Track Vs. Touring performance differences
12-01-2002, 05:43 AM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Track Vs. Touring performance differences
Is there any measurable performance difference between the track and touring models. I bought the touring w/all options thinking that the only thing that I would be missing comared to the track is the rims, diffusers, and brembos. None of which should improve HP, 1/4 mile, or 0-60 times.
If you look at the December 2002 Car and Driver it is doing a comparo of the touring 350z vs several other cars. The car did 0-60 in 5.7 and the 1/4 mile in 14.3. Now look at the August 2002, they test a 350z Track model. The times are better, 5.4 0-60 and 14.1 1/4 mile. All this info can be seen on the website.
Any ideas? Certainly the lighter wheels and diffusers are not making that much improvement
Thanks,
Jim
If you look at the December 2002 Car and Driver it is doing a comparo of the touring 350z vs several other cars. The car did 0-60 in 5.7 and the 1/4 mile in 14.3. Now look at the August 2002, they test a 350z Track model. The times are better, 5.4 0-60 and 14.1 1/4 mile. All this info can be seen on the website.
Any ideas? Certainly the lighter wheels and diffusers are not making that much improvement
Thanks,
Jim
12-01-2002, 06:23 AM
#3
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Midwest
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Performance is not light to light or bar to bar but a long winding road to enjoy. I'm looking to a road course to play on. I thought that one opened in western Iowa but I'm not sure where.
12-01-2002, 06:47 AM
#4
Guest
Posts: n/a
The difference probably is in the weight difference.
The touring model has power seats, amplifiers for the sound system, more air bags and probably more sound deadening, etc. all of which add up.
The difference is probably over a hundred pounds and that alone would be around 12-15 Hp.
JRL
The touring model has power seats, amplifiers for the sound system, more air bags and probably more sound deadening, etc. all of which add up.
The difference is probably over a hundred pounds and that alone would be around 12-15 Hp.
JRL
12-01-2002, 07:43 AM
#5
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jrl, please put down the rubbing alcohol and take a deep breath of fresh air.
The weights for the track and touring models are here as follows:
<b>Track...3,225 lbs.</b>
<b>Touring (6MT)...3,247lbs.</b>
I will do the math for you...<u>The difference is 22 lbs!</u>
This minimal difference of curb weight does not provide the track model any performance gain.
The track Z was made for one specific reason--To appeal to those who had the money and did not want a base model. Also, for those who wanted to add to the sportyness of the Z by sporting better brakes and wheels. They are both the 2 best models and their differences are only asthetic in nature.
The weights for the track and touring models are here as follows:
<b>Track...3,225 lbs.</b>
<b>Touring (6MT)...3,247lbs.</b>
I will do the math for you...<u>The difference is 22 lbs!</u>
This minimal difference of curb weight does not provide the track model any performance gain.
The track Z was made for one specific reason--To appeal to those who had the money and did not want a base model. Also, for those who wanted to add to the sportyness of the Z by sporting better brakes and wheels. They are both the 2 best models and their differences are only asthetic in nature.
12-01-2002, 07:49 AM
#6
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: CA
Posts: 880
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The saying goes 100lbs = .1 second in the quarter.
Also forgot to mention that weight does not equal more horsepower.
A 2000lb RX-7 with 150hp is the same as a 3000lbs RX-7 with 150hp in terms of output.
Also forgot to mention that weight does not equal more horsepower.
A 2000lb RX-7 with 150hp is the same as a 3000lbs RX-7 with 150hp in terms of output.
Last edited by nosuchsol; 12-01-2002 at 07:52 AM.
12-01-2002, 09:25 AM
#7
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The difference in wheel weight "might" make a difference.
If the combination of the Ray's wheels and the bigger rotors for the Brembro's are lighter than the Touring combo of wheels (17" or 18") and rotors then the resulting reduction in rotating mass would affect the car's ability to accelerate.
If the combination of the Ray's wheels and the bigger rotors for the Brembro's are lighter than the Touring combo of wheels (17" or 18") and rotors then the resulting reduction in rotating mass would affect the car's ability to accelerate.
Trending Topics
12-01-2002, 10:24 AM
#8
Guest
Posts: n/a
You know, I've been around a lot longer than most of you and if that is the weight difference, no problem, but in the "good 'ol days" a track version meant lighter panels, less equipment and so forth. Even now, a BMW M3 lightweight gives more performance, albeit at a higher price, than it's standard counterpart .If Nissan just basically adds brakes and takes away leather and calls it a track version, big deal, great, but I don't need your sarcasm.
(The brakes are nice, by the way and should be standard. Add a grand or two to the price.)
JRL
(The brakes are nice, by the way and should be standard. Add a grand or two to the price.)
JRL
12-01-2002, 10:32 AM
#10
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally posted by Turcoupe
The track Z was made for one specific reason--To appeal to those who had the money and did not want a base model. Also, for those who wanted to add to the sportyness of the Z by sporting better brakes and wheels. They are both the 2 best models and their differences are only asthetic in nature.
The track Z was made for one specific reason--To appeal to those who had the money and did not want a base model. Also, for those who wanted to add to the sportyness of the Z by sporting better brakes and wheels. They are both the 2 best models and their differences are only asthetic in nature.
12-01-2002, 11:29 AM
#11
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know if Phonenix was trying to be cool there or what, but I hope this thread is going to turn into a touring vs track war.
Like I said, they are cleraly the best 2 models and are both fast and have awesome looks. For everyone that has a touring, had the money to go with the track if they wanted to and vice-versa. All, I wanted to do was teach a noob a couple statistics on weight and put him in his place.
As far as that crap about him "being around a lot longer than us", he shouldn't post until he does some basic homework. He obviously doesn't have a Z and instead of trying to preach performance differences he should be learning the basic stuff in the brochure (colors, specs, etc.).
Like I said, they are cleraly the best 2 models and are both fast and have awesome looks. For everyone that has a touring, had the money to go with the track if they wanted to and vice-versa. All, I wanted to do was teach a noob a couple statistics on weight and put him in his place.
As far as that crap about him "being around a lot longer than us", he shouldn't post until he does some basic homework. He obviously doesn't have a Z and instead of trying to preach performance differences he should be learning the basic stuff in the brochure (colors, specs, etc.).
12-01-2002, 11:51 AM
#12
Guest
Posts: n/a
Actually I did some research since your comments and there's no way in H**l that the touring car is only 22lbs. more than the track. As I said, I've been around the block probably longer than you have and the weight difference in the wheels alone would make up 22lbs. Add power seat motors and the weight of the leather and you have a bit more. But one very important thing more is the fact that most of the touring models that the dealers are stocking have all the side and top airbags.
I would assume that most, if not all of the track models do not. What do you think that all that stuff weighs? I would probably think that my 100lb total estimate is closer than your 22 lb one.
And yes, I don't own a Z yet, and I may or may not buy one, but I am impressed by the total package in general and probably will. but not owning one at this time doesn't preclude me from making observations since I've owned nearly 200 cars in my lifetime most of them high performance in one way or another (Sports cars ,Drag racers, Street rods, etc.
Thanks for listening
JRL
I would assume that most, if not all of the track models do not. What do you think that all that stuff weighs? I would probably think that my 100lb total estimate is closer than your 22 lb one.
And yes, I don't own a Z yet, and I may or may not buy one, but I am impressed by the total package in general and probably will. but not owning one at this time doesn't preclude me from making observations since I've owned nearly 200 cars in my lifetime most of them high performance in one way or another (Sports cars ,Drag racers, Street rods, etc.
Thanks for listening
JRL
12-01-2002, 01:03 PM
#13
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jrl, I like amost every body else in this forum, ordered our Z's and did not buy off a dealer's existing inventory. therefore, you can stop b*tching about side air bags.
Furthermore, the 22lb difference in weight is per nissan. Like I said, do your homework before you post.
Oh and I for one do not care about how many P.O.S.'s you have acquired and junked. And please do not reply with a list of them. For all we know (and by the validity of your posts) you are 13 yrs old and own a huffy.
Furthermore, the 22lb difference in weight is per nissan. Like I said, do your homework before you post.
Oh and I for one do not care about how many P.O.S.'s you have acquired and junked. And please do not reply with a list of them. For all we know (and by the validity of your posts) you are 13 yrs old and own a huffy.
12-01-2002, 02:58 PM
#14
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Fairfax, VA
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually I did some research since your comments and there's no way in H**l that the touring car is only 22lbs. more than the track.
Base: 3188
Enthusiast 6MT: 3197
Enthusiast 5AT: 3210
Performance: 3217
Touring 6MT: 3247
Touring 5AT: 3239
Track: 3225
I really don't think straight line performance is going to be drastically different trim to trim. In my opinion, the only reason to get a Track over a Touring is if A) You go to the track or to AutoX's enough for brake fade to be an issue, B) You really like how the Track 18s look compared to the Perf/Touring 18s, or C) You got the $.
12-01-2002, 03:31 PM
#15
New Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: SF, freezing my @ss off
Posts: 2,419
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Gendo Ikari
C) You got the $.
C) You got the $.
12-01-2002, 04:23 PM
#16
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Midwest
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK to each their own. When I decided to buy I had my choose between 2 Touring models BS and DB with a CS coming that week. Just down the road were two G35 sport coupes one in Blue and the other in Red, the Black was sold. The dealer shared his list of incoming Nov and Dec with about another 10 to come all Touring with one Black Track also due. Oh I forgot to mention there was one more and I say was. A Redline Track. Well was it the color, was it the name I will never know but I'm proud of what I picked 22lbs lighter or not.
12-01-2002, 05:43 PM
#17
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 1,025
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought and thought and thought about my model choice. At first I was going for the Performance; I considered the Touring MT for the amenities (CD changer, leather) but I settled finally on the Track. Why?
I figured if I'm going to get a sports car I might as well go whole-hog. I'm buying this car because I want a car that will perform, not so much straight-line (though that's important), but at least as important is performance in the curves. First, no matter what Nissan says, all that stuff on the Touring HAS to weigh it down. Read the list; seat heaters and motors & CD changers & sub-woofers & etc. It HAS to weigh the car down! Then I did some reading and got to thinking about the concept of "unsprung weight" and considered the lighter wheels on the Track: Additional weight between the suspension and the road affects the cars performance much more than additional weight in the body. Additional weight in the rotating parts affects performance even more.
Someone above said that Brembo brakes are very heavy. That's contrary to what I have heard. I don't have any statistics handy, but I understand that Brembo takes steps (drilled, slotted discs, etc.) to make their braking systems lighter for improved performance. Here's a copy/paste from www.brembo.com FAQ page:
Bottom line, what changed my mind toward the Track is basic physics: every bit of weight you take off the wheels is weight that doesn't have to change momentum of every time you accelerate and decelerate, every time you turn every corner. That will be a subtle but I think noticable improvement in my driving enjoyment every day. I don't have real experience with this yet (soon I hope! 
) but I am convinced that going from a Touring to a Track would be like putting on lighter shoes or taking off ankle weights.
I figured if I'm going to get a sports car I might as well go whole-hog. I'm buying this car because I want a car that will perform, not so much straight-line (though that's important), but at least as important is performance in the curves. First, no matter what Nissan says, all that stuff on the Touring HAS to weigh it down. Read the list; seat heaters and motors & CD changers & sub-woofers & etc. It HAS to weigh the car down! Then I did some reading and got to thinking about the concept of "unsprung weight" and considered the lighter wheels on the Track: Additional weight between the suspension and the road affects the cars performance much more than additional weight in the body. Additional weight in the rotating parts affects performance even more.
Someone above said that Brembo brakes are very heavy. That's contrary to what I have heard. I don't have any statistics handy, but I understand that Brembo takes steps (drilled, slotted discs, etc.) to make their braking systems lighter for improved performance. Here's a copy/paste from www.brembo.com FAQ page:
How does reducing weight of the braking system benefit the vehicle?
The mass of any vehicle requires energy to accelerate or decelerate. Reducing the vehicle mass improves acceleration, and requires less energy to be dissipated during deceleration. Rotating mass requires additional energy in order to increase or decrease its speed of rotation. Therefore, decreasing the mass of the caliper is valuable due to its contribution to total vehicle mass, and decreasing the mass of the disc has an even greater benefit due to the fact that it must rotate as well. Additionally, the mass of the brake system is also unsprung mass. Reducing the unsprung mass has the additional benefit of improved suspension performance, resulting in enhanced ride and handling.
The mass of any vehicle requires energy to accelerate or decelerate. Reducing the vehicle mass improves acceleration, and requires less energy to be dissipated during deceleration. Rotating mass requires additional energy in order to increase or decrease its speed of rotation. Therefore, decreasing the mass of the caliper is valuable due to its contribution to total vehicle mass, and decreasing the mass of the disc has an even greater benefit due to the fact that it must rotate as well. Additionally, the mass of the brake system is also unsprung mass. Reducing the unsprung mass has the additional benefit of improved suspension performance, resulting in enhanced ride and handling.
) but I am convinced that going from a Touring to a Track would be like putting on lighter shoes or taking off ankle weights.
Last edited by bhobson333; 12-01-2002 at 07:07 PM.
12-01-2002, 06:12 PM
#18
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
differences
If I were driving a Top Fuel Dragster, I would care about .3ths of a second in a 1/4 mile. I bought a Sports Car, therefore, I don't give a damn. Magazine tests are dependent on so many variables, they are almost useless as guides to a car's total performance. All I gleaned from all the tests of the Z, regardless of model, were 0-60 and 1/4 times which varied within an acceptable range for a Sports Car, not a Dragster or Funny car or any of the other classes in draggin' mags.
Sports Cars are built to enjoy on the open road or on a track with lots of curves. Nissan built the 350Z to that standard, in hopes of recreating the original excitement of the 1970 240Z. Sports Car mags have used 0-60 and 1/4 times as a basis of comparison, not as a measure of how well the car went around corners. Some of the fastest cars in a straight line were/are absolute dogs on a curvy road.
The Z performs well in a straight line, on the track and on interstates, 2 lane roads and curvy mountain roads. Getting upset about a few 10ths of a second where the Z is concerned is a total waste of time. When Nissan starts its racing program with the Z, it will be on road racing tracks, not on 1/4 mile tracks because Nissan did not build a dragster. The 350 Z is built to turn corners, not to ignore them.
Oh, yeah, food for thought, I bought a Touring 5AT/with manual shift mode, because I wanted a daily driver that will take me and my wife to Laguna Seca Raceway next September for the Monterey Historic Races near San Jose, Calif. We will drive the Z like the high speed tourer I wanted and I will be running hard up Highway 1 through the Big Sur, one of the finest sports car roads in the world, on our way to Monterey, Carmel and San Jose near the track. I hope we encounter as few straight roads as possible on our way.
Boomer
Sports Cars are built to enjoy on the open road or on a track with lots of curves. Nissan built the 350Z to that standard, in hopes of recreating the original excitement of the 1970 240Z. Sports Car mags have used 0-60 and 1/4 times as a basis of comparison, not as a measure of how well the car went around corners. Some of the fastest cars in a straight line were/are absolute dogs on a curvy road.
The Z performs well in a straight line, on the track and on interstates, 2 lane roads and curvy mountain roads. Getting upset about a few 10ths of a second where the Z is concerned is a total waste of time. When Nissan starts its racing program with the Z, it will be on road racing tracks, not on 1/4 mile tracks because Nissan did not build a dragster. The 350 Z is built to turn corners, not to ignore them.
Oh, yeah, food for thought, I bought a Touring 5AT/with manual shift mode, because I wanted a daily driver that will take me and my wife to Laguna Seca Raceway next September for the Monterey Historic Races near San Jose, Calif. We will drive the Z like the high speed tourer I wanted and I will be running hard up Highway 1 through the Big Sur, one of the finest sports car roads in the world, on our way to Monterey, Carmel and San Jose near the track. I hope we encounter as few straight roads as possible on our way.
Boomer
Last edited by Boomer; 12-01-2002 at 06:39 PM.
12-01-2002, 06:47 PM
#19
to acuratly compare, what were the elevations, temp, pressure... ect.
also the Z had about 1000miles on it, a possible factor, the track also has .5inches wider rear rims, a possible factor.
as for rim weight, it certainly matters a good deal, but not .3 sec. mayber .1... probably not. and brembo rotors are supposedly lighter, I have no hard evidence of this; but anyway, it is at a farther distance from center, making rational forces higher, maybe offsetting some of the weight difference.
my personal guess, is driver error, it is not uncommon for a person to vary their times by .3sec, specially when they dont drive that car often. they do not have a perfect launch everytime.
also the Z had about 1000miles on it, a possible factor, the track also has .5inches wider rear rims, a possible factor.
as for rim weight, it certainly matters a good deal, but not .3 sec. mayber .1... probably not. and brembo rotors are supposedly lighter, I have no hard evidence of this; but anyway, it is at a farther distance from center, making rational forces higher, maybe offsetting some of the weight difference.
my personal guess, is driver error, it is not uncommon for a person to vary their times by .3sec, specially when they dont drive that car often. they do not have a perfect launch everytime.
12-02-2002, 04:22 AM
#20
Guest
Posts: n/a
Actually all of the other replies are correct.
Driver differences, weather, temperature and humidity all make a difference. A couple of tenths is no big deal at all. I just was trying to make a point in regards to weight, a point that seemed to be lost on Turcoupe.
JRL
Driver differences, weather, temperature and humidity all make a difference. A couple of tenths is no big deal at all. I just was trying to make a point in regards to weight, a point that seemed to be lost on Turcoupe.
JRL