| 350Z Raodster anyone?... - Click HERE for Original Thread |
| BlueTurboEGG |
Brought to you by Fresh Alloy.com |
|
|
| redbaron303 |
Hmmm.... maybe that should be my treat to self for graduating instead of project 280Z..... :wacko:
Maybe I'll buy both because this degree and my initiative are supposed to get me a good paying job............ :blink: :fingersx: |
|
|
| mrprecidia |
| That looks really nice. :bigthumbup: |
|
|
| dogstar |
snice :)
definitely get the girlies in that thing, specially in red. |
|
|
| SHIFT_AT_9000_RPMS |
| Sr8 up pimpin'!! |
|
|
| Inzane |
quote:
Originally posted by redbaron303@Feb 9 2003, 09:22 AM
Maybe I'll buy both because this degree and my initiative are supposed to get me a good paying job............
Trust me, starting off your life after school with $45k+ in debt is not a smart thing to do at all. |
|
|
| redbaron303 |
| Ya... I gotta hope that I won't be too much in debt.... I'll cut my costs on what I can now, so I can pay cash for school for the enxt 3 years.... That is a best case scenario. |
|
|
| GTS Jeff |
| pimp...but not the car u would buy if u were serious about performance |
|
|
| Inzane |
quote:
Originally posted by Jeff TYPE R@Feb 10 2003, 01:58 AM
but not the car u would buy if u were serious about performance
Funny you make that comment. I guess it depends on what aspects of "performance" you're most interested in and what you are comparing it to.
If you look at its primary market, then the 350Z already has enough performance to beat most of its competition. For the roadster specfically (what this topic is about), I'm citing its competition as:
M-B SLK, BMW Z3 (or Z4 now), Audi TT, S2000, and the Boxster S.
I'd hardly say the 350Z is outgunned here. |
|
|
| BlueTurboEGG |
quote:
Originally posted by Jeff TYPE R@Feb 10 2003, 01:58 AM
pimp...but not the car u would buy if u were serious about performance
I didn't start it, but hell, I'll finish it :D
Not serious about performance? bwahahahaha :lol:
Compared to what?.
Certainly has the ability to yank the teeth out of the S2000 :P
Funny, lower pricetag, better performance AND more potential... What a concept :) |
|
|
| s2oooR |
quote:
Originally posted by BlueTurboEGG@Feb 10 2003, 09:07 PM
Certainly has the ability to yank the teeth out of the S2000 :P
Funny, lower pricetag, better performance AND more potential... What a concept :)
...Yank the teeth out of the S2000, yup, i'll give u that in terms of torque.....LOL....but go take a look at the 0-60s....its identicle! ....Gosh, I wish i had the specs for both cars again but geez.....I know the car is over 500lbs heavier than mine! ....The car needs all that torque and HP to keep up with me :P
Plus, I test drove it :P I didnt like the way it handled :P....must be cuz the car is overweight....it needs to go do some cardio...hahaha :P :D
Price tag should be a bit more than the S cuz its a roadster....the hardtop is maybe 1-2000 bucks less than the S |
|
|
| s2oooR |
| oh yeah, i'll give u more potential too.....THAT, it defintiely has! |
|
|
| redbaron303 |
| Go Andy..... show those Honda guys who's boss! But really... twin turbo or supercharged Z33.... :bigthumbup: :bow: |
|
|
| s2oooR |
that 0-60 is on the high side....lol...:P
usually get an average of 5.5 between magazines :P
and the S can reach in the 160's for top speed,,,,on the S2000 site, theres a video to prove it too :P
..........mmmm whatelse? ...oh yeah....I think those G's prove the S is a better handling car too :P...not to mention the stopping distance :P
so there! :P hahaha....
I DO like the twin turbos though *drool*......too expensive for my taste though....Andy was saying how the twin turbo's were like 15000 alone...plus install and tuning? ...damnnn,, might as well buy yourself another car :P |
|
|
| BlueTurboEGG |
Face it, you're car just ain't the pimpest thing around anymore and you need a bigger penis :)
Car and Driver recently did a comparo... Fourth Audi TT 1.8, The S2000 came third... Second?, the new Mustang Mach 1... First? 350Z... TOURING model...
Also the S2000 was slower: 0 to 60 timed at 6.3 seconds on a car that has just broken in.
"Our own 0-to-60 time of 6.3 seconds was set with a hole shot just south of the redline on a car with only 369 miles on the odo, but that's behavior reserved for people who can do clutch changes on their lunch hour. Regular Joes can expect 60 mph to arrive closer to the 7.6 seconds "
Handling?, the S2000 was one of the slower cars around the track too...
"The 350Z Touring's 5.7-second run to 60 mph and 14.3-second quarter-mile make it the second-quickest gas burner to the Mustang, and the 0.86 skidpad grip and the 163-foot stopping distance suggest it has reflexes that are second best to the Honda. So all were surprised when the Z set the fastest average speed of 77.7 mph around the track. "
Just goes to show you, numbers aren't everything... Balance is everything.
Go read the article if you don't believe me: http://caranddriver.com/xp/Caranddriver/co...=S2000&class=20
Can you attest to you're claimed "5.5 between magazines?"
Now for your 160MPH video, I'd rather see that ACTUALLY measured. Gauges are notoriously inaccurate at high speeds.
Yeah, the turbo kit is expensive, but a highly reliable high horsepower turbo kit is hard to come by... I'd like to see a Honda do that :) |
|
|
| s2oooR |
.....they need a better driver :P ....and a car thats actually broken in :P .....I think its pretty well documented that full break in occurs at around 12 000kms or so? give or take....
....and yeah....i got a magazine to prove it... :P..in fact i have it listed at 5.3 seconds in the magazine...
i guess your right about the video....u need something more accurate, my bad :P |
|
|
| BlueTurboEGG |
Still, all the other cars are under the same crutch, no break-in low milage...
You wanna know what the saleman told my buddy when I did all the leg work, and nearly all the paper work to sell him and get a great price on a Celica GT? and I quote:
Buddy: "How long do I need before I break in the motor"
Sales bub: "Y'know, these cars already come from the factory tested, so just go crazy"
Mmm-Hmmm...
Now, getting back to our little chat...
You still can't account of the SLOOOOWness on the Honda around the track :P |
|
|
| 1mns13 |
| I'll throw in another vote for the 350Z over the S2000. Both are wonderful cars, but only one of them is fun all the time. Torque will do that for you. Especially torque from boost. :D |
|
|
| s2oooR |
quote:
Originally posted by BlueTurboEGG@Feb 12 2003, 01:20 PM
Buddy: "How long do I need before I break in the motor"
Sales bub: "Y'know, these cars already come from the factory tested, so just go crazy"
Mmm-Hmmm...
Now, getting back to our little chat...
You still can't account of the SLOOOOWness on the Honda around the track :P
explain why the S2000s feel stronger at 12000kms than at 12kms then? Who are u gonna beleive, a salesman or actual figures that show more hp at later kms? .....btw, the guys at honda told me that drive them like crazy as soon as u get them if u want...its already broken in...hahaha...yeah right, so u can collect on warranty from Honda?
and slowness my ass.....they had a test with the Porsche boxter S, S2000, audi TT, and BMW Z3M roadster.....S2000 came in second with the TT comming last overall.......and at alot of the pts in the race track the S2000 carried more speed through corners and held a tighter line than the rest of those cars :P
I guess it all depends on what mag. u read....
Plus, mine has some extras to make it a bit stiffer and handle better ;) :D hahaha..........oh well, my excuses anyways :P |
|
|
| s2oooR |
quote:
Originally posted by 1mns13@Feb 12 2003, 06:54 PM
only one of them is fun all the time. Torque will do that for you. Especially torque from boost. :D
....you've never driven a convertible then, i take it? lol
torque from boost? oh yeahhh....a turbo? .....no no....cant afford to put on 15-20 000 bucks in extras....and still pay for gas :P .....that makes it fun ALL the time :P :P |
|
|
| Seks |
I'm starting to get bored of reading this 350z vs s2000 arguments -_-
...and I ain't gonna side with anyone here... |
|
|
| GTS Jeff |
my comment was never intended to compare the 350z to the s2k. instead, im saying that this roadster is NOT the choice of someone serious about performance. if someone were serious about performance, they would buy a 350z coupe.
lighter, stiffer, and less problems associated with having a heavy open top. |
|
|
| BlueTurboEGG |
quote:
Originally posted by Jeff TYPE R@Feb 12 2003, 04:35 PM
my comment was never intended to compare the 350z to the s2k. instead, im saying that this roadster is NOT the choice of someone serious about performance. if someone were serious about performance, they would buy a 350z coupe.
lighter, stiffer, and less problems associated with having a heavy open top.
Oh, look who's doing a complete about face :)
Should've said something earlier ducky!
S'kay, Me and Rommel need a good scrap anyways :) |
|
|
| BlueTurboEGG |
quote:
Originally posted by s2oooR@Feb 12 2003, 12:46 PM
quote:
Originally posted by 1mns13@Feb 12 2003, 06:54 PM
only one of them is fun all the time. Torque will do that for you. Especially torque from boost. :D
....you've never driven a convertible then, i take it? lol
torque from boost? oh yeahhh....a turbo? .....no no....cant afford to put on 15-20 000 bucks in extras....and still pay for gas :P .....that makes it fun ALL the time :P :P
I look at it this way, you can spend about 15,000 on NA mods for the S2000 and net yourself about 30HP, or 15,000 and get yourself more than double your horsepower. |
|
|
| SlowAzzPorsche911T |
WOW that is one beautiful car... one of the nicest lookin roadsters since.....  my #1 dream car |
|
|
| s2oooR |
quote:
Originally posted by BlueTurboEGG@Feb 21 2003, 10:04 PM
I look at it this way, you can spend about 15,000 on NA mods for the S2000 and net yourself about 30HP, or 15,000 and get yourself more than double your horsepower.
Ya u can look at it that way but if u wanna compare N/A to F/I...u really cant......btw, u CAN install a supercharger or a turbo in the S2000 now :P |
|
|
| s2oooR |
| Porsche, u know thats not a roadster right? :P :blink: |
|
|
| redbaron303 |
| That 50''s 300 series mercedes came in a convertable model too.... but either way, I wouldn't mind either convertable or gullwing :D |
|
|
| BlueTurboEGG |
quote:
Originally posted by s2oooR@Feb 21 2003, 10:40 PM
quote:
Originally posted by BlueTurboEGG@Feb 21 2003, 10:04 PM
I look at it this way, you can spend about 15,000 on NA mods for the S2000 and net yourself about 30HP, or 15,000 and get yourself more than double your horsepower.
Ya u can look at it that way but if u wanna compare N/A to F/I...u really cant......btw, u CAN install a supercharger or a turbo in the S2000 now :P
Yeah, and get what?, a mighty 80hp? whoppee... It probably costs just as much too. 
You get the greddy kist and you're getting 417HP to the wheels... Hmmm, that's what about 500 and something at the flywheel?.
Most I can see the S2muchy is adding 100 on stock internals and still work.  |
|
|
| SlowAzzPorsche911T |
| s2000r... what makes a roadster then? I've heard them being referred to as roadsters along with the classic 200sl evolution to the 500sl that mercedes makes as well.... |
|
|
| redbaron303 |
| Roadster is another word for convertable.... The gullwing isn't a convertable and isn't a roadster. However there was a convertable model of that gullwing, the300sl from the 50's. A sweet roadster at that... |
|
|
| FingerPuppet |
Thats a very nice car, but it's a bit heavy.
Too round for me too.
Handling would be one big aspect in it's performance.
:) |
|
|
| SlowAzzPorsche911T |
| I just couldn't find a pic of the convertible.. sorry |
|
|
|
|
|
