ShaunC410

This was kind of brought up in a differant post, but I wanted to hear more peopls opinions.

Every year the base Zs get slower and more expensive. I dont really mean really slow but the 0-60 times are in the higher 5s than in the lower or mid 5s I think its more because of their weight. For one the GPS system adds weight not alot. But it does add weight. Look at this

Year Car 0-60 then 1/4 mile time

2003 Nissan 350z 5.4 14.1
2004 Nissan 350z Roadster 5.7 14.3
2004 Nissan 350Z 5.3 13.77 (M.T. Mar '04)
2005 Nissan 350Z 35th Anniversary Edition 6 Speed 5.8 14.3 (C&D Apr '05)

The 2004 Roadster isnt a big deal since its a convertable and obviosly adds more weight. But look at the 05 35th Anniversary, 0-60 5.8? 1/4 mile 14.3? Thats alittle dissapointing. Maybe the times arent exatly right.....maybe traction issues?

JonsilvZ

My 03 Z is about 200lbs lighter then the 06 ones. So go figure.

Alberto

iTrader: (14)

Because they get heavier every year it seems, and magazine drivers are worthless...in reality 2 Z's on the street I dont care what year, revup or not stock vs stock will come down to the driver.

ShaunC410

Aright I know the weights make a differance, but 200lbs wow thats a big differance. Do they just make the car alittle bigger everyyear? Or the parts way more?

cvt

iTrader: (1)

+1

ShaunC410

I didnt mean to rag on Zs if you guys are thinking that I was just curious why.

Swiffer

iTrader: (8)

price is going up with inflation. Figure 2% each year. In 2004 a car would cost 25,000. In 2005 it would cost 25,500. In 2006 it would cost 26,010...

That explains why the cost of the car increases each year.

XtaZee

iTrader: (1)

The Z has actually gotten cheaper. in 1996 the price of a 300ZX TT was over $30,000 fot a car with the same performance as a base 350Z.

Swiffer

iTrader: (8)

You are comparing oranges to tangerines.

StarcraftBW

iTrader: (10)

it's getting fatter .....But G is getting faster and faster though ....

XtaZee

iTrader: (1)

I take that back, In 1996 the MSRP for a 300ZX TT was $44,000.-

http://www.carsdirect.com/research/n...996/turbo_tbar

The base Z in 1996 was $37,500.-

http://www.carsdirect.com/research/n...96/base_o_tbar

You actually get alot more for your money now than in 1996. The performance difference between the different year 350Z's is negligible. It's not just about performance.

MovingViolation

Well that's ok considering the G was 'big boned' from day 1.

zpak

Yup. If you pull up the C&D article, the author readily admits that the track's conditions were not optimal (desert track after a storm, "Grip was in short supply", he wrote).

If you'd like, you can reference the R&T article (March 05) that has the 35th running 0 to 60 at 5.6, but we're talking 0.2 seconds? It can take that long just to shift! In the end, I agree with Alberto: it's all about the driver.

Dubai

iTrader: (15)

Agreed. more weight is added every year. at the end of the day it all comes to driver for stock vs. stock, regardless of which year/model

SB Track

I think the point of this is not the fact that the difference is negligible, but that Nissan takes no care to limit the weight they add on each year to "upgrade" the Z. It seems to me that they care less for the performance appeal of the car and want to just crank them out with new features and slightly more HP so they can sell more cars. That's pretty disappointing to me.

ShaunC410

They must way like 3300lbs right? There still a fast car. And its naturally asspirated if it was a Turbo it would hall ***

97supratt

iTrader: (61)

I think it all depends on driver...

mavtais

iTrader: (12)

Too many wimps driving 350z's because they look nice probably complained about road noise and things like that. The car is sooooo incredibly appealing, everyone had to have one even if they have never driven a sports car before.

350Zum

Plus 1

Dubai

iTrader: (15)

Plus 2