Purchased a new-to-me car - Pics include now!

[HannibalX]

Nice car. The 350 is the perfect sized car IMO for someone without a family.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: Pariah
Anyway, congrats to the original poster. For $18k, you got a very good car that performs exceptionally well in that price range. Don't let any of this banter deter you. Sorry for pulling your thread astray.

Thanks.

The banter doesn't make me feel bad about my purchase. There is a lot of good information flowing in this thread.

I actually just got back from a trip to the coast in it and had a blast. 27.7 MPG isn't too bad either. 🙂

🙂

the 350Z is a great car. I am willing to bet most of the haters are talking the talk, but driving a 1986 Hyundai at the same time...and not as just a 'DD' but full-time with an Autozone fan clipped to the dash since they couldn't spring for A/C.

I'm not exactly a hater, and I've owned everything from a '77 El Camino of doom, to an E39 M5, to a current '08 Focus.

I just have a heavy criticism of where Nissan has taken the 350 undeniably off the course of it's direct predecessors, and even Jeremy Clarkson of Top Gear agrees with me (I had never seen that until this thread, or probably would have linked it.)

Anyway, my final thoughts are this :

If you look at the car by itself without comparing it to anything besides it's current crop of competitors, it's a nice car and not a bad choice at all. Sort of a happy compromise on a lot of factors to make one decent package.

If you look at the car under the performance microscope, or compare it to how the past-gen Z cars always stood up to the world's best cars during their day, then it's a real let-down to the whole idea of a Z car.

 

[theeedude]

They did not take it off course, they simply dropped the Twin-Turbo version.
Nissan 300ZX had MSRP of $44000 in 1995, that is $61,000 adjusted for inflation!!!
There is simply no economic case to be made for continuing to make it. Would you pay double the price for a 350Z twin turbo?
You can think of NA 350Z as a worthy replacement for NA 300ZX for much less money.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: senseamp
They did not take it off course, they simply dropped the Twin-Turbo version.
Nissan 300ZX had MSRP of $44000 in 1995, that is $61,000 adjusted for inflation!!!
There is simply no economic case to be made for continuing to make it. Would you pay double the price for a 350Z twin turbo?
You can think of NA 350Z as a worthy replacement for NA 300ZX for much less money.

???

There is no denying that the 350Z does not perform on the level of the previous top-end Z cars.

There is no denying that the 350Z does not perform competitively against other cars the way the previous Z cars did.

That said, it's off course of what it was, and is now something different (low-level GT car, with a luxury/city setup).

Things have changed over the years. But looking at other vehicles, it can be quickly ascertained that it wouldn't cost an arm and a leg to make a high-performance Z car in today's world, at least not so exorbitant as you make it sound.

Take a base 350Z 6-Speed, starting at $28k retail. A turbocharger should only add, at most, a few thousand to the production cost of the vehicle.

Look at the MazdaSpeed3. The Speed3 has a TON of upgraded components over the 2.3 model below it, from brakes to suspension to tuning to wheels and so on.

Given that logic, and a real-world example of a factory turbo performance model only raising the cost by a relatively small amount, it would stand to reason that a 350Z Turbo model should retail for $35,000 or so with ease as a base price. It would be child's play to have such a setup push 420hp, and that would bring the Z car into competition with base Vettes, Cobras, GT500, M3, IS-F, etc, etc.

Adjusting old car prices for inflation won't tell us much beyond how crappy our economy has gotten.

 

[theeedude]

Well, no kidding, an NA 350Z that costs 30K now doesn't perform to the level of twin turbo 300ZX that already cost 50% more in 1995.
Thanks for that wonderful piece of insight. Production twin turboing the VQ is not as easy or cheap as you claim, otherwise Nissan wouldn't have had to do the substantial upgrades to it in the GT-R.
The added costs would not be amortized over a low volume without a very significant price increase over the base model. There was no business case for doing it just for bragging rights over some extinct much more expensive cars.
This is why Nissan came back from the brink of bankruptcy in the 90s, by not doing stupid crap like $45K+ Z-cars anymore.

 

[SnipeMasterJ13]

350Z's aren't my cup of tea, but congrats on the purchase! As long as it puts a smile on your face when you drive it, that's all that matters! 🙂

 

[Arkaign]

Where did I say 'twin turboing a VQ'?

There are already aftermarket turbo kits for the VQ that aren't very expensive. Is there some huge problem with running a 'prestige' model even if they only make a few thousand a year? Why does Mazda get away with making a Turbo Mazda3?

Nissan came back from bankruptcy because they made a bunch of SUVs, which for the most part are $15,000 light trucks with an extra row of seating, an enclosure, and a magical $30,000+ sales price for the same damned thing. Everyone has gone to making 40 different SUVs.

With your logic, or complete lack thereof, any number of companies should be bankrupt because they continue to offer $45k+ performance cars. A turbo 350Z shouldn't cost $45k to make. At $8k premium over the base $28k price, that would run $36k per car, $8,000 that would easily cover the $1,200-$1,500 in raw parts price increases.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Where did I say 'twin turboing a VQ'?

Which engine still in production would you have them twin turbo? Or would you support them maintaining and developing another V6 engine just for twin turbo Z?

There are already aftermarket turbo kits for the VQ that aren't very expensive. Is there some huge problem with running a 'prestige' model even if they only make a few thousand a year? Why does Mazda get away with making a Turbo Mazda3?

OK, now you are comparing aftermarket turbo kits to production ones that has to pass all sorts of tests and certifications? If you think that what 350Z needs is an after market turbo kit, you can add one yourself.
We know how much it costs to make the production twin turbo for a low volume car, because that's what the GT-R has.
There is a serious problem in offering a prestige model if you have to amortize the costs of developing it over a very low volume. Mazdaspeed3 uses engine that is also used in CX-7 and Mazdaspeed6, so it has the volume to amortize the cost.

Nissan came back from bankruptcy because they made a bunch of SUVs, which for the most part are $15,000 light trucks with an extra row of seating, an enclosure, and a magical $30,000+ sales price for the same damned thing. Everyone has gone to making 40 different SUVs.

Wrong. If SUVs were the reasons for Nissan's profitability, GM and Ford would be rolling in profits. It's revamping of the whole production process to leverage more components across models that reduced costs significantly and improved competitiveness. 350Z is a prime example of that. You have no clue about how engineering works. There are enormous fixed R&D tooling costs to ship the first unit, so you have to amortize it over high volume to recoup costs, otherwise the prices have to be huge.

With your logic, or complete lack thereof, any number of companies should be bankrupt because they continue to offer $45k+ performance cars. A turbo 350Z shouldn't cost $45k to make. At $8k premium over the base $28k price, that would run $36k per car, $8,000 that would easily cover the $1,200-$1,500 in raw parts price increases.

People will pay $45K+ for a Porsche or BMW, they made it very clear that they would not pay $45K+ for a Nissan 300ZX TT (or Supra for that matter), which is why it ceased production. Of course Nissan could be in denial about it and continue to make a $45K+ Z that no one else, or they could do what they did and bring a reasonably priced NA Z to the masses, and a GT-R for the low volume high price market. A Turbo Z is the odd man out.

 

[Arkaign]

(1) - I never said anything about a new Twin Turbo, period, end of story, VQ or not.

(2) - I clearly said that it could use the same motor, the 3.5 VQ.

(3) - Putting a turbo on the VQ is NOT an extremely expensive proposition.

(4) - You ignore the MazdaSpeed3 once again as an actual example of a turbo version not being insanely expensive. They make that car in 2.0, 2.3, and 2.3 Turbo.

(5) - For every SUV sold, GM and Ford have still trotted out tons of poorly selling models, but the fact remains; SUVs are the most profitable major market vehicle.

(6) - There would have been a market, and still would be, for a high-performance Z car. The most important thing would be to legitimize the 350 as a performance platform as a whole. It would fit in nicely between the 350z and the GT-R, which is a MASSIVE gap indeed.

(7) - 300ZX and Supra weren't failures, they just weren't prioritized for modernization for refreshing/emissions/safety, and the market for sports cars was rapidly decreasing while the market for SUVs rapidly increasing.

 

[Arkaign]

Oh yeah, a 5.6L in the 350 has already been famously done by the tuner market, and performs like a demon :

http://www.gtchannel.com/content.php?cid=7932

 

[theeedude]

You really don't get that there is a big upfront cost in designing and certifying a new production engine and that this cost has to be amortized over every unit sold? And the more you hike the price, the fewer units you have to amortize that costs on?
If VQ 3.5 motor could be used unchanged to put out 400+ HP, why did Nissan have to modify it radically for that exact same application in the GT-R? It is not just putting a Turbo on a VQ35, and just because after market tuners can do it at their own risk, doesn't mean Nissan can take those same risks in a production engine, not with its reputation on the line. Again, if putting a Turbo on a VQ35 is so cheap and easy, why do you need Nissan to do it? Just buy a 350Z and stick an aftermarket Turbo on it. Noone is stopping you.
Supra is extinct. You could argue that dinasaurs weren't failures either, they enjoyed a few hundred million very successful years, they just didn't evolve, which is exactly what happened to Supra. The point is it's not around anymore, because it couldn't justify its own continued existence.
So comparing a 350Z, which survives in current market environment, to Supra, which is extinct is a bit ridiculous, kind of like comparing a tiger to a t-rex. Yeah, t-rex was bigger and stronger, but tiger is still here 🙂

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Oh yeah, a 5.6L in the 350 has already been famously done by the tuner market, and performs like a demon :

http://www.gtchannel.com/content.php?cid=7932

Which means exactly jack. There have been V8 Miatas too, doesn't mean Mazda should build one.

 

[Arkaign]

I agree, and I don't mind modding my own car, but anything can be modded to be fast. Z cars are historically fast as hell right off the floor in top trim, the new one sort of misses that.

In Japan, they have the limited-run 380RS, and it's not that expensive really.

The GT-R is underrated at 480HP, is probably ~520+ at the crank, and it's not a VQ, it's a VR38, a very very special motor.

I do understand that it would be a costly project, but I don't think it would be a money loser. Look at things like factory supercharged Cobras and the like.

As for Turbo'ed aftermarket 350s, look at the massive aftermarket for them. If so many people were willing to pour that kind of money, voiding their warranty, etc, into a 350z to make it fast, isn't it possible or even probable that they would have been willing to consider a factory turbo 350? Provided the cost wasn't outrageous, of course.

They don't even have to change the VQ motor, they can just fit the Turbo gear on it, check the emissions/cat/ecu setup, and call it a day.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Oh yeah, a 5.6L in the 350 has already been famously done by the tuner market, and performs like a demon :

http://www.gtchannel.com/content.php?cid=7932

Which means exactly jack. There have been V8 Miatas too, doesn't mean Mazda should build one.

The point was, it's been done 🙂 It's simply a solution for a high-performance setup for someone who wants serious torque.

 

[theeedude]

Lots of things have been done. Doesn't mean Nissan should have done any of them. Aftermarket is there for a reason.
The point is that you need to look at 350Z on its merits as the car it is at the price it was sold, not what you wish it was. Starting at under 30K new, there weren't really any better options for a traditional 2 seater RWD sports car in 2003 and for many years since.

 

[Ns1]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Lots of things have been done. Doesn't mean Nissan should have done any of them. Aftermarket is there for a reason.
The point is that you need to look at 350Z on its merits as the car it is at the price it was sold, not what you wish it was. Starting at under 30K new, there weren't really any better options for a traditional 2 seater RWD sports car in 2003 and for many years since.

The number of 2 door sports cars under 30k has dropped significantly since 2001


there is no money to be made here anymore.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Lots of things have been done. Doesn't mean Nissan should have done any of them. Aftermarket is there for a reason.
The point is that you need to look at 350Z on its merits as the car it is at the price it was sold, not what you wish it was. Starting at under 30K new, there weren't really any better options for a traditional 2 seater RWD sports car in 2003 and for many years since.

Ok, well I realize what your side of this is, and I can agree that looking at the 350Z in general in today's market, it's not a bad vehicle.

I just happen to think it's a shame that the Z badge has been so tarnished by this model. I'm definitely not alone in this opinion. The Z car has always been about offering world-class performance in a livable, halfway affordable car, and that legacy has been knocked off the tracks by this model.

Agreed to disagree, and I concede to many of your points, but maintain that Nissan could and should have offered even a limited run of high-performance 350 models to keep the legacy. As it is, it'd be like Ford only offering a mid-level V6 Mustang, and no performance models at all, or a 911 that performs merely like a 530i.

 

[theeedude]

350Z still rocks and lives up to its performance heritage, IMO, lack of an overpriced high performance model non withstanding. I'd rather Ford put out a Duratec 3.5 Mustang with a good IRS setup than the current GT. Then I may actually consider one.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
I'm not exactly a hater, and I've owned everything from a '77 El Camino of doom, to an E39 M5, to a current '08 Focus.

I just have a heavy criticism of where Nissan has taken the 350 undeniably off the course of it's direct predecessors, and even Jeremy Clarkson of Top Gear agrees with me (I had never seen that until this thread, or probably would have linked it.)

Anyway, my final thoughts are this :

If you look at the car by itself without comparing it to anything besides it's current crop of competitors, it's a nice car and not a bad choice at all. Sort of a happy compromise on a lot of factors to make one decent package.

If you look at the car under the performance microscope, or compare it to how the past-gen Z cars always stood up to the world's best cars during their day, then it's a real let-down to the whole idea of a Z car.

the E39 fits well into your listing of an el camino and focus.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: Arkaign
I'm not exactly a hater, and I've owned everything from a '77 El Camino of doom, to an E39 M5, to a current '08 Focus.

I just have a heavy criticism of where Nissan has taken the 350 undeniably off the course of it's direct predecessors, and even Jeremy Clarkson of Top Gear agrees with me (I had never seen that until this thread, or probably would have linked it.)

Anyway, my final thoughts are this :

If you look at the car by itself without comparing it to anything besides it's current crop of competitors, it's a nice car and not a bad choice at all. Sort of a happy compromise on a lot of factors to make one decent package.

If you look at the car under the performance microscope, or compare it to how the past-gen Z cars always stood up to the world's best cars during their day, then it's a real let-down to the whole idea of a Z car.

the E39 fits well into your listing of an el camino and focus.

lol yeah, I've had all types. The El Camino was nothing to laugh at though, it was the last of the big ones, and it was my mechanic's old drag car. The Focus is just a cheap reliable MPG-getter. The E39 was used, so it's not like I dropped 80+ g's on a car 🙂

 

[alkemyst]

The E39 was sort of like the red headed step child of M5 line up is what I had meant.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: alkemyst
The E39 was sort of like the red headed step child of M5 line up is what I had meant.

Oh, well to each his own. The E39 M5 actually has more torque than it's replacement, but is certainly lower-tech. I rather liked it, and it didn't have a crazy-aggressive look to it either, it was very low-key. If I had owned it long enough, I was going to put on a 525i badge 🙂

 

[piasabird]

My daughter has a 300zx and that thing is like a matchbox.

 

[JAH]

Grats on the car. I drive a '06 350z myself and it's very fun car to drive, but the seats are definitely not made for long distant driving. I went on a very long road trip with it in the beginning of the year and damn my back was killing me afterward. I'll definitely get new and more comfortable seats before I ever take it on long trip again.