Final Stats
06-10-2002, 10:38 PM
#61
It's all goood.
I'm not overly surprised by the 287 number. Anything between 280-290 is all good. It's just that we can't help thinking that 290 or 300 is alot bigger than 287.
I care more about the driving a car with that VQ engine.... we never owned one - i gotta VG30E and my dad's a VG30DETT. Very good engines...
Anyhow... Jay, I'm sad because it looks like the gauge faces are like that of the Altima. Which means the yellow numbers and black background are "one piece" and not two. I know this is more cost effective compared to a yellow diffuser and black overlay.
On a happy note... changing the LCD color is easy as long as it is grey when the car is off. BLue and Amber doesn't look good at night... so I give up on the pseudo-Optitron idea. :-(
BTW... I got Luxeon LEDs that will replace the dome light... looks very nice!
Sorry for long post...
Phuong Ta
I care more about the driving a car with that VQ engine.... we never owned one - i gotta VG30E and my dad's a VG30DETT. Very good engines...
Anyhow... Jay, I'm sad because it looks like the gauge faces are like that of the Altima. Which means the yellow numbers and black background are "one piece" and not two. I know this is more cost effective compared to a yellow diffuser and black overlay.
On a happy note... changing the LCD color is easy as long as it is grey when the car is off. BLue and Amber doesn't look good at night... so I give up on the pseudo-Optitron idea. :-(
BTW... I got Luxeon LEDs that will replace the dome light... looks very nice!
Sorry for long post...
Phuong Ta
06-10-2002, 10:54 PM
#62
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Highlands Ranch, Colorado
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks
Don't feel bad about disclosing - we should never have had to pre-order without horsepower figures. I'm excited - the guy down the hall spent 58K for a Boxster S that performs with comparable numbers! I guess there really is a substitute - 350Z.
06-10-2002, 11:04 PM
#63
Registered User
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Orlando, Fl
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New Ratio?
Everything I have read (and that is a lot) was a front/rear ratio of 52/48. It shifted rearward on acceleration out of a turn, and this was the exact ratio that Nissan was seeking and had achieved. Don't know how it changed if this new info is correct.
06-10-2002, 11:25 PM
#65
Charter Member #50
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 3,552
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
0-60=5.5 is conservative
The power to weight ratio for the 1993 300ZX TT is about 11.83 lbs per hp.
If we use the latest stats, then the 350z will have 11.08lbs per hp.
So, 0-60=5.5sec is pretty conservative..Nissan just wants to make sure they don't release performance numbers that they can't backup themself..
If we use the latest stats, then the 350z will have 11.08lbs per hp.
So, 0-60=5.5sec is pretty conservative..Nissan just wants to make sure they don't release performance numbers that they can't backup themself..
06-11-2002, 12:07 AM
#66
Guest
Posts: n/a
Your disappointment
Remember that these cars' "official" numbers were something like 5.96 seconds for the S2000 and 6+ seconds for the WRX, so don't get too disappointed until some car magazine get a hold of one and drives it like they hate it to a 5.0 second 0-60 time. You never know...
Originally posted by Apexi350z
I am a bit of disappointed... Here are some cars for comparison:
Year Make Model 0-60 1/4mile Source Date
==========================================
2000 Honda S2000 5.2 13.8 MT 2/1/2000
2002 Subaru WRX 5.4 14.1 C&D 10/1/2001
2001 Porsche BoxterS 5.4 13.9 MT 8/1/2001
1999 BMW MCoupe 5.3 13.9 C&D 10/1/1998
These are just a few cars that can match or beat the 0-60 time of our Z. I was hoping to have 0-60 time of 5.0-5.2sec, and 1/4miles around 13.5sec. Looks like I may have to do some mods to the car to get that number.
Thanks!
btw, these numbers are from car-stats.com
I am a bit of disappointed... Here are some cars for comparison:
Year Make Model 0-60 1/4mile Source Date
==========================================
2000 Honda S2000 5.2 13.8 MT 2/1/2000
2002 Subaru WRX 5.4 14.1 C&D 10/1/2001
2001 Porsche BoxterS 5.4 13.9 MT 8/1/2001
1999 BMW MCoupe 5.3 13.9 C&D 10/1/1998
These are just a few cars that can match or beat the 0-60 time of our Z. I was hoping to have 0-60 time of 5.0-5.2sec, and 1/4miles around 13.5sec. Looks like I may have to do some mods to the car to get that number.
Thanks!
btw, these numbers are from car-stats.com
06-11-2002, 12:23 AM
#67
Guest
Posts: n/a
I wonder why people have a big concern regarding the number of HP in the Z's engine, If you don't like that number tune up the damn car. You will get up to 400 hp with a normal turbo kit but it must be done professionally, I bet if this car is tuned up it will bypass BMW M3 with ease. Wait for the Japanese Engineers, I bet they will release allot of interesting things that can be done to the Z’s engine, like computer chips that reduces the delay time.
06-11-2002, 01:29 AM
#69
Charter Member #49
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: It's all goood.
Originally posted by djtonium
I care more about the driving a car with that VQ engine.... we never owned one - i gotta VG30E and my dad's a VG30DETT. Very good engines...
I care more about the driving a car with that VQ engine.... we never owned one - i gotta VG30E and my dad's a VG30DETT. Very good engines...
06-11-2002, 02:22 AM
#70
New Member
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 4,959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by SeedyRom
Nissan NEVER promised a perfect 51/49 and in fact in my articles with SportZ Magazine I left it open that the number could change as the car went through testing. Parts get rearranged and materials can change which affect the weight. Sometimes it's a trade off too...you might switch a percent over but gain stability from an upgraded suspension componenet...as an example.
Nissan NEVER promised a perfect 51/49 and in fact in my articles with SportZ Magazine I left it open that the number could change as the car went through testing. Parts get rearranged and materials can change which affect the weight. Sometimes it's a trade off too...you might switch a percent over but gain stability from an upgraded suspension componenet...as an example.
06-11-2002, 02:23 AM
#71
New Member
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 4,959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: 0-60=5.5 is conservative
Originally posted by Apexi350z
The power to weight ratio for the 1993 300ZX TT is about 11.83 lbs per hp.
If we use the latest stats, then the 350z will have 11.08lbs per hp.
So, 0-60=5.5sec is pretty conservative..Nissan just wants to make sure they don't release performance numbers that they can't backup themself..
The power to weight ratio for the 1993 300ZX TT is about 11.83 lbs per hp.
If we use the latest stats, then the 350z will have 11.08lbs per hp.
So, 0-60=5.5sec is pretty conservative..Nissan just wants to make sure they don't release performance numbers that they can't backup themself..
06-11-2002, 03:10 AM
#72
Guest
Posts: n/a
It's funny how some people can be over something so simple as horsepower and 0-60 times. I mean, when I heard the numbers, I felt like a kid at Christmas time. I couldn't wait to call all my friends and tell them what I had gotten from Santa. heh heh
I took a few moments to read the board over at zcar.com to see what was being said and I couldn't believe the stuff I was reading. Most was fine, but then there was the odd insult or comment being thrown. I guess any/every board will have that from time to time.
When we hear things that go against something we feel strongly about, I guess it's natural to lash out at those making the comments. We live and hopefully, learn.
Now... to add to this drama.
I went to bed this morning at about 7:30am pst and when I woke at 3:05pm pst and checked my email, I had recieved several emails. Most were from fans or from the script that runs this forum telling me more people had joined this site. (man, we're GROWING)
Three though really caught my eye. Two were from people that claim to have seen this Nissan press kit and one even went so far as to leave me a phone number so I could call him if I had any questions. Nice of him. They both confirmed what I had written earlier in the site.
The third was from my contact in Japan. He told me my numbers were <b> WRONG</b> and that the numbers are 300 HP and 5.2 as he had told me a couple months ago. Now when he told me this, he was basing it off of one test car Nissan had achieved this data with. Of course nothing was set in stone and many things change on the road to production. He has his opinion, and that's that these numbers are not right. Almost right, but not quite.
So then I started thinking.... when Ghosen said that the 350Z will be Nissan's most powerful Z ever, did he mean HP? 0-60 time? Top Speed? Engine displacement? (kidding on the last one)
I don't expect ZISME to confirm or deny anything just yet, but if he does, I'll respect it completely. I am just confused why if these numbers are not "believable" or are "pure speculation", why Nissan created press kits to give to magazines writing about the car then? Maybe to stir the minds of us fans, knowing that when the car does come out... if the final stats are a hair better, we won't complain, we'll be even more impressed with the Z.
Hmmmm....
Well, continue to flame, comment, discount at will. I'll post new news as soon as I get it. I have several "calls" out there right now to people that I feel, are in the know. I'll keep you as up to date as I can. You guys do the same for us! I <b>KNOW</b> some of you reading this stuff know the same data I am talking of. If you're worried about your cover being blown, PM me and I'll post what you send me, minus your name. Nobody knows who you are that way.
whoa... long post. I'd best get ready to watch my Detroit Red Wings take it to the Hurricanes again.
later
-j-
I took a few moments to read the board over at zcar.com to see what was being said and I couldn't believe the stuff I was reading. Most was fine, but then there was the odd insult or comment being thrown. I guess any/every board will have that from time to time.
When we hear things that go against something we feel strongly about, I guess it's natural to lash out at those making the comments. We live and hopefully, learn.
Now... to add to this drama.
I went to bed this morning at about 7:30am pst and when I woke at 3:05pm pst and checked my email, I had recieved several emails. Most were from fans or from the script that runs this forum telling me more people had joined this site. (man, we're GROWING)
Three though really caught my eye. Two were from people that claim to have seen this Nissan press kit and one even went so far as to leave me a phone number so I could call him if I had any questions. Nice of him.
They both confirmed what I had written earlier in the site.The third was from my contact in Japan. He told me my numbers were <b> WRONG</b> and that the numbers are 300 HP and 5.2 as he had told me a couple months ago. Now when he told me this, he was basing it off of one test car Nissan had achieved this data with. Of course nothing was set in stone and many things change on the road to production. He has his opinion, and that's that these numbers are not right. Almost right, but not quite.
So then I started thinking.... when Ghosen said that the 350Z will be Nissan's most powerful Z ever, did he mean HP? 0-60 time? Top Speed? Engine displacement? (kidding on the last one)
I don't expect ZISME to confirm or deny anything just yet, but if he does, I'll respect it completely. I am just confused why if these numbers are not "believable" or are "pure speculation", why Nissan created press kits to give to magazines writing about the car then? Maybe to stir the minds of us fans, knowing that when the car does come out... if the final stats are a hair better, we won't complain, we'll be even more impressed with the Z.
Hmmmm....
Well, continue to flame, comment, discount at will. I'll post new news as soon as I get it. I have several "calls" out there right now to people that I feel, are in the know. I'll keep you as up to date as I can.
You guys do the same for us! I <b>KNOW</b> some of you reading this stuff know the same data I am talking of. If you're worried about your cover being blown, PM me and I'll post what you send me, minus your name. Nobody knows who you are that way. whoa... long post. I'd best get ready to watch my Detroit Red Wings take it to the Hurricanes again.
later
-j-
06-11-2002, 03:24 AM
#73
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: In a Village!
Posts: 982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
O to 60 can be decieved... hp can be decieved... but the weight balance - that's definitely an issue...
I am pray that the balance is not listed correctly. 51/49 is really REALLY what a solid sports car needs. There is no substitute for handling IMHO.
I am pray that the balance is not listed correctly. 51/49 is really REALLY what a solid sports car needs. There is no substitute for handling IMHO.
Last edited by 3rdpower; 06-11-2002 at 03:28 AM.
06-11-2002, 03:25 AM
#74
Registered User
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 766
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here’s my take on all the fuss. 300HP is a psychological barrier that every wants to see hit or broken (me included). If the originally quoted number was 310HP, I doubt that people would be that concerned whether it was 310HP or 323HP.
In any case, as 2003z points out, the power to weight ratio is still excellent, even at 287HP.
As far as the 5.5 sec to 60, I’m taking that as a conservative manufacturers estimate if that number holds.
What’s my point? If the 287HP and 5.5 to 60 hold as the official numbers, it’s not a bad “worst case” scenario.
No one has talked much about lateral G’s. I’m hoping for a least 0.90g. Maybe we can bandy that around while we wait for the HP and 0-60 numbers.
In any case, as 2003z points out, the power to weight ratio is still excellent, even at 287HP.
As far as the 5.5 sec to 60, I’m taking that as a conservative manufacturers estimate if that number holds.
What’s my point? If the 287HP and 5.5 to 60 hold as the official numbers, it’s not a bad “worst case” scenario.
No one has talked much about lateral G’s. I’m hoping for a least 0.90g. Maybe we can bandy that around while we wait for the HP and 0-60 numbers.
06-11-2002, 03:43 AM
#75
Well I just caught up with this thread. I am glad to see there are other people who know things and will post them. I will continue to hold to my promise of not posting sensitive information on a public board (sensitive to who is the question I asked myself, we do deserve to know don’t we). Everyone at Nissan should realize that information being spread between the two or three major forums for owners and enthusiast is not abnormal during this kind of event. I am glad that the powers that be let others have the information to post. Who knows, maybe the embargo which is set allows Nissan to play with the numbers until the last minute where any changes will be in a new or revised media release.
06-11-2002, 04:17 AM
#76
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just my $.02
Horsepower and torque get revised time and time again before the actual product is released. Remember when the E46 M3 was rumored to have upwards of 350 hp and a V8??? Final figure was more like 333hp/260lbs/ft torque with an I6. Still a monster by anyone's standards. Same goes for Vettes and Mustangs. Look at the #'s for the mustang from a few years ago....even though 305 was the factory rating, Ford ended up adjusting that after a few people dynoed their cars and the true figure was closer to 280.
Figures change all the time. Time will tell about the Z. No matter what the final figure is, Nissan the technological know-how to deliver performance in a way that will nail you to your seat and still manage not to drain your pocket. They did it before, they can do it again.
Just my $.02
Figures change all the time. Time will tell about the Z. No matter what the final figure is, Nissan the technological know-how to deliver performance in a way that will nail you to your seat and still manage not to drain your pocket. They did it before, they can do it again.
Just my $.02
06-11-2002, 05:00 AM
#77
Registered User
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Richmond, Canada
Posts: 717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Woo, reading all these posts is so tired, anywayz, i 'm satistfy with the hp but the torque surpise me, i didn't expect the car will have 276 torque. and as i'm not a big fans of 0-60 it's not really important to me. 
06-11-2002, 05:10 AM
#78
Registered User
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sorry to say that after 11 long years of owning Nissans, I'm packing it in and switching to Yugo. Yes, Yugo. Those guys never mess you around or keep secrets. They tell you right away you're getting a 75HP car and that kind of honesty is really unique in this day. I suggest others do the same...Bye Bye
Last edited by Flyingscot; 06-11-2002 at 05:27 AM.
06-11-2002, 05:16 AM
#79
Registered User
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 613
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by VandyZ
Well I just caught up with this thread. I am glad to see there are other people who know things and will post them. I will continue to hold to my promise of not posting sensitive information on a public board (sensitive to who is the question I asked myself, we do deserve to know don’t we). Everyone at Nissan should realize that information being spread between the two or three major forums for owners and enthusiast is not abnormal during this kind of event. I am glad that the powers that be let others have the information to post. Who knows, maybe the embargo which is set allows Nissan to play with the numbers until the last minute where any changes will be in a new or revised media release.
Well I just caught up with this thread. I am glad to see there are other people who know things and will post them. I will continue to hold to my promise of not posting sensitive information on a public board (sensitive to who is the question I asked myself, we do deserve to know don’t we). Everyone at Nissan should realize that information being spread between the two or three major forums for owners and enthusiast is not abnormal during this kind of event. I am glad that the powers that be let others have the information to post. Who knows, maybe the embargo which is set allows Nissan to play with the numbers until the last minute where any changes will be in a new or revised media release.
06-11-2002, 05:20 AM
#80
Charter Member #45
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regardless... about the numbers... we all know this wasn't the biggest draw for the car... otherwise you wouldn't have purchased one... there were no numbers to begin with... I still think its a great value IMO...
If I want, I can pay the $1500 to lighten the car... $3000 to take it stage 2 lightening...$22000 for stage three and then go and get a NA tune ups. I think up to stage 4... all in all @ $100,000 extra... Darn it... Im thinking life is like GT3 again.
Im not to in to the numbers... as long as it looks good and I can beat every poontang... I mean mustang... im happy. Please let me know if this is so and I can beat an Ole' Henry (This is what we call fords)...
If I want, I can pay the $1500 to lighten the car... $3000 to take it stage 2 lightening...$22000 for stage three and then go and get a NA tune ups. I think up to stage 4... all in all @ $100,000 extra... Darn it... Im thinking life is like GT3 again.
Im not to in to the numbers... as long as it looks good and I can beat every poontang... I mean mustang... im happy. Please let me know if this is so and I can beat an Ole' Henry (This is what we call fords)...