[QUOTE]Originally posted by JonBoy
[B]Sure, the car is fast, but personally I'd still consider it a grand tourer (like a few others here) instead of a true sports car.

 

I'm confused. Why all the comments disparaging the 14.1? Last I checked, that's the same as the S2000 (R&T Sept '00: 0-60 5.5, 1/4-mi 14.1; R&T Sept '99: 5.3/14.0; C&D Oct '99: 5.8/14.4). Both have the same power/weight ratio. So where's the surprise or discrepancy??

BTW, expect times to vary by a few tenths based on altitude, weather, track surface, car-to-car variations, and driver technique. Yet with all that, the numbers look perfectly reasonable.

 

As someone mentioned, Edmunds has a First Drive review up:
http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/roadtests/f...16/article.html

Telling line about handling:
"Overall, the car stakes out new territory. It's not as nimble as the S2000, but it's also not as
fidgety. There's no doubt that it's much more maneuverable than a Corvette. After our brief drive, we'd say the 350Z's handling and
demeanor most closely matches the BMW M3 or M Coupe."

Sounds like pretty high praise.

 

how are you going to buy that when you are 15 years old? a 1000hp skyline gtr-34 is a $100,000+ investment we are talking about, i would be amazed if you could even get a standard Skyline GTR-34

 

Fast is relative term, please note that Argetni has a Z06...

[QUOTE]Originally posted by FCGuy
[B]

I'm confused.

 

I didn't say I would buy it at this age

 

I recall a few months ago I pointed out that the curb weight was suspiciously missing from Nissan's tech specs. Now we know the reason.

 

I just got my c/d mag. and I was also amazed that there was no mention of the s2k comparative or otherwise! The only excuse I can see c/d using is that the s2k is a limited production car, in my opinion it will be one of the closes competitors in price and performance. The only advantage I see with the z over the S is the z has more torque. The z has 47 more horse and 121lbsft of torque more and barely beats the s in 0-60 and 1/4 mile and the z has a lower top speed so in my book the s is still more impressive! If the track car is$34.6 then what will the conv. be? You have to figure a conv. z with all the bells and whistles will be pushing 40k while the s2k with say an added hardtop would be comparible at 35k so you are spending an extra 5k for more low end grunt but you will be driving the latest thing.

 

in some mags the s2k had better acceleration as well

 

Sure, the car is fast, but personally I'd still consider it a grand tourer (like a few others here) instead of a true sports car. It's pretty heavy (as everyone seems to have noted) and I honestly don't like the looks that much.

Why a GT? Most serious 'sports cars' are around the same weight as the 350Z .... is a Ferrari F360 a GT? Is a 911 a GT? What about a Viper or Lamborghini - those weight a lot more ... GTs again? Nissan GTR another GT?

On a different note - the 'extra weight' in the 350Z has a lot to offer - like the hube Brembo brakes, 18" wheels and much tougher componets (hopefully) like drivetrain, suspension and clutch - they all carry extra weight and would be welcome addition on 'any' car. I'd be happy to carry extra 200lb in the S2000 if I got tougher/better components .... that is if I'd get proportianally more power.

Also with the 287hp it has a better weight-to-power ratio then the S2000. Not only that but it has a lot flatter power curve so it has a fair bit better area 'under the power curve' compared to the S2000.

ps. I have no idea how good a car it really will be (or even if I'll like it), but on the paper it if has the potential to be faster then the S2000 in every situation (ie. sprints, track or the road).