MotorTend manazine in the US had a nice test between the 350Z, RX8 and the updated 2.2L S2000. They managed to extract some very impressive numebers from the Zed. Here's the article on line:

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...ree/index.html

 

Interesting read, thanks.

One thing annoys me though. Almost 2 years after the release of the 350Z these supposedly professional motoring journos still can't grasp the simple fact that all of the models share the same suspension setup. They still assume the Track has harsher suspension than the other models. Perhaps Nissan marketing have made a mistake by using the Track name?

 

I agree aps, it filters down into some peoples heads as well and I'm forced to list the exact differences.

They also mention that the 350z is the only one of the group with stability control, I thought the RX8 had that as well.

Isnt an S2000 in AU much more than the 350z? More like 88,000 drive away?

 

Got to love those torque numbers & chart.

100lb more torque and more torque at idle than the others have anywhere on their chart.

 

It's ~$75k + ORC so I'm not sure what the total figure is but yes that's more than a Track model. Didn't know it was getting an upgrade to a 2.2. That could be nice with a turbo hanging off the side.

 

Yeah I heard about the 2.2 quite a while ago but its still not as nice as 3.5L with X2 turbos haning off the sides

 

pity the 2.2lt wont be coming to aust...
only cosmetic mod....

 

Typical. Why do we always end up with low end and/or downgraded models and still pay a small fortune for them?

 

still assume the Track has harsher suspension than the other models.

Driving in my Track model and in Lionking's Touging model, made me think that there is something different about the suspension. Also on the road the Track looks stiffer than the Touring (ie. does not bounce over the bumps as much).

I'm not saying that the above is the case, but it feels like it .... afterall, it's not like Nissan advertizes anywhere that the Auto Zeds have a cut-out at 7000rpm (unlike the manual's 6600rpm).

Isnt an S2000 in AU much more than the 350z? More like 88,000 drive away?

If you go just by retail prices, then it's $82k drive away (comapred to 350Z Track's $72k).

Didn't know it was getting an upgrade to a 2.2.

Only US is getting the 2.2L engine (they also got revised gear ratios) ... rest of the world is sticking with the 2.0L engine.

They also mention that the 350z is the only one of the group with stability control, I thought the RX8 had that as well.

Here the RX8 has one, but they might have different models/equipment in the US. That is the case with the Zed there.

 

David...

THanks man... you always have this kinda information!

cheers,

richie

 

Driving in my Track model and in Lionking's Touging model, made me think that there is something different about the suspension. Also on the road the Track looks stiffer than the Touring (ie. does not bounce over the bumps as much).

I'm not saying that the above is the case, but it feels like it .... afterall, it's not like Nissan advertizes anywhere that the Auto Zeds have a cut-out at 7000rpm (unlike the manual's 6600rpm).

Dont forget the Touring has 17" wheels, 50mm aspect ratio and lower tyre pressure when compared to the Track model. And the auto transmission might contribute to a softer feel, with it changing gears differently to a human using a clutch etc.

If you go just by retail prices, then it's $82k drive away (comapred to 350Z Track's $72k).

Or minus 10K to compare to a Touring Zedd, thats quite a bit more expensive, though its quite a different car.

 

Dont forget the Touring has 17" wheels, 50mm aspect ratio and lower tyre pressure when compared to the Track model.

I thought about that, but that did not seem enough for the difference felt and seen. Also our pressures were rouglhy the same ... we checked, so it's really just the profile of the tyres that could account for the difference.

Still, those are just my 'impressions' as I have nothing substantial to go on.

 

Perhaps the increased pressure in the narrower 225/235 50mm tyres actually increased the bounce.

I think the extra time spent researching, developing, creating and testing different suspension setups for each of the models wouldnt have been justified if their marketing department didnt capitalised on this to some degree.

 

Perhaps the increased pressure in the narrower 225/235 50mm tyres actually increased the bounce.

Sorry for not being clear in my original post .... with the "does not bounce over the bumps as much", I was refering to the Touring (ie. the Track feels like it has a rougher/stiffer ride).

creating and testing different suspension setups for each of the models wouldnt have been justified if their marketing department didnt capitalised on this to some degree.

Yep, I don't see why they would be 'hiding' it and not promoting it ... that is if there were differences. It's all a mistery to me.

 

Edit edit edit...damn, we must all have come to the same conclusion at the same time. Why aren't you lot working instead of surfing the forums. Buggas.

jim

 

Slightly off topic (or more to the point, back to the topic), I was just looking over the numbers that they got for the Zed here, and I think that the 0-100mph (ie. 0-161kph) time is a missprint. Just look at these 2 numbers alone:

a) 0-100mph = 13.0sec
b) 1/4mile = 13.77 100.94mph (ie. 162.5kph)

So (a) is telling us that it took 13.0secs to reach 161kph, and (b) is telling is that it took 0.77 sec to climb another 0.94mph (ie. 1.5kph) That can't be the case as at that rate it would take 5.1secs to climb from 160 - 170kph. That cannot be right as it takes less than 2secs to increment 10kph at those speeds.

Not only that, but the article's numbers show 1.7sec for the 90-100mph climb (ie. 16kph increment). That means that it would have taken only about 1sec to climb from 145 - 155kph .... that is impossible. It should be more like 1.5 - 1.6sec at those speeds. Afterall, 80-90mph took 2.4sec and that implies 1.5secs for the 130 - 140kph increment.

So how can the Zed go from 130 - 140kph in 1.5sec, and then from 145 - 155kph in 1.0sec? There are no gearchanges needed in these increments so they must have a typo there. I'm quessing that the 0-100mph time should have been more like 13.5sec (or around there) as then the numbers 'add up'.

 

Apatr from anything else you say, it points to the inconsistency between mags.

In yr post 13.77 1/4
'Motor' Mag, 14.7 I think.
'Me' BAD run14.44!

EVO Magazine 0-62kph 5.9
Others 6.5

I dunno what criteria they use with weight and passengers etc etc...

 

Apart from anything else you say, it points to the inconsistency between mags. ... I dunno what criteria they use with weight and passengers etc etc

Well, you kinda answered your onw question. Different mags use different procedures in their tests. Though, even if they all used the same standards/procedures, there would still be discreptancy between the different mags ... actually, not just mags, but even different articles in the same mag. Reason being that the cars perform differently in different conditions and on different surfaces ... that alone can make close to 1sec difference in the 0-100mkph and 400m numbers.

'Motor' Mag, 14.7 I think.

Yep that was in the PCOTY, but few months back they mamaged 14.3 .... so same mag, and almost 1/2 sec difference. Give it a bit more time and the variance will be more like 1sec.

Others 6.5
Motor managed 6.6 on one instance, and 6.3 on another. Wheels managed 6.4, NZ mag 6.2, and German 'Sports Auto' mag tested the car 2x with 5.8 and 5.9 results.

Lot's of variance ... but after a while you'll see the numbers fall into the same range. You'll rarely get the exact times from one day to another ... that doesn't just go for the mags, but to anyone who goes to the drags. Conditions play a big part on the way cars perform.

 

hey DavidM, you got a Z?

It's Sev from S2ki. I have had a Z for a year now... Wanted something I can drive year-round through our winters here too.

As for the number differences, often times, the speed interval tests and 1/4 mile tests are done on different runs and they takle avergares, thats why you numbers that dont make much sense sometimes.

So u got a track Z?

 

hey DavidM, you got a Z?

Hi Sev, how are you going? I've had the 350Z for just over 4 months now.

So u got a track Z?

Yep, I've got the Track model ... it's pretty much like the one you've got in the States except here they pile on all the equipment as well (ie. leather and heated seats, the Bose stereo, climate control etc). Ideally I wanted one that was a bit more 'track ready' (ie. bit less weight and bit more tuned for the track) so I have to do some of it myself. So far all I've got is the Hi-tech exhaust (about which you can read in one of the 'sticky' treads), but I still want to 'dial' in more front-end grip and then I'll be happy (ie. not to want to change much else).

Was a tough decision for me to decide whether to get another S2000, 350Z or something else. I made the one that I though was going to make me quickest ;-). Besides that the big Brembos, wheels, tyres, and beefy geabox seemed like a big plus .... if you do a quick search here you'll see that it took me about 3 months to finaly decide (thanks to the help to a lot of the guys here).

How are you liking yours?

As for the number differences, often times, the speed interval tests and 1/4 mile tests are done on different runs and they takle avergares, thats why you numbers that dont make much sense sometimes.

Yep, I could not agree more, but that still does not explain the 13sec 0-100mph time (inparticluar if you look at the increments before that).