Infiniti G35 Coupe Debuts at 2002 NY Auto Show

[verboom]

Well, since Infiniti is just a glorified Nissan, I'm thinking that the G35 will be my first choice. You get very similar styling, a bit more power, if my memory is correct, and a tidy list of options. However, the 350Z has more of a pure sportscar look to it, but a few more options is more my style. Besides, what kind of competition will I have in New Brunswick? A cavalier?

[Morpheus XIII]

Originally posted by JB car pages
In an interview with the designer I read, the concept was supposed to give a hint of what the future GT-R might look like. It is quite unlikely, the final car will look exactly like the Concept, just like the Z-Concept did not look like the production version.

I don't know about you, but it seems to me that the Z-Concept and the actual 350Z are damn close in appearance. The only slight changes are worked around practicality issues such as close-ended door handles, addition of reverse lights, slightly reworked grille, and different muffler tip design. The interior is pretty much the same other than removing some of the shiny show-car adornments. It's as if the Z-Concept is more of a Z-prototype than a concept.

Remember back a decade ago when concept cars were thought to be utterly unrealistic artistic practices which could barely be used to exercise production vehicles? Well designers and engineers have come a long way to make concepts much more usable. I won't be surprised if the next production GT-R will be quite alike to the concept, other than some headlight remodeling (to abide by 5 mph impact regulations), and some interior renovating to eliminate that awesome but ridiculous metal "spine" running back through the ceiling.

[Morpheus XIII]

Originally posted by JB car pages
In an interview with the designer I read, the concept was supposed to give a hint of what the future GT-R might look like. It is quite unlikely, the final car will look exactly like the Concept, just like the Z-Concept did not look like the production version.

I don't know about you, but it seems to me that the Z-Concept and the actual 350Z are damn close in appearance. The only slight changes are worked around practicality issues such as close-ended door handles, addition of reverse lights, slightly reworked grille, and different muffler tip design. The interior is pretty much the same other than removing some of the shiny show-car adornments. It's as if the Z-Concept is more of a Z-prototype than a concept.

Remember back a decade ago when concept cars were thought to be utterly unrealistic artistic practices which could barely be used to exercise production vehicles? Well designers and engineers have come a long way to make concepts much more usable. I won't be surprised if the next production GT-R will be quite alike to the concept, other than some headlight remodeling (to abide by 5 mph impact regulations), and some interior renovating to eliminate that awesome but ridiculous metal "spine" running back through the ceiling.

Originally posted by JB car pages
It seems to be sure, though, that the GT-R will get a V8 or a turbo-charged V6, so adapting the "V" designation seems to be the natural choice.

Are you saying that the "V" in V35 comes from a V configuration engine (like V-6 V-12)? I'd have to disagree with that. Nissan doesn't assign chassis designations from something that involves engines. Engines have their own designations and are like individual entities, much in the way chassi are their own entities.

[MIC33R]

I always thought that the naming behind the series was just based on the first letter of the engine in it. ie. The recent Skylines had RB20, 25 and 26 engines, and are named the R32, R33 and R34. The new V35 series has the VQ25, VQ30 and, assuming the new GTR goes for the 3.5L TT option, VQ35 engines.

[Tanman]

G35's estimated 0-60 time is 6.3 secs with 275HP\260TQ.
I don't know if they've posted final specs on the 350Z, but it's supposed to have sub-6 sec 0-60 times and 280+HP and weigh a bit less. So if you're more interested in style and cruising and maybe have a family, you might like the 4-seater G35 better. For a younger guy like me (no family yet), the 350 appeals more to me because of the performance and aftermarket options. When Nismo comes to the US, they'll have more parts for the 350Z than the G35. The G35 is a luxury coupe, not a true sports car.

I actually like the look and room of the G35 better, but performance and aftermarket upgrading is more important to me at this point in my life, so I'd go with the Z.

[JB car pages]

First of all, the chassis designations seem to go together with the engine designations, at least throughout the last decade. The R32-34 came with the RB-engine series, while the new V35 comes with the VQ-engine series. The S13 -15 Silvias had the SR-engine series. So, there seems to be a logic behind this, doesn't it!?

Secondly, the first Z-Concept (I think it is from 1999) was very different in design from the final car. The front featured different headlights, and the rear was more bulbous - Porsche 928 style. The interior looked quiet different, as well.
The GT-R is a clue, of what the furture car might look like. Basically, just like the Z-Car, the concept (4-seats, front engine, AWD etc.) will stay the same, but the look might (and I stress that might) look very different. According to the designer, this is still a concept, so lots of things can and might change. At this point in time, they hadn't even made a decision about the engine.
[IMG]c:/NewZ.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]c:/nissan1.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]c:/nissan2.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]c:/nissan3.jpg[/IMG]

[Morpheus XIII]

Originally posted by JB car pages
First of all, the chassis designations seem to go together with the engine designations, at least throughout the last decade. The R32-34 came with the RB-engine series, while the new V35 comes with the VQ-engine series. The S13 -15 Silvias had the SR-engine series. So, there seems to be a logic behind this, doesn't it!?

Um, no. The first S13 was powered by the CA18DE/T, before the SR20 was developed. The Z32 (300ZX or Fairlady Z) was powered by the VG30DE/TT. B14 Sentras use GA16DE and SR20DE motors and B15 SE-R models use the QR25DE. P10 and P11 Primeras use SR-motors, while P12s can be found with the QR-DD variety. I believe it's simply a coincidence since too many others don't match up. (but you have my thanks, both MIC33R and JB car pages, for identifying this detail; I never noticed before ).

Originally posted by JB car pages
Secondly, the first Z-Concept (I think it is from 1999) was very different in design from the final car. The front featured different headlights, and the rear was more bulbous - Porsche 928 style. The interior looked quiet different, as well.
The GT-R is a clue, of what the furture car might look like. Basically, just like the Z-Car, the concept (4-seats, front engine, AWD etc.) will stay the same, but the look might (and I stress that might) look very different. According to the designer, this is still a concept, so lots of things can and might change. At this point in time, they hadn't even made a decision about the engine.

I remember that concept. I actually liked that concept a LOT. It really brought out the essence of the original 240Z, but as with most instances, money governs everything. And that concept was brought about before Renault's takeover. At the time, Nissan was in no shape to reinvent the sports car. Not only that, but the older Z-concept was almost a privateer's toy, as many of the designers developed the project on their own time. Furthermore, the public's reaction to the original concept was less than admirable, as many belived the design exercise was "too retro". People felt the last thing Nissan needed at the time was a step backwards. Surely a feeling of grassroots sports car was welcome, but people also wanted forward motion. THAT was the primary reason why the first Z-concept was scrapped. Other reasons included the fact that the concept was built on the S14 chassis and KA24 powerplant and those pieces of equipment were due for retirement.

In any case, we are talking about a totally new Nissan. One which is not ashamed to multiplatform and parts-share with the best of them. This Nissan is run by Renault's Carlos Ghosn. That old Z-concept was created before Nissan took new direction. And this GT-R Concept was designed under the new leadership--and the production model will also be created under the same new French automaker's guidelines. The Concept GT-R has nothing to do with the Z's dual-conceptual scenario.

(p.s. By the way, if you want to link photos, you have to upload them first; you can't simply input the path from your hard drive. )

For those of you who have no idea what "original Z-concept" we are referring to, note the photo below, or check this thread in the Z forum:

[JB car pages]

About the nomenclature, I guess none of us knows for sure, so let's just forget about that. By the way, the S13 was also powered by the SR20. I don't know, though, if that engine was introduced later on.
Maybe, Nissan uses this nomenclature only on its sports cars, like the silvia and Skyline. That might explain the differences on the other cars.
I know the Z used a VQ engine, but as far as I know, the Z never had an internal number (like R32/R33/S13/S14 etc.). All you could learn from the names was the displacement of the engine.
We'll see what the GT-R will be called, but I guess it will be a VXX, and hopefully, also a Skyline. Concerning the concept, I can only repeat what the designer said. After all, we are only assuming here, what the future might look like, so the statements of the designer are quite valuable, because he knows much more than we do. I read this interview in the British EVO magazine (http://www.evo.co.uk), who visited him in his design studio. There the designer stated changes on the concept are quite likely and also said it was in the same stadium of the design like the first Z-Concept. I can tell you more when I find that magazine.
You are right when you say the Nissan was not in the position at that time to build a new Z. This is different now, because the introduction of a new GT-R is quite sure. But whereas the platform might be quite sure, the rest of the car is not, just as it wasn't when the Z-Concept was first introduced. I guess hardly anyone ever believed the Z would get a 4-cylinder again, as suggested for that early concept car.

Anyway, talking about the GT-R concept is all speculation. Personally, I would like the final car to look pretty much like the concept, if they changed the front a little - I don't like the black spots below the headlights. Interested what you have to say!

P.S: Sorry about the pictures. Was wondering if it works.

[JB car pages]

Sorry about the link. I hope this one works:

evo.co.uk

[Morpheus XIII]

I apologize if I sound nit-picky here, but I just wanted to clear some things up:

Originally posted by JB car pages
About the nomenclature, I guess none of us knows for sure, so let's just forget about that. By the way, the S13 was also powered by the SR20. I don't know, though, if that engine was introduced later on.
Maybe, Nissan uses this nomenclature only on its sports cars, like the silvia and Skyline. That might explain the differences on the other cars.
I know the Z used a VQ engine, but as far as I know, the Z never had an internal number (like R32/R33/S13/S14 etc.). All you could learn from the names was the displacement of the engine.
We'll see what the GT-R will be called, but I guess it will be a VXX, and hopefully, also a Skyline...

Interesting how you want to terminate the discussion involving chassis designations, then continue to add to it. Well, I have to add something as well. The previous Zs, which used VG, not VQ engines (yes, I know they are part of a lineage ) did in fact have chassis designations. Its pretty obvious that the Silvias and Skylines have the most well known chassis IDs in the world, and that makes it easy for people to overlook the other lesser known ones. The recent Zs follow the Z31 (80's 300ZX), Z32 (90's 300ZX), Z33 ('03 350Z) pattern, while older models like the 240Z were labeled Z432.

By the way, when I said that the first S13s used CA18 engines, I was automatically indicating that the SR20 replaced the CA18 for the later S13s. I was simply trying to point out that the "S" in the S13 couldn't have been associated with the "S" in the SR20, since the timing would be impossible.

Originally posted by JB car pages
There the designer stated changes on the concept are quite likely and also said it was in the same stadium of the design like the first Z-Concept.

How can the changes for the Concept GT-R be in the same stadium as the first Z-concept, when the prime reasons why Nissan canned the original Z were because of excessive retro-ness, and lack of power? Nissan representative Nakamura stated on the matters of the second concept, "We don't want to make a copy of the 240Z. We want to create a new Z, a new spirit and a new heritage." A second concept was also necessary, since Nissan COO Ghosn wanted nearly all his future cars to be built on the XVL frame, which supports everything from the Altima to the Stagea. The current Concept GT-R doesn't suffer from these same problems, and should be classified under a different line of progress.

Once again, sorry for the intricate 'on-the-contrary' action, but I just wanted everyone to be on the same page here.

[JB car pages]

About the nomenclature: The R30 and R31 Skylines didn't use RB engines. Maybe Nissan started to name the engines after the chassis - that would explain, why we have the RB series for the Skyline and the SR series for the Silvias, and now they try to make it equal right fromt he beginning. Otherwise, changing the already established RXX nomenclature in favor of the VXX designation, if it wasn't for the engines.
And maybe they always choose the name for the top-model the engine is used in, which is the Skyline for the VQ series, and the Silvia for the SR series.
I don't know the internal codes of the Altima and the other cars the VQ series is used for, so a final decision is difficult here. Maybe we should just write Nissan and ask them!

I didn't know the Z had an internal code, as well. Thanks for that.

Originally posted by Morpheus XIII
How can the changes for the Concept GT-R be in the same stadium as the first Z-concept, when the prime reasons why Nissan canned the original Z were because of excessive retro-ness, and lack of power? Nissan representative Nakamura stated on the matters of the second concept, "We don't want to make a copy of the 240Z.

This has nothing to do with the platform the car is build on. It has to do with the way a concpt car is made. For concept cars you take a platform you already have and then build on it, to show a concept of what a future car might look like. Of course the circumstances for the GT-R are much better now, since a good platform is already available.
Maybe the best example are some Chrysler concepts, which even work. You can drive them on the street, but still most of them will never make it to the street. All they are there for is to give a look ahead to what the future of the make might look like.
It is the same witht the GT-R. Nissan designed the car, to see how people would react. The last GT-R sold quite badly, so Nissan now wants to make sure the successor is a hit. In fact, the circumstances here are quite equal to the Z's first intro. At that time Nissan was suffering, now the GT-R is suffering (it sold a mere 3000 units last year).
I'm not saying the final GT-R won't look the way the concept did. There have been examples in the past, where the way from concept to final car worked quite well (Audi TT, Porsche Boxster).
Overall, if you look at the first Z concept, the general approach hasn't changed. You still have a front engine/RWD car, with a bias on handling and performance. Even though, when designing a concept, you take certain steps in favor of effect and appearance, that you can put on the street. That was the problem with the first concept, which Nissan had no platform for (I know they used the Silvia's platform, but since they now use the Skyline's, lots of changes were due) and now they have the same problem with the GT-R, which the have no drivetrain for.
History show, that it is a long way from a concept to a production model. And as new parts are incorporated into the car, it will change.

The only reason why the latest models (Infiniti G35 and 350Z) didn't change much over their concepts, is that the latter were almost production ready, already incorporating all final components. And here the designer comes in, since according to him, this is not the case with the GT-R, yet.

[Morpheus XIII]

Yeah, I suppose we are simply going to have to wait and see what Nissan's future intentions are. But still, it's good to get in the habit of speculating based on logical trend so that you can be one step ahead of the press release reports.

Originally posted by JB car pages
About the nomenclature: The R30 and R31 Skylines didn't use RB engines.

By the way, the R31 Skyline did use RB engines, specifically the RB20E, RB20ET, and RB20DET.

[JB car pages]

You're right there...seems I'm too stupid to read my own history!
Anyway, the R30 didn't use RB engines, so the R designation couldn't come from the engine-nomenclature.

[hdtboy]

R31's also had teh rb30e engine, it's a favoruite bolt on 3L upgrade block for power junkies

[Domiken]

I was considering getting the G35 NOW!! but i think ill wait till the coupe comes out!! WHERES THE SUNROOF???:bandit: