, saw it n went "i've seen that car sumwhere") with a tiburon to come up with an R35 "spy photo" that's lapped up by forum crackmonkey's and filtered thru to numerous publications.

yea thats what i liked about the skylines they were rare in other coutries.

I was actually glad that some other countries didnt have the skyline.

So if the skyline "wasnt" going worldwide do you think they would have changed it in any way???

I'd hate to see Nissan become "Euro-ised" and lose the character their cars are known for, sportiness, speed and handling. Just a matter of time to see whether they turn old favourites like the skyline or whatever they're calling it now into a sports wannabe luxury tourer and target that market...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Yeah everyone always seems to refer to them as S13 wheels however they came on R32 Skyline, A31 Cefiro, C33 Laurel etc., and also came polished diamond cut or painted depending on the model. Congrats on your GTS purchase! I'd personally leave it NA.
    • In this thing about this 100% renewal energy stuff I hear no one really talking about anything other than power and fuel really Power and fuel, whilst being a huge part of how we use the billion year old Dinosaur juices, are only 2, of the probably thousands of things that we need to use it for in the chemicals industries for making nearly everything we use nowadays I'm all for a clean planet, but if we want to continue to have all the day to day appliances and stuff that we rely on everyday we will still need fossil fuels Whilst I do love science, and how it can bring innovation, there's really a limit to how far it can go in relation to "going green" As for EV's, unless your charging of your own solar panels, it isn't helping the environment when you consider the the batteries, the mining processes required,  the manufacturing process required, and how long a batteries (read: the vehicle) lasts long term If I was supreme dictator of the world, I would ban the use of sugar for fizzy drinks and food additives and use that for ethanol manufacturing, petrol engines would be happier, and people would be alot healthier  Disclaimer: Whiskey manufacturing would still be required, so says the supreme dictator of the world Same same for all the vegetable oils that get pumped into all our food, use that for bio diesel Disclaimer: the supreme dictator would still require olive oil to dip his bread in This would take some of heat off the use of the use of fossil fuels which are required for everything we use, unless you want to go back to pre 1800 for heat and power, or the early 1900's for plastics and every thing else that has come from cracking ethylene  Would I be a fair and just dictator, nope, and I would probably be assassinated within my first few months, but would my cunning plan work, maybe, for a while, maybe not Meh, in the end in an over opinionated mildly educated arsehole typing out my vomit on my mobile phone, which wouldn't be possible without fossil fuels And if your into conspiracies, we only need the fossil fuels to last until a meteor hits, or thermonuclear annihilation, that would definitely fix our need for fossil fuels for manufacturing and power issues for quite some time  Meh, time for this boomer to cook his lunch on his electric stove and then maybe go for a drive in my petrol car, for fun    
    • It really helps that light duty vehicles have absolutely appalling average efficiency due to poor average load. Like 25% average brake thermal efficiency when peak is somewhere around 38% these days. So even a 60% BTE stationary natural gas plant + transmission and charging losses still doing much better with an EV than conventional ICE. And that's before we get into renewables or "low carbon nonrenewable" nuclear which makes it a no-brainer, basically. In commercial aircraft or heavy duty diesel pulling some ridiculous amount of weight across a continent the numbers are much more difficult to make work. I honestly think in 5-10 years we will still be seeing something like the Achates opposed piston diesels in most semi trucks running on a blend of renewable/biodiesel. Applications where the energy density of diesel is just too critical to compromise. CARB is running trials of those engines right now to evaluate in real world drayage ops, probably because they're noticing that the numbers just don't work for electrification unless our plan is to make glorified electric trains with high voltage wires running along every major highway and only a token amount of battery to make it 30 miles or something like that after detaching. Transport emissions is not insignificant especially in the US, but yes there's a lot of industrial processes that also need to be decarbonized. I agree the scale of the problem is pretty insane but EDF managed to generate ~360 TWh from their nuclear reactors last year and this is with decades of underinvestment after the initial big push in the 70s and 80s. I don't think the frame of reference should be solar-limited. France is not exactly a big country either. Maybe it doesn't work everywhere, but it doesn't have to either. We just can't live off of fracking forever and expect things to be ok.
    • Yeah, all the crude is used for fuels and petrochem feedstocks (pesticides, many other chemicals, etc etc). But increasingly over the last few decades, much of the petrochem synthessis has started with methane because NG has been cheaper than oil, cleaner and easier and more consistent to work with, etc etc etc. So it's really had to say what the fraction either way is. Suffice to say - the direct fuels fraction is not insigificant. Heavy transport uses excruciatingly large amounts. Diesel is wasted in jet heaters in North American garages and workshops, thrown down drill holes in quarries, pissed all over the wall to provide electricity to certain outback communities, etc etc. Obviously road transport, and our pet project, recreational consumption camouflaged as road transport, is a smaller fraction of the total liquid HC consumption again. If you're talking aboust Aussie cars' contribution to the absolute total CO2 production of the country, then of course our share of the cubic mile of coal that is used for power generation, metallurgy, etc adds up to a big chunk. Then there is the consumption of timber. Did you know that the production of silicon metal, for example, is done in Australia by using hardwood? And f**king lots and lots and lots of hardwood at that. Until recently, it was f**king jarrah! There are many such sneaky contributors to CO2 production in industry and farming. NG is used in massive quantities in Australia, for power gen, for running huge water pumps (like, 1-2MW sized caterpillar V16 engines running flat out pumping water) for places like mine sites and minerals/metals refineries. And there are just a huge number of those sort of things going on quietly in the background. So NG use is a big fraction of total CO2 production here. I mean, shit, I personally design burners that are used in furnaces here in Oz that use multiple MW of gas all day every day. The largest such that I've done (not here in Oz) was rated to 150MW. One. Single. Gas burner. In a cement clinker kiln. There are thousands of such things out there in the world. There are double digits of them just here in Oz. (OK< just barely double digits now that a lot of them have shut - and they are all <100MW). But it's all the same to me. People in the car world (like this forum's users) would like to think that you only have to create an industrial capability to replace the fuel that they will be using in 10 years time, and imagine that everyone else will be driving EVs. And while the latter part of that is largely true, the liquid HC fuel industry as a whole is so much more massive than the bit used for cars, that there will be no commercial pressure to produce "renewable" "synthetic" fuels just for cars, when 100x that much would still be being burnt straight from the well. You have to replace it all, or you're not doing what is required. And then you get back to my massive numbers. People don't handle massive numbers at all well. Once you get past about 7 or 8 zeros, it becomes meaningless for most people.
×
×
  • Create New...