Yutaka Katayama (Mr. K) isn't too pleased with the porkiness or high price tag of current Z cars and isn't afraid to say so.

source

_________________

My JNC: 1983 Subaru GL wagon
My JNM: 1979 Yamaha XS Eleven

I totally agree to a point. The 350z was a big let down after the 300zx. The Z33 had some huge shoes to fill and definitely didn't fill them. I do like how Nissan made a nod to the s30s with some of the design features of the new 370. They're definitely expensive......

The title of this thread is wrong, Mr. K rather drive his versa then his 350z.

_________________
- '71 Datsun 240z.....L28ET here we come

But just as negative a statement. The Venza is a mini van/station wagon and the Versa is a compact mini van/station wagon.

thread title fixed
however, i too would rather drive a venza than a 370z ... lolz

Agree with him 100%. I know it's hard to please everyone nowadays, but the 'evolution' of the Z is unfortunate.

Light, cheap, fast ---> heavy, expensive, fast.

_________________
79.5 TE72 - RIP, 87 Acura Legend - RIP, 88 FC3S - Sold, 90 Hardbody - Sold
90 S13 Coupe - RIP, 91 S13 Hatch - Sold
Financial Status - Sold, Sanity - RIP
Cannondale R1000 - Daily

...At least with the 300ZX, that was a car that seemed to redeem its weight with technology and content...

That car, with twin turbos, HICAS etc. continued what I see as the Z's traditional role of being on the (relative) cutting edge of technology... After all, how many other cars in 1970 offered OHC, or even DOHC (in Japan) engines, all independant suspension, disc brakes, and eventually sequential EFI by 1975? The Z was then on the forefront of turbocharging...

With the advent of the 350Z, the designers seemed to say screw all that, and figured that people would rather have something more akin to the original Z in execution, except porkier and generally less satisfying (the typical "retro" trap )... AKA, something that'd already been done, except worse.

Sadly, they probably couldn't have been more correct sales-wise... Not that the 350/370 are bad cars. But they were just set up, from the start, to be adequate cars that would sell, rather than GREAT cars.

(I do think 350s are gorgeous, however... 370s, eh)

_________________

versas are crap compared to the Honda Fit.. i should know; my wife has a fit, and my father in law has had two versas.. i don't know he had two, but the manual gear box is rubbish and the auto sucks just as much. not to mention the interiors are TERRIBLE..

sorry, i can't contribute more than that.

I like my Versa a lot. But it's far from stock, so...

And the Fit is too small inside. Kinda apples and oranges to compare the two as they aren't in the same category.

pics or ban!

Sorry, pics don't tell much, most of the non-stock bits are under the hood or under the car...

But if you insist, here's one...

Oops.

_________________

My JNC: 1983 Subaru GL wagon
My JNM: 1979 Yamaha XS Eleven

not in the same category? this is news to me..

well look at the 370z competion...none frotm toyata,none from mazda,i gues the mustang,camaro or the mitsu 4wd evo maybe the subaru are the competion today...and not all those cars are light weights....i am impressed with the power output of the 370 z but i think a turbo version would have been better or if they could have them in the 20,000 range would have ben nice...but o well what can we do...nissan killed the silvia the last real affordable car to have fun with.....

Well, it's a bigger car, with a bigger engine, so no. Not the same category.


In the battle of the subcompact 1.5L cars, Nissan doesn't really have an entry. There's only the Fit and the Yaris. There was previously the xA and xB, but they have both grown up a bit as well.

You might count the new stripped down base model 1.6L Versa, but there's still a size issue to contend with...

Maybe the new Hyundai Genesis?

_________________

IMO, that's it's only real direct competition.

It's a bit odd to me that magazines keep comparing the Z to Mustangs and Camaros...

What about the Audi TT? Or the Porsche Cayman?

_________________

My JNC: 1983 Subaru GL wagon
My JNM: 1979 Yamaha XS Eleven

motor trend tends to disagree:

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/com ... index.html

but then again, i think this is an argument for another topic.

a bit too late to worry about that now

that motortrend article was subjective and stupid as usual

That article is hilarious.

The slowest car wins the comparison! They used to list the top speed, but don't any more. However, the Fit apparently will not reach 90 MPH, because the 0-90 time box has a dash instead of the number of seconds. Now, how will all those 500 pound, 4 foot tall, six foot wide female drivers, with 1,000 pounds of fast food wrappers and big gulp cups thrown into the trunk of their car, be able to haul butt down the far left lane of the interstate at 100 MPH, while saving the planet, if their Fit won't do 90 MPH? (If they ever tested Priuses and Insights under real world conditions like the previous description, the fuel economy would be much different, and more accurate).

You have to scratch your head in wonder at the specs of these cars. None have progressed past solid beam rear axle, which should have been phased out in 1990. Rear drum brakes. 15 inch wheels over rotors that (except for the Versa) will fit 14 inch wheels, and loss of fuel economy for the sake of fashion. Every single one of them is 400-800 pounds heavier than it should be (we had 2,500 pound cars 20 years ago, shouldn't technology be making them lighter and more efficient?). Two of the three are five foot tall (and the third is almost five foot), with enough head room for the driver to wear an Abraham Lincoln Stove Pipe Hat, while everyone I see in traffic is leaned over gangster style with their head on the center console arm rest... Are people buying solely based on cargo capacity and not figuring out that the capacity between their scalp and the underside of the headliner is not actually usable cargo storage space?