Why is the S2000 a better car than the 350z
02-12-2008, 06:56 AM
#121
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 11 2008, 08:08 PM
I rather doubt it, they weigh every car they test. The weights may be a *little* more than actual curb weight with a dry tank, but on the order of 10s of pounds, not hundreds.
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.
Which further proves that the weight *at the brochure*, which has been printed over a year before sales figures for different configurations are tallied at the end of the sales year, doesn't necessarily have a tremendous amount to do with actual vehicle weight.
Automobile manufacturers are not constrained by Merriam Webster when putting a number for "curb weight" in their brochures.
I'll buy you a case of yer favorite beer if you can present your unmodified Z, with a full tank of fuel, at calibrated scales, and the weight is even close to the 3188 lb. brochure "curb weight". Curb weight is typically given with the tank empty. That's 100 lb. right there. Where/who corner-weighted the car?
Yup. That's a very good argument for driving as heavy a vehicle as you can.
Me, I'll drive as LIGHT-weight a vehicle as I can.
Am I taking my chances? Maybe...
But if overall safety is your goal, a 350Z isn't your best choice anyway. Why not a Volvo?
If "the program" is additional mass for increased perceived "safety", I'm not "with the program", and I won't GET "with the program".
BTW, there are no "lives saved", only "deaths deferred".
*IF* all the additional $$$ was spent on "light weight", it could easily be lighter. The Corvette has to meet a consumer demand for BIG hp, and BIG performance. SUPERcar performance. Supercars are, imo, not the best pure, minimalist sports cars, far from it.
The Z32 was not "outgoing", it was GONE (in the U.S. anyway). But hey, at least that car was attractive and could be easily and cheaply modded to 500hp! The Z32 reached for the SuperCar market. It did OK there for a while. To me, it wasn't even trying to be a Z in the 240Z vein.
All those vehicles are overwrought and overweight. The people that buy them will never understand the fun/joy/excitement of speeding along at a screaming 80mph in a truly lightweight sports car.
So what about all the resources spent on the GT-R?
IMO, money wasted on an overweight, overwrought dinosaur. The expenditure on the 350Z had to be quite modest in comparison. Still, I wish they'd expended the effort on a smaller, lighter-weight rwd/irs platform rather than either of those efforts.
It is agreed then, styling is subjective!
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.
Which further proves that the weight *at the brochure*, which has been printed over a year before sales figures for different configurations are tallied at the end of the sales year, doesn't necessarily have a tremendous amount to do with actual vehicle weight.
Automobile manufacturers are not constrained by Merriam Webster when putting a number for "curb weight" in their brochures.
I'll buy you a case of yer favorite beer if you can present your unmodified Z, with a full tank of fuel, at calibrated scales, and the weight is even close to the 3188 lb. brochure "curb weight". Curb weight is typically given with the tank empty. That's 100 lb. right there. Where/who corner-weighted the car?
Yup. That's a very good argument for driving as heavy a vehicle as you can.
Me, I'll drive as LIGHT-weight a vehicle as I can.
Am I taking my chances? Maybe...
But if overall safety is your goal, a 350Z isn't your best choice anyway. Why not a Volvo?
If "the program" is additional mass for increased perceived "safety", I'm not "with the program", and I won't GET "with the program".
BTW, there are no "lives saved", only "deaths deferred".
*IF* all the additional $$$ was spent on "light weight", it could easily be lighter. The Corvette has to meet a consumer demand for BIG hp, and BIG performance. SUPERcar performance. Supercars are, imo, not the best pure, minimalist sports cars, far from it.
The Z32 was not "outgoing", it was GONE (in the U.S. anyway). But hey, at least that car was attractive and could be easily and cheaply modded to 500hp! The Z32 reached for the SuperCar market. It did OK there for a while. To me, it wasn't even trying to be a Z in the 240Z vein.
All those vehicles are overwrought and overweight. The people that buy them will never understand the fun/joy/excitement of speeding along at a screaming 80mph in a truly lightweight sports car.
So what about all the resources spent on the GT-R?
IMO, money wasted on an overweight, overwrought dinosaur. The expenditure on the 350Z had to be quite modest in comparison. Still, I wish they'd expended the effort on a smaller, lighter-weight rwd/irs platform rather than either of those efforts.
It is agreed then, styling is subjective!
You're contradicting yourself on the TWC digression I had made. Base curb weight is the weight of a vehicle with full tank of fuel, oil, coolant, diff fluid, etc. and no other optional equipment (navi, LSD, power seats, etc.). That is what is listed as "curb weight" in the brochures. TWC is something submitted to Uncle Sam/NHTSA and is an AVERAGE weight of a manufacturer's make/model, not actual make/model curb weight. Re-read it there, Potter.
Let's just say one of the premier shops in SoCal (Gardena) did the CW on my vehicles. Cross weights were within 1lb. Save the beer for yourself; I'd hate to add additional mass to increase "my" curb weight. Or wait... is that before or after I run to the loo???
Buddy, I'm playing devil's advocate. Driving the S around in a sea of SUVs does not make me feel really safe. When S meets a H2 lifted so high you can see the KFC on the other side of the street, UNDER the H2-- it doesn't take a genius to figure out the H2 could drive over the S.
No lives saved and just deferred. Right. Since we didn't know that humans, well, die over time, at some point. Thanks for the clarification; perhaps we'll all need to remember that.
Z32 "outgoing" vs. "gone." Boy, shall we have a debate about semantics? Let's also study your use of sentence fragments, and use of punctuation outside quotation marks, shall we?
And yes, Z32 has more aesthetic appeal to me than Z32.
GT-R--the press seems to make it sound like it is on top of the world, again for the money. Of course, since there seems to be an inherent trust in Nissan's mass numbers, it must weigh somewhere in the area of 4800lbs with just 401hp, right? 7:3x at the 'Ring is pretty admirable. S clocks in in the high 8s, with the "porky" Z at 8:26--and that was the 2003 Z with the original 287hp (though you'd probably say 250hp) motor.
My point is double-pronged: first, vehicle attractiveness (whether it be dynamic or static) are generally subjective. My second point was that Z has proven itself to be a viable candidate in the segment, whether heavy or not.
I have had a Z, and I now have my S. I love both, but for very different reasons.
For everything else (there's MasterCard... just kidding), I'll just agree to disagree.
02-12-2008, 01:17 PM
#122
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Dry Branch
Posts: 7,087
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please show me where the SAE defines "curb weight." I've looked and can't find it, so I'm calling 
unless you can provide a link to their Web site or some other document showing me something I've overlooked.
As far as I can tell, ZDan is 100% correct on all points.
unless you can provide a link to their Web site or some other document showing me something I've overlooked.As far as I can tell, ZDan is 100% correct on all points.
02-12-2008, 02:13 PM
#124
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: TN
Posts: 10,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"DING DING DING"
"Ladies and gentleman the score cards are in......and by unanimous decision - our winner and STILL Champion of posting paragraph's!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! PYROCPU!"
"Ladies and gentleman the score cards are in......and by unanimous decision - our winner and STILL Champion of posting paragraph's!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! PYROCPU!"
02-12-2008, 04:29 PM
#125
When speaking of race car/track car weight, tank-empty weight is what is discussed, and I believe that when the mags weigh the cars they test, what they report as "curb weight" is tank empty whether that's the SAE definition or not. If "curb weight" is indeed tank-empty, I'll settle for being 99% correct 
In any case, tank empty or tank full, the 350Z is a bit of a pig, 500+ lb. heavier than the S.
I'm telling you, the weight in the brochure isn't necessarily *real*.
OK, that's good. I'm more interested in what the total weight was. No way your stock 350Z weighs 3188 lb., tank full or tank empty.
I'm not ascared...
[QUOTE]And yes, Z32 has more aesthetic appeal to me than Z32.
In any case, tank empty or tank full, the 350Z is a bit of a pig, 500+ lb. heavier than the S.
Originally Posted by pyrocpu,Feb 12 2008, 07:56 AM
That is what is listed as "curb weight" in the brochures. TWC is something submitted to Uncle Sam/NHTSA and is an AVERAGE weight of a manufacturer's make/model, not actual make/model curb weight.
Let's just say one of the premier shops in SoCal (Gardena) did the CW on my vehicles. Cross weights were within 1lb.
Buddy, I'm playing devil's advocate. Driving the S around in a sea of SUVs does not make me feel really safe. When S meets a H2 lifted so high you can see the KFC on the other side of the street, UNDER the H2-- it doesn't take a genius to figure out the H2 could drive over the S.
[QUOTE]And yes, Z32 has more aesthetic appeal to me than Z32.
02-12-2008, 04:58 PM
#126
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Dry Branch
Posts: 7,087
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=ZDan,Feb 12 2008, 08:29 PM]However there are still some enthusiasts for whom the enjoyment of an automobile is not the same as the appreciation of the performance numbers it can produce.
02-12-2008, 07:10 PM
#127
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Los Angeles, Calif.
Posts: 684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=ZDan,Feb 12 2008, 08:29 PM] When speaking of race car/track car weight, tank-empty weight is what is discussed, and I believe that when the mags weigh the cars they test, what they report as "curb weight" is tank empty whether that's the SAE definition or not.
02-12-2008, 10:19 PM
#128
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Dry Branch
Posts: 7,087
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by pyrocpu,Feb 12 2008, 11:10 PM
* Z32>Z33
* Z33 is porkier than AP1/2
* WHP > crank HP
* We all love our S2000s!
* Z33 is porkier than AP1/2
* WHP > crank HP
* We all love our S2000s!
j/kI tend to agree more readily with people who share my preference for low mass over torque and/or power. I'd love the S2000 even more if it were half the weight, half the displacement, and half the power. With half the stroke the engine could spin even faster so the half sized car would have the potential for even higher specific output. To me, the car would be better as an S1000, but I do love it just the way it is.
02-13-2008, 05:44 AM
#129
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Los Angeles, Calif.
Posts: 684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by RED MX5,Feb 13 2008, 02:19 AM
Hahaha, I thought WHP was always LESS than crank HP. j/k
I tend to agree more readily with people who share my preference for low mass over torque and/or power. I'd love the S2000 even more if it were half the weight, half the displacement, and half the power. With half the stroke the engine could spin even faster so the half sized car would have the potential for even higher specific output. To me, the car would be better as an S1000, but I do love it just the way it is.
j/kI tend to agree more readily with people who share my preference for low mass over torque and/or power. I'd love the S2000 even more if it were half the weight, half the displacement, and half the power. With half the stroke the engine could spin even faster so the half sized car would have the potential for even higher specific output. To me, the car would be better as an S1000, but I do love it just the way it is.
Fixed.
I also have a preference for lighter vehicles; hence my S2000 purchase. Have you considered karting?