Bimmerfest BMW banner

1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
595 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
....and a question (more rhetorical than anything else) is:

the car, while not a lightweight, isn't the pig i thought it was: 3250(?) lbs.

why are the performance numbers for something with 290hp (and almost the same torque) kinda off? disappointing?

recall an "old" M coupe would do 5.1/14 (to 60mph/quarter mile time), an "old" m3 would do 5.7/14.3.....is this another case of japanese overstating HP or is it the low rev limiter so the car cannot hold gear as long? (redline is 6500, i think or 6600).

at the pricepoint, if it were me, i'm still thinking i would rather play with a WRX and have my fun than the 350Z. just a thought. talking bang for the buck and tuning.

(i neglected to mention the Z numbers: they seem to hover right around 5.5/14)
 

·
In Mod Heaven
Joined
·
2,763 Posts
When Chris, Jenea, Anthony and I were at Bimmer Cruize in Toronto two weeks ago, we say a Daytona Blue 350Z Track Editition. The car looked really hot in that color. The guy who owned it just kept driving it back and forth in the parking lot, like to say "hey, look at me, I have a new Z. . . stupid beeeemers".

The car is sharp to see up close and I think it will do pretty well with sales, especially b/c of the price.

I was actually thinking about getting this car over the BMW. I'm glad I chose this car, but if I had some extra cash to throw around, I wouldn't mind picking one up in blue. :D Too bad I don't make anywhere near the $110,000/yr average of 3 series owners . . . :rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
595 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
still something about those numbers....

...which truly bother me.

the car everyone tests is the track edition which is a far cry from the entry level 27k version we all here talk about.

and that track version is the 5.5 second/14.1 second car. an acura NSX mind you, makes do with 290hp and it's much faster.

if performance is truly the end goal, the 350Z is not it. for 3.5litres of displacement? to marginally outperform a 330? and to also lose the practicality of the 330? forget about it. i would bet i could track a lap as fast in a 330 as i could in the 350Z car with those numbers.
 

·
I like cookies.
Joined
·
18,102 Posts
Re: still something about those numbers....

blackdawg said:


if performance is truly the end goal, the 350Z is not it. for 3.5litres of displacement? to marginally outperform a 330? and to also lose the practicality of the 330? forget about it. i would bet i could track a lap as fast in a 330 as i could in the 350Z car with those numbers.
I dunno, I think the 350Z would be faster than a 330. On paper it seems to be, also looks like it has a more sports oriented suspension and brakes....we'll just have to wait for full comparisons

But, it does give up a lot of luggage and passenger room to the 330, even though it isn't any lighter (<40lbs)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
370 Posts
a true indicator of a good sports car is how it react on a 10/10th track environment. Gonna wait until the mags do a full race track review then decide. The fact that the $27k base model shares the same engine, and suspensions will make the $34k track version a hard sell...Forged wheels and brembo brakes can only do so much.
 

·
doh!!!
Joined
·
3,188 Posts
blackdawg said:
....and a question (more rhetorical than anything else) is:

the car, while not a lightweight, isn't the pig i thought it was: 3250(?) lbs.

why are the performance numbers for something with 290hp (and almost the same torque) kinda off? disappointing?

recall an "old" M coupe would do 5.1/14 (to 60mph/quarter mile time), an "old" m3 would do 5.7/14.3.....is this another case of japanese overstating HP or is it the low rev limiter so the car cannot hold gear as long? (redline is 6500, i think or 6600).

at the pricepoint, if it were me, i'm still thinking i would rather play with a WRX and have my fun than the 350Z. just a thought. talking bang for the buck and tuning.

(i neglected to mention the Z numbers: they seem to hover right around 5.5/14)
I agree the numbers seem a bit disappointing for almost 290hp car plus decent torque. Maybe traction problems? It as a LSD though.

I was consider the Z too but I think it is too much of a compromise. Still want to check it out.

I would probably get the track edition, you get more then just the wheels and brembos compared to the base model. Wonder how the brembos hold up on the track. I assume good since they ARE brembos.

Jeff
 

·
Rest in peace, Coach
Joined
·
9,106 Posts
There are a lot of factors to consider here...

1) Gearing. If the 350Z comes with a 6 speed that requires a 2nd to 3rd shift to get to 60 then it will significantly impact the time.

2) Traction. I wonder how FAT the rear tires are on the 350Z. If it ain't fat enough no amount of LSD will help wheel spin.

3) Parasitic powerloss through drivetrain: BMW's FAMOUS for making an exceptionally efficient drivetrain...Only about 15% powerloss. If the 350Z has worse powersap from the drivetrain (say, 25%) then it's likely the performance numbers will suffer.

I think it's got to be the gearing and final drive ratio.
 
Joined
·
20,210 Posts
Also, these wery early numbers can/will go down after time. The M3 coupe was first tested between 4.7-5 flat and 13.4-13.7 in the first round of mags, and now someone (can't remember which) tested a fully broken in one at 4.5 recently and I think 13.1.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
370 Posts
that's true in most of the BMW cases, M3's and 330's..all got better numbers as time past. For some reasons Japanese cars' times tend to stay pretty much the same, such as IS300, Altima, and Acuras. Plus their official times are usually more optimistic as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
595 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
i dunno.

the gearing is right about "normal" at 3.55 or so, and it can hit 60 in second gear.

so, i'm wondering what the real deal is here. even if it loosens up, so then i just matches the "old" M coupe?

there's something funny going on with the HP and either the engine is going to loosen up a lot or it's down on power.

even the trap speed for the quarter mile, which is usually an indicator of power, is only aobut 100-101mph.

again: these are numbers for a car weighing in at 3240pounds, with 287hp and 275ft#'s of torque.

thus far, the only thing i can think of, other than pokey engines need 10k miles to break in, is that with such a low redline, it's not able to take advantage of gearing (holding each gear longer).

to wit: the new M3 is flatout a monster because it can hold each gear for so much longer than any other car in its class, basically you're doing 2 to 3 shifts versus another car's 4 shifts to hit 110mph, let's say (rough guesstimate).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
370 Posts
Jeff_DML said:
sounds like someone should dyno a new Z
According to 350Z.com. RWHP=244, which is a 15% drivetrain lost. I think M3's rwhp is at around 283hp, something else must contribute to the so so 0-60 & 1/4mile time....:tsk:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
87 Posts
what the hell are you guys talking about? 5.4 is a so so time?? For god sakes iys only 27 grand what did you expect. I own an m3 but if I needed another car I sure as hell would be satisfied with a z car. You guys are way in denial.
 

·
Rest in peace, Coach
Joined
·
9,106 Posts
shahin said:
what the hell are you guys talking about? 5.4 is a so so time?? For god sakes iys only 27 grand what did you expect. I own an m3 but if I needed another car I sure as hell would be satisfied with a z car. You guys are way in denial.
I'm sure TD would love this answer...

Take a look at the stats of an E36 M3. Less HP, less torque, and weighed the same, yet achieved better 0-60 and better quarter mile time.

Shoot, for 27 grand I'd rather get an E36 M3. ;)

Those stats are so-so for a 287hp car, if that car was produced by BMW.
 

·
BFE 2003
Joined
·
95 Posts
I think we all may be in denial. The new z, could eat any BMW save the m-cars for lunch. Personally, although Im a diehard BMW fan, I cant wait to see this car on the street and give one a good flogging. I commend Nissan for giving it a big V6, and not some honda no-torque high-rev engine that is just not practical for fun day-to-day driving without beating on the car (Ive driven an S2000, and although its cool to say you have a 9k redline, its pointless around town, and even really on the highway) The new Z makes 200 ft/lbs of torque at 1200 rpm, thats almost more than my 330 at any RPM range.

Sorry for the rant, and only some more tests and time will be able to tell what this car can really do, but give credit where its due. Nissan didnt mickeymouse this car around; its priced right, it looks good (thus far, havent seen it in person), its rearwheel drive, and I havent heard a bad thing about it.

And yes, Im scared of it a bit too :eeps:
 

·
Rest in peace, Coach
Joined
·
9,106 Posts
shahin said:
ok you go find a 0 mile e36 m3 that looks as good as the Z car and ill agree with you hack
If I buy cars based on looks I'd be driving a VW bug right now. :p

Shahin, the ONLY reason why I'm picking on the Z car right now, is purely based on the fact that the numbers were lower than EXPECTATION. I think that's what most of us are saying...Based on the styling, the press, and all the pre-release hype we are all expecting this car to have some spectacular numbers.

And honestly, if I had to pick with my $27K, I would STILL get the E36 M3 despite its miles.
 

·
doh!!!
Joined
·
3,188 Posts
shahin said:
what the hell are you guys talking about? 5.4 is a so so time?? For god sakes iys only 27 grand what did you expect. I own an m3 but if I needed another car I sure as hell would be satisfied with a z car. You guys are way in denial.
The Z is a fast car, I dont think anybody will disagree with that. The point was it seems not as fast as it should be when it has 290hp and good torque.

I would be very happy with a mid 5's 0-60 car.

jeff
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
370 Posts
shahin said:
what the hell are you guys talking about? 5.4 is a so so time?? For god sakes iys only 27 grand what did you expect. I own an m3 but if I needed another car I sure as hell would be satisfied with a z car. You guys are way in denial.
You are changing the subject, no one said that the Z at $27k isn't a great value. And no one is saying that the Z is not fast when compared to a non M car. We are simply trying to figure out given the HP & tq why it ins't faster... Low 5.0sec 0-60 and high 13's 1/4miles would more correlate with its HP/TQ/Weight ratio.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
87 Posts
ezsce46 said:


You are changing the subject, no one said that the Z at $27k isn't a great value. And no one is saying that the Z is not fast when compared to a non M car. We are simply trying to figure out given the HP & tq why it ins't faster... Low 5.0sec 0-60 and high 13's 1/4miles would more correlate with its HP/TQ/Weight ratio.
Because the car is brand new adn not broken in?
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top