ZDan

As I recall, in 2003 the Nissan website listed 32xx as the base vehicle's weight. Every magazine test I read of it had it right at 3300 lb., of course they usually get more "loaded" vehicles. In any case, 3188 lb. is still way too heavy for a car supposedly returning to 240Z ideals, *as far as I'm concerned*.

I'm again going by my memory of measured weights in magazine tests from that time. G35 coupes and sedans as-tested (i.e., with options) came in ~3450 lb., and the Z's tested came in at ~3300. Thumbing through a recent R&T I see the Nismo 350Z coming in at 3550 lb. Is it really 362 lb. heavier than your '05? I doubt it. Weight at the brochure isn't necessarily the ACTUAL curb weight of the vehicle.

So they made parts out of aluminum in an effort to shed weight off the basic platform, hurrah! I appreciate the effort, but in the end the car is still too heavy for me.

Which doesn't invalidate my POINT that manufacturers *can* hold the line on car weights, at the same price point, if the will to do so is there. I knew I'd have to throw it in there because there is a myth floating around that cars MUST always gain weight over time. Not true. Of course if you begin with a luxury sedan platform, you're going to inherit a lot of mass. Sad but true...

Improvements in design, analysis, and construction can give the improved crash protection with minimal weight gain.

[QUOTE]Crash any 1970s vehicle into a brick wall at 38mph, and then crash a 200x model year car into a brick wall.

Amer

Ain't that the truth, it is obese compared to the 240

Penforhire

I'm with ZDan on this. "You sir, are no 240Z!"

Having owned three 1972 240Z's you can call me a big fan-boi. I was SO excited when the 350Z was announced. But when I saw it all my enthusiasm leaked out, similar to the rise and fall of my spirits on Mazda's RX8 release.

I now appreciate the 350Z on its own merits but the early Z-car spirit is severely lacking.

Eluded

This is all basic physics. Of course there are slight variances in the real world. Sorry about the bad formatting but if you integrate the numbers the Z is faster on paper. It has more accelleration in 1st gear (27.3 vs 25.16), 2nd gear (16.7 vs 16.4) and up top it has less pull but taller gears with less drag. I have the entire spreadsheet complete with integration calculations from my physics class in case anyone is interested. It was pretty cool.


350Z -M6
Rear Ratio ratio (ratio * TQ) (F = TqRGk/2D) (Fw/M = a) (Vmax gear) fps Torque Tire Slugs
1 3.538 3.794 13.423172 3176.410611 2857.340879 27.29781018 41 61 236.6363636 2.223333333 104.6728972
1 3.538 2.324 8.222312 1945.698012 1750.253085 16.72116786 68 99 236.6363636 2.223333333 104.6728972
1 3.538 1.624 5.745712 1359.644394 1223.068421 11.68467152 97 142 236.6363636 2.223333333 104.6728972
1 3.538 1.271 4.496798 1064.105927 957.2167257 9.144838362 124 181 236.6363636 2.223333333 104.6728972
1 3.538 1 3.538 837.2194545 753.1209486 7.194994777 157 230 236.6363636 2.223333333 104.6728972
1 3.538 0.794 2.809172 664.7522469 597.9780332 5.712825853 198 290 236.6363636 2.223333333 104.6728972
Tyre Size 26.68 2.223333333 1.111666667
weights 3360 104.6728972


S2000 AP1 Torque 152
ratio rear gRatio ratio ratio * TQ F = TqRGk/2 Fw/M = a Vmax gear Tire Size
3.133 4.1 1.16 14.900548 2264.883296 2202.479704 25.15999947 44 65 2.056666667 87.53894081
2.045 4.1 1.16 9.72602 1478.35504 1437.622405 16.42266164 68 100 2.056666667 87.53894081
1.481 4.1 1.16 7.043636 1070.632672 1041.133879 11.8933799 94 138 2.056666667 87.53894081
1.161 4.1 1.16 5.521716 839.300832 816.1758496 9.323574652 120 176 2.056666667 87.53894081
0.971 4.1 1.16 4.618076 701.947552 682.6070198 7.797752788 143 210 2.056666667 87.53894081
0.811 4.1 1.16 3.857116 586.281632 570.1280052 6.512850166 171 251 2.056666667 87.53894081
Tyres
Tyre Size 24.68 2.056666667 87.53894081
weights 2810 87.53894081

mackbike

350Z= Mustang

S2000= Boxster

All are great for certain people.

RED MX5

[QUOTE=JackS,Feb 8 2008, 12:04 PM]I think the bottom line is-
If you are truely on the fence between these two cars, get the Z.
The S2000 attitude has to be a "I

RED MX5

Find an ET calculator that uses Patrick Hale's formula to calculate ET and trap speed based on WHP and weight, and post a link. That can throw a lot of ice water on a great deal of BS.

Performance is a function of power, not torque. Instantaneous acceleration is a function of thrust, which is an indirect function of torque. "Instantaneous" more or less means "sudden." The car with gobs of torque "leaps" when you goose the gas. BUT, the car with a greater power to weight ratio will win the race, becase that takes more than in instant, work has to be done, and work done is a function of the power available and the mass it is "working with."

More torque/weight = feels faster

More power/weight = is faster.

tof

Why did I choose an S over a Z? 9000 reasons.

__redruM

Another comparison article where the RX-8 comes out on top of both the 350z and the S2000. I'd certainly go RX-8 over the 350Z if I needed more room.
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupe/...ison/index.html

This is my favorite part of the article, the G circle from a figure 8 show that the S2000 is clearly the best handling car and has the acceleration to keep up. (at least in 04) And finally generates the most braking force.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupe/...n/photo_08.html

And this article also compares the two along with other cars, and it is one of the main reasons I bought the S2000 (that and power to weight ratio). The same article made the 350Z sound like a boat, quote
"Nissan

Neutered Sputniks

I think the point about the camaro and corvette was that they were able to maintain the same weight. Weight being directly in relation to mass, I'd have to say that the excuse that the extra weight is for safety is grasping at straws.

There's no need for anyone to get their panties in a twist here. Both are great cars. Designed for different purposes, and thus attract a different market share.

I like that the S isn't forgiving. Having had to drive my truck more in the past 3 days than I had in the 6 months prior, I can assure you that my S has made me a far better driver. It would follow that if the Z is more forgiving, than it would not require the same increase in driving skill as the less forgiving S...