The Stats
06-09-2002, 07:21 AM
#22
Registered User
Originally posted by fairladyZ in Japan
Regarding the pictures...
Interesting to note that the tires are....
Bridgestone Potenza RE040... the same ones that will definitely be used on the Japanese spec FairladyZ -- per my post last week.
for 18 inch rims:
Front: 225 / 45R 18 91W
Rear: 245/ 45R 18 96W
Regarding the pictures...
Interesting to note that the tires are....
Bridgestone Potenza RE040... the same ones that will definitely be used on the Japanese spec FairladyZ -- per my post last week.
for 18 inch rims:
Front: 225 / 45R 18 91W
Rear: 245/ 45R 18 96W
Ugh, I hope my first mod isn't new tires on a brand-new car.
06-09-2002, 07:54 AM
#23
Sponsor
Up Front Enterprises
Up Front Enterprises
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Buckeye, AZ
Posts: 1,442
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I still have faith! Maybe I'm nieve but I think Nissan has a lot riding on the success of this car...Can't believe they would dissapoint us out of the gate. Keep the faith folks and don't bail just yet.
06-09-2002, 08:22 AM
#24
Registered User
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Toronto, CANADA
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
E36 M3 has 240hp and 220ft-lbs of torque w/ LSD 5-speed and they pull 5.5-5.6s and it weighs close to what the 350z weighs.. So, I'm almost 100% confident that 350Z will run atleast 5.5..
06-09-2002, 08:49 AM
#25
Registered User
Join Date: May 2002
Location: James Brown
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder how many of us would be able to tell the difference between 5.8 and 5.2??? I mean thats really only a half second. I think the editor was just going by "feel". It would be tough for me to judge that kinda time spread.
It's like when you go to a auto race. One car qualifies a half second faster than the other. But they look like they have the same speed going though the corners. Sometimes there cars that "feel" faster but are slow and some that "feel" slow but are faster.
I would take that info with a grain of salt. We'll just have to wait until our "expensive" notice comes with the stats.
It's like when you go to a auto race. One car qualifies a half second faster than the other. But they look like they have the same speed going though the corners. Sometimes there cars that "feel" faster but are slow and some that "feel" slow but are faster.
I would take that info with a grain of salt. We'll just have to wait until our "expensive" notice comes with the stats.
06-09-2002, 09:27 AM
#26
Registered User
Originally posted by VQracer
notice he says Potenzas. I'm happy now.
notice he says Potenzas. I'm happy now.
06-09-2002, 09:45 AM
#27
Guest
Posts: n/a
Honestly,
I don't think this car will be only 5.8 in 0-60, not when the altima 3.5 is doing 5.9's. It's just not going to happen. Nissan would have egg on their face.
I am confident we will all be VERY pleased with the final numbers.
But...on the off chance Nissan has been sniffing glue and the car will only do 0-60 in 5.8 then I will not get the Z. I can't go from 4.8 0-60 to 5.8.
And you may not be able to measure the time difference, but you will not when a bloody 4 door altima is keeping toe to toe with you..how much would that suck?
But it just doesn't seem possible that Nissan would let that happen.
I don't think this car will be only 5.8 in 0-60, not when the altima 3.5 is doing 5.9's. It's just not going to happen. Nissan would have egg on their face.
I am confident we will all be VERY pleased with the final numbers.
But...on the off chance Nissan has been sniffing glue and the car will only do 0-60 in 5.8 then I will not get the Z. I can't go from 4.8 0-60 to 5.8.
And you may not be able to measure the time difference, but you will not when a bloody 4 door altima is keeping toe to toe with you..how much would that suck?
But it just doesn't seem possible that Nissan would let that happen.
06-09-2002, 10:23 AM
#28
New Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Boston
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by dvlad
I wonder how many of us would be able to tell the difference between 5.8 and 5.2??? I mean thats really only a half second. I think the editor was just going by "feel". It would be tough for me to judge that kinda time spread.
It's like when you go to a auto race. One car qualifies a half second faster than the other. But they look like they have the same speed going though the corners. Sometimes there cars that "feel" faster but are slow and some that "feel" slow but are faster.
I would take that info with a grain of salt. We'll just have to wait until our "expensive" notice comes with the stats.
I wonder how many of us would be able to tell the difference between 5.8 and 5.2??? I mean thats really only a half second. I think the editor was just going by "feel". It would be tough for me to judge that kinda time spread.
It's like when you go to a auto race. One car qualifies a half second faster than the other. But they look like they have the same speed going though the corners. Sometimes there cars that "feel" faster but are slow and some that "feel" slow but are faster.
I would take that info with a grain of salt. We'll just have to wait until our "expensive" notice comes with the stats.
06-09-2002, 10:28 AM
#29
Registered User
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it sounds that the automatic will do 60 in the aforementioned 5.8. also, motor trend's performance numbers are always a little quicker because, according to car and driver, their straightaway is slanted downwards.
06-09-2002, 12:12 PM
#31
Registered User
Join Date: May 2002
Location: MI
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No way guys!
just think about it..how can the Altima do a 0-60 in 5.9's and then the Z only make it in 5.8. That makes absoloulty no kind of human sense.
This is either a lie by this guy (just because he has pics doesnt mean he truly did have talk to the editor) or, the guy that told him that just threw out a number out of the blue.
Like ZISME said, WRONG!! dont worry guys, this isnt true.
BUT, if some TERRIBLY goes wrong, and if it is true by anymeans, then bye bye Z, sadly to say. But again, i have faith in Nissan, no way should they give us a low blow like that...would be very disappointing.
just think about it..how can the Altima do a 0-60 in 5.9's and then the Z only make it in 5.8. That makes absoloulty no kind of human sense.
This is either a lie by this guy (just because he has pics doesnt mean he truly did have talk to the editor) or, the guy that told him that just threw out a number out of the blue.
Like ZISME said, WRONG!! dont worry guys, this isnt true.
BUT, if some TERRIBLY goes wrong, and if it is true by anymeans, then bye bye Z, sadly to say. But again, i have faith in Nissan, no way should they give us a low blow like that...would be very disappointing.
06-09-2002, 02:34 PM
#32
Charter Member #67
Join Date: May 2002
Location: FL
Posts: 327
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't believe the 5.8 number. That would be a disgrace. Altima's are 5.9.
Suggestion to Kamran Ahmed: clean those freakin' wheels before taking a picture! Now that IS a disgrace, hehe.
Suggestion to Kamran Ahmed: clean those freakin' wheels before taking a picture! Now that IS a disgrace, hehe.
06-09-2002, 03:14 PM
#33
New Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Philly burbs
Posts: 1,644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally, I think talk of dumping the car if it's "only" 5.8 0-60 is ludicrous. First of all, who's numbers are "right"? C&D will publish one time, MT another, R&T yet another, and so on. Then we'll have Nissan's stats. I highly doubt they'll all be the same. So which one is right? The fastest one of course! 
I also don't understand why this has become such a big deal. I think most of us here signed on back in February or March or April even (some a lot earlier than that). All we knew at that point was 280+ HP, 0-60 less than 6 seconds. Seemed good enough for us then. We can sit here and place unrealistic expectations until everyone will be disappointed with the real thing. I don't know about you, but a car as beautiful as the Z, with the performance Nissan promised, at the price they're offering it at, sounds like a pretty kickass deal to me. If 0-60 is that important to you, maybe you're looking at the wrong car. There are other routes to go if you want the fastest possible 0-60 time. For example, you could just wait for the Mustang Cobra...but I don't care if you beat me by two seconds to the next light...I won't be jealous in the least. I'll probably feel sorry for you even, having to drive a cheap-looking, old design like that car is, even though you just outgunned me.
I know this has been beat to death elsewhere, but I think it's relevant to the current dilemma. Sports cars are not only about 0-60, or 1/4 mile times. They're about handling, performance, attitude, appearence, etc. It's the overall package. And I don't see another car out there that offers the overall balance of these things for anywhere near the price of the Z.
One last thing, then I promise I'll stop typing...I highly doubt that the Z will be as "slow" as the numbers quoted would indicate. Nissan hasn't let us down yet, and I don't expect them to drop the ball now. They have a lot riding on this car, and they know it. I thoroughly believe it will be the best sports car in it's class...and maybe in the class or two above it.
I also don't understand why this has become such a big deal. I think most of us here signed on back in February or March or April even (some a lot earlier than that). All we knew at that point was 280+ HP, 0-60 less than 6 seconds. Seemed good enough for us then. We can sit here and place unrealistic expectations until everyone will be disappointed with the real thing. I don't know about you, but a car as beautiful as the Z, with the performance Nissan promised, at the price they're offering it at, sounds like a pretty kickass deal to me. If 0-60 is that important to you, maybe you're looking at the wrong car. There are other routes to go if you want the fastest possible 0-60 time. For example, you could just wait for the Mustang Cobra...but I don't care if you beat me by two seconds to the next light...I won't be jealous in the least. I'll probably feel sorry for you even, having to drive a cheap-looking, old design like that car is, even though you just outgunned me.
I know this has been beat to death elsewhere, but I think it's relevant to the current dilemma. Sports cars are not only about 0-60, or 1/4 mile times. They're about handling, performance, attitude, appearence, etc. It's the overall package. And I don't see another car out there that offers the overall balance of these things for anywhere near the price of the Z.
One last thing, then I promise I'll stop typing...I highly doubt that the Z will be as "slow" as the numbers quoted would indicate. Nissan hasn't let us down yet, and I don't expect them to drop the ball now. They have a lot riding on this car, and they know it. I thoroughly believe it will be the best sports car in it's class...and maybe in the class or two above it.
Last edited by tbcz; 06-09-2002 at 03:17 PM.
06-09-2002, 03:42 PM
#34
Registered User
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 766
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since several previous posts mentioned the E36 M3 as good basis for comparison (similar weight, less power), let me add two more data points on that.
First, the US version M3 had fairly aggressive gearing (to the point that it really should have 6 speeds to drop the revs for highway cruising). Not sure how the Z will geared, but since it does have a 6 speed, you'de think that they would have had acceleration in mind when choosing the ratios for the lower gears.
Second, several tuners would dyno'ed the stock 3.2 liter version of the M3 (96-99 models) indicated that the true horsepower was closer to 260 than 240. In any case, it still seems like the Z should be able to hit the low fives, with mid fives being the worst case. I'm assuming it's JmanZ's 5.2 figure or better until I hear otherwise from confirmed tests run on several vehicles (basing the test on one car alone could result in skewed results if that car was a particularly good or bad unit).
First, the US version M3 had fairly aggressive gearing (to the point that it really should have 6 speeds to drop the revs for highway cruising). Not sure how the Z will geared, but since it does have a 6 speed, you'de think that they would have had acceleration in mind when choosing the ratios for the lower gears.
Second, several tuners would dyno'ed the stock 3.2 liter version of the M3 (96-99 models) indicated that the true horsepower was closer to 260 than 240. In any case, it still seems like the Z should be able to hit the low fives, with mid fives being the worst case. I'm assuming it's JmanZ's 5.2 figure or better until I hear otherwise from confirmed tests run on several vehicles (basing the test on one car alone could result in skewed results if that car was a particularly good or bad unit).
06-09-2002, 03:56 PM
#35
If it makes anyone feel better, knowing that ZISME reads all of our anticipation and expectation, and knowing that HE sees us all hoping for less than 5.5 (5.2?), I don't think he'd be sheepishly telling us to be patient and that we won't be disappointed. I think he'd be trying to soften the blow in some way if we all were thinking sub 5.5 and it really was 5.8. just my two pennies.
06-09-2002, 06:20 PM
#36
New Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Boston
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by tbcz
I also don't understand why this has become such a big deal. I think most of us here signed on back in February or March or April even (some a lot earlier than that). All we knew at that point was 280+ HP, 0-60 less than 6 seconds. Seemed good enough for us then. We can sit here and place unrealistic expectations until everyone will be disappointed with the real thing. I don't know about you, but a car as beautiful as the Z, with the performance Nissan promised, at the price they're offering it at, sounds like a pretty kickass deal to me. If 0-60 is that important to you, maybe you're looking at the wrong car. There are other routes to go if you want the fastest possible 0-60 time. For example, you could just wait for the Mustang Cobra...but I don't care if you beat me by two seconds to the next light...I won't be jealous in the least. I'll probably feel sorry for you even, having to drive a cheap-looking, old design like that car is, even though you just outgunned me.
I also don't understand why this has become such a big deal. I think most of us here signed on back in February or March or April even (some a lot earlier than that). All we knew at that point was 280+ HP, 0-60 less than 6 seconds. Seemed good enough for us then. We can sit here and place unrealistic expectations until everyone will be disappointed with the real thing. I don't know about you, but a car as beautiful as the Z, with the performance Nissan promised, at the price they're offering it at, sounds like a pretty kickass deal to me. If 0-60 is that important to you, maybe you're looking at the wrong car. There are other routes to go if you want the fastest possible 0-60 time. For example, you could just wait for the Mustang Cobra...but I don't care if you beat me by two seconds to the next light...I won't be jealous in the least. I'll probably feel sorry for you even, having to drive a cheap-looking, old design like that car is, even though you just outgunned me.
I chose Z because of its overall build, quality, design, and reliable VQ engine. But there has to be a reasonable expectation for a sports car. This is afterall a sports car, not a sports sedan. For cars coming out today, I think 5.8 is acceptable for sedans but not a 2 seater sports car. A massive A6 2.7T does 0-60 in 6.0 secs itself. I wont be too happy if I cant pass it on highgway in my 2 seater while its hauling a family on its quattro system.
I just do not belive in 5.8 for this car. It wont make sense looking at all the specs. And all signs from jmaz, and Zisme say it is wrong and we should expect better numbers. So i am not panicking. But IF 5.8 is what it turns out to be then I will probably think about canceling my order. 4.7 secs of E46 M3 compared to 5.8 secs of 350Z is just too much of a performace difference to ignore. I am not expecting Z to beat out M3 but I am expecting it to stay close in competition. I respect die hard fans of Z but unfortunately I am not one of them. I will judge the 350Z on its own merit and not on the history of the success of the Z line.
Last edited by Zboy; 06-09-2002 at 06:24 PM.
06-09-2002, 06:45 PM
#37
Registered User
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Dearborn Heights, MI
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Automobile Mag. is doing its tests this weekend, so I'll see if I can't get a second opinion.
To keep moral up, I've heard that they're using an M3 as a comparison car, and thus far, outside of straight line acceleration, the Z out-performs the BMW. In addition, Nissan was really pushing the mag. to use a Boxter S for comparison, but since Automobile is using the M3 for a year long test, it served them better to use the BMW. It sounds like they are already very impressed with the car, so I don't think anyone should be having second thoughts yet.
To keep moral up, I've heard that they're using an M3 as a comparison car, and thus far, outside of straight line acceleration, the Z out-performs the BMW. In addition, Nissan was really pushing the mag. to use a Boxter S for comparison, but since Automobile is using the M3 for a year long test, it served them better to use the BMW. It sounds like they are already very impressed with the car, so I don't think anyone should be having second thoughts yet.
06-09-2002, 07:20 PM
#38
New Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Boston
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by bbray
Automobile Mag. is doing its tests this weekend, so I'll see if I can't get a second opinion.
To keep moral up, I've heard that they're using an M3 as a comparison car, and thus far, outside of straight line acceleration, the Z out-performs the BMW. In addition, Nissan was really pushing the mag. to use a Boxter S for comparison, but since Automobile is using the M3 for a year long test, it served them better to use the BMW. It sounds like they are already very impressed with the car, so I don't think anyone should be having second thoughts yet.
Automobile Mag. is doing its tests this weekend, so I'll see if I can't get a second opinion.
To keep moral up, I've heard that they're using an M3 as a comparison car, and thus far, outside of straight line acceleration, the Z out-performs the BMW. In addition, Nissan was really pushing the mag. to use a Boxter S for comparison, but since Automobile is using the M3 for a year long test, it served them better to use the BMW. It sounds like they are already very impressed with the car, so I don't think anyone should be having second thoughts yet.
06-09-2002, 07:30 PM
#40
Registered User
Join Date: May 2002
Location: MI
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
using the M3 as a comparison car? and yet, some1 says that this car does 0-60 in 5.8 secs? haaaaaa
ok people, it is obvious this beast doesnt do 0-60 in 5.8, or else, they would be using something else as a comparison.
If they really are using the M3 as a comparison, i am CONVINCED that 5.8 is not the right number
ok people, it is obvious this beast doesnt do 0-60 in 5.8, or else, they would be using something else as a comparison.
If they really are using the M3 as a comparison, i am CONVINCED that 5.8 is not the right number