what about the new z's?

[daddz]

I read that bit about the "X" in one of Ben Milspaugh's books about Z cars years ago. That may have been repeated because of his experience in the aeronautical field. I just looked through the book "Datsun 280ZX" published by Nissan in 1978 and thought there might have been reference to "X" in that book; I will look it over when I have more time.

Yuppie69,

Not all 280ZX's were equipped with headlight washers and digital dashboards. They used to package digital instrumentation with a stereo of some small output (better than stock) and usually with leather seat surfaces and t-tops which made for one hell of a bloated, slow and ill handling car. Make no mistakes because apparently the U.S. market wanted such a car; personally I don't mind driving my '82 280ZX. Mine is a hardtop with cloth seats and an analog dashboard and with the Tokico springs and struts the old girl really doesn't mind corners. The car is definitely better suited to cruising the interstates and is a pretty comfortable car.

The Z31 is strangely enough more of a sportster than my '82. My '86 300ZX is a hardtop and even before the Tokico springs/struts went in, out of the box it handled better than the 280ZX. Alot of that was due to the much improved seats and better steering feel. The V6 also seems to pull more smoothly than the '82's engine. It doesn't sound any better but its a different car. To be honest now that I have owned a Z31 (a couple actually starting with a 50th Anniversary Turbo) I wouldn't seek to repeat the experience again. The parts are becoming scarce and the people that seem to like the Z31 don't like to spend any money on keeping them in good condition.

Okay, maybe I will run for cover now.

[kyteler]

Originally posted by Alfadog

There is no question that the 280ZX was a luxurious grand tourer, not a sports car. If you wanted a sports car, you'd buy an RX7!!!

BLASPHEMOUS!

An RX-7?!?! A freakin' Rotary?! Of course, as far as I'm aware, the 'X' in RX-7 stands for e'X'perimental, which would relate to the conversation.

However, there was plenty of other sports cars you could have chosen from to compare against the ZX, for instance the early 80's had the FJ20DET (RS-X) Skylines and Silvias. And even so, I'd rather have a bloated 280ZX than an RX-7.

[Bambikiller240]

Originally posted by kyteler

However, there was plenty of other sports cars you could have chosen from to compare against the ZX, for instance the early 80's had the FJ20DET (RS-X) Skylines and Silvias. And even so, I'd rather have a bloated 280ZX than an RX-7.

Those cars mentioned above were not available in the USA, except the RX7

[kyteler]

Oh, sorry America

[Bambikiller240]

Originally posted by kyteler

Oh, sorry America

Yeah, we're sorry too. :mad:

[Alfadog]

Ah, you picked that up Michael! I put the RX7 thing in to see if anyone would pick up on the 'X'..

Nothing wrong with rotary engines as long as youre somewhat anal retentive. And there is no questioning it - they were a bloody good handling car... as I understand it they were sometimes referred to as "the 240Z of the 80s"... until they got fat, too, that is.

As for buying an S12 over an RX7? Err, no thanks! I'd take an RX7 over a 280ZX, too. I'm not too blinded by Nissan loyalty to recognise a good car when I see one! That's my taste, anyway... not trying to say youre ignorant, its just different tastes. To be honest if I were in the position to buy a new car in 1980 I would probably buy a second hand 240Z ROFL

[kyteler]

Oh, it's not so much I'm blinded by loyalty, I can appreciate a good vehicle of any make, obviously everyone has different aesthetic tastes and I think the RX7 is a pile of poopie dung Just my tastes. The 2, 3 and 4 are fine and dandy. So it's not directly a Rotary or Mazda thing, the 3 Rotor DeLorean is a cool car. I think the fact that most people make their Rotor "Pulse" is what puts me off, I think it sounds ridiculous.

And around the 80's I would have taken the Toyota Celica/Supra XX 2.8GT over the RX, Anything European and probably a few American cars as well. Early 80's would have been S11 as opposed to S12 (I think) but I still would have taken either.

The reason I mention Nissan first is because it's usually the easiest for me to remember. :stupid:

[Alfadog]

Ah true, but S11's are more puke than S12's anyway!!!

[daddz]

As a former RX7 owner (both 1st and 2nd gen) I found them to be extremely reliable, fun to drive, and great handling cars. Oh, and one small thing Nissan might learn form Mazda: The RX7's don't have to rust in every conceivable orifice unlike the Z car.

Mazda could learn to price their parts a bit more competitively though, instead of trying to make back all of their R & D costs on the backs of the weekend hobbyist.

Two different schools of thought:

Nissan: we'll make a nice looking (S30) car but, it will rust the minute it is minted.

Mazda: we'll make a nice looking car that won't rust but, the parts will send you to the poorhouse (maybe you should've bought that 944 afterall).

[sblake01]

I have test driven a 350Z. The performance was good, the fit and finish was okay, and generally, for the price, it's a good car. But just good, not great, or any other superlative you can come up with. It begs comparisons with other contemporary cars. The RX7, Chrysler Crossfire (yuck!), etc. But, in no way, does it beg comparison with a 1st gen Z. Different cars, different purpose. It would be like comparing a present day Maxima to a 1977 810. The 1st generation Z was unique. What other car of its time really looked like it or performed like it? The 350Z resembles many other cars. Does anyone really think that in 30 years or so there will be Classic 350Z Clubs?

[Dan Baldwin]

1st gen Z was replaced in 1979, by the RX-7, no question.

Rotary reliability? Still iffy. My 90 convertible blew its apex seals right at 100k miles. Apparently that's the approximate life expectancy. Those who track the 3rd gen 7s just accept that they have to replace the "bottom end" Far cry from the indestructible L6!

I love the Crossfire! Way cooler than the 350Z, imo. A good 200 lb. lighter, too. Now if they'd only drop the Hemi into it...

[daddz]

Stephen,

To answer your question let's go back the intial launch of the 240Z in October of 1969; there were lots of cars that looked similar to the 240Z back then:

Jaguar XKE

Ferrari 250SWB, 250GTO, 275GTB/4

Triumph GT6

Opel GT

Saab Sonnet

Toyota 2000GT

Chevrolet Corvette C2

When I write similar I am referring to the long hood, short deck design (cab rearward). With the exception of the Triumph, Saab, and Opel the 240Z was trying to emulate the exotic looking cars and provide a somewhat similar performance experience for a lower price point. In all honesty the writers of the day seemed to be saying that the 240Z is a "good" car considering its price however, at the price of the XKE or C2 the Z didn't quite match up. In this sense the 350Z does beg comparison with the 240Z given the fact that you are able to extract that level of performance from an expense of $26,809 for a base model (w/ tags, tax, etc $28,452 out the door). Okay the styling may not be timeless but, unless you can issue a sportscar that looks like a 240Z or XKE and run the risk of being flamed by the automotive press good luck.

As for the 1977 810 just look at a period brochure for that car. The ad copy reads like an ad for a Buick as it speaks of simulated woodgrain with the engine of the "legendary" 240Z all the while providing "unprecedented luxury" at a price. As for the new Maxima, Nissan doesn't seem to understand where they are going with this car. It probably won't sell as well as the Altima 3.5 SE because there is price disparity. Unless you have to have that roof length sunroof and that edgy styling, the Altima delivers more bang for the buck. I would say the Altima 3.5 SE is a closer comparison for the '77 810 except that its engine is driving the wrong set of wheels.

Dan,

In all of my Rotary experiences I have never had reliability issues. The proper care and feeding for a Rotary involve frequent oil changes and coolant flushes. It couldn't be a simpler engine to maintain. My '85 RX7 GSL-SE had 181,000 miles on it when I bought it and when I sold it the car had 205,000 on it and it would not use a drop of oil between oil changes (every 2500) and it would still wag the tail in 1st, 2nd and sometimes the upshift into 3rd. My second gen. RX7 was a similar story. So the "apparent life expectancy" that you are referring to is somehwat suspicious. I have encountered 2nd gen. RX7's with almost 300,000 miles on the original drivetrain. The only reason those cars experience engine mishaps result from substandard maintenance habits as with most cars.

As for the 3rd gen. RX7's the problem stems from vacuum lines not being tended to in addition to over enthusiastic owners who immediately upon purchase install over-sized exhausts and adjustable boost controllers and other nonsense. With a Rotary you cannot just install a piece without it affecting other parameters of the engine's performance. With a Z you can get away with more nonsense without the engine grenading itself.

With the Crossfire you are benefitting from the merger with Daimler as it uses the SLK's underpinnings with only a 215hp V6 to get the job done. The price is starting at almost $40,000 and delaers in the Washington area have bunches of them sitting on the lot. If Chrysler/Dodge wanted to make a splash why not build the Dodge Razor concept car with 240hp and low curb weight and a price of $15,000! Now that would make a dent in 350Z sales!

In 30 years who knows what car clubs will be around and given the internet there will probably be a 350Z club. By then we will have scrapped a bunch more S30's and we will be the old farts bidding the prices to the sky for clean unmolested examples while younger people will question our sanity!

Let me run for cover now..