DrivingEnthusiast
Well-Known Member
The sightlines are clearly all identical. It's clear that the entire chassis, structure, A-, B-, and C-pillars are all identical stucturally and in the exact same place. It's gained a few inches in length for styling, or probably better crash protection, but that's it. This is a "tophat redesign" - simply put the new body panels have all the same hard points underneath. And we know the suspension is essentially identical (maybe tiny geometry changes found their way into the budget, along with bushing tuning).
Nissan has done the same thing here as they did in the transition from the G37 to Q50/60. The first Q50/60 even had the same 3.7l engine... (ignoring the absolutely lousy Mercedes-built 2 liter turbo) with tiny differences in the length of the engine compartment and certainly crash updates. You get in a Q50/60 and immediately realize this... even sitting in the identical seats (just like the new Z).
Keep in mind that the Z, Q50 and Q60 all use the same "FM" platform, go down the same assembly line, and the new Z uses the same subframes and suspension components - so much the better for the budget. In fact critical for the budget since the volumes of all 3 cars are so tiny. If the Q team budget allows, and it may not, I'm hoping to see the Qs get the new 9-speed along with new dashboards (replacing the silly and near-useless dual center screens and ditching the miserable 7-speed once and for all). Substitute 'Skyline" for Q" in Japan.
This is how Nissan is able to deliver a new Z in this environment... the only way when the highest priorities are to get the new electric platforms started, to restore profitability all around, to bring Infiniti back to life, etc. Reality is the Z has great imaging to add but Nissan could not justify the all-new platform that was envisioned 10 years ago.
As an instructor, I've had a lot of students in 370Zs, and the sightlines are a major problem on the track and at high speed. This new Z will be no different. I really wished for better... at least for the hatch glass to dip down much lower.
There is a car that is much worse, and that's the Camaro. While it's chassis tuning is terrific (better than any Mustang), it's awful-to-dangerous on the track and miserable to live with in daily commuting because of the sightlines and the sheer bulk (size and bulk being the reason why nobody tracks a Challenger - its just a tank).
Let me clarify the stark reality I've described... it's tough luck. But the FM platform itself is excellent - lightweight, highly aluminum intensive, pretty good geometry. And while the 370Z has been functionally identical from start to end, at least the Nismo has evolved and the end product is petty good - especially the terrific Recaro seats. And in Qs I've put several hundred miles on both versions of the 3 liter twin-turbo - the 300 HP version has good fuel economy and the 400 version is fun - the biggest problem there is lack of an LSD in the Qs! In fact the 400 HP version is far superior to the Stillen supercharged 3.7 G37S engine I have, which is downright unreliable (sc drive belt) and a ticking time bomb (internals not strong enough) - even though it makes more HP and way more torque (the only question is when it will go bang).
So I am looking forward to the Z, would prefer a Nismo, but am also realistic about what it is and is not. You are inside the same shell and it;s sightlines, which isn't great. That said, with the new engine it will be *considerably* faster and more fun to drive than the existing 370Z.
The competition? The Supra is the obvious one... and if you can stand the stupidly bizarre styling then you're stuck with the much larger price tag (and Nissan had better set the right price here!). The Challenger just is a big pig, not a sports car or even a handling car - not a competitor at all. The Camaro is on the large side and has it's livability issues. The Mustang is a competitor but there are people (myself included) who would prefer the non-linear response of a turbocharged engine over the rather dull V-8 because it's lots more fun across the band.
Nissan has done the same thing here as they did in the transition from the G37 to Q50/60. The first Q50/60 even had the same 3.7l engine... (ignoring the absolutely lousy Mercedes-built 2 liter turbo) with tiny differences in the length of the engine compartment and certainly crash updates. You get in a Q50/60 and immediately realize this... even sitting in the identical seats (just like the new Z).
Keep in mind that the Z, Q50 and Q60 all use the same "FM" platform, go down the same assembly line, and the new Z uses the same subframes and suspension components - so much the better for the budget. In fact critical for the budget since the volumes of all 3 cars are so tiny. If the Q team budget allows, and it may not, I'm hoping to see the Qs get the new 9-speed along with new dashboards (replacing the silly and near-useless dual center screens and ditching the miserable 7-speed once and for all). Substitute 'Skyline" for Q" in Japan.
This is how Nissan is able to deliver a new Z in this environment... the only way when the highest priorities are to get the new electric platforms started, to restore profitability all around, to bring Infiniti back to life, etc. Reality is the Z has great imaging to add but Nissan could not justify the all-new platform that was envisioned 10 years ago.
As an instructor, I've had a lot of students in 370Zs, and the sightlines are a major problem on the track and at high speed. This new Z will be no different. I really wished for better... at least for the hatch glass to dip down much lower.
There is a car that is much worse, and that's the Camaro. While it's chassis tuning is terrific (better than any Mustang), it's awful-to-dangerous on the track and miserable to live with in daily commuting because of the sightlines and the sheer bulk (size and bulk being the reason why nobody tracks a Challenger - its just a tank).
Let me clarify the stark reality I've described... it's tough luck. But the FM platform itself is excellent - lightweight, highly aluminum intensive, pretty good geometry. And while the 370Z has been functionally identical from start to end, at least the Nismo has evolved and the end product is petty good - especially the terrific Recaro seats. And in Qs I've put several hundred miles on both versions of the 3 liter twin-turbo - the 300 HP version has good fuel economy and the 400 version is fun - the biggest problem there is lack of an LSD in the Qs! In fact the 400 HP version is far superior to the Stillen supercharged 3.7 G37S engine I have, which is downright unreliable (sc drive belt) and a ticking time bomb (internals not strong enough) - even though it makes more HP and way more torque (the only question is when it will go bang).
So I am looking forward to the Z, would prefer a Nismo, but am also realistic about what it is and is not. You are inside the same shell and it;s sightlines, which isn't great. That said, with the new engine it will be *considerably* faster and more fun to drive than the existing 370Z.
The competition? The Supra is the obvious one... and if you can stand the stupidly bizarre styling then you're stuck with the much larger price tag (and Nissan had better set the right price here!). The Challenger just is a big pig, not a sports car or even a handling car - not a competitor at all. The Camaro is on the large side and has it's livability issues. The Mustang is a competitor but there are people (myself included) who would prefer the non-linear response of a turbocharged engine over the rather dull V-8 because it's lots more fun across the band.
Last edited:
