Yeah, the Z32 was a "staight up 2 seater" as well; it just had a 2+2 option. Also the Z32 TT 2 seater really wasn't that much heavier. People have shown weights of roughly 3350lbs which isn't that bad compared to the Z's of now.

 

Whoops.

 

I'm not sure why some folks are saying the new weight distribution will make it understeer more. How does more weight on the front tires make a car understeer more?

I do wish the weight distribution had gone more towards 50/50 or at least stayed at the current 53/47 distribution.

 

3000 pounds?



What's that underdrive pulley going to get you, 1 pound? And the aluminum driveshaft... you know it's already made of carbon fiber, right?

And then you're going to put bigger, heavier tires on it? The wheels are already forged aluminum...

Good luck knocking off almost 300 pounds.

--------------------

And speaking of weight... there is anothe issue at large. Notice how the packages are now arranged? From a marketing perspective, it makes the car lighter than it would be in reality, becuase the sport package is separate, not a model.

Personally, I would buy a loaded Touring, with sport and nav packages. The base touring weight is already 3278 lbs.

HOWEVER, the sport and nav packages will add weight... so I am realistically looking at a ~3325 pound car.

No thanks.

 

front end plow

 

hahaha to the whole weight reduction post above ^

i wish my z33 came with aluminum hatch and doors too that would make it that much and lighter than the z34

 

Can you (or someone) explain in a bit more detail? To me, "front end plow" is just a description of understeer, it doesn't explain how more mass (and thus weight) in the front end would cause more understeer. Maybe it's the moment of inertia?

 

Agree. Value is questionable. Like the 300ZX is to the 240Z, the 370Z is to the 350Z.

 

yes, it's exactly the moment of inertia... but going in details understeer when?
entry of the corner, mid corner? exit of the corner?

actually to me more weight upfront means understeer in static load... if the front and rear tires has the same surface on the ground
means understeer during the acceleration because you shift "load" towards the rear but the weight for the centrifugal force is still there upfront and with the front tires with less load you have a nice understeer.

the opposite example is a 911.. with a so much load on the rear... understeer going into the corner, oversteer when "stable" and accelerating, because the weight on the rear makes the tail slide outside.

more load on the tires = more grip (till you reach the mechanical limit of the tires).. reason why breaking you shift "load" on the front tires and you have more grip (the tail feels happy) or if you "drag race" you want soft rear suspension to shift the load where is needed.
but the mass distribution is still in the same place and the centrifugal force works on that.

the momentum of inertia works with anything that has masses further away from the center of gravity of an object (gyroscope effect).. reason why on a flywheel doesn't really matter how lighter it is.. but matter where you remove the weight. the very reason why a midship engine car is way faster to change direction than a front or rear engine car but it's also more critical when comes to corrections

 

damn the front/rear weight ratio SUCKS! So far not really impressed

 

the front rear ratio of a cayman S is 45/55... on a 911 is more 40/60 but no doubt, they are great cars... you just need to drive it according to that.
the wheelbase is shorter and the track are wider... that will make the car more agile even with a "less perfect" weight ratio. than will depend on the suspension tuning and geometry to "make the magic"
or, put 20/30K more on the table and get a new cayman (coming with the 320hp engine in january...) but remember to upgrade the lubrification system if you don't want to kill the engine in 10 track days. (read on some cayman forum about the "minor" problems of having a wimp dry sump instead of the real deal)

 

But for the cars you mention (Cayman, 911), the higher number is the REAR. On the Z, the 54% is the FRONT. A Honda S2000, for comparison, is 50/50. Formula 1 cars are about 40/60 front/rear, if that gives you any idea of what the ideal distribution is

 

Depending on who you talk to, you'll hear that 50/50 weight distribution is more marketing than anything else. For the porsches mentioned, the weight bias of the 911s is due to the rear engine placement, but many mid engine cars are also closer to 40/60 such as the cayman, exige and carrera gt.

Regardless of bias, the suspension for each particular car is tuned for such. The GTR has a 53/47 weight distribution and handles just fine. Like with the 350Z, Nissan makes mention that the GTR has 50/50 weight distribution under acceleration.

 

Nobody with any true engineering background and race experience would say a front-bias weight distribution is a good thing for chassis dynamics... never has been, never will be...

 

there is "one minor problem"... those aren't race cars. for formula and open wheelers you have aerodynamics and wings to add to the equation, no doubt. weight upfront is bad, really bad. but either an engine in the back like on a 911 is an engineering nightmare and still... is a badass car ( except the minor fact that when porsche decided to have a "supercar" put the engine in the middle).
on paper, wider rear track, more weight upfront... you have the recipe for an understeering monster...
the only thing advantage of the 350z is that is the cheapest performance car that can still go fast on a road track and mods to go faster are cheap too... at the end you got what you pay.
for the price of a cayman you can have a full tuned 370z (when mods will be available) and probably be faster than a stock cayman S.
we'll see the track test in the next month... the only odd... nissan had the car in germany and still no rumors, no nothing whatsoever about nurburgring lap times... and that is not good IMHO. because the best time of a 2003 Z there was 8.26.. and a cayman S 8.11 and 8.15 for a Z4m roadster...

 

the pulley will knock off at least 5 lbs.
the driveshaft will knock off at least 10 lbs. Carbon fiber composite isnt carbon fiber. carbon fiber driveshafts cost about $1,000
the flywheel will knock off at least 12 lbs.
18x10 buddy club P1 QF's take off 8 lbs per corner
bucket seats will knock off at the VERY least 45lbs each
Braile auto battery will take off 15lbs in the very least.
2 piece rotors will shave off 5lbs per corner.
an entire exhaust sytem will save weight. if you get titanium you'll save even more.

 

Im pretty sure I will. Im not putting that bold to be an a*shole either. I dont think Im spoiled. Im 30, worked for everything I own and think for $35,000 Nissan could have done better. Hence, Im looking at "superior" alternatives. But who kknows? We havent driven the damn thing yet. It might be another magical physics car...like the GT-R. Doubt it but maybe.

 

3200 - 3300 lbs was exactly my thought.

I remember about a year ago, a few people were saying this car would be below 3000lbs, and I told them they were being unrealistic, and they flamed me.

 

I looked at every press release and spec PDF

WHAT THE FAK IS THE THING MOUNTED IN THE MIDDLE OF A REAR BUMPER?

Oh anyone noticed Full-color LCD 7-inch monitor Optional on Touring model!

 

I don't like that thing... looks like the Fairlady Z has a VAG.

I believe the 7" LCD is standard on the Touring model as part of the BOSE MusicBox system. Navigation is optional for the Touring for that very reason.