Michael-Dallas

This is my opinion so don't take it as gospel: given 2 average Joes, one w/ a 350Z and one w/ a 911, I'd think both would be equally matched on a roadcourse. However, given 2 Joes that know how to drive their cars, I'd think (know) the 911 will definitely come out ahead.

Here's another example: the C5 has a higher handling potential than a 300ZX Twin Turbo. Yet, ex-300-now-C5 owners most of the time will say that the 300 feels tighter. That doesn't mean the 300 handles better than the C5, it just means the C5 requires a different type of driver/driving to exploit its potential.

It's much the same way w/ the 911. For a front-engine, RWD car, our natural inclination is to let off the throttle when things get hairy. On the 911, the opposite holds true -- when things get hairy, keep on the throttle. At least, this is what my good friend that instructs in his 911 Turbo tells me. *shrug*

Neither. I'd want a neutral-balanced car in a race.

Michael.

Boomer

Porsches can be the most evil handling of any car on the road, why do you think they have such an extreme tire stagger from having a rear engine(911s)? They are not balanced or midengine unless you are referring to the Boxster, which is a mid engine design.

I didn't see the Boxster mentioned; I thought we had begun commenting on 911s? If we were, a 911 are rear engine cars, w/over 60% of its weight on the rear and, the engine is located behind the rear axle, not mid-engine at all.

integrate

ok, cool. I just wanted clarification as what you meant by your past statement about the car needing a different kind of driver.

btw, did your friend mean to say stay on the throttle because of the AWD on the turbo?

I meant would you rather have a car that will understeer or a car that will slightly oversteer in a road race.

integrate

That was my mistake. I meant, they are all either mid engine or rear engine. I've seen enough 911 motors to know better, again my mistake.

The 911s obviously do not have equal weight distribution, but are set up so that they have better balance suited for road racing compared to the 350z. The NSX also has similar weight distribution, which has a 40/60 weight distribution. Almost every true sports car will have more weight in the rear than front.

Boomer

I agree with you except for your last statement. I would reword it to say"almost every exotic sports car will have more weight in the rear than front". The 350Z has a 53/47 % weight disrtibution and the Boxster has a 47/53%. My 91 MR2T had a 43/57% split. My 1972 240Z had a 50/50% weight distribution. Its difficult to say for certain which setup is best for street driving.

For racing, the engine behind the driver is best was proven by Jim Clark at Indy in 1963, and the front engine cars were doomed. The 350Z pushes(understeers) and the 911 and Boxster oversteer at the limit. Understeering is inherently easier to deal with because you can take your foot off the gas and turn the car, with diminished speed, in a corner. It is easier for amateur drivers to deal with, take your foot off the throttle, slow down and turn through the curve.

Oversteering is trickier, in some cars, a 911, you should increase power in the curve when the rear begins to slide and apply opposite lock steering to straighten it out. Understeer provokes a more natural response in less skilled drivers and oversteer is less natural, apply more speed when you are ready to go off the road already? Because if you don't, the rear tires will lose adhesion and you will fly off the road *** first because a rear engine car' heavy end is in the back. Many very skilled drivers prefer oversteering cars because they are more of a challenge. I'll take a little understeer myself for over the road driving, especially if you don't know whats around the next bend, but some want to kick the tail out for more fun. Its a matter of taste, either one is OK if the car's behavior isn't extreme or you are a very skilled driver.

Boomer babble--use it or lose it, I don't care.

Michael-Dallas

Not only that, but a driver that can skillfully oversteer a 911 and keep it under control through a turn may actually be faster. In some cases, drifting around corners may actually decrease lap times if done properly.

And to answer [integrate's] question regarding the Turbo and AWD, my friend says his 911 Turbo tends to understeer just a little because of the AWD. Methinks the AWD was added to the Turbo to keep owners from killing themselves. Early 2WD Turbos were dangerous to drive because when floored, power was so instantaneous that owners would lose control (i.e. get caught in a spin) and kill themselves.

IMO, this is part of the reason why 911 owners somtimes consider other Porsches (i.e. 944, 914, Boxster, etc.) as Porsches w/ panties -- because they are easier to drive. *shrug*

Michael.

Boomer

I think your methinks are right. AWD was added, I believe, to make the Turbo driveable for the less competent drivers, non-racers like some of us. Steve Stillen did a comparo for R&T, which included a lot of hot laps in pairs of sports cars, ie Porsche Turbo/Boxster, Corvette/Camaro SS and several others. Stillen loved driving the Turbo but made no bones about its power, he called it a"Beast" to drive fast on a track.

It really makes you wonder how the 2 wheel drive GT2 drives at speed, with no All Wheel Drive, VDC or other failsafe devices. As Rahilio says, it might be easier to crap upside down than drive the GT2 REALLY fast without killing yourself.

Boomer

integrate

I completely agree with you, except for the "exotic" part. I simply don't consider the 350z a true sports car, like it used to be. Also with the fact that not all sports cars are exotic. Also, I was talking about road racing, so like you said, a car that understeers a bit would be suited better for the street.

Of course, most average drivers would rather have understeer because oversteer is simply not something ever driver knows how to control. My point was that more weight in the rear is always better for a skilled driver on a road coarse (track).

regards.

gouki

Integrate, you are obviously a Honda man (few mention of NSX and S2000s), why did you get a Z? Or did you really get one?

Every Z was a sports car whether they were 40 years old, or 4 months old (yes I would dare call the 280s sports cars, there are many proud 280zx owners).

Perhaps you're bias towards lighter cars and defining them as only true sports cars.

If that was the case, perhaps the first beetle ever made would suit you best. Its light, has 2 doors, looks "sporty", had basic creature comfort, almost "perfect" weigh distribution etc etc...

Man, the more I read about this, the more of a Nissan man we are. 240z will be the next car on my list, many people are going to be embarrassed by a 40 year old car once I get it worked.

You probably think that Maseratis, BMWs, Mercedes Benz, 300zxs and Supras are not real sports cars because they're too heavy or don't don't look like sports cars.

integrate

Sure, you can call me a Honda man. That is fine with me. I got a Z because I loved the style, it has plenty of power, and handles pretty well. I also like the interior a lot with it's ergonomics. It's got gobs of torque which makes driving it much easier at lower rpms.

Fine with me

If you can find wherever I said that a car is a sports car JUST because of it's light weight, I will bow down to you. Until then, you're making things up in your head. Again, your argument has false logic.

I have my opinion of what a sports car is and obviously, you have yours. My friend's wife doesn't call his 996 Turbo a "real" sports car...she drives a 500 HP RX7(R2) and a track junkie. Now, if you've ever driven the two, you might have an understanding of why. Everyone has different opinions, so deal with it. For me, MANY things consider what a sports car is, or is not.

I don't even know what this statement has to do with your argument.

Your argument is simply weak, as well as involving assumptions which are not true. Yes, I think this, I think that...I'm sure you know what I'm thinking

integrate

Find me a 01 Z06 w/ very low mileage that's at most $30K and I'll buy it.


btw, good luck.

gouki

Look for someone who doesn't call the Z a sports car, but has one doesn't sound right. If you think its not a sports car, but wanted one, you should have looked elsewhere or bought the G35. Doesn't look right at all.

You talk a lot about the S, and most of your arguments are usually in favour of the S than with the Z (check out the S2ki forum if you can't remember). Now from what I know of S drivers, only their cars are true sports cars. Their definition says that sports cars do not have a roof, they are light, they have sharp handling etc etc etc... Hey, sounds like you.

Don't take this the wrong way man, but your posts seemed double sided and on the weak side. Try to understand what I wrote, but slowly.

A 500hp RX7? Does it break down every 2 days? In the garage 29 days a month? Ask your friend's wife to drive a VW Jetta, then a VW bettle. If She has good judgement (I hope so), she'll say that the beetle is definitely more of a sports car than the Jetta. If not, she doesn't know what a sports car is, she only knows what a drag car is (even a bus can do drags).

Oh, I don't consider the S a sports car. Its nothing more than an overpriced Miata copy with a more basic interior. As you said, everyone has their own opinions.

steve c

Actually no. Lifting off the gas in any car is going to rotate the rear end around. It's unnatrual not to do this when in panic mode, but learn it and it may save you some body work someday.

No, stock they both understeer. The last car (sold in the states) I can remember that actually had oversteer dialed in from the factory was the Ferrari 348.

No, they prefer it because it's a faster way around the track.

General rule of thumb:
50/50 front to back is idea, 50/50 cross weight is ideal. When adding vast amounts of horsepower shift some of the weight slowly to the back of the car for traction. Be preparded for this to mess up all of your other handling dynamics and take many many hours to sort out. In many ways this is why your early Porsche 930 slant turbo's make such great track cars with the boost turned up.

That traight has nothing to do with the 911 and everything to do with idiot drivers.

See above, not always true. I don't see the Real Time team sticking sand bags in their Type R's hatches

I agree with Integrates definition of a sports car by the way. Supra's, Mercede's etc are GT's more than they are sports cars.

I happen to know of one for that range with 20k miles, a 01. It's a lemon by the way, to the dealer at least once a month, and only weekend driven.

Ignorant comment. Does the S2000 threaten you? Is this why you must always insult it?

integrate

That's just a retarded statement, so I'm not even going to argue with that. I just listed reasons why I bought the Z and knowing very well that the 350Z wasn't a true sports car, to me. Did I EVER say I was dissastisifed with the Z? I love the car and it's perfect for what I needed.

Now you're just completely misquoting me, as well as other s2ki.com members, and trying to back up your ridiculous claims with hearsay. The only thing I've said the S2000 does better is handling, which is TRUE. Now, if you can find where I said a sports car doesn't have a roof, and are light, etc etc, I'll bow to you. Until then, you're a complete idiot. I'm guessing you're not on the debate team.

Double sided on the weak side? That would mean that I'm doing a bad job of giving views of both sides in a weak way? Didn't you say earlier that I'm biased towards Honda? Now I really know you have no idea of what you're talking about.


Another igorant statement. Now you're telling people what to do..Who the are you to give people advice? Have you ever driven a 500HP RX7 or a 996 Turbo? Maybe you should read another thread on the my350z.com board regarding why maybe the 996 Turbo was equipped with AWD.


Fine with me, I'm not arguing. I completely respect your idea of what a sports car is, but when you start bashing someone else, who has more knowledge than you do, because of what their idea of a sports car is, you're respect and credibility simply goes down the drain. Especially when making completely false claims.

Personally, I think you're just a kid who doesn't know better. Sorry other Z owners have to read this ********. If you want to reply, PM me instead.

cheers

integrate

That is what I thought...
I was a bit confused as to why he said only the 911 would rotate when lifting off the gas...


Damn you Steve, you're not supposed to bring up the Real Time Integras! Steve is right, it is not always true.


Ha! I knew it

cheers.

Michael-Dallas

Whoa, that's not what I said. I can see where I elude to that (and that was not my intention), however, that's aside from the point I was making. I was explaining how a 911 requires a different type of driver/driving. An oversteering 911 would take more driver experience to recover than an oversteering front-engine, RWD car. I re-iterate: when things get hairy (i.e. whatever vehicle you're driving begins to oversteer), our natural tendency is to let off the gas; the opposite holds true for the 911 -- you give it more gas.

Michael.

integrate

Right right...I was just a bit confused as to what you said earlier...but I completely understand now .