OK lets end this argument once and for all

"YES IT FOOKIN WELL IS"

 

"SECOND THAT !!!!"

"Super Sports" is the term the media has been using lately for cars like the zed. Higher performance that most sports cars but not "supercar" becuase of the other factors that "technically" define one.

"Super Sports" is the term the media has been using lately for cars like the zed. Higher performance that most sports cars but not "supercar" becuase of the other factors that "technically" define one.

 

Right then ... New Poll Tech Define a Super Car ..

 

1) They don't bother putting enough paint or any underseal on them

lets get this into prospective.

 

its damn quick from 0-60mph.

it will also do just under 3 times the british motorway speed limit.

after 16 years it still has awesome looks.

people spend stupid amounts of money on it.

it very costly to maintain.

you only drive it on good days (Cos youre shit scared to push it too far)

when a Renault engine blows you bin the car, when a zed blows its engine what do you do ....you spend stupid amounts of money and fix it"

looks best in BLACK. :bow:

 

dont be stupid "Of course its a supercar"!!!!!!!!!!! :duffer: :duffer: :duffer:

lets get this into prospective.

 

its damn quick from 0-60mph.

it will also do just under 3 times the british motorway speed limit.

after 16 years it still has awesome looks.

people spend stupid amounts of money on it.

it very costly to maintain.

you only drive it on good days (Cos youre shit scared to push it too far)

when a Renault engine blows you bin the car, when a zed blows its engine what do you do ....you spend stupid amounts of money and fix it"

looks best in BLACK. :bow:

 

dont be stupid "Of course its a supercar"!!!!!!!!!!! :duffer: :duffer: :duffer:

 

At last!!!!!!

This is what matters !!!!

 

 

But everyone knows super cars are all RED !!!!

 

:)

i think it could be.... BUT... its let down by

 

1. its weight and more importantly power to weight - a mildly modded cavalier engine in a corsa has the same power/weight

 

2. its lower (like under 50mph) handling - its reluctant to turn in at slower speeds then struggles to put the torque down

 

3. its power to engine size - 100bhp/litre is available from a lot of N/A cars these days so a TT? it should be about 450bhp really.

and

4. the most important for me is the brakes. for a potentially 180mph car weighing 1500kg+ they are dire. on stock brakes and pads, i defy anyone to emergency stop a Z from anywhere over 150mph. it simply wont. they will have faded to nothing by about 80mph and then you're left with brown staines on the seat.

for me, a true supercar should be designed to have a high limit of adhesion with all the engine/chassis it needs to cope at that limit for as long as you like or until the tank runs out. ever seen a porsche/ferrari/(insert usual suspects here) that cant stop or wont turn in? this is why i doubt the veyron as being a true supercar. i think of it more as a powercar.

having said that, i cant afford any of those and i love my Z too much to part anyway. its super to me. (anyone got a cheap set of skyline brakes?) ;o)

i think it could be.... BUT... its let down by

 

1. its weight and more importantly power to weight - a mildly modded cavalier engine in a corsa has the same power/weight

 

Don't get me started on this one "Every one knows the only reason to make a car front wheel drive is to cut down production costs" Front wheel drive only cars should be kept for shopping :tongue:

 

I agree with your other points esp the brakes :)

Ain't we all forgetting somthing here!? This car was made and designed in the early 90's and as with everything, things advance. The origonal price was around £36000 so people who bought it new must have thought of it as a Supercar if you are going by price, that is! At that time Porsches, Ferrari's etc were hovering around that price and they were classed a super. I think the only thing that let the car down then was the fact of the name badge. If the 300zx had of been designed by a more prestigious company it would have been alot more sucsessful.

I do agree though the brakes are shat!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :mad:

 

I love it and if you want looks come over to Germany and every fooker stares LOL :)

Also limited production, the construction method (hand assembly), useage of exotic materials, 8, 10, 12 + cylinders, mid engined configuration.

 

These things affect the final price somewhat, and only a very few car makers work with V12s, carbon fiber and have staff who can literally hand-beat car panels to shape.

 

XJ220 has a fettled Metro engine and the NSX is a 6 cylinder, that was classed as a supercar at Launch ;)

 

I know what you mean, more factors than that. I still don't believe the ZX is a SC.

I had a 911 in 1995 & sold it after only 6 months....It was g good car but I like the zed much more...so yes it is for me.

my opinon.

 

a supercar is a car that does 0-60 in 4 sec or less

 

a fast car is a car that does 0-60 in 4-6 secs

 

6-8 secs arecars known as nippy little buggers

 

anything above that my gran can beat in her little electric scooter :)

ever seen a porsche/ferrari/(insert usual suspects here) that cant stop or wont turn in?

Yes, handling and braking on older porsche's,ferrari's, lambo's...etc are nothing like their modern equivelants. The Zed beat the Porshe 944t and 928s on every road and track test. I expect it would also run circles around a lot of older "supercars". Most Porches however are not given the "supercar" title.

3. its power to engine size - 100bhp/litre is available from a lot of N/A cars these days so a TT? it should be about 450bhp really.

and

100bhp/litre NA cars (ie. Vtec Honda's) just have high peak power at the very end of their rev range, with sod all power lower down. Its not a true comparison.

 

Its all time relative. Todays Supercars and very different to the "supercars" of the 70's,80's, early 90's......etc

 

But no..its not a supercar, thankfully!...the media invented term "supercar" are cars at the extreme end of the market....not cars you can drive everyday. The zed is a sports car with supercar performance (for its time)...a "Super sports".

Yes, handling and braking on older porsche's,ferrari's, lambo's...etc are nothing like their modern equivelants. The Zed beat the Porshe 944t and 928s on every road and track test. I expect it would also run circles around a lot of older "supercars". Most Porches however are not given the "supercar" title.

100bhp/litre NA cars (ie. Vtec Honda's) just have high peak power at the very end of their rev range, with sod all power lower down. Its not a true comparison.

 

Its all time relative. Todays Supercars and very different to the "supercars" of the 70's,80's, early 90's......etc

 

But no..its not a supercar, thankfully!...the media invented term "supercar" are cars at the extreme end of the market....not cars you can drive everyday. The zed is a sports car with supercar performance (for its time)...a "Super sports".

 

i think dave just summed it up!!!

i think dave just summed it up!!!

 

So what you are saying is "The Zed is a supercar" ????? Stop being a F**ny and say it :)

TBH performance aint realy an issue anyway's cause any modern 900cc factory sports bike will hose "Supercars" off the lights anytime..

 

Couple a people have said to me the Zed looks the business as i've come howling up behind them on country roads "where the hell did that come from" was one comment .... Thats what makes a super car.

interesting. after 58 votes it's EXACTLY 50/50 between yes's and no's!!!

Just a thought, is the word SUPERCAR in any dictionary ? If it was defined by print it might solve this one way or the other. ;)

Just a thought, is the word SUPERCAR in any dictionary ? If it was defined by print it might solve this one way or the other. ;)

 

good idea - not in the Chambers one tho :(

Not that this helps much but there's no 300Z in the list :(

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/list+of+supercars

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Supercar

Legrath i totally agree with you mate - think you got it just about right there !!!!

100bhp/litre NA cars (ie. Vtec Honda's) just have high peak power at the very end of their rev range, with sod all power lower down. Its not a true comparison

.

sorry but i have to disagree here. the idea of honda's Vtec system is to give a car with big valves and high compression some bottom and midrange. the only really peaky ones are the type-R's, etc which are really a semi-race engine that can cope around town. i have a prelude 2.2vtec (jap) and on the dyno the curve looks a bit like an ar5e. starts okthen arcs slightly up then back down then at 5100 torque starts going up again then tails slightly before the end. not peaky at all and it doesnt feel like it on the road. and with no mods or any type of induction (factory had gone walkies when i got her) it made a genuine 205bhp on the dyno. at the wheels power peaks at 166bhp but it has more area under the graph here than my mate's auto TT Z. it may have been a weak one though - 255bhp@6600rpm or just a smidge over 170bhp at the wheels. doesnt boost untill 2500rpm then torque tails off after 6000 with a big lump of torque in the middle. the 'lude makes peak torque at 2200rpm then holds it almost level untill nearly 8000rpm with a small dip in the middle.

im not saying the Z has a bad engine (i wouldnt have brought/owned/kept it if it had), im just saying i think they could have given it more. dont forget that most six-pot BMW's, astra GTE's, etc all have over 150bhp/litre standard without turbo's and they were out in 1989.

the Z does give a good shove but i think with its slightly variable cams (i think a better system than honda's Vtec as they have no steps) adjusted slightly, bigger tubs and inters, it would have been a real beast. any Z over 400 genuine bhp usually gives BIG thrills.

having said that, it was meant to be everything to all so it had to be quiet, have little lag, low noise, etc so it wasnt an all-out performance based car - hence the auto option, the luxury, etc.

.

sorry but i have to disagree here. the idea of honda's Vtec system is to give a car with big valves and high compression some bottom and midrange. the only really peaky ones are the type-R's, etc which are really a semi-race engine that can cope around town.

yes, but it is only the Type R's vtec's that have the 100bhp/litre. Where for example if you were to compare them to a turbocharged car of the same engine size, you would see similar peak power figures, yet the turbocharged car would have almost twice the power through 75% of the rev range.

.

mate's auto TT Z. it may have been a weak one though - 255bhp@6600rpm or just a smidge over 170bhp at the wheels.

About 60hp down on stock at the wheels.

dont forget that most six-pot BMW's, astra GTE's, etc all have over 150bhp/litre standard without turbo's and they were out in 1989.

Was that a typo? 1989 Six pot Bmw's -

320/520(150hp) is 75bhp/litre

325i/525i(170hp) is 68bhp/litre

530(200hp) is 66hp/litre

535i/735i(210hp) is 60hp/litre

 

1989 Astra GTE 8v(124hp) is 62hp/litre

1991 Astra GTE 16v(156hp) is 78hp/litre

 

You'll notice that higher bhp per litre comes with smaller the displacement. If you increase the displacement of a 200hp 2litre car, to 3litre its not going to have 300hp. Its easier to get a higher bhp/litre the smaller the displacement.

the Z does give a good shove but i think with its slightly variable cams (i think a better system than honda's Vtec as they have no steps) adjusted slightly, bigger tubs and inters, it would have been a real beast. any Z over 400 genuine bhp usually gives BIG thrills.

 

having said that, it was meant to be everything to all so it had to be quiet, have little lag, low noise, etc so it wasnt an all-out performance based car - hence the auto option, the luxury, etc

Yep, I agree, another example of why its not a supercar, but a Sports car with supercar performance for everyday driveablity/praticality/reliablity...etc. Nissan had a target performance figure, and the engine came out of the production line with an engine "detuned" to perform those figures. Whereas a supercar is designed to get the highest potential power figures with little regard to everyday driveablity/praticality/reliablity.

yeah, but no, but yeah,but no, but........!!

I think most of you are just showing of with technical knowhow and nothing is getting solved. In todays big money world A supercar is a car that no one from the real world can afford. So heres my own opinion of what makes a car a supercar:

 

1/. It has to be damn fast 0-60

2/. It has to be damn powerful 400 BHP +.

3/. It has to be damn expensive £100K +.

 

So in its factory guise the 300ZX is not a supercar.

 

This is not my preference. Its just what I think the general public would imagine a "supercar" is?

The Bugatti Vyron now thats a supercar evrything else is just pants lol :mac1:

The Bugatti Vyron now thats a supercar

 

And nobody can argue with that. :bow: