I dug these up in my copy of 'Nissan 300zx, The Enthusiast's Companion' by Ray Hutton, published in 1990.

 

Speed/acceleration

N/A 0-30 2.2, 0-40 3.5, 0-50 4.9, 0-60 6.7, 0-100 18.6

T T 0-30 2.1, 0-40 3.0, 0-50 4.4, 0-60 5.7, 0-100 15.2

 

Standing Quarter mile

N/A 15.0

T T 14.1

 

Max speed

N/A 143

T T 155

 

Is this accurate for stock? If so, the N/A seems closer than I thought, especially for a standing 1/4. Is this really wildly inaccurate? Seems like in certain circumstances an N/A can hold it's own. Like from a standing start. Is this another old argument? Would a stock T T in reality destroy an N/A in a standing 1/4?

I drove Chrissy P's NA yesterday and have to admit how suprised I was, very punchy car, certainly moves.

 

Vijay

The figures at the top look fairly accurate to me but i have trouble believing those 1/4 times.

 

A Z wouldnt be far off 100 when completing the 1/4, and look at the difference in 0-100 times.

 

But then again i really don't have a clue!

the NA is supposed to be quicker from a standing start as the TT has to wait for the turbos to be spun up. Will say that all the comments of those who have been in mine have been along the lines of " well, its not that slow" :D

1/4 time for TT looks about right, WhatCar, Autocar & Evo have all achieved the 0-60 in 5.6 and 0-100 in 14.4 consequently they give these as official proven times for a stock UK TT.

 

Up to about 40 the TT and N/A would be close, but when the turbos kick in, it's bye-bye to the N/A;)

 

Richard:)