Consumer Reports and the 350Z
11-13-2003, 06:19 PM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Novi, MI
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Consumer Reports and the 350Z
Just read an interesting thing in an article today. I guess consumer reports did evaluations on the STi, EVO VIII and 350Z (apparently they think these cars are in the same category or something). The rated the STi highest in the bunch, the EVO second and the 350Z third. They stated the STi and EVO had better interiors and the STi was more responsive than the 350Z and EVO. Here is why I think they're smoking crack:
1) Most of the other magazines favored the EVO over the STi. They said the EVO was much more responsive in the chassis setup than the STi and ran faster lap times on The Streets of Willow, despite the 15HP discrepancy. I fail to see how a RWD chassis could be less responsive than an AWD chassis also.
2) There is no way a Mitsubishi has a better interior than a Nissan. There is no contest in the fit-and-finish or the ergonomics. The Z interior is also loads more tasteful than the STi's. I dunno, maybe they think all cars should have bright blue carpeting and pink logos...
3) Since when did RWDs compete in the same classes as AWDs?? They have always been in separate classes for racing...I guess Consumer Reports begs to differ with all the major race sanctioning bodies. Yeah, I'll be taking down Tommi Makkinen in the WRC with my 350Z...sure.
4) How were their impressions of the Z totally opposite of all the other car mags??
I think they just proved themselves quite useless in rating automobiles. Maybe they should just stick with toasters and microwaves. Consumer Reports
The moral of the story: don't believe everything that you read.
1) Most of the other magazines favored the EVO over the STi. They said the EVO was much more responsive in the chassis setup than the STi and ran faster lap times on The Streets of Willow, despite the 15HP discrepancy. I fail to see how a RWD chassis could be less responsive than an AWD chassis also.
2) There is no way a Mitsubishi has a better interior than a Nissan. There is no contest in the fit-and-finish or the ergonomics. The Z interior is also loads more tasteful than the STi's. I dunno, maybe they think all cars should have bright blue carpeting and pink logos...
3) Since when did RWDs compete in the same classes as AWDs?? They have always been in separate classes for racing...I guess Consumer Reports begs to differ with all the major race sanctioning bodies. Yeah, I'll be taking down Tommi Makkinen in the WRC with my 350Z...sure.
4) How were their impressions of the Z totally opposite of all the other car mags??
I think they just proved themselves quite useless in rating automobiles. Maybe they should just stick with toasters and microwaves. Consumer Reports
The moral of the story: don't believe everything that you read.
11-13-2003, 06:23 PM
#2
well while I dont agree with it, and I never read consumer reports for car reviews(their basis for their claims is typicly way off)
but none the less I wont comment on this specific case, cause if itd come out the other way, and I read this post on an STI forum for how wrong it was, Id laugh... dont try and argue with the mag results, if it makes you doubt your choice, its too late.
I for one, regaurdless what they say, do not doubt mine. as Im sure the STI and evo owners do not doubt theirs either. every car has its own strong points. personally for me it was the V6... that doesnt show up in mag reviews.
but none the less I wont comment on this specific case, cause if itd come out the other way, and I read this post on an STI forum for how wrong it was, Id laugh... dont try and argue with the mag results, if it makes you doubt your choice, its too late.
I for one, regaurdless what they say, do not doubt mine. as Im sure the STI and evo owners do not doubt theirs either. every car has its own strong points. personally for me it was the V6... that doesnt show up in mag reviews.
11-13-2003, 08:50 PM
#3
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Somewhere...
Posts: 2,308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I saw that same article, and I was totally stunned by it....then it occurred to me that the only sports cars CU has ever seemed to like are the Miata and the s2000. If it's not droptop, small, and nimble, they descibe it like it was as big and ponderous as an old Cadiallac.
11-13-2003, 10:54 PM
#4
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: ... aren't you?
Posts: 1,056
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You'd be suprised how many people think the EVO's performance is leaps and bounds ahead of the Z's. Despite my efforts to convince them that they both perform very closely at the track... they don't budge.
11-14-2003, 08:37 AM
#7
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CR hates the Z?
Well I better go out and trade mine in on a Beetle now. Then I'm going out to get a pocket protector and some hornrim glasses, and go down to Denny's for the $2.99 breakfast special. Can't wait to peel out of the parking lot in my new German sports machine.
Trending Topics
11-14-2003, 10:17 AM
#9
New Member
The weird thing is that even as low as they ranked the Z, they still 'recommend' it, along with the STI. The other 3 cars they featured (EVO, RX-8, Crossfire,) didn't get a 'recommended' rating.
Weird.
Weird.
11-14-2003, 01:25 PM
#10
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NY
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: CR hates the Z?
Originally posted by Jim Jones
Well I better go out and trade mine in on a Beetle now. Then I'm going out to get a pocket protector and some hornrim glasses, and go down to Denny's for the $2.99 breakfast special. Can't wait to peel out of the parking lot in my new German sports machine.
Well I better go out and trade mine in on a Beetle now. Then I'm going out to get a pocket protector and some hornrim glasses, and go down to Denny's for the $2.99 breakfast special. Can't wait to peel out of the parking lot in my new German sports machine.
11-14-2003, 03:01 PM
#11
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Somewhere...
Posts: 2,308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by GaryM05
The weird thing is that even as low as they ranked the Z, they still 'recommend' it, along with the STI. The other 3 cars they featured (EVO, RX-8, Crossfire,) didn't get a 'recommended' rating.
Weird.
The weird thing is that even as low as they ranked the Z, they still 'recommend' it, along with the STI. The other 3 cars they featured (EVO, RX-8, Crossfire,) didn't get a 'recommended' rating.
Weird.
In this particular case, although the Z is a brand new model and there isn't much reliability data, CU awarded the recommendation based on Nissan's past reliability excellence. The other 3 brands mentioned don't have as high of a relibility reputation, so they don't get the tag.
--D.J.
11-14-2003, 03:44 PM
#12
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Mid West
Posts: 2,902
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I read all car magazines and I am still to find one that compared at the same time
BMW z4, 2000honda, Porsche boxter, Audi TT, miata, mrx 2, Mitsubishi eclipse, SLK Mercedes and Z..
Out of the bunch - there is only two cars that deliver for the buck - s2000 and Z350.. And on those two - it comes to styling...
BTW I did se one test with convertibles s2000, boxter bmw z4 and Audi TT - and they said that z350 puts 0-60 in 5.8 and Honda in 5.4.. To which I think its loads of crap - btw they did say that lot of the testers loved the styling on Z where not much was said about s2000..
BMW z4, 2000honda, Porsche boxter, Audi TT, miata, mrx 2, Mitsubishi eclipse, SLK Mercedes and Z..
Out of the bunch - there is only two cars that deliver for the buck - s2000 and Z350.. And on those two - it comes to styling...
BTW I did se one test with convertibles s2000, boxter bmw z4 and Audi TT - and they said that z350 puts 0-60 in 5.8 and Honda in 5.4.. To which I think its loads of crap - btw they did say that lot of the testers loved the styling on Z where not much was said about s2000..
Last edited by 1337; 11-14-2003 at 03:46 PM.
11-14-2003, 03:53 PM
#13
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Mid West
Posts: 2,902
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by CelticPride2
The main reason why CU gave it the "recommended" tag was because of reliability, not performance. They way CU traditionally does this stuff is that they try the car, decide what they think of it, and if its reliability record is good, it gets a "recommended" tag. In other words, there very little connection to how the car performs and the recommended rating. A big example of this is the BMW 3-series. CU always talks about how it's the best-driving car in its category, but they don't recommend it because of it's low reliability rating (which stumps me in and of itself, incidentally...my dad drives an '01 3 series and has had zero problems with it).
In this particular case, although the Z is a brand new model and there isn't much reliability data, CU awarded the recommendation based on Nissan's past reliability excellence. The other 3 brands mentioned don't have as high of a relibility reputation, so they don't get the tag.
--D.J.
The main reason why CU gave it the "recommended" tag was because of reliability, not performance. They way CU traditionally does this stuff is that they try the car, decide what they think of it, and if its reliability record is good, it gets a "recommended" tag. In other words, there very little connection to how the car performs and the recommended rating. A big example of this is the BMW 3-series. CU always talks about how it's the best-driving car in its category, but they don't recommend it because of it's low reliability rating (which stumps me in and of itself, incidentally...my dad drives an '01 3 series and has had zero problems with it).
In this particular case, although the Z is a brand new model and there isn't much reliability data, CU awarded the recommendation based on Nissan's past reliability excellence. The other 3 brands mentioned don't have as high of a relibility reputation, so they don't get the tag.
--D.J.
Then CU is full of it... RX-8 got awsome reviews nothing like Z. I feel that they try to find the smallest flaw on Z and then give Mazda (FORD) a slack bigger then a grand canyone. There is very little on the car market out there that can be compared to z..
S2000 is the main competitor for its price and value - its a honda...
BMW z4 - pump another 10gs - same performance and ugly styling - but in essence your buying name BMW...
SLK - hehe - 5.9 sec 0-60, awsome styling but 50gs - you can buy m3 for that price...
BOXTER - same deal - same performance - very good styling (its a porsche - babe hunter
) but Z 
and 20 gs in the pocket - sounds awfully good to me......When Nissan came all out with Zs - I finaly - after 5 years senced that their styling is matching their quality...
11-15-2003, 05:20 PM
#14
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Chicago suburbs
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All Nissan needs to do to change CR's position on the Z is: disable 2 cylinders, add a Buick LaSabre biege color, vinyl roof, white wall tires and a nice set of sensible plastic hubcaps.
11-15-2003, 07:04 PM
#15
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Cerritos, CA
Posts: 14,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I read the same, and I was quite surprised. But Consumer Reports is not a car magazine, and it tends to gravitate to history rather than anything else. EVO and STi are basically Lancers and Imprezas in their eyes, which is why they got rated so high -- they're a lot better than the normal Lancers and Imprezas.
Meanwhile, the 350Z is not a "nice version of something else"; it's one of a kind, so they have nothing to compare it to.
Another symptom of their backward-looking nature when it comes to automobiles, consider the fact that they recently finally agreed that the Sentra is better than the Corolla. This, only after years since the last new designs came out, giving enough time to really show the difference.
Again, remember, they're not car enthusiasts. And they're only human.
Meanwhile, the 350Z is not a "nice version of something else"; it's one of a kind, so they have nothing to compare it to.
Another symptom of their backward-looking nature when it comes to automobiles, consider the fact that they recently finally agreed that the Sentra is better than the Corolla. This, only after years since the last new designs came out, giving enough time to really show the difference.
Again, remember, they're not car enthusiasts. And they're only human.
11-15-2003, 07:09 PM
#16
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Somewhere...
Posts: 2,308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For What It's Worth...
Anybody else notice that CU seemed to love the 4-door cars in this artice (Evo, STI, RX-8), yet dumped all over the 2-door cars (350z, Crossfire)? Just an observation...
--D.J.
--D.J.
11-15-2003, 07:31 PM
#17
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: ca
Posts: 934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by GaryM05
The weird thing is that even as low as they ranked the Z, they still 'recommend' it, along with the STI. The other 3 cars they featured (EVO, RX-8, Crossfire,) didn't get a 'recommended' rating.
Weird.
The weird thing is that even as low as they ranked the Z, they still 'recommend' it, along with the STI. The other 3 cars they featured (EVO, RX-8, Crossfire,) didn't get a 'recommended' rating.
Weird.
11-21-2003, 05:43 PM
#19
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Novi, MI
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Interior???
Originally posted by zxsaint
Wait, so THIS is a better interior??
Wait, so THIS is a better interior??
You certainly can't argue that the Z interior isn't clean and isn't comfortable. Yeah, the people at CR may only be human, but COME ON...they missed this one by miles. Hmmmm, maybe Nissan should slap a Buick logo on the Z before they hand one over to CR next time...
11-21-2003, 08:26 PM
#20
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Austin, TX yall
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by CelticPride2
The main reason why CU gave it the "recommended" tag was because of reliability, not performance. They way CU traditionally does this stuff is that they try the car, decide what they think of it, and if its reliability record is good, it gets a "recommended" tag. In other words, there very little connection to how the car performs and the recommended rating. A big example of this is the BMW 3-series. CU always talks about how it's the best-driving car in its category, but they don't recommend it because of it's low reliability rating (which stumps me in and of itself, incidentally...my dad drives an '01 3 series and has had zero problems with it).
In this particular case, although the Z is a brand new model and there isn't much reliability data, CU awarded the recommendation based on Nissan's past reliability excellence. The other 3 brands mentioned don't have as high of a relibility reputation, so they don't get the tag.
--D.J.
The main reason why CU gave it the "recommended" tag was because of reliability, not performance. They way CU traditionally does this stuff is that they try the car, decide what they think of it, and if its reliability record is good, it gets a "recommended" tag. In other words, there very little connection to how the car performs and the recommended rating. A big example of this is the BMW 3-series. CU always talks about how it's the best-driving car in its category, but they don't recommend it because of it's low reliability rating (which stumps me in and of itself, incidentally...my dad drives an '01 3 series and has had zero problems with it).
In this particular case, although the Z is a brand new model and there isn't much reliability data, CU awarded the recommendation based on Nissan's past reliability excellence. The other 3 brands mentioned don't have as high of a relibility reputation, so they don't get the tag.
--D.J.
)but i digress--
i think that the reason the z, sti and evo were in the same classification is because they are roughly in the same price range, and have *roughly* the same performance numbers.
really when it boils down to it, i think the z is more classy than the rest. they're all relatively close as far as numbers, so what it comes down to is preference. the way i look at consumer reports...well, i really don't. if what you have makes you happy, then fnuck what the other people think they know. screw letting others force their opinion on you and screw letting others tell you their opinion is the one that matters.