This comment wouldn't happen to derive from the fact that you have a "low mileage 1991 nsx" currently up for sale for $35k would it?
-
Protip: Profile posts are public! Use Conversations to message other members privately. Everyone can see the content of a profile post.
350Z vs NSX
- Thread starter Akira
- Start date
This comment wouldn't happen to derive from the fact that you have a "low mileage 1991 nsx" currently up for sale for $35k would it?
I owned S2000 before got the NSX. I do miss the S2000, but wouldnt go back unless they come up with more cylinders
and may be maintain the 120 hrs/ltr
the Z....cant say anything yet, have to test drive it. From the looks.....i would personally stay with NSX
the Z....cant say anything yet, have to test drive it. From the looks.....i would personally stay with NSX
N
NSX&RX7
Guest
The 350Z is a car for a wonderful for mass market consideration. As for an NSX comparison, I've seen it before. The choice of such comparisons is always flattering- considering the object of the comparison in now 11+ years old. Between the lines, such comparisons are really intimating that for $35k you can have an "NSX-like" sports car. However, for $35K you can also own an NSX. Given the choice, I'd go with the NSX again and again. Sitting 45" off the ground, enjoying the best road view in the industry, an Honda engine that simply requires regular oil changes and plugs, and the ever-present admiring audience--
I'm sure the 350 is one heck of a car, but an NSX is an NSX is an NSX.
I'm sure the 350 is one heck of a car, but an NSX is an NSX is an NSX.
interesting "upgrade" for 350Z / G35 coupe
Nissan Motorsports (NISMO) now offers a "crate" VQ35 engine (350Z) that produces 450 horsepower.
Each crate engine is laboriously handcrafted in Nissan's Tokyo facility, and each part within this engine is available from Nissan dealers in Japan. The VQ sports 13.5:1 compression and uses a Pectel T6 ECM for fuel and spark control. What kills us is that this thing uses stock cylinder head castings!
###################
see http://bbs.sccaproracing.com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/002422.html
Nissan Motorsports (NISMO) now offers a "crate" VQ35 engine (350Z) that produces 450 horsepower.
Each crate engine is laboriously handcrafted in Nissan's Tokyo facility, and each part within this engine is available from Nissan dealers in Japan. The VQ sports 13.5:1 compression and uses a Pectel T6 ECM for fuel and spark control. What kills us is that this thing uses stock cylinder head castings!
###################
see http://bbs.sccaproracing.com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/002422.html
Hey Manuel,
Does it fit into a Pagani Zonda?
Does it fit into a Pagani Zonda?
These look more like twins separated at birth to me than the TT/350Z do.
I'd like to point out that those images showing rank upon rank of cars do not actually have very many cars in them.
If you look carefully, you'll see each row is four cars deep, and you can only see about 20 cars at most along its length. Furthermore, you can only see four or five rows at most.
So, you're only seeing 5 rows * 20*4 cars = 400 cars. That hardly disproves rarity.
Now, saying they're making 30,000 of them this year, THAT disproves rarity.
[This message has been edited by Aiken Drum (edited 17 March 2003).]
If you look carefully, you'll see each row is four cars deep, and you can only see about 20 cars at most along its length. Furthermore, you can only see four or five rows at most.
So, you're only seeing 5 rows * 20*4 cars = 400 cars. That hardly disproves rarity.
Now, saying they're making 30,000 of them this year, THAT disproves rarity.
[This message has been edited by Aiken Drum (edited 17 March 2003).]
Originally posted by Akira:
I can't believe they are saying 350Z is better car than NSX.I think 350Z is great car, but better than NSX? I don't think so.
After driving the 350Z, I now understand why it is so inexpensive. There is no way that car produces 287hp. If that is to the crank, there must be something seriously wrong with the tranny design. It felt pretty sluggish, more comparable to my Lexus IS300 (and similar in 0-60 times), and my Lex only has 215hp!!!! I'll pass and wait for the RX-8, maybe Mazda got it right!
Never selling my NSX though, the car is so much more than just speed.
------------------
[email protected]
Inventory
- 1992 Acura NSX Black
- 2002 Audi TT 225 Coupe Black - SOLD!
- 2002 Lexus IS 300 Blue - FOR SALE!
- 2001 Nissan Xterra Blue
- 1968 Lincoln Sedan Black (Yes the Matrix Car!)
- 2003 BMW M3 Coupe Laguna Seca Blue - New Addition!
[/list=a]
All I can say is it must be winter for THAT car to generate this much discussion on an NSX forum.
- Richard
- Richard
One of my friends just got a track model, and I must admit I like it. The interior is very cheap looking, and I guess that is where they saved a lot of money. Due to all the torque and engine sound it feels a tick faster than my 95, but according to the magazines it's slower.
Nobody brought up the recent Road and Track article where the 350 track model beat the M3 and 996 on the road course. I'd say the 350 would be a good match for 97+ NSXs and it'll dust earlier models.
Nobody brought up the recent Road and Track article where the 350 track model beat the M3 and 996 on the road course. I'd say the 350 would be a good match for 97+ NSXs and it'll dust earlier models.
Take the Enzo, for example. That car costs $480,000, or something like that. Worth it? Pobably not... If every dollar on a price tag is worth a given amount of performance, then the amount of performance gained per extra dollar spent over the NSX or 360 is not equal to the dollar to performance ratio of the less expensive cars... if you ask me.
Fast 1/4 mile cars are a dime a dozen, cars as capable on a road course as the NSX are not.
I can't believe that nobody flamed the door handles! I guess if you haven't seen the car in person you might not notice that they stick out obnoxiously from the side of the car. I looks like a 4 year old made a mistake putting a model together. Maybe if they painted them body color they wouldn't stick out like a sore thumb.
------------------
1991 Red/Ivory #2055 1991 GMC Syclone-For Sale
1998 Integra GSR
------------------
1991 Red/Ivory #2055 1991 GMC Syclone-For Sale
1998 Integra GSR
I hate people who talk s***. I was in this argument once in this fourm and I tell them this car doesn't suck it is a realy good car, not the best, but up there. I tell them, then tell me why it took about ten years for other car companies to make cars that equal or exceeds the NSX's performance. Then they said "cause it didn't". After than I told them off and left seeing that they are blind as hell in thinking that this car sucks. I don't know but its people like that who can't handle the truth. I understand that the NSX isn't the best but man for what it is and how well it does it man it is good. I just tell people tell me of a car that can hit 170mph or 180mph with about only 290hp. Not much or none from my memory of vehicles.
Sorry the memories are making me agrivated again.
Sorry the memories are making me agrivated again.
Some crude calculations: (g)(slalom)/(0-100):
3.3: WRX;
3.6: RX-8;
4.2: S2000, G35 SC, Ferrari 348;
4.5: '93 NSX, 350Z, BoxsterS, Testarossa;
4.7: Evo7, Ferrari 355S;
5.0: '97 NSX, Evo8, C2, Ferrari 456GT;
5.2: M3cpe, 512TR
5.4: Vanquish
5.6: 355B
5.8: 360S
6.1: '96tt, 550M
6.6: Z06
6.9: '02tt
6.8: LMurci
7.2: 360M
8.0: F40, Viper SRT/10
8.5: F50
8.8: McLaren
3.3: WRX;
3.6: RX-8;
4.2: S2000, G35 SC, Ferrari 348;
4.5: '93 NSX, 350Z, BoxsterS, Testarossa;
4.7: Evo7, Ferrari 355S;
5.0: '97 NSX, Evo8, C2, Ferrari 456GT;
5.2: M3cpe, 512TR
5.4: Vanquish
5.6: 355B
5.8: 360S
6.1: '96tt, 550M
6.6: Z06
6.9: '02tt
6.8: LMurci
7.2: 360M
8.0: F40, Viper SRT/10
8.5: F50
8.8: McLaren
Yup, they must be pretty crude, because I have no idea what you're talking about.
Is that a commonly used "overall" metric for performance? Haven't seen it before. The mags usually do a weighted ranking/average of all the performance stats to arrive at their "winner".
Lets see, some numbers I dug up for the Viper Venom:
0-100 mph 7.4
Lateral acceleration, g 1.03
Speed through 600-ft slalom, mph 73.5
So then (1.03*73.5)/7.4 = 10.23, which trumps them all.
Some fuzzy math involved, and the 0-100 figure will dominate since most sports cars are pretty close to 1g in skidpad, and fairly similar in slalom times, but can be wildly different in 0-100. Also, braking is not included in this formula, and not all slaloms/skidpads are created equal.. but indeed the fastest cars tend to get the top scores.
[This message has been edited by Timbo (edited 30 March 2003).]
On the 350z topic, the item that caught my attention was either CD or R/T magazine reported an autocross version from the factory with cage, 450hp? motor and lightened ready to race for around $50k. Now if it's streetable, what a beast.
Actually that is a serious competitor for that kind of money.
Anyone remember the article please correct my memory and fill in the blanks on this. Thanks.
Actually that is a serious competitor for that kind of money.
Anyone remember the article please correct my memory and fill in the blanks on this. Thanks.
Calculations are not really that crude or fuzzy. Slalom & skidpad numbers are all from road and track mag, which always uses a 200 ft diameter skidpad and 700ft slalom with 8 cones. Although 0-100 acceleration can drive the result, the product of slalom x skidpad varies enough to drive the result as well:
WRX: 52.8 Vanquish: 57.8 '93 NSX: 58.3
456GT: 58.4 S2000: 59.3 '97 NSX-T: 59.9
550M: 60.0 350Z: 61.0 G35sc: 62.3
355B: 63.0 360M: 64.5 Z06: 65.5
SRT/10: 71.3
It would certainly be of interest to include braking times in a formula. Others might be interested in including pre- or post-tax dollar cost. Still, others may not be interested at all. That's OK.
WRX: 52.8 Vanquish: 57.8 '93 NSX: 58.3
456GT: 58.4 S2000: 59.3 '97 NSX-T: 59.9
550M: 60.0 350Z: 61.0 G35sc: 62.3
355B: 63.0 360M: 64.5 Z06: 65.5
SRT/10: 71.3
It would certainly be of interest to include braking times in a formula. Others might be interested in including pre- or post-tax dollar cost. Still, others may not be interested at all. That's OK.
The 350Z is an interesting proposition - with good performance and catchy styling (though one that can be seen as derivative).
However:
1) I highly doubt it will replace the NSX in anyone's stable
2) I'd rather negotiate a hell of a deal on a new Vette (specially now with the financial incentives out there!) than to pay $35k for a 350Z.
BTW, I am a former Z-lover who owned both a '91 and a '95 300ZX Twin Turbo (modded). I think the styling of the previous-gen Z is a lot more attractive and definitely timeless.
However:
1) I highly doubt it will replace the NSX in anyone's stable
2) I'd rather negotiate a hell of a deal on a new Vette (specially now with the financial incentives out there!) than to pay $35k for a 350Z.
BTW, I am a former Z-lover who owned both a '91 and a '95 300ZX Twin Turbo (modded). I think the styling of the previous-gen Z is a lot more attractive and definitely timeless.
THE 350z is definitely not in the same league as the NSX but it
does handle great. I paid 25,500 for mine which is a couple
grand off sticker. I also had a 260z years ago-I was younger then
but always considered it one of the top 10 cars that i owned.
The new Z is very good but it definitely will not claim a top 10 spot.
I do like the bare bones design-sort of a throughback to early
sports cars. THE ROLL UP WINDOWS ARE A NICE FEATURE.
does handle great. I paid 25,500 for mine which is a couple
grand off sticker. I also had a 260z years ago-I was younger then
but always considered it one of the top 10 cars that i owned.
The new Z is very good but it definitely will not claim a top 10 spot.
I do like the bare bones design-sort of a throughback to early
sports cars. THE ROLL UP WINDOWS ARE A NICE FEATURE.
PFORPAUL said:
260Z?
