Why do Zs get slower and slower every year?
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why do Zs get slower and slower every year?
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?
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?
#4
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
#5
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: los angeles area
Posts: 1,128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Alberto
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.
Trending Topics
#10
Registered User
iTrader: (10)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Fairfax, VA
Posts: 960
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 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?
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?
#11
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: usa
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
#12
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by StarcraftBW
it's getting fatter .....But G is getting faster and faster though ....
#13
New Member
Originally Posted by ShaunC410
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?
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.
#14
Registered User
iTrader: (15)
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Dubai, UAE
Posts: 2,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Alberto
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.
#15
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.
#18
Registered User
iTrader: (12)
Originally Posted by 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.