Am I the only one who thinks the 370Z looks much better than the 350?
07-15-2009, 01:01 PM
#103
Registered User
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Z-land, New York
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
370z is better looking..saw a brilant silver yesterday..beautiful especially the rear..but NO the 350z is a timeless design..I never get tired of looking at my car.
07-16-2009, 09:23 AM
#104
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: san francisco, california
Posts: 461
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How you ask? Let's reference these pictures again
The car carries more presence for many reasons. First off, the 370's flared fenders are a LOT more aggressive than the 350s. This can be seen from the front and the side. Then you have the crease on the front fenders which carries back to the doors which then goes to the classic Z 1/4 window. The 350z just has a simple line that goes all the way back to the tail lights.
The 370z also has a smaller greenhouse height (door sill to roof) than the 350z. This is evident by side by side pictures where it's clear that the 370's hood and door sill sit higher than the 350 but the roof does not (they're about the same height). This gives it a squashed look and adds to the aggressiveness.
To top it all off, it has the fastback roof to give it that long hood/short deck look that resides on every other Z besides the 350. There is no confusion. It doesn't matter if the original 240 designer liked Jags, the fact remains that all Zs prior to the 350z shared the long hood/short deck trait and the public liked it. The 350's canopy sits in the middle of the car. You say people are attracted because the confusion they get when trying to figure it out what it looks like. It looks like nothing else, it has its own look unlike the 350z which was being compared to Audi TTs ect.
Sure some people don't like the fangs but it does add to the car (those who don't like it simply paint them black). I'm not even going to discuss the differences between the Nismo versions of both cars because I think most people here will agree the Nismo 370 looks much cleaner than the Nismo 350.
As others have said, when placing the two side by side, the 350 looks dated. Not that it looks bad, but it just looks plain.
Again, a lot of the hype of the 350z was the 6 year absence, that you can not deny. It doesn't matter if it didn't look like the old Zs (although that's why some didn't like it), the fact that a Z was being offered again after so long is what got the attention (and price/performance).
The car carries more presence for many reasons. First off, the 370's flared fenders are a LOT more aggressive than the 350s. This can be seen from the front and the side. Then you have the crease on the front fenders which carries back to the doors which then goes to the classic Z 1/4 window. The 350z just has a simple line that goes all the way back to the tail lights.
The 370z also has a smaller greenhouse height (door sill to roof) than the 350z. This is evident by side by side pictures where it's clear that the 370's hood and door sill sit higher than the 350 but the roof does not (they're about the same height). This gives it a squashed look and adds to the aggressiveness.
To top it all off, it has the fastback roof to give it that long hood/short deck look that resides on every other Z besides the 350. There is no confusion. It doesn't matter if the original 240 designer liked Jags, the fact remains that all Zs prior to the 350z shared the long hood/short deck trait and the public liked it. The 350's canopy sits in the middle of the car. You say people are attracted because the confusion they get when trying to figure it out what it looks like. It looks like nothing else, it has its own look unlike the 350z which was being compared to Audi TTs ect.
Sure some people don't like the fangs but it does add to the car (those who don't like it simply paint them black). I'm not even going to discuss the differences between the Nismo versions of both cars because I think most people here will agree the Nismo 370 looks much cleaner than the Nismo 350.
As others have said, when placing the two side by side, the 350 looks dated. Not that it looks bad, but it just looks plain.
Again, a lot of the hype of the 350z was the 6 year absence, that you can not deny. It doesn't matter if it didn't look like the old Zs (although that's why some didn't like it), the fact that a Z was being offered again after so long is what got the attention (and price/performance).
07-16-2009, 10:36 AM
#105
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: jax, florida
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For those comparing the red 350 and yellow 370, consider the lighting of the 370 is more dramatically arranged to bring the creases and angles into view by producing a higher contrast level with deep shadowing. If one found a similarly lighted 350 the differences would not appear so different.
The 350 'plain line' running from the headlight crease to the back is a singularly elegant unifying calligraphic element that elongates the overall shape. From the front looking back, both fenders and door have curvature; there is action all over, just not so, chunky, as the 370, especially 4'' shorter, has become. Blocking off shapes into separate areas shortens the overall look from the side, and makes the yellow car look 'stuck together' from kit parts from different companies.
The use of the term 'fastback' applies to a rear window sloping directly down into trunk area, as opposed to having a rear window and trunk area at angles, even if obtuse ( > 90 ) as turbulance forms in the angle area. The 350 trunk area stretches out and performs aerodynamic functions that were lost in 370; they had to test 200 versions to get it back to the flow level the 350 had; with an extra 30 HP relative inefficiency can be overcome, even adding 1mpg!
One argument for shortening the wheelbase was to get better 'sport car' feel, according to one article, but I noticed a 350 v. lotus elise slalom result where the lotus had a 10th sec. advantage over a z, so the 350 isn't exactly a slouch, it's the 'nut behind' the wheel, not the 60 or $70k for the little mid-engine tyke.
With time, anything or any person looks less interesting than at first site; everyone has a relatively low novelty threshold, we all want to see new designs, features etc., which marketing armies working 24/7 are happy to exploit, to convince any buyer the latest item is a revolution beyond comprehension, whether it's fashion clothes, soft drinks, or cars. That's not to say something is dated the next day the new product is put on display.
A design is tweaked until it's maximized within a set of parameters, including machining technology, power, handling etc. Then a new 'version' appears. Nothing wrong with that, and nothing 'wrong' with the 370. Should all the new engine / transmission / weight redux etc. have just been put into a 350 shell?
No reason for that, but the question is, is the design an evolution or simply excessive? The buyer decides, and there are not a lot of alternatives, anyway. I personally look for design in terms other than mere 'aggression', a car isn't a knife, and doesn't wear a black belt. I would follow the 'walk softly, and carry a big stick' adage, which is what a 350 represents to me: I never thought a 350 looked 'aggressive'; its 'bathtub' shape is essentially friendly, like an inviting bubblebath. Surprise, there's a great white shark under the bubbles but no need to chew up road kill all the time. All those kits to add sharky pointed bumpers, skirts and stuff are mostly aesthetic junk, imo. A couple are nice, those that stay within the 350 shape, and just simplify it a bit.
Most don't read about, much less 'study' art, design, sculpture, lighting, color, etc., or practice it even as snapshot taker, and only get stimulated by sharp angles that may have nothing to do with any aerodynamic issues.
What fades fastest, are the extremes.
It's great that the 370 has the improved hardware, but I still think it'll be hard to keep on 'padding it' with 'metal razor muscles' as if it's a military helicopter with missiles and radar stickin' out all over. Juvenalia. But that's the market, 14 - 34, in general, right?
The 350 'plain line' running from the headlight crease to the back is a singularly elegant unifying calligraphic element that elongates the overall shape. From the front looking back, both fenders and door have curvature; there is action all over, just not so, chunky, as the 370, especially 4'' shorter, has become. Blocking off shapes into separate areas shortens the overall look from the side, and makes the yellow car look 'stuck together' from kit parts from different companies.
The use of the term 'fastback' applies to a rear window sloping directly down into trunk area, as opposed to having a rear window and trunk area at angles, even if obtuse ( > 90 ) as turbulance forms in the angle area. The 350 trunk area stretches out and performs aerodynamic functions that were lost in 370; they had to test 200 versions to get it back to the flow level the 350 had; with an extra 30 HP relative inefficiency can be overcome, even adding 1mpg!
One argument for shortening the wheelbase was to get better 'sport car' feel, according to one article, but I noticed a 350 v. lotus elise slalom result where the lotus had a 10th sec. advantage over a z, so the 350 isn't exactly a slouch, it's the 'nut behind' the wheel, not the 60 or $70k for the little mid-engine tyke.
With time, anything or any person looks less interesting than at first site; everyone has a relatively low novelty threshold, we all want to see new designs, features etc., which marketing armies working 24/7 are happy to exploit, to convince any buyer the latest item is a revolution beyond comprehension, whether it's fashion clothes, soft drinks, or cars. That's not to say something is dated the next day the new product is put on display.
A design is tweaked until it's maximized within a set of parameters, including machining technology, power, handling etc. Then a new 'version' appears. Nothing wrong with that, and nothing 'wrong' with the 370. Should all the new engine / transmission / weight redux etc. have just been put into a 350 shell?
No reason for that, but the question is, is the design an evolution or simply excessive? The buyer decides, and there are not a lot of alternatives, anyway. I personally look for design in terms other than mere 'aggression', a car isn't a knife, and doesn't wear a black belt. I would follow the 'walk softly, and carry a big stick' adage, which is what a 350 represents to me: I never thought a 350 looked 'aggressive'; its 'bathtub' shape is essentially friendly, like an inviting bubblebath. Surprise, there's a great white shark under the bubbles but no need to chew up road kill all the time. All those kits to add sharky pointed bumpers, skirts and stuff are mostly aesthetic junk, imo. A couple are nice, those that stay within the 350 shape, and just simplify it a bit.
Most don't read about, much less 'study' art, design, sculpture, lighting, color, etc., or practice it even as snapshot taker, and only get stimulated by sharp angles that may have nothing to do with any aerodynamic issues.
What fades fastest, are the extremes.
It's great that the 370 has the improved hardware, but I still think it'll be hard to keep on 'padding it' with 'metal razor muscles' as if it's a military helicopter with missiles and radar stickin' out all over. Juvenalia. But that's the market, 14 - 34, in general, right?
Last edited by phos; 07-16-2009 at 11:22 AM. Reason: shorten
07-16-2009, 11:32 AM
#106
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: san francisco, california
Posts: 461
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 350Z is a very simplistic design using basic geometric shapes. It is a nice looking car but it seems elementary. A single arc as the profile runs the length of the car is contrived. It is there to "just be there", to be a "continuous arc". Nothing extraordinary by any means. The "arc" theme is carried throughout the car. It is "safe" and "nice" but not "arousing". Even the roof line is a simple arc. Very elementary.
The 370Z takes the basic form and takes it to another level, a level of sculpture not using basic geometric shapes. The 370Z body reaches out on many different planes dimensionally where the 350Z seems to be working on only three. Even the taillights on the 370Z protrude slightly from a flat plane. The side profile on the 370Z is not merely a simple arc but a much thought out curve that accentuates the rear haunches given it an organic but aggressive stance from a side profile. The headlights on the 350Z are simply blaugh. Circular headlights, although a basic form, have better form on a car if you want to use simple shapes. And the size the clusters on the 350Z always seem too take up too much real estate. The 370Z improves upon in these areas.
I could go on but it comes down to ones own preference and tastes. And to me the 370Z clearly is the winner.
The 370Z takes the basic form and takes it to another level, a level of sculpture not using basic geometric shapes. The 370Z body reaches out on many different planes dimensionally where the 350Z seems to be working on only three. Even the taillights on the 370Z protrude slightly from a flat plane. The side profile on the 370Z is not merely a simple arc but a much thought out curve that accentuates the rear haunches given it an organic but aggressive stance from a side profile. The headlights on the 350Z are simply blaugh. Circular headlights, although a basic form, have better form on a car if you want to use simple shapes. And the size the clusters on the 350Z always seem too take up too much real estate. The 370Z improves upon in these areas.
I could go on but it comes down to ones own preference and tastes. And to me the 370Z clearly is the winner.
Last edited by newtkindred; 07-16-2009 at 11:34 AM.
07-16-2009, 12:28 PM
#107
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And to those saying it's not fair posting the yellow 370z with the lighting vs that red 350z, by all means post a different 350z picture or 370z picture. The things I said will still apply.
07-16-2009, 12:45 PM
#108
New Member
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Get out my way pimpin, VA
Posts: 22,909
Received 2,446 Likes
on
1,768 Posts
After looking at the 370 and 350 in person, side by side, the 350 looks completely dated and too, well, calm compared to the aggresive look of the 370.
Can't wait 'till I buy mine.
07-17-2009, 07:53 AM
#109
New Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dover, NH
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I still think it comes down to the individual. There's nothing being said that can be generalized to every owner or potential owner. For me, the 350 "clicked". It was an immediate positive impression with absolutely no pause in my mind. Each time I look at a 350 this experience is repeated...not only with my car but any other I see (that hasn't been excessively modded).
I do not get this from the 370. Instead I get a pause that can best be summed up as a mental effort to assimulate what I'm seeing...to "put everything together" in my mind. It does not "click".
But that's me. I'm sure the inverse is true for many who like the 370, particularly those who can only see a "plain design" when they look at the 350.
I do not get this from the 370. Instead I get a pause that can best be summed up as a mental effort to assimulate what I'm seeing...to "put everything together" in my mind. It does not "click".
But that's me. I'm sure the inverse is true for many who like the 370, particularly those who can only see a "plain design" when they look at the 350.
07-17-2009, 07:18 PM
#110
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So you are right on target... In the end the multitudes of people who liked the 350Z when it debuted got one or can still get one at a great price now with the new model out. And for the many people like me who were never impressed with the 350Z we now have the 370Z.
07-18-2009, 09:27 AM
#111
The thing I love about Nissan is when they change design on each generation of a vehicle, they don't really take away from it's predecessor. Each one is fairly distinctive and has it's own following.
240sx/ Silvias: S13, S14, S15...
GTR's: R32, R33, R34, R35...
Z's: S30, S130, Z31, Z32, Z33, Z34
There are variants that are forgettable, but the designs are bold enough to be timeless.
240sx/ Silvias: S13, S14, S15...
GTR's: R32, R33, R34, R35...
Z's: S30, S130, Z31, Z32, Z33, Z34
There are variants that are forgettable, but the designs are bold enough to be timeless.
07-18-2009, 09:31 AM
#112
Registered User
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Z-land, New York
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The thing I love about Nissan is when they change design on each generation of a vehicle, they don't really take away from it's predecessor. Each one is fairly distinctive and has it's own following.
240sx/ Silvias: S13, S14, S15...
GTR's: R32, R33, R34, R35...
Z's: S30, S130, Z31, Z32, Z33, Z34
There are variants that are forgettable, but the designs are bold enough to be timeless.
240sx/ Silvias: S13, S14, S15...
GTR's: R32, R33, R34, R35...
Z's: S30, S130, Z31, Z32, Z33, Z34
There are variants that are forgettable, but the designs are bold enough to be timeless.
07-18-2009, 10:58 AM
#113
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: san francisco, california
Posts: 461
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
07-18-2009, 11:12 AM
#114
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: san francisco, california
Posts: 461
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know much about cars, or design, but here's my .02:
While the 370's engineering upgrades are beyond reproach; aesthetically I find that while it does look more like the 240, that's not to its benefit. It's as if the designers were trying too hard to get a '240 on steroids' effect, by crinkling the metal with sharper folds in an origami fashion which might look sharp on a 3D CAD screen, but in full scale real life becomes an aerodynamically tweaked baroque exagerration.
Wider is good. Narrowing the lights not bad; it's more efficient -that ruthless boomerang- than 350's bulbous and shiny headlight metal. The 370's shorter hatch is tougher, meaner, in a pit bull way; if you like that, fine, although Porsche's rear engine uses that brutish chop for aid in cooling, like a VW bug, while no front engine needs such a shape.
The Jaguar's classic shape, to which the 240 owed its inspiration, derived partly from its in-line 6's & the later V-12's, which made a longer hood for the longer engines; a V-6 is going to be higher and shorter, resulting in a stockier front end.
{ Btw, they did have a delicate tinyness to them, now, didn't they: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...riesoneJag.jpg }
The 350 series managed to contain this (v-6) bulk within an elongated line of functional elegance, with minimal extrusions to the body, bringing a heavy hood over a high, and spacious cabin, down a long ski-jump hatch back. The minimalism is all over, and in, the 350, and overall minimalism is forever, btw.
My '08 though, is full of curves, lines and attitude of its own, incorporating many past ideas in a new package, which is what the 370 design attempted; yet it put more 240 and 911 in the blender, inflated fenders that risk a petty clownishness with ever larger wheels and tires. Perhaps by 2012, if there's any oil left to run these things, the 09 will be a shot in the design dark, and a more creative, yet restrained Z interpretation will emerge, though I wouldn't, and won't, be waiting for it.
While the 370's engineering upgrades are beyond reproach; aesthetically I find that while it does look more like the 240, that's not to its benefit. It's as if the designers were trying too hard to get a '240 on steroids' effect, by crinkling the metal with sharper folds in an origami fashion which might look sharp on a 3D CAD screen, but in full scale real life becomes an aerodynamically tweaked baroque exagerration.
Wider is good. Narrowing the lights not bad; it's more efficient -that ruthless boomerang- than 350's bulbous and shiny headlight metal. The 370's shorter hatch is tougher, meaner, in a pit bull way; if you like that, fine, although Porsche's rear engine uses that brutish chop for aid in cooling, like a VW bug, while no front engine needs such a shape.
The Jaguar's classic shape, to which the 240 owed its inspiration, derived partly from its in-line 6's & the later V-12's, which made a longer hood for the longer engines; a V-6 is going to be higher and shorter, resulting in a stockier front end.
{ Btw, they did have a delicate tinyness to them, now, didn't they: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...riesoneJag.jpg }
The 350 series managed to contain this (v-6) bulk within an elongated line of functional elegance, with minimal extrusions to the body, bringing a heavy hood over a high, and spacious cabin, down a long ski-jump hatch back. The minimalism is all over, and in, the 350, and overall minimalism is forever, btw.
My '08 though, is full of curves, lines and attitude of its own, incorporating many past ideas in a new package, which is what the 370 design attempted; yet it put more 240 and 911 in the blender, inflated fenders that risk a petty clownishness with ever larger wheels and tires. Perhaps by 2012, if there's any oil left to run these things, the 09 will be a shot in the design dark, and a more creative, yet restrained Z interpretation will emerge, though I wouldn't, and won't, be waiting for it.
I am also going to assume the the bonnets on the 350Z and 370Z are the same length. The shortening of the 370Z behind the B pillar has a visual effect of making the hood appear longer than the 350Z. The form of the roof line seems natural given the 240Z had a similar form and that it is the only reasonable way to connect the top of the A pilar to the rear on a shortened rear.
And for the 370Z being a 350Z and a 911 in blender, is that bad? Designers are often influenced by previous works or other cars.
"While Katayama was helping shepherd Datsun in the U.S., another player entered the ballgame, Dr. Albrecht Graf von Goertz. Von Goertz was a German-born, American industrial designer with impressive experience. He had played a part in the design of the Studebaker Starliner by Raymond Loewy's South, Bend, Indiana-based studio, and then worked with BMW on its classic 507 sports car, which inspired the current BMW Z8. Then he went to Porsche to work on one of the most enduring designs in auto history, the 911." http://www.antiquecar.com/gc_datsun_240z.php
And for the flares, have you forgotten the GTU?
Last edited by newtkindred; 07-18-2009 at 11:28 AM.
07-18-2009, 12:49 PM
#116
Just got finished detailing my 2004.5 Lemans Sunset - 4.5 yrs old / 60k miles AND i still stop and stare at her. Over 2500 roadcourse HPDE miles and 40+ autocrosses so is officially my most fun car yet.
So i still love the 350 zeds!
haven't seen but about 3 370zs yet until walking out of work thursday and a v. nice red / sport packaged one has moved into my parking garage at work. Stopped and stared like it was a P. Carrera....
So i guess i'm entranced by the 370zs also - they are very sharp in person.
Do i feel i need to upgrade? Nope - none of the 'must have' feelings i had when i traded in a perfectly practical saturn 3yr old "sports coupe" (Ha!) for approximatly the Z from that first 2002 autoshow.
re: porsche like - of course it is a bit.... an 80+k 911 clone for 28K - thats why i got it... don't like leaving it in parking lots now - don't think i could leave 80k in a lot!
Enjoy them all is what i'm saying.
[nismo 370Z
something near everyone agrees on!]
07-28-2009, 06:52 AM
#119
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Orlando, FL.
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The primary reasons I traded my 05 350Z in for a 370Z was the looks. In particularly I liked the more aggressive look of the 370Z, headlights, fangs, everything....
The upgraded interior was the next major reason, and improved performance was third.
I still like my 91 300ZX Twin Turbo better than both the 05 and 09. I've had 5 Z's and none can touch the Z32. best car Nissan ever built IMO. (no, i am not a big GT-R fan, great car but a$$ ugly)
The upgraded interior was the next major reason, and improved performance was third.
I still like my 91 300ZX Twin Turbo better than both the 05 and 09. I've had 5 Z's and none can touch the Z32. best car Nissan ever built IMO. (no, i am not a big GT-R fan, great car but a$$ ugly)
