how much slower is roadster?
11-21-2003, 07:34 AM
#21
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: GA
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Coupe vs Roadster
Originally posted by SeanG
The roadster is a completely different animal than the coupe. I traded in a 2003 touring coupe for this roadster. The difference is night and day.
Some differences could just be 2003 vs 2004 models.
Roadster shifts smoother, motor runs smoother. Suspension is smoother.
The gearing is different. The coupe is easy to redline and hit the rev limiter in first gear, I did it so many times, I was starting to worry that Nissan would find out through the computer and not warranty the motor. The roadster does not have this problem, you go further on first gear.
The seats are more comfortable. I know that they are suppost to be the same but, even my wife agrees there seems to be something about them that is different (maybe more padding).
My major dissapointment is the lack of VDC on the roadster. I loved this feature in my coupe. The butt end of my roadster looses traction quite easily.
I can feel a difference in the weight of the car, but it has a more solid feel.
These are the differences that I have noticed.
The roadster is a completely different animal than the coupe. I traded in a 2003 touring coupe for this roadster. The difference is night and day.
Some differences could just be 2003 vs 2004 models.
Roadster shifts smoother, motor runs smoother. Suspension is smoother.
The gearing is different. The coupe is easy to redline and hit the rev limiter in first gear, I did it so many times, I was starting to worry that Nissan would find out through the computer and not warranty the motor. The roadster does not have this problem, you go further on first gear.
The seats are more comfortable. I know that they are suppost to be the same but, even my wife agrees there seems to be something about them that is different (maybe more padding).
My major dissapointment is the lack of VDC on the roadster. I loved this feature in my coupe. The butt end of my roadster looses traction quite easily.
I can feel a difference in the weight of the car, but it has a more solid feel.
These are the differences that I have noticed.
Thanks SeanG. Anyone else in the same boat as SeanG (trading coupe for roadster)? I'm trading my touring coupe for a touring roadster
sometime in January '04 and would like some more perspectives from guys who went from the coupe to the roadster. Thanks!
11-21-2003, 06:57 PM
#22
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Ambler, PA
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
with all the bracing under the car and no metal roof on top, i would expect that the roadster has a lower center of gravity making it handle better. no data to back up my theory, just makes sense to me though.
rich
'03 FX 45 w/tech, black/brick
'96 911 c4 cab
'04 350ZR, ss/bo on the way.
11-22-2003, 04:11 AM
#23
New Member
Originally posted by Richardew
Convertable versions never handle as well as the coupe versions of a car. As others have pointed out, the roof is a structural element that helps reduce flex in the chassis. Flex in the chassis reduces grip. In order to minimize the increased flex in the chassis, convertables will have a reinforced (heavier) chassis. You end up with a car with more chassis flex (less grip), and more weight.
rich
'03 FX 45 w/tech, black/brick
'96 911 c4 cab
'04 350ZR, ss/bo on the way.
Convertable versions never handle as well as the coupe versions of a car. As others have pointed out, the roof is a structural element that helps reduce flex in the chassis. Flex in the chassis reduces grip. In order to minimize the increased flex in the chassis, convertables will have a reinforced (heavier) chassis. You end up with a car with more chassis flex (less grip), and more weight.
rich
'03 FX 45 w/tech, black/brick
'96 911 c4 cab
'04 350ZR, ss/bo on the way.
Nissan spent a LOT of design time and money making sure the Roadster was rigid. they knew the magazine were just waiting to review the car and compare it to the coupe.
It is about 250 pounds heavier. The lowered 1st gear to compensate for the weight and the 0-60 times are very similar.
On the track the biggest problem with the roadster might be the increased wind resistance from the convertible roof and the lower safety factor.
11-22-2003, 02:44 PM
#24
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Memphis
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wow all these posts are making me rethink and trade in for the roadster now..its really a good looking car and souping one up might be the hot ticket since there are relatively few of them around.
11-22-2003, 03:18 PM
#25
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: ---
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The predominant factor in any car is structural rigidity r/t handling. That is why race cars have extensive subframing and chassis braces throughout and weld in rather than bolt in roll cages. The stiffer the chassis hangs together, the easy it is to accelerate through turns. You guys are kidding about the final drive being geared to compensate for the extra weight in the Roadster, right? 
11-22-2003, 03:26 PM
#26
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Western North Carolina
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've had both the touring coupe and the touring roadster. The roadster rides much smoother, even my wife noticed it immediately. I think the coupe felt faster, and braked faster, but that is a very subjective "seat of the butt" comment, nothing hard to back it.
I'm not a boy racer, and the roadster goes plenty fast for me. The improved ride was a very pleasant surprise.
That said, I put some 18" wheels with Pilots on it for a short test, and I will be making the change permanent. There was a very slight reduction in ride smoothness, but a very noticable increase in cornering ability and strangely enough in tracking straight.
Love my roadster!
I'm not a boy racer, and the roadster goes plenty fast for me. The improved ride was a very pleasant surprise.
That said, I put some 18" wheels with Pilots on it for a short test, and I will be making the change permanent. There was a very slight reduction in ride smoothness, but a very noticable increase in cornering ability and strangely enough in tracking straight.
Love my roadster!
11-22-2003, 03:36 PM
#27
New Member
Originally posted by Z Monster
The predominant factor in any car is structural rigidity r/t handling. That is why race cars have extensive subframing and chassis braces throughout and weld in rather than bolt in roll cages. The stiffer the chassis hangs together, the easy it is to accelerate through turns. You guys are kidding about the final drive being geared to compensate for the extra weight in the Roadster, right?
The predominant factor in any car is structural rigidity r/t handling. That is why race cars have extensive subframing and chassis braces throughout and weld in rather than bolt in roll cages. The stiffer the chassis hangs together, the easy it is to accelerate through turns. You guys are kidding about the final drive being geared to compensate for the extra weight in the Roadster, right?
11-22-2003, 04:01 PM
#28
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Ambler, PA
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds good in theory. However, most people here that have driven both (including me) would agree that the roadster does not have noticeably more flex than the coupe.
Rich
11-22-2003, 04:03 PM
#29
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: ---
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"not the final drive gear.... the first gear ratio. to help get it off the line quicker."
Cool, I was hoping it was the rear diff so people could change it out easier. Had to reduce my rear wheel/tire diameter by 4.65% to get a 3.7:1 to help out of the whole; 255/40/17's do it. FYI, I by looking at the final product of the coupe, you can tell Nissan intended the model to be convertible from the start by the separated roof panel and trunk ruining rear strut tower brace. It would be interesting to know what the torsional rigidity figures are in both iterations. Bet it is a lot closer than people think.
Cool, I was hoping it was the rear diff so people could change it out easier. Had to reduce my rear wheel/tire diameter by 4.65% to get a 3.7:1 to help out of the whole; 255/40/17's do it. FYI, I by looking at the final product of the coupe, you can tell Nissan intended the model to be convertible from the start by the separated roof panel and trunk ruining rear strut tower brace. It would be interesting to know what the torsional rigidity figures are in both iterations. Bet it is a lot closer than people think.
11-22-2003, 04:08 PM
#30
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: ---
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
P.S. Hey ragtopz,
If you know anyone in Honolulu that is interested in a warranty safe S tune suspension with swaybars at half of retail, let me know. I live there and would like to save the shipping if I sell it on the board to someone on the mainland. Only 1,000 miles on it as I am selling my coupe after 4 months and 2,200 miles. Any hook up appreciated. PM activated.
If you know anyone in Honolulu that is interested in a warranty safe S tune suspension with swaybars at half of retail, let me know. I live there and would like to save the shipping if I sell it on the board to someone on the mainland. Only 1,000 miles on it as I am selling my coupe after 4 months and 2,200 miles. Any hook up appreciated. PM activated.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
MAsSIVrOOM
Engine & Drivetrain
2
10-20-2023 10:50 AM
