Where can i find the difference in weights between all the zeds, eg na, tt manual, tt auto, and weights difference eg auto swb na. man swb na. ttswb man/ ttlwbman /auto etc you get the jist, its just that i went off the mark with a black lwb tt today it sounded like an auto, but it never really got away that well, we went up to a hundred or so then hit traffic, i cant explain it?? i was expecting him to vanish ?? maybe he had a prob/was old/handbrake on/or was it anyone on here perhaps??? im dissilusioned if thats how they go as i fancied getting a tt, but see no point, any ideas or links to that data would help,

cheers gavo

He was probably just playin wit ya:D

 

I know none of those figures but i think im right in saying a TT is more than just abit quicker..

 

It's like comparing the skyline with the mondeo, fine they look the same but the skylark just cant copy that marvelous engineering under the mondeos bonnet.

-Will be left for dust in a real race.

robtor, with all due respect ive been about long enough to know if some ones "playing", and by the driving manner and the noises he wasnt, so thanks for the thoughts, but could anyone a bit more knowledgable shed any light on it???

If you're looking for information on weight differences, Nelson's your main man!

thanks m8, who n where is nelson tho???

I can't remember figures off the top of my head - save to say that there's not much in it, weight wise.. 50kg maybe, but nothing huge.

 

In a straight line, a TT should walk away from an NA, auto vs. manual or vice versa.. Been there - done it..

 

However - lots of reasons he didn't.. Most likely - he was stuck in safety boost, or had a weak gearbox..

 

Thing is, lots and lots and lots of these TT's are stuck in safety boost (I know mine was, now, but it took me a year to find out!), because of their age, and how knackered the detonation sensor circuit usually is from the heat.

If all you've ever driven are cars that are in SB - you'd think it was normal.. Yes it's slow compared to a pukka TT, but it's still no slouch when it's in SB compared to most normal cars..

 

NA vs. TT in safety boost probably would be a fair match, I think.

 

Around a circuit, it would be anyones guess - hell, the NA could go around quicker, if the driver was better than the driver of the TT...

 

HTH.

See this old post. The info was taken from the Nissan site for the 1999 model.

http://www.300zx.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7935

Geoff

Gavo,

 

I test drove both before making a purchase and there was no comparision. The TT pulled a lot stronger than the NA. There is no way his car was running correctly if he couldn't pull away from you even if it was a lwb compared to your swb.

 

I have found that the manual TT can pull of the mark quicker than the auto (usual really), but the auto has such a strong 2nd and 3rd gear than its able to pull some ground back. Thats what I felt when comparing them.

 

Steve E started a thread similar to this a long time ago because he noticed that the US guys were pulling better quarter mile times with similar power outputs. There was talk about them having better, grippier strips but in the end it was attributed to the fact that ALL US TT's are SWB - The LWB TT was never available in the US, so the SWB obviously has the edge in the weight department.

 

The best thing for you to do is meet up with someone and test drive a TT and compare them yourself.

 

Andy

According to Mike Feeney's microfiche, 5 variants were available in US. For NA RZ24 (2+0) and RZ26 (2+2) and RZ27 (convertible).

For TT CZ24 (2+0) and CZ26 (2+2)

 

More info here but a little confusing http://www.300zx.org.uk/mod_comp_1.htm

 

Yours a trainee pedant - Gio

Thats incorrect. No 2+2 TT was ever imported into the US.

 

From Twinturbo.net

 

In the US,

- ALL the 2+2 ARE NA, there was no 2+2 TT imported.

- The 2+0 can either be a NA or a TT

- Convertibles are based on the 2+0 model

 

http://www.twinturbo.net/ttnetfaq/appendixz.aspx#2+2%20/

Now there's interesting - I would usually believe everything Mike and Henri say. But here we have a discrepancy. I've e-mailed Mike and will let you know.

 

Also, I checked in the Enthusiast's Companion and it agrees with you and Henri "US market turbo is only two-seater".

 

I told you I was only a trainee!

 

Cheers - a tarnished trainee pedant - Gio

Too many factors come into play here to put the blame on weight. It could have been in safety boost, the engine could have been fooked, the clutch/converter could have been weak, the rear tyres could have been crap, there may have been some oil in his lane, he may have had 100kg of prime Columbian in the boot.

 

Lets face it, we're talking about a second and a bit difference in the performance times. Anything could happen. Ever been to a drag race and seen something weedy beat something bigger coz it got a better/quicker launch?

 

It's a one off road 'race', not a scientifically standardised tested and measured experiment. You'll still be happier with a twin turbo though!:D