BlueEyes

Maybe because you have to spend 70K to get it. I don't see the M5 engine on there either. The most expensive car on there is the S4 a ~50k. Everything else is mid 30's and below. Maybe thier criteria exclude it.

Brice-RX8

Yes, I think I read on another board that it is for $52k and less.

BlueEyes

Yup.
http://wardsauto.com/ar/auto_wards_names_best/index.htm

TODreamer

well to each his own

TODreamer

yeah but even at 70K, the LS7 is one impressive engine!

Actually the fact that you ONLY have to pay 70K for that makes it even more fantastic

But yeah... I'm sure theres a cut off so that it only looks at cars that are realistic to the regular everyday man...make it identifable for the majority of the population

mikeb

audi is all over the place

LIShinka

I would hardly say the VQ's fuel economy is not impressive, especially is comparison to the Renesis. I've owned a G35 Coupe with the VQ35 and with 90% highway drving would get between 29 and 31 mpg, and overall with about a 60/40 mix of city/highway was getting just under 25 mpg.

I'd say that is pretty respectable for 280hp. Especially compared to the 21 mpg i get on the highway with the RX-8 and 15-16 overall under the same conditions. Throw in th fact that the G was about 300 lbs heavier (3309 vs 3011) and it's much more impressive. 50% better fuel economy in a heavier car with more power is a little better than not very impressive to me.

Of course the main virtue of the rotary in my mind is light weight and small physical dimensions that allow the car as a whole to be so neutral and fun to drive. Performance and economy wise I'd say the VQ has the Renesis covered.

BRealistic

The stock 350Z is quite a quick car. But if handling and braking are thrown into the mix- it becomes a close race. And don't forget RX-8s are less expensive to buy and insure and actually have a backseat to boot. Hmm. But I am not a 350Z hater. The VQ is an impressive lump- though a new Vette engine is both smaller and lighter.

Steiner

Because Nissan won't turbocharge the damn thing! For an engine to be that mass produced and not be offered in even a conservative FI trim shocks me...especially from Nissan. Obviously the engine itself is NA form amazing, but will we all have to wait until the new GT-R for a turbo charged production version of the VQ series? I sure hope not. The 350Z would have been such a street brawler with even something small like a T25 running 8 or 10psi. Maybe it's the aluminum (or as the Birts say Al-U-Min-Yum) heads that are the problem. I dunno. I'm no engineer but I thought for sure the 350Z would have seen some factory FI before the model's first facelift.

BRealistic

As much as I like Saabs- I must admit that they are no paragon of reliability.

Being a turbo is not equal to being a supercharger. Though I expect the supercharger Ecotec to be more reliable than turbo charged versions.

And Reliability on modern vehicles is way more than basic engine design. Some different models with the same basic mechanicals get quite varying reliability ratings. The truth is in the details. I certainly hope these cars hold up- but past experience would make me more of a doubter than a hoper.

playdoh43

rx8 and 350z has gone head to head on BMI many times, driven by JGTC GT500 professional drivers, rx8 never threatened 350Z when handling and braking are thrown into the mix. It was never close. Its always been the 350Z and the S2000 in a heated battle while the RX8 never posed a challenge. The drivers are all GT500 class drivers, so they are all top notch drivers that knows what they are doing. Im not saying BMI is everything, Im just stating what I saw.

the LS1 and LS2 are not smaller and lighter than the VQ35 either, they have about the same phyiscal dimensions, the LS engines are a bit heavier. so they are about the same, except the LS2 makes 100 more hp and does a tad better in fuel economy than the VQ35

Steiner

Not to sound like a huge homer, but how is the 4G63 not on that list? Over the last 15 years it just keeps getting better with things like variable valve timing and a twin scroll turbo. The latest version is putting down almost 270whp...yet hmmmm...nope it's not there.

BRealistic

BMI is more a fun weekend drive with experienced drivers and tuned cars than anything scientific. Are any of those vehicles actually bonestock? It is interesting though. Remember- horsepower always wins when you are dealing with drivers inexperienced with their vehicle on that specific track under those conditions. But maybe that is why it is called B-M-I.


And I could be wrong with the LS2 specs. I was going from memory. But dayum- that 3.5 VQ is a huge (tall and wide) engine. I would be very interested if you had some links to support this.

playdoh43

the races im refering to are all bone stock cars with no mods. and i disagree with you saying that when they are inexperienced with their vehicle under those conditions that hp always wins because the S2k which has the same hp rating as the rx8 has been very competitive against the 350Z, sometimes logging faster laptimes despite the hp difference while the rx8 never threatened.

I dont have any links to the LS2 specs on hand and dont feel like searching for it. im sure you can find some info with google though.

playdoh43

Dry weight of a 6.0L LS2 motor making 400 hp is ~400 lbs.
Dry weight of a 3.5L VQ35 motor making 287 hp is ~375 lbs
http://www.racingflix.com/forum/foru...678&PN=1&TPN=2

BRealistic

The S2000 is a great sports car- no doubt. I guess I should have added horsepower per pound. The S2000 is 200lbs lighter than a base 6speed RX8- and I doubt any of those BMI RX-8s were base no option 6 speed models.

playdoh43

they were all stock cars with various options. btw these drivers are professional drivers that has driven all kinds of cars extensively, their skills are far beyound your average experinced weekend drivers.
but right, its the relatively inferior hp/weight ratio and according to the BMI drivers, the softer suspension of the rx8 that keeps it from being competitive against the other 2 cars on the track. handling and light weight is important, but so is power/weight ratio.

my personal oppinion is that the RX8 is not meant to be a track car, if they wanted a pure performance car, they could have done away with the back seats and made it much lighter and have a stiffer suspension to reduce the body roll. The MS RX8 with the upgraded suspension has faired much better on the track on BMI. Mazda built a sport car thats meant to focus on being a good daily driver instead of focusing on just performance.

playdoh43

and just to get the topic back on track, i think VQ35 is a really nice engine, i have the rev up 298hp version with 7000rpm redline in my G35 coupe. But id have to conceed that overall, the LS2 is a superior engine, one that id take over the VQ35 anyday. Im also baffled why the LS2 isnt on the list considering its an engineering marvel. some people take too much emphasis on hp/liter figure and loose sight of what really matters, and thats performance. An extra 25 pounds for 100 more hp is a trade id gladly make.

BRealistic

I guess that is what sold me on the RX-8- the more than excellent handling combined with the somewhat civilized ride. I held off test driving one for a very long time- because I was afraid (from a financial angle) that I would have to have one. I had purchased a few new cars before- actually three since 97- and all were Mazdas with a low teen out the door price (Protege, B2300, B3000). But I test drove one after seeing the owner's loyalty regate (for owning ythe 85 RX7) and the financing rebates on left over 04s early this year- and using the mazdausa.com website inventory search to find a base 6 speed (with sport package) winning blue RX-8 close to me.......

but anyways- I do see the car needing better springs/shocks/anti-sway bars if the car is driven very hard on a smooth track. I even hit the limits sometimes on the road- crap, I had the tail out in a corner at 40mph in 2nd gear today on a four lane.

babylou

I know without a doubt that the LS2, fully dressed and in manual transmission form (inlcudes flywheel), weighs 485 lbs. This is bone dry.

375 lbs sounds too light for a large DOHC V-6.

Now if these engines were not dressed with accessories or flywheel then the numbers are about 75 lbs lower. A flywheel alone is 45 lbs.

playdoh43

yeah im not sure, but the point of these figure is that they are relatively the same weight and dimensions, i think VQ is taller while LS is longer, yet LS makes much more hp. being 6.0L vs 3.5L dosnt mean its heavier.

playdoh43

speaking of the renesis, the first time I opened the hood of my buddies RX8, i was like, where the hell is the engine? then i noticed just how small the thing is. If Mazda ever decides to make a FR or MR car with the design philosophy of Lotus.... with similar physical dimensions as an Elise, then it would be one scary track car that should obliterate the Elise and 350z and s2k

babylou

Not to mention that the LS2 V8 costs about the same to manufacture as the more complex VQ V6.


I am convinced the only time DOHC engines are superior is for inline engines and when displacement is limited by law or rule. For V engines the following comparisons can be made:

• OHV engines produce more hp/$
• OHV engines produce more MPG/hp
• OHV engines have lower lbs/hp
• OHV engines produce more hp/total underhood volume displaced
• DOHC engines look purtier
• DOHC engines are an older design than OHV engines!
• DOHC are the favorite of Americans that think all American workers are worthless except magically they are the exception to the rule.

MikeW

60 degree DOC V6 better be taller than a pushrod V8.

The VQ35 doesn't have a roller follower valvetrain-go ahead and shear the oil-old
Honda V6s don't have hydraulic lash adjusters-get out the feeler gauge-old
Toyota's 2Gr-fse has roller followers and hydraulic lash adjusters, yeah.

The VQ35 are ALL overrated, nissan even says so.
The extra 'cammy' 7000 rpm VQ35 has less peak torque than the regular one in the Z, Z+2, and G35 sedan.

VQ35 out and VW 3.6VR6 in
GM mono turbo 2.8V6 out, Volvo 2.5 I5 in
GM 2.0 out, 4G63 in

playdoh43

i always wonder why foreign companies dosnt make pushrod engines.

i think foreign companies dosnt make pushrod engines because many countries place large import tax based on the displacement of the engine. the idea is that more displacement = more exhaust/pollution and bad fuel economy.