yes i'm 4 yrs old, that is why i can type a mistake-free sentence!

Good analysis there buddy! Cheers!

 

Wrong, the G produced better Slalom #'s and times. It handles better than the Z.

haha 13.8 in a auto z? Your dreaming. Put the slips up.

 

First, the Z will only be faster down low due to a better power to weight ratio. If you compare option for option, the extra 8" of wheelbase and the rear seats account for 140 lbs. This means a couple of 10th's in the 1/4. After that, once you are at high speeds (over 100 mph) aerdynamic forces increase at a cubed rate. Weight quickly stops becoming an issue and it is just aerodynamics(coeficient of drag and frontal area) versus HP. The G has a lower coeficient of drag and hence the 4 mph(158 vs. 154) higher top speed at Nissan's test facility than the Z. Every .01 drop in CD equates to about 4% addtional power.

The G35 has a couple of handling advantages as well. Its longer wheelbase allows the rearend to rotate at a slower angle, taking away the twitchiness in the Z's rear end. It isn't going to do much on the tight transitions of an auto-X, but it can give a much better cornering speed on a road course where it can go into and out of the limit much more stable. Last, the G35 gets better tires. The Z gets the same Touring Dunlops that come on Lexus LS430 and SC430 Luxury cars. The G35 Coupe gets Michelin Pilot Sports, one of the best summer performance tires made. These are the same tires that come OEM on Vipers, M3s and even the track-bred 911 GT3. Why Nissan chose to put "touring" tires on the sports car and "sport" tires on the touring car, no one knows.

 

actually the re040 *IS* a run-flat tire. I should know as I had TWO (count em arggghhhh) nails last winter when I still lived in Dirty Jerz (hahahaha).


Pretty cool actually. I didnt realize it and changed to a flat., When I got to the tire store (the guy didnt have the proper tire machine to remove/install runflats) he put my "flat" back on.

The car drove (and looked) much better with the flat vs the spare. I think that you can get 50 miles on the run flat.

Oh, btw I really want some of what you guys are smoking. Since when does longer wheelbase = "better handling". Certainly a longer wheelbase may theoretically mean "higher high speeds in gradual turns" - however, by the same tokenit also means "slower turn in, made for novice drivers."

Last time I checked, racecars and racers themselves thrive on faster reaction, less input...these things that you may describe as "twitchy".

Fear not, here Socal, I leave the VDC off all the time and can attest to the prodigous grip present at the ***-end of a Z. I would hardly call the car twitchy. Twitch is an S2000 - which by the way is a BETTER handling vehicle than a Z - but I guess you guys would read that as worse handling. I guess the S2000s lack of VDC also makes it a poor handler...

I have this set of Pilots....sitting on my new floor...Looking like several sticky buns....mmmmmmm.

 

so you sold all your furnitures for that set of tires?

Seriously guys, I think this topic has been beaten to death.
These two cars are competing in different classes. One is a sports car, designed with performance in mind; one is a sports coupe, designed with passenger and luxury in mind. Speed wise, no matter what, I'll have to give it to the Z. Far as handling, I do believe the Pilot sport tires do make a difference. I think the G is more stable through out the corners, but the Z is quicker.

just my 2 cents

 

Handling is by definition what the vehicle is doing when it is not in a straight line. This means that it is stability and response. Whenever you are looking at suspension design, there are always tradeoffs. If you go with wider tires, you gain in peak grip; but lose in response. The length of the wheelbase effects the ability to transition versus stability at the limit. The shorter the wheelbase, the faster the trasition; but also the harder it is to get and stay at the limit. The time you are spending correcting is actually losing time in the corner.

From owning and autocrossing a Miata(89" wheelbase) for years, I had my car set up for transitions with maximum camber and 1/4" toe out. My alignment was set specifically for maximum transition in autocrossing. It also floated and was darty on the highway at higher speeds. It was perfectly neutral with swaybar and tire pressure adjustments. I also had a few spins in tight corners when it exceeded the limit too quickly. My 911 has about the same wheelbase as my Miata had. I don't have to dicsuss the effects of lift throttle oversteer of a 911 in a corner, but what is shocking is how fast it rotates. At 40 mph, I was backwards faster than I could start to correct. AT 40 mph in the G35, the backend is barely moving when I am starting to correct. Keep in mind in hard transitions the slip angle of the rear of the car is far greater with a shorter wheelbase. The only ability the rear has to turn is in suspension compliance and slip angle. You only have a limited amount of slip angle before you exceed the limit. Try driving a kit Cobra(90" wheelbase) with 245 rubber at the limit and you will quickly understand the effects of a short wheelbase.

If you don't think a longer wheelbase is more stable; just to start with, why do you think the wheelbases of the C3, C4, C5 and C6 Corvettes have continually gotten longer? Here is a hint, it isn't to add weight or cargo room. I suggest you also start looking at Formula 1 specs. Ferrari and BMW(Williams) both use the longest wheelbase alloyed in the F1 chassis rules. You will also notice that as the speeds of the cars have increased over the years, so have the wheelbases. Look at the specs of a 75' and 85' chassis versus today. You can learn a lot more about chassis dynamics from several sources. SAE journals are a great source. Evolution Driving Schools has a Dial-In course that does a great job of going over chassis dynamics and tuning.

 

Stupid noob here but isnt there a point were a longer wheelbase does nothing and starts actually hurting handeling? When would this point be? Another thing ive noticed is that Ferraris, Corvettes, Porsches, Ford GT, etc mostly have cars with wheelbases under 107. Most of the ferraris are 104-105. I believe the C6 corvette is 105 as well. About the same as the 350Z. Now i know absolutely nothing about well about anyhting about why wheelbase makes a car handel better. But why would these companies put a wheelbase on a car thats around 105inches if making them 112inches is superior? I mean these cars cost alot more than the G or Z..

So my question is when is the wheelbase long enough?

 

350zownz you hit the nail on its head. There is no magic cutoff, the choice of wheelbase length involves inherent compromise. Shorter wheelbases allow for more rapid transitions, while longer ones can provide a smoother ride and may sometimes offer improved stability. What I can tell you is this - nissan could have easily kept the Z on a longer platform, but it chose to shorten the platform for its sportscar. I'm sure there was a good reason.

NzZ

 

got a slip for that time?

 

I am also one who traded in my z for the g35 coupe. I had a ppw touring and now have a red 6MT. even though I kinda got raped on my trade in I still am glad I did it. As for looks.. I think they're equal. My Z was an 03 and my g is an 04. The g feels like it pulls a bit harder. The interior has a few more "livable" things in it. All though I like the styling of the G I think the Z more apealing. The rear seat also made a huge difference.

All in all I'd go with the g instead of the z.

we should make a poll to see how many people have traded their z's in for g's.