zland

I keep hearing a range of repsonses concerning the 350Z performnance (both good and not so good). Since many of us do not have ours yet, can I ask people that have driven both to compare....What is the difference in performance between a 350Z vs the old Z, the 300 Turbo?

Beside hearing from all of you and reading about the 350Z, I can only compare by 2nd hand information. Yes, I have driven a 300 turbo so your comparison will give me a referance point to compare my 350Z I am getting. I am sure many of you have owned or driven a 300 turbo and now own the 350Z so give me a comparison..

ares

iTrader: (2)

ummm straight line? you wont beat a 300ZX, those puppies are quick, youll be close, but its got ya. in the twisties the Z weighs less, and its suspension is light years ahead of the old 300ZX.

so basicly the 300ZX was almost more of a domestic type car. if that helps you envision it. while the Z is an all around performer, worst and best at nothing. a tradeoff Im happy to make.

and please, dont put too much merit in those that say its slow, it isnt, numbers dont lie, whether they can drive it, its broken in, or perhaps their scientific butt dyno just isnt calibrated; the car IS fast.

zland

I know the 350Z is 0-60 in 5.4 to 5.6 depending on the mag you read. what was the 0-60 on the 300 turbo? So you feel the 350Z out brakes and corners the old 300 turbo?

ares

iTrader: (2)

Ive never driven one, Im not even old enough, but yes by the numbers it does.

and tho they may or may not be 100% accurate, but a guy in the other thread claims 0-60 in 5.22 which actually puts it right on par with the 300ZX in a straight line.

and dont forget, no turbo lag, better gas mileage(Im up to 20.8 now,80% city driving)

DrDrilZ

i know it out brakes and out corners the z32TT. ive had both.

zland

Somebody must know the 0-60 time for the 300 turbo! Step up and help me out!

ares

iTrader: (2)

I have no clue, cars been out of production for 7 years so its stats are not kept online...

heres supercars.net
http://www.supercars.net/cars/1996@$Nissan@$300ZX%20Turbog.html

but if these times are true, then I really missed something...

6.5 0-60

15sec quarter mile

.91 G's

these numbers all seem high, including the G's

raceboy

I think bone stock Z32's could run 5.0 sec 0-60's. Some of that was really helped out by a healthy ammount of squat or weight transfer that was great for straightline work, but not a very desirable trait for roadcourse work.

zland

ok, 0-60 in 5.0 secs. wow, no wonder it seemed quick when i drove it. The non-turbo 300ZX seemed REALLY slow to me. Please do not tell me my 350Z I am getting is like it! Does anyone know the 0-60 time for the non turbo 300ZX? I know it ihas been years but if you woned one, you should know. I know i remember my performing cars old specs...

Buzz350z

I have a 90 TT and its pretty fast. Stock times for the 90TT is around 5.4-5.7. Its safe to say 5.5 and 14.2 for the 1/4 mile. Its also not uncommon to see a stock TT to reach 13.9 either. Non-turbo model is around 6.2-6.5. Not sure about 1/4 mile times but its in the 15 range i know that. Peace!

I also feel that I could take my 90TT outperform a 350z in both 0-60 & 1/4 mile. I am stock but my turbos have been replaced. Any NC 350 zers wanna give me a shot !

Sanderman

I owned two 300 TTs. My first was stock except for a switch to 17" Maikin Gewalts and the second was a Stage 3 with Jim Wolf chip, pop charger & clutch, Stillen stainless exhaust, AP Racing brakes and 18" SSR Integrals shod with S03s.

I've only had my 350 Touring a few days but a few things are immediately apparent. The 350 walks all over the 300 in terms driver feedback, turn in and overall responsiveness to inputs. It feels much lighter and is more willing to change directions. The 300 was a heavy car and it showed it when you tried to change its current state of motion. The 350 is also lots quicker off the line and far easier to launch as the TT basically had to be revved to the point of the turbos kicking in before feathering out the clutch. If you let the clutch out at too few revs the car would bog down off the line, too many and let the clutch too quick and you'd spin the rear wheels. The 300 felt really quick when the turbos kicked in, but even with the two small turbos it had significant turbo lag so that feeling of delayed acceleration was really deceiving - like all cars with turbos. I havnt really pushed the 350 yet, but so far its clear that it's power plays out much more linearly starting at much lower revs than the TT. This car would obviously beat a TT off the line with little problem - the 300 would make it up on the top end once the turbos catch on fire. I'd be surprised if there is really much difference overall.

The ride in the 300 was softer, even with 18" wheels (16" were stock) than the 350 - it was really a GT and the 350 nods a little more firmly towards sport than GT. The shifter is another huge difference. The throws in the 300 are immense compared to the 350. I had a Stillen short throw in my last TT, but even it had significantly longer throws than the 350. And the shift feel is totally different. The 350 is a modern style shifter, meaning it has a more mechanical and precise feel - the 300s shifter felt meatier, more damped but less precise. I also find that downshifting into 1st in the 350 is easier so far than it was with the 300s. Both of my TTs had to almost be standing still (less than 7 - 8 mph) to downshift into first - the 350 drops right into it even when coasting down to a light at twice that speed.

Seats are also very different. I loved the 300s seats but the 350s might just be nicer. The 350 seat is a little more snug and suitable for tossing the car around without you moving in the seat. The leathers are also quite different. The 300s leather was hard, slick and a bit shiny. The 350 Touring leather is softer and more supple, with a slight grain. The steering wheel in the 350 feels better too. Its fatter and has subtle bulges above and below the horizontal spokes that make it easier to handle and spin without slipping. The steering is more direct and turn-in is more crisp than the 300 could ever be - no contest here.

View outside the cockpits is surprisingly similar. The biggest difference is the higher window sills on the 350. I could rest my elbow on the window sill of the 300 but the 350s sill is about 2 inches higher - too high to do comfortably. The cockpit feels a bit closer and more intimate in the 350 than the 300 overall.

I can't wait to see how the 350 does once it's fully broken in. To put it all in perspective - I LOVED the 300 twin turbo. Its all I drove from August of 1991 til this year. But the 350 is a Modern sports car. The 300 is showing its age in terms of handling, weight, directness of inputs and driver feedback. And stock, there is no way its faster than the 350. Yes, you can upgrade the hell out of it to make it go faster, but that only makes it heavier which is the biggest problem its already got. And with turbos you'll always have to work harder to get it to make that power in any sort of useful or timely way. When its all said and done I'm not missing my 300s at all....

joe

Sanderman

No stock Z32 turbo EVER saw 5 seconds. I know. I owned two. I frankly don't even think my Stage 3 did it.

joe

Sanderman

No, the surge following the turbo lag made you think that. No stock Z32 turbo ever did 5 seconds. And the stock 300 was slow - high sevens as I recall - a genuine slug. Your 350 will pull faster off the line than a turbo but it wont give you the turbo rush. Just remember the turbo rush comes after the turbo lag, so those things have a way of evening out.

joe

zland

No way to PM you so I will ask you here. You seemed to think the turbo was not so good on the 300 TT considering the "turbo lag issue" for one you refereded to. I was hoping to put some extra HP under the hood when I get my 350Z. I was dreaming of SC if possible and if that does not come out, turbo charging it. Based upon your experiece, do you think that is a bad idea and i would later regret it? A lot of people are talking turbo on 350z's , are they olny looking at the positive and not reality?
Jeff

Sanderman

Actually the turbos on the 300 were great. The two small turbos minimized the lag of a single larger turbo as cars before it had. But it still had lag - its enndemic with all turbos, no matter how good the execution. I'd recommend you get the car and drive it. Turbos, really only add straight line speed. I find it a lot more fun to run the twisties anyway and turbos don't do much for you there. Before you decide whether or not to add more power come to grips with the car and decide whether or not its important to you. This is a fast car, you'll probably like it as it is.

Remember, there are always a few folks out there obsessed with horesepower at all costs. I wouldnt let thir priorities sway you unitl you experience the car and decide for yourself whats important to you. As an aside - I don't think I'd add either a turbo oir supercharger to a car. The cost is too great and I'd be concerned of the risk of reliability problems with an aftermarket install.

joe

ares

iTrader: (2)

by turboing a car, you do not lose low end power, you just dont gain much... so in a way, yeah the bottom end is weak. but only relative to the new high powered upper range. SC is more even throught the whole thing, with less up top and more down bottom. basicly choose your poison, speed in the city under 4000RPM, or speed on the track when your revs dont drop under 4000RPM.

but once you drive the Z, I think youll find your not in such a huge rush to find more power. this car gets around way faster than it needs to stock. the rest is just icing on the cake(but we all like icing dont we?)

Winkin

This should satisfy you

http://www.geocities.com/~z-car/specs/

roberto350z

listed are 0-60, quarter mile @ mph, grip, source


90 ZXTT 5.5 14.1 99 .89 CD 11/89
90 ZXTT 5.6 13.9 103 .94 HR 2/90
90 ZXTT 5.9 14.6 96 .88 CD 3/90
90 ZXTT 5.4 13.9 105 .90 SCI 3/90
90 ZXTT 6.0 14.4 101 .88 MT ?/90
91 ZXTT 5.0 13.7 102 .87 70 CD 8/91
92 ZXTT 6.0 14.4 102 .89 MT 1/92
92 ZXTT 5.0 13.7 102 .88 CD 2/92
93 ZXTT 5.2 13.8 104 .87 MT 7/93
93 ZXTT 5.6 14.2 --- .89 CD 9/93
94 ZXTT 6.0 14.4 100 .88 RT 2/94
95 ZXTT 5.5 13.9 102 .85 7/95

looks like Car and driver had a good run 2/92...never to be touched again!

zland

the last 2 post have good data to compare. It does seem odd that 92 had a 0-60 @ 5.0 secs. 300hp is not much more than the 350Z's 287 and considering it is heavier than the 350Z, it seems inconsistant to have a better time by .4 especially considering the turbo lag ...

ares

iTrader: (2)

acceleration of a car has more factors than hp and weight. look at the mustang GT for example... on paper they shouldnt be able to touch the Z, lacking significantly in HP and way high in weight. but yet, they are extremely close.