Head-to-head pics: 05 350Z vs 370Z
01-01-2009, 08:14 AM
#1
Head-to-head pics: 05 350Z vs 370Z
My 05 sits about 1" lower than stock.
Otherwise, I think these pics show some of the differences between the two.
I think the lines on the shed behind the two cars show how the 370 had to "blow up" it's front end. ( -to fit the larger motor, I guess.)
A better look at the same thing...
From the other side. My Z hiding behind the 370...
A couple from the front(s)
Baby got back?
Otherwise, I think these pics show some of the differences between the two.
I think the lines on the shed behind the two cars show how the 370 had to "blow up" it's front end. ( -to fit the larger motor, I guess.)
A better look at the same thing...
From the other side. My Z hiding behind the 370...
A couple from the front(s)
Baby got back?
Last edited by Z1NONLY; 01-01-2009 at 09:29 AM.
Trending Topics
01-01-2009, 08:53 AM
#8
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: California
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
01-01-2009, 09:04 AM
#11
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: California
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
01-01-2009, 09:16 AM
#13
The one in the show room had the 19's. They look different than the base wheels here.
http://www.the370z.com/wheels-tires/...s-tcs-abs.html
http://www.the370z.com/wheels-tires/...s-tcs-abs.html
01-01-2009, 09:34 AM
#16
Registered User
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: NYC
Posts: 4,080
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd love to see some pics of 06+ 350Zs with the 370Zs. The front bumpers and headlights make the 06+ look a lot newer than the 03-05s. I may try to find a 370Z today and take some pics.
01-01-2009, 10:37 AM
#20
Registered User
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: SF South Bay area
Posts: 1,145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting... Thanks for posting those. It confirms what I have been ranting about all along - the 370z is bigger than the 350 in almost every aspect. The people who say it is way smaller are fooled by the very clever optical illusion that Nissan has built into the car - such as that large flat spot on the fenders that I despise so much - a styling cueue from their sentra, versa, and mini-van. Those flat-spots are just a way to break up the very large expanse of sheet metal in an attempt to make it look smaller when it's not. The body panels (Front and rear bumbers and rocker panels are very rounded too so it appears smaller when you are up next to it.
I think this is a result of taking the new FM or whatever platform, which is larger than the previous and trying to strap a sports-car body to it.
Not hating, you 370z fanboys don't need to flame me. I still like it. In fact one of the things that I liked about the 350 was how big it was. Really. I don't want to be driving a coffin on wheels like a miata.
I think Nissan is full of ish again when they say the car height is reduced from the 350. marketing BS once again. I could tell the hood was much taller when I stood net to one. The problem I have with the marketing BS is that when you try to lie about things like weight and dimensions and acceleration, you start to not trust them.
I suppose they did not outright lie, but the say some very misleading things.
"Smaller, Lighter, Faster"
We are seeing the "smaller" aspect in the pics above. Maybe some measurements are smaller, but it's not smaller like a lot had hoped - especially sucks when it has less interior room and less trunk space.
"We were able to remove 200 lbs of weight from the car compared to the 350"
But they were not straightforward with how much weight they had to add back into it!!!
Ooh... and they managed to "reduce the 0-60 by .5 seconds from the original 350z due to the increased power and reduced weight". But what they don't say is that they also used a shorter final drive to get the performance gains because it's not much more powerful, nor much lighter weight.
Oh, and the 350z 0-60 times they were using were from a 2003 350, not the most recent iteration, with the HR engine.
But 90% of the population thinking they are buying a smaller, lighter, faster Z because Nissan said so. I mean it is faster, but I think mostly due to gearing.
I wish they'd just tell it like it is. I really like the fact that it can corner with .97-.99 g's and that it can brake from 60 MPH in 106-101 feet.
They just think we are idiots and will take everything at face value.
Reminds me of the same kind of marketing BS that DSL used to say about cable broadband - "DSL is faster because every person gets their own line and cable customers all have to share the same line". Anyone with any network engineering sense knows that is BS.
Also, with HD cable providers: Cable versus satellite. I heard One of the satty providers talking about their ALL digital content versus is superior to cable's analog content. I don't know which is better yet because they are so nebulous about their details, but we know that signal transmission via any medium MUST be analog in order to transmit. I watched a satty HBO movie on a friends new LCD HDTV and while the main subjects in a scene were very detailed, the back grounds had so much digital dostortion, splotching, and dithering, it was really annoying. Probably some compression algorithm used by the satty cable provider to try to get all that extra signal on an old satellite design. I mean you can't take a satty use for 480i and replace all those channels with 1080p - something's gotta give. evetyaly they'll build and launch new sattys, but that'll be a while.
But I guess marketing perceptions always sell better than reality so I should just forget it.
I think this is a result of taking the new FM or whatever platform, which is larger than the previous and trying to strap a sports-car body to it.
Not hating, you 370z fanboys don't need to flame me. I still like it. In fact one of the things that I liked about the 350 was how big it was. Really. I don't want to be driving a coffin on wheels like a miata.
I think Nissan is full of ish again when they say the car height is reduced from the 350. marketing BS once again. I could tell the hood was much taller when I stood net to one. The problem I have with the marketing BS is that when you try to lie about things like weight and dimensions and acceleration, you start to not trust them.
I suppose they did not outright lie, but the say some very misleading things.
"Smaller, Lighter, Faster"
We are seeing the "smaller" aspect in the pics above. Maybe some measurements are smaller, but it's not smaller like a lot had hoped - especially sucks when it has less interior room and less trunk space.
"We were able to remove 200 lbs of weight from the car compared to the 350"
But they were not straightforward with how much weight they had to add back into it!!!
Ooh... and they managed to "reduce the 0-60 by .5 seconds from the original 350z due to the increased power and reduced weight". But what they don't say is that they also used a shorter final drive to get the performance gains because it's not much more powerful, nor much lighter weight.
Oh, and the 350z 0-60 times they were using were from a 2003 350, not the most recent iteration, with the HR engine.
But 90% of the population thinking they are buying a smaller, lighter, faster Z because Nissan said so. I mean it is faster, but I think mostly due to gearing.
I wish they'd just tell it like it is. I really like the fact that it can corner with .97-.99 g's and that it can brake from 60 MPH in 106-101 feet.
They just think we are idiots and will take everything at face value.
Reminds me of the same kind of marketing BS that DSL used to say about cable broadband - "DSL is faster because every person gets their own line and cable customers all have to share the same line". Anyone with any network engineering sense knows that is BS.
Also, with HD cable providers: Cable versus satellite. I heard One of the satty providers talking about their ALL digital content versus is superior to cable's analog content. I don't know which is better yet because they are so nebulous about their details, but we know that signal transmission via any medium MUST be analog in order to transmit. I watched a satty HBO movie on a friends new LCD HDTV and while the main subjects in a scene were very detailed, the back grounds had so much digital dostortion, splotching, and dithering, it was really annoying. Probably some compression algorithm used by the satty cable provider to try to get all that extra signal on an old satellite design. I mean you can't take a satty use for 480i and replace all those channels with 1080p - something's gotta give. evetyaly they'll build and launch new sattys, but that'll be a while.
But I guess marketing perceptions always sell better than reality so I should just forget it.