350Z tops the competition in Nov 2006 Car & Driver
10-05-2006, 03:57 PM
#81
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 4,235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Drives like a pickup truck LOL
I doubt he has even driven a 350z... Remember most of them are under the age of 20 on those boards so don't expect a lot of mature comments..
I doubt he has even driven a 350z... Remember most of them are under the age of 20 on those boards so don't expect a lot of mature comments..
10-06-2006, 12:16 PM
#83
New Member
iTrader: (6)
Funny how the EVO guys are all calling the Z "heavy". It only weighs 85 Lbs. more than the MR, according to the manufacturer's websites.
10-06-2006, 03:50 PM
#85
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ohio
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mid117
i was reading the link on the evo forum.....HAHAHAHA
"350Z's are ugly as hell, the proportions are all wrong, looks like a pontiac G6"
excuses, excuses....a lot of evo drivers are immature and think their car is invincible...
Way to go 350Z!!!! I'm going to forward this link to my friend, he's crazy about evo's
"350Z's are ugly as hell, the proportions are all wrong, looks like a pontiac G6"
excuses, excuses....a lot of evo drivers are immature and think their car is invincible...
Way to go 350Z!!!! I'm going to forward this link to my friend, he's crazy about evo's
10-06-2006, 03:54 PM
#86
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: California
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by irish27
That is funny, even my friend who owns an EVO says it's ugly. The Z is obviously the sexiest car in the under $30k crowd by a long way!
10-07-2006, 12:23 AM
#87
Haha i think the evo people are definitely taking it way too seriously. Hating on our tail lights???
Remember the thread we had about being beaten by a Volvo S60R in a stock vs stock drag? At least we had the ***** to accept it gracefully.
Remember the thread we had about being beaten by a Volvo S60R in a stock vs stock drag? At least we had the ***** to accept it gracefully.
10-07-2006, 12:25 AM
#88
Oh what about this quote on page 2:
Originally Posted by STISTL
I don't care if the Z is faster, feels faster or is sexier. The EVO is just a better car period.
Haha okay, I'll take faster, feels faster, AND sexier thankyou verymuch!
Originally Posted by STISTL
I don't care if the Z is faster, feels faster or is sexier. The EVO is just a better car period.
Haha okay, I'll take faster, feels faster, AND sexier thankyou verymuch!
10-07-2006, 12:11 PM
#89
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What kind of track is this that an MX-5 finishes in LAST place? Beaten by a ****ing COBALT? That thing has about 10 inches of clearance between the tires and wheel arches. And a civic and a mustang? I mean, seriously? This means the cobalt is a better TRACK car than an mx-5? To me, this invalidates the whole competition.
10-07-2006, 06:09 PM
#90
Registered User
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Whorelando
Posts: 2,995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well,..um since when does a mx-5 have power to beat a cobalt SS u might wanna look into that. The mx-5 has excellent handeling but....its not about having a go cart its about exit power aswell, having a roots SC gives u instant power something the anemic mx-5 will never have.
10-08-2006, 01:57 PM
#92
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
+1 on tires.
This morning, I drove 55-60mph on a (30mph speed limit) S curve with no traffic, it made me love the car even more. I couldn't believe it gripped so well, I didn't feel any body (or my body) sway, or any of my steering wheel tightness/lightedness, I was riding on rail. It definitely is the tires, I had 17s before, and I couldn't get in-line on curves. I am riding on 19s with staggered wheels which made my day this morning.
This morning, I drove 55-60mph on a (30mph speed limit) S curve with no traffic, it made me love the car even more. I couldn't believe it gripped so well, I didn't feel any body (or my body) sway, or any of my steering wheel tightness/lightedness, I was riding on rail. It definitely is the tires, I had 17s before, and I couldn't get in-line on curves. I am riding on 19s with staggered wheels which made my day this morning.
Originally Posted by RBlover69
If u look at Z suspension wise ....it was desgiend to be a curve carver. The main thing that kills the Z out the box isnt the weight def isnt the power it was tires. If u put wider more higher rated tires ..i mean teh Z steps up alot and is more able to put down the power around the bend better. I mean personally stock tires are way to small for the Z especially the rears.....It just proves that theZ with a capable driver nice tires can out shine alot .....i mea all those cars i think none have the corner capablity say the evo. Which awd even though is amazing doesnt always perform better on a track. Im really impressed that the Z finally gets the cred it deserves. Cause Only ifu own one u really appreacite the value u get for the car nissan designed it to be.
10-08-2006, 01:57 PM
#93
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Jersey
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I own an STI so I myself am pissed that they didnt even throw that in there...anyway...
Both the Z and MR have 300bhp...both weigh about the same...wheres the suprise? Isn't it typical for the RWD car to handle better?
These Evo people think their cars handle so well because they do look at the Japaneese time attack examples - but thats Tsukaba, there cant be a more perfect track for an AWD car and thats why it does well there.
I beleive the Subaru people are a bit less agressive with their opinions than the Evolution people - they(Evo/DSM people) have a certain superiority complex above basically everything else.
When the hard, objective data comes down they are the first to *****. They think their cars handle so much better than the STI(and everything else) but at the same time they have a steering ratio thats much quicker, stiffer springs, and about 1 degree more of negative camber stock..anyway I went off on my evo/sti rant, but I'm not too suprised especially since the Z finally got good tires.
Throw some 275s on all 4 corners though and you have a different story, stock though, it seems the 350 reigns.
Oh and I agree with crismax, once the 35HR goes in, it seems like it may be murder on anything but a super tight track.
Both the Z and MR have 300bhp...both weigh about the same...wheres the suprise? Isn't it typical for the RWD car to handle better?
These Evo people think their cars handle so well because they do look at the Japaneese time attack examples - but thats Tsukaba, there cant be a more perfect track for an AWD car and thats why it does well there.
I beleive the Subaru people are a bit less agressive with their opinions than the Evolution people - they(Evo/DSM people) have a certain superiority complex above basically everything else.
When the hard, objective data comes down they are the first to *****. They think their cars handle so much better than the STI(and everything else) but at the same time they have a steering ratio thats much quicker, stiffer springs, and about 1 degree more of negative camber stock..anyway I went off on my evo/sti rant, but I'm not too suprised especially since the Z finally got good tires.
Throw some 275s on all 4 corners though and you have a different story, stock though, it seems the 350 reigns.
Oh and I agree with crismax, once the 35HR goes in, it seems like it may be murder on anything but a super tight track.
10-08-2006, 03:58 PM
#94
Registered User
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Whorelando
Posts: 2,995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by js3324
I own an STI so I myself am pissed that they didnt even throw that in there...anyway...
Both the Z and MR have 300bhp...both weigh about the same...wheres the suprise? Isn't it typical for the RWD car to handle better?
These Evo people think their cars handle so well because they do look at the Japaneese time attack examples - but thats Tsukaba, there cant be a more perfect track for an AWD car and thats why it does well there.
I beleive the Subaru people are a bit less agressive with their opinions than the Evolution people - they(Evo/DSM people) have a certain superiority complex above basically everything else.
When the hard, objective data comes down they are the first to *****. They think their cars handle so much better than the STI(and everything else) but at the same time they have a steering ratio thats much quicker, stiffer springs, and about 1 degree more of negative camber stock..anyway I went off on my evo/sti rant, but I'm not too suprised especially since the Z finally got good tires.
Throw some 275s on all 4 corners though and you have a different story, stock though, it seems the 350 reigns.
Oh and I agree with crismax, once the 35HR goes in, it seems like it may be murder on anything but a super tight track.
Both the Z and MR have 300bhp...both weigh about the same...wheres the suprise? Isn't it typical for the RWD car to handle better?
These Evo people think their cars handle so well because they do look at the Japaneese time attack examples - but thats Tsukaba, there cant be a more perfect track for an AWD car and thats why it does well there.
I beleive the Subaru people are a bit less agressive with their opinions than the Evolution people - they(Evo/DSM people) have a certain superiority complex above basically everything else.
When the hard, objective data comes down they are the first to *****. They think their cars handle so much better than the STI(and everything else) but at the same time they have a steering ratio thats much quicker, stiffer springs, and about 1 degree more of negative camber stock..anyway I went off on my evo/sti rant, but I'm not too suprised especially since the Z finally got good tires.
Throw some 275s on all 4 corners though and you have a different story, stock though, it seems the 350 reigns.
Oh and I agree with crismax, once the 35HR goes in, it seems like it may be murder on anything but a super tight track.
10-08-2006, 04:24 PM
#95
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To the guy that said the MX-5 is slow, it's got 170 hp compared to the cobalts 205. Not that big of a difference when you take into weight and the handling capabilities of the vehicles. One weighs like 2300 lbs with 170 hp vs 2800+ lbs and 205 hp. Not to mention how every magazine that has tested the Cobalt SS *****es about its body roll. I think the Evo should of won this, I don't really like Car and Driver after they had the Z06 vs 911 Turbo vs F-430 article which was bull**** as all hell. BTW did anyone actually read the thread over at EvoM(I've been a member there for awhile), one guy talks bout the MR having a 6 speed and maybe the dude driving wasn't used to it! He obviously doesn't know the 350z has a 6spd as well rofl.
10-08-2006, 05:00 PM
#96
Registered User
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Whorelando
Posts: 2,995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bfdd
To the guy that said the MX-5 is slow, it's got 170 hp compared to the cobalts 205. Not that big of a difference when you take into weight and the handling capabilities of the vehicles. One weighs like 2300 lbs with 170 hp vs 2800+ lbs and 205 hp. Not to mention how every magazine that has tested the Cobalt SS *****es about its body roll. I think the Evo should of won this, I don't really like Car and Driver after they had the Z06 vs 911 Turbo vs F-430 article which was bull**** as all hell. BTW did anyone actually read the thread over at EvoM(I've been a member there for awhile), one guy talks bout the MR having a 6 speed and maybe the dude driving wasn't used to it! He obviously doesn't know the 350z has a 6spd as well rofl.
10-09-2006, 09:53 PM
#97
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by RBlover69
well,..um since when does a mx-5 have power to beat a cobalt SS u might wanna look into that. The mx-5 has excellent handeling but....its not about having a go cart its about exit power aswell, having a roots SC gives u instant power something the anemic mx-5 will never have.
10-10-2006, 07:43 AM
#98
Registered User
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by icepig
Well, if you look into the next level of competition, the 190 bhp Lotus beat the 405 hp Corvette. And the Corvette isn't exactly the worst handling or heaviest car of all time. How does that one work?
Last edited by Rosko; 10-10-2006 at 07:45 AM.
10-10-2006, 08:54 AM
#99
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Rosko
The Lotus weighs around 2000#. Always take into account HP:Weight. The long straight is definitely what killed the MX-5. Long straights are part of all good race tracks. Now in an autocross (or tight track), yes it would be an ugly, terrible nightmare for the Cobalt vs. the MX-5.
Corvette: ~3100 lb & 405 bhp - 261 bhp / ton
Lotus wins
MX-5: 2300 lb & 170 bhp - 148 bhp / ton
Cobalt: 2800 lb & 205 bhp - 147 bhp / ton
Cobalt wins
The math does not add up. Why did the Corvette not beat the Lotus using the straight as you say the Cobalt did to the MX-5? Math isn't everything, this is true. The Lotus would outcorner the Miata. But, it's all relative, and instead of facing a Cobalt, the Lotus faced a Corvette. You could not convince me the Corvette wouldn't rape a Cobalt on handling or cornering.
10-10-2006, 09:06 AM
#100
Originally Posted by icepig
Lotus: 2000 lb & 190 bhp - 190 bhp / ton
Corvette: ~3100 lb & 405 bhp - 261 bhp / ton
Lotus wins
MX-5: 2300 lb & 170 bhp - 148 bhp / ton
Cobalt: 2800 lb & 205 bhp - 147 bhp / ton
Cobalt wins
The math does not add up. Why did the Corvette not beat the Lotus using the straight as you say the Cobalt did to the MX-5? Math isn't everything, this is true. The Lotus would outcorner the Miata. But, it's all relative, and instead of facing a Cobalt, the Lotus faced a Corvette. You could not convince me the Corvette wouldn't rape a Cobalt on handling or cornering.
Corvette: ~3100 lb & 405 bhp - 261 bhp / ton
Lotus wins
MX-5: 2300 lb & 170 bhp - 148 bhp / ton
Cobalt: 2800 lb & 205 bhp - 147 bhp / ton
Cobalt wins
The math does not add up. Why did the Corvette not beat the Lotus using the straight as you say the Cobalt did to the MX-5? Math isn't everything, this is true. The Lotus would outcorner the Miata. But, it's all relative, and instead of facing a Cobalt, the Lotus faced a Corvette. You could not convince me the Corvette wouldn't rape a Cobalt on handling or cornering.