350Z better than Mustang GT - wtf?
#1
There's this thread started on [H]ardOCP's forums.
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=...68&page=1&pp=20
People there are saying that the Nissan 350Z is better than a Mustang GT. :nono:
We can't allow these vicious rumours to go unchallenged !!
Post some replies and set the record straight !!!
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=...68&page=1&pp=20
People there are saying that the Nissan 350Z is better than a Mustang GT. :nono:
We can't allow these vicious rumours to go unchallenged !!
Post some replies and set the record straight !!!
#3
Originally posted by WERKED 66@November 25, 2005, 4:07 AM
i wish i had kill stickers for everytime i have beat one....they are a joke.....
i wish i had kill stickers for everytime i have beat one....they are a joke.....
And they'll kill the Stang in the slalom.
They are no joke.
Still rather have the Stang though.
#4
Nissan has squeezed as much N/A power as they can out of the VQ35DE (which is in the 350Z). So there is not much room for N/A improvement. (never seen anyone over 320 RWHP with a ton of mods, not with a shorter stroke though)
The aftermarket part prices are outrageous for it. They do have quite a bit of potential in F/I form with a built motor. (with head and block upgrades (nothing insane) they are capable of 600-900 WHP)
The Mustang seems to be faster in the 1/4 mile, just by comparing the fastest bone stock times for each car. As stated, the 350Z would win against it on an autocross track and we could probably debate over them on a road course.
The Mustang GT is the better bang-for-the-buck though.
The aftermarket part prices are outrageous for it. They do have quite a bit of potential in F/I form with a built motor. (with head and block upgrades (nothing insane) they are capable of 600-900 WHP)
The Mustang seems to be faster in the 1/4 mile, just by comparing the fastest bone stock times for each car. As stated, the 350Z would win against it on an autocross track and we could probably debate over them on a road course.
The Mustang GT is the better bang-for-the-buck though.
#5
Originally posted by BC_Shelby@November 25, 2005, 5:52 AM
0-60 in 5.4 seconds.
And they'll kill the Stang in the slalom.
They are no joke.
Still rather have the Stang though.
0-60 in 5.4 seconds.
And they'll kill the Stang in the slalom.
They are no joke.
Still rather have the Stang though.
#6
I don't know why you are hung up on the Z -- virtually everyone in that thread like the used M3 over either the Z or the Mustang.
Which is fine -- let them have their own opinions. The are all very different cars meant to attract different people for different reasons.
Which is fine -- let them have their own opinions. The are all very different cars meant to attract different people for different reasons.
#9
Originally posted by Rampant@November 25, 2005, 7:29 AM
I don't know why you are hung up on the Z -- virtually everyone in that thread like the used M3 over either the Z or the Mustang.
Which is fine -- let them have their own opinions. The are all very different cars meant to attract different people for different reasons.
I don't know why you are hung up on the Z -- virtually everyone in that thread like the used M3 over either the Z or the Mustang.
Which is fine -- let them have their own opinions. The are all very different cars meant to attract different people for different reasons.
On the M3: Drove a few around, decent power, much nicer interior of course, and hold their value better. A lot less torque and raw muscle. Car is meant to be refined, not raw fun. No good.
The Z: hate the exterior door handles, the interior is worse than the Stang's, two seats, way too expensive for what it is.
Went with the Mustang and do not regret it for a second.
#11
Originally posted by TURBO 05@November 25, 2005, 6:19 AM
I have also smoked every one of them i have raced and for the price compaired to the Stang... well they are a joke
I have also smoked every one of them i have raced and for the price compaired to the Stang... well they are a joke
#13
M3s are nice, 350 is crap. R&T has a long-term test one that seems ot be falling apart. Im sure they drive the snot out of it, but it is doing much worse than their other cars, and this is within i believe about 20,000 miles.
#14
I don't know, I don't think Z's are that bad. Of course I like the stang better, it's a muscle car not a puny import sports car. I'll take my V8 exhaust note, big engine bay, and gobs of torque. They can keep the meager difference in handling.
Around here Z's are a dime a dozen, along with G35's. I've only raced one, and it was modded. The guy refused to go from a stop and I lost. Guess what he owns now? A 5spd '05 GT.
Around here Z's are a dime a dozen, along with G35's. I've only raced one, and it was modded. The guy refused to go from a stop and I lost. Guess what he owns now? A 5spd '05 GT.
#15
My father owns a 350Z, it's a nice car. He sold his 99GT and 00 V6 and bought it.
I've never raced him, only driven the car. Yeah they have 287hp at the crank from the factory but let me tell ya if you don't like torque buy a Z!!!!!! If you like torque by a mustang!!!!!!!!
Stock vs. stock the mustang is faster. Heck my father will even vouch for that. The old man is always buggin about driving my car.
I've never raced him, only driven the car. Yeah they have 287hp at the crank from the factory but let me tell ya if you don't like torque buy a Z!!!!!! If you like torque by a mustang!!!!!!!!
Stock vs. stock the mustang is faster. Heck my father will even vouch for that. The old man is always buggin about driving my car.
#16
I researched and test drove 350Z and RX-8, thought about used BMW M3 or new 320i.
1) 350Z I love the looks, it's refined and smooth, powerfull enough-BUT- diff size tires front to back cant rotate = replacing expensive tires to soon, interior layout is totaly impacticle, cant recline seats, no room for even a weekend trip= no sale!!
2)RX-8 good performance, superior interior, room, practicality, almost bought one BUT, uses oil, have to wind it up like a turbo to get the HP, no sporty engine sound, MPG is not very good, not much torque
3) BMW 320i is a nice luxury "sporty" car BUT not enough HP and maintenance costs too much, I wanted a new car so a used M3 with even higher maintenace cost didnt interst me
4) drove the 05 GT, knew I found my car. No regrets since. Turn the key, listen to the music of 300 happy horses, let them run and burn some rubber with out even trying, oh yeeah!!!
1) 350Z I love the looks, it's refined and smooth, powerfull enough-BUT- diff size tires front to back cant rotate = replacing expensive tires to soon, interior layout is totaly impacticle, cant recline seats, no room for even a weekend trip= no sale!!
2)RX-8 good performance, superior interior, room, practicality, almost bought one BUT, uses oil, have to wind it up like a turbo to get the HP, no sporty engine sound, MPG is not very good, not much torque
3) BMW 320i is a nice luxury "sporty" car BUT not enough HP and maintenance costs too much, I wanted a new car so a used M3 with even higher maintenace cost didnt interst me
4) drove the 05 GT, knew I found my car. No regrets since. Turn the key, listen to the music of 300 happy horses, let them run and burn some rubber with out even trying, oh yeeah!!!
#17
Originally posted by BC_Shelby@November 25, 2005, 5:52 AM
0-60 in 5.4 seconds.
And they'll kill the Stang in the slalom.
They are no joke.
Still rather have the Stang though.
0-60 in 5.4 seconds.
And they'll kill the Stang in the slalom.
They are no joke.
Still rather have the Stang though.
#20
Originally posted by GT Premi@November 25, 2005, 7:46 PM
Have you seen the 2005 Sport Coupe Comparison Test Video here between the '05 Mustang GT, 350Z, and RX-8?
Have you seen the 2005 Sport Coupe Comparison Test Video here between the '05 Mustang GT, 350Z, and RX-8?
Ok, I posted over there standing up for our stangs!
Ive been registered there since Oct 2004, lol