Nissan 350z - Yes or No?

[TW]Fox · 24 Oct 2011 at 12:05

ubersonic said:
That was my main complaint (apart form the lack of power) with the 2005 350z I tested, compared to the 300zx the interior felt substantially... less solid.

Lack of power? Its something like 276bhp!

Sime · 24 Oct 2011 at 12:07

Oh ye, the 370z is superior to the 350z in every way (no annoying brace in the boot, nice interior, better looking imo) but then again your paying the extra 8 or 9k for it?

shoes · 24 Oct 2011 at 12:10

ubersonic said:
Meh, they both look like Amstrad styled them, and tbh both the LHD/RHD car in those links having a LHD handbrake kinda sums up the effort Nissan put into the styling. The 370z was a large improvement over the 350z, in fact I think im correct in saying that when everyday driver (American show, like old top gear but without boring cars) did a head to head review of the 300zx/350z/370z when the 370 was launched the 300/350 came out even on points due mainly to the quality of the 350's cabin.

Yeah the 300zx is an all round gem really, at 20+ years of the Z32 still looks great. I like the interior too as long as I've called shotgun

ubersonic · 24 Oct 2011 at 13:13

[TW]Fox;20385717 said:
Lack of power? Its something like 276bhp!

So is the 1988 300ZX, if a 2005 car has roughly the same power and weight as its 17 year old predecessor then I consider it to have a lack of power, simple.

[TW]Fox · 24 Oct 2011 at 13:17

ubersonic said:
So is the 1988 300ZX, if a 2005 car has roughly the same power and weight as its 17 year old predecessor then I consider it to have a lack of power, simple.

It had the correct level of power for its target market.

ubersonic · 24 Oct 2011 at 13:19

[TW]Fox;20386310 said:
It had the correct level of power for its target market.

Im not trying to say its a bad car, just I found it inferior to its 1988 predecessor both in performance and build quality when I test drove it.

ZG002 · 24 Oct 2011 at 17:08

ubersonic said:
So is the 1988 300ZX, if a 2005 car has roughly the same power and weight as its 17 year old predecessor then I consider it to have a lack of power, simple.

What a crazy statement.

hurfdurf · 24 Oct 2011 at 17:10

ubersonic said:
So is the 1988 300ZX, if a 2005 car has roughly the same power and weight as its 17 year old predecessor then I consider it to have a lack of power, simple.

They are very different kinds of cars though, are they not?

Sukh · 24 Oct 2011 at 19:33

ubersonic said:
Meh, they both look like Amstrad styled them, and tbh both the LHD/RHD car in those links having a LHD handbrake kinda sums up the effort Nissan put into the styling.

I'm pretty sure "premium" car makers do the same thing with regards the centre tunnel.

Outline · 24 Oct 2011 at 20:07

Fantastic cars. Expensive to run, but one of the few that's actually worth it.

NathWraith · 24 Oct 2011 at 21:19

ubersonic said:
So is the 1988 300ZX, if a 2005 car has roughly the same power and weight as its 17 year old predecessor then I consider it to have a lack of power, simple.

The way a 300zx will deploy it's power is totally different to the 350z.

The parralel turbo setup on the 300zx will not be anywhere near as smooth as the power delivery from the 3.5L V6.

Plus the majority of 300zx's were 2+2 coupes with very few short wheelbase 2 seaters made.

The cars couldn't be more different. A later gen of car does not have to be more powerful, there is a lot more to cars than just power. Thatshould be pretty obvious however.

placeholder · 4 Feb 2012 at 21:13

Bit of a bump....

Im sure no one is too bothered but in the interests of squaring the circle etc..

I finally got a 350z on thursday night. Many thanks to everyone who offered their opinions and advice. Im absolutely chuffed with it.

Its a 56 plate GT 300. Im probably not in a position to be objective about it cos its such a huge step up from what im used to.

My first thoughts are that all the trade-off points arent as bad as i expected. I havent gone through as much petrol as i expected by quite a margin. Obviously im not saying its great but i had budgeted for what i thought was "horrific" and its been a long way short of that.

No photos due to hellish weather, but thanks to everyone who offered advice. Changing the head unit while maintaining the the sat nav is the first project!

Sukh · 4 Feb 2012 at 21:26

Welcome to the club

New head unit with sat nav is easy, keeping the sound from the Sat Nav is nigh on impossible!

placeholder · 4 Feb 2012 at 21:33

Sukh said:
Welcome to the club

New head unit with sat nav is easy, keeping the sound from the Sat Nav is nigh on impossible!

This is my issue. I have absolutely no need for Sat Nav. It looks pretty but i dont/wont use it much.

However i dont want to do too much damage to the original set up. I guess its a trade-off. I have sat-nav and a dvd player as it stands but i want a decent head unit while keeping the sat-nav as much as possible.

Sukh · 4 Feb 2012 at 21:34

In that case, put your head unit in, leave the sat nav in.

It will show maps etc/ but make no sound.

placeholder · 4 Feb 2012 at 21:38

Sukh said:
In that case, put your head unit in, leave the sat nav in.

It will show maps etc/ but make no sound.

Is it an easy fit? Im a mechanical idiot so id get someone to do it for me anyway.

In an ideal world i just want two screens. One with the sat-nav and the other dealing with music, phone etc.

The current system is actually ok but only playing CDs and having a tape player in the mix is ridiculous!!

Sukh · 4 Feb 2012 at 21:46

You can put a line in (phono) instead of the tape deck, most people do.

The_Baron · 4 Feb 2012 at 21:50

I got a pre-reg RX-8 with 300 miles on the clock for just a squidge over your budget. I looked at the Nissan but the small boot made it impractical for everyday use. Lovely looking car though.

placeholder · 4 Feb 2012 at 21:50

Sukh said:
You can put a line in (phono) instead of the tape deck, most people do.

Sorry if im being thick here, what does that do and how does it work?

Clown · 4 Feb 2012 at 21:51

You on the 350-uk forums?