NIssan 350z

Post by **Jusepi97sx** » Thu Aug 08, 2002 5:36 pm

Picked up the Sept. issue of Road&Track... nice article on the 350z.. worth a look...

Post by **ninjak84** » Thu Aug 08, 2002 5:36 pm

ok, well its a START of a discussion anyways:) what makes it interesting? any special previously unkown info you'd care to share?

and while its here, does anyone have the FINAL hp on the 350?im just curious since someone already started the thread

Post by **I H8 UR DSM** » Thu Aug 08, 2002 5:36 pm

IF you read his post....he didnt read the article...he just picked it up.....give him a couple of months, he'll read it, and post some stuff

Post by **Jusepi97sx** » Thu Aug 08, 2002 5:36 pm

well yeah.. i haven't read the article yet... i just looked at the pretty pictures....

i though it was worth a look cuz it compares the 350z, vette and the porsche Boxster S, in terms of price and specifications and such.. well, i though for having the lowest price b/w the 3 the 350 measured well performance wise with the other 3... overall the nissans is a good value.

once i read the article.. .i'll decide if its worth starting a discussion about.. but that won't happen for a couple of days.. got a final for my summer class this tuesday i gotta get ready for..

(horsepower = 287 )

Post by **ninjak84** » Thu Aug 08, 2002 5:36 pm

287 is higher than i once thought, thxand summer courses blow, i just wrote my pmath30 final yesterday... good luck on yours!

Post by **thomas 200SX OGS** » Thu Aug 08, 2002 5:36 pm

Great car, but a shame that Nissan will sell it in the States a year before it comes to Europe...

Post by **wizzfish** » Thu Aug 08, 2002 5:36 pm

go ahead, pick one out

http://media.350zforum.com/350zmedia/350zdocks.jpg

Post by **Jubs180** » Thu Aug 08, 2002 5:36 pm

*sigh*all i can do looking at that picture..

I wish I made more money

-Dan

Post by **TrunkMonkey** » Thu Aug 08, 2002 5:36 pm

did anyone see the 350z on the Motor Trend tv show on the Speed Channel this morning? Looks very impressive, but it wasn't fair that they preview the new Mercedes-Benz SL55 AMG after it. almost made me forget the 350z was even on the show.

Post by **Spectre** » Thu Aug 08, 2002 5:36 pm

demcj wrote:it wasn't fair that they preview the new Mercedes-Benz SL55 AMG after it. almost made me forget the 350z was even on the show.

Look at the price tags and I'm sure that you will remember the 350Z :thumbup.

Post by **TrunkMonkey** » Thu Aug 08, 2002 5:36 pm

Spectre wrote:Look at the price tags and I'm sure that you will remember the 350Z :thumbup.

i can afford anything when i'm daydreaming.

Post by **thomas 200SX OGS** » Thu Aug 08, 2002 5:36 pm

Will only be eating rice 'til I saved enough...

Post by **rollhard** » Thu Aug 08, 2002 5:36 pm

its ahrd to believe that the new neon srt is only about a tenth slower than the new 350z. its kinda pathetic in part by nissan though.

Post by **ninjak84** » Thu Aug 08, 2002 5:36 pm

the 350z fever is out of control here... the nissan dealorships in my city have all REPORTEDLY sold out of the 350z pre-orders..... its like a video game that everyone wants!

Post by **rollhard** » Thu Aug 08, 2002 5:36 pm

i guess now that cars are generally getting more and more expensive, the 350z is relatively cheap for that performance. but, its still around the same price range as the 90-96 z right? anyhow i think they are doing a good job with that revival plan though. it seems to be working with an exception of the new se-r which i think is pretty much a flop. i didnt really like the way the new z looked before but it has grown on me and i think it is one of the best designs out there.

Post by **biggie** » Thu Aug 08, 2002 5:36 pm

Any got all the final numbers then, I never heard definately on Torque, weight, etc. All of them please.

Post by **OneFastStanza** » Thu Aug 08, 2002 5:36 pm

rollhard wrote:anyhow i think they are doing a good job with that revival plan though. it seems to be working with an exception of the new se-r which i think is pretty much a flop.

Ok, I gotta ask, why do you think the new SE-R is a flop?:rolleyes

Post by **Mayhem_J30** » Thu Aug 08, 2002 5:36 pm

OneFastStanza wrote:
Ok, I gotta ask, why do you think the new SE-R is a flop?:rolleyes

I also don't think the new se-r is a flop, but i rarely see them on the streets. and with that low low pricetag i figured they would be everywhere by now. personally the only thing i think the lack is some more power. but for the price you can't complain. just wishin it had some more oomph.

Post by **Silviaspeed** » Thu Aug 08, 2002 5:36 pm

The 90-96 Z's were priced at $33K to start if I remember correctly. It doesn't sound like much of a difference compared to the $27K base of the new Z, but if you compared the older Z's competition to what its competing with now I think for the price it really is a very good deal no matter how you slice it.

Post by **jdulberg** » Thu Aug 08, 2002 5:36 pm

Anyone know how much $$ the new Z is going to go for in Canada?

Post by **OneFastStanza** » Thu Aug 08, 2002 5:36 pm

Mayhem_J30 wrote:
I also don't think the new se-r is a flop, but i rarely see them on the streets. and with that low low pricetag i figured they would be everywhere by now. personally the only thing i think the lack is some more power. but for the price you can't complain. just wishin it had some more oomph.

The reason I was asking is cause it seems that everybody and their Mom was thinking it was going to be teh Type R killer for under 20K which I thought was a little proposterous. Anyhow so when the car got released, the car was slightly slower than a Type R and only got a 141whp (~20% d/t loss), everybody wanted to b**** about it and say that the car was crap. Fact: the car is quickest in its class for new cars under 20K. Yeah you could include the RSX S but it is only slightly faster and will cost you over 25K. And for that money I would buy a WRX hands down. The WRX which a of people want to bring up also is 25K and is a whole different type of car than the Spec V.

The way I look at it, I'll take my car that I paid $17900 for with tax title and license, enjoy the capability of a low 15 second car stock (mine is obviously not stock), and enjoy the fact thaty the suspension is sweet and the car can carve corners like a beast stock (well maybe not like a beast but really well for a stock car).

Post by **rollhard** » Thu Aug 08, 2002 5:36 pm

well i have been keepig up with the se-r sales and for the amount of money and push nissan has tried, i think that it isnt doing so well. the main reasons why i think the se-r is a flop is because the motor doesnt seem like the performance motor the sr20 used to be. i also think they tried too hard to draw the attention of the tuner crowd with its outrageous interior etc. also the overall styling of the car doesnt seem to target the young crowd as much as the new civic, focus, matrix, etc. it is a nice car, but to compete with those others, i think it has a hard time. i drove the car a few weeks ago and when i looked at the redline, i almost cried. i would so much rather buy an se with the sr20 than the se-r. also the se-r is about 1 full second slower than the rsx which is a BIG difference imo. i dont think it is slightly slower. i think they cut corners with this thing. id take a 91 se-r over the new one anyday

Post by **Mayhem_J30** » Thu Aug 08, 2002 5:36 pm

rollhard wrote:well i have been keepig up with the se-r sales and for the amount of money and push nissan has tried, i think that it isnt doing so well. the main reasons why i think the se-r is a flop is because the motor doesnt seem like the performance motor the sr20 used to be. i also think they tried too hard to draw the attention of the tuner crowd with its outrageous interior etc. also the overall styling of the car doesnt seem to target the young crowd as much as the new civic, focus, matrix, etc. it is a nice car, but to compete with those others, i think it has a hard time. i drove the car a few weeks ago and when i looked at the redline, i almost cried. i would so much rather buy an se with the sr20 than the se-r. also the se-r is about 1 full second slower than the rsx which is a BIG difference imo. i dont think it is slightly slower. i think they cut corners with this thing. id take a 91 se-r over the new one anyday

really?! i think the new sentra is much more appealing then the new civics(should have kept the old body style), focus's look like a door wedge and the matrix is a station wagon.has the aftermarket done miracles yet for the sentra?

Post by **OneFastStanza** » Thu Aug 08, 2002 5:36 pm

OK, for one the Spec V is not a full second slower. Don't believe everything you read in magazines. People are running low 15s in stock Specs well driven. Guess what, RSX Ss are running high 14s. That is not a full second in my book and I don't see any stock RSXs running low 14s.

As far as the SR20 comparison, yes you are right it is a totally different style engine. They have been well documented. Obviously the SR20DE engine is great and has a high redline and it high strung like a Honda motor. I am not ragging on the SEs cause I think they are great cars but I feel that the new Spec is a better car. One because there will be more aftermarket for the newer car. There are few Ses runnnig faster than the Spec Vs. I also feel that the engine is very new so people are not sure of the potential. I know a turbo kit is in the works by a very reputable person (who actually own a SE with a DET in his ride) and it is looking at about 250whp. He thinks the engine on stock internals should be alright to ~300whp but of course that is speculation. Noone is going to know until someone decides to test the limits.

As far as sales go, the Spec V was not supposed to be the meat of the Sentra sales otherwise they would be giving dealerships more Spec Vs than say GXEs or XEs. The meat of teh sales are supposed to be the cheesy econoboxes cause that is what most people want. Any car marketed for performance and only offered as a manual transmission is gerally not going to sell all that well. Hell even most of the Vette owners drive slushboxes. Guess what, manuals are only poular to the performace/enthusiast car people.

Besides, I look at it this way, the Supra TTs and 300ZTT sold like a$$ too which is why they got dropped from the lineup but are very very nice cars. I'm not saying teh Spec V is on a level with those cars but just cause a car is not selling like teh Toyota Camry doesn't mean it is a flop.

Post by **OneFastStanza** » Thu Aug 08, 2002 5:36 pm

Oh and by the same notion, I don't see the new Honda Sis, nor the SVT Focus, nor the Matrix burning up the sales either. I rarely see any of those cars on the street.

Post by **rollhard** » Thu Aug 08, 2002 5:36 pm

well, i have driven an rsx and a spec v. the spec v feels better off the line becacuse of the torque. both are slow cars imo. we have stock rsxs running 14.3. the fastest spec v i have seen stock is 15.2 i think thats good enough of a differnce to say its around 1 sec slower right? anyhow, im not here to bash the spec v. i was excited that nissan was going to bring the se-r back and when i saw and drove that thing i was not impressed. its a good thing thing that you feel the sentra spec vs are geared towards a more enthsiasts type a person, but like i said before, as far as nissan revival plan goes, ... their goal is to sell cars plain and simple. sure, they can target a lesser crowd, but from a business stand point, honda and ford are far ahead. im not impressed at all with the focus, but hell they sold over 300,000 cars last year. ford could care less that if the spec v is only offered with a manual tranny. they had more sales...and thats what counts. and that was the whole point of my first thread

Post by **OneFastStanza** » Thu Aug 08, 2002 5:36 pm

Ok, so what do you drive if you think a stock 4-cylinder that can run 14s or 15s stock is slow? You must drive a Z06 or something :thinker

Yes you are right in that Nissan's end goal is obviously to sell cars. There is no doubt about that. The Spec V is a niche market car, it was not meant to outsell more conservative cars like say Ford's Focus since you make that car the benchmark. If they wanted to try to sell more cars, they would have made the car a little less flashy at least in interior aspects. It is a sporty car for not a lot of money much like the Civic Si or SVT Focus. Honda may be ahead of Nissan in terms of overall sales at least here in North America but it isn't cause of the Sis or Type Rs, it is cause of the dinky Civic Exs and Honda Accord sedans just like Toyota does well with its Camry. Nissan is trying to bring itself out of the hole cause they got a boring reputation recently with nothing terribly exciting from lots of car owners standpoints. After they got rid of teh Z, they really didn't have anything too spicy on the table and that is not saying the Nissans were bad cars then it wasn't very spicy though. The new Spec V and the new 350Z is supposed to bring affordability and spiciness to the Nissan lineup. Same with the redesign of the Altima at least in terms of power and that is a damn fine car. Saying that the Spec V is a flop is a misstatement in my eyes cause I don't see how it is from any standpoint that you are presenting. You act like Nissan should be selling more Spec Vs than Focus ZX3s and it isn't going to happen. Nissan didn't intend for that to happen either or they would have made the car different IMO.

And I would love to see the videos of a stock RSX Type S running a 14.3 stock. Most of them I have heard of running are usually slower than 14.8 or so which i gave it credit for but I just attribute that to bad driver but hey I am no RSX afficianado so you could be right but 14.3 is way way faster than I have ever heard and I have heard of lots of runs with the Type S. I can't say I have personally seen one run though cause there are only a few of tehm around here I know of and I don't think they have taken tehm to the track.

Post by **boMex** » Thu Aug 08, 2002 5:36 pm

Hey rollhard do you have a timeslip for that stock type S running a 14.3 1/4??? Because it smells like bs to most of us here by the sound of things.

Post by **rollhard** » Thu Aug 08, 2002 5:36 pm

boMex wrote:Hey rollhard do you have a timeslip for that stock type S running a 14.3 1/4??? Because it smells like bs to most of us here by the sound of things.

well, hate to say it but yes it ran 14.3 and no i dont have a timeslip cause its not my car? why would i have a timeslip for someone elses car? come on now, what kinda question is that?! anyhow, i dont car for hondas, and i have always been a nissan and dsm head. OneFastStanza, im not here to argue with you, you have your opinion and i have mine. i just dont think the spec v is doing as well as it was intended. its easy for a nissan fantic to say great things about the car, etc, etc. i look at it from a general point of view. if you were a honda guy, would the spec v temp you to go nissan? if you were a chevy, or any other type of guy, would the spec v make you want to buy it? me, personally no. when i first saw it, i was excited but i expected a bit more out of the car. by the way i drive an mr2 turbo (stock i ran 14.3...with exhaust, and boost controller i ran 13.8, with afc and intake added i ran 13.4... and YES i have time slips) i also have an 89 240sx (15.6)..a 91 eclipse (12.4) and a 90 eclipse (12.9) the 90 eclipse has nothing but a filter, bc, afc, and exhuast. cars are getting faster and faster these days, so mid 7sec 0-60 cars were fast in the old days, but now its only accecptable in my point of view.

Post by **OneFastStanza** » Thu Aug 08, 2002 5:36 pm

Ok now you don't make sense. First you say that a 4-cylinder that runs 14s -15s stock is slow but now it is acceptable but it is not fast enough for you cause you have modded cars that run 13s and 12s. Well you can't compare modded cars to stock cars for one cause I can get many a car to run 12s and 13s and better all day long with some cash. However, the Spec V and RSX are newer cars with new engines hence haven't been developed from an aftermarket standpoint really to have tons of crap out for it. So if 14-15second 4-cylinder cars are only acceptable name me any n/a 4-banger that can run faster. I can't think of one especially for the price range we are talking here period. So basically your whole reasoning seems based on bologna. I am not here to argue either, I just find your line of reasoning skewed and not based in some sort of reality.

And no I am not really biased either. I have owned other cars just asI own 2 Nissans and a Honda now. It has nothing to do with bias. I like cars regardless of who makes it. I don't dislike WRXs cause it is a Subaru and I wouldn't mind having one. If I had my choice of cars within reason I would be rolling in a S2000 so don't tell me I am biased. There are plenty of things that I can say bad about the Spec like its notchy shifter but sales and performance I don't believe aren't them.

Oh and I happened to look on one of the RSX forums (RSXZone)and what do you know I didn not see one person get even remotely close to that 14.3 timeslip. In fact the people were averaging low 15s like I thought. So you must be one hell of a driver man. You better go tell RJ Devera to let you pilot that new RSX drag car he has cause you are likely the best RSX driver I have seen. If you are gonna make up stuff ya got to be a little better than that. No timeslip, no video, just word off of what you say which was not even your car but you have like 10 other cars all fairly fast. Hmm something sounds fishy to me but hey what do I know..

NIssan 350z

NIssan 350z

Nissan Forums

Infiniti Forums

Datsun Forums

Technical Forums

Classifieds / Marketplace

Nissan Motorsports

General Forums