A Toyota?? Yikes. A few people have said it reminds them of the Audi TT, but I don't think it does very much. As for being original, you certainly can't say that the back half of the car isn't original. There is nothing else like it. Geez....

BTW, please learn where the SHIFT/CAPSLOCK keys are on your keyboard.

 

I can't see the resemblence between the Celica or the TT at all. Maybe it's because I've seen so many pictures of it that the image is engraved in my head or what, but I just don't see the resemblence. Every person that I've showed the car asks what it is and hasn't mentioned anything of it looking like another car, so maybe it's just where you live

 

Z Dreamer - why are you YELLING????

 

You're forgiven - we've all done that at some time. I agree with Z Girl though - in my opinion, it doesn't look like any of them - once you see it in person, I think you would agree also.

 

The only thing the TT and the Z have in common is the high beltline and the fact that they share their platforms with sedans. Other than that, the Z's it's own thing.

 

Well, you have to be familiar with the old 70's Celica's to see the resemblance. Yes, it DOES look a lot like the '77 Celica, especially in the way the roof slopes. However, the '77 Celica looks a lot like the old Datsun Z-Cars of the '70's. So I suspect that Nissan was trying to get the old flavor of the Z-car into the new 350z, not to copy the Celica. I also see some Audi TT and some Porche in there as well.

BTW, the '77 Celica was itself a copy of the '69 ('67? '68?) Mustang.

No car is really entirely original anymore. They all borrow ideas from someone. The key thing is that the Z will not look like anything else currently being produced, and it will kick butt-performance wise.

 

I get really tired of the writers(critics) who describe a car model's design as "derivitive" and coming from some other car's lines. Ihave news for them, practically every sports car and a lot of sedans "derive" from some of Pinin Farina's Ferrari designs of the 50's and 60'. I had a friend from childhood, 4th grade drop by yesterday, he's the guy I bought the 1972 240Z from in 1980. He and his wife worked and saved for 2 years to buy the car and when I showed him the 350, he kept telling me to go back to the back view. He, like me, think it is the best looking rear on any car we've seen in years and the rest of the car looked great too. Two words describe the 350 to me, "muscular" and "sleek". Add the killer drivetrain and the interior amenities and you've got one of the best looking and performing cars in a generation.

The beauty of it is how well the design comes together and how fast it will go. At these prices folks, you can't lose; and reallY, really short people can get spacers put under their seats if they feel they need to raise them.

Boomer--Derived from my parents, OK?

Sorry about the diatribe, but the 240Z got the same treatment from critics in 1970 too. We know how that ended up.

 

Funny thing is, I was turning onto the street I live on a few months ago, and just about lost my cool when I saw the car coming towards me. For about 10 seconds I swore it was a 350z!!

As it got closer I was surprised to see that I was gaping at a Toyota Celica!!

(That was probably back around March. Before I had memorized every visually identifiable portion of the Z.)

From the front there is definitely a resemblance. (IF your new to the Z)
But once you see that ugly little tail dragger (fwd-Celica) from the side there is no mistaking it for what it is.

I don't know what Toyota was thinking, but they certainly disappointed the heck out of me with their newest Celica.

 

I don't see how anyone could mistake the Z for the NEW Celica. They look nothing alike. The only Celica's the Z has anything in common with are the much older ones.

The new Celica is an interesting design. It looks great from the side (IMO) but I don't like the rear at all. Plus the performance is disappointing at only 180 HP and no torque to speak of. That being said, it is a distinctive car, and I almost bought one when I blew out the engine of my car about a year ago. I ended up getting the dealer to fix my car for free (it was their fault) so I was able to hold out for the Z.

 

Looking at the TT vs the Z from the side, I can't imagine why anyone would want a TT. The Z looks about 100 times better. I guess if you really need 4WD.........

 

man, u shoulda put another pic in as a comparison, the porsche 911.

and i really don't see any where the 350 copys the celica~ how can people think of that? i mean the front, well, a little, but look at the side and the rear? On the other hand, the audi tt, that's what people say the most, my friend also say it looks like TT, but i think this is due to the photo affect, which the photo show that the TT and 350 have the same size so they think it's the same, but i believe when the car comes out people will never think of that again, cuz the Z is a lot longer and wider than the TT, and the TT is UGLY~~

 

I believe the Celica reference is related to a vague resemblence in the headlights.

I have actually had several people tell me that they thought it looked like a Supra
from the side. As John said, I think most of these comparisons only work from a
photo perspective. Once more people start seeing the 350Z in person, they will
see that most of the comparisons don't hold up.

JD