So, from my time owning a 350Z, I'm a member over on my350z.com and very rarely browse their forums, today while browsing, I found this:

http://my350z.com/forum/showthread.php?t=348770

^^^A 100% bone stock 2007 350Z, running a 13.150@107.62 with a highest trap speed of 107.94mph... almost 108mph trap speeds out of bone stock, naturally aspirated 3.5L V6. That's damn impressive, and much faster than the "old" 287bhp Z's... especially since the "new" 306bhp Z is going by the new SAE standards, by the old standard it would probably be rated around 310-315bhp.

For comparison, take a look at this:
http://my350z.com/forum/showthread.php?t=342222

^^^That's one of the "old" '03 287bhp Z's running a similar time, 13.005@106.55 with a high of 108.54mph trap speeds, so making similar power, but in order to run similar times, he needed a Crawford Plenum, bored throttle body, larger MAF housing w/modded airbox & K&N, UR pulley, lightened JUN flywheel, race pipes, DC headers, cat-back exhaust (so, full from the heads back exhaust), 4.083 gears, Nismo clutch, all of which were tuned with a UTEC.... so it takes several thousands dollars worth of mods in order for the older Z's to run the same times as the newer Z's can bone stock.

Anyway, I just thought it was interesting, and that the new Z's are pretty damn quick at sea level... too bad they lose so much power up here, or else I would take one for a test drive, but I know doing so up here would be pointless lol. Near 108mph trap speeds from a stock NA V6 is impressive, a few MPH faster than the fastest stock STI's have ever ran.... props to Nissan

Not to nit-pick, but a cat-back exhaust if only from the catalytic converter back, not the heads...Still pretty cool to see a 13 second car off the showroon floor. how much are the new ones?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (goldrocket @ Apr 9 2008, 12:57 PM) [url=index.php?act=findpost&pid=39599]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/url]</div>

Not to nit-pick, but a cat-back exhaust if only from the catalytic converter back, not the heads...Still pretty cool to see a 13 second car off the showroon floor. how much are the new ones?[/b]

I realize that, that was the last portion of the exhaust on that list was a cat-back, which meant he had full from the heads back exhaust, as he had DC headers connected to Kinetix race pipes connected to a Fast Intentions cat-back exhaust, I was merely pointing out that the cat-back exhaust completed a full from the heads back exhaust.

The base MSRP of the new Z is $28,120 ( http://www.nissanusa.com/z/index.html ), which isn't bad for a car that has the ability to trap at almost 108mph at sea level, hell that guys car, at that track, in those conditions, is only a set of drag radials/slicks away from running a high 12. Pretty good bang for buck IMO, the newer VQ35HR motor is a pretty decent improvement over the former VQ35DE motor.

Wow, that is very impressive at Sea Level. And like we all know it is very disappointing how much power the 350Z's lose at altitude. Just 2 weeks ago I ran into my friend AGAIN with the 2008 Limited Edition Nismo 350Z w/Nismo Intakes and Tuned Exhaust on 1-25 South. Once again I walked away from him at a 50mph roll. I felt bad cause he spent like almost $40G on it... Very sweet looking car in person. I actually gave him a ride in my Speed3 a couple weeks ago and he was pretty impressed. Next I get a ride in his, look forward to it!!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MS3_Mafia @ Apr 9 2008, 02:23 PM) [url=index.php?act=findpost&pid=39636]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/url]</div>

Wow, that is very impressive at Sea Level. And like we all know it is very disappointing how much power the 350Z's lose at altitude. Just 2 weeks ago I ran into my friend AGAIN with the 2008 Limited Edition Nismo 350Z w/Nismo Intakes and Tuned Exhaust on 1-25 South. Once again I walked away from him at a 50mph roll. I felt bad cause he spent like almost $40G on it... Very sweet looking car in person. I actually gave him a ride in my Speed3 a couple weeks ago and he was pretty impressed. Next I get a ride in his, look forward to it!![/b]

wow why does the Z lose so much more then the MS3 at this altitude? but thats cool how much stock power that thing has wish they could push the RX-8 up to that

The MS3 has a turbo, which makes a big difference whne going up in altitude.. At sea level turbos aren't a lot faster, but they do spool alot quicker, so they feel a lot nastier.

ah yeah i thought it had something to do with the turbo but wasn't to sure so just throw a turbo on the Z and its all good

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (OpacRX @ Apr 9 2008, 07:45 PM) [url=index.php?act=findpost&pid=39716]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/url]</div>

wow why does the Z lose so much more then the MS3 at this altitude? but thats cool how much stock power that thing has wish they could push the RX-8 up to that[/b]

The Z is naturally aspirated, whereas the MS3 is turbocharged... it all has to do with moving air. You need air in order to make power, ambient air pressure at sea level is 14.7psi (or 1 Bar), which for the sake of discussion, we'll round up to 15psi. On a turbo car, if you're pushing 15psi of boost (positive boost on a boost gauge, is only measured ABOVE atmospheric pressure), at that manifold, you're actually not seeing a total of 15psi of air pressure, you're actually seeing 30psi worth of air pressure assuming you're at sea level.... 15psi (rounded up from 14.7psi) from the atmosphere, and an additional compressed 15psi that was compressed by the turbocharger, there's actually a little to that, but we'll leave it at this to simplify things.

Now on an NA car at sea level, obviously you have no compressor (turbo/supercharger), so at the manifold, you're only seeing about 15psi total at the manifold. Now, come to an altitude like Colorado, where atmospheric pressure is closer to 12psi, and you've lost about 20% (it can be slightly more, but we'll call it 12psi & 20% to keep things simple) of your overall atmospheric pressure.... so if you have a 300hp NA car, if you're lost 20% of your air pressure, you would lose about 20% of your horsepower as well, so at altitude, you're actually only making about 240hp... now, if you're running a turbocharged car, you're only going to see the the same 12psi from the atmosphere, but a lot of modern turbo cars will still attempt to push the same amount of boost they would at sea level... so let's say you have a 300hp turbo charged car that normally pushes 15psi of boost, now, you're still only going to see the 12psi of atmospheric pressure, but since the car is still pushing 15psi of boost, at the manifold, you're going to see a total of 27psi of boost, compared to the 30psi you would have been seeing at sea level, so instead of losing 20% power like the NA car, since you only lost 10% of your total pressure at the manifold, you're still going to make 90% power up here, meaning, that same 300hp turbo car up here is only going to make about 270hp.

So, while the 300hp NA car is only making 240hp up here, the turbo car is making 270hp up here... it's easy to see why at high altitude, cars that should be dead even, up here, the turbo car is going to be faster.

Now there's more to it than that, like the fact that some (quite a few) turbo cars won't push the exact same boost pressures as they would at sea level, as it's harder for the turbo to compress thinner air into the same boost pressures... as a turbo sucks air into the compressor inlet, where it's compressed, it's harder for a turbo to compress an additional 15psi out of 12psi worth of air than it would be to compress 15psi out of 15psi of air, which also leads to higher IAT's at the same boost pressures up here. So, I mean, there's more to the equation, but I'm just trying to keep things simple, as the thinner air takes more time to compress up here, so you get more turbo lag, and higher IAT's, which lead to slightly less power, ect ect.

Although, it is an accepted fact that as altitude increases, turbocharged cars only lose approximately half the power that NA cars lose. On most dyno's that have a correction factor in Colorado, NA cars up here use about a 1.25 Correction Factor (which, means they lose about 20% power, the math just doesn't work the other way around), and it's accepted that a turbo car would use about a 1.12 Correction Factor on the same dyno (same thing, around a 10% power loss, math just doesn't work the other way around). So we'll compare Nissan's 306bhp 350Z to the 263hp Speed3 up here:

2007 Nissan 350Z:
3340 lbs curb weight
306 hp x 80% = 244.8hp at altitude (round up to 245hp)
3340 lbs / 245 hp = 13.63:1 weight/power ratio (would be 10.91:1 at sea level)

2007 Mazdaspeed 3:
3153 lbs curb weight
263 hp x 90% = 236.7hp at altitude (round up to 237hp)
3153 lbs / 237 hp = 13.30:1 weight/power ratio (would be 11.98:1 at sea level)


^^^Now, the car with the lower weight/power ratio should be the faster car, which is reflected above, although there are more factors than this, as things like GEARING (gearing is a big one, and the Speed3 has shorter gears than the Z), as well as torque (Speed3 makes more torque than the Z), and even aerodynamics/drag coefficient come into effect, but for the most part, the largest determining factor should be weight/power ratio. At altitude, the Z should actually be pretty close to the Speed3, but the Speed3 still has a slight advantage... which is why Jack can pulls his buddy's Nismo Z at this altitude. Although, if you look at the weight/power ratios at sea level, you can see, the Z would pull with ease.... unfortunately, if you own an NA car up here, you get shafted when racing turbo cars. [/rant]

LOL!!! I find this thread amusing. Well those numbers are very impressive... Nissan's goal wasn't to build a drag car. The 350Z belongs on the road course. American's are so caught up on HP, 0-60, & 1/4 times vs lap times. Now I know on a Mazda forum it going to be compared and somehow come out on the losing end,"I felt bad cause he spent like almost $40G on it." The same would go into play if we were discussing a Madza on a Nissan forum, ie "FWD and a small 4cly turbo motor." But!!! If we did an honest full comparo do you all honestly think a Mazda MS3 would be a better car? I'm not at all saying the 350Z is the best car out there! I'm just saying lets all be netural, fair, and honest. No if I did this or I did that or elevation this or that... Stock for stock... 350Z or a MS3 what is the better overall performance, style, comfort, price, etc... car?

I'm sorry Mazda owners... the 350Z comes out on top.

BTW: I had this same discussion about the Cayman S. While having less HP, slower 0-60 and 1/4 time than the 350Z... The Cayman S came out on top for me.

Honistly I would buy a Cayman S over a 350Z or a RX-8.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Robert_K @ Apr 10 2008, 09:41 AM) [url=index.php?act=findpost&pid=39786]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/url]</div>

350Z or a MS3 what is the better overall performance, style, comfort, price, etc... car?

I'm sorry Mazda owners... the 350Z comes out on top.

BTW: I had this same discussion about the Cayman S. While having less HP, slower 0-60 and 1/4 time than the 350Z... The Cayman S came out on top for me.[/b]

The key words here have been bolded.

Me personally, I doubt I'd ever own a 350Z. It's a cool car, I won't discredit it there, it's just not for me. Would I ever own an MS3? Chances are better- but I'm in no hurry to sign up for more car payments. The end is in sight on this one. It's been too long since I haven't had a car payment (or 2 like I do now) and I want to go back to the way things used to be.........

This is something we can all agree on .... Car Payments Suck!!!

I agree with you Robert, to an extent... no, Nissan did not intend for the Z to be a drag racer, it's a sports car, through and through, which is why I made this thread, as $28k sports cars usually can't run muscle car drag times. I would expect 1/4 mile trap speeds like that out of cars like the GTO, F-Body, Mustang ect, but to see it out of a car that doesn't specialize in drag racing, is impressive. The Z handles great, has decent brakes and can run similar 1/4 mile times as some of GM's "pony cars"....

On a road course/autoX, well, I've driven both the Speed3 and the Z, and would probably give the nod to the Z in a sports car comparison, on a road course/autoX.... although, depending on the course, it might not be as wide of a gap as you might expect.

Now, things like "style" are subjective, so I don't think we can really compare them there, or if we did, yeah, most people would say the Z is better looking, but the Speed3 is FAR more functional and practical for a daily driver, so I don't know if I would say the Z is the overall better car... better for you, better for some people, but for some people's needs, the Speed3 would be the better car. Now, the interior looks "cool" inside the Z, I will never deny that, my wife misses it to death, but honestly, I've always felt it lacked overall quality & fit and finish, in that category, I think the Speed3 has an overall better fit and finish than the Z... that's just me though.

Price... the Z starts at $28k... the Speed3 starts at $22k.... while the Z is a little faster than the MS3, both in a straight line (only at sea level) and on a track, is it $6000 faster? That I don't know... up to you to decide. For someone who's into "modding", one thing is for sure though, it's a lot cheaper to mod the Speed3 than it is the Z, which makes a difference to some people.

Depending on what your needs are, I could see some people thinking the MS3 was the better car... while due to it's higher level of overall performance, I could also easily see the Z being the better car. Although, this thread started as a drag racing thread... just a contest of sheer straight line speed, with me saying at sea level I was impressed with the Z's power, running almost 108mph traps in a NA V6 is impressive, much faster than most people realize... but, it was mentioned that at altitude, it's a slower car in a straight line than the Speed3... which would also lead me to question, at altitude, how would they fair against each other on an autoX/road course? Since that's the Z's specialty... unfortunately, a lot of times, lap times aren't fair comparisons, just because the driver is a larger factor than from a freeway roll, so it's tough to compare...

...but I do agree with Jack on one thing, I feel bad for anyone who spends $40k on the Nismo Z, you don't get more power IIRC, mostly just a few suspension tweaks, nicer wheels and aero mods... not nearly the bang/buck that you get with the $28k base Z. Especially at altitude, for less cash, you could buy a new EVO X, that would walk the Z not only in the 1/4 mile, but on the Z's home turf- a road course... and still be able to drive it year round, and fit your family in the backseat as well. $28k for the base Z is a good deal (a lot of bang for your buck) IMO, $40k for the Nismo edition is not IMO. Just my $.02

Good discussion here. Glad to see it's staying civil. Anyhow, I think you summed pretty much everything up. However I don't think the base Z is the best bang for the buck Z. Open diff, no TC or VDC, OEM non-Brembo, AM/FM/Single CD, Cloth, 17" wheels, etc... I'd much rather at least go to the next model up and you get; LSD & TC! Also, while the NismoZ has it perks, Limited Edition, Aero kit, and suspention mods... I wouldn't buy one. For the money spent on a Nismo Edition to could easily get a set of better wheels/tires, coil-overs, sways, and the pointless aero kit. And most likely still have cash for some basic bolt-ons. Also regarding the backseat grocery getter comment... People looking to buy a 350Z "should" already have the means to transport children and groceries. While I'm sure there is some family out there buying a 350Z as their only car is not a smart purchase. This is why I say you "shouldn't" bring that into play. Same goes for winter weather driving. While I know many of 350Z/G35 owners that drive their car year-round... I do not. I much rather car pool and always suggest potential owners to invest in a second vehicle.

As a pervious Evo 8 owner... I'm much happier in my 350Z than my the Evo. I feel the same would be said if I owned a STi before the Z. I'm just happier in a two door, two seater, RWD than the four door AWD sedan. That being said I see the purpose for those that do own an Evo, WRX, or STi. While not all, most have a family, is their only car, and still want to be able to attend the weekend track day.

Lastly... Now as owning my 350Z both N/A and F/I would I;
1) Buy a 350Z all over again? Hands down yes! I love this car! N/A & F/I.
2) Would I do F/I again? Most likely yes. If it was going to be my soul daily/weekend racer.

However, since completing my TT build I feel I need a new challenge. I was talking with my wife Friday night before flying back to Kuwait. I told her if we had the money I'd like to buy another 350Z. Base model and do a N/A track only build. Stroke it to a 3.8l, all the N/A mods, idle around 2k and rev to 10k making about 330whp. Roll cage, single Bride seat, complete interior dump. No AC, radio, carpet, worthless plastic etc... Carbon Fiber where it can be replace interior and exterior. Just get as light as possible. Track use coil-overs, stiffest sways, bracing, 3.9 gearing and Quaife diff. Carbon 6/4 big brake kit and lightweight wheels with sticky r-compund tires. Hopefully you go the point. That would be an awesome N/A 350Z!!! It would give some of the best Evo, STi's, M-series, and 944's a run for thier money.

If I was building a track car Z, hands down it would be a 240Z. Those cars have great looks and are great track cars for the money.