ZCar Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

Best year 300ZX TT is........??

2.4K views 4 replies 4 participants last post by  jason  
#1 ·
At this point in time, I am looking for a 300ZX TT but am not sure what year. I have a 1993 TT as of now. What year was best made, mine doesnt have HICAS so I am not worried about 4-Wheel steering, but what year was best from 1990-1995? I know that a '96 isn't what I want because it didn't have the upgradability of the '95's. So what year would be best??? Post any "Votes" or comments here.

-abjacobs
 
#3 ·
I believe that from a performance standpoint, mainly stock power, the '90tt is the "best". I do not say this because I have one, because I's rather have a newer one, but performance wise I would say '90. Only because it was the first year it was sent over, and I believe that Nissan wanted to make a BIG impact, so to do that, they tweeked the car ever so slightly, in order to always "hit" their power ratings that were on paper. That is why this car is said to be qwerky, and cost more to maintain. There are differencess between the '90 and all the others, just like the '96 is different. The changes are just very subtle. I believe that "soft-valves" on early '90 cars were due to just a little to much power, and an attempt to lighten the moving weight. just my $0.02
-Keith
 
#4 ·
Well this may have nothing to do with it, but if you wanna go by the mags I think the fastest 0-60 time I saw from C&D was from a 90 or 91. 5 seconds flat 0-60. Now every car is different, no two cars are exactly the same and drivers are always different as well. Personally for me I would go with a 90-93 only because I don't like the 4-pt spoilers on the 94-96 models. Plus another small difference is I think either the 93 or 94 model moved the seat belts from the doors to the B-pillar. There are other subtle differences but those are the only ones I deem important enough to consider. Also I think 94 got the passenger side air bag. Don't quote me on any of this though.

Basically for performance I would say either a 90 or 91, but we are talking about microscopic differences in performance if you ask me.
 
#5 ·
I'm no expert by any means, and I've not tested this myself, but it's my understanding that in the 90 and 91 models, the turbos were cut loose much lower in the rpm range then in 92+ models. The reason for the change had something to do with turbo reliability. Guess the turbos in 90 and 91 just kept kicking in a little during low rpm pedestrian driving, and wore them out prematurely. The rpm adjustment was considered a turbo reliability mod. As a result, the 90/91 models get a quicker jump out on the 92+, however, I think it all evens out in the end.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.