Anyone Run a 350Z?
06-19-2004, 11:12 PM
#21
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 4,282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The big difference between the vehicles is that when you take a can opener to the Z it looks as ugly as hell.
I'd never get the 350Z Convertible ... it may be a nice convertible but not really a sports-car in my books. It carries ~120kg over the coupe, has softer suspension, does not get the big brakes, and on top of that is not as ridgit ... and then it costs more.
As far as convertibles go, it takes the S2000 or Boxster to be a sports-car in a true sence. So if you want to pay around $70k for a car, it needs to be a convertible as well as a sportscar, then you can't go past the S2000 even in todays market.
I'd never get the 350Z Convertible ... it may be a nice convertible but not really a sports-car in my books. It carries ~120kg over the coupe, has softer suspension, does not get the big brakes, and on top of that is not as ridgit ... and then it costs more.
As far as convertibles go, it takes the S2000 or Boxster to be a sports-car in a true sence. So if you want to pay around $70k for a car, it needs to be a convertible as well as a sportscar, then you can't go past the S2000 even in todays market.
06-19-2004, 11:46 PM
#22
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Gold Coast
Posts: 4,857
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by DavidM
As far as convertibles go, it takes the S2000 or Boxster to be a sports-car in a true sence. So if you want to pay around $70k for a car, it needs to be a convertible as well as a sportscar, then you can't go past the S2000 even in todays market.
As far as convertibles go, it takes the S2000 or Boxster to be a sports-car in a true sence. So if you want to pay around $70k for a car, it needs to be a convertible as well as a sportscar, then you can't go past the S2000 even in todays market.
I bought the S2k for the same reason.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post