350Z places 8th out of 9 Sport Cars tested in Road and Track March 2005 Article.
01-30-2005, 09:55 PM
#61
Banned
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Smackahoe Blvd
Posts: 13,063
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They should have let me pilot the Z. I never got beat by an S2000 at Button even when the 2004 OTC winner showed up. Then again, my Z did fall apart in 18 months!!
The 2005 Boxster is simply a stunning car though.
The 2005 Boxster is simply a stunning car though.
01-31-2005, 05:12 AM
#62
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Allen, TX
Posts: 3,407
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by pacificwindsurf
Wow, I'm amazed that the Corvette did that good. I guess I underestimate it.
Wow, I'm amazed that the Corvette did that good. I guess I underestimate it.
01-31-2005, 07:30 AM
#63
Vendor - Former Vendor
iTrader: (16)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: so cali 909-951-626
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
what does nissan have to prove with it's 350z?
The Z was never intended to compete against, let alone be compared to most of the cars on that list. THe S2K is a purpose built track car, hard to compete agianst that. Viper, vette? come on now, what the hell? Anyone who cares about this test in the least is a fool. This doesn't prove a darn thing.
Just like that test about a year ago, where they put all those high end sports cars agains an EVO 8, and the evo didn't place highly. It was going up against ferrari, lambo, vette, etc....
A test like that is foolish, stupid, and doesn't prove anything. Having an experienced driver doesn't make any test more valid than the next, logically speaking.
What does nissan have to do? Absolutely nothing. And rightly so.
The Z was never intended to compete against, let alone be compared to most of the cars on that list. THe S2K is a purpose built track car, hard to compete agianst that. Viper, vette? come on now, what the hell? Anyone who cares about this test in the least is a fool. This doesn't prove a darn thing.
Just like that test about a year ago, where they put all those high end sports cars agains an EVO 8, and the evo didn't place highly. It was going up against ferrari, lambo, vette, etc....
A test like that is foolish, stupid, and doesn't prove anything. Having an experienced driver doesn't make any test more valid than the next, logically speaking.
What does nissan have to do? Absolutely nothing. And rightly so.
01-31-2005, 08:15 AM
#65
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I was looking at the Z I test drove quite a few cars on that list and with exception of the Corvette and the Viper, I would pick the Z every time. If my wife hadn't ruled out the vette and the viper (she thought they looked too meathead) I would have bought one of them. With those 2 eliminated it was a pretty easy choice.
The things that really sold me on the Z were the size (I am 6'4" and not quite at my "fighting weight"), the looks (I really think it is a classic) and the ablity to easily modify it and get even better performance.
When I compared the Z I thought of it as it would be with wider rubber, aftermarket exhaust and intake at a minimum. In this case it does even better on this test. Modify the porshe, BMW or merceded even slightly would be very expensive and you would be a pioneer. I pulled a groin muscle just trying to wedge my fat azz into the s2000, the boxter isn't much bigger.
The things that really sold me on the Z were the size (I am 6'4" and not quite at my "fighting weight"), the looks (I really think it is a classic) and the ablity to easily modify it and get even better performance.
When I compared the Z I thought of it as it would be with wider rubber, aftermarket exhaust and intake at a minimum. In this case it does even better on this test. Modify the porshe, BMW or merceded even slightly would be very expensive and you would be a pioneer. I pulled a groin muscle just trying to wedge my fat azz into the s2000, the boxter isn't much bigger.
01-31-2005, 12:41 PM
#67
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 4,052
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not going to take time to read this entire thread. Thing I noted first was, aside from the S2000, the competition is all much more expensive than the Z. Forego the 35th anniv option and the Z is comparably priced to the S2000 and I would label that car as the only fair competition for the Z.
I agree with what was said earlier. Take the savings on either the S2000 or the Z, add that much in performance mods, and there will be very few cars off that list that could hang with either of them.
A better comparison would be to match the Z against its so-called peers in class AND price. But then, we've already seen how it does against those... I guess they had to kick it up to the next class because it was kicking everyone's butt at the track in the $30K or so range (except the aforementioned S2000 with which it is pretty equal).
I agree with what was said earlier. Take the savings on either the S2000 or the Z, add that much in performance mods, and there will be very few cars off that list that could hang with either of them.
A better comparison would be to match the Z against its so-called peers in class AND price. But then, we've already seen how it does against those... I guess they had to kick it up to the next class because it was kicking everyone's butt at the track in the $30K or so range (except the aforementioned S2000 with which it is pretty equal).
01-31-2005, 01:26 PM
#68
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: burleson, tx
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I read the article and it appears to me that the car they tested was not tuned correctly and the suspension was on the soft side.
Has anyone noticed that the Z "leans noticeably and the steering feels slow"? 0-60 was 5.6 and the 1/4 times were 14.1 @ 101.8.
Has anyone noticed that the Z "leans noticeably and the steering feels slow"? 0-60 was 5.6 and the 1/4 times were 14.1 @ 101.8.
01-31-2005, 02:39 PM
#69
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 176
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nissan should stop producing that useless staggered setup and go for 245 all around instead.
the Z stock is ballanced like CRAP, a 0.89G lateral, that's pure CRAPINESS. Korean sedans do better than that.
just with 245 tires in the front I bet it would have placed much better. And outpaced the S2000.
the Z stock is ballanced like CRAP, a 0.89G lateral, that's pure CRAPINESS. Korean sedans do better than that.
just with 245 tires in the front I bet it would have placed much better. And outpaced the S2000.
Last edited by Tex Willer; 01-31-2005 at 02:43 PM.
02-02-2005, 06:09 PM
#71
Guest
Posts: n/a
ok i got mine in the mail today
i have to say reading the article and getting context actually makes the Z sound worse in my opinion i figured the article would explain the #'s it only added insult to injury.
did it almost seem as if they liked the other 287hp model better?
i have to say if it wasnt for my other ride DESTROYING the competition and making me proud! i would have to say Road and Track!
they were right about one thing you can make make the rear end of the C6 kick out way too easy.
they said something like the Z is no longer for the hardcore enthusiast
according to them a track model does 5.8 0-60 YEAH RIGHT!
being beat by a porsche viper and C6 is fine by me but the others are unacceptable. im on the fence about the elise it seems to be the wildcard. this car almost seems like it doesnt fit with the others but the #'s cant be ignored. i would love to see one of these close up
this has been talked into the ground but i had to take one more stab at it.
i have to say reading the article and getting context actually makes the Z sound worse in my opinion i figured the article would explain the #'s it only added insult to injury.
did it almost seem as if they liked the other 287hp model better?
i have to say if it wasnt for my other ride DESTROYING the competition and making me proud! i would have to say Road and Track!
they were right about one thing you can make make the rear end of the C6 kick out way too easy. they said something like the Z is no longer for the hardcore enthusiast
according to them a track model does 5.8 0-60 YEAH RIGHT!
being beat by a porsche viper and C6 is fine by me but the others are unacceptable. im on the fence about the elise it seems to be the wildcard. this car almost seems like it doesnt fit with the others but the #'s cant be ignored. i would love to see one of these close up
this has been talked into the ground but i had to take one more stab at it.
Last edited by **; 02-02-2005 at 06:13 PM.
02-02-2005, 07:16 PM
#72
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I saw an Elise at the grocery story the other day and damn that car is a looker. Obviously that tells me nothing about performance, but its a head turner and has very unique styling. I swear it can't be much taller than my waist and I'm only 6'1".
02-02-2005, 07:24 PM
#73
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Dayton OH
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by aggie300zx
I saw an Elise at the grocery story the other day and damn that car is a looker. Obviously that tells me nothing about performance, but its a head turner and has very unique styling. I swear it can't be much taller than my waist and I'm only 6'1".
I saw an Elise at the grocery story the other day and damn that car is a looker. Obviously that tells me nothing about performance, but its a head turner and has very unique styling. I swear it can't be much taller than my waist and I'm only 6'1".
02-02-2005, 10:22 PM
#74
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. Chevy Corvette ($53,545)
2. Porsche Boxster ($67,520)
3. Porsche Carrera S ($91,560)
4. Lotus Elise ($44,460)
5. Honda S2000 ($33,465)
6. Dodge Viper SRT-10 ($84,495)
7. BMW Z4 3.0i ($48,620)
8. Nissan 350Z 35th Anniv. ($38,640)
9. MB SLK350 ($50,150)
I don't agree with those rankings....first of all, we are ranking SPORTS CARS here right?? they really shouldn't factor in price....as money is valued differently to different people.
for some people an extra $50K is nothing.......
this is my ranking.
1. Porsche Carrera S ($91,560)
2. Dodge Viper SRT-10 ($84,495)
3. Chevy Corvette ($53,545)
4. Lotus Elise ($44,460)
5. Porsche Boxster ($67,520)
6. Honda S2000 ($33,465)
7. Nissan 350Z 35th Anniv. ($38,640)
8. MB SLK350 ($50,150)
9. BMW Z4 3.0i ($48,620)
2. Porsche Boxster ($67,520)
3. Porsche Carrera S ($91,560)
4. Lotus Elise ($44,460)
5. Honda S2000 ($33,465)
6. Dodge Viper SRT-10 ($84,495)
7. BMW Z4 3.0i ($48,620)
8. Nissan 350Z 35th Anniv. ($38,640)
9. MB SLK350 ($50,150)
I don't agree with those rankings....first of all, we are ranking SPORTS CARS here right?? they really shouldn't factor in price....as money is valued differently to different people.
for some people an extra $50K is nothing.......
this is my ranking.
1. Porsche Carrera S ($91,560)
2. Dodge Viper SRT-10 ($84,495)
3. Chevy Corvette ($53,545)
4. Lotus Elise ($44,460)
5. Porsche Boxster ($67,520)
6. Honda S2000 ($33,465)
7. Nissan 350Z 35th Anniv. ($38,640)
8. MB SLK350 ($50,150)
9. BMW Z4 3.0i ($48,620)
Last edited by hpark; 02-02-2005 at 10:25 PM.
02-02-2005, 10:50 PM
#75
Guest
Posts: n/a
i say
C6
Carrera
Viper
Boxster
Z
Elise
S2000
Slk350
Z4
I wonder where the new mustang GT would have placed?
i know the refinement and material quality would have killed it but strictly performance wise it would be interesting
C6
Carrera
Viper
Boxster
Z
Elise
S2000
Slk350
Z4
I wonder where the new mustang GT would have placed?
i know the refinement and material quality would have killed it but strictly performance wise it would be interesting
Last edited by **; 02-02-2005 at 11:06 PM.
02-03-2005, 02:23 AM
#77
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Dayton OH
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by mc350z
i say
C6
Carrera
Viper
Boxster
Z
Elise
S2000
Slk350
Z4
I wonder where the new mustang GT would have placed?
i know the refinement and material quality would have killed it but strictly performance wise it would be interesting
i say
C6
Carrera
Viper
Boxster
Z
Elise
S2000
Slk350
Z4
I wonder where the new mustang GT would have placed?
i know the refinement and material quality would have killed it but strictly performance wise it would be interesting
The article stated a requirement for the comparo was 4w independent suspension.
02-03-2005, 02:24 AM
#78
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Dayton OH
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by hpark
1. Chevy Corvette ($53,545)
2. Porsche Boxster ($67,520)
3. Porsche Carrera S ($91,560)
4. Lotus Elise ($44,460)
5. Honda S2000 ($33,465)
6. Dodge Viper SRT-10 ($84,495)
7. BMW Z4 3.0i ($48,620)
8. Nissan 350Z 35th Anniv. ($38,640)
9. MB SLK350 ($50,150)
I don't agree with those rankings....first of all, we are ranking SPORTS CARS here right?? they really shouldn't factor in price....as money is valued differently to different people.
for some people an extra $50K is nothing.......
this is my ranking.
1. Porsche Carrera S ($91,560)
2. Dodge Viper SRT-10 ($84,495)
3. Chevy Corvette ($53,545)
4. Lotus Elise ($44,460)
5. Porsche Boxster ($67,520)
6. Honda S2000 ($33,465)
7. Nissan 350Z 35th Anniv. ($38,640)
8. MB SLK350 ($50,150)
9. BMW Z4 3.0i ($48,620)
1. Chevy Corvette ($53,545)
2. Porsche Boxster ($67,520)
3. Porsche Carrera S ($91,560)
4. Lotus Elise ($44,460)
5. Honda S2000 ($33,465)
6. Dodge Viper SRT-10 ($84,495)
7. BMW Z4 3.0i ($48,620)
8. Nissan 350Z 35th Anniv. ($38,640)
9. MB SLK350 ($50,150)
I don't agree with those rankings....first of all, we are ranking SPORTS CARS here right?? they really shouldn't factor in price....as money is valued differently to different people.
for some people an extra $50K is nothing.......
this is my ranking.
1. Porsche Carrera S ($91,560)
2. Dodge Viper SRT-10 ($84,495)
3. Chevy Corvette ($53,545)
4. Lotus Elise ($44,460)
5. Porsche Boxster ($67,520)
6. Honda S2000 ($33,465)
7. Nissan 350Z 35th Anniv. ($38,640)
8. MB SLK350 ($50,150)
9. BMW Z4 3.0i ($48,620)
I agree, except I would put the boxter above the elise
1. Porsche Carrera S ($91,560)
2. Dodge Viper SRT-10 ($84,495)
3. Chevy Corvette ($53,545)
4. Porsche Boxster ($67,520)
5. Lotus Elise ($44,460)
7. Honda S2000 ($33,465)
7. Nissan 350Z 35th Anniv. ($38,640)
8. MB SLK350 ($50,150)
9. BMW Z4 3.0i ($48,620)
And , the s2k and 350z tie in my book.
02-03-2005, 05:30 AM
#79
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just curious, where would you throw the MB SLK 55 ($61,220) into that list? I know it wasn't in the study, but the price for this version is still within the range of the vehicles selected and with the performance increase one would think it should fair better in this group. Thoughts?
02-03-2005, 05:44 AM
#80
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The MB SLK 55 doesn't have a manual tranny option as is the case with all AMG cars.
I think the rankings are pretty justified; I mean, if you think about it from a sports car (i.e. track-biased) perspective, the Z should fall under more purpose-built cars like the Viper, Elise, S2K, Boxster, 911, and C6.
The other thing to keep in mind is that the Z33 was designed with platform/parts sharing in mind. The chassis is subsidized by the G35/Mx5, FXx5, and the engine is subsidized by all the other Nissan cars (Altima, Quest, Maxima). The Z's existence is a compromise between all those product teams. The chassis sharing also hurts the Z's weight tremendously. I mean, this platform has to be rigid enough to support an off-road capable SUV!
Handling ... well, it's been said time and time again, the stock Bridgestones suck hard and the stock shocks' damping/rebound were not really well-sorted out. Drive a C5 Corvette and compare how it can corner just as flatly as the 350Z yet it rides so much more smoothly. That said, if the Nismo S-Tune suspension was part of the 35th Anniv. package, I think we would be a lot closer to the S2000.
Price-wise, I think there are two clear leaders in the sports car market. The Corvette owns the >$45K market, hands down. In the $30-35K market, the Z is the best bang for the buck. I think on that fact alone, the Z should have come out ahead of the BMW Z4.
I think the rankings are pretty justified; I mean, if you think about it from a sports car (i.e. track-biased) perspective, the Z should fall under more purpose-built cars like the Viper, Elise, S2K, Boxster, 911, and C6.
The other thing to keep in mind is that the Z33 was designed with platform/parts sharing in mind. The chassis is subsidized by the G35/Mx5, FXx5, and the engine is subsidized by all the other Nissan cars (Altima, Quest, Maxima). The Z's existence is a compromise between all those product teams. The chassis sharing also hurts the Z's weight tremendously. I mean, this platform has to be rigid enough to support an off-road capable SUV!
Handling ... well, it's been said time and time again, the stock Bridgestones suck hard and the stock shocks' damping/rebound were not really well-sorted out. Drive a C5 Corvette and compare how it can corner just as flatly as the 350Z yet it rides so much more smoothly. That said, if the Nismo S-Tune suspension was part of the 35th Anniv. package, I think we would be a lot closer to the S2000.
Price-wise, I think there are two clear leaders in the sports car market. The Corvette owns the >$45K market, hands down. In the $30-35K market, the Z is the best bang for the buck. I think on that fact alone, the Z should have come out ahead of the BMW Z4.
