# 2006 sentra?



## richyrich909 (Jun 25, 2004)

ok, so i was reading one of my like bizzillion car magazines a few weeks ago, and it mentioned nissan getting ready to launch the all new sentra in 2006. has anyone heard anything about it? that's all they said.


----------



## Token Moron (Mar 28, 2003)

S-E-A-R-C-H


there are at least a few threads that went into *FULL* detail about the speculations of the 06 sentras


here, i'll help u out

http://www.nissanforums.com/showthread.php?t=36960&highlight=2006+sentra


----------



## sentra97gxe (Mar 17, 2004)

Damn. Just went through some of that stuff. That's some strange shit. But I do have to agree that Nissans 4 bangers ain't the same as they use to be. Heck, You'd think they could get more than a measly 176hp out of a 2.5.

Mitch


----------



## Slayer2003 (Jun 4, 2003)

yah, i doubt that fuga thing is a sentra. Looks more of the G35 nature to me. plus, it looks too good to be a sentra 

also, thats all from october 2003. im sure things have changed.


----------



## sentra97gxe (Mar 17, 2004)

Slayer2003 said:


> yah, i doubt that fuga thing is a sentra. Looks more of the G35 nature to me. plus, it looks too good to be a sentra
> 
> also, thats all from october 2003. im sure things have changed.


Yeah, either g35 or close to that of the new maxima's. I hope things have changed. I like some of those features but that ain't no sentra. Too big and classy for a sentra.

Mitch


----------



## Blank (Aug 21, 2003)

the fuga concept is the next m45/35..


----------



## Blank (Aug 21, 2003)

the sentra in 06 will be based on a renault mangine(sp?)


----------



## Kalel (Jun 26, 2003)

^^ sort of what the b16 will look like
BTW thats the Renault Megane :fluffy:


----------



## Kalel (Jun 26, 2003)

better pics


----------



## Kalel (Jun 26, 2003)

Nissan has developed a new engine to replace the QR engine. It will be named the QE, and this engine... let's just say it's an Inline-4 VQ. Needless to say that VQ is one of the best engines in the world. Also, rumors have been speculating about the Silvia revival, and Nissan is also in plans of developing a capable mid-bore stroked Inline-4 engine that is strictly designed for this Silvia, and will be a 4WD


----------



## Blank (Aug 21, 2003)

good deal... source? id like to read more about it....


----------



## andre (Apr 30, 2002)

ditto...but it doesn't seem feasible to me...the QR is still "new" so will they kill it so soon? Its not like it has a zillion problems with them, and they're more powerful than a lot of other 4 cyl. engines in the US market now....


----------



## Kalel (Jun 26, 2003)

blankgazex said:


> good deal... source? id like to read more about it....


Google is your friend :fluffy:


----------



## andre (Apr 30, 2002)

I want a link to where you read it. And how long ago did you read it.


----------



## sentra97gxe (Mar 17, 2004)

andre said:


> ditto...but it doesn't seem feasible to me...the QR is still "new" so will they kill it so soon? Its not like it has a zillion problems with them, and they're more powerful than a lot of other 4 cyl. engines in the US market now....


I agree somewhat. Yeah it is a pretty quick motor but part of it's power is in torque. It's pretty much the largest 4 banger right now. But I think nissan could do a lot better in designing a performance 4 cyl engine. I mean, look at the sr20. Said to be the best 4 cyl design. If they can do that well, then I think they let the standards drop a little on the QR motors. Besides, toyota is getting 180hp out of their 1.8L and Nissan is only getting 175hp out of their 2.5L. Yeah, the QR might be faster than toyota's cellica gts motor but not much, and considering the difference in motor size they shouldn't be close.

Mitch


----------



## sethwas (Apr 30, 2002)

Never underestimate the power of torque.
The nissan's powerband is much fatter than the toyota's. So while the toyota makes great power at redline, the nissan is doing better at 2000rpm so for 99% of driving (unless for you 99% is revving all the way) the more power lower down the better.

Seth


----------



## ReVerm (Jan 13, 2003)

sethwas said:


> Never underestimate the power of torque.
> The nissan's powerband is much fatter than the toyota's. So while the toyota makes great power at redline, the nissan is doing better at 2000rpm so for 99% of driving (unless for you 99% is revving all the way) the more power lower down the better.
> 
> Seth


Not if they ruin it with a horrible gearbox. This goes for both the Sentra/SER and the US spec Celica.


----------



## andre (Apr 30, 2002)

Good stuff Mitch, but how long has that 1.8 motor been out? I know nothing about Toyota motors, but I feel that they may be squeezing that motor for every last bit of reasonable/sellable/livable hp that it can give. I think Nissan is more than capable of doing something similar (SR16VE N1 ring any bells...), but at what expense? It takes time and money to create a really good motor like the N1, but who is really buying it? Does the lady down the block care how much hp/liter she's getting? Get my drift. The thing I thought Nissan would have really done was replace the sr20de with the ve...but it never happened.


----------



## ReVerm (Jan 13, 2003)

andre said:


> Good stuff Mitch, but how long has that 1.8 motor been out? I know nothing about Toyota motors, but I feel that they may be squeezing that motor for every last bit of reasonable/sellable/livable hp that it can give. I think Nissan is more than capable of doing something similar (SR16VE N1 ring any bells...), but at what expense? It takes time and money to create a really good motor like the N1, but who is really buying it? Does the lady down the block care how much hp/liter she's getting? Get my drift. The thing I thought Nissan would have really done was replace the sr20de with the ve...but it never happened.


Those Toyota engines are packed full of parts designed and engineered by Yamaha. Yamaha (despite their dismal performance in F1 way back in the day) is probably the best engine tuner in the world. The 2ZZ (the 1.8L engine in the Celica GTS, Corolla XRS, Matrix XRS, and current gen Lotus Elise/Exige) is in no way their master work (their best work so far was a cooperative project with Toyota which resulted in something called the 503E), but there's no way in hell Nissan can come even close. They don't have the manufacturing processes down, nor do they have the technology to do it. And no, this doesn't come at an extra cost to the end customer. Per lot of 100, the 2ZZ is reportedly costs about 8/10 the price of a QR20DE to manufacture. They're machine built (not hand built as is the case with many Honda engines), parts are cheap, and yes, they can be tuned for quite a bit more power still.

There's a reason Roger Becker spent half a year doing nothing but begging Toyota to grant Lotus a license to the 1ZZ and 2ZZ. A company like Nissan, who spends nowhere near as much in engine development and has none of the connections that Toyota has, doesn't stand a chance.

The only way Nissan is ever going to get close is if we do what a lot of people on this forum seem to have very negative feelings towards for absolutely no good reason: Relying on Renault and making good use of the millions they spend on small displacement engine research. That's the only way we'll win... or even come close.


----------



## sentra97gxe (Mar 17, 2004)

andre said:


> Good stuff Mitch, but how long has that 1.8 motor been out? I know nothing about Toyota motors, but I feel that they may be squeezing that motor for every last bit of reasonable/sellable/livable hp that it can give. I think Nissan is more than capable of doing something similar (SR16VE N1 ring any bells...), but at what expense? It takes time and money to create a really good motor like the N1, but who is really buying it? Does the lady down the block care how much hp/liter she's getting? Get my drift. The thing I thought Nissan would have really done was replace the sr20de with the ve...but it never happened.


You pretty much said what I was thinking. What ever happened to the ve motors? You'd think they'd design the QR that way which I'd think with the added displacement would be a very powerful motor. And Reverm, you say nissan can't come close to toyota but look at what nissan did with the sr**ve motors. Those engines are not only smaller but put out more hp than the QR. I think nissan is more than capable of doing much better than they are. History proves it.

Mitch


----------



## ReVerm (Jan 13, 2003)

sentra97gxe said:


> Those engines are not only smaller but put out more hp than the QR.


? I never said the VE wasn't a decent engine and the QR wasn't a complete piece of trash. Even the VE is no match against the 2ZZ though. The VE engines aren't more powerful, they have a much lower price/performance value _under_ $2000, they are less efficient, produce more heat, and get worse mileage. Don't bother making the "well, Toyota just came out with the 2ZZ a few years ago" argument either. Toyota's 4AG-E from the early 90's completely destroys the SR16VE in all of the above categories as well.

Nissan's work is good, but it still isn't enough to beat Toyota.


----------



## andre (Apr 30, 2002)

Thanks for the info ReVerm...I think I need to do a little reading on Renault's engines. Gives me an interesting thought though...if the B16 and the Megane are made on the same chassis, wouldn't an engine swap be possible then? I'm just pulling this out the air, haven't given it much thought yet...but if the Megane chassis has been made to accomadate a QR motor, couldn't a Renault motor (whatever they put in the Megane - not sure whats in there) be fitted in our B16 engine bays? As I said, just spitting that out there, gotta do some reading on what makes Renaults tick. Comments?


----------



## ReVerm (Jan 13, 2003)

andre said:


> Thanks for the info ReVerm...I think I need to do a little reading on Renault's engines. Gives me an interesting thought though...if the B16 and the Megane are made on the same chassis, wouldn't an engine swap be possible then? I'm just pulling this out the air, haven't given it much thought yet...but if the Megane chassis has been made to accomadate a QR motor, couldn't a Renault motor (whatever they put in the Megane - not sure whats in there) be fitted in our B16 engine bays? As I said, just spitting that out there, gotta do some reading on what makes Renaults tick. Comments?


Without knowing what the engine bay is going to look like in the new chassis Sentra, that's a tough call. Just from the looks of the bay of my uncle's Megane II, the QR25DE in the B15 Sentra doesn't look like it'll fit (there's enough space, but the front mount is in a different location). But apparently, the Megane is in for _another_ redesign in a year or two anyway, so I don't think I can provide any useful info about that.

I donno if you'd want any of the engines in the current Megane though. It's their large city car, so none of the engines produce much power stock. It always seems like their performance engines end up getting detuned and put into the Clio (which I still don't get). The small displacement engines they're developing for export (outside Europe) are, according to reports from late last year, going to be more performance oriented, but they haven't been introduced to the market yet.


----------



## andre (Apr 30, 2002)

I just said that because I read that the new Megane and Sentra will share the same chassis, but will be engineered so that it will fit both the Renault engine (small, as you said), and the bigger Nissan engines. I guess we'll have to wait and see what happens when the new platform debuts. But hey, maybe the Europeans will be swapping in QR25s....


----------



## Kalel (Jun 26, 2003)

i think the lineup will be like this 

Sentra 1.8 -- 135 hp, base. Sedan/Hatch.
Sentra 1.8S -- 135 hp, loaded. Sedan/Hatch.
Sentra 1.8H -- 126+hp, hybrid with MT or CVT. Sedan only.
Sentra 2.5S -- 175 hp, sedan/hatch/sporty coupe AT or MT.
Sentra SE-R -- 205+hp, sporty coupe MT only.


----------



## ReVerm (Jan 13, 2003)

Oh, I did forget to mention something. The current Megane is now offered in the "RenaultSport 225" trim, which a lot of people on this forum may like. It's basically a Megane II with larger front brakes, stiffer suspension, and a turbocharged version of their 2.0L Megane engine (which carries stock figures of ~140hp/136lbs-ft at the crank) producing 225hp and ~230lbs-ft of torque. It's a tad heavy for my tastes at a shade over 3000lbs, but it sounds like a car which could really be like what a lot of people are looking for with their turbo SERs.

That's just a side note though.


----------



## nissmax88 (May 30, 2003)

Kalel said:


> Nissan has developed a new engine to replace the QR engine. It will be named the QE, and this engine... let's just say it's an Inline-4 VQ. Needless to say that VQ is one of the best engines in the world. Also, rumors have been speculating about the Silvia revival, and Nissan is also in plans of developing a capable mid-bore stroked Inline-4 engine that is strictly designed for this Silvia, and will be a 4WD


Please don't tease
god i hope thats true
sorry to be a bit off topic


----------



## Token Moron (Mar 28, 2003)

ReVerm said:


> Even the VE is no match against the 2ZZ though. The VE engines aren't more powerful, they have a much lower price/performance value past $2000, they are less efficient, produce more heat, and get worse mileage.



the VE is no match for the 2ZZ? get ur info straight buddy.....look over the facts on the motors and u will realize that the 2zz is no match for the sr20*VE*

the VE is more powerful.

2zz= 180hp 132TQ
sr16ve n1=197hp 134TQ
sr20ve=187hp 145TQ
sr20vet(although turbo)=276hp 228TQ

lower price performance value past 2000$? ur kidding me right?

SR16VE - $1000-$1600
SR16VE N1 - $3000+ good luck finding one*
SR20VE - $1000-$2500

those prices are pretty cheap considering that its thought that only 500 of those motors were made

not to mention the powerband on the 2zz is not as good as it is on the VE's


----------



## TheVodKA (Sep 19, 2002)

over 2k investment in na mods, maybe. Over 2k investment into forced induction, especially turbo mods, hell no. Intake, Exhaust, and a blitz sc on that motor made about 50-60 whp (iirc, forgot which mag). We can tune 50-60 whp out of a ve in the FI format without too much effort, more or less putting down 3-4k.


----------



## sentra97gxe (Mar 17, 2004)

AjRaCeR805 said:


> the VE is no match for the 2ZZ? get ur info straight buddy.....look over the facts on the motors and u will realize that the 2zz is no match for the sr20*VE*
> 
> the VE is more powerful.
> 
> ...


 :cheers: I couldn't agree more. This is the point I was trying to make earlier. 

Mitch


----------



## ReVerm (Jan 13, 2003)

vodKA said:


> over 2k investment in na mods, maybe. Over 2k investment into forced induction, especially turbo mods, hell no. Intake, Exhaust, and a blitz sc on that motor made about 50-60 whp (iirc, forgot which mag). We can tune 50-60 whp out of a ve in the FI format without too much effort, more or less putting down 3-4k.


Oops. Sorry, that's _under_ $2000. And by that, I meant modifications only, discluding the price of engine (though if you compare the price of a SR20VE and an imported (190ps) 2ZZGE, they're about the same. The 2ZZ will be a few hundred cheaper).


----------



## ReVerm (Jan 13, 2003)

AjRaCeR805 said:


> the VE is no match for the 2ZZ? get ur info straight buddy.....look over the facts on the motors and u will realize that the 2zz is no match for the sr20*VE*
> 
> the VE is more powerful.
> 
> ...


The JDM 2ZZGE produces 187bhp and 135ft-lbs of torque. That's not important though. What's really important is the size of the 2ZZ's powerband. The 2ZZ, despite being badged as the peaky little oddity in Toyota's engine lineup, was actually originally built for extracting torque out of a variable cam profile system and a wide, smooth powerband. The major reason that hasn't been apparent in practice is because of the sudden dip in torque in the ~5500 rpm area. Owners of the JDM Celica tend to complain about this less, however, because they don't hit that area as often when they can feel it. The problem with the USDM Celica is that the 1st and 2nd gear ratios have been upped for better acceleration, which puts the engine right below that dip in the first two gears (this is also why the USDM Celica falls out of VVTL-i so easily in the lower gears). An ECU reprogramming can smooth this out though, and we are told that starting next year, we can expect a similar change with the new Celicas (Toyota announced that they'll be licensing the Lotus-tuned 2ZZGE in the new Elise for use in Celica GTS's in all markets. They've done some ECU reprogramming to increase the amount of low-end torque, take out the dip, and up the power to 190bhp). If you look at a dyno spread for the 2ZZ with the JDM gear ratios or with the above mentioned ECU changes, you'll see that the 2ZZ actually has a more usable powerband than the SR20VE.

Power isn't the only reason that gives the 2ZZ the edge over the SR20VE though. It has a lower center of gravity, is flatter so it can be mounted lower in the engine bay, is about 7kgs lighter (JDM 2ZZGE vs SR20VE, dry weights), and it's completely machine built (unlike the VEs, which are still partially hand built) so the total cost of the engine and replacement parts is cheaper. The 2ZZ gets better mileage too (JDM 2ZZGE powered Celica vs SR16VE powered Lucino VZ-R: ~2 mpg difference on 60km/h cruise, 3~4 mpg difference in "10/15 mode". Converted to mpg from Toyota and Nissan's original spec sheets).

That past $2000 comment was a mistake on my part. I meant to say "under $2000". And I also meant modifications only, discluding the price of the engine (I don't know why I just assumed all that to be implied). There is a significant amount you can do to the 2ZZ to extend the powerband, increase torque, and make the car produce slightly more peak power (most of the stuff currently out in Japan concentrates on smoothing out the torque curve and increasing overall power rather than increasing peak horsepower. I haven't seen much of anything for the 2ZZ that was designed with gains in peak horsepower in mind) for under $2000. With any VEs, it's hard to get those parts together for that price (especially in Japan, since no one seems to care about the VE any more). As vodKa said, once you get past the 2k mark, you can go forced induction, which the SR was built for (and does fare much better in), but it's still very tough for to keep up with a NA 2ZZ with a SR16VE or SR20VE. 240ps NA 2ZZGE powered cars (haven't seen one in a Celica chassis though), are not unheard of.

When you consider all that, the slightly higher peak output of the SR20VE starts to mean very, very little.


----------



## sentra97gxe (Mar 17, 2004)

Yeah but you are comparing older VE's to a modern motor. My point is that if nissan had those numbers then they should be doing even better numbers now. I know the 2ZZ is a very fast motor. My best friends has a 03 gts and has big plans for it. But my whole point was that looking at what nissan did with the ve motors that were little 1.6L and 2.0L you'd think if they'd make a 2.5L that it would be a lot faster. I ain't saying nissan is better than toyota or vise versa. Just saying that I expected a lot more out of the QR25 after what they got out of the sr16ve and sr20ve.

Mitch


----------



## ReVerm (Jan 13, 2003)

sentra97gxe said:


> Yeah but you are comparing older VE's to a modern motor. My point is that if nissan had those numbers then they should be doing even better numbers now. I know the 2ZZ is a very fast motor. My best friends has a 03 gts and has big plans for it. But my whole point was that looking at what nissan did with the ve motors that were little 1.6L and 2.0L you'd think if they'd make a 2.5L that it would be a lot faster. I ain't saying nissan is better than toyota or vise versa. Just saying that I expected a lot more out of the QR25 after what they got out of the sr16ve and sr20ve.
> 
> Mitch


Didn't I mention the 4A-GE before? The 20 valve 4AG is several years older than the SR16VE, and was still a match for it when it made its appearance in the Pulsar VZ-R/Lucino VZ-R. That VE vs modern motor argument does not stand.

The QR25 is a step in a completely different direction. Just by looking at it, you can tell. You can't expect that an engine would get better or faster by any means just because the displacement went up. Some like it, others think it was a mistake. I'm with the latter group.


----------



## sentra97gxe (Mar 17, 2004)

ReVerm said:


> Didn't I mention the 4A-GE before? The 20 valve 4AG is several years older than the SR16VE, and was still a match for it when it made its appearance in the Pulsar VZ-R/Lucino VZ-R. That VE vs modern motor argument does not stand.
> 
> The QR25 is a step in a completely different direction. Just by looking at it, you can tell. You can't expect that an engine would get better or faster by any means just because the displacement went up. Some like it, others think it was a mistake. I'm with the latter group.


You still aren't getting my point. The sr16ve N1 puts out more than the QR25. I think if you compare the two the sr16ve N1 was designed much better. Which is where my point comes in, why veer away from something that was working? Why didn't they keep with the ve motors? 

Mitch


----------



## ReVerm (Jan 13, 2003)

sentra97gxe said:


> You still aren't getting my point. The sr16ve N1 puts out more than the QR25. I think if you compare the two the sr16ve N1 was designed much better. Which is where my point comes in, why veer away from something that was working? Why didn't they keep with the ve motors?
> 
> Mitch


I understand your point(s. You've had like three so far). The excuses I've seen Nissan give so far include:

- Environmentally friendliness. The SR16VE, despite being a NEO motor, still produces a lot more emissions than the QR series. Rather work on making an aging engine cleaner, they figured they might as well start from scratch with something that runs leaner and cleaner.

- Low end torque is "better" than top end power. Nissan figured that more low end torque would make the car "feel" sportier and help drivability around town. Too bad they screwed it all up with that 6 speed gearbox, but that's a different story.

- Cost. The SR16VE N1 was hand built in the only Nissan factory in Japan which had the capacity to build them. The reason they limited the Pulsar VZR N1's production to 500 units (200 ver.I, 300 ver. II) was because they were insanely expensive to built. Even if they had gone with an updated SR16VE, the N1 would not have made its appearance in a mass production vehicle, especially not in the US.

- Engine lineup change. They may as well have said "Newer is better". Let's face it though. The SR series is getting old. It had a decade's worth of a good run, and it was starting to get outclassed by its competitors, which were designed better, went in a new direction with design philosophy, or both. Nissan was simply phasing out the SR. It's sad, but true.

You shouldn't really need to have to ask Nissan (or filter through old press releases cause work is so damn boring these days) to get that though. As I said before, you can really tell just by looking at the SR16VE history, and comparing it with the QR info on Nissan's sites.


----------



## sentra97gxe (Mar 17, 2004)

ReVerm said:


> I understand your point(s. You've had like three so far). The excuses I've seen Nissan give so far include:
> 
> - Environmentally friendliness. The SR16VE, despite being a NEO motor, still produces a lot more emissions than the QR series. Rather work on making an aging engine cleaner, they figured they might as well start from scratch with something that runs leaner and cleaner.
> 
> ...


True, very good points. I don't know. I just think nissan could have done a lot better. But I do understand that they are starting from scratch. Maybe the next generation of the QR(if there is one) will show nissan's true potential. This past weekend I was hoping to get to see how a 03 Spec V stands against a 03 GTS but plans didn't work at the meet I held. Actually Greg(Vector03) and my best friend Justin might still take a shot at each other at a track and see what happens when a time suits. Both have a CAI. I think the Spec V would win the off the line contest but not sure about the rest. Probably would be done to the better driver. Oh well, I'm outta here.

Mitch


----------



## nacho_nissan (Jun 12, 2003)

celicas GT-S are fast in a straight line 
i read a report where it can take a ITR on a straight...i dont think the Spec-V can hold..let us know how it goes.


----------



## sentra97gxe (Mar 17, 2004)

nacho_nissan said:


> celicas GT-S are fast in a straight line
> i read a report where it can take a ITR on a straight...i dont think the Spec-V can hold..let us know how it goes.


The gts has more hp but the Spec V has more torque. I can't remember the numbers from the conversation but it seems to equal out so basically will be very close and a drivers race. But we'll see what happens.

Mitch


----------



## nacho_nissan (Jun 12, 2003)

well i have a old sentra and a older celica GT-S, and my sentra is..alot faster. lets hope its like this on new cars


----------



## sentra97gxe (Mar 17, 2004)

nacho_nissan said:


> well i have a old sentra and a older celica GT-S, and my sentra is..alot faster. lets hope its like this on new cars


Well, we can hope but the motors are way different nowadays. The older gts's came with 2.0L and were rated at 140hp just as the sr20de but those were much more simple. Now with that addition of this new technology in valve timing and lift it really screws estimates up. As cars get faster they also get much more complicated.

Mitch


----------



## sentra97gxe (Mar 17, 2004)

Well, I got to ride along with my friend as he put his GTS(CAI) up against a local kid with a Spec V(Muffler). The Spec V killed him on bottom end but he had a little bit of an edge on top end. But it was pretty much a stock Spec V considering a muffler don't do much other than sound. So in conclusion, the Spec V is definately faster. However, it is still close enough that it can be a driver's race. So basically torque wins out in this one.

Mitch


----------



## niky (Jul 20, 2002)

Maybe the QR vs ZZ question would be better answered on the track.

I agree with most that it seems Nissan may have fumbled the ball with engine development. They've got a lot of powerful engines out now, true... but they're running closer to tolerance limits than the old engines, and are not really putting out as much HP per liter as all the tech that went into them should provide... It's a wonder that Nissan, one of the best turbo-happy engine makers out there, has decided to go almost exclusively with NA engines for its latest line-up... Whatever they do for the next generation better have a turbo or two... or three in their line-up, or I'm gonna stop believing...


----------



## nacho_nissan (Jun 12, 2003)

sentra97gxe said:


> Well, we can hope but the motors are way different nowadays. The older gts's came with 2.0L and were rated at 140hp just as the sr20de but those were much more simple. Now with that addition of this new technology in valve timing and lift it really screws estimates up. As cars get faster they also get much more complicated.
> 
> Mitch


i have a 22R-E :thumbup: 
old skool


----------



## das280zx (Jul 17, 2003)

have you ever driven a qr-powered ride? it is all about torque. you can only get so much out of a n/a engine, especially one with as huge a stroke/bore ratio as the qr. Kind of like how diesel engines can be un-impressive on paper in their hp numbers. Like the diesel jetta has like 90 hp but 150 lb-ft of torque. Anyhow, I think a turbo qr would be the perfect performance engine solution. They might want to de-stroke it a little, but a turbo would work great with a beefed up qr. Look at how impressive the dodge neon is with a big turbo four. I could care less if an engine can rev to 8000 rpms or not, just give me some good amount of torque at a reasonable rpm.


----------



## nacho_nissan (Jun 12, 2003)

das280zx said:


> have you ever driven a qr-powered ride? it is all about torque. you can only get so much out of a n/a engine, especially one with as huge a stroke/bore ratio as the qr. Kind of like how diesel engines can be un-impressive on paper in their hp numbers. Like the diesel jetta has like 90 hp but 150 lb-ft of torque. Anyhow, I think a turbo qr would be the perfect performance engine solution. They might want to de-stroke it a little, but a turbo would work great with a beefed up qr. Look at how impressive the dodge neon is with a big turbo four. I could care less if an engine can rev to 8000 rpms or not, just give me some good amount of torque at a reasonable rpm.


everyone says the QR sux with a turbo because you cant get much out of it.


----------



## das280zx (Jul 17, 2003)

nacho_nissan said:


> everyone says the QR sux with a turbo because you cant get much out of it.


That sounds like a very informed opinion!  Honestly, do you really think it would totally suck. Why? Lets wait and see what jwt does when they get a turbo kit out. And that will be for a qr that wasn't even meant to have a turbo.


----------



## niky (Jul 20, 2002)

We can just wait and see... the objections to the QR as a turbo motor are due to the open deck design... but we've all seen how Honda's open deck B16s can be turboe'd...

It all depends on development time.


----------

