Well said, Scorpion. I don't care for the 350Z much at all to begin with. It is too...... edgey in design. I like simple, understated, elegance. Plus the fact that the origonal Datsun Z concept was for a more simplistic, straight forward sports coupe (ala the origonal Honda S models). It had a smooth as silk straight six, buckets and console approach (I don't think they offered so much as A/C the first few years), and just a fun car to drive. In the eighties and early nineties, the car turned into what this model is today: a fast luxury 2 seater. I'm sure it handles fantastic, but my whole thing about driving is I buy the car to drive, not to play with the dual zone auto climate control and have my butt heated. The S2000 is a drivers car, no thrills, no frills, and most people would say the dash looks way too plain for a car made today. The 350Z has all sorts of things blinking and lit up on the dash, it might as well be a Cadillac. Just give me the basics, presented in basic form, and let me enjoy what the vehicle has under the hood and behind the wheels.

 

couldn't have said it better myself... I"m sure you won't regret the investment into an S2000, I sure as hell didn't. Just be careful with gas induced turns because the back end likes to slip out and drift when you least expect it. If that does happen, however, don't freek out and adjust slightly for best results. hehe, I sound like a Dr.

 

Well, I'm not buying an S2000. I love the new Accord six speed, but I don't think I want to part with my Prelude (don't make 'em anymore). If I were, however, in the market for a 2 seater, I could not consider anything else BUT an S2K. I'm just dissapointed that Nissan did not go back to their roots.... Honda did with the S2K, the Porsche Boxter is a Pedigree, but the 350Z is just a continuation of where they left off in 1996 with the last 300ZX. You can almost see the exact evolution of the car, instead of starting back to the origonal of 1972. It would be a much better competition directly to the S2K.

 

haha ill pick the 350z

 

s2k hands down but then again, i am a little biased :naughty:

 

:werd: s2k's are revvy lil things

 

when your car starts sounding like a motorcycle, you know you got a minnie monster on your hands :naughty:

 

You definitely have to test drive both. The 350z is getting 5.4 with a very good driver 0-60 times. Now that is not to say that people won't get better with the 350 when they get a little more used to it. There are guys on the S2k boards that are getting 5.1 with their stock times (although I have seen 5.1 as well with a SC'd S2k.. I feel bad for that guy.) Anyway, just looking at the tests from Magazines, the S2k gets anywhere around 5.3 - 5.8 0-60 and handles 9.0 - 9.7 g's in a turn as opposed to the Z that is getting 5.4 0-60 and 8.7 g's in a turn (track model with larger rims and brembo brakes.) The Z is a little bit more conforting inside but the S2k is an all out drivers car (with a very high revving 4 cyl engine.) I thought I would trade in the S2k for a 350z once it came out but... I still have it and happy as can be.

 

Oh.. I will add that the S2k is not very bolt-on friendly. I am sure that the 350z will be much more friendly to bolt-on parts..

 

Has anyone here actually driven a 350Z? Not sporty? Are you insane? The only way I can describe this car is "GT car" after I drove it.

Nissan did a great job with this car. They have created an AWESOME muscle car. And a muscle car it is, which is why it is dumb to compare its handling to the S2000. I'm not saying the handling isn't good, but it obviously won't handle like a small roadster. A better comparison would be 350Z vs. Supra. Similar weight, power, and handling..

Another thing most of you are forgetting is PRICE. HELLO. The 350Z is DIRT CHEAP. YOU GET A TRUE SPORTS CAR FOR DIRT CHEAP. HELLO.