[two_three_two]

Originally Posted by baron95

But all the reviewers say the non NISMO handle like trash, and the performance numbers suck.

I don’t understand why Toyota and Nissan lost the ability to produce sports cars.

i dont think there is an auto ""journalist"" left in the game that i respect, so i'll leave the reviews to people who actually read them.

someone i trust with this stuff has driven one (i haven't yet, unfortunately, since they probably havent even made 2,000 at this point) and his opinion was that the car is wildly misunderstood right now. his take was that the handling is very old school with lots of roll and dive but in a manner that adds to the feedback and enhances the character of the car as a street tuned, every day comfy sporty coupe. transitions and bumps are well damped. to call it a sports car is probably a step too far by 2024 standards. it seems like a relic of times past, because it is- the manual transmission, enthusiast oriented sporty coupe that wants to be (and for many people can be) an only car.

i think if they flooded the market at the 42k and 52k price points these would find a lot of love and a lot of homes for people and serve as a decent platform for modification, but nissan would rather take the easy, captive sales and pad dealer margins.

[baron95]

Originally Posted by two_three_two

i dont think there is an auto ""journalist"" left in the game that i respect, so i'll leave the reviews to people who actually read them.

someone i trust with this stuff has driven one (i haven't yet, unfortunately, since they probably havent even made 2,000 at this point) and his opinion was that the car is wildly misunderstood right now. his take was that the handling is very old school with lots of roll and dive but in a manner that adds to the feedback and enhances the character of the car as a street tuned, every day comfy sporty coupe. transitions and bumps are well damped. to call it a sports car is probably a step too far by 2024 standards. it seems like a relic of times past, because it is- the manual transmission, enthusiast oriented sporty coupe that wants to be (and for many people can be) an only car.

i think if they flooded the market at the 42k and 52k price points these would find a lot of love and a lot of homes for people and serve as a decent platform for modification, but nissan would rather take the easy, captive sales and pad dealer margins.

Interesting perspective - kinda like a Miata that rolls more than a boat, but somehow it works.

I'm all for variety - not everything needs to be as buttoned down as a Cayman to be fun.

Thanks for posting this.

[two_three_two]

Originally Posted by baron95

Interesting perspective - kinda like a Miata that rolls more than a boat, but somehow it works.

I'm all for variety - not everything needs to be as buttoned down as a Cayman to be fun.

Thanks for posting this.

bingo. i don't think you, me, or most other M2 folks would be happy with it as a direct replacement, but theres definitely an audience for it.

[AmuroRay]

Originally Posted by two_three_two

i dont think there is an auto ""journalist"" left in the game that i respect, so i'll leave the reviews to people who actually read them.

someone i trust with this stuff has driven one (i haven't yet, unfortunately, since they probably havent even made 2,000 at this point) and his opinion was that the car is wildly misunderstood right now. his take was that the handling is very old school with lots of roll and dive but in a manner that adds to the feedback and enhances the character of the car as a street tuned, every day comfy sporty coupe. transitions and bumps are well damped. to call it a sports car is probably a step too far by 2024 standards. it seems like a relic of times past, because it is- the manual transmission, enthusiast oriented sporty coupe that wants to be (and for many people can be) an only car.

i think if they flooded the market at the 42k and 52k price points these would find a lot of love and a lot of homes for people and serve as a decent platform for modification, but nissan would rather take the easy, captive sales and pad dealer margins.

Yeah, I just don’t agree. The Cayman is said to be a livable car - the older Zs we’re more rightly sprung (and I think had option packages for a sportier feel, including LSD, bigger wheels and bigger brakes.

The 300ZX competed with Corvettes, the 350z was considered a performance bargain against the E46 M3 and 996 Carrera. This new car is a warmed over 350Z with a big engine and soft sloppy suspension. Now, if you want a car that can perform as it should have initially, you have to pony up for the Nismo.

If you want something that practical l, buy a 4 seater (and Nissan missed the mark by not making this 2+2) there was no reason to make this car as sloppy as it was besides cost cutting and greed. Nissan of the 90s and early 2000s is dead, this new Nissan just build cheap overpriced crap.

[two_three_two]

Originally Posted by AmuroRay

Yeah, I just don’t agree. The Cayman is said to be a livable car - the older Zs we’re more rightly sprung (and I think had option packages for a sportier feel, including LSD, bigger wheels and bigger brakes.

The 300ZX competed with Corvettes, the 350z was considered a performance bargain against the E46 M3 and 996 Carrera. This new car is a warmed over 350Z with a big engine and soft sloppy suspension. Now, if you want a car that can perform as it should have initially, you have to pony up for the Nismo.

If you want something that practical l, buy a 4 seater (and Nissan missed the mark by not making this 2+2) there was no reason to make this car as sloppy as it was besides cost cutting and greed. Nissan of the 90s and early 2000s is dead, this new Nissan just build cheap overpriced crap.

yeah, dunno about this one chief. have you driven one or is this reading internet slop and regurgitating?

• the current Z has the exact packages you are describing. 42k gets you base with no LSD. 52k gets you "performance" with LSD and other goodies.
• i own a Z32 300ZX that you are quoting and have driven many contemporary sports cars. there is absolutely a balance in Z cars of this era that was absent in the American competition. I have as much brand new OEM suspension and close to OEM spec bushings as one can have some 30-odd years later, and theres plenty of roll squat and dive. the longer wheelbase of the 2+2 makes it an excellent cruiser. anyone claiming these cars came from the factory as flat cornering track monsters is ill-informed or misremembering. its a fantastic set up and very comfortable. mine is also on the more aggressive turbo wheels, so cross that one off the list.
• the 350z had its own line of criticism as being too fat and too soft. so not sure where that is coming from. i drove an 11k mile 350z last summer and ill confirm its harder than an N/A 300ZX but makes the M2 feel like a pile driver.

the new Z car seems to be in line with Z heritage going back to the Z32 300ZX. hell, the Z31 Z had a horrible reputation as a disco-era boulevard cruiser, even after the '88 turbo bumped HP up to a whopping 205.

its a cheap cost cutting exercise, but so was the 370z. at least they made the as many of those as they could sell- which is my main problem here. and in many ways, cost cutting exercises on the Z is now unfortunately part of the heritage too.

[AmuroRay]

Originally Posted by two_three_two

yeah, dunno about this one chief. have you driven one or is this reading internet slop and regurgitating?

• the current Z has the exact packages you are describing. 42k gets you base with no LSD. 52k gets you "performance" with LSD and other goodies.
• i own a Z32 300ZX that you are quoting and have driven many contemporary sports cars. there is absolutely a balance in Z cars of this era that was absent in the American competition. I have as much brand new OEM suspension and close to OEM spec bushings as one can have some 30-odd years later, and theres plenty of roll squat and dive. the longer wheelbase of the 2+2 makes it an excellent cruiser. anyone claiming these cars came from the factory as flat cornering track monsters is ill-informed or misremembering. its a fantastic set up and very comfortable. mine is also on the more aggressive turbo wheels, so cross that one off the list.
• the 350z had its own line of criticism as being too fat and too soft. so not sure where that is coming from. i drove an 11k mile 350z last summer and ill confirm its harder than an N/A 300ZX but makes the M2 feel like a pile driver.

the new Z car seems to be in line with Z heritage going back to the Z32 300ZX. hell, the Z31 Z had a horrible reputation as a disco-era boulevard cruiser, even after the '88 turbo bumped HP up to a whopping 205.

its a cheap cost cutting exercise, but so was the 370z. at least they made the as many of those as they could sell- which is my main problem here. and in many ways, cost cutting exercises on the Z is now unfortunately part of the heritage too.

My guy, no 30 year old car is holding up with modern cars- the key here, and what I presented was the Z of that era was competitive with the best cars in that category. The 300zx was second to the MK4 Supra, and despite being slightly slower, better than the Corvettes of that era.

The 350z was a step down from that competition, but was a substantial value starting under $26000. This New Z is Keith cheap, nor competitive. The base version was beaten by the BRZ/FT86 despite having 160hp/200tq advantage, no back seat and a higher base price.


FYI, the 2+2 was a better car because of its longer wheel base and was the basis for the IMA Racecar.

[two_three_two]

Originally Posted by AmuroRay

My guy, no 30 year old car is holding up with modern cars- the key here, and what I presented was the Z of that era was competitive with the best cars in that category. The 300zx was second to the MK4 Supra, and despite being slightly slower, better than the Corvettes of that era.

The 350z was a step down from that competition, but was a substantial value starting under $26000. This New Z is Keith cheap, nor competitive. The base version was beaten by the BRZ/FT86 despite having 160hp/200tq advantage, no back seat and a higher base price.


FYI, the 2+2 was a better car because of its longer wheel base and was the basis for the IMA Racecar.

regurgitating internet slop it is. got it.

i kindly invite you to use your internet powers to navigate over to an inflation calculator, where you will see that infact, even by the govt's very questionable calculations, $26k in 2003 is equal to... $44k in today dollars. which means that, yes indeed, a base Z is (i'll do the math for you) CHEAPER than a base 350z was at the time.

first paragraph missed the mark so badly that it is hardly worth addressing, but ill give it a go: no one is saying that a 30 year old car is a direct comparison to a modern car. the point was that the current Z, what with the softer suspension and more comfort oriented packaging in general, is a true successor to (most) of the Z car lineage. Z cars were, in most stages of life, tuned to be more on the liveable side of the spectrum. this one is no different. internet warriors are very keen to put this car in a box it does not belong in.

the one thing you got right: the 2+2 is better.