# 2005 (6?) possible sentra and more



## Foof (Nov 15, 2002)

I hate the rumor mill but here's something over at freshalloy that looks pretty authentic.

http://forums.freshalloy.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB1&Number=67560689&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1

(If the URL doesn't work, check out the "tokyo motor show" pics in their "past present future" forum.

The good details are missing so don't get yer hopes high.


----------



## Foof (Nov 15, 2002)

I'm an idiot. Yep, they're authentic. Check out this URL:

http://press.nissan-global.com/TOKYO_MOTOR_SHOW_2003/EN/index.html


----------



## Spelchy (Jun 24, 1987)

fuga = sentra? man they get weird names


----------



## wwmjax (Mar 24, 2003)

man.... thats gorgeous.... looks like an infiniti g35


----------



## OmegaManEX (Oct 4, 2002)

^^^^ that is crazy cool !!! i want some


----------



## sno (Oct 4, 2002)

that looks like it'd be more of a "new maxima" rather then a new sentra.


----------



## 180SX-X (Sep 21, 2003)

talk about projector head lights, eh


----------



## andre (Apr 30, 2002)

sno said:


> *that looks like it'd be more of a "new maxima" rather then a new sentra. *


Here's a quote I got from freshalloy....
_Wow, the Fuga must be the new M. In the M35 thread there was a link to a post in the Car and Driver forums by a guy who was in one of those market research meetings for the M35, and the Fuga's features fit his description to a tee. G35-like headlights with a bit of MB CLS in them, big FX-esque grille, side profile like the Maxima and on the interior the he talked about the nice gauges and wood stretching across the dash and down the console. This is exciting_

Seems most accurate to me. There is NO WAY a sentra will look like that. 

Besides, while doing some research for my marketing class, I read an article that said there is another asian market car that represents the next sentra....I dont remember the name though.


----------



## OmegaManEX (Oct 4, 2002)

andre said:


> *Here's a quote I got from freshalloy....
> Besides, while doing some research for my marketing class, I read an article that said there is another asian market car that represents the next sentra....I dont remember the name though. *


_ 
i remember reading a rumor a while back saying that is was one of these cars. ::
Renault Megane
















Renault Cleo










dont we all love renault_


----------



## andre (Apr 30, 2002)

Yeah, I think it was the Megane. I forgot what publication it was in though....I read the whole thing, but there was no pictures (database didn't support the pics in texts).


----------



## NismoPC (Jul 28, 2002)

It's the Megane. Supposedly powered by a Renault engine also. Say good bye to true Nissan Sentra's and hello to global platforms.


----------



## fugiot (Jun 27, 2003)

Hmm, I don't know about everybody else, but this is news to me....BAD news.


----------



## andre (Apr 30, 2002)

Well.....its a little edgy and weird looking, but I wouldnt mind getting a 2 door one with a very powerful engine.  I dont know anything about Renault's powerplants though.


----------



## rios (Jun 10, 2002)

it would be good to have that fuga around twon eh? the megane replacing the sentra is gonna be weird tho.


----------



## ReVerm (Jan 13, 2003)

Though it might seem weird, Renault's taking over the development of compacts for Nissan may not be a bad thing at all. Just think of what this could all mean in terms of mechanics.

In terms of engines, you can think of it this way: Nissan really does 6 cylinder development. They always have, from the Skyline to the new VQ equipped cars. Their old 4 cylinder engines had great tuning response, but their recent 4 cylinder engines (QG/QR) are really pretty crappy. Renault does 4 cylinder development. They always have. Renault Megane/Clio/Megane Maxi rally and race cars are all over Europe, and for a damned good reason. Their new 6 cylinder cars suck (and are actually pretty dangerous). Renault could very well build us another SR style engine, something that a lot of us would no doubt appreciate.

In terms of chassis/brakes/suspension we'd get the best of both worlds. Renault would provide a safe, solid, lightweight chassis, both of them have no problem in the brakes area now, and the Megane's suspension system is, believe it or not, a step up from the Sentra's (if for no other reason, because it's lighter and sits lower).

I'd welcome the change. It may very well bring back the SE-R in its original form, a powerful, lightweight, and inexpensive sport subcompact with a lively engine, solid suspension, and near-infinite modifiability. Besides, it's already been half a decade since Renault bought most of Nissan. It's time they started doing something for us. 

_BTW, that rumor is pretty likely to be true. Nissan is killing 4-cylinder engine development by 2006 (or was it 2005?) and having Renault design a set of new engines for use across both ranges. In exchange, Renault is killing off their new diesel engine and all new 6/8 cylinder engine development and having Nissan do all of the work there. So if nothing else, we're definately getting a new engine in the next Sentra._


----------



## andre (Apr 30, 2002)

Cool...change seems to be going good.


----------



## Foof (Nov 15, 2002)

ReVerm said:


> *Though it might seem weird, Renault's taking over the development of compacts for Nissan may not be a bad thing at all. Just think of what this could all mean in terms of mechanics.
> 
> In terms of engines, you can think of it this way: Nissan really does 6 cylinder development. They always have, from the Skyline to the new VQ equipped cars. Their old 4 cylinder engines had great tuning response, but their recent 4 cylinder engines (QG/QR) are really pretty crappy. Renault does 4 cylinder development. They always have. Renault Megane/Clio/Megane Maxi rally and race cars are all over Europe, and for a damned good reason. Their new 6 cylinder cars suck (and are actually pretty dangerous). Renault could very well build us another SR style engine, something that a lot of us would no doubt appreciate.
> 
> ...


*


This reminds me of a bad joke that is quite applicable and scary. It goes like this:

Marilyn Monroe and Albert Einstein are talking at a cocktail party. It’s reported that Marilyn said to Einstein, “We should have kids. Imagine if they had my looks and your brains!” To which Einstein replied, “Imagine if they had my looks and your brains!”  *


----------



## ReVerm (Jan 13, 2003)

Haha. Rest assured though, that won't happen. The engine deal is already sealed. And the chassis will most likely be a joint effort between Nissan and Renault. Nissan's biggest selling point is its ability to adapt its merchandise to every market, and they know the gawky looks of the Megane/Clio isn't for the US market. If nothing else, the body will look entirely different.


----------



## HoloSkull (Jan 30, 2003)

i'd like to see those on the streets, but no matter what, I won't have the money for them


----------



## novascotia nx (Feb 18, 2003)

*quetions*

What about the neovvl engines are they stil in production in japan? 
As for the switch to 4 cyl Renault engines it may be good in turms of performance I mean how many races do they win with them. I just hope there as reliable. But the new styling bites ass hate that ero tooth thingy.


----------



## ReVerm (Jan 13, 2003)

*Re: quetions*



novascotia nx said:


> *As for the switch to 4 cyl Renault engines it may be good in turms of performance I mean how many races do they win with them.*


The only thing I can answer for sure (due to my lack of direct experience with these machines) is that race prep Renaults are fast. They may have had bad luck in the WRC in the Group B days, but they've certainly changed. Their rally cars can run with the best of the compacts and Super1600 types, and their touring cars own. We're talking about a manufacturer which runs its own F1 team here... and good design/workmanship/ideas trickle down.

For the obvious reasons that I don't know what these new engines are going to look like, I can't tell you how reliable or fast the ones we get will be. I can tell you this much though: The company has a pretty decent motorsports history, and if they can keep up what they have going now, we have little to worry about.


----------



## ScarCrow28 (May 14, 2002)

"Europe and Japan's next Sentra is a five-door Renault Megane compact, whose design is inspired by the controversial Vel Satis luxury sedan. Rear seats fold and track back and forth, and there's a large-screen navigation system in the concept. Does it look like a car it could sell in the U.S. to anyone but Francophiles? No? Well, you're right: we'll get a more traditional three-box Sentra on the Megane's platform. The Eurasian Sentra goes on sale in Fall '04. The North American Sentra is due in calendar year '05. "











-Motor Trend.com

Fuck! i hate hatchbacks!


Looks like i'm going to end up getting a used B15 when i'm finally in the market for a new car. Though i do like the interior shot on Nissan's site, its no sporty sentra.Its going to become a Murano-Civic whimp. (at least by looks)

I'm afraid to say it, but the sentra i loved is dead.


----------



## ScarCrow28 (May 14, 2002)

"Nissan Fuga
Don't let the name fool you. This is a first look at the 2005 Infiniti M45, which is bigger, roomier and arguably better looking than the car its replaces. Built on the new FM-L (front midship, large) rear-drive platform, it is to the G35 what the Audi A6 is to the A4. All-wheel-drive will be an option and the 4.5-liter V-8 should be standard. The Fuga demonstrated several emerging Nissan technologies, such as Vehicle Dynamics Control (VDC), a lane-keeping support system, Intelligent Brake Assist, Brake-operated Pre-crash Seatbelts, and Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC). The interior features proposals for new information technology and controls, as well as seat-integrated stereo speakers. Nissan says the next Infiniti flagship might not be a Q45 sedan replacement, and hints that the Skyline GT-R supercar that appeared as a concept in '01 could be the next flagship. And now the bad news: the GT-R won't launch until calendar year 2007. "- Motor Trend.com











and here's a new one for ya.

"Nissan Jikoo
Nissan was born 70 years ago as Datsun, a company that licensed design for the diminutive Austin 7. Two years later, it built its own design, the1935 Roadster. Jikoo pays homage to the Roadster, with its cycle fenders and a short, curvy tail that makes the car look like the old Panoz roadster. The car has a jump seat, or as Datsun called it, a Karakuri seat, and a combination of old and new design, including wooden floor boards and a navigation system using 400-year-old maps from the Edo Shogunate period. Virtually no chance of production, but it is a romantic sports car in true auto show fashion. "- Motor Trend.com











theres a few more cars, but you'll have to go to the site to check them out. On the way you can see the Subaru's next Z8 (_cough_) excuse me B9 Scrambler


----------



## Foof (Nov 15, 2002)

ScarCrow28 said:


> Fuck! i hate hatchbacks!
> 
> [snip]
> 
> ...


I like hatches, but I hate the civic-focus-murano tall roof look. I don't want car that looks like the offspring of a potato. I want sleek.

15 years from now I'll trust a renault engine provided it lives up to the reliability of a GA/SR/VQ/RB block. I'll be looking at WRX's and RSX's in two years, I guess. Nissan may have made a turnaround, but at what cost exactly?

The sentra as is forseen, is gone.


----------



## Token Moron (Mar 28, 2003)

IMO, the sentra and the Nissan name will forever change.........in a bad way. Renault, whatever! nissan has made a name for itself by making some of the best engines in the business in terms of reliability and performamce.....what do we really know about Reanault? sure some ppl know about them, but not many..... and we all know what happened to the new civic Si when they tried to "re-design" it.......stick to what works. I, like Foof has mentioned, will more than likely not be looking at a nissan/renault in 2 years......i'll still stick with the original nissans that proved themselves on the streets(SR's for me)


----------



## Token Moron (Mar 28, 2003)

hey
u guys HAVE to check this car out!!!!
http://www.renault.com/gb/produits/clio_V6.htm

its a Clio V6 with 255HP.......kinda looks like a WRX, that thing is hott, it has some pics and a vid.....the motor is in the rear i believe...its awesome.......also, notice the front of the renaults the grille and the areas.....looks very similar to nissans styling....so i thought that was kind of interesting, they have some more cars on the left, some of them were ok looking.


----------



## ReVerm (Jan 13, 2003)

That Clio V6 was an attempt to re-introduce an absolutely disastrous car that Renault came out with a few years ago. According to a recent review done by SCC, the problem that caused the first test car to crash during the demo (snap oversteer) still exists, but not to such a great extent. It looks good on paper, but the Clio V6 (both generations) is a BAD example of Renault's work.

And just because some of us don't know how Renault's products perform, that is no reason to automatically label it as a change for the worse. Renault has a fine racing heritage, one that quite easily matches Nissans (though in different fields). You also can't judge the new Sentra by the looks of the Renaults. Nissan's current fleet in Europe have the same styling cues as Renault's cars. It's a European small car "look". Nissan is not only known for many capable engines but also their adaptability to every market. Even if they do for some bizzare reason decide to use the current Megane/Clio as a base (which I highly doubt considering the new engines coming out in 05/06), they will look different when we get them.

Overall, there is no valid reason to fear the installation of a Renault drivetrain in the new Sentra.


----------



## ReVerm (Jan 13, 2003)

AjRaCeR805 said:


> *and we all know what happened to the new civic Si when they tried to "re-design" it.......*


BTW: What do you have against the new Civic Si?


----------



## ScarCrow28 (May 14, 2002)

how about its an ugly ostrich egg. And i hate the dash mounted shifter look. Oh yea, its a hatchback too.


That Clio looks cool, but it doesn't fit the Sentra nameplate. To me the Sentra should always be a 4 dr compact sport sedan.

if you want a hatchback, create a new nameplate. or at the very least, offer it as one possible model. Via Ford Focus. Just don't make the hatchback the hot rod ;my only gripe at the Focus SVT.


----------



## Token Moron (Mar 28, 2003)

ReVerm said:


> *BTW: What do you have against the new Civic Si? *


i have nothing against the Si really, other than the fact that Honda went overboard with it......its one of the ugliest cars out there, with a shifter on a dash? hmm, they made it heavier. and instead of maybe upping their performance car, they made it slower(even tho it has more torque now)


i have nothing against Renault as a manufacturer, but their styling sense is something i dont like, but hey thats just my personal opinion.....and tru, nissan will more than likely change the way the car looks for the US market because i think they know that the styling Renault currently has will not fly so well with Nissan enthusiast.........Nissan actually made something good for themselves with the new Altima, ive never seen a car sell like that ever! now everywhere i look theres an Altima. Besides most of the general US market purchasers dont care what engine it has....as long as it goes forward and reverse and it looks good. One bad thing i see with Renault making engines for the nissans is aftermarket support....HS would have to rethink their CAI's etc. JWT would have to learn how to reprogram ECU's which may be easier or harder, pretty much, the aftermarket support would have to start from the ground up all over again.


----------



## ReVerm (Jan 13, 2003)

AjRaCeR805 said:


> *hmm, they made it heavier. and instead of maybe upping their performance car, they made it slower(even tho it has more torque now)
> 
> One bad thing i see with Renault making engines for the nissans is aftermarket support....HS would have to rethink their CAI's etc. JWT would have to learn how to reprogram ECU's which may be easier or harder, pretty much, the aftermarket support would have to start from the ground up all over again. *


Haha. The Si is slower now? That thing has one of the best honda engines ever developed: the K20. It may not look like it has a lot of power, that thing has a tuning capacity FAR exceeding that of the SR20. It actually stumped Mike Kojima in terms of how he'd beat it with an SR (full thread at SR20Forum here). The Si may be a tad heavier than its predecessor, but nearly all of its weaknesses have been tuned out. Call it whatever you like, but no matter how hard we try, we are never going to catch up to it with SR powered Sentras (or QR, for that matter).

As for aftermarket support, manufacturers have to start pretty much from scratch whenever there's a major platform change. And from what I see/hear, the B15 looks like a b*tch of a platform to work on (encrypted ECU; weird, crappy suspension; FI-unfriendly long stroke engine; etc). I'm sure they'd much rather switch platforms than have to wade through all of the problems Nissan's causing them again with a "B16".


----------



## Foof (Nov 15, 2002)

ReVerm said:


> *
> 
> [Snip]
> And just because some of us don't know how Renault's products perform, that is no reason to automatically label it as a change for the worse. Renault has a fine racing heritage, one that quite easily matches Nissans (though in different fields). You also can't judge the new Sentra by the looks of the Renaults.
> ...


Reliability is something I did for Titan rockets. (I happen to be a statistician.)

I have a few valid reasons for not wanting anything designed by Renault in anything I buy, ever.

Here's one reference:

http://www.globalwarmingmedia.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/shopping/breakdown.htm

Renault isn't exactly synomomous with reliable. I don't really care about racing heritage unless it's done with parts that I buy on the "stock" publically sold car.

Gotta get some food!


----------



## Foof (Nov 15, 2002)

Just to finish my thought on the racing heritage bit, consider this. The WRX is a pretty cool car with a great racing heritage. But the one you can buy (really the two you could buy) shares almost nothing in common with its racing bretheren. The Rally WRX, when unrestricted, makes about 700 whp. (WRC rules limit it to 3 big ones.) And it's 0-60 time of 5.0 sec--it's done on gravel, not pavement. Now the WRX is a pretty reliable machine (it's no Toyota, but it isn't as dismal as a Neon) but that has little or nothing to do with any racing heritage. 

It's just good marketing fluff.


----------



## Token Moron (Mar 28, 2003)

reverm, honda took a 1.6L powered Si that had 160hp and 111TQ i believe, and now they took it to a 2.0 with 160hp and 132TQ i think, their HP stayed the same, i know that for a fact, and they made the Si heavier than its predecesor....and from my reading at clubsi.com, the new Si is a disappointement

i think Foof and I are on the same page on this subject, sure Renault might have a good racing heritage, but that doesnt mean that their "stock" cars for the public market will be all taht great. Sorry, but Nissan has a lot going for them at this point, and they still have more potential, I just think that having Renault get in the mix at this specific moment is not such a good idea.


----------



## ReVerm (Jan 13, 2003)

Foof said:


> *I have a few valid reasons for not wanting anything designed by Renault in anything I buy, ever.
> 
> Here's one reference:
> 
> http://www.globalwarmingmedia.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/shopping/breakdown.htm*


There's no Nissan Sunny in that listing. And you should know that those surveys are really poor indicators of reliability as it relates to a company's equipment. Why? They give absolutely no details. What exactly in each of those cars makes it less reliable than the competition (note, less reliable still does not mean "unreliable")? As you probably know, our beloved Nissan makes the transmissions and axles (as well as a few other parts) in those Renault compacts. The reliability concerns I hear most (from my uncle and his touring car buddies across Europe) are related to those two components. In this case, it is Nissan, not Renault's fault that their Meganes and Clios are having reliability problems. Of course, that's just one example, but I have yet to see real reliability problems specific and common to Renault cars (the kind we see with say, Mazda or GM). Now THAT would be a cause for some concern.

As for racing heritage, I'm well aware that the race prepped versions share little in common _partswise_ with the street version. HOWEVER, there is a lot carried over to the rally version with the Impreza. These are not specific part brands, but the arrangement and specifications of the parts. 

For example, where the specific output of the rally versions (I'm talking the Prodrive Gp N and Gp A8 ones, the cars the Subaru WRT uses in PWRC and WRC, respectively) far exceeds the street version, both share the same engine block (a fair amount of the bottom end, actually). They also share a fair many parts under the hood, and despite the different springs, struts, and bushings, both versions use the same (bizzare looking) suspension geometry. 

A racing heritage doesn't guarantee that the best parts are used in the street version (that isn't the point of advertising a "racing heritage"). What a racing heritage really means is that the basic design of the car is engineered solidly, and that the street cars will have an above-average base (chassis, basic engine, suspension) to work off of. For too many companies, unfortunately, the phrase really is just marketing fluff, as you said.

In all truth though, rally cars are an awful example of what racing heritage really means. Rally cars all start out as production street cars, and are modified to the restrictions of whichever class each team wants to compete in. It's rare that a rally innovation makes its way back down the line and back to the street car. The Impreza WRX STi and moreover the pre-VI Lancer Evolution are really exceptions to the rule (look at Peugeot's 206 street car. that thing barely got anything out of the company's re-joining the WRC). A better example of real "racing heritage" would be Toyota, who has had a Le Mans car for quite a while and currently runs a factory F1 team (similar can be said about Honda, but only in the engine dept now). They actually get ideas about how to go about designing chassis and suspension from their purpose-built competition cars and implement it to their production cars (ie. new Celica). The Celica's excellent handling, lightweight yet safe chassis, and reliable engine are ALL indirect products of Toyota's racing heritage.


----------



## ReVerm (Jan 13, 2003)

AjRaCeR805 said:


> *reverm, honda took a 1.6L powered Si that had 160hp and 111TQ i believe, and now they took it to a 2.0 with 160hp and 132TQ i think, their HP stayed the same, i know that for a fact, and they made the Si heavier than its predecesor....and from my reading at clubsi.com, the new Si is a disappointement
> 
> Sorry, but Nissan has a lot going for them at this point, and they still have more potential, I just think that having Renault get in the mix at this specific moment is not such a good idea. *


I know that thread I posted (the SR20 Forum one) is REALLY long, but try to find some time to read it. You'll immediately see the vast advantages the new K series has over the old B series (and over our SR20's, VE included). I'll agree with you that the new Si looks like a disappointment on paper (and in the parking lot), but as soon as people realize the potential for that machine that will change very quickly. (I'm actually hoping they don't, cause in a year or so, my 200sx is getting a turbo. It'd be kinda demoralizing to get it all together than find myself completely outclassed by the competition  ).

Nissan does have a lot going for them at the moment. However, small-displacement, 4-cylinder engine development is NOT one of them. It's no longer in Nissan's interest to produce powerful, versitile, and highly modifiable 4 cylinder engines. If you look at the QR and QG series engines closely you'll notice that it really is a step backwards rather than forwards when compared to the SRs. Renault is not going to take over all of Nissan or intrude on any of its really successful products. It's just going to concentrate on what Nissan isn't (and shouldn't be) investing a ton of money in R&D on.

If you cut Renault out of the equation for the next Sentra, there will be NO Sentra shortly down the line. I don't see that as being a very good idea either.


----------



## Foof (Nov 15, 2002)

ReVerm said:


> *There's no Nissan Sunny in that listing. And you should know that those surveys are really poor indicators of reliability as it relates to a company's equipment. Why? They give absolutely no details.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> ...



I agree the "study" I quoted sucks, but not for the reason you gave and moreover there are good studies out there that effectively leave Renault engines outta my garage.

I disagree with "What a racing heritage really means is that the basic design of the car is engineered solidly, and that the street cars will have an above-average base (chassis, basic engine, suspension) to work off of."

The focus is a wonderful counterexample here. Pick anything from NASCAR for another four(?). It is agreed that a race team can and does generate ideas that are beneficial to mass production, but it's such a small indicator of anything meaningful about a car. JD Powers says a lot more about reliability, and any number of review sites tell me more about the performance.
.


----------



## Token Moron (Mar 28, 2003)

ive not studied the KA20 engine to an extended amount, but i can tell u that stock for stock a b16 can take it in the 1/4.....

and so what if the new KA20 has more potential than the sr20? when youre talking about an sr20....which stopped production in 2000 with the SE.....youre talking 3years ago..honda has the advantage with the newer technology, and i think personally that honda built the KA20 after seeing what an sr20 can/will do. Its ok tho, no biggie. One fact i did know is that Renault was pretty good back in its time but lately it has produced shitty products.....this was verified by a friend from work today as well. And yes, nissan has been successful lately but has fallen off the top with stopping production of the sr20 and failing to produce an engine that is equally if not more capable of performance(QR25 is a disgrace) and the GQ18, lets not even mention that engine....i think the GA16 has more potential than the 1.8. Nissans only good solid platform right now is the 3.5L which is out of many ppl's income to afford. Some changes are good, and some are not, i'd really hate to see nissan go down the drain if renault fucks up........when u think nissan, u think quality/dependability, just like toyota, honda.etc when u think renault, most ppl dont know what it is, or what its capable of or not capable of....and that will scare ppl off


----------



## ReVerm (Jan 13, 2003)

Foof said:


> *The focus is a wonderful counterexample here.
> 
> Pick anything from NASCAR for another four(?). It is agreed that a race team can and does generate ideas that are beneficial to mass production, but it's such a small indicator of anything meaningful about a car. JD Powers says a lot more about reliability, and any number of review sites tell me more about the performance. *


The focus? How is the focus another counterexample? 
NASCAR (except for Goody's Dash) is an embarassment to motorsports development. I don't consider participation in recent NASCAR as qualifying as "racing heritage". They don't do any motorsports development in NASCAR, and nothing they do ever carries back to street cars (which is a GOOD thing in their case). The main problem is that the rule book prevents them from doing any meaningful development that anyone interested in sports cars will care about.

I suppose the significance of a contribution really depends on what you consider "meaningful". If you consider specs or what reviewers from edmunds notices meaningful, then no. Contributions from real race teams will mean very little (except for saftey). If you consider "meaningful" contributions to be things like chassis rigidity, weight reduction without a compromise in crash safety, or a independant suspension system that won't suffer from bump steer, those contributions will be significant.

The truth of the matter is, if you don't care about tuning or performance in any respect, JD Power ratings, Consumer Reports reviews, and Magazine write ups are a much better way to go about deciding whether a car is good/reliable/etc than listening to people like us ramble on about technical crap. If you really want something out of your car though, you will get next to nothing from those reliability ratings or performance reviews.


----------



## ReVerm (Jan 13, 2003)

AjRaCeR805 said:


> *ive not studied the KA20 engine to an extended amount, but i can tell u that stock for stock a b16 can take it in the 1/4.....*


If you consider stock numbers, a QR25 powered B15 can easily take on a SR powered nX2000 on the drag strip and the track. If you really cared about performance though, those stock figures would mean NOTHING. If you measure the potential of a piece of equipment by how it performs in one situation out of the box, you really should rethink your interest in SR powered Nissans.



> *One fact i did know is that Renault was pretty good back in its time but lately it has produced shitty products.....this was verified by a friend from work today as well. And yes, nissan has been successful lately but has fallen off the top with stopping production of the sr20 and failing to produce an engine that is equally if not more capable of performance(QR25 is a disgrace) and the GQ18, lets not even mention that engine....i think the GA16 has more potential than the 1.8. Nissans only good solid platform right now is the 3.5L which is out of many ppl's income to afford. Some changes are good, and some are not, i'd really hate to see nissan go down the drain if renault fucks up........*


Yes, Renault has come up with some awful products lately. But none of them involve the 4 cylinder engines that we're inhereting in the new Sentras. That's what we should be concerned about. If you look at it in the same regard, Nissan has come out with a lot of garbage too (new Sentra, new SE-R and the engines in both, as you said). Like I said before, what's happening is Renault and Nissan are just filling in for each other's definicies, so they can concentrate their funds on what each of them do best (Nissan with 6 cyl development, Renault with 4 cyl development). 

If you're worried that Nissan is somehow going to take a huge hit if this deal goes sour, don't. Nissan will not go down the drain if Renault by some bizzare occurance fucks up. Remember, Renault IS the majority stockholder in Nissan. Renault OWNS Nissan. Renault realizes the international value of the Nissan nameplate and will do anything to keep it.



> *when u think nissan, u think quality/dependability, just like toyota, honda.etc when u think renault, most ppl dont know what it is, or what its capable of or not capable of....and that will scare ppl off *


If you care about performance, why would you be scared off by the simplistic fears of the Consumer Guide reading majority?


----------



## Token Moron (Mar 28, 2003)

ReVerm said:


> *If you consider stock numbers, a QR25 powered B15 can easily take on a SR powered nX2000 on the drag strip and the track. If you really cared about performance though, those stock figures would mean NOTHING. If you measure the potential of a piece of equipment by how it performs in one situation out of the box, you really should rethink your interest in SR powered Nissans.*
> 
> a QR25 cant really take an sr powered vehicle by much, and look at the numbers each car puts out. and youre wrong by saying that stock numbers mean nothing as far as performance, what u start off with, is a good indication of where you'll end up. U also say that if i measure the way one car performs in a situation, i should rething my interest in an SR? most ppl on this forum or any race forum only go by 1/4 timeslips and so forth, once u get into rally and autoX those are different stories.
> 
> ...


----------



## ReVerm (Jan 13, 2003)

AjRaCeR805 said:


> *
> 
> 
> ReVerm said:
> ...


----------



## Foof (Nov 15, 2002)

I don't have the time to reply to everything here, but something that you folks ought to know is that there was no merger between Nissan and Renault. They are seperate entities. Renault does not own a majority of Nissan either. A plurality is what it has, I think at 43%.

Although management may slide between the companies now and then, Nissan is still Nissan and not managed by Renault.

There is also (as you do know) a great deal of cross licensing/shared research going on. I think I recall reading that the Megene was the first joint platform (C-segment) developed.


----------



## ReVerm (Jan 13, 2003)

Listen to Foof. He's absolutely right here. 

By "majority stockholder" I meant majority compared to the rest. Technically they do "own" the company, but they don't have 51% of the stock. There is not going to be a conflict of management. In retrospect, it does look like I suggested that, and I apolegize. Thanks for clearing that up.


----------



## Token Moron (Mar 28, 2003)

we'll see


----------



## ReVerm (Jan 13, 2003)

AjRaCeR805 said:


> *we'll see *


Exactly.


----------



## Token Moron (Mar 28, 2003)

ReVerm said:


> *Exactly.  *


im serious.....i mean chances are i wont be getting a new nissan/car anytime soon(renault has nothing to do with it) so for me any car manufacturer can do anything they want.......not till im ready to buy a car off the dealership lot is when i'll start caring


----------



## Greg200SE-R (Feb 5, 2003)

*One step back in order to take 2 steps forward*

This is an intense thread! Interesting points! 

I think Nissan/Renault followed a smart strategy in the past couple years. Lets face it, we are lucky to still have a strong Nissan presence today. Nissan did what it had to do to survive, and introducing its current engine lineup was part of that strategy. 

Nissan's got a pretty large lineup of cars/trucks, yet most if not all of them are powered by only 3 different engines - this brought a major reduction in production costs and is one of the reasons Nissan made its remarkable turnaround. "Parts bin" cars, widely shared platforms and bringing back high-profile models all help to sell more while costing less. This is good. and bad.

Nissan's current engines had to built in such a way that they would perform well in a variety of applications. For example, how would you build a single engine to try and play the role of the RB-series, the VG-series, AND a truck engine? Build it exactly like the VQ35 and tune it differently for differant apps! Similarly, the QG18 and QR25 needed to take the place of the GA, SR and KA series. 

They just aren't as application-specific anymore so rev-happy and high-potential powerplants like the RBs and SRs are no more. Hopefully just for now though...

Now that Nissan is thriving, I hope they'll have the resources and direction to fully revive the Nissan lineup of old. Hopefully we'll see the return of modern-technology equivalents of SR20s and inline-sixes again, AND economic/high performance engines similar to the QG18 and QR25. And bring back the Silvia too, damnit! 

Nissan had to dig itself out of a deep hole. They did it and reached the surface, and are currently in their transition stage. We should all hope that the coming years will bring the Nissan name back up its former glory - and cater to us performance nuts, as well as the average driver. We're doing our part to support them just be being active members of this and other Nissan forums.


----------



## ReVerm (Jan 13, 2003)

*Re: One step back in order to take 2 steps forward*



Greg200SE-R said:


> *And bring back the Silvia too, damnit! *


YEAH!


----------



## HisXLNC (Jun 17, 2002)

I didn't read all of this, but this is what I have to contribute:

The Renault Megane is a joint/venture between Renault and Nissan. It was designed from the ground up to be used by both companies. Nissan specifcally requested the engine compartment be enlarged to support the larger than 2 liter engines that Nissan would want to offer in the US market.

And here is this fuzzy picture from an unreliable source of what is supposed to be a spy shot of the next gen Sentra.








If you can't see the pic, click this link. Its at the bottom of the page.
http://thehollywoodextra.com/nissan/nissan.html


----------



## Pablo14 (Jan 18, 2003)

Well, I just want to add that no matter which design and engine Nissan and Renault choose for the new 2005 Sentra, it will be produced in Mexico, at least for North American and Latin American markets. 

Read the following information I found about Nissan Mexican's Plant, where production of the Sentra is located for this markets I mention since 2000:

http://www.tirekick.com/march00/nisplant.htm

Without knowing exactly what Nissan and Renault are going to do, the above web link explains the philosophy of Nissan behind the production of the Sentra, their plans, and why they chose Mexico.

Simple, as you can imagine: is cheaper for them to produce there.

Their workers earn the equivalent to $14 per day, you read well, per day not per hour, none of them have the money to buy the Sentra and they have a bus service paid by Nissan to arrive to the Plant, their educational level is below the standard and that means is low, Nissan does not operate the plant during one of the shifts because the electricity costs during that period are to high, and other things like that explained in the article.

The message is simple: Nissan aims to save money in a big way building the Sentra for the Americas, but at the same time what about the quality?

The same article and two Nissan executives answered.

The quality in Mexico is not at the level of the Japanese Nissan Plants..but that is their goal...

In the meantime.....the owners will pay, or may choose another model or brand.....we may add.

Thanks


----------



## andre (Apr 30, 2002)

Pablo14 said:


> The quality in Mexico is not at the level of the Japanese Nissan Plants..but that is their goal...
> 
> In the meantime.....the owners will pay, or may choose another model or brand.....we may add.
> 
> Thanks


I dont remember reading that...was that in there? I thought they said all Nissans will be very close in terms of quality regardless of where they come from.

This is what was said: _Nissan's goal is to make all of its plants virtually equal in terms of quality. "You won't know if the vehicle was produced in Mexico, Japan, or the U.S.," Mr. Yoshioka insisted. The overall quality level is "almost the same," added Emil Hassan. _


----------



## Pablo14 (Jan 18, 2003)

*Well, that depends....*



andre said:


> I dont remember reading that...was that in there? I thought they said all Nissans will be very close in terms of quality regardless of where they come from.
> 
> This is what was said: _Nissan's goal is to make all of its plants virtually equal in terms of quality. "You won't know if the vehicle was produced in Mexico, Japan, or the U.S.," Mr. Yoshioka insisted. The overall quality level is "almost the same," added Emil Hassan. _


 What you read on that article could be interpreted the way you did.

But, for those of us who own a 1993 Nissan Sentra built in Mexico, for example, is easy to understand that when this Nissan executives say "overall quality is ALMOST the same," they probably mean is not equal.

In the automotive industry, a vehicle with less quality might be even a lemon, no matter if they say the quality is almost the same.

Even if you follow their words strictly: why do you think they did not said that quality from Mexico is the same as the quality of Japanese Nissans? Why?

Because owners of Mexican built Sentras from 1992-1994, like me, will start shouting to them that is not true. The experience with the Sentras of those years confirm the fact that quality from Mexico is not up to the standards of Japanese built Nissans.

I am having some problems with my 1993 Sentra other owners do not have.

I started a thread called "A dealer and an independent mechanic can't eliminate erratic idle, please help, if you can" 

Read there for more details, on the GA16DE engine area.

Thanks.


----------



## andre (Apr 30, 2002)

You gotta understand though, that was then...since then I'm sure that they have decided they need to pull up their socks and build better cars overall...I agree that there were differences....still are, and probably always will be...I forgot what I wanted to say, so I'll stop now. :cheers:


----------



## NismoPC (Jul 28, 2002)

Pablo14 said:


> Because owners of Mexican built Sentras from 1992-1994, like me, will start shouting to them that is not true. The experience with the Sentras of those years confirm the fact that quality from Mexico is not up to the standards of Japanese built Nissans.


You do know that the '91-'94 B13 Sentra's were also made in Tennessee. Actually, I believe the majority of them came out of Tenn., not Mexico. There was no such thing as a imported Japanese Sentra for those years. There were the mexican imported and the Tenn. built only.


----------



## Pablo14 (Jan 18, 2003)

*In other markets...*



NismoPC said:


> You do know that the '91-'94 B13 Sentra's were also made in Tennessee. Actually, I believe the majority of them came out of Tenn., not Mexico. There was no such thing as a imported Japanese Sentra for those years. There were the mexican imported and the Tenn. built only.


 Is true that Smyrna, Tennessee was the other factory, but for other Latin American markets the Sentra started to come from the Mexican Plant starting with the 1993 model. For the U.S., the Tennessee plant was the choice. but as you can read in the article at this web site:

http://www.tirekick.com/march00/nisplant.htm

Nissan decided to consodilate the production for the North American and Latin American markets in Mexico's Nissan plant of Aguas Calientes starting with the 2000 Sentra model.

Other thing is that some Latin American markets like Puerto Rico were receiving some Sentras in 1993 directly from Japan. Here in Puerto Rico the 1993 Sentra four doors models came from Japan during that year, at least some of them as I was informed by some salesman in that year when my dad bought my Sentra at the main local Nissan dealer.

Thanks


----------



## Pablo14 (Jan 18, 2003)

*Hope you are right*



andre said:


> You gotta understand though, that was then...since then I'm sure that they have decided they need to pull up their socks and build better cars overall...I agree that there were differences....still are, and probably always will be...I forgot what I wanted to say, so I'll stop now. :cheers:


 I hope that what you say is true.

My sister has a 2001 Nissan Sentra GXE 1.8 lts since new also, but if you receive or subscribe online to Consumer's Reports magazine, you will see that according to their most recent survey, Consumer's Reports is 
no longer recommending the Sentra because the reliability has fallen below of what you can expect on a vehicle with average reliability.

This year Consumer's Reports survey was answered by 420,000 readers as they reported on their 2004 Buying Guide.

Honestly, by looking at my sister's 2001 Sentra I can find some things that reveal the fact that Nissan is producing cheap with the Sentra, starting with the glue used for the inside rear view mirror...lower quality but cheap.

Thanks


----------



## andre (Apr 30, 2002)

Now that you mention that...you are right. They did have to cut expenses, so quality probably went down a little.


----------



## SRV1 (Sep 29, 2002)

Lets see. Nissan is one of the companies that almost perfected the 4 stroke engine 4 cylinder engine and they are going to have Renault, the people that made imperfected 4 cylinders(not all, but most), put them in the Nissans? Its cost effective for Nissan in 2 ways. Its cheaper to have Renault make the 4 cylinder than them(parts are not as good as Nissan, so they are cheaper<--all assumption)to make their own since the have better parts and quality control, and also Renault cant make a 6 to save their ass, but Nissan can. So while Nissan is putting them in all their lineups that offer them, they can make more for the Renault. To me it seems like they are cutting corners to bring up there profit. As a mechanic, those Reanults never did last for shit. 

You will see more problems with the Renault than if Nissan made it for themselves.

James


----------



## Pablo14 (Jan 18, 2003)

I agree with you SRV1, if Nissan lets the Renault people take over the project for the new Sentra and does not have a very strict quality control over it just because they want to produce cheap and want more profit, the Sentra could become a very bad model, to the point it may have to be substitute with other model in the future.

Honestly, I don't know how you can improve quality and reliability and at the same time reduce costs and produce cheap, it is a contradiction. It might be possible if the technology is cheap, but only in some aspects.

I even took a quick look at the new Nissan Pathfinder Armada at the main local Nissan dealer here in Puerto Rico, and I saw the drive belt of the engine. Nissan used just one drive belt for the alternator, a/c, power steering, something I think is called a serpentine configuration,instead of two or three different belts, and I touched the belt and it felt cheap and weak. I am saying exactly what I saw at the dealer, the way I felt there.

I understand also that Nissan is starting a second stage of its revival plan called Nissan 180 (see the news area at Nissan Global web site), which is a three years economic plan for zero debt and growth. They did this before between '99-'00 and they said it worked, but they stopped production of vehicles in several countries, fired lots of employees, entered the partership with Renault, appointed a new CEO named Carlos Goshn (from Renault)...all you can see over the Internet.

But, at the Nissan Global web site it also says now that Nissan returned to normal taxation, or something like that, in Japan. Now they have to pay taxes as usual, if I interpreted the information correctly, so they are experiencing new problems, which are also old problems.

Anyway, is not producing cheap that Nissan will go head to head with Toyota's Corolla, is with quality.

Thanks


----------



## ReVerm (Jan 13, 2003)

SRV1 said:


> Lets see. Nissan is one of the companies that almost perfected the 4 stroke engine 4 cylinder engine and they are going to have Renault, the people that made imperfected 4 cylinders(not all, but most), put them in the Nissans?


Um. Nissan has "perfected the 4 stroke 4 cylinder engine"? LOL

Renault specializes in 4 cylinder development. Their recent products are much better engineered than the QR or QG series. Nissan has never been big on 4 cylinder designs. Their best engines have always had 6 cylinders. The RB, the VQ, the VG... That's Nissan's field of expertise.


----------



## SRV1 (Sep 29, 2002)

ReVerm said:


> Um. Nissan has "perfected the 4 stroke 4 cylinder engine"? LOL
> 
> Renault specializes in 4 cylinder development. Their recent products are much better engineered than the QR or QG series. Nissan has never been big on 4 cylinder designs. Their best engines have always had 6 cylinders. The RB, the VQ, the VG... That's Nissan's field of expertise.


Yeah I was typing quickly, but you get the point!

True, but when was the last time you heard or seen a Renault go 300k without breaking a sweat?(I am sure it has been done, but not as often I assume) The GA, SR and the CA are best motors out there. Yes I know they have been doing 6 cylinders for a long time, but I think they made more 4 cylinders than 6 cylinders, right? 

Renault may be good now, but trusting them to be good or better than Nissan is hard to chew especially with Renaults "past".

James


----------



## ReVerm (Jan 13, 2003)

SRV1 said:


> Yeah I was typing quickly, but you get the point!
> 
> True, but when was the last time you heard or seen a Renault go 300k without breaking a sweat?(I am sure it has been done, but not as often I assume) The GA, SR and the CA are best motors out there. Yes I know they have been doing 6 cylinders for a long time, but I think they made more 4 cylinders than 6 cylinders, right?
> 
> ...


Renault is a European brand, and Europeans don't put nearly as many miles on their odometer before replacing their car. Very few people have even hit 300,000 kilometers in their small cars, so when it comes to street miles, I obviously can't argue against that.

However, when it comes to track miles, Renault engines reportedly last a looooooong time. Several of my uncle's friends race Meganes (and a Megane II now), and some of them have accumulated ridiculous mileage (don't remember exact numbers. Gonna have to ask them about that). And as you know, there's nothing the average driver can do to put more stress on his engine than take it to the track.

As for numbers produced, yes. Nissan 4 cylinder engines have outsold 6 cylinder engines. But that's to be expected regardless of the company (especially if the company in question is Japanese), as long as its fleet contains a small car segment. That still doesn't say much though when you look at the engines from an engineer's perspective (Hell, I don't even claim to have an engineer's perspective (yet) and that says nothing to me).

We'll have to see what Renault comes up with though. Like I said, there's no point going too deep into this until they get closer to production and start releasing more information about the new engines.


----------



## teamshredd (Dec 23, 2003)

*Solid info from Nissan on the '05 Sentra*

Check out this link:

http://autoweek.com/search/search_d...98&Search_Type=STD&Search_ID=1647877&record=4

In a nutshell: Megane platform, current 2.5 liter engine. From the article:

"We wanted to use common engines, but first we must make the car excel in the U.S. market, so the local market wins. Then we can look at the lowest possible cost," says Patrick Pelata, Nissan's executive vice president for product development. 

As a result, the Megane design lines were changed so that Nissan could have room for its larger engine.

The C Note is the most likely candidate:


----------



## Pablo14 (Jan 18, 2003)

teamshredd said:


> Check out this link:
> 
> http://autoweek.com/search/search_d...98&Search_Type=STD&Search_ID=1647877&record=4
> 
> ...


 Excellent work. But, I found a few lines that caught my attention and I think that says a lot about the quality of current and future Nissan models:

"While durability and quality are ciritical, Pelata says Nissan needs to be cautious of "overquality." 

"Does it matter if the door handle lasts 10 years or 20?" Pelata says. "No it does not, because the person will not have the car after 10 years." 

Mr. Pelata from Nissan said "the person will not have the car after ten years".
But what if you want to have it for 15 years or more, avoiding a future purchase in this unstable economy and job market? 

For me, it does matter if the vehicle has overquality, because if it does not, it could easily mean the vehicle would be of average quality, or maybe worse than that. There are too many vehicles with excellent marketing strategies and commercials out there that are simply not reliable and have low quality.

Mr. Pelata said something that must make us think.

Nissan and Renault want to make money, but many people need their vehicles to last more than 10 years and many more miles, so Mr. Pelata talks from an executive perspective.

Mr. Pelata does not talk from the perspective of many owners and maybe that mentality is behind the lower quality of many vehicles.

Thanks for reading.


----------



## andre (Apr 30, 2002)

Thanks for that...I need to read that whole article when I get a chance. I agree with you Pablo...everything you quoted points to making money in the long run. But you gotta understand, that's the only way they will be able to keep the company alive. Remember Nissan 180....they'll have to stretch that as long as they can if they want to stay alive, and the only way to do that is to keep us buying their top selling cars....over and over again.


----------



## Pablo14 (Jan 18, 2003)

andre said:


> Thanks for that...I need to read that whole article when I get a chance. I agree with you Pablo...everything you quoted points to making money in the long run. But you gotta understand, that's the only way they will be able to keep the company alive. Remember Nissan 180....they'll have to stretch that as long as they can if they want to stay alive, and the only way to do that is to keep us buying their top selling cars....over and over again.


 Yes andre, I read the information about Nissan's economic revival plan called Nissan 180, which started back in 1999, and now Nissan says at the Nissan Global web site that they are currently on a second three years phase or Nissan 180 revival plan.

Even if from an economic perspective the executive is "correct", I still believe the company is going to be hurt with that philosophy of avoiding "overquality", and companies like Toyota would continue to be more solid in terms or reputation among owners regarding reliability or the durability of their vehicles, which means more quality.

Avoiding overquality simply means Nissan is going to use less durable materials in several areas of the vehicles, just as they are doing right now and maybe since many years ago.

Imagine if they apply that to engine, transmission, electric and electronic components, suspension, and cooling system of the vehicle...the vehicle may simply be close to be a lemon...or a disposable vehicle.

Of course, Toyota is ahead of everybody. But for the future owners, is safer to buy from Toyota than from any other company including Nissan, Honda, GM and their brands, Ford, Chrysler, BMW, Jeep, Mercedes, Mazda, Volvo and the rest.

Nissan is on a tough spot economically. But they are also building their reputation among the owners through the years. I am one of those who like to keep the vehicle for the maximum extent possible. Maybe, I should buy from Toyota......My 1993 Nissan Sentra reached 10 years of service in my hands on December 18 '03, since it was new.

I want to continue with it at least for a 1 1/2 years more, but it has intermitent erratic idle that doesn't go away even after visiting qualified mechanics and a technical college where mechanics are trained. A total of more than 12 visits to mechanics.....the mechanics simply don't know what is wrong with my 1993 Sentra..but it starts, runs, and sounds fine. It doesn't consume oil...no rebuilts yet, anywhere.

I started a thread called "A dealer and an independent mechanic can't eliminate erratic idle, please help, if you can.." on the GA16DE engine area.
It is open because the problem continues since more than a year ago.

My 1993 Nissan Sentra 1.6 lts worked with routine maintenance up to close to 140,000 miles and my car reached its 10 years of use with 166,649 miles.

It gave more than 8 years of service with routine maintenance, but specially when it reached 9 years the car started to show the erratic idle problem.

My 1993 Nissan Sentra required more than routine maintenance after less than 9 years of use, so if I consider that, is possible that the newer Sentras are around the same average. Not 10 years of use with routine maintenance, and if you drive more than 15,000 miles per year like me....well.

Anyway, Mr. Pelata from Nissan is wrong when he said the owners will not have the vehicle after 10 years. Many owners will try to keep their Nissans or any other vehicle for more than 10 years, up to 12, 15 years or more, avoiding a new vehicle purchase in this unstable economy and job market.

The other option is to buy a used vehicle. But I think many owners will agree with me: if my car is working well with routine maintenance and it has 10 years, I will continue with it for as long as possible, avoiding those new monthly payments for as long as possible.

Thanks


----------



## Pablo14 (Jan 18, 2003)

If you want more information, visit the web site: http://www.consumerreports.org/main/home.jsp?bhfv=6&bhqs=1

Consumer Reports is not recommending the Sentra, because their latest survey results indicate the Sentra's reliability has fallen below what is expected of an average vehicle.

And, visit this other web site to learn more about Nissan production of the Sentra in Mexico, where many, many Sentras are built: 

http://www.tirekick.com/march00/nisplant.htm

Nissan is producing the Sentra at a very low cost.

Thanks


----------



## NissanGirl2ooSX (Mar 15, 2004)

ScarCrow28 said:


> "Europe and Japan's next Sentra is a five-door Renault Megane compact, whose design is inspired by the controversial Vel Satis luxury sedan. Rear seats fold and track back and forth, and there's a large-screen navigation system in the concept. Does it look like a car it could sell in the U.S. to anyone but Francophiles? No? Well, you're right: we'll get a more traditional three-box Sentra on the Megane's platform. The Eurasian Sentra goes on sale in Fall '04. The North American Sentra is due in calendar year '05. "
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What the hell is that? Ehh come on they couldnt make a better design for the Sentra? =\ Looks like when I need a new car Im going to have to go with the B15 Sentra to...

This is bad.


----------



## myoung (Apr 15, 2002)

sno said:


> that looks like it'd be more of a "new maxima" rather then a new sentra.


The Maxima platform just hit dealers last year, don't expect a new design for at least a couple more years. That doesn't compute.


----------



## sethwas (Apr 30, 2002)

I like hatchbacks. Odds are the styling will be closer to the Z/murano/altima look.
The Fuga is the new Infinity M45.

Seth


----------

