Notices
2003-2009 Nissan 350Z

0-60 5.4 sec 1/4 mile 14.1 $24,000

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jun 29, 2002 | 06:18 AM
  #1  
rai's Avatar
rai
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,572
Likes: 0
From: maryland
Default 0-60 5.4 sec 1/4 mile 14.1 $24,000

Sound farmiliar? Wrong it's the WRX from C&D Oct 2001.

Oh the Humanity.
Reply
Old Jun 29, 2002 | 06:21 AM
  #2  
rai's Avatar
rai
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,572
Likes: 0
From: maryland
Talking

I'm sorry but I thought that was too funny. I mean the exact same time. The trap speed was worse at 96mph.

I think just like the WRX we will get times all over the board, but hopefully some a little quicker.
Reply
Old Jun 29, 2002 | 06:37 AM
  #3  
droideka's Avatar
droideka
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,362
Likes: 1
From: frisco, tx
Cool

Save your breath, man. Nobody here is going to street race their Z.
Reply
Old Jun 29, 2002 | 07:35 AM
  #4  
Subw00er's Avatar
Subw00er
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
From: upstate ny
Default

Im actually torn between these twocars. I have a performance model on order for 32K and the wrx is bascially the same performance wise for 24K. I just hope that when I drive it, I like it! I drove the wrx again today and was not as impressed this time, but it was an unprepped car with 7 miles on it. And hell, its a subaru!
Reply
Old Jun 29, 2002 | 07:47 AM
  #5  
PistolPete's Avatar
PistolPete
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
From: St. Louis
Default

I was torn between a WRX and a Z also, but couldn't get over the sube being ugly and ordered a Z. The sube is about the perfect car if you can get along with the looks. All weather traction and decent dry handling with some scoot to boot.

The Z should be faster though, 'specially on the top end. And the looks of the Z just rock.
Reply
Old Jun 29, 2002 | 08:30 AM
  #6  
john0213's Avatar
john0213
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 717
Likes: 0
From: Richmond, Canada
Default

WRX is definitly a nice car, only that if u can accept the interior~
Reply
Old Jun 29, 2002 | 09:47 AM
  #7  
EZZ's Avatar
EZZ
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
From: So Cal
Default

The Z trapped out in the 1/4 at 101mph!. The WRX is in the mid 90s. On a roll (especially on a track), the Z would toast a WRX acceleration wise. Handling dynamics might be different but I haven't test driven a Z yet
Reply
Old Jun 29, 2002 | 10:47 AM
  #8  
___DJK___'s Avatar
___DJK___
New Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,506
Likes: 1
From: CA
Default

WRX has rental car ergonomics and questionable styling. No question about how it performs tho....

...what to do....life is a *****....
Reply
Old Jun 29, 2002 | 12:27 PM
  #9  
blackSunshine's Avatar
blackSunshine
Charter Member #84
 
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
From: Bay Area, CA
Default

I met someone who had a wrx, and I asked him how he liked it, and he wasn't that enthused.... said it didn't 'feel' like it could go 0-60 in whatever amount of time its supposed to do it in. based on the g35 reviews, I believe we are going to feel every bit of the acceleration times in the Z.
Reply
Old Jun 29, 2002 | 04:01 PM
  #10  
rai's Avatar
rai
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,572
Likes: 0
From: maryland
Default

I went through a WRX phase, but it feels like a 90's era sentra when I shut the door and the interior quality. For the price tho they are money.

Price is no issue for me, my track with options and tax is $37K. Imagine what a WRX STI could do with $37K. I was just wishing for a little more umph from the Z. The trap speed does look promising.

Damn you embargo. I want more numbers!
Reply
Old Jun 29, 2002 | 07:04 PM
  #12  
BigBadBuford's Avatar
BigBadBuford
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 479
Likes: 0
From: Hummelstown, PA
Default

I've heard the WRX is has a fairly weak trans and don't like those 5000 rpm clutch dumps too much. I don't think you'll run into too many guys on the street who will do that anyway. Just by trap speed alone you can tell the Z will be faster than the WRX from a roll. I wouldn't be surprised to see even higher trap speeds once we get a few more tests on the car.
Reply
Old Jun 29, 2002 | 07:32 PM
  #13  
mdouvris's Avatar
mdouvris
 
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
From: Plainfield,IL
Default WRX???

Come on now! That is about the most plain jane looking car that you can get. The motor is cool but it aint no chick magnet. The Z WILL get you to the plate. What you do after you get to the dish, depends on your..um...woodwork.
Reply
Old Jun 29, 2002 | 07:36 PM
  #14  
Subw00er's Avatar
Subw00er
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
From: upstate ny
Default

Boy, that brings me back, buying a car to get the girls... Wiat till you get married, my friend.... You too will be looking at cheap power. like the wrx.
Reply
Old Jun 30, 2002 | 12:07 AM
  #15  
nizl's Avatar
nizl
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 623
Likes: 0
From: siphonband.com
Default

The WRX looks like ****.

It is a crappy four-door w/ a souped-up engine.

It's like putting a blower on a Honda Accord... only not as nice looking.
Reply
Old Jun 30, 2002 | 10:20 AM
  #18  
DIGItonium's Avatar
DIGItonium
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,836
Likes: 1
From: Kansas
Default

Race both cars with the AC on... I'm curious.
Reply
Old Jun 30, 2002 | 12:23 PM
  #19  
JamieH's Avatar
JamieH
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
From: WA
Default WRX

The WRX is a great car if all you want is performance. . I test drove one about 6 months ago. It is fast, but you had to rev the heck out of it, and the engine sounded a lot like my high-strung Neon Sport, i.e. like it is about to explode at any moment. Come to think of it, the exterior looks a lot like my Neon too. The handling was pretty good.

The interior was, IMO a huge letdown. The seats were stiff, uncomfortable, and felt really cheap. They were less comfortable and just as cheap looking as my 15K Neon from '95. The rest of the interior was pretty cheap looking too.

If I were married and needed a 4WD station-wagon, the WRX would be my first choise, no questions asked. But anyone who doesn't need either AWD or a wagon is really better off getting something else IMO. The styling and interior just aren't there. I would buy a Toyota Celica (about the same price) over a WRX simply on styling alone, even though the WRX can blow the Celica away in acceleration.
Reply
Old Jun 30, 2002 | 02:02 PM
  #20  
john0213's Avatar
john0213
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 717
Likes: 0
From: Richmond, Canada
Default

Originally posted by nizl
The WRX looks like ****.

It is a crappy four-door w/ a souped-up engine.

It's like putting a blower on a Honda Accord... only not as nice looking.
"WRX looks like ****"<--------------Roflmao~
yeah i can't imagine a **** flowing on the road~LoL~
Reply



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:45 PM.