"New" Nissan 350Z
6/18/07, 03:06 AM
#1
Cobra Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: April 7, 2005
Location: Holland
Posts: 1,452
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"New" Nissan 350Z
http://www.topgear.com/drives/D0/F2/...sts/08/01.html
I appreciate the fact that they're comparing it to its true competitor, the Audi TT. In the US it will probably be tested together with a Shelby GT, an Escalade and some Dodge pick-up, considering the professionalism of the comparative tests we've seen lately. 
In its 2007 guise (£26,795), the Z has what Nissan calls an '80 per cent new' 3.5-litre V6 engine. It develops an extra 13bhp (up from 296bhp to 309bhp) and an extra 4lb ft of torque (up from 260 to 264lb ft). The end result is that a full 90 per cent of the torque is now on tap from as low as 2,000rpm. You can really feel the difference.
There are no differences to see, though, other than a slightly raised bonnet line to accommodate the taller engine. And that's it.
There are no differences to see, though, other than a slightly raised bonnet line to accommodate the taller engine. And that's it.
6/18/07, 11:49 AM
#2
Looks good, definitely needed a change to the torque curve. They are nice cars, but you get used to all the current car's motor has to give in about 10 minutes of driving. Every time I drive one of those I'm like 'hmm, not too bad' and three minutes later I'm like 'doh, I hope that didn't hurt anything'...
6/19/07, 07:04 AM
#3
Bullitt Member
Join Date: June 9, 2004
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's also got two throttle bodies with a split intake. My dad has an 06, and I like the older hood alot more than the new hood. The had to "dome" it to make room for the intake stuff.
6/19/07, 09:48 AM
#4
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: DMV
Posts: 2,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wondering when they'll pop the 3.7 version of the motor, now seen in the G37 Coupe, into the 370 Z? That thing's putting out a very healthy 330 hp or so and a fatter torque curve to boot.
Comparison to the Shelby GT would be certainly fair enough, given that they are both, in a broad sense, sport coupes, albeit with their own distinct personalities.
C&D recently had just such a comparison with the Shelby, 350Z, TT, and RX-8 -- a bit of apples and oranges but again, they're all sport coupes hailing from various continents and hovering around the $30-35K price range, so hardly unfair. Shelby didn't fare to well overall -- won points for the lusty motor and exhaust note (though it was no faster than the 350Z), and overall pizzaz, but was let down by ham-handed steering and suspension tuning and wispy brakes.
Comparison to the Shelby GT would be certainly fair enough, given that they are both, in a broad sense, sport coupes, albeit with their own distinct personalities.
C&D recently had just such a comparison with the Shelby, 350Z, TT, and RX-8 -- a bit of apples and oranges but again, they're all sport coupes hailing from various continents and hovering around the $30-35K price range, so hardly unfair. Shelby didn't fare to well overall -- won points for the lusty motor and exhaust note (though it was no faster than the 350Z), and overall pizzaz, but was let down by ham-handed steering and suspension tuning and wispy brakes.
6/20/07, 03:47 AM
#5
Closet American
Join Date: July 17, 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC (Hollywood North)
Posts: 5,848
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Did you even read the criteria by which they tested these particular cars? They hated almost everything about the RX-8, yet it came in number one.
I can't wait to run into one of these "new-and-improved" 350Zs at the light and hand it a well-deserved spanking while I laugh my a$$ off at the "superior" engineering.
6/20/07, 09:18 AM
#6
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: DMV
Posts: 2,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think a lot of it isn't so much that they're biased against American iron per so, but rather, they weight their criteria and assessments rather differently than more American-oriented rags (Hot Rod, Muscle Mustangs, etc.) or, for that matter, members on this forum do.
C&D, R&T, MT and Automobile tend to assess cars on a much broader and qualitative range, giving more equal weighting to not only straight line performance, but also to handling, braking, ride, balance, ergonomics, driver feedback and other sensory aspects.
On the other hand, many (most) American rags and even Mustang forum members are extremely focused solely on off-the-line acceleration with all other aspects of the performance and perception envelope taking a distant second.
In a sense then, both camps are right. In the former camp, the Mustang is, quite rightfully, a very fast (in a straight line) and flashy ride but rather clumsy and cloddish in so many other criteria they judge cars on. When, at the end of the day, they add up ALL their columns, the big numbers Mustangs often post in a couple of acceleration-related areas are more than offset by the low numbers in so many other areas such as handling, braking, ride compliance, etc. It would take a rather pro-American bias to simply ignore and throw out those quantitative and qualitative shortcomings simply to have the Shelby GT show better at the end.
On the other hand, to the more American style mags and many on this forum, the Shelby is judged primarily on a very constrained range of capabilities and qualities, basically being inexpensive, somewhat flashy and fast off the line and in those few realms, the Shelby does show exceedlingly well. But all the other realms basically fall into something just this side of irrelevance. Handling? As long as the wheels don't fly off. Braking? Got me stopped by the next red light -- good enough. Steering feel? I can feel the steering wheel just fine. In this regard, all the other judging criteria simply don't matter, all that "sophisticated" engineering is for no good purpose, seemingly just engineering for engineering's sake, and somehow smells of a bias stacking the deck solely against American cars.
You're statements do belie that view. Yes, run into a "new and improved" 350Z at a light and you may well do pretty well against it. But run into a 350Z on a road course, slalom, or winding back road and all that "superior" engineering will likely come to the fore and leave the Shelby in it's wake.
The Mustang has always been a bit of a rolling Rorschach (sp-?) Test, being seen as a narrow-focus muscle car by many, a more broadly rounded American Pon car by others, a quasi-European GT coupe by others and simply a cheap and flashy ride by still more. And perhaps that's been the enduring strength of the Stang in that it has to some degree or other actually been able to fulfill those varied roles.
C&D simply look at and judge the Mustang quite differently than, say, Hot Rod, and in their quite honest assessment, it does fall short in many areas. But many others do look at the Stang differently, and assess it accordingly, and it comes up roses in their criteria, again, quite honestly and appropriately.
I do think Ford has, of late, rather focused too much and too narrowly on the acceleration-focused muscle car side of the Stang's personna while somewhat neglecting the more rounded and broadly capable "GT" side.
My hope with the Shelby GT was that it would far better gird the handling and braking aspects of the Stang's performance envelope in homage to the original GT350's SCCA and Trans Am roots. Unfortunately, the execution seems to have fallen rather short of success of developing a well rounded (back) road racer, even as it retains its existing straight line prowess.
C&D, R&T, MT and Automobile tend to assess cars on a much broader and qualitative range, giving more equal weighting to not only straight line performance, but also to handling, braking, ride, balance, ergonomics, driver feedback and other sensory aspects.
On the other hand, many (most) American rags and even Mustang forum members are extremely focused solely on off-the-line acceleration with all other aspects of the performance and perception envelope taking a distant second.
In a sense then, both camps are right. In the former camp, the Mustang is, quite rightfully, a very fast (in a straight line) and flashy ride but rather clumsy and cloddish in so many other criteria they judge cars on. When, at the end of the day, they add up ALL their columns, the big numbers Mustangs often post in a couple of acceleration-related areas are more than offset by the low numbers in so many other areas such as handling, braking, ride compliance, etc. It would take a rather pro-American bias to simply ignore and throw out those quantitative and qualitative shortcomings simply to have the Shelby GT show better at the end.
On the other hand, to the more American style mags and many on this forum, the Shelby is judged primarily on a very constrained range of capabilities and qualities, basically being inexpensive, somewhat flashy and fast off the line and in those few realms, the Shelby does show exceedlingly well. But all the other realms basically fall into something just this side of irrelevance. Handling? As long as the wheels don't fly off. Braking? Got me stopped by the next red light -- good enough. Steering feel? I can feel the steering wheel just fine. In this regard, all the other judging criteria simply don't matter, all that "sophisticated" engineering is for no good purpose, seemingly just engineering for engineering's sake, and somehow smells of a bias stacking the deck solely against American cars.
You're statements do belie that view. Yes, run into a "new and improved" 350Z at a light and you may well do pretty well against it. But run into a 350Z on a road course, slalom, or winding back road and all that "superior" engineering will likely come to the fore and leave the Shelby in it's wake.
The Mustang has always been a bit of a rolling Rorschach (sp-?) Test, being seen as a narrow-focus muscle car by many, a more broadly rounded American Pon car by others, a quasi-European GT coupe by others and simply a cheap and flashy ride by still more. And perhaps that's been the enduring strength of the Stang in that it has to some degree or other actually been able to fulfill those varied roles.
C&D simply look at and judge the Mustang quite differently than, say, Hot Rod, and in their quite honest assessment, it does fall short in many areas. But many others do look at the Stang differently, and assess it accordingly, and it comes up roses in their criteria, again, quite honestly and appropriately.
I do think Ford has, of late, rather focused too much and too narrowly on the acceleration-focused muscle car side of the Stang's personna while somewhat neglecting the more rounded and broadly capable "GT" side.
My hope with the Shelby GT was that it would far better gird the handling and braking aspects of the Stang's performance envelope in homage to the original GT350's SCCA and Trans Am roots. Unfortunately, the execution seems to have fallen rather short of success of developing a well rounded (back) road racer, even as it retains its existing straight line prowess.
6/20/07, 03:15 PM
#7
Cobra Member
Join Date: May 16, 2006
Location: NV
Posts: 1,322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The C&D test was biased so that the RX8 would win. The Rx8 won by scoring highest or second highest in the subjective scoring categories where no solid numbers could be measured. The "objective" categories were picked so that certain attributes that certain cars posessed would be factored in while others were not. The Shelby GT scored lowest in most of the subjective scoring categories.
How does a 5 year old design that has had no updates (the RX8) tie with the all new Audi under the "Gotta Have It" category of the scoring?
How in the world can the RX8 get a higher score for exterior styling than the Shelby GT and the 350Z? Were Mr. Magoo and Stevie Wonder the styling judges?
The so-called "objective scores" are questionable. The RX8 turned the slowest laptime, lowest maximum speed, and lowest grip measured on roadcourse, and tied the Shelby GT's numbers on the skidpad, yet the RX8 scored a perfect 20/20 on the "chassis performance".
Bias against the Mustang? yes, there was. The Shelby GT had the largest front interior volume of the test, yet magically, front seat room was not a category on the scoring. The RX8 had the largest rear interior volume, so of course, rear seat room was included as one of the scoring categories. To make up for the 350Z not having a rear seat, they gave it a perfect 20/20 in the "price" category.
The Shelby GT had the 3rd best observed gas mileage of the test, yet it received the same gas mileage score as the The RX8, which had the lowest observed gas mileage (with smallest engine) in the test .
They admitted in the story that the must have been something wrong with the braking system of the Shelby GT which caused the long 189 ft 70-0 stopping distances -- a previously tested Mustang GT stopped 70-0 in 170 ft ( the 350Z did it in 169 ft) but they didn't put that into consideration in the scoring.
They described the Shelby GT's ride as "lousy" and talked about the hood pins vibrating loose over rough surfaces. They described the 350z's ride on rough surfaces as
"over the worst surfaces, the 350Z keeps going where the drivers points it, but the way the suspension bucks and jives requires a certain amount of faith from the driver that the car will stay planted."
This says, in other words, the 350Z has a rough ride over bumpy road surfaces and makes the driver feel it will become unplanted from the road.
The hood pins shaking loose (which sound like a bunch of hyperbole) is a lot less serious than the feeling that the car is going to buck itself off the
road, yet the 350Z scored 7/10 in the ride category while the Shelby GT scored 4/10.
By looking at the scoring, its obvious that there was some cooking of the numbers going on to get the outcome they wanted, which was that the RX8 would be highest rated, while the Shelby GT would get the lowest rating.
How does a 5 year old design that has had no updates (the RX8) tie with the all new Audi under the "Gotta Have It" category of the scoring?
How in the world can the RX8 get a higher score for exterior styling than the Shelby GT and the 350Z? Were Mr. Magoo and Stevie Wonder the styling judges?
The so-called "objective scores" are questionable. The RX8 turned the slowest laptime, lowest maximum speed, and lowest grip measured on roadcourse, and tied the Shelby GT's numbers on the skidpad, yet the RX8 scored a perfect 20/20 on the "chassis performance".
Bias against the Mustang? yes, there was. The Shelby GT had the largest front interior volume of the test, yet magically, front seat room was not a category on the scoring. The RX8 had the largest rear interior volume, so of course, rear seat room was included as one of the scoring categories. To make up for the 350Z not having a rear seat, they gave it a perfect 20/20 in the "price" category.
The Shelby GT had the 3rd best observed gas mileage of the test, yet it received the same gas mileage score as the The RX8, which had the lowest observed gas mileage (with smallest engine) in the test .
They admitted in the story that the must have been something wrong with the braking system of the Shelby GT which caused the long 189 ft 70-0 stopping distances -- a previously tested Mustang GT stopped 70-0 in 170 ft ( the 350Z did it in 169 ft) but they didn't put that into consideration in the scoring.
They described the Shelby GT's ride as "lousy" and talked about the hood pins vibrating loose over rough surfaces. They described the 350z's ride on rough surfaces as
"over the worst surfaces, the 350Z keeps going where the drivers points it, but the way the suspension bucks and jives requires a certain amount of faith from the driver that the car will stay planted."
This says, in other words, the 350Z has a rough ride over bumpy road surfaces and makes the driver feel it will become unplanted from the road.
The hood pins shaking loose (which sound like a bunch of hyperbole) is a lot less serious than the feeling that the car is going to buck itself off the
road, yet the 350Z scored 7/10 in the ride category while the Shelby GT scored 4/10.
By looking at the scoring, its obvious that there was some cooking of the numbers going on to get the outcome they wanted, which was that the RX8 would be highest rated, while the Shelby GT would get the lowest rating.
6/20/07, 11:58 PM
#8
Closet American
Join Date: July 17, 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC (Hollywood North)
Posts: 5,848
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The C&D test was biased so that the RX8 would win. The Rx8 won by scoring highest or second highest in the subjective scoring categories where no solid numbers could be measured. The "objective" categories were picked so that certain attributes that certain cars posessed would be factored in while others were not. The Shelby GT scored lowest in most of the subjective scoring categories.
How does a 5 year old design that has had no updates (the RX8) tie with the all new Audi under the "Gotta Have It" category of the scoring?
How in the world can the RX8 get a higher score for exterior styling than the Shelby GT and the 350Z? Were Mr. Magoo and Stevie Wonder the styling judges?
The so-called "objective scores" are questionable. The RX8 turned the slowest laptime, lowest maximum speed, and lowest grip measured on roadcourse, and tied the Shelby GT's numbers on the skidpad, yet the RX8 scored a perfect 20/20 on the "chassis performance".
Bias against the Mustang? yes, there was. The Shelby GT had the largest front interior volume of the test, yet magically, front seat room was not a category on the scoring. The RX8 had the largest rear interior volume, so of course, rear seat room was included as one of the scoring categories. To make up for the 350Z not having a rear seat, they gave it a perfect 20/20 in the "price" category.
The Shelby GT had the 3rd best observed gas mileage of the test, yet it received the same gas mileage score as the The RX8, which had the lowest observed gas mileage (with smallest engine) in the test .
They admitted in the story that the must have been something wrong with the braking system of the Shelby GT which caused the long 189 ft 70-0 stopping distances -- a previously tested Mustang GT stopped 70-0 in 170 ft ( the 350Z did it in 169 ft) but they didn't put that into consideration in the scoring.
They described the Shelby GT's ride as "lousy" and talked about the hood pins vibrating loose over rough surfaces. They described the 350z's ride on rough surfaces as
"over the worst surfaces, the 350Z keeps going where the drivers points it, but the way the suspension bucks and jives requires a certain amount of faith from the driver that the car will stay planted."
This says, in other words, the 350Z has a rough ride over bumpy road surfaces and makes the driver feel it will become unplanted from the road.
The hood pins shaking loose (which sound like a bunch of hyperbole) is a lot less serious than the feeling that the car is going to buck itself off the
road, yet the 350Z scored 7/10 in the ride category while the Shelby GT scored 4/10.
By looking at the scoring, its obvious that there was some cooking of the numbers going on to get the outcome they wanted, which was that the RX8 would be highest rated, while the Shelby GT would get the lowest rating.
How does a 5 year old design that has had no updates (the RX8) tie with the all new Audi under the "Gotta Have It" category of the scoring?
How in the world can the RX8 get a higher score for exterior styling than the Shelby GT and the 350Z? Were Mr. Magoo and Stevie Wonder the styling judges?
The so-called "objective scores" are questionable. The RX8 turned the slowest laptime, lowest maximum speed, and lowest grip measured on roadcourse, and tied the Shelby GT's numbers on the skidpad, yet the RX8 scored a perfect 20/20 on the "chassis performance".
Bias against the Mustang? yes, there was. The Shelby GT had the largest front interior volume of the test, yet magically, front seat room was not a category on the scoring. The RX8 had the largest rear interior volume, so of course, rear seat room was included as one of the scoring categories. To make up for the 350Z not having a rear seat, they gave it a perfect 20/20 in the "price" category.
The Shelby GT had the 3rd best observed gas mileage of the test, yet it received the same gas mileage score as the The RX8, which had the lowest observed gas mileage (with smallest engine) in the test .
They admitted in the story that the must have been something wrong with the braking system of the Shelby GT which caused the long 189 ft 70-0 stopping distances -- a previously tested Mustang GT stopped 70-0 in 170 ft ( the 350Z did it in 169 ft) but they didn't put that into consideration in the scoring.
They described the Shelby GT's ride as "lousy" and talked about the hood pins vibrating loose over rough surfaces. They described the 350z's ride on rough surfaces as
"over the worst surfaces, the 350Z keeps going where the drivers points it, but the way the suspension bucks and jives requires a certain amount of faith from the driver that the car will stay planted."
This says, in other words, the 350Z has a rough ride over bumpy road surfaces and makes the driver feel it will become unplanted from the road.
The hood pins shaking loose (which sound like a bunch of hyperbole) is a lot less serious than the feeling that the car is going to buck itself off the
road, yet the 350Z scored 7/10 in the ride category while the Shelby GT scored 4/10.
By looking at the scoring, its obvious that there was some cooking of the numbers going on to get the outcome they wanted, which was that the RX8 would be highest rated, while the Shelby GT would get the lowest rating.
I'll only add this to counter Rhumb's "elitist" view >>
1) Road & Track said this of the new Mustang's handling back in '05: "With modest steering effort, you're off to discover how shockingly good the new Mustang's handling dynamics are." That doesn't sound like "clumsy and cloddish" or a "rolling Rorschach Test" to me, particularly not when you consider the next point;
2) Mustang's performance at Grand Am Cup racing. The results speak for themselves.
The elitist, import-loving, Euro-snob crowd just don't want to admit that the new Mustang is able to challenge them on many performance levels despite costing half as much. Perhaps these Francophile rags would be better off taking a dirt-nap if they persist in substituting fiction, opinion and lies for a modicum of objective analysis.
Nuff said.
6/22/07, 09:11 AM
#10
Legacy TMS Member
Meh, magazines pay lip service to whom ever pays the bills, be it foreign or domestic and thier content is tailored to the bulk of the readership, so take it for what its worth, entertainment with very little objective and heaping loads of subjective.
6/22/07, 11:44 AM
#11
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: DMV
Posts: 2,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'll only add this to counter Rhumb's "elitist" view >>
1) Road & Track said this of the new Mustang's handling back in '05: "With modest steering effort, you're off to discover how shockingly good the new Mustang's handling dynamics are." That doesn't sound like "clumsy and cloddish" or a "rolling Rorschach Test" to me, particularly not when you consider the next point;
2) Mustang's performance at Grand Am Cup racing. The results speak for themselves.
The elitist, import-loving, Euro-snob crowd just don't want to admit that the new Mustang is able to challenge them on many performance levels despite costing half as much. Perhaps these Francophile rags would be better off taking a dirt-nap if they persist in substituting fiction, opinion and lies for a modicum of objective analysis.
1) Road & Track said this of the new Mustang's handling back in '05: "With modest steering effort, you're off to discover how shockingly good the new Mustang's handling dynamics are." That doesn't sound like "clumsy and cloddish" or a "rolling Rorschach Test" to me, particularly not when you consider the next point;
2) Mustang's performance at Grand Am Cup racing. The results speak for themselves.
The elitist, import-loving, Euro-snob crowd just don't want to admit that the new Mustang is able to challenge them on many performance levels despite costing half as much. Perhaps these Francophile rags would be better off taking a dirt-nap if they persist in substituting fiction, opinion and lies for a modicum of objective analysis.
Well, I was using the direct head-to-head comparison test in C&D as my point of comparison rather than those Pabst Blue Ribbon swilling good 'ol boys over at R&T. To be fair, the Stang and Shelby GT's steering and handling aren't horrible, and are shockingly good compared to the previous SN95's. But head-to-head against its sporting contemporaries, the Shelby GT's dynamics do seem lacking.
And yes, the Stang has been doing quite well in Grand Am Cup racing, but that's quite removed from the production Stang's capabilities and held on rather smooth race tracks rather than rough and tumble real world roads, which is where the Shelby GT seemed to really get tripped up (C&D did say it did all right on very smooth surfaces, though that's not a particularly stringent test of a suspensions capabilities).
All this "elitist" put downs smacks more of myopic xenophobia and provincialism than a well considered criticism on a car's merits and weaknesses. Not sure what the "Francophile rags" comment refers to as I don't recall C&D testing any French car for eons, much less fawning over one (they've generally savaged them in the distant past and deservingly so). And last I checked, they're mostly American writers ensconced deep in the American automotive heartland of Michigan. And if “elitism” means expecting a great performance car to have great performance in more than just a straight line, then guilty as charged.
Yes, I do love import cars, the good ones at least, I even have an E46 M3. But I love American cars too, the good ones at least, and still have my beloved Probe GT which came out of the same Flat Rock Michigan plant that's pumping out Stangs today.
And yes, the Mustang does offer great performance, at least in some realms (generally straight line) along with great style for not too much cash. But it too is less stellar in other realms (suspension tuning and steering feedback) and bordering on the mediocre on still others (braking, rough road compliance). Many people see the Stang solely as a muscle car and excellent stop-light, straight line performance is all they need or want -- fair enough and fine. But many other see the Mustang a bit more broadly and expect a great performance car to offer great performance in other areas too, which I hardly see as unreasonable much less elitist given that other manufactures seem fully capable of offering up well rounded performance cars for similar coin.
The Stang did well on some objective measures -- pretty much equaling the 350Z in a straight line -- such as drive train performance and skid pad grip. It did also beat out the woefully underpowered RX-8 (and C&D wasn't shy in pointing that out) in lap times. But in pretty much every other objective category, it was bringing up the rear. In the subjective categories, which are, of course, subjective, it again fared well in anything doing with its great motor but really suffered elsewhere, especially regarding the chassis performance, sort of reinforcing the adage that it's not only how fast a car goes, but how well a car goes fast.
IMHO, the Stang is, generally a very good performance car but hardly perfect and the basic car has a lot of unrealized potential lurking, maddeningly unrealized, just underneath. Some decent brakes, more adept chassis tuning and an IRS option to give it much greater real-world-road capability would really unleash this car against any and all comers in any and all criteria and conditions. The motor, drivetrain and overall style are great, now Ford just needs to focus on a few weaknesses to have a true world beater.
6/22/07, 11:50 AM
#12
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: May 7, 2007
Location: New England
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"...but the Audi will still outsell it by eight to one because it has four circles on its nose."
Thats exactly what I was thinking. German cars are overpriced, overhyped, and overrated.
Thats exactly what I was thinking. German cars are overpriced, overhyped, and overrated.
6/22/07, 07:42 PM
#13
This is why I don't buy any of the rags to start with. 
I'll get Mustang enthusiast or MM&FF because of the tech articles and reviews. What do I give a **** about what a 350z does or doesn't do?? Mine just is lowered with exhaust and tinted windows and the 350z people I see in traffic kinda avoid me like the plague. They are all over the place here along with G35's and have yet to have one rev or follow close or anything.
I'll get Mustang enthusiast or MM&FF because of the tech articles and reviews. What do I give a **** about what a 350z does or doesn't do?? Mine just is lowered with exhaust and tinted windows and the 350z people I see in traffic kinda avoid me like the plague. They are all over the place here along with G35's and have yet to have one rev or follow close or anything.
6/22/07, 10:17 PM
#14
Closet American
Join Date: July 17, 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC (Hollywood North)
Posts: 5,848
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
OK.
Yes, I do love import cars, the good ones at least, I even have an E46 M3. But I love American cars too, the good ones at least, and still have my beloved Probe GT which came out of the same Flat Rock Michigan plant that's pumping out Stangs today.
And yes, the Mustang does offer great performance, at least in some realms (generally straight line) along with great style for not too much cash. But it too is less stellar in other realms (suspension tuning and steering feedback) and bordering on the mediocre on still others (braking, rough road compliance). Many people see the Stang solely as a muscle car and excellent stop-light, straight line performance is all they need or want -- fair enough and fine. But many other see the Mustang a bit more broadly and expect a great performance car to offer great performance in other areas too, which I hardly see as unreasonable much less elitist given that other manufactures seem fully capable of offering up well rounded performance cars for similar coin.
The Stang did well on some objective measures -- pretty much equaling the 350Z in a straight line -- such as drive train performance and skid pad grip. It did also beat out the woefully underpowered RX-8 (and C&D wasn't shy in pointing that out) in lap times. But in pretty much every other objective category, it was bringing up the rear. In the subjective categories, which are, of course, subjective, it again fared well in anything doing with its great motor but really suffered elsewhere, especially regarding the chassis performance, sort of reinforcing the adage that it's not only how fast a car goes, but how well a car goes fast.
IMHO, the Stang is, generally a very good performance car but hardly perfect and the basic car has a lot of unrealized potential lurking, maddeningly unrealized, just underneath. Some decent brakes, more adept chassis tuning and an IRS option to give it much greater real-world-road capability would really unleash this car against any and all comers in any and all criteria and conditions. The motor, drivetrain and overall style are great, now Ford just needs to focus on a few weaknesses to have a true world beater.
And yes, the Mustang does offer great performance, at least in some realms (generally straight line) along with great style for not too much cash. But it too is less stellar in other realms (suspension tuning and steering feedback) and bordering on the mediocre on still others (braking, rough road compliance). Many people see the Stang solely as a muscle car and excellent stop-light, straight line performance is all they need or want -- fair enough and fine. But many other see the Mustang a bit more broadly and expect a great performance car to offer great performance in other areas too, which I hardly see as unreasonable much less elitist given that other manufactures seem fully capable of offering up well rounded performance cars for similar coin.
The Stang did well on some objective measures -- pretty much equaling the 350Z in a straight line -- such as drive train performance and skid pad grip. It did also beat out the woefully underpowered RX-8 (and C&D wasn't shy in pointing that out) in lap times. But in pretty much every other objective category, it was bringing up the rear. In the subjective categories, which are, of course, subjective, it again fared well in anything doing with its great motor but really suffered elsewhere, especially regarding the chassis performance, sort of reinforcing the adage that it's not only how fast a car goes, but how well a car goes fast.
IMHO, the Stang is, generally a very good performance car but hardly perfect and the basic car has a lot of unrealized potential lurking, maddeningly unrealized, just underneath. Some decent brakes, more adept chassis tuning and an IRS option to give it much greater real-world-road capability would really unleash this car against any and all comers in any and all criteria and conditions. The motor, drivetrain and overall style are great, now Ford just needs to focus on a few weaknesses to have a true world beater.
The fact is that the current GT offers a solid blend of handling, straight line performance, practicality and styling for a VERY reasonable price. And it's a formula that has worked well for Ford, with sales to prove it. So successful, in fact, that it spawned GM and Chrysler to waste no time developing their own muscle car "skunkworks" programs; history repeating itself.
Sure, there are areas where the car needs improvement. Several, in fact. But I suspect that by the time the next iteration arrives, it will address many - if not all - of these issues. IRS will probably arrive, along with greater power and improved refinement.
But as I said, walking into a saloon espousing the merits of champagne when everyone is drinking beer - and loves beer - is a bit like throwing bricks in the Grand Canyon. What's the point?
6/26/07, 08:33 PM
#15
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: August 7, 2005
Posts: 747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rhumb, very insightful post, I enjoyed it, thank you.
I do agree with others though that some of the rag reviews are... frustrating. Recently, I've been seeing that trend where a car scores pretty good in the objective tests, but then overall towards last place because of the subjective tests.
Why would Ford feel the need to improve if no one was complaining? There are a lot of things about the 350Z that I wish were in the Stang, and I feel that rags writing about them and forum people b-tching about them will expedite Ford in making changes. That's just my opinion.
I do agree with others though that some of the rag reviews are... frustrating. Recently, I've been seeing that trend where a car scores pretty good in the objective tests, but then overall towards last place because of the subjective tests.
Originally Posted by Hollywood_North_GT
Sure, there are areas where the car needs improvement. Several, in fact. But I suspect that by the time the next iteration arrives, it will address many - if not all - of these issues. IRS will probably arrive, along with greater power and improved refinement.
But as I said, walking into a saloon espousing the merits of champagne when everyone is drinking beer - and loves beer - is a bit like throwing bricks in the Grand Canyon. What's the point?
But as I said, walking into a saloon espousing the merits of champagne when everyone is drinking beer - and loves beer - is a bit like throwing bricks in the Grand Canyon. What's the point?
6/27/07, 02:49 AM
#16
Closet American
Join Date: July 17, 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC (Hollywood North)
Posts: 5,848
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Why would Ford feel the need to improve if no one was complaining? There are a lot of things about the 350Z that I wish were in the Stang, and I feel that rags writing about them and forum people b-tching about them will expedite Ford in making changes. That's just my opinion.
6/27/07, 12:44 PM
#17
Needs to be more Astony
6/27/07, 06:49 PM
#18
Legacy TMS Member
6/27/07, 07:28 PM
#19
Cobra Member
i think the point of the mustang is just that. you get straight line performance which is better than most cars that cost 2 times as much as it does and anything in between. thats what makes it cheap, because us american want raw good lookin' stop light racers and the mustang is just about the best canidate for that and if they did susp. mods to it and made it faster which would cost them more money they would have to charge us more than they are spending because they have to make a profit.
