Notices
2003-2009 Nissan 350Z

car and driver suck

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 06-03-2007, 08:26 AM
  #21  
EdH350Z
Registered User
 
EdH350Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Edmonds, WA
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default Read this European 350Z Review

Folks, C&D, SCC and the rest of the US Car Mags are advertisement media-owned ******. I gave up on them a few years back after seeing the "Turbinator" type ads getting shilled in the back advertisers section.

This thread was from last week and was surprised that very few US-based members read or posted replies to it:

https://my350z.com/forum/2003-2009-nissan-350z/274614-2007-350z-review.html

Last edited by EdH350Z; 06-03-2007 at 08:34 AM.
Old 06-03-2007, 08:33 AM
  #22  
Ztalker
Registered User
 
Ztalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 7,951
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by TEF
C&D's decision to pick the RX-8 as the best sports car in a comparison of four (Mustang, Z, Audi TT and RX-8) seemed rather strange. In fact, I started out be reading the writers' impressions of each car. For the Mazda, it was remarked that the RX-8 could not hold a constant high speed (it had to be downshifted at times) and needed 100 hp more. Also, they believed the car to be useless on the track, but they liked the back seat. The Mustang seemed to ride too harshly and the interior of the Z was cheap despite its great track performance. It would seem that C&D mistakenly judged this group of sports cars with standards that one might use when picking the ideal economy sedan. By their reasoning, the Honda Civic coupe would have won this comparison had it been the fifth "sports" car entered. While I am not saying the Z is superior, I do question the logic used by C&D in this instance when selecting the best sports coupe.
the way i look at it.....obviously C&D answered their own question looking for the best sports car.
i see new Zs hitting the road everyday whereas RX8s sightings are extremely rare these days.
Old 06-03-2007, 09:12 AM
  #23  
VENOMSZ
Registered User
iTrader: (4)
 
VENOMSZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,502
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

car and driver.
Old 06-03-2007, 09:22 AM
  #24  
skaterbasist
Registered User
iTrader: (3)
 
skaterbasist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: .
Posts: 2,071
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by BojanC350z
350z > All others
How typical. Yes, the Z is the best car in the world...in a Z site.

I do think the Z deserved first place, but it didnt get it. Oh well. It's not the end of the world

Originally Posted by twitch579
Amazing how far behind Ford is when it comes to making power. All of these cars comapared the same, the 350z makes about the same power as the Stang with 2 less pistons. Ford sucks.
You've obviously never driven a Mustang GT. If you're saying those 2 pistons are worthless... think again. The torque in the GT is MUCH stronger than found in the Z/G. It actually made my car feel (G Coupe) as if I were driving a 4-cylinder no torque car afterwards.

.
Old 06-03-2007, 09:44 AM
  #25  
twitch579
Registered User
iTrader: (3)
 
twitch579's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Florida
Posts: 940
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

ACTUALLY ive owned a 2000 GT mustang and it was the biggest POS ive ever owned. And its 4.6 V8 made a measly 260hp/300Ftlbs.


So your argument over there 2 pistons are worthless is pretty weak. 2 more pistons for 24 more FT lbs??

Yes they feel more torky, but most of that tork is wasted as to the car cant hook work **** with stock tires. I actually had a 373 gear in mine along with a CAI, those were my ownly mods done to that car, after the gear install it never hooked ever again. I even had aftermarket rims with 285's, it didnt make a bit of difference, spin city. Plus the car just sucked, it had soooooooo many rattles and the doors felt like they were about 2 fall off everytime I closed them.

Not to mention all the things that went wrong before I HAPPILY got rid of it at 79000 miles.

Exploded Plastic Intake Manifold, Antifreeze everywhere, ruined all my pulleys. Ford did not warranty even under warranty!!!!

AC broke twice, entire system had to be replaced.

Motor mounts broke twice, all had to be replaced 2 seperate times.

02 sensor had to be replaced.

2 oil switches had to be replaced twice 20,000 miles apart.

Clutch went at 24,000 miles and was going again right before I got rid of it. Second clutch was a FORD racing clutch.

Varios oil leaks.

Car ran like ****, idle was all over the place, no tune-up helped it. Would stall out at lights in neutral for no reason.

Power drivers seat broke 2 month I had it, was stuck in same position forever.

I would never buy a ford Product ever again. They can keep there **** *** V8's that make **** power to me if u cant drive the car hard without it breaking.

If there was a Nissan V8 in the Z it would be ruler of all.

Even the Cobra Sucks, takes a Supercharger to make the same power that chevys making with a single cam motor.

The Z runs with the Mustang with 2 less pistions, thats a no brainer to me.
Old 06-03-2007, 10:25 AM
  #26  
ctzn
inquisative
iTrader: (2)
 
ctzn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: the Lou, MO
Posts: 1,721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by TEF
C&D's decision to pick the RX-8 as the best sports car in a comparison of four (Mustang, Z, Audi TT and RX-8) seemed rather strange. In fact, I started out be reading the writers' impressions of each car. For the Mazda, it was remarked that the RX-8 could not hold a constant high speed (it had to be downshifted at times) and needed 100 hp more. Also, they believed the car to be useless on the track, but they liked the back seat. The Mustang seemed to ride too harshly and the interior of the Z was cheap despite its great track performance. It would seem that C&D mistakenly judged this group of sports cars with standards that one might use when picking the ideal economy sedan. By their reasoning, the Honda Civic coupe would have won this comparison had it been the fifth "sports" car entered. While I am not saying the Z is superior, I do question the logic used by C&D in this instance when selecting the best sports coupe.
Well said, my thoughts exactly. C&D also uses this silly "gotta have it" factor in their judging which never really made sense to me.
Old 06-03-2007, 10:33 AM
  #27  
michaeljr6
New Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (14)
 
michaeljr6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: small home.
Posts: 10,459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

time to buy an RX8
Old 06-03-2007, 11:18 AM
  #28  
Electricchild
Registered User
 
Electricchild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Naples, Florida
Posts: 7,612
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by michaeljr6
time to buy an RX8
Already registered an account on rx8club, since we're all going to be moving there soon.
Old 06-03-2007, 11:21 AM
  #29  
SirSpeedyZ
New Member
iTrader: (10)
 
SirSpeedyZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 7,844
Received 10 Likes on 9 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by SilverII
no RSX?
acura doesn't make RSX anymore

RX-8 1st that is such crap
Old 06-03-2007, 11:21 AM
  #30  
kaizenro1
Registered User
iTrader: (3)
 
kaizenro1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Burbank
Posts: 1,438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Communist and Driver (drunk typing, no redeemable post value)
Old 06-03-2007, 11:26 AM
  #31  
Sisith
Registered User
iTrader: (13)
 
Sisith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Arizona
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

This comparo was a joke. First off they used upgraded models of every car BUT the 350z. Custom Shelby GT? Audi with all its upgrades and the rx8 touring? Why not use the 350z touring edition instead of the the base model? All their comparisons had to do with comfort over track performance anyways. And the reason the 350z lost so many points was because they gave points for a back seat!! The 350z automatically got a 0 for every section dealing with a back seat. If we are comparing sports cars...why have a back seat criteria?
Old 06-03-2007, 11:35 AM
  #32  
michaeljr6
New Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (14)
 
michaeljr6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: small home.
Posts: 10,459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sisith
This comparo was a joke. First off they used upgraded models of every car BUT the 350z. Custom Shelby GT? Audi with all its upgrades and the rx8 touring? Why not use the 350z touring edition instead of the the base model? All their comparisons had to do with comfort over track performance anyways. And the reason the 350z lost so many points was because they gave points for a back seat!! The 350z automatically got a 0 for every section dealing with a back seat. If we are comparing sports cars...why have a back seat criteria?
+1000

i don't understand why the Z is being compared with other sports coupe...the RSX is a better contender and it would obviosuly be the grand champ.

if the car and driver voted the 350Z as #1 i wouldn't care. i'm just looking at the category they're putting it in which is ridiculous. next thing you know they're comparing a ferrari to a civic si or something...this magazine is FTL. anyways see you all at the RX8 meet/ forum.
Old 06-03-2007, 12:55 PM
  #33  
evolved326
Registered User
 
evolved326's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: orange,ca
Posts: 885
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

C'mon guys, this isnt the first time the RX8 is rated above the Z even though the Z wins in the numbers dept. Although 0 points for no rear seat? Lame.
Old 06-03-2007, 01:56 PM
  #34  
Reyes_USN
Registered User
iTrader: (5)
 
Reyes_USN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Azusa, CA
Posts: 1,239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by failsafe306
It broke down on the way to the track
ahahahaha
Old 06-03-2007, 02:33 PM
  #35  
Polo08816
Banned
 
Polo08816's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by davidv
Interesting that Car & Driver would include the Ford Mustang Shelby GT . Its a V8. How about apples to apples. Where is the venerable 6-cylinder Mustang?
Yes, if they included the v6 mustang than the price of the 350z would exceed that of the Mustang by a significant amount especially at this pricepoint. Then someone else would also cry, "how about apples to apples?"
Old 06-03-2007, 03:11 PM
  #36  
Forrest80
Registered User
 
Forrest80's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: California
Posts: 392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by davidv
Interesting that Car & Driver would include the Ford Mustang Shelby GT . Its a V8. How about apples to apples. Where is the venerable 6-cylinder Mustang?

Your supposed to compare price to price. If i payed 10 dollars for a v6 that has 300hp and you payed 10 dollars for a v8 that has 1,000 HP obviously im one stupid person. I cant go around and say HEY YOU CANT COMPARE ITS A V6 when in reality it was the price not whats under the hood. If you pay good money you better get something good under the hood.

The v6 mustang is in the same price catagory as most 4 cylinder and some underpar v6's and should be compared to that.

Also my dumb friend she read that magazine and she was like hah the rx8 is better than your Z and she already hates my Z and uses that one stupid article to say its better than my car now. I tryed to explain to her then i gave up and said yeah its better, you go buy one lets race and ill melt your face!
Old 06-03-2007, 03:19 PM
  #37  
trodis
350Z-holic
 
trodis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Interwebz
Posts: 6,912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

If you want LUXURY get a G35..nuff said.
Old 06-03-2007, 03:23 PM
  #38  
b00stedjustin
Banned
 
b00stedjustin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Gaithersburg
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by michaeljr6
wasn't this from a month ago? This has to be a repost. lol. The comparison was completely bogus. Did you guys see that the Z was around 8k less expensive than everything else and still spanked the shelby gt mustang lol!!! Also did you guys see that they gave the audi tons of points for having a fast top gear acceleration from low speeds? It was a freaking automatic, of course it was quick from "top gear" LMAO. Bunch of idiots. They should have thrown in the G35 which would have won because it had everything that was "lacking" in the 350Z in the comparison.
Old 06-03-2007, 03:23 PM
  #39  
Spike100
New Member
 
Spike100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Edina, Minnesota
Posts: 7,337
Received 203 Likes on 173 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by TEF
C&D's decision to pick the RX-8 as the best sports car in a comparison of four (Mustang, Z, Audi TT and RX-8) seemed rather strange. In fact, I started out be reading the writers' impressions of each car. For the Mazda, it was remarked that the RX-8 could not hold a constant high speed (it had to be downshifted at times) and needed 100 hp more. Also, they believed the car to be useless on the track, but they liked the back seat. The Mustang seemed to ride too harshly and the interior of the Z was cheap despite its great track performance. It would seem that C&D mistakenly judged this group of sports cars with standards that one might use when picking the ideal economy sedan. By their reasoning, the Honda Civic coupe would have won this comparison had it been the fifth "sports" car entered. While I am not saying the Z is superior, I do question the logic used by C&D in this instance when selecting the best sports coupe.
Good observation and comments...

I agree.Reading the article, your impression is they didn't really like any of the cars... sort of picking the best out of the worst. I suspect the C&D staff prefers high-end sports cars for this type of comparison (e.g., Porsche, Corvette, etc.), and they don't think much of the intermediately-priced category.

--Spike
Old 06-03-2007, 04:04 PM
  #40  
Spike100
New Member
 
Spike100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Edina, Minnesota
Posts: 7,337
Received 203 Likes on 173 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sisith
This comparo was a joke. First off they used upgraded models of every car BUT the 350z. Custom Shelby GT? Audi with all its upgrades and the rx8 touring? Why not use the 350z touring edition instead of the the base model? All their comparisons had to do with comfort over track performance anyways. And the reason the 350z lost so many points was because they gave points for a back seat!! The 350z automatically got a 0 for every section dealing with a back seat. If we are comparing sports cars...why have a back seat criteria?
Good point... Especially when you consider the fact that the Base model is meant for buyers planning to do a build-up. The Base model does offer an inexpensive entry point (and this is obviously a marketing plan), but also provides a car that you add Nismo and aftermarket products. For example, the first thing you do with a Base model is remove the junk ("junk" is a poor descriptive since Nissan's obvious intention is that it should be replaced and you didn't pay hardly anything for the OEM CES) audio equipment and replace this with a good CES. You can also add the performance components you want while keeping the price within reason (comparing a build-up with the cost of a Grand Touring model). If you want to keep the warranty, you can add Nismo stuff. You can set your own time-frame for the build-up fitting your personal budget while enjoying a car that "out-tracked" the others in this C&D comparison. Actually, a staged build-up is fun since you get the impression and enjoyment of a new car with every build-up component(s) you add. This is not something you would do with a fully equipped Audi that has AT.

C&D never mentions this in the comparison (and, I think they should have).
...Good car magazine though.

--Spike


Quick Reply: car and driver suck



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:34 AM.