wjk_glynn

Some data on the 350Z/G35:

<a href="http://www.roadandtrack.com/reviews/roadtests/pdf/2002_09_nissan_350z_data.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.roadandtrack.com/reviews/roadtests/pdf/2002_09_nissan_350z_data.pdf</a>

<a href="http://www.roadandtrack.com/reviews/roadtests/pdf/2002_11_g35_data.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.roadandtrack.com/reviews/roadtests/pdf/2002_11_g35_data.pdf</a>

And for comparison:

<a href="http://www.weissach.net/924-944-968_RoadTestSummary.html" target="_blank">http://www.weissach.net/924-944-968_RoadTestSummary.html</a>

Karl.

CPTdooberhead

Me and my buddy were driving around in his M3 last night, when a new Z pulled up next to us. We asked the kid to pull over (Highschool sr...)and we found out his dad owns the Nissan dealership. It is definately a nice car. Though, it does have a 20% drivetrain loss in hp...thats a lot...
Its funny, because my buddy is selling his M3, and is considiering the Z... we went to the dealer today, and the owner actually said he is going to let him borrow his sons car to test drive for a day. Needless to say, we're going to WAIL on that car!

wjk_glynn

[quote]Originally posted by ElonDooberhead:
<strong>it does have a 20% drivetrain loss in hp...thats a lot...
</strong><hr></blockquote>

I think the loss is 15% for the following reason.

Sports Compact Car dynoed a 350Z with 91 octane gas (as found in CA) and measured 244 RWHP.

244/287 = 0.85 which is a 15% loss

You can read the article here:

<a href="http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com/features/0210scc_350znissan/" target="_blank">http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com/features/0210scc_350znissan/</a>

Karl.

Geo

[quote]Originally posted by Z-man:
<strong>Regarding the rear strut tower brace on the Z: it stiffens up the chassis a little, but not much...</strong><hr></blockquote>

Not so. Here is a response from a friend of mine who is a Nissan engineer, racer, aftermarket performance consultant, etc.....

"It stiffens the chassis a lot and it has a huge cross section. If you look under the Z you will be amazed at all of the bracing that it has. Ridigty was key in its design.

The Z and the G35C are the stiffest cars I have ever driven."

And now my words.... Yes, I agree it looks bad and takes up a bunch of space. But, do you want chassis rigidity or do you want luggage space in your sports car?

Z-man

[quote]Originally posted by Geo:
<strong>

Not so. Here is a response from a friend of mine who is a Nissan engineer, racer, aftermarket performance consultant, etc.....

"It stiffens the chassis a lot and it has a huge cross section. If you look under the Z you will be amazed at all of the bracing that it has. Ridigty was key in its design.

The Z and the G35C are the stiffest cars I have ever driven."

And now my words.... Yes, I agree it looks bad and takes up a bunch of space. But, do you want chassis rigidity or do you want luggage space in your sports car?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Does your Nissan contact have concrete information regarding this? Has he driven a 350Z without a strut brace in place? He may be correct, I'm just going by what I've been told regarding strut braces in general: they aren't as effective in stiffening the chassis as a good sway bar is. Maybe the 350Z's strut brace is different, since it is so big.

The 350Z probably already has a rear sway bar, but I think a thicker rear sway bar vs. a rear strut tower brake would be more effective.

On our 944's, adding a front strut tower brace helps very little. Also: adding a rear strut brace on a Toyota MR2 also yeilds very little improvement.

Of course, the topic of strut tower braces are about as controversial as street racing.... A strut tower brace would be the last thing I'd consider when upgrading my car's suspension.

Just my humble opinion.
-Z.

wjk_glynn

Hi Z,

[quote]<strong>
I'm just going by what I've been told regarding strut braces in general: they aren't as effective in stiffening the chassis as a good sway bar is.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Sway-bars increase roll-stiffness but not structural stiffness. In fact, increasing roll-stiffness with grippy tires will lead to more structural deflection and thats where a strut brace can be effective.

[quote]<strong>
On our 944's, adding a front strut tower brace helps very little.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Very true. The 944 was blessed with a stiff structure for its day and strut-braces are hardly worth the money/weight. Other cars (e.g. pre-964 911's) certainly do benefit from a strut brace.

[quote]<strong>A strut tower brace would be the last thing I'd consider when upgrading my car's suspension.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Agreed unless it was a dedicated track car running slicks.

Karl.

Geo

[quote]Originally posted by Z-man:
<strong>Does your Nissan contact have concrete information regarding this?
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes.

[quote]Originally posted by Z-man:
<strong>Has he driven a 350Z without a strut brace in place?
</strong><hr></blockquote>

I don't know. I wouldn't be surprised.

[quote]Originally posted by Z-man:
<strong>He may be correct, I'm just going by what I've been told regarding strut braces in general: they aren't as effective in stiffening the chassis as a good sway bar is.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Uh, I'm sorry, but a swaybar does not stiffen the chassis. You could even make an argument that they don't even stiffen the suspension.

A strut brace stiffens the chassis itself. I don't care what monkeys argue that you don't need one. They work. Do you need one? No. Do you need a 944 to get from point A to point B? No. Now, some cars have stiffer chassis than others, but the stiffest, most rigid chassis is necessary to effectively tune any suspension. If there is any flex in the chassis, each change to the suspension is less effective than it might be, and in fact, could cause inconsistent handling.

Swaybars speed up and distribute load transfer. The speeding up load transfer under cornering, or going over uneven bumps effectively stiffen the suspension. But, if the car goes over a bump evenly, the swaybar does nothing to stiffen the suspension.

[quote]Originally posted by Z-man:
<strong>The 350Z probably already has a rear sway bar, but I think a thicker rear sway bar vs. a rear strut tower brake would be more effective.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Apples and oranges.

[quote]Originally posted by Z-man:
<strong>On our 944's, adding a front strut tower brace helps very little. Also: adding a rear strut brace on a Toyota MR2 also yeilds very little improvement.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Based upon what? Is this based upon testing of suspension components for predictability of adjustments? Are these instrumented tests? Is this in preparation for competition? Is it SOTP?

I'm not going to argue this, but I assure you my race car will have a front strut tie bar as well as tying the rear shock mounts to the cage and triangulate it.

[quote]Originally posted by Z-man:
<strong>Of course, the topic of strut tower braces are about as controversial as street racing....
</strong><hr></blockquote>

I should hope not. Street racing is dangerous and stupid. I don't see STBs in the same light.

[quote]Originally posted by Z-man:
<strong>A strut tower brace would be the last thing I'd consider when upgrading my car's suspension.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

This is where I differ. It's the first thing I'd do. As I said, if your chassis is not as stiff as you can make it, any changes you make to the suspension will yield less than optimal results and can even result in inconsistent results. From what I understand, the 944 chassis is more rigid than most cars, but improving that rigidity would be my first priority before adjusting or modifying the suspension.

Silverbullet951

I've seen around 20 350's on the road and at the dealer near me, there are about 6 or 7 lined up outside, I'm telling you, That car is starting to look (quality) cheaper and cheaper everyday. My friends and I took a look at it, the interior, let me be nice and say, it looks like garbage. The cheapest looking interior I have ever seen. ANd what's with that door handle? looks like right out of a sci-fi movie. I don't know, I'm not feeling the looks of it. PLus it has no power to back it up. my uncle test drove it and he said it had absolutely no power. I think there is a road test that just came out timing the 0-60 at about 7 seconds. NOt so hot. NOw the g35 coupe, that's nice. Yes I know it's practically the same car, but, the interior and the outside looks are much much better. I must admit, the 350's do have a really nice sound to them, I can just imagine the g35 coupe! I've only seen 1 of them, very nice. Now if only these cars had more power!

wjk_glynn

[quote]Originally posted by Silverbullet951:
<strong>PLus it has no power to back it up. my uncle test drove it and he said it had absolutely no power. I think there is a road test that just came out timing the 0-60 at about 7 seconds. NOt so hot. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Well on 3 different road tests, the numbers are virtually identical to a 951S.

Cast your mind back to 1988 when R&T tested the 951S. They got the following:

0-60 = 5.5 sec
0-100 = 14.1 seconds
1/4 mile = 14.2 seconds @ 101 mph


Now moving forward to today, the 350Z attained the following:

C&D
<a href="http://www.caranddriver.com/xp/Caranddriver/previews/2002/august/0208_roadtest_z.xml" target="_blank">http://www.caranddriver.com/xp/Caranddriver/previews/2002/august/0208_roadtest_z.xml</a>

0-60 = 5.4 seconds
0-100 = N/A (on the website)
1/4 mile = 14.1 seconds @ 101 mph


R&T
<a href="http://www.roadandtrack.com/reviews/roadtests/pdf/2002_09_nissan_350z_data.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.roadandtrack.com/reviews/roadtests/pdf/2002_09_nissan_350z_data.pdf</a>

0-60 = 5.6 seconds
0-100 = 14.2 seconds
1/4 mile = 14.3 seconds @ 100.2 mph


Sports Compact Car
<a href="http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com/features/0210scc_350znissan/" target="_blank">http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com/features/0210scc_350znissan/</a>

0-60 = 5.8 seconds
0-100 = N/A (on the website)
1/4 mile = 14.0 seconds @ 99 mph


I'd say thats pretty close and no one could ever accuse a 951S of being slow

Regarding build quality, its funny how different people perceive things differently. I for example thought the 350Z interior was fine and that the materials were of a good quality. Certainly equal to or better than my 944S2. However, I do think its a subjective thing.

One final thing to note, a "Track" 350Z (big Brembos, etc) costs $35K new today. A 951S cost ~$47K 14 years ago (maybe $70K in todays money)


Karl.

MachSchnell

(Keep in mind this is coming from an old Nissan fan who still has his nostalgic 240sx to pummel on occasionally)

For the same $36 large as the brembo equipped track Z which weighs in at 3290 according to the earlier quote, but which another rag (R&T or C&D, can't remember) listed at 3350 or so, you could get a used 993 which will hold better value, comes with nicer and much more durable interior, and has a slightly better power to weight ratio (figuring a 96+ 993 C2)...maybe some people will take depreciation for warranty, personally I'd rather have the style...and believe me, I put a LOT of thought into the Z before buying my 951...just couldn't rationalize that ridiculous price and even more ridiculous weight

ELLSSUU

I'm told local dealers are tacking on $5-6K on these b/c their so hot. The local dealer is still filling pre-orders and doesn't have any to drive on his lot. Is this the case in your areas? Pictures didn't do this car justice but the door handles could have been better executed, or maybe just literally executed.

Z-man

Geo: Ok, so I was comparing roll-stiffness with chassis stiffness: you're right: the strut bar and sway bar stiffen different 'components' so to speak.

Although I have no imperical proof on the limited effectiveness of STB's on 944's and MR2's, I have heard comments supporting my arguments from 'experts' who have tracked their MR2's and 944's. (Ref: 944: my PCA region's track chair, who drives a 944S2, MR2: various autocrossing people). BTW: the stock MR2 Turbo STB is a very flimsy design, and isn't really effective.

I did say:
[quote]I'm just going by what I've been told regarding strut braces in general: they aren't as effective...Maybe the 350Z's strut brace is different, since it is so big. <hr></blockquote>
It would be interesting to test the difference between a 350Z with the STB disconnected vs. one in place.

For me, the bottom line is this: unless the 350Z is going to see autocross or track time, the STB isn't really worth the extra space it takes up! People who buy cars for all 'show' and no 'go' don't need the extra stiffness. If I were to buy a 350Z, I would get the track model, BTW, and wouldn't complain about the STB.

Peace,
-Z.

M758

Here is my take on new Z..

First off... Too heavy.. Quoted weights a 3200-3300 lbs are too heavy. Sure 280 hp is nice, but in my opinion it would rather have 250 hp at 3000 lbs or 230 hp at 2700lbs.

While extra Hp can make up for extra weight on acceleration it can't in cornering and braking.

I have heard that the brakes on the NON-track model cars are not up to snuff comparted to the weight and straight line speed of the car on a track.

Styling.
OK, but some how very bland and not in anyway time less. I have seen a few on the street and they look really average and nothing special.

Rear Brace.
While it may stiffen the chassis come on! Nissan Engineer HAVE to be much smarter than to put that stiffening in the luggage comparment. If the car were Lotus Elise light then yeah they would need to take advantage of Geometric aspects and take up that space. How ever in a 3250lbs car it seems to me like that could have been done much better. If you wanted you could also have made it removable so that you can leave it out for simple daily driving and put it in for more spirited driving.
Honeslty I think you will see go away in the next couple years. Nissan will annouce that they magically stiffend the shell elsewhere and don't need it anymore.

Cost
Too high for what it should be.
$24k is good, but not at $35k. That is too much. Would have been better in my mind to have a simpler lighter and less powerfull car that cost $20-25k.

To me this is more in spirt of the original 240Z.

As a direct compairson to the 951S....
Very similar, but unless you compare to the track model I think a 951S will smoke it on the track due to better brakes and less weight.

M758

[quote]Originally posted by Geo:
<strong>
"It stiffens the chassis a lot and it has a huge cross section. If you look under the Z you will be amazed at all of the bracing that it has. Ridigty was key in its design.

The Z and the G35C are the stiffest cars I have ever driven."
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Geo,
Where does the balance between rigidity and weight lay???

Seems to me you can make a chassis 10% stiffer, but also 10% heavier...

Sure stiffer is better, but what about that 10% more weight that you have to carry around to get there??

(note I am just guessing that 10%/10% ratio it may be different)

Geo

[quote]Originally posted by Z-man:
<strong>Although I have no imperical proof on the limited effectiveness of STB's on 944's and MR2's, I have heard comments supporting my arguments from 'experts' who have tracked their MR2's and 944's. (Ref: 944: my PCA region's track chair, who drives a 944S2, MR2: various autocrossing people).
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yeah, I cannot comment on the relative stiffness of either chassis. I also can see how someone can install one and not see a difference, even on a flexible chassis. I think they are a must for anyone really trying to systematically improve and tune their suspension.

[quote]Originally posted by Z-man:
<strong>BTW: the stock MR2 Turbo STB is a very flimsy design, and isn't really effective.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Actually, an STB works in tension and compression. Since a tube is quite strong in both that might be otherwise flimsy, they can still be quite effective.

[quote]Originally posted by Z-man:
<strong>I did say:

It would be interesting to test the difference between a 350Z with the STB disconnected vs. one in place.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

I agree. To be perfectly honest I'm quite surprised my pal didn't give me hard numbers. He usually has those either in his head or at his fingertips.

[quote]Originally posted by Z-man:
<strong>For me, the bottom line is this: unless the 350Z is going to see autocross or track time, the STB isn't really worth the extra space it takes up! People who buy cars for all 'show' and no 'go' don't need the extra stiffness. If I were to buy a 350Z, I would get the track model, BTW, and wouldn't complain about the STB.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Can't argue about that. And I agree it's ugly. Then again, I think the new Z looks more like a styling exercise that needs some details cleaned up. I know exactly what I would do to change it. I think the subtle changes would make the car eye-popping gorgeous. But, I don't get to make that call.