Road & Track: CaymanS vs. 370Z
02-26-2009, 10:15 PM
#21
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: ATX
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, to everyone else, we're not talking about cars that are years apart. We're talking about cars that are released a couple of months apart, and very obvious and direct competition.
The new 2009 Cayman is a lot faster than the outgoing model.
It would be as if there was a comparo in January of a BMW 135i, but they used the 2008 350Z, just as the 370Z was right around the corner. Everyone here would cry foul. You know you would. "Why not just wait on the 370Z", you would ask.
Like you said HnH... perfectly timed, because the new CS would have really beat on the 370Z. It was obvious to me, so at least somebody got it. But I run a marketing firm... so I guess I should have noticed.
I DO think it does make sense from this perspective, as far as a comparison... I could go out and spend about $40K either on a loaded 370Z or certified 2006 Cayman S with 6 year/100K mile warranty. That's at least comparable.
02-27-2009, 01:13 AM
#22
Registered User
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Rapid City, SD Ellsworth AFB
Posts: 1,447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am partly talking out of my a$$ about the 2010 cayman S. Maybe it is the 2009 that I mean, which is out now - gets new headlights, tail lights and a nice bump in HP along with PDK transmission. I am not very Porsche aware. The latest mag I saw clocked a 4.6 0-60 for the Cayman S. and we all talk about how mag times are low.
I just don't understand why the test was done with this year's z and last year's Cayman and not this year's. Sure, that's what nissan tested with, but it seems too staged for this comparo.
I just hate to see obviously paid marketing, but that's the game.
Sure, Slaughter is too strong of a word, but the Z took the Cayman by tenths of a second. no doubt the newer Cayman would have probably taken the z by a couple of seconds. But who carres, the Z is half the price of the pcar. (for now).
I would rather see a story where the z lost by two seconds against the same year pcar. Seems like Nissan is grasping at straws to make a point and they don't need to.
I just don't understand why the test was done with this year's z and last year's Cayman and not this year's. Sure, that's what nissan tested with, but it seems too staged for this comparo.
I just hate to see obviously paid marketing, but that's the game.
Sure, Slaughter is too strong of a word, but the Z took the Cayman by tenths of a second. no doubt the newer Cayman would have probably taken the z by a couple of seconds. But who carres, the Z is half the price of the pcar. (for now).
I would rather see a story where the z lost by two seconds against the same year pcar. Seems like Nissan is grasping at straws to make a point and they don't need to.
I had the option of driving a few Porsche's and can tell you this from a completely unbiased 350Z owning Porsche fanatic that when Porsche builds a car other than its 911 they are purposely built. So in terms of the Cayman Porsche wanted a mid level sports car above the Boxster but not as agile, fast, and costly as the 911 to keep the 911 as their premiere performance car.
So in closing it sucks when Porsche builds a purpose built car like the Cayman. They feel cheap when you drive them and I know this from 1st hand experience in test drives. If you want to compare the 370Z the 135i from a better unbiased magazine is excellent, the A5/S5, the Mustang even, etc.
02-27-2009, 04:23 AM
#24
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Maryland
Posts: 446
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yea and when they get a 2010 cayman S there will probably be a 2012 380z or something. What I'm trying to say is that the way you say a 2010 Cayman will slaughter a 370z, I can say a 2012 380z will slaughter that Cayman. And cycle repeats.. its dumb to say that.
for now 370Z > cayman
for now 370Z > cayman
Its faster, its sexier, and its a Porsche.
370z held its own though. Its funny how the 370 is not much faster at all than the outgoing 350z(HR)
02-27-2009, 05:44 AM
#25
Originally Posted by hiz-n-herz
LOL, this is where the marketing BS get you. So what if this year's z beat last year's Cayman. That's great to see that they were able to outperform their banchmark - they engineered it to. But why test with last year's pcar and this year's z? It's a staged and paid marketing review to appease potential z owners. It's kind of patronizing and insulting.
You mean 370Z > last year's Cayman, which just sounds retarded
The Z is a hero not because it is a few tenths faster than last year's Cayman, but because it comes close to the performance of a Cayman S for almost half the price.
You mean 370Z > last year's Cayman, which just sounds retarded
The Z is a hero not because it is a few tenths faster than last year's Cayman, but because it comes close to the performance of a Cayman S for almost half the price.
My opinion would have been no different if I read R&T or not. The 370Z offers not only close but pretty much the same performance for half the cost. I bet for 2009 the Cayman won't be that much faster anyways, definitely not worth the stupid-high price tag. I mean for a cayman's price I could get so many other cars that are twice as fast.
The Z shows how ridiculously priced the cayman is. Period.
02-27-2009, 05:56 AM
#26
13.7 1/4 for the 370?? thats a joke. Didnt even need to compare the 370 here, the HR would have settled this one nicely. The 370z is faster than the HR, but not exactly know by how much. But progress was made. I dont beleive the diff is like the DEvsHR, but def progress. But go ahead and keep basing EVERYTHING you know of magazines. While your at it, let tv be your mentor, and beleive everything you read on the internet
02-27-2009, 07:55 AM
#28
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
People up here are saying the 370Z isn't much faster than the HR 350Z based on 370Z times posted by magazines vs times owners of HR 350Zs have gotten. If you're going to go by mag times for the 370Z (and we have to because no 370Z owner has tracked their car and posted times yet) then look up the times the mags have posted for the 350Z, they're not impressive and aren't anything close to what owners have gotten. Until the 370Z has been out a while and tracked extensively by it's owners who then post the times you can't really compare the two unless you go mag time vs mag time. And if you do that the 370Z is faster and handles better than any 350Z, not by an extremely wide margin (not as wide a margin as DE vs HR like someone else said) but it's definitely an upgrade in performance compared to the 350Z in every measurable way.
Additionally, if you read this article the writer says that the 2009 Porsche model wasn't available to them for this comparison so that's why they used the 2008 model, not because Nissan paid them off or some other outlandish idea. Regardless of that Porsche > Nissan but it's nice to see that for way less $$$ a non-premium sport coupe can compete with a premium brand sport coupe. This comparison with the Porsche shows why the 370Z won the other little comparison it's been in vs cars around it's same price point; for the money the 370Z is probably the best sport coupe currently out right now. Nissan has done a good job, it's just a shame all vehicle sales are being impacted by the global economic upheaval...
Additionally, if you read this article the writer says that the 2009 Porsche model wasn't available to them for this comparison so that's why they used the 2008 model, not because Nissan paid them off or some other outlandish idea. Regardless of that Porsche > Nissan but it's nice to see that for way less $$$ a non-premium sport coupe can compete with a premium brand sport coupe. This comparison with the Porsche shows why the 370Z won the other little comparison it's been in vs cars around it's same price point; for the money the 370Z is probably the best sport coupe currently out right now. Nissan has done a good job, it's just a shame all vehicle sales are being impacted by the global economic upheaval...
02-27-2009, 08:08 AM
#29
Originally Posted by Everyone
Porsche > Nissan
One company builds sportscars and an SUV, while the latter builds everything affordable under the sun plus a couple psuedo- sportscars.
It's a testament to the 30k dollar car when it's being compared to something twice it's cost regardless of the point-value or journal opinion. This was never a real comparison in the first place. If anything, it should sell more 370z's.
A few months ago the GTR was being pitted against everything over 100k. Are they real comparisons for shoppers in that segment? No... But it speaks volumes about the GTR's value regardless of which supercar came out on top. Nissan wins either way.
02-27-2009, 10:10 AM
#30
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Maryland
Posts: 446
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
idiots like you that base everything a car is worth of magazine article = fail
13.7 1/4 for the 370?? thats a joke. Didnt even need to compare the 370 here, the HR would have settled this one nicely. The 370z is faster than the HR, but not exactly know by how much. But progress was made. I dont beleive the diff is like the DEvsHR, but def progress. But go ahead and keep basing EVERYTHING you know of magazines. While your at it, let tv be your mentor, and beleive everything you read on the internet
13.7 1/4 for the 370?? thats a joke. Didnt even need to compare the 370 here, the HR would have settled this one nicely. The 370z is faster than the HR, but not exactly know by how much. But progress was made. I dont beleive the diff is like the DEvsHR, but def progress. But go ahead and keep basing EVERYTHING you know of magazines. While your at it, let tv be your mentor, and beleive everything you read on the internet
Considering the best time Ive seen for a 370z so far out of all of the articles is a 13.4 I believe... not very impressive. Especially since magazines were giving the HR 13.6/7's. Yes the 370z is faster, but not by as much as it should have been. Nissan rushed the production of the car and failed with not bumping up the power from the G37.
Regardless, I like the car, but I dont think raising the price on it was justified.
Last edited by Scipher21; 02-27-2009 at 10:13 AM.
02-27-2009, 10:21 AM
#32
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Using the 09 Cayman S wouldnt have changed the main points of the article a jot. It's still a slightly better performing car for about twice the price, so if you're looking for some revelation in the "bang for the buck" department, look elsewhere.
The Porsche will (does) have intangible superiorities over the Nissan, and the article did it's very best to convey that I thought. There's really only one way to summarize a Cayman S however: expensive.
The Porsche will (does) have intangible superiorities over the Nissan, and the article did it's very best to convey that I thought. There's really only one way to summarize a Cayman S however: expensive.
02-27-2009, 10:30 AM
#33
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you honestly think the 2009 370z is faster than the 2010 Cayman S then you are very wrong....
Considering the best time Ive seen for a 370z so far out of all of the articles is a 13.4 I believe... not very impressive. Especially since magazines were giving the HR 13.6/7's. Yes the 370z is faster, but not by as much as it should have been. Nissan rushed the production of the car and failed with not bumping up the power from the G37.
Regardless, I like the car, but I dont think raising the price on it was justified.
Considering the best time Ive seen for a 370z so far out of all of the articles is a 13.4 I believe... not very impressive. Especially since magazines were giving the HR 13.6/7's. Yes the 370z is faster, but not by as much as it should have been. Nissan rushed the production of the car and failed with not bumping up the power from the G37.
Regardless, I like the car, but I dont think raising the price on it was justified.
02-27-2009, 10:39 AM
#34
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Maryland
Posts: 446
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
02-27-2009, 11:36 AM
#35
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Florida, SC
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting comments
It seems that there are those who think the Cayman is a inferior Porsche and therefore not worthy in a comparison. If you read the Porsche boards and Excellence magazine you will find out that the only folks who think the Cayman S is an inferior or cheap Porsche are those who do not own Porsches. The old adage that the only Porsche is the 911 is outdated. In fact, the Cayman S will out handle the 911. Many have switched from the 911 to the Cayman for its handling. If Porsche did not keep the Cayman or Boxster's power down then 911 sales would suffer. The comparison with the Cayman is indeed worthly for the 370. The fact that the 370 is compared with a car almost twice the price is admirable. Sure the new Cayman S will beat the 370 to 60 and even the old one will beat it in the quarter but again these are different markets. For the money, the 370 is a great car. Would I rather have the new Porsche for $33,000 sure but that is not the case. For a new car sports car, the price of the 370 is hard to beat.
02-27-2009, 01:05 PM
#36
People up here are saying the 370Z isn't much faster than the HR 350Z based on 370Z times posted by magazines vs times owners of HR 350Zs have gotten. If you're going to go by mag times for the 370Z (and we have to because no 370Z owner has tracked their car and posted times yet) then look up the times the mags have posted for the 350Z, they're not impressive and aren't anything close to what owners have gotten. Until the 370Z has been out a while and tracked extensively by it's owners who then post the times you can't really compare the two unless you go mag time vs mag time. And if you do that the 370Z is faster and handles better than any 350Z, not by an extremely wide margin (not as wide a margin as DE vs HR like someone else said) but it's definitely an upgrade in performance compared to the 350Z in every measurable way.
02-27-2009, 01:20 PM
#37
lol...really? where's your proof? Dont give me ANY mag times either. Real world examples//// best 100% stock time down to the tire on a HR is 13.1. The majority of the best times for the HR were logged by the same group of guys that logged the best DE times. Once a real experienced driver gets behind the 370z learns it and tracks it, ITS GOING TO BEAT YOUR PRECIOUS HR TIME. Its called progress, accept it. Once this thread dies and you put your rusty little 2 cents in, months from now when the 370z tracks a better time, I want you to remember this post
02-27-2009, 01:49 PM
#38
lol...really? where's your proof? Dont give me ANY mag times either. Real world examples//// best 100% stock time down to the tire on a HR is 13.1. The majority of the best times for the HR were logged by the same group of guys that logged the best DE times. Once a real experienced driver gets behind the 370z learns it and tracks it, ITS GOING TO BEAT YOUR PRECIOUS HR TIME. Its called progress, accept it. Once this thread dies and you put your rusty little 2 cents in, months from now when the 370z tracks a better time, I want you to remember this post
You must be one of these guys that thinks the 370z is this supercar figure thats going to run the 1/4 mile in like 12.5 seconds with a good/experienced driver, arent you?
Last edited by NISMO_558; 02-27-2009 at 02:15 PM.
02-27-2009, 02:25 PM
#39
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
People up here are saying the 370Z isn't much faster than the HR 350Z based on 370Z times posted by magazines vs times owners of HR 350Zs have gotten. If you're going to go by mag times for the 370Z (and we have to because no 370Z owner has tracked their car and posted times yet) then look up the times the mags have posted for the 350Z, they're not impressive and aren't anything close to what owners have gotten. Until the 370Z has been out a while and tracked extensively by it's owners who then post the times you can't really compare the two unless you go mag time vs mag time. And if you do that the 370Z is faster and handles better than any 350Z, not by an extremely wide margin (not as wide a margin as DE vs HR like someone else said) but it's definitely an upgrade in performance compared to the 350Z in every measurable way.
02-27-2009, 02:42 PM
#40
You highlighted the wrong part of my quote genius... I corrected it for you. No one thinks the 370Z is a supercar but it's definitely faster than any 350Z and the gap between the VQ35HR and the VQ37VHR might be wider than any of us think. We won't know until 370Z owners start tracking their cars and really push it to it's limits. My main point is you can't compare 370Z mag times to 350Z track times. The VQ35HR is a great engine (I have it in my G sedan) but VQ37VHR > VQ35HR so you get over it...
you guys are so thick headed it's not even funny. When did I say the HR was a better engine? never, i'm agreeing that the VHR is better, and I'm "over" the fact the 370z is faster in a straight line, got it? good. FYI the 370 isn't any better of a track car compared to a NISMO 350z, and thats been proven.
Don't get things twisted, personally i'm waiting for the NISMO 370z to be released, so i'm not bad mouthing the 370z, i'm just thinking more logically than you 370z fanboys are.