Nissan 350Z any good?
04-18-2003, 12:11 PM
#16
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 1,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yeah but it's a crappy LSD (viscous, not torsen / quaiffe)...
the best buy for the 350 is the "enthusiast" - who needs/cares about nav, leather, etc... buy one w/ out all of that stuff or the 18s, and put on better wheels/tires/brakes/seats/harnesses and for under $35k you'll have QUITE the performer.
re: problems with transmissions, suspension, etc - it's a 1st-model-year car, that's gonna happen... with ANY marque.
the best buy for the 350 is the "enthusiast" - who needs/cares about nav, leather, etc... buy one w/ out all of that stuff or the 18s, and put on better wheels/tires/brakes/seats/harnesses and for under $35k you'll have QUITE the performer.
re: problems with transmissions, suspension, etc - it's a 1st-model-year car, that's gonna happen... with ANY marque.
04-18-2003, 07:44 PM
#18
Why would anyone be upset by viscous LSD? I'd much rather have that than clutch...I loved the viscous from a 300zx when I dropped it into my 240sx...only issue I had was that it wasn't rebuildable like a clutch is, but from a performance standpoint, I prefer the viscous to a clutch
04-18-2003, 10:32 PM
#19
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Originally posted by kgain968:
<strong>Hoe does a stock 350Z compare performance wise to a stock 951/968? Would it run away from us on the straights? Would our models outhandle a 350Z or vice versa?</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">From March '03 Road and Track: 350Z Track 0-60 in 5.8 sec, 1/4 mile in 14.4 sec @ 99.7 mph.
From December '02 Car & Driver: 350Z Touring 0-60 in 5.7, 1/4 mile in 14.3 sec @ 100 mph. This same issue of C&D also ranks the 350Z first in a 4-way comparison against the Audi TT 1.8T Quattro, Ford Mustang Mach 1, and Honda S2000.
From June '88 Road and Track: 944 Turbo S 0-60 in 5.5 sec, 1/4 mile in 14.1 @ 100.5 mph.
From July '85 Road and Track: 944 Turbo (non S) 0-60 in 6.3 sec, 1/4 mile in 14.8 @ 97 mph.
I don't have the figures for a 968 in front of me, but my recollection is that the magazines reported 0-60 and 1/4 mile times only about 0.2 sec slower than a Turbo S.
Summary: in straight line acceleration, the 350Z seems to be close to a stock Turbo S (does such a thing still exist these days?) or a 968, and clearly faster than a stock non S Turbo.
<strong>Hoe does a stock 350Z compare performance wise to a stock 951/968? Would it run away from us on the straights? Would our models outhandle a 350Z or vice versa?</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">From March '03 Road and Track: 350Z Track 0-60 in 5.8 sec, 1/4 mile in 14.4 sec @ 99.7 mph.
From December '02 Car & Driver: 350Z Touring 0-60 in 5.7, 1/4 mile in 14.3 sec @ 100 mph. This same issue of C&D also ranks the 350Z first in a 4-way comparison against the Audi TT 1.8T Quattro, Ford Mustang Mach 1, and Honda S2000.
From June '88 Road and Track: 944 Turbo S 0-60 in 5.5 sec, 1/4 mile in 14.1 @ 100.5 mph.
From July '85 Road and Track: 944 Turbo (non S) 0-60 in 6.3 sec, 1/4 mile in 14.8 @ 97 mph.
I don't have the figures for a 968 in front of me, but my recollection is that the magazines reported 0-60 and 1/4 mile times only about 0.2 sec slower than a Turbo S.
Summary: in straight line acceleration, the 350Z seems to be close to a stock Turbo S (does such a thing still exist these days?) or a 968, and clearly faster than a stock non S Turbo.
04-18-2003, 11:03 PM
#20
Banned
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 1,388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I found this for 968
<a href="http://www.weissach.net/924-944-968_RoadTestSummary.html" target="_blank">http://www.weissach.net/924-944-968_RoadTestSummary.html</a>
although this is the best result of several tests
Car & Driver 02/92: 968 0-60 5.6 sec, 1/4 mile 14.2 @ 98 mph
I am wondering why with almost 40-50 more hp (and a bit more torque) The Z's numbers aren't that different from the 951 and 968?
<a href="http://www.weissach.net/924-944-968_RoadTestSummary.html" target="_blank">http://www.weissach.net/924-944-968_RoadTestSummary.html</a>
although this is the best result of several tests
Car & Driver 02/92: 968 0-60 5.6 sec, 1/4 mile 14.2 @ 98 mph
I am wondering why with almost 40-50 more hp (and a bit more torque) The Z's numbers aren't that different from the 951 and 968?
04-18-2003, 11:44 PM
#21
Racer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: richmond
Posts: 418
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1) The weight difference
2) Jap's tend to over-estimate the hp & performance #'s, while the Krauts tend to under-estimate them. Jap's and Americans have been doing that as long as they have been building cars =)
Example; A stock 3rd gen rx7TT and a 951 produce within 5 hp of each other on the dyno. The rx7 is rated at 255hp and the 951 at 217hp....hmmmmm.....they must be getting ALOT more drivetrain loss...
2) Jap's tend to over-estimate the hp & performance #'s, while the Krauts tend to under-estimate them. Jap's and Americans have been doing that as long as they have been building cars =)
Example; A stock 3rd gen rx7TT and a 951 produce within 5 hp of each other on the dyno. The rx7 is rated at 255hp and the 951 at 217hp....hmmmmm.....they must be getting ALOT more drivetrain loss...
04-19-2003, 01:45 AM
#22
Burning Brakes
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Originally posted by 951carter:
<strong>1) The weight difference
2) Jap's tend to over-estimate the hp & performance #'s, while the Krauts tend to under-estimate them. Jap's and Americans have been doing that as long as they have been building cars =)
</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">I agree - and I dont trust numbers from magazines either. Im fortunate enough to know a few buddies who sell cars and Ive had the opportunity to drive a 350Z (although not a G35) and thought it was a fine touring car. Reasonable power, felt connected for its size, but the interior was... well... it'll be noisy in a few years.
In some "real world testing" (cough) The three cars in question were:
03 350Z - stock
86 951 - APE Stage II, MAF, turbo back
95 M3 - Euro MAM, cat back, JC ECU chip
During the "testing" (cough) were concluded the following results:
The 1995 E36 M3 and the 350Z were very, very close - the 350 might have had a very slight edge in terms of acceleration and if you were at a drag strip, it would be a drivers race. On a road course... I cant comment because Ive driven niether car in such conditions, but I think I would be more confortable in the M.
The 86 951, mods above... made short work of both with minimal effort... as in "no contest, I give up, what the hell is in that thing?"
Disclaimer: None of the above mentioned events ever took place, but rather are simply for entertainment value. Happy motoring!
(...cough)
<strong>1) The weight difference
2) Jap's tend to over-estimate the hp & performance #'s, while the Krauts tend to under-estimate them. Jap's and Americans have been doing that as long as they have been building cars =)
</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">I agree - and I dont trust numbers from magazines either. Im fortunate enough to know a few buddies who sell cars and Ive had the opportunity to drive a 350Z (although not a G35) and thought it was a fine touring car. Reasonable power, felt connected for its size, but the interior was... well... it'll be noisy in a few years.
In some "real world testing" (cough) The three cars in question were:
03 350Z - stock
86 951 - APE Stage II, MAF, turbo back
95 M3 - Euro MAM, cat back, JC ECU chip
During the "testing" (cough) were concluded the following results:
The 1995 E36 M3 and the 350Z were very, very close - the 350 might have had a very slight edge in terms of acceleration and if you were at a drag strip, it would be a drivers race. On a road course... I cant comment because Ive driven niether car in such conditions, but I think I would be more confortable in the M.
The 86 951, mods above... made short work of both with minimal effort... as in "no contest, I give up, what the hell is in that thing?"
Disclaimer: None of the above mentioned events ever took place, but rather are simply for entertainment value. Happy motoring!
(...cough)
04-19-2003, 10:40 PM
#24
Instructor
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Honolulu, HI.
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Z seems like a fun car but I guess time will tell. I also went for a drive in the "track" ver. and it felt good.
Nissan has put alot of tech & $ in the new Z car and for $28,000+ you get a whole lot of car compared to the Boxster at $50,000.
In BestMotoring a Jap.DVD they compared the Z with the new M3,a S2000, a Boxter all racing eachother on a track. The Z was in commanding lead while the closest car in reach was the M3 and the driver just couldn't catch the Z, he kept on complaining how heavy it was.
The S2000 was close and the Boxter trailed all the way.
I wish they had a 951 battle with the Z. Hmmmm.
Nissan has put alot of tech & $ in the new Z car and for $28,000+ you get a whole lot of car compared to the Boxster at $50,000.
In BestMotoring a Jap.DVD they compared the Z with the new M3,a S2000, a Boxter all racing eachother on a track. The Z was in commanding lead while the closest car in reach was the M3 and the driver just couldn't catch the Z, he kept on complaining how heavy it was.
The S2000 was close and the Boxter trailed all the way.
I wish they had a 951 battle with the Z. Hmmmm.
04-19-2003, 11:25 PM
#25
Burning Brakes
I don't believe that would be the case against a Boxster S with sport suspension.
And in other tests I have read the s2000 and the boxster were so close on the track, it all came down to tires they figured.
The Z has a pretty stiff ride, so much so that a lot of new owners complain that it's too harsh for a street car, makes you wonder why some people buy sports cars
this is certainly not the case with the Boxster, you get the best of both worlds with excellent performance and a comfy ride.
It's ll kinda meaningless anyway, you want faster lap times, just up the spring rates, but there is always a compromise, apparently the Z rides like crap as the shocks are no match for the springs.
And you gotta take these test articles with a pinch of salt, you never know where most of thier advertising bucks come from, I am always skeptical.
I once read a magazine test report that said it took the 996 27 seconds to reach a 100 mph ! and they claimed that this was not a misprint !
And in other tests I have read the s2000 and the boxster were so close on the track, it all came down to tires they figured.
The Z has a pretty stiff ride, so much so that a lot of new owners complain that it's too harsh for a street car, makes you wonder why some people buy sports cars
this is certainly not the case with the Boxster, you get the best of both worlds with excellent performance and a comfy ride.
It's ll kinda meaningless anyway, you want faster lap times, just up the spring rates, but there is always a compromise, apparently the Z rides like crap as the shocks are no match for the springs.
And you gotta take these test articles with a pinch of salt, you never know where most of thier advertising bucks come from, I am always skeptical.
I once read a magazine test report that said it took the 996 27 seconds to reach a 100 mph ! and they claimed that this was not a misprint !
04-19-2003, 11:57 PM
#26
Racer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Modesto, CA
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My buddy test-drove a 350Z and remarked on it feeling like a dog. I have heard they take 1000+ miles to break-in and realize the numbers you see in the mags, so maybe that was the case.
On a similar note, my 87 951 with Guru Stage 2, Lindsey WG, and a test-pipe made quick work of a 350.
-Matt
On a similar note, my 87 951 with Guru Stage 2, Lindsey WG, and a test-pipe made quick work of a 350.
-Matt
