holy ****

 

1993 NISSAN 300ZXTT

0-60 mph: 5.0 sec.


*as reported in "Car and Driver", February 1992
Acceleration
0-30 mph: 2.0 sec.
0-60 mph: 5.0 sec.
0-100: 13.1 sec.
0-120: 19.5 sec.
Quarter Mile Time: 13.7 sec.
Quarter Mile Speed: 102 mph

http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com/features/0306scc_nissan_300zx_twin_turbo/index.html

 

Looks like it is what the 350Z should have been. Good, a step in the right direction. Now all they need to do is bring back the 240SX.

 

1993 300ZXTT Cost:

$37k!

Sorry Ummon

 

motortrend did it in 4.7 sec with a 13.3 at 105.6mph. Still, these numbers aren't anything to write home about.

 

Still it's close enough. Things look promising for this car...

 

oh daddy likey.

 

And againg, the car is sexy as ****. For some reason that exhaust note hints the old L series motors. Sounds like my old cammed L28

 

So a 3300lb car with a 330 crank hp motor hits 60 in 5.1, mediocore. It's got to be putting in the ball park of 280 at the wheels. Decent for a stock car with a warrenty and reasonable insurance, provided you don't have tickets or wrecks.

However as mentioned above it's straight line performance is not any better than the 300TT from 1991. The Camaro and Stang were also doing this in 93'. Actually the stang was more like 5.5 but it did it with less power due to being less than 2900 lbs.

I like it but I don't, mainly the lights. I hate how they bring the body into the light, looks kinda ricey. Another concern is room under the hood and heat when you add boost.

I definetly like it better than the 350.

Good post.

 

Matt 78Z Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
...... Another concern is room under the
> hood and heat when you add boost.

Ever looked under the hood of a Z32? Most shops that work on these keep an ASE certified spider monkey with little tiny hands on retainer just to change out the PCV valves. It was cheaper than keeping an extra set of human knuckles and a couple of quarts of blood on hand. Oh and lets not forget the under hood temps of the ole Z32 approaches that of the suns surface.....and that is at idle.
MaxDoc

 

Yes I can't wait to buy a 4 year old 370z, with 40k break in miles at half the price!

 

MOST folks with typical driving skills can't launch a car with a manual trasmission and come anywhere NEAR those 0-60 times.

 

Words like "supple" and "luxury" seem to contradict the general mentality of the "Z-car people"

...but maybe thats just me.

I feel like this article is directed more towards someone that wishes they could afford a BMW 5 series but decides to settle for the cheaper Nissan.

I'm sure its a great car, and I would love to have the opportunity to drive one...I'm just saying that the content of this review is less than inspiring.

 

"The new Z-car is no featherweight, as this test car's 3,359 pounds prove"

So much for being lighter-weight

I'm either keeping the S2000 or getting a Solstice GXP Coupe.

 

Dan, I gather you would never date a FAT chick......right? haha
BTW apparently the new safety equipment kept the weight high.

 

That's their cop-out excuse, anyway. Yeah, we dropped 250 lb., but then added 155 lb. of that back with safety and features...

I think that new VVEL engine must be quite a bit heavier than the previous 3.5 liter. I don't see how else weight distribution could have gotten WORSE (54/46 vs. 53/47) despite the rear wheels moving significantly forward.

Another disappointment...

 

They proabbly figure that a front end that pushes is safer than a back end that bites ya, but I would have much rather of seen a nice 50/50 balance.

 

The engine does weight more but only something like 20lbs (can't remember the actual number but it's not huge). As for the weight distribution it was done this way on purpose because while acclerating out of a turn the the car displays a perfect 50/50 weight distribution. So static it looks bad at 54/46 but when it counts during cornering it actually is 50/50.

 

That whole line about 50/50 while accelerating out of a turn is utter b.s. For *any* car you will have some amount of acceleration that will result in 50/50. So you can make the claim whatever the distribution is.

The fact is, for a rwd sports car with 10 lb./hp, 54/46 is poor weight distribution. 50/50 is NOT "perfect" weight distribution for such a car, more rearward bias is BETTER. They blew it on the weight distribution and then had the gall to spin it with that lame "but it's 50/50 accelerating out of corners" line.

 

Dan Baldwin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That whole line about 50/50 while accelerating out
> of a turn is utter b.s. For *any* car you will
> have some amount of acceleration that will result
> in 50/50. So you can make the claim whatever the
> distribution is.
>
> The fact is, for a rwd sports car with 10 lb./hp,
> 54/46 is poor weight distribution. 50/50 is NOT
> "perfect" weight distribution for such a car, more
> rearward bias is BETTER. They blew it on the
> weight distribution and then had the gall to spin
> it with that lame "but it's 50/50 accelerating out
> of corners" line.


I seem to recall the new GT-R skyline having a 50/50 weight distribution accelerating out of the corner as well. They also pull 2g of lateral grip. I saw a 45 min documentary on it one day. Although its not rwd.

 

It's total bs marketing spin, *any* car will have 50/50 distribution at some amount of accel (or decel for rear-biased cars).

If the GT-R's static distribution is more forward-biased, it's not as big a deal because all the wheels contribute to acceleration driving out of corners.

On the Z, it's a bigger deal. And again, even 50/50 static is not "perfect", you want a more rearward static bias for a rwd car with any kind of decent power/weight. 54/46 is a piss-poor static weight distribution for what is *supposed* to be a sports car. Fricking Mustangs and Camaros and the like have that kind of weight distribution.

Oh, and the GT-R does NOT pull 2g of lateral grip, that's off by about a factor of 2!

 

Weight Distribution

Yes Dan, 54/46 is exactly what my 95 stang sits at, apparently I've never had it on scales.

After the suspension mods and drivetrain the weight will be shifted back and down. I'll lose some weight on the front with a tubular crossmember and control arms. However I'll gain on the rear going with swapping in a 9" and the transmission setback.

Should be interesting, as of now it weighs 3380 lbs and that's loaded, with leather and a convertible top.