What is wrong with the 350Z?

[Jeff G 78]

As an auto engineer, I drive a lot of different vehicles. We did a drive a while back with a C6 Corvette, CTS-V, older M5, 350Z, GTO, and Shelby GT500. This was the first time I had any real time in a 350Z and I really didn't have any idea what to expect. If anything, I thought it would feel heavy and bulky. Wow, was I surprised! The 350Z was by far the most nimble car of the group and felt WAY lighter and more connected to the road than any of the other cars. The C6 was a nice car, but felt cumbersome and big compared to the Z. Of the cars on the drive, the Z was by far the best driver's car and was the most playfull of the group. I always read on the Z sites about how the 350Z isn't a real Z and how it should have a ZX badge, etc. etc. IMHO, if those people would drive the Z and it's MODERN competitors back to back, they would change their minds about the Z. Modern cars are not and will never be 240Z's!!! The amount of saferty, emissions, and creature comforts that buyers demand, add huge amounts of weight to even the best designs. The C6 Z06 is the only car I can think of that defies the trend. Yes, the 350Z is the same as the G35, M, and FX vehicles, but that's what it took to bring Nissan out of the red and re-establish themselves. I think they did a hell of a job.

The biggest problem I have with the 350Z is the ricer image it's getting. There is no way to predict or prevent this though, so we'll just have to co-exist with the new Z crowd.

[jmark]

R & T article in this month's mag. For the money the 350Z is very easy & stable at speed IMHO. Friends who race it in SCCA T2 say it is a easy car to drive fast.

http://www.my350z.com/forum/showthread.php?t=228268

[Victor Laury]

The MGB was introduced in the Fall of 1962 as a '63 model. Nissan was making Roadsters that early?

Yea. I know this is a different thread - in a different forum - but Will is right. It's close enough to call it a draw, but Datsun debut it's sports months before the MGB.

Besides, other than both being a convertible sports car, the two are really different beasts from very different design roots. Much like the other generalizations made, Nissan did it's own work, despite the many claims of adaptation.

[John Coffey]

While I can agree with all you and Arne just said, the one real argument there is how much less it costs to put an S2000 in the same arena-much less ahead in the same race! Honda support and sponsorship is sooo much more available than the Nissan counterparts.

I'm not sure where this is coming from, Nissan Motorsports offers pretty good contingencies and parts discounts (up to "free") for registered racers. The dollars are comparable to what Honda offers based on my discussions with Bob Endicott. Regarding race prep costs, having done race prep on two Honda S2Ks I also am at a loss as to why its supposedly cheaper then the 350Z to build into a race car. Both require full cages, both require expensive shocks, both require big wheels and tires, both require oiling system upgrades, both require racing clutches, both require fuel cells, both require racing seats, etc. Where are the dollar savings?

[jmark]

To add to that John I don't see the S2000 that competitive in SCCA T2 or GA Cup. The 350Z competes with and beats much more costly cars. The S2000 is very good at AutoX. It is more difficult to drive fast. I have owned both and the 350Z is much more stable. The car is reminds me of my E36 M3.

[hls30.com]

My info came from an in depth conversation with the parts manager at the local Nissan dealer who has switched form a 350Z to the S2000 for the reaons given. He is racing in this area competitively.

Will

[Mike]

It probably depends on the kind of racing you'd want to do.

[John Coffey]

I though the S2K was a T3 car this year? Maybe not although I do know a few people requested a reclass of the car from T2 to T3.

[hls30.com]

His biggest complaint was that Nissan was more than happy to sponsor golf, Bicycle events, and marathons, but didn't want to help out in a sport in which their porduct was used...With NO connecttion to Honda other than ownersip of a car, he had parts and expertise tossed his way form all over...

I'll get with him over the weekend for more info, but if an award winning (My parts purchases at work haha!) Parts Manager at a well and long established Nissan Dealership has troubles...

Will

[daddz]

I have a love-hate relationship with my 350Z. The recalls are becoming annoying (tires, fuel filler hose) and then the first time I went to manually unlock the door from inside the cable snapped requiring yet anothe rvisit to the dealer. The transmission mainshaft bearing noise is not pleasant either especially when it has been noisy since 8k miles. I have mine parked in the garage in Florida at 26k miles and it gets driven last when I visit the other stable mates: '82 280ZX, '81 280ZX, '91 Mustang GT.

It is a competent vehicle and on long trips returns surprising gas mileage. On one trip to Pensacola, Fl. from Maryland it pulled 535 miles out of one tank of gas which averaged out to 31-32mpg. It is alot of fun to drive and that is probably its best feature.

The styling is not the most inspired as I completed the Nissan survey back in '98 or '99 I mentioned that the new car should emulate the E-type, 2000GT, and 275GTB. I also mentioned that they should dust off the tooling and simply remake more S30 bodyshells.

[LEB]

I hate to weigh in on a thread that's stated title is to find fault with something. I'll make some personal observations anyway.

1. When the G35 came out I thought it was strikingly beautiful. When we did the 350Z I thought it was too controversial, too strong of a design statement. After the first year I changed my mind. The G35 now is still beautiful but not in a lasting way. It's starting to fade. The 350 Is now my preference. It has shown more staying power and isn't fading into the background. It's going to be remembered by me and others as a good, strong and important design.

I still don't like the refrigerator door handle but that's just me. Nissan hit a home run just when they needed one.

2.When you try to talk about the 240 and the 350 as though they need to compete with one another you're comparing oranges to apples. It was two different times and two different circumstances. I believe that they were both successful relative to what they needed to do under the circumstances that existed.

Larry

[sblake01]

That's basically what I said on page 1. (Well exactly what I said-apples and oranges) But you really cant compare them. Different cars; different eras.