Is the 350Z true to its heritage?
07-21-2005, 12:55 PM
#12
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Gods Speed #57 Lemons #77
Posts: 6,337
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by Saint_Spinner,Jul 21 2005, 03:18 PM
True. I like it alot. Just wondering whether there were any Z fans that were actually disapointed that it wasn't closer to the original or not.
07-21-2005, 01:51 PM
#14
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 450
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Christople,Jul 21 2005, 12:43 PM
A 350z can beat a BMW M3 on a track?
350z is going back to its root by becoming an NA, 2 seater design sports car with intended emphasis on performance than design.
The previous Z was a twin turbo machine with too many gadgets, a real heavy weight just like the others (Supra, VR4).
Also, few cars could ever achieve the same or lower weight as their predecessors, S2000, M3, Boxster, Espirit and Elan to name a few.
07-21-2005, 02:56 PM
#17
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 421
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it its actually pretty close. Remeber, they built the original 240z to a budget by using other parts (The Zs engine, suspension, etc, would migrate to the 810 - the predecessor to the Maxima). Plus it was also designed to be built in relatively large numbers. So, in a way, I guess the S2000 is similar in the weight department, but in terms of manufacturing, engineering, and market segment, I think the 350z is very similar to the 240z. Remember, Nissan was the original partner with Yamaha in designing the car that would eventually be the Toyota 2000GT. Although it was a more dedicated and innovative, Nissan pulled out because it would not be affordable enough to produce or to sell in the numbers they wanted. They built the car that would be desireable to the largest audience, sacrificing a little performance and a bit of technology to make it affordable.
Now fast forward to 2003: All of us who own (or want to own) an S2000 could have also looked at a 350z. Maybe you chose the S2000 because it is more sports car, less GT. But a vast majority of people with the income to afford these cars probably would be willing to sacrifice a little handling for more electronic perks, a more long legged cruising, or the option of an automatic transmission. I think Nissan designed a pretty good car, without having to build too many unique parts into it (saving $ and being able to increase production). There are going to be some compromises (added weight from having to share parts w/ sedans and SUVs).
Now fast forward to 2003: All of us who own (or want to own) an S2000 could have also looked at a 350z. Maybe you chose the S2000 because it is more sports car, less GT. But a vast majority of people with the income to afford these cars probably would be willing to sacrifice a little handling for more electronic perks, a more long legged cruising, or the option of an automatic transmission. I think Nissan designed a pretty good car, without having to build too many unique parts into it (saving $ and being able to increase production). There are going to be some compromises (added weight from having to share parts w/ sedans and SUVs).
07-21-2005, 03:08 PM
#18
Registered User
Originally Posted by lukemc01,Jul 21 2005, 02:56 PM
I think it its actually pretty close. Remeber, they built the original 240z to a budget by using other parts (The Zs engine, suspension, etc, would migrate to the 810 - the predecessor to the Maxima). Plus it was also designed to be built in relatively large numbers. So, in a way, I guess the S2000 is similar in the weight department, but in terms of manufacturing, engineering, and market segment, I think the 350z is very similar to the 240z. Remember, Nissan was the original partner with Yamaha in designing the car that would eventually be the Toyota 2000GT. Although it was a more dedicated and innovative, Nissan pulled out because it would not be affordable enough to produce or to sell in the numbers they wanted. They built the car that would be desireable to the largest audience, sacrificing a little performance and a bit of technology to make it affordable.
Now fast forward to 2003: All of us who own (or want to own) an S2000 could have also looked at a 350z. Maybe you chose the S2000 because it is more sports car, less GT. But a vast majority of people with the income to afford these cars probably would be willing to sacrifice a little handling for more electronic perks, a more long legged cruising, or the option of an automatic transmission. I think Nissan designed a pretty good car, without having to build too many unique parts into it (saving $ and being able to increase production). There are going to be some compromises (added weight from having to share parts w/ sedans and SUVs).
Now fast forward to 2003: All of us who own (or want to own) an S2000 could have also looked at a 350z. Maybe you chose the S2000 because it is more sports car, less GT. But a vast majority of people with the income to afford these cars probably would be willing to sacrifice a little handling for more electronic perks, a more long legged cruising, or the option of an automatic transmission. I think Nissan designed a pretty good car, without having to build too many unique parts into it (saving $ and being able to increase production). There are going to be some compromises (added weight from having to share parts w/ sedans and SUVs).
S2000::: Hi-revving. Best transmission in the world. Light. CONVERTIBLE.
350Z:::: TORQUE. Smooth curves. More room. Better stereo.
07-21-2005, 04:48 PM
#19
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 450
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by lukemc01,Jul 21 2005, 02:56 PM
I think it its actually pretty close. Remeber, they built the original 240z to a budget by using other parts (The Zs engine, suspension, etc, would migrate to the 810 - the predecessor to the Maxima). Plus it was also designed to be built in relatively large numbers. So, in a way, I guess the S2000 is similar in the weight department, but in terms of manufacturing, engineering, and market segment, I think the 350z is very similar to the 240z. Remember, Nissan was the original partner with Yamaha in designing the car that would eventually be the Toyota 2000GT. Although it was a more dedicated and innovative, Nissan pulled out because it would not be affordable enough to produce or to sell in the numbers they wanted. They built the car that would be desireable to the largest audience, sacrificing a little performance and a bit of technology to make it affordable.
Now fast forward to 2003: All of us who own (or want to own) an S2000 could have also looked at a 350z. Maybe you chose the S2000 because it is more sports car, less GT. But a vast majority of people with the income to afford these cars probably would be willing to sacrifice a little handling for more electronic perks, a more long legged cruising, or the option of an automatic transmission. I think Nissan designed a pretty good car, without having to build too many unique parts into it (saving $ and being able to increase production). There are going to be some compromises (added weight from having to share parts w/ sedans and SUVs).
Now fast forward to 2003: All of us who own (or want to own) an S2000 could have also looked at a 350z. Maybe you chose the S2000 because it is more sports car, less GT. But a vast majority of people with the income to afford these cars probably would be willing to sacrifice a little handling for more electronic perks, a more long legged cruising, or the option of an automatic transmission. I think Nissan designed a pretty good car, without having to build too many unique parts into it (saving $ and being able to increase production). There are going to be some compromises (added weight from having to share parts w/ sedans and SUVs).
The early Z was like a Japanese MGB, affordable, 2 seat fun. Performance was compromised for reliability. The introduction of the RX7 in 1979 was basically a copy of the Z-car formula. There it started a trend. They became fatter and softer, going more into Corvette territory than MG.
Platform sharing is not uncommon, though the myth that the Z is a combination of parts from other Nissans is not true. If it was the case, then the door handles would be the first obvious parts to share.
07-22-2005, 12:31 PM
#20
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The heritage thing is way overated. Heritage sells are based on emotion and nostalgia IMO. Think the current Thundertbird. Middle aged people who admired the original 'Bird bought this car because it had the right styling cues took them back 40 years. The fact that it wasn't really a great car wasn't a concern. When those buyers bought demand dried up and I guess it's cancelled, heirtage or not .
Buy a current car on it's merits. If the current 350 does it for you go for it. By the way I had a 260z. Great car but a rust bucket. Don't hold that part of the heritage against the current car.
Buy a current car on it's merits. If the current 350 does it for you go for it. By the way I had a 260z. Great car but a rust bucket. Don't hold that part of the heritage against the current car.
