Actually, last year Ford spent 2.2 billion in advertising, compared to Nissans 1.1 billion, and Hondas 1 billion, and alot more of those two budgets were spent overseas than Fords. Ford has also increased their advertising budget by 20% this year, so using that logic, the Mach 1 should have come in first. And as far as BMW loving car mags go, they only spent 562 million worldwide, so go figure

 

mag articles are a nice benchmark, but its not gods truth. I would personally expect to beat some S2000s and lose to others. lets not forget that the car was ranked on other things than performance, which is what most of us are argueing. the Z has a rather plush interior compared to the S2000, nicer stereo(they tested the touring model I think) and more trunk space. it also have a better feel for driving with the torque, the S2000 has torque where it needs it to win a race, but not down low for driving.

In a way I guess the S2000 is more of a sports car, while the Z is a mix(the Zs always a mix of everything) all in what your willing to give up to get. for a magazine with 90% of its readers never seeing a track, I think the Z is what they are looking for.

 

I don't get this, you guys are supposed to be "Z enthusiasts"? The Z won a comparo and you guys are acting like you're unhappy about it, like the Z didn't deserve it. The s2000 crowd is making lame excuses since they didn't get top honors, if they did they'd be jumping up and down and rubbing it in our faces. I mean c'mon, they're complaining about a 44lb. hardtop with which the s2000 still has a weight advantage compared to the Z and others. Also, was the Z broken in?

 

The F20C is infamous for the cyl 4 failure:

http://search.s2ki.com/cgi-bin/htsea...s=no+4+failure

And any engine that gains as much HP as the F20C does after break in has a problem.

 

That may be true krinkov (I haven't seen those figures, but I trust you). But also consider that Nissan is really pushing the Z since it's the spearhead of their entire "revival" marketing campaign right now, whereas Ford seems to be spending very little on the Mustang in particular. So by spotlighting the Z, they make everyone happy.

As far as TV, it seems to me most of Ford's sales and advertizing go to trucks, the silly T-birds, practical Foci, and the Jaguars. And when has Honda ever spent big money on the S2000? If they did, I sure didn't notice. It seems to be more of a word-of-mouth thing. They know they don't need to bother to sell the car to the masses, as it's potential customers find out about it automatically. You don't have to advertize sugar.

Nissan doesn't need to advertize the Z either, for it to be a hit. But they're mainly using it to sell the Nissan brand, hence the enourmous logo on the front.

And don't get me wrong; I do think the Z deserves to "win." Or else I wouldn't have bought one!!! BUT, C&D would have gladly sold out under any scenario that would see the Z lose if it would work to their financial advantage. If you want to trust a mag, trust Consumer Reports.

 

Go Z~ Go Z~ GO GO GO~~

 

Look here for more info on the car industry, NADA.org . As for the magazines, I wasnt trying to say that they were at all impartial, quite the contrary, blatant bribery aside I feel their bias has more to do with the monkey-see monkey-do bandwagon that car journalist feel they have to be a part of. Just as back in the sixties, when "made in Japan" was synonomous with inferior, car critics lambasted the Datsun roadster for the high crime of not be a british roadster. I dont know where the money comes into play, but I think the bigger bias is that of peer pressure

 

I like apples better than oranges. Now if F&D (Fruit & Veggie Mag) does a comparison that finds apples are better, should I really care?

 

hmm, Judging by the fact that this is your first post on the board and youve mistakenly entered the word "question" as your name, I can assume your a troll, no prob. Anyhow sorry to tell ya, but the 350Z in the article beat the s2000 on a road course, so you better go back to the drawing board for that one. And where exactly is that youve "seen" 350Zs race S2000s so often to form the learned opinion that the S2K is a better car on the track than the 350? As far as break in, the 350Z in the article wasnt either. As for the S2K being better at braking and handling, lets look at some numbers from a DIFFERENT magazine shall we?
Road&Track----Braking------Slalom
S2K------------123 feet----65.9mph
350Z-----------119 feet----65.6mph

So much for that theory. Any more excuses???

 

I would like to point out that I have no problem at all with the Z winning and am not trying to make any lame excuses. The problem I have is with the mustang in second place.

I have read a lot of reviews of the mustang and they always seem lukewarm. Such as the mustang is a good car considering its old underpinnings, and it offers a big engine for the price but not a lot of refinment.

I also would like to see the final score for example was it like Z 95 points, S2000 85 points, or was it like Z 95 points, S2000 92 points.

Next I look at the specific catigory points. I care more about the engine, transmission, handling, brakes, fun to drive catigories than about the trunk room, style, amenities, etc. I don't need C&D to score the style for me.

 

IMO, the Z is an overall better car than an S2K. Am I going to trade my s2000. (No!) The fact remains that the Z is an awesome value and an awesome car. I just would have like to seen how close lap times would be on two properly broken in models. Actually, I really would have liked them to test the track version of the Z and the Mustang Cobra as well.(Instead of the touring model and the Mach 1) I think that would have been more of an interesting comparison. I think it is the stupid stuff that mags do that bothers enthusiast. For instance, why test a Touring Z and then complain about the brakes fading at the track. (That's stupid) Someone who is really serious about tracking will either get the track version or upgrade to the more fade resitant Brembos. Why test a hardtop s2k and then complain about the price. Adding an unecessary 3 grand to any car is going to throw off the value equation.What is really interesting is how will the 350Z perform in B-stock since the s2k pretty much dominates that class right now. Should be fun for you autocross guys.

 

My comment about the hardtop isn't about the added 44lbs, which is nothing, but the fact that they added optional equipment then turned around and complained about the higher price.

Its like if they added a $4K Nismo body kit to the 350Z then said the car is too much money. Doh!?!?

 

This was the most interesting news I've read in quite some time. Sounds horribly similar to our M3 friends with their oil-starved main bearings. Over 100 blown engines and counting...

 

Just wanted to say how refreshing this thread had been with none of the name calling and crying of the previous S vs Z threads. Just good old fashon coffee talk.

 

All hair splitting aside, Im sure that if a 350Z and an S2000 got on a track together it would come down to the driver, the cars are just a dead heat, but where in the hell do they get off putting a Mach1 in a compario with a S2000? or an Audi TT for that matter, it almost seems like the test was fabricated around comparing other cars to the Z and not with each other.

 

Argumentum ad hominem, I believe...

 

Since this hasn't been pointed out: The name of the comparison is $35,000 Sports Coupes. That is why they put on the hard top. Yes I understand it was designed as a roadster, but they are keeping things straight by having the hardtop on.

 

Jeremy,

Good to see that you are a walking book of facts and numbers.
These trolls bouncing around shooting off stuff they have nothing to back up.