August Car & Driver
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
From: Orlando, FL
Edmunds Best Perfroming cars and truck of 2000
I found this page in a hurry. There is probably one for 2001/2.
The Z compares favorably to most of these cars.
Won't outperform the $40,000-$50,000 gang, but no one ever claimed it would.
Too bad we won't be dusting any Z28s or Firehawks though.
I found this page in a hurry. There is probably one for 2001/2.
The Z compares favorably to most of these cars.
Won't outperform the $40,000-$50,000 gang, but no one ever claimed it would.
Too bad we won't be dusting any Z28s or Firehawks though.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I have to say that I am slightly disappointed by those numbers but like others have said this is not the last word in the car's performance, it's the first. C&D is not that great with getting the most out of cars they test anyway. The heavier weight is definitely the biggest punch in the stomach.
Any news is good news (except for bad news)! I will have to question some of the figures given, as I have seen the press kit. I do feel that most of the numbers were probably actual test numbers from C&D. Only they know the testing conditions. Wait for a few more mags to publish . . . especially Motor Trend and Automobile. They usually have better numbers. This being said I don’t think most of us will win or lose a street race as close as the differences will be. We know who we can pick on and who we can't. The other party will probably blame a loss on a driving error or car problem (You know what I am talking about). I know Automobile planned to test the car on a closed track in Michigan. Everyone Chill out, the car, the performance, and the ride is breathtaking. REMEMBER: Enjoy the ride! (I did)
I never really cared much about the 0-60. What I want is a quick 1/4miles. Somewhere around 13.6-13.8sec. If Z can pull those 1/4miles, then it can hang with just about any cars in the 13's range.
14.1@101 is not the performance number I was looking for...But then again, this is not the FINAL production car with more than 287hp right?
We'll need to see couple more magazine reviews before we make final judgement..
14.1@101 is not the performance number I was looking for...But then again, this is not the FINAL production car with more than 287hp right?
We'll need to see couple more magazine reviews before we make final judgement..
Guest
Posts: n/a
This should make us feel better. It's C&D's first preview of the S2000:
http://www.caranddriver.com/xp/Caran...lass=20&page=1
0-60 6.8 sec
1/4 mile 15.1 sec @96 mph
http://www.caranddriver.com/xp/Caran...lass=20&page=1
0-60 6.8 sec
1/4 mile 15.1 sec @96 mph
Registered User
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
From: Toronto, CANADA
C&D is known to report information of what the 'average' driver will perform and not the best time possible. They've given the 2000 SVT Lightning a 1/4 mile ET of 14.2, while many (MANY) other publications quote the Lightning to run 13.6@101mph.
Charter Member #67
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 327
Likes: 0
From: FL
OK, well these number are most likely conservative.
I'll assume that this is where I start, my "base numbers".
Let's talk about mods.
Intake upgrade: give me about 5hp (maybe a couple more).
Exhaust upgrade: give me another 15hp (maybe a couple more).
Supercharger, turbos, whatever.
All I know is when I get mine it will be paid for in full, and I will be devoting some resources to a fair amount of "tuning".
My dad can beat up your dad!
Hehe, this is going to be fun, I can't wait to start tweaking my new toy. I have never been able to exercise much restraint in this area.
I'll assume that this is where I start, my "base numbers".
Let's talk about mods.
Intake upgrade: give me about 5hp (maybe a couple more).
Exhaust upgrade: give me another 15hp (maybe a couple more).
Supercharger, turbos, whatever.
All I know is when I get mine it will be paid for in full, and I will be devoting some resources to a fair amount of "tuning".
My dad can beat up your dad!
Hehe, this is going to be fun, I can't wait to start tweaking my new toy. I have never been able to exercise much restraint in this area.
Last edited by Z CRAZY; Jun 26, 2002 at 05:39 AM.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
From: sydney aust
this weight figure has to be wrong . nissan stated their power to weight ratio was to be 11 pounds to 1hp or better 287 x 11 =3157 it would have to have over300hp for 3322 to be correct 3322 IS TO DAM HEAVY FOR A SPORTS CAR
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hmm Hmm hmm...
Well the 5.4 is ok, but god, anything over 3200lbs is way too much. 14.1 at 101... i like that.... I would place money that the tester didn't either get a good start or didn't rev it to its potential. With a trap speed like that, i would have expected 13.6-13.8... So you can hold me to this, i would bet my supercharger that one of the other mags gets it into the high-mid 13's.
Dustin
Well the 5.4 is ok, but god, anything over 3200lbs is way too much. 14.1 at 101... i like that.... I would place money that the tester didn't either get a good start or didn't rev it to its potential. With a trap speed like that, i would have expected 13.6-13.8... So you can hold me to this, i would bet my supercharger that one of the other mags gets it into the high-mid 13's.
Dustin
Registered User
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 613
Likes: 0
From: Los Angeles
I would say that I am only disappointed by the skidpad.
I would hope that a 2 seat sportscar would exceed the M3 (4-seater) skidpad and poke up into the .9x range to compete more with the 'Vette.
I would hope that a 2 seat sportscar would exceed the M3 (4-seater) skidpad and poke up into the .9x range to compete more with the 'Vette.
Registered User
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
From: usa
jmanz,
so when you say that this is authentic, do you mean that the info is authentic ? i.e. you know that car and driver actually acheived these results. it does seem odd that the august issue is already out. and the only person to get it is a person that i assume is a s2000 fan (judging by his name). and its even odder that these numbers seem to trail the numbers of the s2000 by a tick. dont mean to raise suspicion, just my thoughts.
so when you say that this is authentic, do you mean that the info is authentic ? i.e. you know that car and driver actually acheived these results. it does seem odd that the august issue is already out. and the only person to get it is a person that i assume is a s2000 fan (judging by his name). and its even odder that these numbers seem to trail the numbers of the s2000 by a tick. dont mean to raise suspicion, just my thoughts.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
From: cincinnati, oh
Jmanz, not to speculate too much, but you say you want to keep with "the rules" and not post the entire article until July 3rd. This is confusing to me seeing that the magazine has "officially" gone public. Very interesting to say the least! The numbers posted are somewhat disappointing and the hype the car has recieved did push my hopes into the clouds....BUT... how does this compare to the Porsche Boxster S, and how can Nissan claim that this car will give the performance of a 50k vehicle when the numbers are similar to a Mustang GT!! Something is fishy...or C and D had a 16 yr driving the car! Please let me know what you think. Thanks!
6MT Performance, Daytona Blue, ordered Jan 25
6MT Performance, Daytona Blue, ordered Jan 25
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally posted by AtlZ
jmanz,
so when you say that this is authentic, do you mean that the info is authentic ? i.e. you know that car and driver actually acheived these results. it does seem odd that the august issue is already out. and the only person to get it is a person that i assume is a s2000 fan (judging by his name). and its even odder that these numbers seem to trail the numbers of the s2000 by a tick. dont mean to raise suspicion, just my thoughts.
jmanz,
so when you say that this is authentic, do you mean that the info is authentic ? i.e. you know that car and driver actually acheived these results. it does seem odd that the august issue is already out. and the only person to get it is a person that i assume is a s2000 fan (judging by his name). and its even odder that these numbers seem to trail the numbers of the s2000 by a tick. dont mean to raise suspicion, just my thoughts.
If you're a subscriber to the magazine, you get it early, this isn't news to anyone that has ever subscribed to a magazine before. It's real, that issue of C&D does have those stats and that cover.
Again, I'd like to point out to those whiners regarding weight/speed/all the other stuff....
<b> THIS IS NOT A PRODUCTION 350Z!!!!</b>
Sorry to sound like an ***, but we get all this fresh blood coming in here posting and whining, when they haven't done their homework. They don't know what thye're talking about and if they'd only read a few posts or use that elusive SEARCH feature... they might actually know that this isn't a production Z that was tested.
What's funny is that I'd bet almost anything more than 80% of those complaining about the Z, don't even have one ordered. They're all cranky because they didn't get a Ferrari for under $30,000.
Maybe I'm way out of line here and one of the other mods will edit me, haha, I'm not sure. I'd just like those of you that are cranky to show me another car that is same price or cheaper with the same stats the Z has. (or better )
Alright, got the venting off ma' chest.
-j-
