cabalisticfire

The answer to your question lies in the torque curve, not peak HP. Turbo cars generally make gobs of torque as soon as the turbos start to spool. Two seemingly evenly matched cars (based on weight and peak HP) may have very different characteristics in the real world. I've not seen the stock dynos from a 300TT but I'd be willing to bet that on the way to 60 MPH that while the 300 might only make 13 more HP it may be more like 50 lb-ft or more difference in torque. That's how the 300TT conuld concievably walk away from the 350. This is general theory and applies to all turbo vs. N/A cars but is still one of many factors such as traction and weight that need to be considered.

Michael-Dallas

I drove my 300 a couple of nights ago for the first time since I bought the 350. It's stage 3 + test pipes + boost controller. There is virtually no lag, but that has more to do w/ how my BC is set.

Anyway...

Acceleration in my 350 pales in comparison to my 300. If I'm rolling in second gear and floor it, the 300 will break traction at around 5000rpms. I have a hard time to get the 350 to scratch the tires between shifts.

Handling in my 350 feels MUCHO lighter in comparison to my 300. This does not necessarily mean the 300 isn't capable, it just means it's easier to drive the 350 around corners.

Braking in my 350 is MUCHO better in comparison to my 300. Even w/ the Axxis Metal Master pads, the 300 feels like a freight train when it comes to braking. It's a world of a difference.

Michael.

Sanderman

Actually you do lose a bit on the bottom. Turbos have more restrictive exhaust path and hinder engine spool up - until there is a resultant boost from the turbos that is. The atmospheric 300 was actually a bit quicker off the line and easier to launch than the twin turbo.

joe

ares

iTrader: (2)

I thought in theory, if you opened up the muffler and cat and added the turbo, your back pressure would remain somewhat equal. but yeah I guess your right. I wouldnt expect a large difference tho.

BILL T

Neither of these cars are too shabby - it'd be a good race and would depend on driver and course.

Sanderman

Don't read too much into these numbers. Remember that there is sample to sample variation in cars, drivers, launch technique and testing conditions. C&D was motorious in those days for revving to near red line and dropping the clutch. They would get times out of cars that no other magazine at the time got within a half second of. And the cars had fried clutches by the end of their magazine road tests. Its also worth noting that temperature could greatly impact these times as well. Turbos make more horsepower when the air is cool. Cool air is denser, hence has higher oxygen content. More oxygen pumped into the engine by the turbos means more power. My TTs were noticably more frisky in the spring and fall when temps were in the 60s and 70s. When its hot the lower air density and oxygen content robbed the engine of HP - I could cleaarly feel that as well. Who knows - maybe C&D tested on a cool day or in cool location....

By the way - my stage 3 was a 92.

joe

Michael-Dallas

The non-turbo is quicker off the line and maybe the first 30 feet because the non-turbo has better gearing and is lighter; the twin turbo also has a lower compression ratio.

Michael.

WashUJon

Gear ratios, final drive, and type of drive make a big difference. My heavy assed VR-4 made phenomenal numbers all because of AWD.

RobJames

Whoever thinks the Z32 TT ever saw 5 seconds is on crack. I had a 93 TT. The reported 0-60 times were closer to 5.8-6.0 and 1/4 mile were 14.5 or so. With turbo lag, the tt was not as fast as the 350 in 0-60, but it caught up some in the quarter due to the turbos. The thing that makes the tt feel fast is the kick of the turbos. It does not have a linear power band, so you have NA so-so power until the turbos spool, then you get the kick in the seat. It is not a faster car however.

roberto350z

I think these are stage 3 numbers (or maybe stage 2)

90 zxtt 4.7 13.1 MT 2/94

zerobanger

Why do you all care about 0 to 60? I take my car to the strip alot for fun, but when it comes to 0 to 60, its not important to the acceleration of the car.

60 foot, 330 ft, 1/8 mile and 1000' and 1/4 mile are what counts.

my car being a tt car, the power just starts to come on very strong at 60 MPH in 3rd gear.

David

roberto350z

um...well...there is a strong correlation between 0-60 and 1/4...look at the data that I posted. So If 1/4 mile is important...then 0-60 is important. Also, you said 0-60 is not important for acceleration. Ok, pass the crack pipe...


0-60 is in the definitive measurement for "the people" across the country. Talk 1/4 mile, 1000' feet or whatever to 49 out of 50 people, youll get a blank stare. Ok, lets critisize everyone then...NO. 0-60 is a practical measurement...unless you call hitting 102 mph on a freeway entrance an everyday occurence.

zerobanger

I disagree. if you want to see performance, go from 0 to 100 to 0.

0 to 60 is just a magazine time.

AdamLotz (Z FIEND)

Sanderman, I don't know what was wrong with your Z(s) but I've got a 91 Twin Turbo, and I test drove a 350 and took my deposit right back.

Sorry, but I really don't think the 350 will ever be the car the ZXTT was. The first time I test drove one, I knew the twin turbo was a car I _had_ to own. I couldn't stop smiling the first month I had it.

I took the 350 for a spin, and while it handled well and braked well... I was entirely underwhelmed by its "acceleration" and the fun-to-drive factor.

??? I don't know. There seem to be two big camps around here, those that think the Z is the best car ever and those that can't figure out why they think that. I'm really in the 2nd set, which sucks - because I was all set to hand over the keys to my '91. But you know what? I couldn't bring myself to do it. Like I told the dealer... talk to me when there's a twin turbo model.

Is the 350 a nice car? Sure. It looks pretty good from the outside, it handles well, and brakes well. (I've driven in rental cars with better brakes than my ZXTT, so I don't consider that to be a special selling feature of the 350) ... but did it give me the same rush of twin turbo adreneline? No way.

Incidentally, $30k will buy you a hell of 300ZX. You'd be talking showroom condition, brembo brakes, and putting a good 450-500 horses to the _rear wheels_. It won't turn as many heads as the 350 - not this year - but after a couple years of production, the ZXTT will still be a relatively rare beast... and the seatbelts don't rattle on the door panel. ;-)

Sanderman

I know its sacrilage to suggest the TT was less than godlike to some fans, but the fact is it is a car that was designed in 1988 -1989 and it feels like it. You like peaky HP delivery instead of linear? So be it, but the TT is NOT faster, no matter how it feels to you. Yes $30k will buy a hell of a lot of TT. Thats the problem. Theres already about 250 pounds more TT than 350 and when you add brembos, 18" wheels, fatter rubber and a few other bits that pushes up to 350 pounds plus more car. Nimble? Never. Turn in? Sluggish. Turbo lag? Always.

Once again, if you like the "on switch" effect of turbo boost, thats your priveledge. But dont confuse that with speed. The 350 is at least the equal of the TT 0-60 and its easier to get it to do it to boot.

Dont get me wrong. I loved the TT, its all I drove for over 10 years and I passed on Porsches, BMWs, Audis & Vettes. But the 350 is a contemporary car that makes the 300 feel like the dated car that it is.

joe

roberto350z

damn sanderman...you just moved me!

Michael-Dallas

This is a common misconception. You actually want peaky HP, because if HP stays flat or doesn't go up, then you're not accelerating. I think what you meant to say was "You like peaky TQ delivery instead of linear."

A flat HP curve is indicative of a TQ curve that goes down as RPM increases and you don't want that. You want a flat or increasing TQ curve.

Anyway, as an overall package, I feel the 350 is an improvement over the 300. However, I still love both.

Michael.

z350z

Nope. Linear HP is a straight line, continuously increasing, which means a flat torque curve. Peaky HP means it jumps nonlinearly at some RPM, so the torque curve rises. The Z has a relatively linear HP curve; turbos are usually more peaky. (Linear means Y axis directly proportional to X, so HP rises with RPM.)

Michael-Dallas

Flat and linear are 2 different things and I misread his statement so I stand corrected. However, let's use my 300 dyno chart as an example: http://12.237.254.127:81/images/20010511_dyno.jpg The HP curve is virtually a straight line until it flattens at 5k or so RPM's. That HP curve is as linear as koryo's: https://my350z.com/forum/showthread....highlight=dyno

Here is where I disagree w/ sanderman's statement: my HP peaks at around 5k and koryo's HP peaks at around 6k. So yes you want a peaky HP curve. If it was flat then you would not be accelerating because a flat HP curve is indicative of a decreasing TQ curve.

Michael.