Notices
2003-2009 Nissan 350Z

Road & Track Sports Car Comparo

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 02-17-2005, 06:42 PM
  #1  
Racer Z
Banned
Thread Starter
 
Racer Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Mount Laurel, NJ
Posts: 593
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default Road & Track Sports Car Comparo

New issue of R&T has a "Best All-Around Sports Car Champ" section....Featured the 35th Anniv. Z versus: Vette, S2000, Elise, Boxster S, 911 Carrera S, BMW Z4, Mercedes SLK, and Viper SRT-10.

Seems like our beloved Z only faired mediocre in terms of acceleration, handling, braking, and track speeds...

From now on...I'm only buying Car & Driver..dammit...LOL
Old 02-17-2005, 07:00 PM
  #2  
7744
Registered User
 
7744's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NJ
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default Re: Road & Track Sports Car Comparo

Originally posted by Racer Z
Seems like our beloved Z only faired mediocre in terms of acceleration, handling, braking, and track speeds...
I, for one, am satisfied that the Z was compared to cars like the Lotus Elise and Porsche 911.
Old 02-18-2005, 03:28 AM
  #3  
FairladyZ
Registered User
 
FairladyZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Allen, TX
Posts: 3,407
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Please tell me that the 350Z was not last in acceleration.
Old 02-18-2005, 07:54 AM
  #4  
rclab1
Registered User
 
rclab1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: SyracuseCampus
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default they said the Torque on the 30th anniv. Z was poor?

that magazine article said that the Torque on the Z was Poor, and in terms of accleration, it was very close to dead Last!

I thought the Z had "Gobs" of torque?????????????????

even though the Z was compared to all of those sports cars, the Z came in CLOSE to Dead Last?????

and most importantly, all those compard was only a two seater sports car (except GT Porsche 911).....

I think the Z was put into that category b/c the Z is a car in America thats a 2 seater......

I hope I'm wrong....I love the Z
Old 02-18-2005, 08:06 AM
  #5  
Lonerider
Registered User
 
Lonerider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: US
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Its hard for me to believe any magazine these days. It seems like performance numbers for cars are inconsistent across all magazines.

As for the torque comment, I guess the drop from 274-260 for the newer models is noticiable?
Old 02-18-2005, 08:23 AM
  #6  
ANXIOUZ
New Member
iTrader: (13)
 
ANXIOUZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 3,775
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

How can they say the Z has poor torque when an S2K was in the test group?

This is the first article I've read that didn't gush over how great a deal the Z is compared to the other much more expensive cars. ::shrugs::
Old 02-18-2005, 08:25 AM
  #7  
Smoked
Registered User
 
Smoked's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Pittsboro, IN
Posts: 576
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Well looking at the prices for those cars, the Z comes in close to being on the bottom as far as pricing goes. So the old addage, you get what you paid for comes into play. With some modifications, you can make the Z as fast as a Viper, it just depends on preference, warranty, etc.
Old 02-18-2005, 02:29 PM
  #8  
ppw350Zunit
Registered User
iTrader: (14)
 
ppw350Zunit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 2,533
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally posted by Lonerider
As for the torque comment, I guess the drop from 274-260 for the newer models is noticiable?
i rather have 287 hp/274 tq than 300hp/260tq
Old 02-19-2005, 02:46 AM
  #9  
Racer Z
Banned
Thread Starter
 
Racer Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Mount Laurel, NJ
Posts: 593
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

If you read this R&T issue, you'll notice that they said the 35th Anniv. Ed 350Z, even with 300 HP feels like it has less low end torque than the Base Model Z.....Why would Nissan design it like that??
Old 02-19-2005, 03:37 AM
  #10  
doc91671
Registered User
 
doc91671's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: california
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I've driven both, and I can't tell any diffrence.
Old 02-19-2005, 03:38 AM
  #11  
zmespeed
Registered User
 
zmespeed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: dayton ohio
Posts: 777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

motor trend is my favorite 5.3 0-60 that sound about right to me.
Old 02-19-2005, 04:28 AM
  #12  
FairladyZ
Registered User
 
FairladyZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Allen, TX
Posts: 3,407
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Thats why I am not a magazine racer.
Old 02-19-2005, 07:45 AM
  #13  
dansouliere
Registered User
 
dansouliere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Keep in mind the Z was probably the heaviest car they tested. The S2000 has less torque but its also 2850lb compared to the 3300lb Z. That is a huge difference on the track.

The Z needs to go on a diet! lol
Old 02-19-2005, 12:22 PM
  #14  
maserom
Registered User
iTrader: (2)
 
maserom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Marina Del Rey CA
Posts: 511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Steve Millen from Stillen was one of the Test Drivers in this article. I would think he could push the z to the limits. Still very avg results. Great article. At least we beat the Z4!
Old 02-19-2005, 12:34 PM
  #15  
FairladyZ
Registered User
 
FairladyZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Allen, TX
Posts: 3,407
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Steve Millen doesnt drive the 350Z to its fullest. I think he has something against it? Maybe no one buying his products.
Old 02-20-2005, 10:45 PM
  #16  
JDMFairlady21
New Member
iTrader: (9)
 
JDMFairlady21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: LI, NY
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

i for one think that it definitely was a wierd outcome as far as test results but at the end of day my Z puts a smile on my face as soon as park it in my garage =)
Old 02-21-2005, 04:06 AM
  #17  
7744
Registered User
 
7744's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NJ
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally posted by Racer Z
If you read this R&T issue, you'll notice that they said the 35th Anniv. Ed 350Z, even with 300 HP feels like it has less low end torque than the Base Model Z.....Why would Nissan design it like that??
Typically, modifications used to make the car "breath" better (ie revised cams, electronic exhaust valve timing control) the car will gain horsepower, but lose torque. The reason that they would do this on the higher-end Z models is because people love to quote horsepower numbers when comparing models. Especially non-enthusiasts, who know very little about anything automotive.

I'm sure that there are going to be people out there who know nothing about cars, but are bragging that their 35thAE Z has more horsepower than a Mitsubishi Lancer Evo VIII, and therefore is quicker.
Old 02-21-2005, 04:50 AM
  #18  
doc91671
Registered User
 
doc91671's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: california
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

The 35th produces more torque at 6400 rpm than the standard engine does at 6200 rpms.
Old 02-21-2005, 05:17 AM
  #19  
7744
Registered User
 
7744's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NJ
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally posted by doc91671
The 35th produces more torque at 6400 rpm than the standard engine does at 6200 rpms.
Do you mean horsepower?
Old 02-21-2005, 06:49 AM
  #20  
doc91671
Registered User
 
doc91671's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: california
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

No, I mean torque.


Quick Reply: Road & Track Sports Car Comparo



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:21 PM.