350z IS NOT HEAVY
12-13-2002, 05:53 AM
#121
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Peregrine
[B]Well, there is one car with 400 HP that weighs only 3064 pounds -- a Ferrari 360 Modena. If I had $140,615 in my pocket, it would be at the top of my list...
good luck getting one at 140K$$
My buddy just got one at $190 F1 shifting NON-grey market and slightly used (go figure)
you can get a grey market and NON-F1 shifting for around 140-150K used
[B]Well, there is one car with 400 HP that weighs only 3064 pounds -- a Ferrari 360 Modena. If I had $140,615 in my pocket, it would be at the top of my list...
good luck getting one at 140K$$
My buddy just got one at $190 F1 shifting NON-grey market and slightly used (go figure)
you can get a grey market and NON-F1 shifting for around 140-150K used
12-13-2002, 06:04 AM
#122
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Denver
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is unreal...I want you to name me ONE two seater sports car out there that has at least 350hp, and weighs LESS than 3100 lbs
If we expand our horizons to include some British cars that list grows very long very fast.
In regards to the F360 -- there are in fact deals out there, folks getting into them for MSRP and in some cases under on the used market -- just not the convertibles, yet anyway.
12-13-2002, 11:35 AM
#124
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by rodH
btw, doesn't the VETTE NOT have a spare tire???
while there are ways to lighten a car, I don't want to resort to that (unless you are at the track).
btw, doesn't the VETTE NOT have a spare tire???
while there are ways to lighten a car, I don't want to resort to that (unless you are at the track).
12-13-2002, 01:17 PM
#125
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Denver
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually no, the Z06 does not have run flats, that's the regular C5's. With the Z06 you get a can of fix a flat and a number to call -- similar to the BMW solution for their M roadsters and M coupes.
12-13-2002, 01:56 PM
#126
Charter Member #88
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Nashville,Tn
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Elsitan and Steve C, thanks for the info. Gives me some insite as to what road racing is about.
I just read in the last week about the Z06 drivers having problems not knowing they were running on "flat" tires. Seems they were complaining about the cars poor handling. I will see if I can find the publication and post it here.
I have been thinking about the older Z's I and my wife have owned. They too understeered and were heavy. A buddy of mine told me to accelarate when the front started to push and the car would quit pushing. I tried it and it worked. That was back in '78 and I have not tried to do that since. Maybe the driving style one needs to have at speed is a lot different than we have been taught. I don't know as there is nowhere around here to safely try practice. Those who have access to a track or instructor may want to try or ask for the rest (me) us.
I just read in the last week about the Z06 drivers having problems not knowing they were running on "flat" tires. Seems they were complaining about the cars poor handling. I will see if I can find the publication and post it here.
I have been thinking about the older Z's I and my wife have owned. They too understeered and were heavy. A buddy of mine told me to accelarate when the front started to push and the car would quit pushing. I tried it and it worked. That was back in '78 and I have not tried to do that since. Maybe the driving style one needs to have at speed is a lot different than we have been taught. I don't know as there is nowhere around here to safely try practice. Those who have access to a track or instructor may want to try or ask for the rest (me) us.
12-13-2002, 02:26 PM
#127
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by steve c
Actually no, the Z06 does not have run flats, that's the regular C5's. With the Z06 you get a can of fix a flat and a number to call -- similar to the BMW solution for their M roadsters and M coupes.
Actually no, the Z06 does not have run flats, that's the regular C5's. With the Z06 you get a can of fix a flat and a number to call -- similar to the BMW solution for their M roadsters and M coupes.
12-13-2002, 03:02 PM
#128
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cont
Originally posted by hurley64
The Z, for a car with a 3.5 liter V6, does seem to weigh an excessive amount. Most of the reviews that I have read indicate an "as tested" weight of 3350lbs. With 287HP its able to reach 60 in an indicated 5.4-5.6 seconds, still not to shabby.
As a comparison, lets look at a BMW Z4 3.0. This car has every luxury feature available, tilt-tele steering, heated seats, leather, convertable, but only a 3.0 liter 225HP engine, and yet its still able to zoom to 60 in 5.4 seconds!! It weighs in at an average of 3100 lbs.
This is why a lot of folks wished the Z were lighter. This is also why its ridiculous to argue that "well they made the Z heavier so it would feel more substantial". Thats so much crap! You think the Z4 feels like a yugo? Dont even get me started on a Vette comparison, the vette has a V8, is dimensionably larger and yet still weighs less than the Z, with the added bonus of 350-405 HP!!
The Z is a fatty and that fatness makes it slower than it should be. I still think its a great car but it would have been even better if lighter(wish it was cheaper too)!!
John
The Z, for a car with a 3.5 liter V6, does seem to weigh an excessive amount. Most of the reviews that I have read indicate an "as tested" weight of 3350lbs. With 287HP its able to reach 60 in an indicated 5.4-5.6 seconds, still not to shabby.
As a comparison, lets look at a BMW Z4 3.0. This car has every luxury feature available, tilt-tele steering, heated seats, leather, convertable, but only a 3.0 liter 225HP engine, and yet its still able to zoom to 60 in 5.4 seconds!! It weighs in at an average of 3100 lbs.
This is why a lot of folks wished the Z were lighter. This is also why its ridiculous to argue that "well they made the Z heavier so it would feel more substantial". Thats so much crap! You think the Z4 feels like a yugo? Dont even get me started on a Vette comparison, the vette has a V8, is dimensionably larger and yet still weighs less than the Z, with the added bonus of 350-405 HP!!
The Z is a fatty and that fatness makes it slower than it should be. I still think its a great car but it would have been even better if lighter(wish it was cheaper too)!!
John
New BMWs have variable valve technology, which the Z also benefits from, but, the BMWs have variable valve technology on both intake and exhaust, the 350Z has varible valve technology on intake only. Think maybe thats why German horses seem stronger?
I would think it is a contributer and that would be a logical next step for Nissan with the VQ35 Engine and some weight loss might be in order, too. Or, the new GT-R may be the recipient of most of the new tecnology even before the Z, and the Z might get the new technology in 2004 or 5, after the GT-T has carved a new niche for itself. As for the Z being fat, except for the track, who cares? It has plenty of power to haul my fat *** around at warp speed.
Boomer
12-13-2002, 04:43 PM
#129
it isn't all GERMAN HORSES, just those bred by BWM, my dads CLK55 has 342 HP (more than an M3 with 374 ft ls torque, iirc) and it isn't even as fast as a HEAVIER M3 with 9 less HP and over 100 less torque. I know part of it is due to the auto in teh MB, but if you look at how fast many of the BWMs are compared to even thier German friends, the BMW seems to bred a better horse (240 hP old M roadster VS 250 HP boxster S, M5 VS E55 (old), M3 vs all 911s (296 hp) prior to this years 320 hp version, etc....).
I really don't understand it, I have heard some claim that te Mags love BMW and inflate teh #s (deflate accel times), I know a guy who has a CLK55 and a new M3 and he swears the CLK is faster, and quicker, and LAUGHS at the articles the print otherwise. I like BMWs, so I am not sure I buy into that conseracy, but it is an interesting one.
I really don't understand it, I have heard some claim that te Mags love BMW and inflate teh #s (deflate accel times), I know a guy who has a CLK55 and a new M3 and he swears the CLK is faster, and quicker, and LAUGHS at the articles the print otherwise. I like BMWs, so I am not sure I buy into that conseracy, but it is an interesting one.
12-13-2002, 05:51 PM
#130
Turbo Whore
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West suburbs of Chi-town
Posts: 7,303
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally posted by rodH
it isn't all GERMAN HORSES, just those bred by BWM, my dads CLK55 has 342 HP (more than an M3 with 374 ft ls torque, iirc) and it isn't even as fast as a HEAVIER M3 with 9 less HP and over 100 less torque. I know part of it is due to the auto in teh MB, but if you look at how fast many of the BWMs are compared to even thier German friends, the BMW seems to bred a better horse (240 hP old M roadster VS 250 HP boxster S, M5 VS E55 (old), M3 vs all 911s (296 hp) prior to this years 320 hp version, etc....).
it isn't all GERMAN HORSES, just those bred by BWM, my dads CLK55 has 342 HP (more than an M3 with 374 ft ls torque, iirc) and it isn't even as fast as a HEAVIER M3 with 9 less HP and over 100 less torque. I know part of it is due to the auto in teh MB, but if you look at how fast many of the BWMs are compared to even thier German friends, the BMW seems to bred a better horse (240 hP old M roadster VS 250 HP boxster S, M5 VS E55 (old), M3 vs all 911s (296 hp) prior to this years 320 hp version, etc....).
um...don't want to rain on your parade...but the M3 weighs in at 3414 and the CLK55 weighs in at 3444.
The CLK55 is a faster car...the auto trans hurts it in 1/4 miles times. I have a friend with an M3 6M and a friend with a CLK55 and the CLK can pull the M from a roll with ease.
12-13-2002, 06:14 PM
#131
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
heavy
Originally posted by BriGuyMax
um...don't want to rain on your parade...but the M3 weighs in at 3414 and the CLK55 weighs in at 3444.
The CLK55 is a faster car...the auto trans hurts it in 1/4 miles times. I have a friend with an M3 6M and a friend with a CLK55 and the CLK can pull the M from a roll with ease.
um...don't want to rain on your parade...but the M3 weighs in at 3414 and the CLK55 weighs in at 3444.
The CLK55 is a faster car...the auto trans hurts it in 1/4 miles times. I have a friend with an M3 6M and a friend with a CLK55 and the CLK can pull the M from a roll with ease.
Boomer babble-- it just slipped out, so sue me.
12-13-2002, 07:30 PM
#132
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: somewhere
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Z06 has always come with Goodyear F1 supercar tires....NEVER Run Flats!
Most BMWs are geared low, thats usually why they have better 0-60 and 1/4 times. I also believe they underrate engines.
John
Most BMWs are geared low, thats usually why they have better 0-60 and 1/4 times. I also believe they underrate engines.
John
12-14-2002, 01:06 PM
#133
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Denver
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Must be from last year, the 385hp ZO6 had runflats, but the new, 405hp has new performance tires, not runflats. My mistake.
As to the BMW comment above, yes BMW has a history of underrating their motors -- the S52 from the previous generation M3 and M roadster/Coupes is a good example. BMW rates the motor at 240, yet there are numerous examples of 250-260 dynos stock (flywheel of course).
12-14-2002, 06:05 PM
#134
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by steve c
No, ALL Z06's had goodyear "super tires" -- not runflats.
As to the BMW comment above, yes BMW has a history of underrating their motors -- the S52 from the previous generation M3 and M roadster/Coupes is a good example. BMW rates the motor at 240, yet there are numerous examples of 250-260 dynos stock (flywheel of course).
No, ALL Z06's had goodyear "super tires" -- not runflats.
As to the BMW comment above, yes BMW has a history of underrating their motors -- the S52 from the previous generation M3 and M roadster/Coupes is a good example. BMW rates the motor at 240, yet there are numerous examples of 250-260 dynos stock (flywheel of course).
12-14-2002, 06:53 PM
#135
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Denver
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, but you agree the BMWs have variable valve timing on both exhaust and intake, yes?
It would appear having such timing on both intake and exhaust could also improve the performance, regardless of what HP is quoted or underquoted. capiche
12-14-2002, 07:39 PM
#136
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by steve c
Actually no, The S52 motor I mentioned earlier has only single VANOS, meaning the intake only.
Not really. Motors, like people are multifactoral. Having cam profile changes does not neccessarily mean better performance. Take the LS1 / LS6 for example...
Actually no, The S52 motor I mentioned earlier has only single VANOS, meaning the intake only.
Not really. Motors, like people are multifactoral. Having cam profile changes does not neccessarily mean better performance. Take the LS1 / LS6 for example...
Please explain to me that a rodent does not figure into the Vanos system.
Boomer-- better breathing is always a valued performance factor for any engine if you wish to increase performance. BMW says the double Vanos system does that......?
12-14-2002, 08:49 PM
#137
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: austin, tx y'all
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Boomer
If that is true why would BMW advertise the double Vanos valve system as such a breakthrough in engine performance? Big changes take big money, what payoff would BMW get for the double Vanos system unless it is just hype and has no application in the real world? Marketing is one of the skills I learned in my checkered career and I can smell a rat when it appears in print.
Please explain to me that a rodent does not figure into the Vanos system.
Boomer-- better breathing is always a valued performance factor for any engine if you wish to increase performance. BMW says the double Vanos system does that......?
If that is true why would BMW advertise the double Vanos valve system as such a breakthrough in engine performance? Big changes take big money, what payoff would BMW get for the double Vanos system unless it is just hype and has no application in the real world? Marketing is one of the skills I learned in my checkered career and I can smell a rat when it appears in print.
Please explain to me that a rodent does not figure into the Vanos system.
Boomer-- better breathing is always a valued performance factor for any engine if you wish to increase performance. BMW says the double Vanos system does that......?
Here's an E46 M3 plot:
http://www.activeautowerke.com/dyno/..._NoExhaust.asp
And a 330ci:
http://www.activeautowerke.com/dyno/...0AA%20Chip.asp
Hp is hp, tq is tq. German horses aren't any stronger; bmws tend to provide robust performance b/c of underrating from the factory, well engineered suspension designs, and sticky tires that get the power to the ground.
Depending on the particular car, bmw has underrated their motors by as much as 15 hp.
12-15-2002, 09:18 AM
#138
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RODENTIA
Originally posted by frayed
In a nutshell, dual vanos provides robust low end tq and optimal cam profiles at the high end. Take a look at the tq curve of any dual vanos engine, and you'll see startingly flat tq (a good thing) for a naturally aspirated motor.
Here's an E46 M3 plot:
http://www.activeautowerke.com/dyno/..._NoExhaust.asp
And a 330ci:
http://www.activeautowerke.com/dyno/...0AA%20Chip.asp
Hp is hp, tq is tq. German horses aren't any stronger; bmws tend to provide robust performance b/c of underrating from the factory, well engineered suspension designs, and sticky tires that get the power to the ground.
Depending on the particular car, bmw has underrated their motors by as much as 15 hp.
In a nutshell, dual vanos provides robust low end tq and optimal cam profiles at the high end. Take a look at the tq curve of any dual vanos engine, and you'll see startingly flat tq (a good thing) for a naturally aspirated motor.
Here's an E46 M3 plot:
http://www.activeautowerke.com/dyno/..._NoExhaust.asp
And a 330ci:
http://www.activeautowerke.com/dyno/...0AA%20Chip.asp
Hp is hp, tq is tq. German horses aren't any stronger; bmws tend to provide robust performance b/c of underrating from the factory, well engineered suspension designs, and sticky tires that get the power to the ground.
Depending on the particular car, bmw has underrated their motors by as much as 15 hp.
12-15-2002, 11:58 AM
#139
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: austin, tx y'all
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: RODENTIA
Originally posted by Boomer
Hmmmmm. Not sure I buy your argument about underrated HP from BMW, but I'll leave it for now. BTW, The Z has over 200lbs of torque at 1200 rpm, so the curve is also very flat on the dyno.
Hmmmmm. Not sure I buy your argument about underrated HP from BMW, but I'll leave it for now. BTW, The Z has over 200lbs of torque at 1200 rpm, so the curve is also very flat on the dyno.
12-15-2002, 12:14 PM
#140
Registered User
Boomer,
The Z also has variable valve timing on the intake and exhaust.
Timing makes some difference, but not much. The real difference comes with variable LIFT. That's why VTEC is so nice. You get two different cam profiles, one for low RPM/high torque and one for high RMP/ high torque. I think there are a few people working on infinitely variable lift, which would be even better than VTEC, by moving the entire camshaft closer and farther from the lifters, but I can't remember who that was.
Anyhow, the point is that the Z also has variable intake and exhaust TIMING.
-D'oh!
The Z also has variable valve timing on the intake and exhaust.
Timing makes some difference, but not much. The real difference comes with variable LIFT. That's why VTEC is so nice. You get two different cam profiles, one for low RPM/high torque and one for high RMP/ high torque. I think there are a few people working on infinitely variable lift, which would be even better than VTEC, by moving the entire camshaft closer and farther from the lifters, but I can't remember who that was.
Anyhow, the point is that the Z also has variable intake and exhaust TIMING.
-D'oh!