[two_three_two]

Originally Posted by AmuroRay

My guy, no 30 year old car is holding up with modern cars- the key here, and what I presented was the Z of that era was competitive with the best cars in that category. The 300zx was second to the MK4 Supra, and despite being slightly slower, better than the Corvettes of that era.

The 350z was a step down from that competition, but was a substantial value starting under $26000. This New Z is Keith cheap, nor competitive. The base version was beaten by the BRZ/FT86 despite having 160hp/200tq advantage, no back seat and a higher base price.


FYI, the 2+2 was a better car because of its longer wheel base and was the basis for the IMA Racecar.

regurgitating internet slop it is. got it.

i kindly invite you to use your internet powers to navigate over to an inflation calculator, where you will see that infact, even by the govt's very questionable calculations, $26k in 2003 is equal to... $44k in today dollars. which means that, yes indeed, a base Z is (i'll do the math for you) CHEAPER than a base 350z was at the time.

first paragraph missed the mark so badly that it is hardly worth addressing, but ill give it a go: no one is saying that a 30 year old car is a direct comparison to a modern car. the point was that the current Z, what with the softer suspension and more comfort oriented packaging in general, is a true successor to (most) of the Z car lineage. Z cars were, in most stages of life, tuned to be more on the liveable side of the spectrum. this one is no different. internet warriors are very keen to put this car in a box it does not belong in.

the one thing you got right: the 2+2 is better.