Notices
2003-2009 Nissan 350Z

C&D: Z vs TT vs RX8 vs ShelbyGT

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 04-30-2007, 07:07 AM
  #141  
Mid117
Registered User
iTrader: (11)
 
Mid117's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: NYC/LI
Posts: 3,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by SnakeBitten
Did anyone notice that the Z is much faster than the Shelby GT from a roll???Check out the 50-70mph and other acceleration figures. Z is almost 2 seconds faster from 50-70..So if you did a 50 punch bye bye GT........They may be close from a dig in the 1/4 mile but on the highway it appears the Z will leave the Mustang if Im understanding this correctly...The numbers for the Audi TT in that same catagory make absolutely no sense...Its doing Veyron numbers...WTF C & D

http://www.acuraclubsa.com/c&d/C&D-6.JPG

BTW I stopped giving credence to C & D comparos long time ago...Its pretty obvious something aint right over there.....How do you minus points for a SPORTSCAR NOT HAVING A BACK SEAT OR STORAGE SPACE?????????????
How do you let the absolutely anemic car win the performance catagory??????? Obviously money has crossed the table and C & D is trying to help Mazda sell RX-8's...end of discussion.....
I want to run a shelby gt from a roll.
Old 04-30-2007, 07:21 AM
  #142  
350Zenophile
New Member
iTrader: (20)
 
350Zenophile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 4,350
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by JD3
Not sure if i'm reading it right in the image but in
http://www.acuraclubsa.com/c&d/C&D-6.JPG
for the Audi stats for the gear ratios it increase ratios from 1.08 to 1.09 from 4th to 5th. Any reasoning for having a higher 5th gear ratio than 4th and a small difference at that?
OK, that's freakin' bizarre. I just did a quick search and apparently, there is a different FD ratio for 5th and 6th. Thus the two ratios listed under axle ratio. Learn something new everyday!
Old 04-30-2007, 05:35 PM
  #143  
imseksy
Registered User
 
imseksy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 1,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

i just read the damn article.... they gave 0 points to Z twice for backseat comfort and something else related to the backseat... well theres no doubt that Z would get 0 points since it HAS NO DAMN BACKSEAT!!! i dont know... when i read this article it made me wonder, if this is a sports car comparison... or a sports car practicality comparison. hell if its a sports car practicality comparison i vote for the accord.
Old 05-01-2007, 11:25 AM
  #144  
SnakeBitten
Registered User
iTrader: (8)
 
SnakeBitten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: NY
Posts: 1,505
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Mid117
I want to run a shelby gt from a roll.

MIIIIID whats good bro....Me too...but I think you have a better chance at beating one than me
Old 05-01-2007, 11:34 AM
  #145  
Mid117
Registered User
iTrader: (11)
 
Mid117's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: NYC/LI
Posts: 3,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by SnakeBitten
MIIIIID whats good bro....Me too...but I think you have a better chance at beating one than me
Sup Pete? Haven't seen you in a while, what's good?

Those 20" anchors don't help your top end
Old 05-01-2007, 06:14 PM
  #146  
bodayguy
Registered User
 
bodayguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Seattle WA
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

FYI, the article is online now. Judge for yourself.
http://www.caranddriver.com/comparis...di-tt-20t.html
Old 05-01-2007, 07:12 PM
  #147  
irish27
Registered User
 
irish27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ohio
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I read this article and I just had to laugh. They actually fault Nissan for placing their money in performance instead of making the interior pretty. Good god, they just don't get it at all. Those of us that chose the Z over a G35 wanted the performance first.

As noted by OP the Z was by far the most well rounded, finished, fast performer and they placed it third behind a couple of tyrds. I hate the TT and even Mazda recognized the RX-8 is limited (RX-7 coming soon to compete for real)


BOOOH C and D!!!
Old 05-01-2007, 07:58 PM
  #148  
itburns
Registered User
 
itburns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Silicon Valley
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I'd rather be seen driving a unicycle than an RX-8; it's less embarrassing and I don't need a backseat.
Old 05-02-2007, 05:48 AM
  #149  
Hotsauce
Registered User
 
Hotsauce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: NC
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by itburns
I'd rather be seen driving a unicycle than an RX-8; it's less embarrassing and I don't need a backseat.
Man you Z kids crack me up! Stop bashing cars and go out and drive!
Old 05-02-2007, 09:14 AM
  #150  
elbee
Registered User
 
elbee's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: CT.
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Came in behind a VW FWD four banger! Japanese Camaro! LOL. C/Ds ***** are hanging by a thread.
Old 05-02-2007, 05:00 PM
  #151  
mikecamp
Registered User
 
mikecamp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Gray house with blue shutters
Posts: 802
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Hotsauce
Man you Z kids crack me up! Stop bashing cars and go out and drive!
Nah, let him bash. He may have more torque on his unicycle than my 8, but I'll beat him in the twisties with all four seats occupied. Plus I've got like a stereo and stuff.
Old 05-02-2007, 07:36 PM
  #152  
hiz-n-herz
Registered User
iTrader: (11)
 
hiz-n-herz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: SF South Bay area
Posts: 1,145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

YAWN!!!!....

Why does anyone let what C&D on-line editors says bother them?

They are the most careless, uninformed bunch of idiots of the car periodical world.

Aren't these the same losers that tested the quickest cars of 2007? And tried to pass of an 06 350z as an 07? Where's the retraction for that f-up?

And this article lists the 30-50 and 50-70 acceleration tests in top gear for these cars. Wow, the Audi won both of those. Puh leaze! You know the AT down-shifted for those times so that's not even an apples-to-apples comparison with the MT's in the group. HAHA! Losers! Throw out those numbers...

Now, you wanna look at a good power/aerodynamics indicator? Check out the 50-70 in top gear (which I think should be run in the gear closest to the 1:1 gear ration to be an apples-to-apples comparison, but whatever) The z pwns here.

Look at the MPG of the wankel-mobile. Damn near equal to the gas-guzzling v-8 mustang, with half of the torque. That's just embarrasing for the rx8. I am not a rotary-hater, my brother and I used to race them. They can be built-up for good power, even n/a, but you'll be rebuilding them every six months because the water-jacket seals don't hold up. Give up the rx-8, Mazda... sucks to have the mazdaspeed 3 hand it to your RX series car

And why did they test a base 07? Should have been at least an enthusiast. Wouldn't the LSD help the launch and 0-60 time?

And they bash the z... "but it’s obvious that this car was built on a tight budget, as evidenced by headrest stakes that bulge into your back when you lean your head rearward." I agree that's irritating on my 07, but there's another name for it.... ACTIVE HEAD RESTRAINTS. The same leverage that presses the headrest rails into your back when you bump your head on the headrest is used in a rear-end collision where your body presses back into the seat and moves the headrest closer to your head to absorb impact with a reduced chance of whiplash. I actually prefer my 06 headrests, but I guess these are more safe.

These editors lost all credibility with me a long time ago... I'll hand it to them though... at least they included the track times in their sports-car comparo.

EDIT: LOL, just read snakebitten's post: https://my350z.com/forum/showpost.ph...&postcount=133 I guess some of us are on the same page...

Last edited by hiz-n-herz; 05-02-2007 at 07:53 PM.
Old 05-03-2007, 05:30 AM
  #153  
S8ER95Z
New Member
 
S8ER95Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Quad Cities
Posts: 849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by mikecamp
Nah, let him bash. He may have more torque on his unicycle than my 8, but I'll beat him in the twisties with all four seats occupied. Plus I've got like a stereo and stuff.
Twisties argument = unproven/lame.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....ber=1&preview=

Thought this might help with that a bit... (since the fbody is such a ****ty handling car and all)...

Food for thought...at willow springs
LS1 Camaro - Lap time 2 minutes, 16.46 sec
Porsche Boxster - Lapt time 2 minutes, 17.46 sec
Honda S2000- Lap time 2 minutes, 17.66 sec

Another words...twisties argument is not always your best friend.
Old 05-03-2007, 11:25 AM
  #154  
scg87
Registered User
 
scg87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Minot, ND
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Car and Driver sux. Period. They used to be okay, now they just blow donkey *****. The winner is a $30k+ 4-door that would barely outrun my GTP Grand Prix. Last time I checked, REAL sports cars don't have 4 doors. Second is a FWD luxo/wannabe-sports car that cost almost $40K. Again true sports cars are NOT FWD. Then the Shelby....... don't even get me started on that thing. F#ck Car and Driver, they should stick to comparing economy cars and each others' ***** size.
Old 05-03-2007, 02:02 PM
  #155  
Bumpinjeep
New Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Bumpinjeep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Bellevue Wa
Posts: 5,743
Received 25 Likes on 15 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by SnakeBitten
The numbers for the Audi TT in that same catagory make absolutely no sense...Its doing Veyron numbers...WTF C & D
The TT was an auto, thus it downshifts when you punch it, thats why the numbers are much quicker than the other fully manuel cars.
Old 05-03-2007, 02:59 PM
  #156  
mikecamp
Registered User
 
mikecamp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Gray house with blue shutters
Posts: 802
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by S8ER95Z
Twisties argument = unproven/lame.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....ber=1&preview=

Thought this might help with that a bit... (since the fbody is such a ****ty handling car and all)...

Food for thought...at willow springs
LS1 Camaro - Lap time 2 minutes, 16.46 sec
Porsche Boxster - Lapt time 2 minutes, 17.46 sec
Honda S2000- Lap time 2 minutes, 17.66 sec

Another words...twisties argument is not always your best friend.
I apologize Mr. S8ER95Z, my silly and totally subjective retort was against unicycles, not against your vehicle. I'll aim lower next time.

I'm sure you'll beat me on the air conditioning as well, mine blows...literally.

Again, we care about this comparison why?
Old 05-03-2007, 07:41 PM
  #157  
Hotsauce
Registered User
 
Hotsauce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: NC
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by scg87
Car and Driver sux. Period. They used to be okay, now they just blow donkey *****. The winner is a $30k+ 4-door that would barely outrun my GTP Grand Prix. Last time I checked, REAL sports cars don't have 4 doors. Second is a FWD luxo/wannabe-sports car that cost almost $40K. Again true sports cars are NOT FWD. Then the Shelby....... don't even get me started on that thing. F#ck Car and Driver, they should stick to comparing economy cars and each others' ***** size.
Here we go again with the Rx-8 is not a REAL sports car since it has 4-doors. You know while driving the 8 you don't notice that it has 4 doors or back seats for that matter. In fact as you see one drive down the road you can't tell that it has 4 doors. What you do notice is the precise steering and shifting, balanced movement in turns, light weight, and smooth long power band of the rotary engine. These are some common traits that define a sports car.

Sure the car is short on torque, but it's not bad for a 1.3 liter NA engine. If you want torque buy a Mustang, you can mod them cheaply and get monster torque.
Old 05-03-2007, 08:16 PM
  #158  
flintgauge
Registered User
 
flintgauge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Little Elm, TX
Posts: 805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

What's up with all the RX-8 trollers? GO back and jack your own threads. Don't be mad at us for critiquing C+D at best, "skewed" way of thinking, with obvious biased scoring. How do you think the Mustang guys feel about this one. Ran the Same numbers as us Z guys but it got last! It got beat by Two Japanese cars and a FWD German Car... you know they are pissed.
RX-8 guys, you have to admit, even if you earn bonus point for you "four doors" and backseat practicality, what's so practical about 18mpg with on 159lb/ft of torque? Z can easily get 268 lb/ft with 20mpg and I've seen and gotten even better myself. If it is so great in the twisties how come it never passed anyone on the track? A scion tC puts out 162 lb/ft of torque and is rated at 22mpg with the MT... Come RX-8, some of yall are getting rediculous.
Old 05-03-2007, 08:26 PM
  #159  
flintgauge
Registered User
 
flintgauge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Little Elm, TX
Posts: 805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I read someone bragging about taking the RX-8 in the twisties with 4 people in the car, and something about atleast they have a radio??? Come on! Good luck hauling 4 people around with all the torque, Second, you act like the Z is some bare bones Ariel Atom. We have some niceties too, with more of a focus on performance.
Obviously Nissan and Mazda had different priorities when designing these cars. I think a more fair comparison would be a well equipped RX-8 vs a G35 or G37 coupe. Atleast then the VQ has a backseat behind it and some more amenities for you more practical daily drivers.
As for the Z owners, we are happing with our factory built track bread sport car, that has one goal in mind, performance. Not backseats and storage room, soft interiors, smooth rides or quiet cabins. If you are concerned about any of these, don't buy the Z, you will be dissapointed.

Last edited by flintgauge; 05-04-2007 at 08:49 AM.
Old 05-04-2007, 02:10 AM
  #160  
mikecamp
Registered User
 
mikecamp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Gray house with blue shutters
Posts: 802
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by flintgauge
I read someone bragging about taking the Z in the twisties with 4 people in the car, and something about atleast they have a radio??? Come on! Good luck hauling 4 people around with all the torque, Second, you act like the Z is some bare bones Ariel Atom. We have some niceties too, with more of a focus on performance.
Obviously Nissan and Mazda had different priorities when designing these cars. I think a more fair comparison would be a well equipped RX-8 vs a G35 or G37 coupe. Atleast then the VQ has a backseat behind it and some more amenities for you more practical daily drivers.
As for the Z owners, we are happing with our factory built track bread sport car, that has one goal in mind, performance. Not backseats and storage room, soft interiors, smooth rides or quiet cabins. If you are concerned about any of these, don't buy the Z, you will be dissapointed.
Um, no you did not read someone taking a Z in the twisties with two in the back. Go back about 20-30 posts and read all of them this time. Both myself and Hotsauce like the Z and many other sports cars and have mentioned so. We are just car enthusiasts like yourself who don't feel tied to one car site. If I aim any lower on the "I can beat someone who'd rather ride a unicycle thing," I'm going start hitting ground, sheesh.



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:03 PM.