Hail the 300zx. :bow: :bow:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNta7RQVFyY

never get tired of that clip!!

:bow: :rofl: :rofl: ...always good to see that one .... :bow:

 

..

seen it loads of times but still not bored of it!!!!!

"Big wobbly car for putting Americans in"?!?? I like Hammond, but he's talking nonsense. Isn't the 350Z heavier?

Fantastic clip. The 300 comes from behind and just eats into the 350.

"Big wobbly car for putting Americans in"?!?? I like Hammond, but he's talking nonsense. Isn't the 350Z heavier?

And Clarkson talks tosh, too - like in the vid in this thread http://www.300zx.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=88963 he says

trounced by the 1980s 300ZX

Yes "trounced" OK but not by a 1980s ZX. And later when explaining why...

and you see the problem is that by law, a modern car has to be safe which means it has to be strong and that makes it heavy and there is nothing more guaranteed to blunt acceleration than weight.

 

What he says is accurate but his implication is that the 300ZX is not modern or safe or strong (it is all 3) and that it is lighter than the 350Z (also wrong).

 

The 300ZX Twin Turbo has a kerb weight of 3,495lbs/1,588kg (source 300ZX Enthusiast's Companion) and the 350Z has a kerb weight of 3,406lbs/ 1,545kg (source Autocar Road Test #4618 via http://www.mjpauto.com ).

 

JC clearly follows the journalistic tradition of never letting the truth stand in the way of a good story....

And that proves white ones are the fastest....Oops wrong thread :rofl:

 

But thats 2 videos the 350 has lost against the 300zx, what more proof is needed :nana2:

And Clarkson talks tosh, too - like in the vid in this thread http://www.300zx.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=88963 he says Yes "trounced" OK but not by a 1980s ZX. And later when explaining why...

 

What he says is accurate but his implication is that the 300ZX is not modern or safe or strong (it is all 3) and that it is lighter than the 350Z (also wrong).

 

The 300ZX Twin Turbo has a kerb weight of 3,495lbs/1,588kg (source 300ZX Enthusiast's Companion) and the 350Z has a kerb weight of 3,406lbs/ 1,545kg (source Autocar Road Test #4618 via http://www.mjpauto.com ).

 

JC clearly follows the journalistic tradition of never letting the truth stand in the way of a good story....

 

Exactly. Top gear is the new 'wrestling'. You all know its fake right ;)

Haven't seen that before .. Brilliant :nana2:

And Clarkson talks tosh, too - like in the vid in this thread http://www.300zx.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=88963 he says Yes "trounced" OK but not by a 1980s ZX. And later when explaining why...

 

What he says is accurate but his implication is that the 300ZX is not modern or safe or strong (it is all 3) and that it is lighter than the 350Z (also wrong).

 

The 300ZX Twin Turbo has a kerb weight of 3,495lbs/1,588kg (source 300ZX Enthusiast's Companion) and the 350Z has a kerb weight of 3,406lbs/ 1,545kg (source Autocar Road Test #4618 via http://www.mjpauto.com ).

 

JC clearly follows the journalistic tradition of never letting the truth stand in the way of a good story....

 

Blimey! I'll never believe another word he says after that. I think calling the 300ZX (Z32) 80s is pushing it a bit, even though I suppose it's technically correct as it made it's first appearance in 1989.

 

Anyway, having now switched firmly into trainspotter mode I might as well press on... I've noticed with Jeremy Clarkson recently that he's picked up an annoying habit of quoting torque figures in a unit he describes as "torques" instead of pound feet. I suppose this could be some up to date way of referring to it, but I can't help feeling that referring to something as having "500 torques" as he did for that 911 on Sunday makes you sound really ignorant.

 

/Disengages trainspotter mode and steps off soap box./

Blimey! I'll never believe another word he says after that. I think calling the 300ZX (Z32) 80s is pushing it a bit, even though I suppose it's technically correct as it made it's first appearance in 1989.

 

Anyway, having now switched firmly into trainspotter mode I might as well press on... I've noticed with Jeremy Clarkson recently that he's picked up an annoying habit of quoting torque figures in a unit he describes as "torques" instead of pound feet. I suppose this could be some up to date way of referring to it, but I can't help feeling that referring to something as having "500 torques" as he did for that 911 on Sunday makes you sound really ignorant.

 

/Disengages trainspotter mode and steps off soap box./

 

I noticed the 'torques' thing too. He may have been told to say that so more people know what he's on about. Or maybe he just likes the phrase.

love that clip

 

im sure the white zed belonged to someone on here, but cant remember who

Some say............He talks from the hole in he's ar5e...........All we know is.......................he's Jeremy Clarkson.

he will be using the word torques because of a lack of understanding of how torque actually works so is dumbing it down for his own ego

Ahem,

 

Don't wanna stir it up but in my mind the Z is absolutely an 80's car. the team started its design work in the thick of the 80's and whilst it is no doubt a classic design it has too many 80's influenced cues especially from the side and 3/4 views.

 

At least nissan have moved on and not stood still. Thinks about porsche who went back to a pre-war design and then constantly re-worked in an attempt to see the triumph of engineering over physics.

 

I think 90's cars were boring but some new cars are at last getting interesting. New supra hybrid is a real breakthrough and i think the GTR will have its work cut out.

Ahem,

 

Don't wanna stir it up but in my mind the Z is absolutely an 80's car. the team started its design work in the thick of the 80's and whilst it is no doubt a classic design it has too many 80's influenced cues especially from the side and 3/4 views.

 

At least nissan have moved on and not stood still. Thinks about porsche who went back to a pre-war design and then constantly re-worked in an attempt to see the triumph of engineering over physics.

 

I think 90's cars were boring but some new cars are at last getting interesting. New supra hybrid is a real breakthrough and i think the GTR will have its work cut out.

 

On the other hand you could say that about a lot of cars that made their appearance at around that time: Calibra, Probe, even the RX-7, the "dolphin" shaped BMW 3 series etc. Most cars take several years to design so anything that appeared before about 1993 would have started out its life in the 80s.

 

I do agree though: 90s cars were largely dull, which I guess is something of an improvement on 80s cars which were largely boxy and ugly.

I noticed the 'torques' thing too. He may have been told to say that so more people know what he's on about. Or maybe he just likes the phrase.

 

I know what you're saying but it just sounds like he's dumbing it down to me: "torques" is an almost entirely opaque piece of terminology, e.g. what is 396 torques exactly? But if I tell you that 396 Nm (Newton metres) is a rotational force that's the equivalent at sea level of placing a 39.6Kg weight on the end of a 1 metre long lever attached to a central pivot point it makes much more sense: 396 Newtons of force at the end of a 1 metre long lever. Lb ft are similar: number of pounds of force at the end of a foot long lever. Like I say, "torques" just makes him sound ignorant.

I know what you're saying but it just sounds like he's dumbing it down to me: "torques" is an almost entirely opaque piece of terminology, e.g. what is 396 torques exactly? But if I tell you that 396 Nm (Newton metres) is a rotational force that's the equivalent at sea level of placing a 39.6Kg weight on the end of a 1 metre long lever attached to a central pivot point it makes much more sense: 396 Newtons of force at the end of a 1 metre long lever. Lb ft are similar: number of pounds of force at the end of a foot long lever. Like I say, "torques" just makes him sound ignorant.

 

You definately have a point but I refuse to believe I know more about torque than Jeremy Clarkson. I think he says 'Torques' like other people say 'Horses'. I know horses kinda makes sense so its more likely that he just hasn't thought it through grammatically.

Ahem,

 

Don't wanna stir it up but in my mind the Z is absolutely an 80's car. the team started its design work in the thick of the 80's and whilst it is no doubt a classic design it has too many 80's influenced cues especially from the side and 3/4 views.

 

At least nissan have moved on and not stood still. Thinks about porsche who went back to a pre-war design and then constantly re-worked in an attempt to see the triumph of engineering over physics.

 

I think 90's cars were boring but some new cars are at last getting interesting. New supra hybrid is a real breakthrough and i think the GTR will have its work cut out.

 

If we say that a car is in development for 4 years before they get released to the public then you could say the same thing about ALL cars. If a car comes out in 2002 you wouldn't call it a 90's car.

 

Then again you are right since the 300zx came out in 1989 therefore you cannot say its not an 80's car.