Nissan Juke - Sounds rorty

RandomAccess

If the Nissan Juke really sounds like this on boost I'll buy one!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EX5rwqgIcAo

kasper

dont forget the matching foot wear

RandomAccess

kasper wrote: »

dont forget the matching foot wear

I'll just walk out of the local bowling alley with them on.

jaffa20

RandomAccess wrote: »

If the Nissan Juke really sounds like this on boost I'll buy one!

Even if it makes you want to puke and looks like a micra on steroids?

Bodhan

Professional exaggeration sells cars in the US, I bet they don't do anything like that here, we'll get diesel that will sound like a tractor.

Grimreaper666

It's only a mutant Micra tbh............

bmw535d

they clearly just edited the sound of a skyline and dubbed it in. pathetic. but i guess it would fool some Americans....

Grimreaper666

bmw535d wrote: »

they clearly just edited the sound of a skyline and dubbed it in. pathetic. but i guess it would fool some Americans....

And a few Irish too by the looks of it................I suppose when those s**te electric cars get a foothold here we'll be able to download the car sound of our choice from itunes and play it over some kind of public address system that the cars will be fitted with by then........God help us all!!:rolleyes:

Vertakill

I'm loving this 'I want/have to hate it attitude' from everyone here.

If it's not one thing, it's another.
I'd laugh if it did actually sound something like that on boost and then see what the haters have to say.

It's a funny advert, the car isn't trying to take itself very seriously... people just need to lighten up a bit because you're going to be seeing a lot of them on the road.

Matt Simis

The engine is the Nissan Renault co-developed MR16DDT:

MR16DDT
Nissan MR16DDT engine in a Nissan Juke.

The MR16DDT is a 1.6 L (1618 cc) DIG-T (Direct Injection Gasoline Turbo-charged) engine, bore is 79.7 mm (3.14 in) and stroke is 81.1 mm (3.19 in). It was first introduced in the Nissan Juke small SUV in the autumn of 2010. Output is 188 hp (140 kW) and 240 N·m (180 ft·lbf).

Some of the pertinent features of the MR16DDT are:

* Sodium filled valves
* Nano finished camshafts
* Beehive valve springs
* Twin variable valve timing control
* Turbo-charged
* Improved fuel efficiency and CO2 emissions
* Light weight design and reduced frictions

0-60 in 6.8seconds.


But, I would find it hard to believe a 4pot 1.6l sounds anything like that..

bmw535d

not very impressive, i mean thats 3 bhp more than honda could get out of a 1.6 over 10 years ago with out a TURBO. Would need to have at least 200bhp to give it any credit these days.

and it would sound nothing like that 6cyl in the add.

How much torque did that Honda have, 150 Nm vs 240 on this one. "Probably" a slightly different power delivery on them.

Actually this is the honda specs:

Maximum torque 180.0 Nm (133 ft·lb) (18.4 kgm)
@ 7000 rpm

Rather peaky compared to Nissan that probably produces that 240 Nm at very wide rev range, bit like all the recent petrol turbo engines that are very much torque limited from what they could really do at peak.

bmw535d

samih wrote: »

How much torque did that Honda have, 150 Nm vs 240 on this one. "Probably" a slightly different power delivery on them.

Actually this is the honda specs:

Maximum torque 180.0 Nm (133 ft·lb) (18.4 kgm)
@ 7000 rpm

Rather peaky compared to Nissan that probably produces that 240 Nm at very wide rev range, bit like all the recent petrol turbo engines that are very much torque limited from what they could really do at peak.

BUT the nissan has a fricken TURBO, big difference. this car is crying for a remap. for example the vxr corsa 1.6 turbo has 189bhp, and that was 4 year ago. a decade in car technology these days. The engine in this nissan is piss poor for a car to be released in 2011. unless it can do 40mpg of course.

EPM

bmw535d wrote: »

BUT the nissan has a fricken TURBO, big difference. this car is crying for a remap. for example the vxr corsa 1.6 turbo has 189bhp, and that was 4 year ago. a decade in car technology these days. The engine in this nissan is piss poor for a car to be released in 2011. unless it can do 40mpg of course.

But it's a jumped up Micra ffs. That's more than enough power. I'm sure they could have extracted more from it but there's a balance between power and emissions/fuel consumption/insurance groupings etc that manufacturers have to keep an eye on when introducing a new model

Matt Simis

EPM wrote: »

But it's a jumped up Micra ffs. That's more than enough power. I'm sure they could have extracted more from it but there's a balance between power and emissions/fuel consumption/insurance groupings etc that manufacturers have to keep an eye on when introducing a new model

Yeah, kinda confused why BMW535d is comparing it to VXRs and Intrega VTECs (I think, not sure the exact engine are you comparing to).. this is sporty alternative to a Micra.

Leonard Hofstadter

The big difference between a turbocharged engine and a NA engine developing a similar power output is that a highly stung NA engine(especially small displacement engines and a 1.6 is small displacement) will have very limited torque at low to medium revs and also the NA engine will develop its power at 7,000 + rpm.

A turbocharged engine will develop considerably more torque, and will be closer to a much larger NA engine and crucially will develop its power much earlier down the rev range.

Enthusiasts of NA engines will argue that NA sound better(because of no turbo), and are just 'right' for certain types of car with pedigree like a super car or M car etc, they rev better and they have a higher rev limit which makes them great fun when you're in the mood for it. They can be less complex(with no turbo) and therefore are more reliable as have a more instant response, as Jeremy Clarkson says a good NA engine has an 'electric' response when you press the throttle. The biggest advantage of NA engines is that there is no lag of any description. If you're an admirer of engineering it is much harder to make a NA engine develop 100 + bhp per litre whereas a turbo can develop 200+ without too much difficulty. It is much more of an engineering achievement to make a NA engine properly powerful. Compared to the turbo engines that are replacing NA in a lot of cars, the turbo engines are far more complex and therefore may not actually be cheaper to run when you take into account the potential for problems, and worst of all with the premium makes, they are using turbo four cylinder engines to replace NA six cylinder engines. I don't like that at all, more cylinders are part of what makes a premium car a premium car.

A turbocharged engine needs far fewer revs so is much more economical under low loads in the real world because they can be geared much higher and will still provide a good response. Oh course NA enthusiasts argue that that is no fun and they have a point because there is a thrill to be had from revving the nuts of an engine. I know people argue that turbos suffer from lag but a good turbo doesn't, I mean VW and BMW have turbo petrols that deliver peak torque from only 1200 rpm.

The big advantage of a turbo engine is that the power is much more accessable, you don't have to rev the nuts of an engine to get it to go somewhere, and while I enjoy thrashing a petrol engine as much as the next person when I'm in the mood for it, when you're on a motorway or doing very ordinary driving and not in the mood for flooring the car then turbos have a big advantage. Lag is a problem and of course turbo engines are much more complex and can cause serious trouble when not looked after properly, like giving them sufficient time to cool down after enthusiastic driving. Turbo engines weigh less than a similarly powerful NA engine, which makes them especially useful in FWD cars or cars where handling is a priority.

Ultimately it doesn't matter what any of us think, because turbos are so much more fuel efficient than highly stung NA engines, the days of 1.6 VTEC Hondas with 180 bhp are well and truly over, a turbo 1.6 petrol can give all the power of VTEC but with much superior fuel economy and to be fair most of the drawbacks of turbo engines have been overcome, the best have a high rev limit for when you're in the mood for enthusiastic driving and lots of torque low down when you're in the mood for more relaxing progree, and that is why turbocharging is so popular in modern petrol engines.

Of course NA enthusiasts will argue tha a 190 bhp NA 2.5 can provide the same torque as a 200 bhp 2.0 turbo all the nicer driving characteristics an NA engine has but the NA is much less fuel efficient, I mean a 2.5 will be a 6 cyl for starters and the 2.0 will be 4 cyls. In an ideal world I would take the larger displacement NA engine because it will have a longer life due to it being less stressed out and becasue 6 cyls are much sweeter sounding engines but in a land of CO2 based taxation the larger displacement NA engine looks positively dinosaurish these days.

Certain types of car probably should not have turbos, but for a lot of cars it is ideal provided the turbos aren't too big and overly stressing out the engine, I don't think a 180 bhp VAG 1.4 petrol will last terribly long for instance.

Truth is I would rather a large displacement NA over a turbo engine with a lower displacement, especially if the larger engine has more cylinders.

Bodhan

If this was a quiz show Captainspeed would have gotten first prize for the best answer!

TT

Matt Simis wrote: »

The engine is the Nissan Renault co-developed MR16DDT:


0-60 in 6.8seconds.


But, I would find it hard to believe a 4pot 1.6l sounds anything like that..

Stats say 8.3s for the fwd and 9.5s for the awd?

Matt Simis

TT wrote: »

Stats say 8.3s for the fwd and 9.5s for the awd?

Maybe WikiPedia is wrong or your stats are for the non-Turbo:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Juke#Performance

Performance
[edit] Braking performance

60–0 mph (97 km/h): 124ft (38m)
[edit] Acceleration

(With MR16DDT engine only)

* 0–60 mph (97 km/h): 6.8 s
* 1/4 mile (~400 m): 15.2 s at 91.9 mph
* Top speed: drag limited 125 mph[9][10]

[edit] Fuel economy

(With MR16DDT engine)

* Xtronic CVT: 27/32 mpg
* Manual transmission: 24/31 mpg (U.S. gallon)[11]

RandomAccess

Grimreaper666 wrote: »

And a few Irish too by the looks of it................

I forgot my sarcasm tags :rolleyes:

Leonard Hofstadter

Bodhan wrote: »

If this was a quiz show Captainspeed would have gotten first prize for the best answer!

It was good wasn't it:D?

peasant

Sounds like a mixture of a hairdyer and a motorbike to me ..the bits you can actually hear underneath the ride of the valkyrie

Btw ..if anything a turbo makes an engine quieter as it effectively brakes up the exhaust flow and muffles the noise of the individual detonations.
Ok ..you might get some turbo whistle, but usually that sounds more pathetic than dramatic ...like this one

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qn_XMJ8KGKw

Chippy01

Obnoxious parking candidate at 38 seconds into the vid?