350Z
Thread Starter
iTrader: (8)
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 6,730
Likes: 0
From: Colorado USA
Rep Power: 354 
350Z
i'm driving down a 60km/h road with my stock civic sedan, and beside me pulls up this beautifull nissan 350z
, just beautifull i am drolling, and look at the guy and gave him a
about his car, i am assuming he though i wanted to race, so he floors it, so i floor mine too, by the time i get to 120 from 60km/h, the 300Z is like at least 12 cars ahead of me and continues to fly, that thing looks stock but the way it accelerated, it was impersive, I GOT OWNED, but by a $45000 car (canadian)
just a question what is faster, the 350Z, or the honda S2000?
, just beautifull i am drolling, and look at the guy and gave him a about his car, i am assuming he though i wanted to race, so he floors it, so i floor mine too, by the time i get to 120 from 60km/h, the 300Z is like at least 12 cars ahead of me and continues to fly, that thing looks stock but the way it accelerated, it was impersive, I GOT OWNED, but by a $45000 car (canadian)just a question what is faster, the 350Z, or the honda S2000?
I wish I was asian
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 5,083
Likes: 0
From: chantilly, Virginia, US
Rep Power: 336 Honda s2000
0-60: 5.8 seconds
1/4 mile: 14.4 seconds
HP: 240
Torque: 153 lbs/ft
Weight: 2809 lbs
Nissan 350Z
0-60: 5.8 seconds
1/4 mile: 14.0 seconds
HP: 287
Torque: 274
Weight: 3197 lbs
The 350Z is roughly 300 lbs heavier, but has 34 more HP and 121 lbs/ft more torque.
Honda S2000
Nissan 350Z
0-60: 5.8 seconds
1/4 mile: 14.4 seconds
HP: 240
Torque: 153 lbs/ft
Weight: 2809 lbs
Nissan 350Z
0-60: 5.8 seconds
1/4 mile: 14.0 seconds
HP: 287
Torque: 274
Weight: 3197 lbs
The 350Z is roughly 300 lbs heavier, but has 34 more HP and 121 lbs/ft more torque.
Honda S2000
Nissan 350Z
FIJI-STEVE IS THE OFFICIAL 7THGEN QUEER
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,063
Likes: 0
From: California, US
Rep Power: 0 
Quote
[hr]Originally posted by: cambo
Honda s2000
0-60: 5.8 seconds
1/4 mile: 14.4 seconds
HP: 240
Torque: 153 lbs/ft
Weight: 2809 lbs
Nissan 350Z
0-60: 5.8 seconds
1/4 mile: 14.0 seconds
HP: 287
Torque: 274
Weight: 3197 lbs
The 350Z is roughly 300 lbs heavier, but has 34 more HP and 121 lbs/ft more torque.
Honda S2000
Nissan 350Z[hr]
[hr]Originally posted by: cambo
Honda s2000
0-60: 5.8 seconds
1/4 mile: 14.4 seconds
HP: 240
Torque: 153 lbs/ft
Weight: 2809 lbs
Nissan 350Z
0-60: 5.8 seconds
1/4 mile: 14.0 seconds
HP: 287
Torque: 274
Weight: 3197 lbs
The 350Z is roughly 300 lbs heavier, but has 34 more HP and 121 lbs/ft more torque.
Honda S2000
Nissan 350Z
[hr]
u can get 13.9 with good drivers. n dont look at magazine time. itz b.s.
even car n driver make stupid stuff. they comparing a coupe to a convertible.
v6 to inline 4
and did u even read the 350z propraganda?
nissan says 350z has more leg room(big wup)..
n s2000 has the radio deck behind a hidden door n says it hard to read when u can touch it...
Registered!!
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,592
Likes: 0
From: San Diego, California, USA, Northern Hemisphere, Earth, Sol System, Spiral arm of the Milkey Way
Rep Power: 0 350Z > S2000. simple as that. Stiffer chasis, more Hp, more torque, more usable room, better interior construction, + its cheaper. Geee i wonder which one i want... hmmmmmmm....
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 10,031
Likes: 0
From: Milwaukee, Wisconsin, US
Rep Power: 400 
Quote
[hr]Originally posted by: HondaGuru
350Z > S2000. simple as that. Stiffer chasis, more Hp, more torque, more usable room, better interior construction, + its cheaper. Geee i wonder which one i want... hmmmmmmm....[hr]
[hr]Originally posted by: HondaGuru
350Z > S2000. simple as that. Stiffer chasis, more Hp, more torque, more usable room, better interior construction, + its cheaper. Geee i wonder which one i want... hmmmmmmm....[hr]
And by the way... better interior construction? even the 350Z guys say their interiors feel cheap, like that of a mustang. lol.
Oh, and as for the S2k vs 350Z debate. They are basically the exact same in the 1/4 mile. It can go either way, since the 2 are almost dead on. However, the 350Z is probably a bit easier to launch, meaning you'll see more 350Z's beat S2000's.
Registered!!
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Rep Power: 0
Quote
[hr]Originally posted by: S2000man01
Now make it a convertible.... heavier, chassis is less stiff, less room, etc, etc. Now compare the 2. S2000 owns.
And by the way... better interior construction? even the 350Z guys say their interiors feel cheap, like that of a mustang. lol.
Oh, and as for the S2k vs 350Z debate. They are basically the exact same in the 1/4 mile. It can go either way, since the 2 are almost dead on. However, the 350Z is probably a bit easier to launch, meaning you'll see more 350Z's beat S2000's.[hr]
[hr]Originally posted by: S2000man01
Quote
[hr]Originally posted by: HondaGuru
350Z > S2000. simple as that. Stiffer chasis, more Hp, more torque, more usable room, better interior construction, + its cheaper. Geee i wonder which one i want... hmmmmmmm....[hr]
[hr]Originally posted by: HondaGuru
350Z > S2000. simple as that. Stiffer chasis, more Hp, more torque, more usable room, better interior construction, + its cheaper. Geee i wonder which one i want... hmmmmmmm....[hr]
And by the way... better interior construction? even the 350Z guys say their interiors feel cheap, like that of a mustang. lol.
Oh, and as for the S2k vs 350Z debate. They are basically the exact same in the 1/4 mile. It can go either way, since the 2 are almost dead on. However, the 350Z is probably a bit easier to launch, meaning you'll see more 350Z's beat S2000's.[hr]
I'm not going to comment on its performance, i havent driven it and dont want to be a mag racer, haha.
Still, even without driving, it's a no brainer that 350Z will be faster most of the time than S2K. S2k is a hectic ride for most...
Registered!!
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,592
Likes: 0
From: San Diego, California, USA, Northern Hemisphere, Earth, Sol System, Spiral arm of the Milkey Way
Rep Power: 0 "Now make it a convertible.... heavier, chassis is less stiff, less room, etc, etc. Now compare the 2. S2000 owns."
Bahahaha! Okay, while we are chopping off the roof, and adding weight, let us also put sand bags in the trunk of the 350Z, then we could add some 24" quad chromed Lexani rims! I bet the S2000 would REALLY come out on top then!
BTW material quality ad build quality are two WAY different things.
Bahahaha! Okay, while we are chopping off the roof, and adding weight, let us also put sand bags in the trunk of the 350Z, then we could add some 24" quad chromed Lexani rims! I bet the S2000 would REALLY come out on top then!
BTW material quality ad build quality are two WAY different things.
I like ruining your threads.
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,165
Likes: 0
From: San Diego
Rep Power: 0 I would personally take the Z. S2000 looks like a death trap to me if i ever were to wreck it. Both fast cars, but the Z has a slight edge, and safety wise i think the Z would prevail.
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 10,031
Likes: 0
From: Milwaukee, Wisconsin, US
Rep Power: 400
Quote
[hr]Originally posted by: HondaGuru
"Now make it a convertible.... heavier, chassis is less stiff, less room, etc, etc. Now compare the 2. S2000 owns."
Bahahaha! Okay, while we are chopping off the roof, and adding weight, let us also put sand bags in the trunk of the 350Z, then we could add some 24" quad chromed Lexani rims! I bet the S2000 would REALLY come out on top then!
BTW material quality ad build quality are two WAY different things.[hr]
[hr]Originally posted by: HondaGuru
"Now make it a convertible.... heavier, chassis is less stiff, less room, etc, etc. Now compare the 2. S2000 owns."
Bahahaha! Okay, while we are chopping off the roof, and adding weight, let us also put sand bags in the trunk of the 350Z, then we could add some 24" quad chromed Lexani rims! I bet the S2000 would REALLY come out on top then!
BTW material quality ad build quality are two WAY different things.[hr]
Registered!!
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
From: Seattle, Washington, US
Rep Power: 0 According the the road tests the 350Z does 0-60 in 5.4 secs where as the S2000 did it in 5.5 secs.
3.5L V6 vs 2.0L IL-4 "There's no replacement for displacement." I'd take the Z anyday. Though I like the body style of the 90-96 300ZX but that's cause I used to own a '93 300ZX.
3.5L V6 vs 2.0L IL-4 "There's no replacement for displacement." I'd take the Z anyday. Though I like the body style of the 90-96 300ZX but that's cause I used to own a '93 300ZX.
Registered!!
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 874
Likes: 0
From: South Eastern Wisconsin
Rep Power: 0 Kinda off the subject, but wasn't the Z series originally created to rival porsches? Thats what I have always been told. I know they are no where near each other, but thats what I have heard over the years. Oh well, maybe what they really meant was rival the porsche look, [IMG]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/IMG]
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 10,031
Likes: 0
From: Milwaukee, Wisconsin, US
Rep Power: 400
Quote
[hr]Originally posted by: HondaGuru
we havent even TOUCHED on engine potential.[hr]
[hr]Originally posted by: HondaGuru
we havent even TOUCHED on engine potential.[hr]
-most info from UL at s2ki.com
VQ35DE in the Z is an interesting case. I certainly think it can see nice gains, but I don't think the gains will be all that large as some people might expect.
First of all, it runs a 10.3:1 compression ratio, so you could certainly bring it up a point or so. This would be worth about 2% in output on average.
Now, in order to increase output on a NA engine (w/o increasing displacement), you have to either improve torque output, or you have to produce torque higher in the rpm range (and/or rev the engine higher). So, if we look at the VQ35DE, what are the options?
Well, first of all, it doesn't really make sense to rev the Z higher in stock form. The torque curve takes a major dive after 5000 rpm. That doesn't mean that you couldn't rev the Z higher with the right mods. The stroke is less than 82 mm, so the piston speeds aren't exactly high (although I don't know the rod ratio). In order to facilitate higher revving, you'd need to replace the cams, which would almost certainly compromise the low end performance since the Z does not use a variable profile/lift setup like VTEC. However, if you're willing to live with that, you can move the power curve up. If you were to pick up an extra 20 lbs-ft of torque at 6500 rpm, you'd gain about 25 hp more. A significant gain, but it probably won't happen with bolt-ons.
In terms of overall efficiency of an engine, I like to look at torque output. For a production car on pump gas, its rare to see more than 80 lbs-ft of torque per liter of displacement. And in fact, the Z approaches that at nearly 79 lbs-ft/liter (more than the S2K's 76.5 lbs-ft/liter). If you modify an engine for maximum output on pump gas (preferably 93, not 91), you'll see that torque efficiency rise to around 90 lbs-ft/liter
In terms of torque output, you could certainly pick up some gains with more compression and breathing mods, but those gains won't be huge (in fact, they might be smaller than on an S2K in terms of percentages). Also, the bore is quite large, which does not necessarily lend itself to high thermal efficiencies (although interestingly it should support large valves which could really produce high rpm flow and power).
I fully expect to see some mildly modded 350Z's pushing 320 hp all motor (maybe 265-275 whp), but that would be about the most I'd expect for a streetable setup. Compared to something like the 3.25 liter S54 I6 from BMW, the Z motor is not as revvable and does not appear to have anywhere near the top end flow capacity. For one, the VQ35 uses a variable path/capacity intake manifold. While such manifolds are terrific for low rpm and midrange performance, they almost universally compromise top end flow and power (the S54 uses individual throttle bodies in a large common plenum).
Conversely, we're already seeing S2000's pick up 15-20 hp with simple bolt-ons. And judging by the results available from the Mugen ECU and the AEM EMS, there are more gains to be had once a commonly available programmable S2K ECU becomes available (the key being timing changes). Then you've got compression, headwork and cams (the latter being the biggest factor IMO). But more importantly, the gains you achieve on the S2000 will come at higher rpms. If you achieve big gains at 8000 rpm on the F20C, vs. 6000 rpm on the VQ35, every lbs-ft of torque you gain will result in 1.5 hp on the F20C vs. 1.1 hp on the VQ35. That's significant.
In terms of practical applications, we have a large body of data to examine for the VQ market in the form of the Altima and Maxima. To date, these cars typically pick up around 20 whp from intake/exhaust/ypipe/underdrive pulleys. If the 350Z does as well (it could do better or worse, so far the exhaust results haven't been good) there won't be much left to modify unless you go internal.
So, in summary:
VQ35DE = good engine
Not much in the way of bolt on gains if Altima/Max are any indication
Multi-path manifold compromises high rpm gain potential
Head flow potential unknown
So, percentage wise, I don't think you'll see any more gains for the Z than you do on the S2K with bolt-ons. Cams and headwork could work nicely, but with 2 heads and 4 cams, the price will be high (and it isn't easy to change cams on a VQ35!).
As far as bolt ons like intake, header, exhaust, etc, etc, you won't see any gains.... in fact you'll see losses UNLESS you upgrade/change the ECU. The reason for this is the 350Z uses 13-14:1 in stock form for its air/fuel ratio mix. This is closer to stoichmetric air/fuel ratio than most cars have from the factory. So kudos to nissan for tuning so well from the facotry. However, adding bolt ons makes the car run leaner, causing detonation and horsepower loss. (since you want to run a little richer than stoichmetric when on pump gas) So you won't see gains from bolt ons of any significance without an entire ECU change and changing your air/fuel mapping. [IMG]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/IMG]
Registered!!
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, US
Rep Power: 0
Quote
[hr]Originally posted by: S2000man01
Well then, let's touch on it. [IMG]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/IMG]
VQ35DE in the Z is an interesting case. I certainly think it can see nice gains, but I don't think the gains will be all that large as some people might expect.
First of all, it runs a 10.3:1 compression ratio, so you could certainly bring it up a point or so. This would be worth about 2% in output on average.
Now, in order to increase output on a NA engine (w/o increasing displacement), you have to either improve torque output, or you have to produce torque higher in the rpm range (and/or rev the engine higher). So, if we look at the VQ35DE, what are the options?
Well, first of all, it doesn't really make sense to rev the Z higher in stock form. The torque curve takes a major dive after 5000 rpm. That doesn't mean that you couldn't rev the Z higher with the right mods. The stroke is less than 82 mm, so the piston speeds aren't exactly high (although I don't know the rod ratio). In order to facilitate higher revving, you'd need to replace the cams, which would almost certainly compromise the low end performance since the Z does not use a variable profile/lift setup like VTEC. However, if you're willing to live with that, you can move the power curve up. If you were to pick up an extra 20 lbs-ft of torque at 6500 rpm, you'd gain about 25 hp more. A significant gain, but it probably won't happen with bolt-ons.
In terms of overall efficiency of an engine, I like to look at torque output. For a production car on pump gas, its rare to see more than 80 lbs-ft of torque per liter of displacement. And in fact, the Z approaches that at nearly 79 lbs-ft/liter (more than the S2K's 76.5 lbs-ft/liter). If you modify an engine for maximum output on pump gas (preferably 93, not 91), you'll see that torque efficiency rise to around 90 lbs-ft/liter
In terms of torque output, you could certainly pick up some gains with more compression and breathing mods, but those gains won't be huge (in fact, they might be smaller than on an S2K in terms of percentages). Also, the bore is quite large, which does not necessarily lend itself to high thermal efficiencies (although interestingly it should support large valves which could really produce high rpm flow and power).
I fully expect to see some mildly modded 350Z's pushing 320 hp all motor (maybe 265-275 whp), but that would be about the most I'd expect for a streetable setup. Compared to something like the 3.25 liter S54 I6 from BMW, the Z motor is not as revvable and does not appear to have anywhere near the top end flow capacity. For one, the VQ35 uses a variable path/capacity intake manifold. While such manifolds are terrific for low rpm and midrange performance, they almost universally compromise top end flow and power (the S54 uses individual throttle bodies in a large common plenum).
Conversely, we're already seeing S2000's pick up 15-20 hp with simple bolt-ons. And judging by the results available from the Mugen ECU and the AEM EMS, there are more gains to be had once a commonly available programmable S2K ECU becomes available (the key being timing changes). Then you've got compression, headwork and cams (the latter being the biggest factor IMO). But more importantly, the gains you achieve on the S2000 will come at higher rpms. If you achieve big gains at 8000 rpm on the F20C, vs. 6000 rpm on the VQ35, every lbs-ft of torque you gain will result in 1.5 hp on the F20C vs. 1.1 hp on the VQ35. That's significant.
In terms of practical applications, we have a large body of data to examine for the VQ market in the form of the Altima and Maxima. To date, these cars typically pick up around 20 whp from intake/exhaust/ypipe/underdrive pulleys. If the 350Z does as well (it could do better or worse, so far the exhaust results haven't been good) there won't be much left to modify unless you go internal.
So, in summary:
VQ35DE = good engine
Not much in the way of bolt on gains if Altima/Max are any indication
Multi-path manifold compromises high rpm gain potential
Head flow potential unknown
So, percentage wise, I don't think you'll see any more gains for the Z than you do on the S2K with bolt-ons. Cams and headwork could work nicely, but with 2 heads and 4 cams, the price will be high (and it isn't easy to change cams on a VQ35!).
As far as bolt ons like intake, header, exhaust, etc, etc, you won't see any gains.... in fact you'll see losses UNLESS you upgrade/change the ECU. The reason for this is the 350Z uses 13-14:1 in stock form for its air/fuel ratio mix. This is closer to stoichmetric air/fuel ratio than most cars have from the factory. So kudos to nissan for tuning so well from the facotry. However, adding bolt ons makes the car run leaner, causing detonation and horsepower loss. (since you want to run a little richer than stoichmetric when on pump gas) So you won't see gains from bolt ons of any significance without an entire ECU change and changing your air/fuel mapping. [IMG]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/IMG][hr]
[hr]Originally posted by: S2000man01
Quote
[hr]Originally posted by: HondaGuru
we havent even TOUCHED on engine potential.[hr]
[hr]Originally posted by: HondaGuru
we havent even TOUCHED on engine potential.[hr]
VQ35DE in the Z is an interesting case. I certainly think it can see nice gains, but I don't think the gains will be all that large as some people might expect.
First of all, it runs a 10.3:1 compression ratio, so you could certainly bring it up a point or so. This would be worth about 2% in output on average.
Now, in order to increase output on a NA engine (w/o increasing displacement), you have to either improve torque output, or you have to produce torque higher in the rpm range (and/or rev the engine higher). So, if we look at the VQ35DE, what are the options?
Well, first of all, it doesn't really make sense to rev the Z higher in stock form. The torque curve takes a major dive after 5000 rpm. That doesn't mean that you couldn't rev the Z higher with the right mods. The stroke is less than 82 mm, so the piston speeds aren't exactly high (although I don't know the rod ratio). In order to facilitate higher revving, you'd need to replace the cams, which would almost certainly compromise the low end performance since the Z does not use a variable profile/lift setup like VTEC. However, if you're willing to live with that, you can move the power curve up. If you were to pick up an extra 20 lbs-ft of torque at 6500 rpm, you'd gain about 25 hp more. A significant gain, but it probably won't happen with bolt-ons.
In terms of overall efficiency of an engine, I like to look at torque output. For a production car on pump gas, its rare to see more than 80 lbs-ft of torque per liter of displacement. And in fact, the Z approaches that at nearly 79 lbs-ft/liter (more than the S2K's 76.5 lbs-ft/liter). If you modify an engine for maximum output on pump gas (preferably 93, not 91), you'll see that torque efficiency rise to around 90 lbs-ft/liter
In terms of torque output, you could certainly pick up some gains with more compression and breathing mods, but those gains won't be huge (in fact, they might be smaller than on an S2K in terms of percentages). Also, the bore is quite large, which does not necessarily lend itself to high thermal efficiencies (although interestingly it should support large valves which could really produce high rpm flow and power).
I fully expect to see some mildly modded 350Z's pushing 320 hp all motor (maybe 265-275 whp), but that would be about the most I'd expect for a streetable setup. Compared to something like the 3.25 liter S54 I6 from BMW, the Z motor is not as revvable and does not appear to have anywhere near the top end flow capacity. For one, the VQ35 uses a variable path/capacity intake manifold. While such manifolds are terrific for low rpm and midrange performance, they almost universally compromise top end flow and power (the S54 uses individual throttle bodies in a large common plenum).
Conversely, we're already seeing S2000's pick up 15-20 hp with simple bolt-ons. And judging by the results available from the Mugen ECU and the AEM EMS, there are more gains to be had once a commonly available programmable S2K ECU becomes available (the key being timing changes). Then you've got compression, headwork and cams (the latter being the biggest factor IMO). But more importantly, the gains you achieve on the S2000 will come at higher rpms. If you achieve big gains at 8000 rpm on the F20C, vs. 6000 rpm on the VQ35, every lbs-ft of torque you gain will result in 1.5 hp on the F20C vs. 1.1 hp on the VQ35. That's significant.
In terms of practical applications, we have a large body of data to examine for the VQ market in the form of the Altima and Maxima. To date, these cars typically pick up around 20 whp from intake/exhaust/ypipe/underdrive pulleys. If the 350Z does as well (it could do better or worse, so far the exhaust results haven't been good) there won't be much left to modify unless you go internal.
So, in summary:
VQ35DE = good engine
Not much in the way of bolt on gains if Altima/Max are any indication
Multi-path manifold compromises high rpm gain potential
Head flow potential unknown
So, percentage wise, I don't think you'll see any more gains for the Z than you do on the S2K with bolt-ons. Cams and headwork could work nicely, but with 2 heads and 4 cams, the price will be high (and it isn't easy to change cams on a VQ35!).
As far as bolt ons like intake, header, exhaust, etc, etc, you won't see any gains.... in fact you'll see losses UNLESS you upgrade/change the ECU. The reason for this is the 350Z uses 13-14:1 in stock form for its air/fuel ratio mix. This is closer to stoichmetric air/fuel ratio than most cars have from the factory. So kudos to nissan for tuning so well from the facotry. However, adding bolt ons makes the car run leaner, causing detonation and horsepower loss. (since you want to run a little richer than stoichmetric when on pump gas) So you won't see gains from bolt ons of any significance without an entire ECU change and changing your air/fuel mapping. [IMG]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/IMG][hr]
THIS IS NOT INFORMATION!!! WE STILL NEED MORE!!! lol [IMG]i/expressions/laugh2.gif[/IMG][IMG]i/expressions/laugh2.gif[/IMG][IMG]i/expressions/laugh2.gif[/IMG][IMG]i/expressions/laugh2.gif[/IMG][IMG]i/expressions/laugh2.gif[/IMG][IMG]i/expressions/laugh2.gif[/IMG]
Registered!!
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
From: Westminster, Colorado, US
Rep Power: 0 i dirve my dads 350z all the time in 6 months hes buying a better car but i can burn s2000 so easy s2000 are over rated with a good driver in a gsr i can burn the s2000, the s2000 aint **** my homeboy had one and sold it cause he was dissapointed i have a honda right now too and i appreciate it but hondas are not the best cars out there, the nsx will kill the 350z i am sure but not the s2000...
Civicforums Junkie
iTrader: (55)
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 16,087
Likes: 0
From: ARIZONA
Rep Power: 448
Quote
[hr]Originally posted by: tRu
i dirve my dads 350z all the time in 6 months hes buying a better car but i can burn s2000 so easy s2000 are over rated with a good driver in a gsr i can burn the s2000, the s2000 aint **** my homeboy had one and sold it cause he was dissapointed i have a honda right now too and i appreciate it but hondas are not the best cars out there, the nsx will kill the 350z i am sure but not the s2000...[hr]
[hr]Originally posted by: tRu
i dirve my dads 350z all the time in 6 months hes buying a better car but i can burn s2000 so easy s2000 are over rated with a good driver in a gsr i can burn the s2000, the s2000 aint **** my homeboy had one and sold it cause he was dissapointed i have a honda right now too and i appreciate it but hondas are not the best cars out there, the nsx will kill the 350z i am sure but not the s2000...[hr]
((((( FLOOD GATES ARE NOW OPEN )))))
Registered!!
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
From: Westminster, Colorado, US
Rep Power: 0 the older 300zx was design too untill the porche labeled it self as a supercar and jacked up its prices so the consumer can profit the company enough for them to build what we have now but you compare the older 88 300zx to the proshe 911 and they use to be dead even untill porsche released its newer motor and nissan couldnt have even with the 90 300zx with the newer vg30dett motor....
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 10,031
Likes: 0
From: Milwaukee, Wisconsin, US
Rep Power: 400
Quote
[hr]Originally posted by: tRu
i dirve my dads 350z all the time in 6 months hes buying a better car but i can burn s2000 so easy s2000 are over rated with a good driver in a gsr i can burn the s2000, the s2000 aint **** my homeboy had one and sold it cause he was dissapointed i have a honda right now too and i appreciate it but hondas are not the best cars out there, the nsx will kill the 350z i am sure but not the s2000...[hr]
[hr]Originally posted by: tRu
i dirve my dads 350z all the time in 6 months hes buying a better car but i can burn s2000 so easy s2000 are over rated with a good driver in a gsr i can burn the s2000, the s2000 aint **** my homeboy had one and sold it cause he was dissapointed i have a honda right now too and i appreciate it but hondas are not the best cars out there, the nsx will kill the 350z i am sure but not the s2000...[hr]
As for the 350Z burning an S2000 sooooo easy..... and a GSR??? lol. Please. Unfortunately there are people out there who either A. can't drive, or B. don't know you were trying to race them.
You will have a hard time holding off anyone in an S2000 who can drive, even in a 350Z. And a GSR? geez man. I'd put money on beating any stock GSR no matter how good the driver. A GSR will hit high 14's with a strong tail wind and jesus behind the wheel. I can hit 13's consistently on most days in my S2k. 14 flat on average.
Registered!!
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,832
Likes: 0
From: Riverside, California, US
Rep Power: 0
Quote
[hr]Originally posted by: NoFriends
I would personally take the Z. S2000 looks like a death trap to me if i ever were to wreck it. Both fast cars, but the Z has a slight edge, and safety wise i think the Z would prevail.[hr]
[hr]Originally posted by: NoFriends
I would personally take the Z. S2000 looks like a death trap to me if i ever were to wreck it. Both fast cars, but the Z has a slight edge, and safety wise i think the Z would prevail.[hr]
Registered!!
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,371
Likes: 0
From: San Jose, California, US
Rep Power: 0 Personally, if you want a car that stands out, you get an s2000. If you don't want all the attention, get a Z. Although, right now the Z does get some attention since it's so new.
e-married to daydreamer
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,539
Likes: 0
From: The Subconscious
Rep Power: 339
Quote
[hr]Originally posted by: cambo
Honda s2000
0-60: 5.8 seconds
1/4 mile: 14.4 seconds
HP: 240
Torque: 153 lbs/ft
Weight: 2809 lbs
Nissan 350Z
0-60: 5.8 seconds
1/4 mile: 14.0 seconds
HP: 287
Torque: 274
Weight: 3197 lbs
The 350Z is roughly 300 lbs heavier, but has 34 more HP and 121 lbs/ft more torque.
Honda S2000
Nissan 350Z[hr]
[hr]Originally posted by: cambo
Honda s2000
0-60: 5.8 seconds
1/4 mile: 14.4 seconds
HP: 240
Torque: 153 lbs/ft
Weight: 2809 lbs
Nissan 350Z
0-60: 5.8 seconds
1/4 mile: 14.0 seconds
HP: 287
Torque: 274
Weight: 3197 lbs
The 350Z is roughly 300 lbs heavier, but has 34 more HP and 121 lbs/ft more torque.
Honda S2000
Nissan 350Z
[hr]
[IMG]i/expressions/face-icon-small-frown.gif[/IMG][IMG]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/IMG] 
