Simonz

So does anyone know what NISSIAN 300zx are like?
My mates gettin one and seems to think it ill pi$$ all on my slightly modded WRX, would it?
How much fuel do these things drink?...3.o twin fekin turbo?

cheers.....

jjones

nissan 300?

Eric Cartman

Very Unreliable. Roads are full with them nowadays. Not so fast in standard form. He will probably be quicker in higher speeds. Did I mention that they're unreliable??

Simonz

jjones,....big jap 2dr sports car !

scoobysnacks

It's a very good car. I have a test of the 300ZX in Performance Car magazine (the original EVO if you like) from 1991 and it compared very favourably with the Honda NSX and Porsche 911 (964 model) and was considered a worthy purchase even against this company. Obviously getting on a bit now though.

[Edited by scoobysnacks - 1/26/2004 10:39:09 PM]

CavT

When the 3.0 Twin Turbos get wound up, beyond 60 your Scoob would struggle to reel it in.... and then they go on past 165mph!

Despite the power they have, they are lardy, and its 0-60 time is proof, they are crap low down.

In a similar camp to the Mitsubishi GTO performance wise, and just as unreliable and expensive to put right.

I had a 300ZX TT have a pop at me, and he must have felt confident he could do it, but even running in 2WD with wheels spinning until I got traction I was getting away from him!

Great top end cars, but not as quick low down as you would expect. But they do come with all the toys!

Simonz

In most mags (eerrrm, maxpower)their 0-60 times are 5.4secs.Other times iv'e seen it as 7.2 secs?Where can i find the statistics/spec,for the 300zx?

Cosworth427

Depends on what model year 300 ZX.

1990 - 1991, it was pushing around 300 HP, and should be even with a UK WRX.

The 1992 - 1994 models were pushing OVER 300 HP (car tests during this time period showed far better 1/4 mile and acceleration times for it's power to weight)

1995 and all automatics were just 280 HP.

With this in mind, it is easy for the mis-informed Scooby (or Vauxhall Turbo fan boy) to assume a 300 ZX isn't much of a threat - it all depends on its year and transmission type.






[Edited by Cosworth427 - 1/28/2004 1:46:03 PM]

CavT

Blah Blah most 300ZX's were Auto's numpty!

If you'd even bothered to read what I said, I said quite clearly that they are not great low down (that would be 0-60) but beyond that they are quick.

Perhaps I should put it in easy to read terms for you next time! Muppet

Signed a 'fanboy'!



[Edited by CavT - 1/28/2004 4:10:42 PM]

Mr Gee

Simonz

I owned one of these for about 5 years. They are good cars in the way that they are put together solidly. They are very comfortable and easy to drive vehicles. As far as performance goes , they are quick for their weight and bulk. I would say that a standard one could get to 60 mph in the late 5's to early 6's. This is not where their stengh lies though. The midrange and above is where it counts with these cars. You would need to be pushing over 400 BHP to keep up with a bog standard STi, off the mark. A lot of it is to do with gearing as well. Scoobies are geared to accelerate quickly off the mark while the Z32 is geared for midrange power and top end.
Reliability:- As with any car, you either end up with a good one or a bad one. There's nothing in between. Mechanically, they are quite well engineered but can be a bit troublesome at times. Once you start pushing over 380 BHP, then the clutch will be the first thing to go. You will be looking at an uprated clutch and nothing is cheap on these cars, in standard form or modified. Make sure it comes with a FSH.


Still, its one of the better cars that I have owned.

Mr Gee

[Edited by Mr Gee - 1/28/2004 4:38:12 PM]

[Edited by Mr Gee - 1/28/2004 4:41:34 PM]

Cosworth427

The automatic models were 280HP, and weighed nearly 1600 KG. A far cry from the lighter 300 + HP manual transmission models.

I did read everything you said, that's why I called you a fan boy, I just regret not pre-pending the word "stupid" before it now.

Funny how some oaf with a 2.0 litre turbo talks about how lacking a 3.0 litre twin turbo is "low down". 0-60 depends on the launch, not the low end power delivery. How about 0-60 in 5 seconds flat with a 1992 manual sounds? 300 zx

How many gutless 2 litre Vauxhall Cavaliers/Calibras can do that out of the factory? THINK, Vauxhall man, THINK.






[Edited by Cosworth427 - 1/28/2004 11:40:01 PM]

CC

I owned a manual 1991 300 TT last summer, put the pics in the gallery on here.

It was vast, fast, and very brash !

Loads of toys, not many about, got lots of compliments and attention...bit too much for my liking tbh.

Mine was a good one and with the p/plate only looked about 5 yrs old. Had all the goodies and had leather, good colour too imo (silver)!

Only flogged it to buy my current cat (sonic blue my99 type ra).

I sold it way too cheaply and could have sold it a million times over.

I rate them after my ownership and i've owned a 911, few cossies and imprezas, and most of the hot hatch blurb.

Very fast for a standard car. Acceleration was good, rwd is fun, midrange was great. Bit quiet with standard pipes. Lovely stable handling on 255s . Brakes a bit poor tho'.

Oh yeh it was reliable too. It had 55k miles with fsh, standard.

But buy a bad one and u may as well break it for parts rather than repair it.

CavT

Tsk tsk silly man Mr.Cosworth.... A 300ZX TT is a HEAVY car, even Mr.Ghee above who has owned one agrees that their strength doesn't lie in their 0-60 but beyond that speed is where they count, which I didn't dispute, but as per usual, because you are ignorant, you choose to gloss over these facts to suit you.... which is typical of you on this forum in general.

"If Cosworth doesn't know, its not worth knowing!" Whatever!

An "oaf"? Im honoured that you insult me, I was feeling left out! I'm well aware of why the ZX TT isn't so hot low down, and don't need a "lesson" from you.

And because I have a 2.0 litre turbo doesn't qualify me to have an opinion? Does my 3.0 24v Straight 6 qualify me? Probably not, and why should what car I own qualify me to have an opinion? Idiot!

Your power description of the 300ZX TT also isn't the majority norm of 300's that people will come across on the road, but typical of you to look up on a 'fanboy' site and spew your 'facts' for us all to digest!

Anyway, enough of your muppet ramblings Cosworth... frankly, your not worth the time, and this thread was asking about opinions of the 300ZX... which I gave.. you on the other hand decided to give an opinion about me.. whos "stupid" now?

Cosworth427

Heavy is a relative term. It has 16% more weight than your average tin-box full-spec Cavalier, but a massive 33% more displacement and torque available from around 3500+ RPM.

But far stronger than your average Cavalier! 0-60 is down to the launch, which requires skill. 0-60 in 5 seconds flat can be done, just like the link to a magazine scan I provided proves so. Which then leads to your question...

Opinions should be based on facts, not fan boy ignorance. Someone who ***** around in a 2 litre making a whopping 201 lbs/ft is in no position to say 289 lbs/ft from a 300 ZX being "not great low down."

What the hell is "majority norm"? Is this the cavalier twating tattoo adorning oaf's attempt to sound educated in a subject far beyond his scope? Your so called experience or "opinion" about the 300 ZX, (which you have clearly shown you know little about) isn't worth the toilet paper used to wipe your own dribble. Simply because of your one car, one race, one circumstance doesn't cut it these days as any kind of reliable fact about the 300 ZX. Save the pub talk for the pub, vauxhall boy.

CavT

The fact is.... numpty, nowhere have I said my Cavalier is anything like standard.... or have I? No, just scanned through what I wrote, I definately didn't say it was standard, and certainly not anything like 201BHP, in fact on October 3rd, 2003, I wrote the thread below.

http://www.scoobynet.co.uk/bbs/thread.asp?ThreadID=256473

Can a standard Cavalier Turbo do a P1? I think not! Dont assume anything... 'mate'

'think' what you like Cosworth, because quite frankly, I didn't get a word of what you said because you are too busy 'trying' to insult me, that your point is completely lost. Perhaps if you just let the facts do the talking instead of your ****, 'perhaps' people might actually give a toss what your opinion is... as it is, you hijack threads and start spouting your mouth off as per usual.

Perhaps your mum should keep you off the Sunny D, I think the E numbers are going to your head... assuming your mum knows your using her computer, isn't it past your bedtime deary?

Cmon Cosworth, lets hear your lengthy and predicatble riposte, should be a challenge..... a challenge to actually bother reading it!

misty

Now, now children! if you don't pack it in you'll both stand in the corner with your hands on heads you naughty boy's!!!
dave

Cosworth427

In other words: "This Cosworth427 dude has so many in-disputable facts that I'm better off whining about his insults than bother defend my stupid opinions since I was just proven wrong."

CavT

No Cosworth, I cant pick out the facts from your ignorance, or as is more the case, can't be arsed to.

Perhaps you should adopt a more mature approach to responding in threads, because nothing you've said so far is being read through all the insults.

Just a thought!

Cosworth427

So you already admit that you are the ignorant one, despite the facts and information presented to you. I'll re-cap the facts and information in response to your drivel..


--------------------
CavT: "Despite the power they have, they are lardy, and its 0-60 time is proof, they are crap low down."

Cosworth427: "How about 0-60 in 5 seconds flat with a 1992 manual sounds? www.300zx.cl/usa300zx/turbotea4.jpg"
----------------------

----------------------
CavT: "their strength doesn't lie in their 0-60"

Cosworth427: "But far stronger than your average Cavalier! 0-60 is down to the launch, which requires skill. 0-60 in 5 seconds flat can be done, just like the link to a magazine scan I provided proves so."
-----------------------


-----------------------
CavT: "A 300ZX TT is a HEAVY car"

Cosworth427: "Heavy is a relative term. It has 16% more weight than your average tin-box full-spec Cavalier, but a massive 33% more displacement and torque available from around 3500+ RPM."
------------------------


When has presenting the above information been regarded as an insult? Fine, if you find that a 300ZX is 16% more heavier, 33% more powerful and can do 0-60 far quicker than any Cavalier from the Opel factory as offensive, then that is your problem, not mine!

This is the internet, who gives a **** if you're upset at me for being proven wrong.

dij

my mate had a modded 2 seater 300zx tt man,and yes although it may have taken a second or so longer to move off the mark than my sti5 when launching,it was noticeabley quicker upto 150mph.
As the saying goes 'THERE IS NO REPLACEMENT FOR DISPLACEMENT'.
3.0TWIN TURBO AGAINST 2.0 TURBO ...I DONT THINK SO