66 replies to this topic

[Ascendancy]

 Eddy01741, on 11 Nov 2007, 14:17, said:

However, the engine used in the R30 or R31 is not the RB26DETT (aka the 2.6 liter inline 6), the ones fitted to R30s and R31s were 2.0 liter inline sixes for the most part. The GTS-R used the RB20DET-R, so yeah, it's an inline six, but it ain't the legendary RB26DETT. Only the GT-Rs from R32s through R34s have the RB26DETT.

Hence why it is the father of the R32. It had the beginnings of the legendary six cylinder engine.

[CoLT]

 Major Nuker, on 12 Nov 2007, 12:19, said:

Go on liking the car if you want, I'm not discouraging you, but Nissan really messed up when they just based the design off the 350Z and not completely off the last generation Skyline.

Porsche bases their new 911s off the old 911s and guess what, it means that they end up looking the same!

Nobody seems to be pointing that out.

The GT-R does, indeed, have many design elements in common with the 350z but it does have enough of its own to not look completely like the 350z or the old skyline.  At least Nissan has tried something somewhat new.

[Eddy01741]

Well, i'll always call it a skyline GT-R as well, but those guys that have no idea about the history of the car but just buy it since it's like a corvette or something... they'll ruin the image.

Anyways, if you look at it this way, the GT-R looks close to the current skyline:



The Skyline V35 is better known as the Infiniti G35 over here (and the V36 skyline is the G37), the G35 (and hence the skyline V35), and Z350 are all based on the FM architecture, so if this GT-R looks like the Z350, then it bears some resemblance to the current skyline model in japan.

[Sgt. Nuker]

 CoLT, on 12 Nov 2007, 2:50, said:

Porsche bases their new 911s off the old 911s and guess what, it means that they end up looking the same!

Nobody seems to be pointing that out.

Stop right there mate. Porsche keeps the 911 styling to the 911/997, and doesn't try to say "Hey let's make a car the same size as the 911 but give it slightly different styling". Nissan did that with the new GT-R, basing the styling off a car they've had for a couple of years now, the 350Z. So to say that the current 911 and previous 911's are similar, is not a fair comment, as they are, in fact, the same car, not two different models.


Regards,

Nuker

P.S. Of the two cars, the Infiniti G35 (now the G37) and the 350Z, I'd chose the G35/37 anyday. Yes, it's still technically the same, but the body clading is put together in a much more eye-pleasing package.

Edited by Major Nuker, 12 November 2007 - 20:56.

[Eddy01741]

Uhm, the boxter and cayman have SIMILAR styling to the 911 and are about the same size. However, porsches are Porsches, you can't really argue against their styling as it's just classic. It's like saying the spitfire is an ugly plane.

Anyways, the G35/G37 looks much better than the 350Z, as the lines seem to flow a lot better and it looks a lot more elegant. I'm just saying that they are based on the same architecture, and then if the GT-R looks like a chiseled 350Z, then that means it shares some resemblence to the current V35/V36 Skyline sold in Japan right now as they both use the FM architecture.

Anyways, an article that compares the two (G35 vs. 350Z in design):
http://www.autosarti...rchives/design/

Scroll down for article, I agree that the 350Z will be better remembered as it is technically part of the Z series from nissan now (which i thought were great cars till the 350Z, at least in styling), even though the G35 is the better looker.

[Whitey]

The spitfire IS an ugly plane.
The Porsche is beautiful.

In my own humble opinion, cars are becoming the same. Bubbles. Luxury or not. Minivan or sports car. It's ridiculous. THe skyline is one such example, the 911 is another. That's what gets me.

[Eddy01741]

I have a different opinion on the spitfire (pretty good looking for a prop plane, but nothing compared to the jets), but w/e

Anyways, yeah, i have to say, what's up with cars becoming bubbles? As in getting shroter in length and taller in height.

to



to



to

[Sgt. Nuker]

I am in no way denying that they share the same architecture, I was just placing my bias out there. I know that Infiniti is the brainchild of some Nissan white-collar worker seeking to move upmarket. However, it looks better (though the maintenance bills look worse ). The article is correct. Rebadged engineering is the laziest thing a car maker can do. It makes the rebadged car nothing more than a glorified trim level, which is what Ford has turned Lincoln into.


Regards,

Nuker

P.S. The Spitfire, for what it is, is quite the majestic masterpiece. Take into consideration its function, and then watch it fly. It was designed by air racers, which explains its aerodynamics and its speed. Minus the fact that its a warplane, and the Spitfire suddenly becomes beautiful and elegant.

Edited by Major Nuker, 12 November 2007 - 21:48.

[Eddy01741]

Maybe if we put brighter colors on a spitfire it'll look more beautiful than the ugly dark camo colors on em (why the hell do you put camo on a plane in the first place lol).

[Sgt. Nuker]

You may notice that if camo was placed on the plane, it was the top portion of the plane, or those parts of the plane that could be seen from the air. If you don't want your plane to stick out like a sore thumb when enemy fighters/bombers fly over, paint it the color of the earth (grass, dirt, etc.) It's true you could just as easily stick it in a hangar, but if you don't have a hanger, camo's the next best thing. The bottom of the plane was usually painted white, so if you were looking up (at least this is the thought), you would not readily recognize the plane from the ground.

Anyway, this is off topic, so let us climb back into the driver's seat and continue the discussion about the new GT-R (that is, if there's anything left to discuss).


Regards,

Nuker

[Eddy01741]

Hmm, true, given that you park your planes in the dirt or grass.

Anyways, back to the topic, why is automotive styling leaning towards the shape of a "bubble" for cars (as in they are shorter in length and taller in height than before). I don't know how that seems attractive to people at all, i thought sleek was supposed to be appealing, like ferraris and stuff, not something like a beetle.

[Whitey]

Not only that but they are getting extremely round and bulgy.

[Eddy01741]

Yeah, round and bulgy describes it well, like how they tend to like making the rear end of cars very short in length but yet tall so it looks wierd (look at new Evo X compared to the evo IX, or the G35/V35 compared to the R34). i mean, yeah, i guess it's not good to have sharp angles and too many straight lines (that's 60s and 70s), but how about you just curve those angles out and make a beautiful car like the 300ZX or the R34.

[CoLT]

It's probably because smooth, curving, flowing lines have better aerodynamics than flat, angular surfaces. Improved airflow allows the car to move with less resistance and therefore use less power to do it.

It's a step forward, that's why everyone is doing it.

[retry_1]

 Eddy01741, on 12 Nov 2007, 16:43, said:

I have a different opinion on the spitfire (pretty good looking for a prop plane, but nothing compared to the jets), but w/e

Anyways, yeah, i have to say, what's up with cars becoming bubbles? As in getting shroter in length and taller in height.
*skyline*
to
*350gt*

*300zx*
to
*350z*

*older lancer*
to
*new lancer*

you forgot the eclipse


to(actually, an improvement IMO)

and then to

[Sgt. Nuker]

 CoLT, on 12 Nov 2007, 18:08, said:

It's probably because smooth, curving, flowing lines have better aerodynamics than flat, angular surfaces. Improved airflow allows the car to move with less resistance and therefore use less power to do it.

It's a step forward, that's why everyone is doing it.

Not everyone. Chevrolet is making the new Vette/super Vette (now dubbed the ZR-1) more chiseled than ever. Instead of smooth edges, it's a crisp leading edge. Every other car Chevrolet and its many GM siblings have gone bulbous, except for their line of trucks. I see a trend here though. A car that starts with sharp edges gets them rounded off somewhere down the line, only to perhaps return to bulbous.

The Eclipse/Talon looked fine as it was until Mitsubishi decided to defile it when they first remade it. I can't say I've really seen an uglier car, but Mitsu must have been snorting when they cooked up that design. The car may not have been that heavy, but its architecture made it look fat (yes, that sheetmetal does make your trunk look fat). The redesign is better (needs the proper wheel/tire combo), but it's definitely better than......whatever that was Mitsubishi had. The newest Eclispe still looks like a porker (and at over 3,000 pounds it is), but at least it's more curvacious and more pleasing to the eye (with performance to match).


Regards,

Nuker

[Eddy01741]

Meh, the newwest eclipse looks absolutely rancid (atrocious, horrendous, tons of words for it). It looks like a Dodge Intrepid lol. The first eclipse picture looks similar to the FM architecture.

Anyways, Colt, your not getting my point at all, A car that is tall, short in length, but has rounded edges, will always be less be less aerodynamic than a car that is long, short in height (and a smaller pop up from the cockpit relative to the rest of the body), and has rounded edges. My point is, yes, not being angular is key, but being flat is still good, as long as it's a good angle (not like a truck winshield angle obviously). To prove my point:

Volkswagen Beetle:


Lamborghini Gallardo:


I wonder which one is more aerodynamic...

If you look at it, the beetle is round and has no sharp angle,s but the Gallardo doesn't have any sharp edges either. So when i'm saying i want a long, short (in height) car, i'm talking about this:


and not this:


and definitely not stuff like this:



I hope you get what i'm saying now.

Edited by Eddy01741, 13 November 2007 - 04:35.

[Whitey]

I disagree entirely.


I'd take that over


Asethetics > Aerodynamics when it comes to driving.

Edited by Boidy, 13 November 2007 - 05:36.

[CoLT]

That is also another thing to consider when it comes to cars. Something like a Gallardo is completely impractical in today's world.

@Eddy: I get what you mean now.


Anyway, maybe it's because everyone is going bubble-shaped that Chevrolet is making chiseled 'vettes. So the people who hate the new direction have an alternative. It's a reasonably sound marketing ploy.

About the eclipse, I like the older one a lot. In fact, I like the eclipses. Just the newest one, not so much. I don't know what, but something about it just bugs me.

[Eddy01741]

nah, the vette looks fine to me, it still looks like a classic vette, pretty long hood, not as long as the vipers, but still long, and okay sized back end with the signature taillights.

anyways, boidy, whether you take style over substance is totally an opinion thing. personally, i take substance over style for cars to a certain extent. so if the car is just plain ugly but super aerodynamic, i wouldn't buy it, but if it was beautiful but absolutely unaerodynamic (which i find to be basically impossible since all beautiful cars imho are sleek and flowing), i wouldn't buy it either.

please don't mind my lack of uppercase words, stupid shift key in library comp doesn't work.

[Sgt. Nuker]

Flip that choice for me Boidy, and here's why: I've sat in the 997 Porsche and let me tell you all it's incredibly comfortable. Porsche engineered the 997 correctly. The seat is deceptively supportive, holding my 5'10" frame like a glove. The controls were the perfect distance away and had a quality feel to them. This is not to say that the Porsches of old weren't like this in their hayday, but I would take the new 997 over any of the earlier generations (save for the Carrera two generations ago).


Regards,

Nuker

P.S.

Quote

About the eclipse, I like the older one a lot. In fact, I like the eclipses. Just the newest one, not so much. I don't know what, but something about it just bugs me.

Maybe it's the fact that the front fascia looks like a bug? I don't know, just throwing that one out there .

[Eddy01741]

Oh, yeah, and anyways, never sat in a new turbo (or any 911 for that matter), but just from exterior views, IMHO, the 997TT looks better than the old porsche in your picture.

[Whitey]

Eww. Urgh. You all have no style.

[Sgt. Nuker]

That's a little harsh don't you think? At least I like Porsche and I agree with you on the new GT-R.

[Eddy01741]

At least I like porsche and say the GT-R was best looking in the R34 model.