Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Coupes & Convertibles Honda S2000 Honda S2000 vs. Nissan 350Z
183 messages, Last post on Sep 08, 2007 at 11:04 AM
You are in the Honda S2000 Forum. Your Host is claires
|
Replying to: habitat1 (Apr 26, 2007 3:45 pm) 
|
|
|
Replying to: biancar (Apr 26, 2007 8:58 am) I think you hit the nail on the head - the S2000 is a "toy." A fast, playful, responsive, and fun toy. Other "toys" that I would love to own include the Lotus Elise, Porsche Boxster, BMW Z4, and Mazda Miata. The 350Z is certainly a fast and capable sports car, but it's more of a broadsword to Honda's rapier. |
|
|
The original 03 weighed 3188 lbs by the way. From edmunds, the current 07 model: Curb Weight: 3339 lbs. Yes the roadster is heavy and more of a touring convertible than a roadster in the traditional sense. If you go back and look at the 96 300zx TT you will see that it weighed even more than the current Z but C&D consistently chose it over the other sports cars of the day. I think you are weighing your judgments on sports cars a little too heavily on this one aspect. There's a little more to it than that.
|
|
|
Replying to: dat2 (Apr 26, 2007 4:01 pm) But I can spell potato. 
|
|
|
Replying to: dat2 (Apr 26, 2007 4:15 pm) So you are saying I should look more favorably on Rosie, because she didn't used to be quite as fat? I probably got my 3,402 pound figure from one of the other models (Touring or Grand Touring). Which are at least more aptly named than the slightly less obese "Enthusiast" model. I don't think you score any points by saying the current 350Z is lighter than the 300ZX TT. That so-called sports car died a pretty undignified death by being overweight and overpriced at the same time. And, for the record, I never saw a comparison test in which the Supra TT didn't pummel it in performance. I do concur that weight is not the only factor by which to judge the quality of a sports car. But if you fail as miserably as Nissan has on that front, not much else matters, IMO. Heck, even the sledgehammer (vs. scalpel) style 7 liter Corvette and 8 liter Viper come in under the curb weight of a 350Z, if I am not mistaken.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: habitat1 (Apr 26, 2007 5:30 pm)  Thanks for the chuckle today, I needed it! Boy am I easily amused... |
|
|
Replying to: habitat1 (Apr 26, 2007 5:52 pm) No question the Honda is smaller. If you think that's a good thing, then you'll be happy with it. If you want a little more interior room, the Z is better. Personally, I like the fact that the Z is a bit heavier and roomier. Where I live, I have to contend with 18-wheelers and other heavy traffic on the Beltway around Washington. When I test-drove smaller roadsters (like the Miata, for instance - comparable to the Honda) I felt buffeted and blown around. In the Z, I feel secure and sure-footed. If you can manage to drive only on twisty country roads, maybe a smaller car suits you better. For real-world driving, I want something a bit more substantial. But getting to the fun part - the Z has a 3 liter, 300 hp engine that is, year after year, named to Ward's best 10 list. The Honda has a 2.2L 237 hp. The Z is faster than the Honda in the 1/4 mile, in the time to 30 and in the time to 60. And in the all-important 60 to 0. The Honda's power band is higher than the Z's and some people complain it's buzzy. The Z gives you more low-end torque for faster take-offs. Both cars are arguably going after similar buyers, although the Honda is cheaper so perhaps might be more appealing to younger people on a budget. The only way to really know is test-drive them both.
|
|
|
Replying to: biancar (Apr 27, 2007 10:56 am) "The Z is faster than the Honda in the 1/4 mile, in the time to 30 and in the time to 60. And in the all-important 60 to 0." If you are looking for a car that is fast and secure, have you checked out the Subaru Legacy GT and MazdaSpeed6? Both cars accelerate faster than the 350Z, and they have the bonus of a spacious 4 door cabin and large trunk. AWD guarantees that these sedans always feel surefooted too. http://www.caranddriver.com/features/12238/the-quickest-cars-of-2007-25000-to-30- 000.html Oh, and in a 2003 Car & Driver test of 5 convertible sports cars, the S2000 proved to be .1 sec faster than the 350Z to 60 MPH, .2 sec faster through the 1/4 mile, and pulled .04g better on the skidpad. http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/6846/the-blow-dryers.html So let's recap. The AWD sedans from Mazda and Subaru are faster and more surefooted than the 350Z, and the S2000 is faster and handles better with a lighter, more nimble platform. At least the 350Z is cool looking... |
|
You're quoting from some pretty old stats there. But you're absolutely right about one thing, the 350Z is definitely cool-looking!  Look, if you like the Honda better, good for you. I'm trying to point out the differences between the two for people who are still shopping and still considering one over the other. It's not so much which is "better," because that's really subjective. It's more which is better for a given buyer, because while they're certainly comparable, there are differences that are going to be noticeable, depending on what a buyer is looking for. http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupe/112_0403_compact_sport_coupe_compariso- - n/2004- _nissan_350z.html In this comparo, the authors liked the Mazda RX-8 the best, 2nd place was the Nissan, last was the Honda. Some quotes: Re the Honda - "The S2000 still demands a certain buyer with very little luggage who values sport over everyday liveability. You don't so much drive the S2000 as wear it or ride it. It's the kind of car you'd love to find yourself in on California's coastal Highway 1 an hour before sunset with the guarantee of grippy, dry pavement and no highway patrolmen--but how often does that happen? If you currently own a motorcycle and are looking to come out of the cold, this is the perfect car." Re the Z - "If you consider the power-to-weight ratios, the Z still comes out ahead, as our acceleration times demonstrate. In fact, this is the quickest 350Z we've tested thus far...All this means a driver doesn't need to rev the Z's big 3.5-liter V-6 to 6000-plus rpm to find accelerative enjoyment. The Z is happy at just about any speed in just about any gear...In terms of around-town ride quality, we'd have to place this Nissan ahead of the go-kart-like Honda, but behind the magical Mazda. A close runner-up to number one, the 350Z Track Model is a heavy-handed, firm-riding musclecar among nimble middleweights... like Muhammad Ali, this big fella is surprisingly quick on his feet and packs a wallop." And one of the best comparos I've read: http://www.automobilemag.com/reviews/convertibles/0308_roadsters/results_overvie- - - w.html Basically, if you want a car that excels at the track, that's light and tossable, and you're not too tall or too big or too muscular yourself, buy the Honda. If you want a car that excels more on the highway, has more interior room and is more of a muscle-car grand tourer, buy the Z. And if you've got more money, buy the Porsche or the BMW, but we won't get into that here! (By the way, interesting that you brought up the Subaru Legacy. That's what my husband would like to buy to replace our 2k Maxima, eventually.)
|
|
|
Replying to: biancar (Apr 27, 2007 8:19 pm) The S2000 is one of the last serious, uncompromised "sports cars" you can buy new today - and it's no toy. It was built from the ground up to be one of the best sports cars on the road - period. I think the 350Z has a nice blend of performance and comfort, and can see why it's popular. But, if someone is looking for a "grand touring" car with a solid blend of sport and comfort, what does the 350Z have that the MazdaSpeed6 doesn't?
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Coupes & Convertibles Honda S2000 Honda S2000 vs. Nissan 350Z
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2009 Honda S2000
2009 Nissan 350Z
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
