Follow-Up Test: 2004 Nissan 350Z Roadster

[NFS4]

Bah, gimme the coupe. Stiffer, better looking, and it doesn't look retarded with its top on

http://www.edmunds.com/new/2004/nissan/350z/100282452/roadtestarticle.html?articleId=100573&tid=edmunds.h..reviews.graphic.18.*

 

[Descartes]

Agreed. The only roadsters I'd like to drive are the Boxster and the S2000, and that's only because there is no coupe analog (ok, I know there's a Boxster coupe on the way, and I'd get the coupe).

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: Descartes
Agreed. The only roadsters I'd like to drive are the Boxster and the S2000, and that's only because there is no coupe analog (ok, I know there's a Boxster coupe on the way, and I'd get the coupe).

And they both look good with their tops up b/c they were designed that way. I don't think I've ever seen a coupe chop convertible that looked good with its soft-top up.

 

[SuperTool]

Did you miss the part where they say "we were instantly aware of how little the Roadster was flexing on our regular driving loop?"

 

[SuperTool]

Oh and "Credit for this goes to the fact that Nissan planned on making a convertible version of the 350Z from Day One of its design phase. "
So I don't see where you get an idea it's a coupe chop convertible.

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Oh and "Credit for this goes to the fact that Nissan planned on making a convertible version of the 350Z from Day One of its design phase. "
So I don't see where you get an idea it's a coupe chop convertible.

EVERY manufacturer says that they've designed it from the beginning to be a convert. But the fact remains that it is designed as a coupe first, then reinforcements are made during the initial design process to account for the loss of the roof for convertible duty. It's based on the FM chassis for goodness sake. That ain't no convertible platform.

The ONLY convertibles that are designed from the onset to be a convertible are TRUE droptops. Miata, Boxster, S2000, Z4, etc.

And while the 350Z convertible may not flex much, it still flexes more than the coupe

 

[mAdD INDIAN]

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Oh and "Credit for this goes to the fact that Nissan planned on making a convertible version of the 350Z from Day One of its design phase. "
So I don't see where you get an idea it's a coupe chop convertible.

EVERY manufacturer says that they've designed it from the beginning to be a convert. But the fact remains that it is designed as a coupe first, then reinforcements are made during the initial design process to account for the loss of the roof for convertible duty. It's based on the FM chassis for goodness sake. That ain't no convertible platform.

The ONLY convertibles that are designed from the onset to be a convertible are TRUE droptops. Miata, Boxster, S2000, Z4, etc.

And while the 350Z convertible may not flex much, it still flexes more than the coupe

But would the increased flex really make that much of a difference?

Finally, I do think the 350Z was really designed to be as a convertible from the initial stage. They stated that during the early concept models. They didn't want to go the same route as the 300ZX Convert. And you don't know the FM chassis wasn't intended for a convertible duty, only the Nissan engineers know that.

Also ALL convertibles have re-inforcements in the chassis. Look closely at Miatas, S2000s, Audi TTs, etc..


Speaking of re-inforncements, did you know Impalas have bars in the trunk as well as triangular bars in the hood for added rigidty? And the car STILL flexes!

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: mAdD INDIAN

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Oh and "Credit for this goes to the fact that Nissan planned on making a convertible version of the 350Z from Day One of its design phase. "
So I don't see where you get an idea it's a coupe chop convertible.

EVERY manufacturer says that they've designed it from the beginning to be a convert. But the fact remains that it is designed as a coupe first, then reinforcements are made during the initial design process to account for the loss of the roof for convertible duty. It's based on the FM chassis for goodness sake. That ain't no convertible platform.

The ONLY convertibles that are designed from the onset to be a convertible are TRUE droptops. Miata, Boxster, S2000, Z4, etc.

And while the 350Z convertible may not flex much, it still flexes more than the coupe

But would the increased flex really make that much of a difference?

Finally, I do think the 350Z was really designed to be as a convertible from the initial stage. They stated that during the early concept models. They didn't want to go the same route as the 300ZX Convert. And you don't know the FM chassis wasn't intended for a convertible duty, only the Nissan engineers know that.

Also ALL convertibles have re-inforcements in the chassis. Look closely at Miatas, S2000s, Audi TTs, etc..


Speaking of re-inforncements, did you know Impalas have bars in the trunk as well as triangular bars in the hood for added rigidty? And the car STILL flexes!

No, it probably wouldn't make much of a difference, but that's not the point If we started add/removing things that wouldn't make much of a difference in a car themselves, overall we'd have a pretty horrible car.

I love the 350Z, but the roadster just looks a bit off to me. The Miata, Boxster, and S2K seem more like natural roadsters.

 

[NFS4]

And you don't know the FM chassis wasn't intended for a convertible duty, only the Nissan engineers know that.

While the FM chassis a multi-functional chassis (Coupe/Sedan/SUV), the very nature of a convertible makes it a very different beast. Read next response.

Also ALL convertibles have re-inforcements in the chassis. Look closely at Miatas, S2000s, Audi TTs, etc..

Of course they do. But they are designed from the onset as being convertibles (with the exception of the TT which is a hacked up Golf). The Boxster/Miata/S2000 were designed from the onset to be convertibles. Hence, their structures are reinforced from the get go in all the right places (with the additional braces thrown in for good measure).

With the 350Z Convertible, you're already starting with a base structure (FM chassis) and consessions have to be made (i.e. the "bathtub" effect that you get with the TT and the 350Z b/c of high wasteline due to them being based on sedan platforms). There are no such concessions with the purpose built convertibles.

 

[mAdD INDIAN]

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: mAdD INDIAN

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Oh and "Credit for this goes to the fact that Nissan planned on making a convertible version of the 350Z from Day One of its design phase. "
So I don't see where you get an idea it's a coupe chop convertible.

EVERY manufacturer says that they've designed it from the beginning to be a convert. But the fact remains that it is designed as a coupe first, then reinforcements are made during the initial design process to account for the loss of the roof for convertible duty. It's based on the FM chassis for goodness sake. That ain't no convertible platform.

The ONLY convertibles that are designed from the onset to be a convertible are TRUE droptops. Miata, Boxster, S2000, Z4, etc.

And while the 350Z convertible may not flex much, it still flexes more than the coupe

But would the increased flex really make that much of a difference?

Finally, I do think the 350Z was really designed to be as a convertible from the initial stage. They stated that during the early concept models. They didn't want to go the same route as the 300ZX Convert. And you don't know the FM chassis wasn't intended for a convertible duty, only the Nissan engineers know that.

Also ALL convertibles have re-inforcements in the chassis. Look closely at Miatas, S2000s, Audi TTs, etc..


Speaking of re-inforncements, did you know Impalas have bars in the trunk as well as triangular bars in the hood for added rigidty? And the car STILL flexes!

No, it probably wouldn't make much of a difference, but that's not the point If we started add/removing things that wouldn't make much of a difference in a car themselves, overall we'd have a pretty horrible car.

I love the 350Z, but the roadster just looks a bit off to me. The Miata, Boxster, and S2K seem more like natural roadsters.

But we aren't adding/removing too much in this case.

Anyway, I think the reason the 350Z looks "off" is because its fat and pudgy. It looks like a squatting bulldog about to pounce. The Miata and S2k look very lithe, like those racing dogs (greyhounds I think they are called).

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: NFS4

And you don't know the FM chassis wasn't intended for a convertible duty, only the Nissan engineers know that.

While the FM chassis a multi-functional chassis (Coupe/Sedan/SUV), the very nature of a convertible makes it a very different beast. Read next response.

Also ALL convertibles have re-inforcements in the chassis. Look closely at Miatas, S2000s, Audi TTs, etc..

Of course they do. But they are designed from the onset as being convertibles (with the exception of the TT which is a hacked up Golf). The Boxster/Miata/S2000 were designed from the onset to be convertibles. Hence, their structures are reinforced from the get go in all the right places (with the additional braces thrown in for good measure).

With the 350Z Convertible, you're already starting with a base structure (FM chassis) and consessions have to be made (i.e. the "bathtub" effect that you get with the TT and the 350Z b/c of high wasteline due to them being based on sedan platforms). There are no such concessions with the purpose built convertibles.

FM is a platform that is basis for coupes, convertibles, sedans and SUV's. Each of these cars has it's own individually designed structure. I think 350Z Coupe and Roadster are both based on FM platform, but were designed in parallel, and not by chopping the roof off the coupe. You need to stop grasping for straws and give credit where it's due.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: mAdD INDIAN

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: mAdD INDIAN

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Oh and "Credit for this goes to the fact that Nissan planned on making a convertible version of the 350Z from Day One of its design phase. "
So I don't see where you get an idea it's a coupe chop convertible.

EVERY manufacturer says that they've designed it from the beginning to be a convert. But the fact remains that it is designed as a coupe first, then reinforcements are made during the initial design process to account for the loss of the roof for convertible duty. It's based on the FM chassis for goodness sake. That ain't no convertible platform.

The ONLY convertibles that are designed from the onset to be a convertible are TRUE droptops. Miata, Boxster, S2000, Z4, etc.

And while the 350Z convertible may not flex much, it still flexes more than the coupe

But would the increased flex really make that much of a difference?

Finally, I do think the 350Z was really designed to be as a convertible from the initial stage. They stated that during the early concept models. They didn't want to go the same route as the 300ZX Convert. And you don't know the FM chassis wasn't intended for a convertible duty, only the Nissan engineers know that.

Also ALL convertibles have re-inforcements in the chassis. Look closely at Miatas, S2000s, Audi TTs, etc..


Speaking of re-inforncements, did you know Impalas have bars in the trunk as well as triangular bars in the hood for added rigidty? And the car STILL flexes!

No, it probably wouldn't make much of a difference, but that's not the point If we started add/removing things that wouldn't make much of a difference in a car themselves, overall we'd have a pretty horrible car.

I love the 350Z, but the roadster just looks a bit off to me. The Miata, Boxster, and S2K seem more like natural roadsters.

But we aren't adding/removing too much in this case.

Anyway, I think the reason the 350Z looks "off" is because its fat and pudgy. It looks like a squatting bulldog about to pounce. The Miata and S2k look very lithe, like those racing dogs (greyhounds I think they are called).

I don't think the 350Z coupe looks "off", just the roadster. I actually think the roadster with the top down looks good, but it starts to look "off" with the top up.

 

[mAdD INDIAN]

Originally posted by: NFS4

And you don't know the FM chassis wasn't intended for a convertible duty, only the Nissan engineers know that.

While the FM chassis a multi-functional chassis (Coupe/Sedan/SUV), the very nature of a convertible makes it a very different beast. Read next response.

Also ALL convertibles have re-inforcements in the chassis. Look closely at Miatas, S2000s, Audi TTs, etc..

Of course they do. But they are designed from the onset as being convertibles (with the exception of the TT which is a hacked up Golf). The Boxster/Miata/S2000 were designed from the onset to be convertibles. Hence, their structures are reinforced from the get go in all the right places (with the additional braces thrown in for good measure).

With the 350Z Convertible, you're already starting with a base structure (FM chassis) and consessions have to be made (i.e. the "bathtub" effect that you get with the TT and the 350Z b/c of high wasteline due to them being based on sedan platforms). There are no such concessions with the purpose built convertibles.

So what your saying is that (just so both don't mis-understand each other) the Miata/S2k have additional braces that don't intrude on usable space (I think thats what you meant by concessions), while the Z would have additional braces (while stiffening up the car) that would have a negative effect on useable space.

While that is true to an extent, the Z still has almost the same trunk space as before (it has much more than its competition). I still stubbornly stand by my statement that hte Z was designed with convertible duty in mind.

However I do disagree with the Z being a convertible in the first place. I think that title should have gone to the G35 Coupe. After all, the Z convertible is now a cruiser (something the G35-C is) rather than the sports car with stiff suspension and eye-ball pulling brakes.

Oh yea, I wanted to ask you, where do you find hte sales numbers of BMW, Honda, etc...?

 

[Maleficus]

Coupe >

 

[mAdD INDIAN]

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: mAdD INDIAN

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: mAdD INDIAN

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Oh and "Credit for this goes to the fact that Nissan planned on making a convertible version of the 350Z from Day One of its design phase. "
So I don't see where you get an idea it's a coupe chop convertible.

EVERY manufacturer says that they've designed it from the beginning to be a convert. But the fact remains that it is designed as a coupe first, then reinforcements are made during the initial design process to account for the loss of the roof for convertible duty. It's based on the FM chassis for goodness sake. That ain't no convertible platform.

The ONLY convertibles that are designed from the onset to be a convertible are TRUE droptops. Miata, Boxster, S2000, Z4, etc.

And while the 350Z convertible may not flex much, it still flexes more than the coupe

But would the increased flex really make that much of a difference?

Finally, I do think the 350Z was really designed to be as a convertible from the initial stage. They stated that during the early concept models. They didn't want to go the same route as the 300ZX Convert. And you don't know the FM chassis wasn't intended for a convertible duty, only the Nissan engineers know that.

Also ALL convertibles have re-inforcements in the chassis. Look closely at Miatas, S2000s, Audi TTs, etc..


Speaking of re-inforncements, did you know Impalas have bars in the trunk as well as triangular bars in the hood for added rigidty? And the car STILL flexes!

No, it probably wouldn't make much of a difference, but that's not the point If we started add/removing things that wouldn't make much of a difference in a car themselves, overall we'd have a pretty horrible car.

I love the 350Z, but the roadster just looks a bit off to me. The Miata, Boxster, and S2K seem more like natural roadsters.

But we aren't adding/removing too much in this case.

Anyway, I think the reason the 350Z looks "off" is because its fat and pudgy. It looks like a squatting bulldog about to pounce. The Miata and S2k look very lithe, like those racing dogs (greyhounds I think they are called).

I don't think the 350Z coupe looks "off", just the roadster. I actually think the roadster with the top down looks good, but it starts to look "off" with the top up.

I was talking about the roadster only. I think it looks fat with the top down.

 

[BigSmooth]

Originally posted by: mAdD INDIAN

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: mAdD INDIAN

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: mAdD INDIAN

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Oh and "Credit for this goes to the fact that Nissan planned on making a convertible version of the 350Z from Day One of its design phase. "
So I don't see where you get an idea it's a coupe chop convertible.

EVERY manufacturer says that they've designed it from the beginning to be a convert. But the fact remains that it is designed as a coupe first, then reinforcements are made during the initial design process to account for the loss of the roof for convertible duty. It's based on the FM chassis for goodness sake. That ain't no convertible platform.

The ONLY convertibles that are designed from the onset to be a convertible are TRUE droptops. Miata, Boxster, S2000, Z4, etc.

And while the 350Z convertible may not flex much, it still flexes more than the coupe

But would the increased flex really make that much of a difference?

Finally, I do think the 350Z was really designed to be as a convertible from the initial stage. They stated that during the early concept models. They didn't want to go the same route as the 300ZX Convert. And you don't know the FM chassis wasn't intended for a convertible duty, only the Nissan engineers know that.

Also ALL convertibles have re-inforcements in the chassis. Look closely at Miatas, S2000s, Audi TTs, etc..


Speaking of re-inforncements, did you know Impalas have bars in the trunk as well as triangular bars in the hood for added rigidty? And the car STILL flexes!

No, it probably wouldn't make much of a difference, but that's not the point If we started add/removing things that wouldn't make much of a difference in a car themselves, overall we'd have a pretty horrible car.

I love the 350Z, but the roadster just looks a bit off to me. The Miata, Boxster, and S2K seem more like natural roadsters.

But we aren't adding/removing too much in this case.

Anyway, I think the reason the 350Z looks "off" is because its fat and pudgy. It looks like a squatting bulldog about to pounce. The Miata and S2k look very lithe, like those racing dogs (greyhounds I think they are called).

I don't think the 350Z coupe looks "off", just the roadster. I actually think the roadster with the top down looks good, but it starts to look "off" with the top up.

I was talking about the roadster only. I think it looks fat with the top down.

Whether you think it looks great or not, I sure wouldn't kick it out of my garage! Even with the added cost of the convertible, it still stacks up very well performance- and value-wise in this segment. I think it's great that the driving dynamics of the coupe are mostly intact in the convertible version.

 

[NFS4]

So what your saying is that (just so both don't mis-understand each other) the Miata/S2k have additional braces that don't intrude on usable space (I think thats what you meant by concessions), while the Z would have additional braces (while stiffening up the car) that would have a negative effect on useable space.

That's partly it. Since the S2000/Miata/Z4/etc. don't share their structures with other vehicles, they don't have certain wheelbase/width/track/length considerations to adhere too. Given that fact, the structure is optimally designed to get it's job done as a convertible. With the 350Z convertible, you're already boxed in by what you can do b/c of the constraints of the Z Coupe and the FM chassis.

Oh yea, I wanted to ask you, where do you find hte sales numbers of BMW, Honda, etc...?

http://www.autosite.com/editoria/asmr/homesedan.asp

 

[mAdD INDIAN]

Originally posted by: BigSmooth

Originally posted by: mAdD INDIAN

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: mAdD INDIAN

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: mAdD INDIAN

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Oh and "Credit for this goes to the fact that Nissan planned on making a convertible version of the 350Z from Day One of its design phase. "
So I don't see where you get an idea it's a coupe chop convertible.

EVERY manufacturer says that they've designed it from the beginning to be a convert. But the fact remains that it is designed as a coupe first, then reinforcements are made during the initial design process to account for the loss of the roof for convertible duty. It's based on the FM chassis for goodness sake. That ain't no convertible platform.

The ONLY convertibles that are designed from the onset to be a convertible are TRUE droptops. Miata, Boxster, S2000, Z4, etc.

And while the 350Z convertible may not flex much, it still flexes more than the coupe

But would the increased flex really make that much of a difference?

Finally, I do think the 350Z was really designed to be as a convertible from the initial stage. They stated that during the early concept models. They didn't want to go the same route as the 300ZX Convert. And you don't know the FM chassis wasn't intended for a convertible duty, only the Nissan engineers know that.

Also ALL convertibles have re-inforcements in the chassis. Look closely at Miatas, S2000s, Audi TTs, etc..


Speaking of re-inforncements, did you know Impalas have bars in the trunk as well as triangular bars in the hood for added rigidty? And the car STILL flexes!

No, it probably wouldn't make much of a difference, but that's not the point If we started add/removing things that wouldn't make much of a difference in a car themselves, overall we'd have a pretty horrible car.

I love the 350Z, but the roadster just looks a bit off to me. The Miata, Boxster, and S2K seem more like natural roadsters.

But we aren't adding/removing too much in this case.

Anyway, I think the reason the 350Z looks "off" is because its fat and pudgy. It looks like a squatting bulldog about to pounce. The Miata and S2k look very lithe, like those racing dogs (greyhounds I think they are called).

I don't think the 350Z coupe looks "off", just the roadster. I actually think the roadster with the top down looks good, but it starts to look "off" with the top up.

I was talking about the roadster only. I think it looks fat with the top down.

Whether you think it looks great or not, I sure wouldn't kick it out of my garage! Even with the added cost of the convertible, it still stacks up very well performance- and value-wise in this segment. I think it's great that the driving dynamics of the coupe are mostly intact in the convertible version.

Definately. The reviews of the Z Roadster all say that it has no cowl shake or anything of that nature.

NFS4: Thanks.

 

[SuperTool]

If Nissan wanted to make the roadster a chop-job, they would have built a true coupe 350Z, and not a hatchback. Clearly the rear end was individually designed from the beginning specifically for the coupe and the roadster. Now that said, the soft top does look somewhat silly, I just don't think it's because it was something that was tacked on later, but just designed silly from the start

 

[mAdD INDIAN]

Something just occured to me: Does the Z Roadster have that same stylish rear strut bar thats present in the coupe? I haven't seen it in the pics of the Roadster yet.

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: mAdD INDIAN
Something just occured to me: Does the Z Roadster have that same stylish rear strut bar thats present in the coupe? I haven't seen it in the pics of the Roadster yet.

I don't see how it possibly could. You've got the top, the toneau cover and luggage space to take into consideration. But ya never know

 

[mAdD INDIAN]

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: mAdD INDIAN
Something just occured to me: Does the Z Roadster have that same stylish rear strut bar thats present in the coupe? I haven't seen it in the pics of the Roadster yet.

I don't see how it possibly could. You've got the top, the toneau cover and luggage space to take into consideration. But ya never know

wtfs a toneau cover? I thought those were for trucks only?

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: mAdD INDIAN

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: mAdD INDIAN
Something just occured to me: Does the Z Roadster have that same stylish rear strut bar thats present in the coupe? I haven't seen it in the pics of the Roadster yet.

I don't see how it possibly could. You've got the top, the toneau cover and luggage space to take into consideration. But ya never know

wtfs a toneau cover? I thought those were for trucks only?

It's the hard paneling that covers the convertible top when not in use. From the article:

The hard tonneau cover integrates with the roll hoops to give the Z Roadster a cohesive look.

 

[mAdD INDIAN]

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: mAdD INDIAN

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: mAdD INDIAN
Something just occured to me: Does the Z Roadster have that same stylish rear strut bar thats present in the coupe? I haven't seen it in the pics of the Roadster yet.

I don't see how it possibly could. You've got the top, the toneau cover and luggage space to take into consideration. But ya never know

wtfs a toneau cover? I thought those were for trucks only?

It's the hard paneling that covers the convertible top when not in use. From the article:

The hard tonneau cover integrates with the roll hoops to give the Z Roadster a cohesive look.

Ah, so its a cover. Why can't ppl just say cover. They have to go out and use fancy words like tannau.

Blasted english!

Anyway im off to do my circuit theory homework.

Btw did you see the pics of hte new freshened Jetta? They fscked the front end. It doesn't have that clean cohesive look anymore.

 

[BigSmooth]

Originally posted by: mAdD INDIAN

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: mAdD INDIAN

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: mAdD INDIAN
Something just occured to me: Does the Z Roadster have that same stylish rear strut bar thats present in the coupe? I haven't seen it in the pics of the Roadster yet.

I don't see how it possibly could. You've got the top, the toneau cover and luggage space to take into consideration. But ya never know

wtfs a toneau cover? I thought those were for trucks only?

It's the hard paneling that covers the convertible top when not in use. From the article:

The hard tonneau cover integrates with the roll hoops to give the Z Roadster a cohesive look.

Ah, so its a cover. Why can't ppl just say cover. They have to go out and use fancy words like tannau.

Blasted english!

Anyway im off to do my circuit theory homework.

Btw did you see the pics of hte new freshened Jetta? They fscked the front end. It doesn't have that clean cohesive look anymore.

I posted a thread here but no one seemed to care much.