Jump to content

IGNORED

Z Proto: The next z reveal


AZDatsun

Recommended Posts

My ambiguous. Of course plenty of 370Z's were raced but to my knowledge they were never competitive at the top end. Most of the top end makes were more expensive but comparable in engine capacity. Money spent was not the problem, it boiled down to inferior mechanical grip and chuckability, to use a technical description. 

Edited by 260DET
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jeff G 78 said:

Not that I'm in any position to get a new DD right now, but I do like the new Z.  I briefly considered selling the Porsche and maybe even my 280Z next year to help offset the cost of the new Z.  But then I noticed that I see a heck of a lot of 370Z's in my area and every one of them is ratty with mismatched body panels, slammed ride height and stupid loud exhaust with a punk kid driving.  It will take time, but I see the new Z getting the same treatment and that's not my vibe.  After all the S13's and S14's were ruined, the same people started buying up the Z33's and Z34's.  I think I'll keep my 996 and my S30. 

That's how it always works. When the first generation of Z-cars got a bit old and worn, kids got ahold of them and turned them into rusty, noisy hooptys. That happens to all cars that have any performance vibe about them. But many survived without that level of violation, and they're the ones we have today.

 I learned at ZCON that my '83 280ZXT is one of the cleanest and most original of its generation. That feels pretty nice!

Edited by Pilgrim
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pilgrim said:

That's how it always works. When the first generation of Z-cars got a bit old and worn, kids got ahold of them and turned them into rusty, noisy hooptys. That happens to all cars that have any performance vibe about them. But many survived without that level of violation, and they're the ones we have today.

 I learned at ZCON that my '83 280ZXT is one of the cleanest and most original of its generation. That feels pretty nice!

My dad bought the Nissan D21 pickup i now currently daily when it was brand new in 1993.  I have just simply maintained it, no mods, other than just lowered 2 inches.  Most have ended up like this:

 

d21.jpg

Edited by Reptoid Overlords
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Reptoid Overlords said:

My dad bought the Nissan D21 pickup i now currently daily when it was brand new in 1993.  I have just simply maintained it, no mods, other than just lowered 2 inches.  Most have ended up like this:

 

d21.jpg

Cool grill. The bumper looks askew.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 4 weeks later...

I suspect CAFE standards play a big part in the front end design.  The sugar scoops are not very good for aero or the large open grill area. That being said, you would have to sell a lot of Zs for any mileage penalty to affect the overall fleet average

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Diseazd said:

I agree ……the front is not good IMO. This is how it should look…..this would triple sales IMO. Ford did it with the Mustang and Chysler with the Challenger.Come on Nissan….nostalgia is what we’re looking for…..give us a cool Z!!!

AE2008D6-E986-49D1-B6A0-F73D78C4C2F3.png

It looks too much like an S30, or 280ZX, not saying thats a bad thing, but I think auto makers and corporation as a whole try to always modernize their product. Making something thats almost a replica of something in their past may seem a bit hackish. They would get just as much pushback on that design as they do on the real one.

But I'm no marketing expert, I'm just a user.

Edited by DC871F
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, DC871F said:

It looks too much like an S30, or 280ZX, not saying thats a bad thing, but I think auto makers and corporation as a whole try to always modernize their product. Making something thats almost a replica of something in their past may seem a bit hackish. They would get just as much pushback on that design as they do on the real one.

But I'm no marketing expert, I'm just a user.

The folks who produced the VW new Beetle, current Dodge Challenger, Dodge Charger, Ford Mustang, and Chevrolet Camaro might tend to disagree.

 

Edited by psdenno
  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, psdenno said:

VW new Beetle,

An aerodynamic Beetle? What’s up on the autobahn, bro? It was for the US Millenial market, no doubt. I think the S30 is still unmatched, style wise, and with a 3.2L Rebello power plant. Although I must observe the Jaguar XK is pretty sweet. V8 goodness. YMMV.

Edited by reefedjib
Updated
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, psdenno said:

The folks who produced the VW new Beetle, current Dodge Challenger, Dodge Charger, Ford Mustang, and Chevrolet Camaro might tend to disagree.

 

My opinion exactly……Nissan has never really recovered their loyal followers after the S30 body style went out. The 240Z draws huge attention from the younger set at all Cars and Coffee events I go to. It worked for Ford and Chrysler and Chevy…..why not bring back the excitement of something that memics the car that put Nissan (Datsun) on the map…….and I’d call it a Datsun Proto……that would really bring em back!!!!!

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Diseazd said:

My opinion exactly……Nissan has never really recovered their loyal followers after the S30 body style went out. The 240Z draws huge attention from the younger set at all Cars and Coffee events I go to. It worked for Ford and Chrysler and Chevy…..why not bring back the excitement of something that memics the car that put Nissan (Datsun) on the map…….and I’d call it a Datsun Proto……that would really bring em back!!!!!

But Datsun 2022 would do well to use a higher quality carbonized steel in the frame. A carbon fiber body would be fine, but a good steel frame is a must!

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, reefedjib said:

But Datsun 2022 would do well to use a higher quality carbonized steel in the frame. A carbon fiber body would be fine, but a good steel frame is a must!

I would argue that the steel used was excellent.  Just look at how well the blocks hold cross hatching. The problem with the early cars wasn't the steel, it was the complete absense of any rust prevention. They didn't start galvanizing bodies until 78 or so???

A modern car would get a full passivating dip, so thats not a problem.  Also modern cars use a wide range of exotic alloys to make them light but pass crash test. So not a significant issue. Also most modern cars are mono coupes, no frames anymore...

Edited by Patcon
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Patcon said:

Just look at how well the blocks hold cross hatching.

Please pardon my ignorance. What does this mean?

I had always thought the low grade steel (low carbon content) was the culprit of all the rust. I’d think not rust proofing them with a coating also caused issues (battery tray, hatch, wheel wells).

I’m considering getting another S30 if things work out for me and considering how to rust proof it would be a factor, if money is not a limitation. I’d rather put $65k into an S30 with a 3.2L Rebello, fully restored, than $40k into a new Z. The S30 build would be faster than the new Z! Here’s the  HP/Lb…

S30 (with 3.2L) = 325 HP/2300 Lbs = 0.141

S30 (with 3.2L & triple carbs) = 365 HP/2300 Lbs = 0.158

2023 Z = 400 HP/3500 Lbs = 0.114

We’ll see…

Edited by reefedjib
Addition #3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Japanese steel was very good and the cross hatching in the cylinder bores is still visible after years of driving.  Even on high mileage cars.

I have found rust up high inside of the quarter panels and it is just from humidity.  Cars from ocean communities can be be really rusty in the worst way from the salty air getting inside all the body cavities.

I would think, the ideal way to do a proper rust treatment. Would be to find somebody to dip the car to remove all the rust but they would need to dip it when clean for a rust prevention.  Passivating, galavanizing, zinc dip or zinc rich primer. I know people that offer stripper dip tank services but finding the second part might be th he problem

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Rebello would be 7.07#s per horse

The proto 8.75#s per horse.

There are some missing pieces though. Modern suspension of the Proto would be a plus but there are aftermarket options that are competitive

ABS is nice but I grew up without it and wouldn't miss it.

The S30 is lighter and would be much more "tossable" if the contact patch was similar

Might need some good brake upgrades

The modern car would have some nice things built in: bluetooth, heated seats, leather, delay wipe, power mirrors and windows.

All of which could be overcome

My choice would be the S30...

But I'm biased 😉

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Patcon said:

The Rebello would be 7.07#s per horse

The proto 8.75#s per horse.

The Rebello with triple carbs would be 6.30#s per horse…

Is the inversion fraction a better expression? I don’t know what’s common in the industry. I just used my physics background to figure horses per pound is what determines the ability to accelerate, for which there is no limit, aside from an officer’s judgement of reckless.

Of course it’s the momentum that kills: mass times velocity; the velocity being the integral of acceleration. The effect of force on a mass being horsepower - Newton’s 2nd law, over a period of time. 😱

The equation of momentum, using the momentum - impulse equation:

3550AA71-984E-45B6-B5DC-3C5B39DD10A4.png
B27F55C9-CE2E-4EFC-A827-10D1957822DB.png

 

 

Edited by reefedjib
Updated integral of momentum - impulse equation
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, reefedjib said:

I just used my physics background to figure horses per pound is what determines the ability to accelerate, for which there is no limit,

Actually (in the real world) what probably limits the ability to accelerate your Z is the ability to get that power to the road. 

Nice equations.  I'm hot.    :geek:

  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/3/2021 at 10:20 PM, Captain Obvious said:

Actually (in the real world) what probably limits the ability to accelerate your Z is the ability to get that power to the road. 

Nice equations.  I'm hot.    :geek:

Yes. In my last 240Z I had a 1981 5-speed and a 3.90 R200 with a Torsten diff carrier. Highly unlikely I’ll ever find another Torsten for my next Z. That makes me sad, but perhaps I could use a Quaife. I loved that Torsen, full on instant torque biasing to lock under differentiation: an instantaneous mechanical torque computer! Awesome traction!

More equations (generated from [1]): I researched a bit more and what I found makes a LOT of sense. HP governs top speed. It’s the Torque that leads to acceleration performance as the twisting force on a wheel provides the acceleration. Newton’s 2nd law in angular form. Of interest is the linear acceleration from the wheels resulting from the angular acceleration at a given radius.

My calculations are from 3.2L numbers, HP of 325 and torque of 295. My only questions are these values in US units HP: <fps> and Torque: <ft-lb>; Or are they in metric HP: <kg*m/s> andTorque: <Nm> or <kg*m^2/s^2>?

Now allow me to calculate #s per Nm (and kg/Nm), where Nm or Newton-meter is the unit of Torque. A Newton, a measure of Force has units of <kg*m/s^2> so a Nm is <kg*m^2/s^2>. Of course, as in #s/HP a lower number of #s/Nm is better.

3.2L 240z: 2300 / 295 #s/Nm (1044/295 kg/Nm) = 7.80 #s/Nm (3.54 kg/Nm)

2023 Nissan Z: 3500/350 #s/Nm (1588/350 kg/Nm) = 10 #s/Nm (4.54 kg/Nm)

My next Z with a 3.2L power plant with a good Rebello cam has a wide torque band (if my stroked 2.4L was a good measure). The torque band was from 3000 to about 7500, IIRC. At higher RPMs she would sit down and *pull*! Lovely. I figured out the peak HP was 5786.

The torque - horsepower equation:

32A53A5C-DD6C-4AC1-84F4-812D8A6991AA.png

Solving for RPM and substitute the numbers gets us a peak at 5786 RPMs.

33E37B65-6A34-483D-9C47-933DD7961833.png

Now let’s look at the linear acceleration at the wheels. First the relation between linear acceleration and angular acceleration:

B0FC3125-C774-4805-947F-FA29E5F8F271.png

Then the equation for torque, at the wheel, substituting the above acceleration equation::

686F2DE1-640A-4F48-9532-A98F642EE569.png

Solving for angular acceleration:

D0ED1C62-CAE3-4A2C-A820-C2D862510FBD.png

and substituting back into linear acceleration:

2B3113E7-5D80-49D6-838C-A0823CCDA4BB.png

Units of linear acceleration are <m/s^2> and units of torque are the Nm or <kg*m^2/s^2>. So the last term of the above equation are <kg*m^2/(kg*m*s^2)> = <m/s^2>, which is the units of acceleration. Great! It’s always good to validate units for one’s sanity; a sanity check!

Now let’s turn to calculating the torque at one wheel [2] using the gear ratios of a 1981 5-speed and a 3.9 R200 [3], with engine torque from the 3.2L Rebello of 295 Nm. From that we can calculate the linear acceleration in each gear and determine a rough estimate of 0-60 times.

20DC618D-482D-4B0F-A9F6-E643C0CC9968.png

Here are the ratio & torque numbers for the 5 gears.

Then, using a wheel radius of 0.3 m and a 240Z weight of 1044 kgs, we’ll calcualate the linear acceleration in various gears in units of <m/s^2>.

1st: 3.062 | wheel torque = 1761 | accel = 5.62

2nd: 1.858 | wheel torque = 1069 | accel = 3.41

3rd: 1.308 | wheel torque = 752 | accel = 2.40

4th: 1.000 | wheel torque = 575 | accel = 1.84

5th: 0.745 | wheel torque = 428 | accel = 1.37

Looking at 0 - 60 times [4], if one could stay in the same gear, based on the linear acceleration numbers…1st gear acceleration would take 4.77 s; 2nd gear would take 7.86 s; while 3rd gear takes 11.7 s.

[1] equation generation - https://math.tools/equation/image

[2] torque wheel calculator - https://x-engineer.org/calculate-wheel-torque-engine/

[3] Datsun 240z gear ratios - http://www.zhome.com/ZCMnL/tech/GearRatios.html

[4] 0 - 60 acceleration times - https://www.gigacalculator.com/calculators/acceleration-calculator.php

Edited by reefedjib
Removed velocity calculation
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me run the numbers as if the engine torque is in ft-lbs, so converting to Nm the engine torque would be 295 ft-lbs * 1.356 Nm/ft-Lb = 400 Nm. And the HP would be 330 in metric <kg*m/s>.

Here are the ratio & torque numbers for the 5 gears, with this engine torque of 400 Nm.

Then, using a wheel radius of 0.3 m and a 240Z weight of 1044 kgs, we’ll calcualate the linear acceleration in various gears in units of <m/s^2>.

1st: 3.062 | wheel torque = 2388 | accel = 7.62

2nd: 1.858 | wheel torque = 1449 | accel = 4.63

3rd: 1.308 | wheel torque = 1020 | accel = 3.26

4th: 1.000 | wheel torque = 780 | accel = 2.49

5th: 0.745 | wheel torque = 581 | accel = 1.86

Looking at 0 - 60 times, if one could stay in the same gear, based on the linear acceleration numbers…1st gear acceleration would take 3.52s; 2nd gear would take 5.79s; while 3rd gear takes 8.22s.

Note that in 1st gear at 6500 RPMs vehicle speed is 62 kph & in 2nd gear at 6500 RPMs the vehicle speed is 101 kph or 60 mph[1], so we go with the 2nd gear acceleration time of 5.79s.

8F77AEE5-9522-4A54-B739-0DD1FE19A8C5.png

𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒔𝒆 𝒇𝒊𝒈𝒖𝒓𝒆𝒔 𝒔𝒆𝒆𝒎 𝒎𝒖𝒄𝒉 𝒎𝒐𝒓𝒆 𝒍𝒊𝒌𝒆𝒍𝒚, 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒆 𝑰 𝒔𝒖𝒔𝒑𝒆𝒄𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒆 295 𝑻𝒐𝒓𝒒𝒖𝒆 𝒗𝒂𝒍𝒖𝒆 𝒊𝒔 𝒊𝒏 𝒇𝒕-𝒍𝒃𝒔. 0-60 𝒊𝒏 𝒔𝒖𝒃 6𝒔, 𝒚𝒆𝒂𝒉?

I’ll confirm Monday with a call to Dave.

[1] calculate vehicle speed - https://x-engineer.org/calculate-wheel-vehicle-speed-engine-speed/

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Guidelines. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.