Actually, we don't know that yet. The VQ in the G37 has already taken damn near 600whp on stock internals. All of the major VQ tuners are saying it can take the abuse.

 

+1 I heard that.. Pretty deng impressive

 

Stock for stock the 370z would take an Evo X.

Though it's quite misleading when they say the Z is "a lot" lighter. In 06 it gained 200lbs worth of sound deadening and misc stuff so dropping some weight still puts it heavier than the 03-05 (287hp) models. But the 08 hp gains make that up so it has improved quite a bit.

Regardless, stock an 08 Z should take an 08 Evo. The torque the VQ throws up is nothing to sneeze about and it handles it's weight a bit better IMO.

But modded there's no question the Evo would destroy the Z. The aftermarket for Z's is absurdly expensive and the band-for-buck is soul-crushingly disappointing. But stock the Z should take it.

(...owned an 03 350Z Track for 3.5 years...)

 

Assuming that N/A or all aluminum blocks are weaklings is a thing of a past. These days a lot of the engines for performance cars that are N/A and/or all aluminum are built really strong and you don't need much modification other than dropping the compression ratio to adapt a FI system to juice out more power.

Evo X isn't the holy grail of all performance cars until proven, and it has yet to prove anything. No drag monsters, no dyno queens, no lap record for official racings, no formidable tuner time attack car. Same goes for 370Z.

As for stock IX vs stock X, lap times around many tracks show they are neck to neck, which has been pretty much the same since evo IV. If you can provide a well documented data and summary that shows JDM evo IX GSR (with AYC) vs JDM evo X GSR (with AYC), or JDM evo IX RS (without AYC) vs JDM evo X RS (without AYC), and that evo X always produce quicker time around any given section with turns, then I will accept that X corners better than IX, but until then, X doesn't corner any better than IX, mostly due to the 243lbs or so, no matter how much improvement they made. It may feel more stable but that doesn't always equate to lap times.

 

Proof? I am not doubting you, but I find it very hard to believe that an NA V6 engine rated at 330 hp could take 600whp on the stock block and stock internals. Statistically, this is unheard of as NA engines make their power from high compression which is NOT boost friendly, while turbo engines make their power from low compression to allow for high boost. I've seen many a NA engine go boom trying to make big power from a custom fab'd turbo kit running enough boost to produce the power you're talking about.

I'd like to see mod lists and dyno graphs, as well as documentation that the car has made the power for sustained periods of time and not just a couple pulls on the dyno. Aside from displacement, the VQ37 isn't much different in terms of construction to the VQ35, and the VQ35 needed a built block with forged, low compression internals to make the kind of power that you're talking about so you'll have to forgive my skepticism. Again, do you have any proof of these claims?

 

What are you talking about? The X has proven itself in competition quite well in the short time that it's been out. An EVO X was the NASA TT champion this year. It also came in second place in another major venue, and AMS also won the USCC this year with their EVO X, making 480 whp on the stock block and stock internals, beating out a much more heavily modded 350 Z and an EVO 8 with more HP! You say the X doesn't handle better than a 9 and that there's no proof that it does?

There have been many tests, including tests in japan with AYC equiped 9s, that showed the X to carry more speed through the turns than the CT9A with AYC. The suspension geometry on the X is better, the chassis is a LOT better, and the AYC system is more advanced. I mean for christ's sake, you said so yourself that the lap times are neck and neck between the 9 and X, and since it's well documented that the 9 is quicker in the straights, where do you think the X is making up time on a road course?

You completely disproved your own point, you do realize that right? Anyway, no one is saying that the X is the "holy grail" of tuner cars, but you need to give credit where credit is due and actually do your research before making uninformed comments like you seem to do on a regular basis.

 

How about WRC Group N? Tsukuba Super Lap Challenge?

IX > X in straight line only if launched, from a roll (which would be most of the cases at straights in a track) there are barely any difference. Using JDM specs (so there is no AYC weight discrepancy), I'd be surprised if IX > X for 40 to 100mph run.

These 'many tests' were run by Mitsubishi right before X came out. Do you really expect them to say things like 'we didn't see any improvements but we decided to change it anyways'. As for Best Motoring videos, they pull that off on every single car whenever there is an update, even a minor face-lift tweaks. Example? DC2 vs DC5, old DC5 vs face lifted DC5, AP1 vs AP2, NA2 vs NA2 facelifted, for some Honda examples. In the videos, it will always show the older versions having understeer with very noticeable body roll.

Honestly, not many people believe or agree that handling was improved much when there was a change from VI to VII, maybe during the first couple years with all that marketing eye candies, but not after consistant testing on tracks. It went through exact same phase going from VI to VII compared to IX to X, heavier and bigger car that is stiffer by a lot, ACD for VII & S-AWC for X, GT-A (automatic) was added for VII, where as SST was added for X.

Credit should be given where they are due, but not with some superficial theory. I don't know if my arguement is any more uninformed than you going around every IX vs X discussion and say 'X handle better than IX, X looks better than IX, end of story', with the NASA TT and USCC as the only examples.

By no means I'm saying CT9A > CZ4A, but please stop going around spreading baseless claims that X is better performer than IX, because it has yet to be proven, and it may never be proven at all, just like CP9A vs CT9A.

 

Wrong thread -_-

 

What are you even talking about here? Improvements to what? Changed what? The fact is that the X gained 250+lbs and 10 hp, do the math. The 9 is faster in the straights, the X handles better in the turns. Despite your unfounded claims, there is much data on this. Accept it and move on.

It is pretty undisputed actually that the X handles better than the 9. Whether some people prefer the "feel" of the CT9A to the X, the overall handling capability is just flat out better in the X. It has a stiffer chassis, wider track, better suspension geometry that tracks better and doesn't bump steer like the CT9A, and the improvements materialize on the track. It flat out pulls more Gs on the skidpad, it is more neutral on corner entry and faster on corner exit. There are more than enough comparison tests, like the one done by robispec, that show this to be true.

The NASA TT and USCC are not the only examples of the X proving it's worth, and those should be no less exemplary of the X's performance than any other venue. To expand on the above mentioned example, robispec took one of their track prepped 8s with a lot more suspension work AND more hp, and ran it against their X with nothing but a catback and coilovers and the X beat it by a considerable amount.

There was another test by JUN in japan where they tested their prepped 9 against their much less modded X (still in early development) and they provided data that the X AVERAGED 5-7 mph faster through the turns than the 9 did. I never said that the X was flat out better in all aspects, as I've said many times in many other threads that the 9 is a better platform for drag racing, but the X is a better platform for road racing.

In any case, I have provided facts and examples and you have provided nothing more than comments about wanting to see it win the Tsukuba super lab battle before you'll accept that it handles better, which is not a quantifyable test and no more or less worthy than the results from NASA or the USCC. If you don't want to like the X or give it credit than so be it, but the bottom line is this:

You can't dismiss the facts because they don't meet your absurd criteria for proof, and if you're going to dispute facts that someone else has provided then bring some of your own rather than vagueries and opinion based comments.

What baseless claims have I made? I'm afraid you are the only one making baseless claims. In any case, don't turn this into a X vs IX thread. If you want to continue this discussion then do it in the X vs IX sticky thread and I'll join you in there.

 

Nothing wrong with comparing. However, comparing a two-door RWD n/a V-6 sports coupe to a four-door AWD turbo I-4 sports sedan is comparing apples to oranges. Their commonalities are few: both are cars, both have four tires, both have a windshield, both come from Japan, ...

 

Not to fuel this any more, but there are mods that change all of this. I have a lot of confidence in the new rear diff, and there are some key suspension mods that the ct9a needs to fix it's geometry. The X's geometry is already near perfect, and just needs minor changes to make it handle even better. Once you fix the major stuff in the ct9a it gets pretty close to what the X does. Once that's taken care of, you can start throwing on all the coilovers, bars, etc etc. In the end they end up handling similarly. https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/sh...d.php?t=385566

Way off topic, sorry -_-
My $.02, with a tune, X will rock the 370z. I did hear the 3.7's strong enough to handle major power, but it still needs a lot of work to get up to that level of power

 

^I agree with most of what you said. The suspension geometry can definitely be improved in the 9, and you are right that once heavy mods come into play, things even out a lot. However, the X will always have a slight edge in the handling department because of the chassis and wider track, but the 9 will always have the edge in straightline speed because of the weight and gearing. Two very similar, yet very different cars.

 

The 370Z looks like the lovechild of a 350Z and a VW Beetle. No matter how fast it is you will always be driving a bubble shaped car with fangs.

 

Your skepticism is very understood.

It's true that the VQ35DE wasn't exactly the most boost-friendly block around, only being able to take mid 400's safely before needing a build.

With the release of the HR block, things changed. The block had all kinds of upgrades, inluding better rods, pistons, and extra bracing on the block. VQ tuners noted at the time that it looked like the block was almost specifically built for boost (besides of course the high compression). The VQ35HR's were taking low to mid 500's with no issues on the stock internals. Granted, not many boosted HR's are running around due to the asinine price of the turbo kits, but the ones that are boosted have been running fine for many many moons.

I remember one stock block G37 build that was getting up near 600whp. I'll see if I can dig it up. I'm sure there's a few more, but I'm not too familiar with any of the G forums (I hang around my350Z.com).

 

The Z will smoke the evo