Why is the S2000 a better car than the 350z
02-09-2008, 08:55 AM
#111
Registered User
I remember test driving a 350 z a few years back and ended up buying a 5sp is300. I just couldn't find anything special about the Z. Struck me as the mustang does.
Test drove it again a few years after and ended up buying my 07 s2000. To me the Z is a good car, but if i'm looking for a sports car its not sporty enough... and if i'm looking for a GT car its not roomy and comfortable enough. I've tried to like it, because i do think it looks nice, I just can't seem to find a place for it.
Test drove it again a few years after and ended up buying my 07 s2000. To me the Z is a good car, but if i'm looking for a sports car its not sporty enough... and if i'm looking for a GT car its not roomy and comfortable enough. I've tried to like it, because i do think it looks nice, I just can't seem to find a place for it.
02-09-2008, 01:13 PM
#112
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Dry Branch
Posts: 7,087
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to Drag Times, a stock S2000 and a stock 350Z appear to be a dead heat in the quarter mile. Here's the way they stack up. 
I couldn't help noticing that our own Wisconsin S2k was number six on their list, with his 13.8 second time.
I couldn't help noticing that our own Wisconsin S2k was number six on their list, with his 13.8 second time.
02-11-2008, 07:39 AM
#113
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Los Angeles, Calif.
Posts: 684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ZDan,Feb 8 2008, 06:30 PM
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.
More like a 1000 lb. increase (or at least 888 lb. if we accept the 3188 lb. brochure weight). So why not a 2000 lb. increase to make you even more saferer? That's where your reasoning is pointing.
Totally agree that the S2000 is overweight. To me, that they couldn't get it closer to Miata weight was a big disappointment.
Agreed, again. My minimalist tastes in automobiles is in pretty stark contrast with 90% of the population, who just LOVE big, heavy, lumbering behemoths. The unwashed masses...
I don't have a problem with "parts bin engineering", I just wish there were a lot more small/lightweight rwd platforms out there! I don't think Nissan would have gone too far wrong in spending it's 350Z and GT-R development time and money on a small lightweight family of rwd/irs cars. A new 510esque sedan/wagon (to compete with Mazda3), new 240SX, and new Z, designed with mass minimization a primary objective. But of course that wouldn't agree with the tastes of the average American overconsumer. Then again, consumer tastes might be about to change as a matter of necessity...
I would never deny that is a great road car and a great track car.
I disagree. To me the '91+ S13 240SX is as close as anyone's come to the original 240Z to date. A Z built on the S13 platform would've been perfect for me.
Yes, but that doesn't mean +43% weight gain from 1970 to 2003 was inevitable. Corvette is still in its same market niche, at the same relative price point, and the SAME WEIGHT as it was way back when.
Yes, it costs more than the Z now, as it did then. But the key is, there was the WILL on the parts of the engineers and designers and project management to keep weight in check. How odd is it that over the years GM, of all companies, is just about the only one to hold the line on weight, while all the Japanese and Europeans have packed it on like CRAZY?
Bottom line:
In my opinion, the 350Z is not a reasonable modern interpretation of the 240Z.
It is a perfectly good sports version of the G35, which is an excellent luxury/sport coupe/sedan.
The 350Z is a great car. But it's no 240Z...
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.
More like a 1000 lb. increase (or at least 888 lb. if we accept the 3188 lb. brochure weight). So why not a 2000 lb. increase to make you even more saferer? That's where your reasoning is pointing.
Totally agree that the S2000 is overweight. To me, that they couldn't get it closer to Miata weight was a big disappointment.
Agreed, again. My minimalist tastes in automobiles is in pretty stark contrast with 90% of the population, who just LOVE big, heavy, lumbering behemoths. The unwashed masses...
I don't have a problem with "parts bin engineering", I just wish there were a lot more small/lightweight rwd platforms out there! I don't think Nissan would have gone too far wrong in spending it's 350Z and GT-R development time and money on a small lightweight family of rwd/irs cars. A new 510esque sedan/wagon (to compete with Mazda3), new 240SX, and new Z, designed with mass minimization a primary objective. But of course that wouldn't agree with the tastes of the average American overconsumer. Then again, consumer tastes might be about to change as a matter of necessity...
I would never deny that is a great road car and a great track car.
I disagree. To me the '91+ S13 240SX is as close as anyone's come to the original 240Z to date. A Z built on the S13 platform would've been perfect for me.
Yes, but that doesn't mean +43% weight gain from 1970 to 2003 was inevitable. Corvette is still in its same market niche, at the same relative price point, and the SAME WEIGHT as it was way back when.
Yes, it costs more than the Z now, as it did then. But the key is, there was the WILL on the parts of the engineers and designers and project management to keep weight in check. How odd is it that over the years GM, of all companies, is just about the only one to hold the line on weight, while all the Japanese and Europeans have packed it on like CRAZY?
Bottom line:
In my opinion, the 350Z is not a reasonable modern interpretation of the 240Z.
It is a perfectly good sports version of the G35, which is an excellent luxury/sport coupe/sedan.
The 350Z is a great car. But it's no 240Z...
RE: Nismo 350Z weighing as much as you said. Nismo 350Z weighs 3375lbs, according to the 2008 Z brochure. The 3550# figure is a TEST weight that includes the weight of a driver plus any relevant test equipment.
That accounts for a 187# mass increase, which was, as I recall, changed with 2006 "refreshen" year. If you've driven both a pre-06 car and a post-06 car, you will hear that the vehicle is far quieter than before. OK, you're saying to yourself hey, that's a lot of weight--it is unacceptable. Consumers say differently. With this day and age of J.D. Power Initial Quality surveys (not counting those from other companies such as R.L. Polk, etc.), the people likely spoke and additional sound insulation was put in. Note also that year the 05 35th Anniversary and Track grade "300hp" engine was also made standard, accounting for even more weight.
Weight expressed in brochures are indeed the true curb weight for the vehicle. If it wasn't, that would be not only misrepresentation to consumers, but also to the federal government, something that would be a very costly printing error for automakers.
Yes, Al was used extensively in the suspension--also another item I wish the S2000 had. Need we revisit the whole concept of unsprung weight? Surely you, as a self-proclaimed driver with road circuit experience can understand that?
Crash/rollover standards, weight, vehicle MSRP: Pick two.
RE: why not make it 2000# heavier--MPG. Heard of CAFE yet?
RE: Corvette holding mass: That vehicle started heavier than the 240Z, at 32xx lbs. Back in the 1970s, popular belief was that Japanese cars were a bit, um, thin. Crash regs then weren't that stringent either. Fast forward to today where most car manufacturers are squeezing every nickel & dime out of their vehicles. Yes, it does share a common platform with the G35 and FX. It is also a lot shorter than those vehicles too, in overall length, and wheelbase. It was likely chosen not only because it was shared (and Nissan as a company at the turn of the century had only just started their turnaround), but because it was also a robust and solid platform. Yes Corvette is the same weight. Its base price is also $17,420 more--enough to buy a spare Fit, Versa, or Cobalt (if you even want one of those things). You get what you pay for. Having said that, there's no way I'd take a Corvette over a S2000 or a 350Z.
Perhaps the essence of this debate is exactly in the term interpretation. Styling (evoking memories of the 240Z) and bang for the buck is what the 350Z is all about. Subjective indeed.
02-11-2008, 09:55 AM
#114
Originally Posted by pyrocpu,Feb 11 2008, 08:39 AM
Those weight numbers I've furnished comes straight from either brochures (05 Z) or past copies of Kelley Blue Book (G35).
[QUOTE]RE: Nismo 350Z weighing as much as you said. Nismo 350Z weighs 3375lbs, according to the 2008 Z brochure.
02-11-2008, 12:19 PM
#115
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Los Angeles, Calif.
Posts: 684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=ZDan,Feb 11 2008, 01:55 PM] KBB number only reveals where they got the number from: Nissan. Weight "at the brochure" is frequently optimistic.
The 3550 lb. weight is the CURB weight, without the driver or test equipment. The S2000 CR they were comparing it against had a 2790 curb weight, which *obviously* doesn't include driver or test equipment weight.
http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/downloa...onda-Nissan.pdf
No they aren't.
The gummint knows the REAL numbers, the weight of the vehicle for crash-testing and homologation. What the manufacturer puts in the brochure can be weight minus all fluids, battery, etc. etc.
Motorcycles are particularly bad about misrepresenting the actual "curb" weight, and apparently automakers do it too...
I understand it as a driver and also as a vehicle structural engineer. Consider, though, that usually only ~1/3 of control arm weight is "unsprung", as the heavier end is the inboard end, which doesn't go uppie/downie with the wheel. Also consider that in-plane strength/weight and stiffness/weight of steel and aluminum are similar. The advantage of aluminum structures is that they are "bulkier", and have greater strength/weight and stiffness/weight in bending. BUT, aluminum is more subject to fatigue, so that takes away some of the advantage (i.e., to meet fatigue life requirements, you have to operate at lower stresses relative to the outright strength of the material).
Well, I could pick the Miata and have all three. It's a given that any vehicle sold in the U.S. meets minimum crash standards, which are beyond my "minimum requirements" anyway.
It's a grossly oversimplified model you have. Weight doesn't necessarily buy you crash/rollover protection. And lighter weight doesn't necessarily cost more. It *DOES* cost a LOT more when you try to "add light weight" to an existing design. Which is why it is so important to have mass minimization as a primary design driver at the outset. Starting with a luxury/sport sedan/coupe platform for your "sports car", like Nissan did, ensures that you'll have a weight problem.
CAFE hasn't gone up in over 20yrs, and car masses show it. The better the engines/drivetrains get, the more mass they pack on them
It is not more expensive because they held the line on weight. It is at pretty much the same price point as it was then. The '02 Camaro cost less than the 350Z, and also its weight and price point were unchanged relative to ~1970. I do agree that both those cars had a lot more mass to start out with. But still there's no excuse for the 350Z to be heavier, or at least as heavy as, a Corvette, and nearly as heavy as the last V8 Camaro. IMO.
As a 240Z owner for the past 15 years, I have to say the 350Z doesn't evoke the 240Z at all to me. The weight and the styling are WAY off the mark. I do agree that bang/buck is quite good, but it is for a Mustang GT, too. Those of us who are more interested in a smaller, lighter-weight, more minimalist sports car are left quite cold by the 350Z. And don't get me started on the styling! The 240Z evokes Ferrari GTO and 275GTB . 350Z evokes the last Toyota Celica and the Audi TT 
. It in no way evokes 240Z to my eye! My subjective opinion
The 3550 lb. weight is the CURB weight, without the driver or test equipment. The S2000 CR they were comparing it against had a 2790 curb weight, which *obviously* doesn't include driver or test equipment weight.
http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/downloa...onda-Nissan.pdf
No they aren't.
The gummint knows the REAL numbers, the weight of the vehicle for crash-testing and homologation. What the manufacturer puts in the brochure can be weight minus all fluids, battery, etc. etc.
Motorcycles are particularly bad about misrepresenting the actual "curb" weight, and apparently automakers do it too...
I understand it as a driver and also as a vehicle structural engineer. Consider, though, that usually only ~1/3 of control arm weight is "unsprung", as the heavier end is the inboard end, which doesn't go uppie/downie with the wheel. Also consider that in-plane strength/weight and stiffness/weight of steel and aluminum are similar. The advantage of aluminum structures is that they are "bulkier", and have greater strength/weight and stiffness/weight in bending. BUT, aluminum is more subject to fatigue, so that takes away some of the advantage (i.e., to meet fatigue life requirements, you have to operate at lower stresses relative to the outright strength of the material).
Well, I could pick the Miata and have all three. It's a given that any vehicle sold in the U.S. meets minimum crash standards, which are beyond my "minimum requirements" anyway.
It's a grossly oversimplified model you have. Weight doesn't necessarily buy you crash/rollover protection. And lighter weight doesn't necessarily cost more. It *DOES* cost a LOT more when you try to "add light weight" to an existing design. Which is why it is so important to have mass minimization as a primary design driver at the outset. Starting with a luxury/sport sedan/coupe platform for your "sports car", like Nissan did, ensures that you'll have a weight problem.
CAFE hasn't gone up in over 20yrs, and car masses show it. The better the engines/drivetrains get, the more mass they pack on them
It is not more expensive because they held the line on weight. It is at pretty much the same price point as it was then. The '02 Camaro cost less than the 350Z, and also its weight and price point were unchanged relative to ~1970. I do agree that both those cars had a lot more mass to start out with. But still there's no excuse for the 350Z to be heavier, or at least as heavy as, a Corvette, and nearly as heavy as the last V8 Camaro. IMO.
As a 240Z owner for the past 15 years, I have to say the 350Z doesn't evoke the 240Z at all to me. The weight and the styling are WAY off the mark. I do agree that bang/buck is quite good, but it is for a Mustang GT, too. Those of us who are more interested in a smaller, lighter-weight, more minimalist sports car are left quite cold by the 350Z. And don't get me started on the styling! The 240Z evokes Ferrari GTO and 275GTB
. 350Z evokes the last Toyota Celica and the Audi TT . It in no way evokes 240Z to my eye! My subjective opinion
02-11-2008, 03:06 PM
#118
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,791
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ITS THIS SIMPLE...
WHY U WANT A HEAVY BITCH...
WHEN U CAN HAVE THIS SLEEK SLENDER WHORE..WHO LOVES IT WHEN U BEAT ON HER...AND HEARING HER MOAN TO 9K IS MORE ADDICTING THEN CRACK...
IS THAT GOOD ENOUGHT?
HAHAH!
WHY U WANT A HEAVY BITCH...
WHEN U CAN HAVE THIS SLEEK SLENDER WHORE..WHO LOVES IT WHEN U BEAT ON HER...AND HEARING HER MOAN TO 9K IS MORE ADDICTING THEN CRACK...
IS THAT GOOD ENOUGHT?
HAHAH!
02-11-2008, 04:08 PM
#120
Originally Posted by pyrocpu,Feb 11 2008, 01:19 PM
Clearly, R&T got their numbers wrong:
You are much too trusting of manufacturers published "curb weights". In the motorcycle world, it is a given that the actual weight, sans fuel, will be quite a bit more than the weight they claim for it. My '03 Tuono is (was) advertised at 416 lb. Actual dry weight = 433 lb., 464 lb. full of fuel. My '01 SV650 was advertised at 367 lb. Actual dry weight is 386, 416 full of fuel, and that's with a lighter-weight exhaust.
Here's the link again to the Nismo Z vs. S2000 CR article: http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/downloa...onda-Nissan.pdf
A rough-and-ready rule of thumb for calculating hp as a function of weight is:
hp = (trap speed/234)^3 * weight
Allowing for 200 lb. of test driver and fuel, I get 239hp for the CR (+1%), and 313hp for the Nismo Z (+2%), using the R&T curb weight numbers. If I plug in the brochure weight number for the Z, I get only 280hp for the Nismo Z (-8.5%). In recent years, they've changed the rules to prevent manufacturers from giving "optimistic" hp ratings, so Nissan is not overrating their hp. In fact, they're UNDERrating the curb weights.
In any case, even if R&T's scale is reading heavy (I don't think it is), the *relative* weights between the CR and Nismo 350Z are:
CR = 2790 lb
Nismo Z = 3550 lb.
Here are a couple of additional comparison test curb weights:
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?se...4&page_number=4
2004 S-Tune 350Z: 3300 lb.
2004 MazdaSpeed RX-8: 3100 lb.
http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/downloa..._data_panel.pdf
2005 350Z 35th anniv.: 3370 lb.
2005 S2000: 2860 lb.
2005 Elise: 1960 lb.
2005 Corvette: 3290 lb.
2005 SLK350: 3280 lb.
2005 Z4 3.0i: 3110 lb.
2005 Boxster S: 3130 lb.
[QUOTE]Government "real" numbers as you indicate, are what's called a test weight class. Each TWC is defined by a powertrain and transmission setup.