4th Generation Maxima (1995-1999) Visit the 4th Generation forum to ask specific questions or find out more about the 4th Generation Maxima.

Maxima or 300ZX TT?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 04-19-2004, 09:13 AM
  #41  
Supporting Maxima.org Member
iTrader: (3)
 
wariow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,087
quality almost nevers relates to price, it's just a brand name you're paying for. goes with everything in the business world
wariow is offline  
Old 04-19-2004, 09:15 AM
  #42  
formz
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by wariow
quality almost nevers relates to price, it's just a brand name you're paying for. goes with everything in the business world
Ooo Boss isn't going to like that. But thank you.
 
Old 04-19-2004, 09:24 AM
  #43  
Senior Member
 
MaxxAddict's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 654
Originally Posted by BOSS
Ok, you're right Dave, maybe I am obsessed with Supras, but that doesn't change the fact that they're one of the most reliable sport cars out there, and when compared to the 300ZX stock for stock...well, then there's really no comparison. That is in turn why I am obsessed with them, not just for looks and performance.

...and yes, to all: the demand for Toyota Supra Turbos (year 93-98) is unbelievably high today. Yes, most SUPRAS in excellent condition and low mileage (by low I mean in the 50k or less range) STILL SELL FOR $40k today!!!!

To those who don't know, the MSRP of a Supra was $40k. Well, actually it was $50k but that was only for the first few years. Ever since then it was $40k.

oh I see, you guys want proof, hmmmmm:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eB...&category=6447 (I guarantee it WILL go for $35k+ and that's assuming the guy is desperate enough to sell it fast)

another one: (HAHA, this is a perfect example of what I'm talking about lol)
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eB...&category=6447 (This one is already at $43k! Yes, that's $3,000 over the MSRP for a 7 year-old SUPRA)

another one:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eB...&category=6447 (This one is $23k, but that's because it is ONLY SLIGHTLY modified (yes, 530 hp is considered little on this car ). Although one would think otherwise, modified Supras, like most other cars, sell for less. Either way, I see him getting $30k+ easy for this particular one)

Look, I can keep going, but you get the point.

SUPRA

Now how many imports do you know of that sell for the same exact MSRP price (or more) after 7+ years?

Lastly, one shouldn't forget that it's pretty much THE ONLY boosted car ever made, which can so easily attain 1000+ ponies from a small, 3.0L, completely stock block, and still be reliable. Believe it or not, it is easier to attain that power in a Supra than it is in a Nissan Skyline (which absolutely owns and can also produce 1000+hp).
You can also thank movies, such as The fast and the furious for increasing overall demand for supras. (Not to mention all the Supra compilations out there.)

But I do agree with you. Supra owns ALL.
MaxxAddict is offline  
Old 04-19-2004, 09:26 AM
  #44  
BOSS
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by formz
Wow Boss I really do suggest you go back to college and study economics. I really pity your lack of maturity and ultimate knowledge of how the world works. Wow you're stupid.
Yeah, that's a great argument you got going here...

dork
 
Old 04-19-2004, 09:37 AM
  #45  
DoGGy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
i dont see why everyone is making such a big deal out of supras like they are god or king.

Speed is a question of money, how fast do you want to go?
 
Old 04-19-2004, 09:47 AM
  #46  
BOSS
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by formz
That's only partially true. The reason you hear that they're "expensive to maintain" is because in order to replace the turbos (which should last into the 150k mile range) you have to pull the motor. Now, that may sound like a lot of work to some of you, but for performance oriented people that's a days work. I've worked on 300zx's a lot, and honestly pulling the motor is not that hard.

300zx's are NOT unreliable, that's just a fact. Go to the message boards and you'll find the same thing. And the reason STI's and Evo's (not lancers) run faster times is because 1) they're AWD and 2) they're lighter. ET's may be lower in those two cars, but the 300zx has them both in the trap speed department, which ultimately means that it's faster, but with less grip.
You are way off here buddy LMAO!

as far as I know, 300ZX TT weighs approx 3400 lbs whereas the STI weighs approx 3300 lbs. You think that 100lbs or so difference makes the STI so much faster, that is, nearly a second faster when it comes to 0-60 for instance?

Also, since when does AWD help the car's straight line performance???? If anything, the EVO's and STI's ought to be slower just because of that - being AWD. Perfect example - recall that eclipse GST's (rear wheel drive) always had better 0-60 and 1/4 mile times than the GSX's (AWD). The reason STI's and WRX's are made AWD has nothing to do with them being faster than a 300ZX TT you idiot.

They are pro rally cars, where most pro rally races and results are determined in corners on dirt or gravel roads - you do need AWD for that. That is why these cars run $100,000 suspensions etc. One can speculate that both the STI and EVO's would be even faster with rear wheel drive.
 
Old 04-19-2004, 09:51 AM
  #47  
DoGGy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
lmao BOSS

AWD has better traction
 
Old 04-19-2004, 10:00 AM
  #48  
formz
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by BOSS
You are way off here buddy LMAO!

as far as I know, 300ZX TT weighs approx 3400 lbs whereas the STI weighs approx 3300 lbs. You think that 100lbs or so difference makes the STI so much faster, that is, nearly a second faster when it comes to 0-60 for instance?

Also, since when does AWD help the car's straight line performance???? If anything, the EVO's and STI's ought to be slower just because of that - being AWD. Perfect example - recall that eclipse GST's (rear wheel drive) always had better 0-60 and 1/4 mile times than the GSX's (AWD). The reason STI's and WRX's are made AWD has nothing to do with them being faster than a 300ZX TT you idiot.

They are pro rally cars, where most pro rally races and results are determined in corners on dirt or gravel roads - you do need AWD for that. That is why these cars run $100,000 suspensions etc. One can speculate that both the STI and EVO's would be even faster with rear wheel drive.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Dude... you're trying to educate ME about DSMs? I owned a 12 second DSM before my Maxima. A GST IS FRONT WHEEL DRIVE YOU IDIOT. There are no RWD DSMs from the factory you tard. And if you think AWD doesn't help 0-60 times you're an idiot hahaha.. AWD DSM 0-60 in 6.4 seconds. FWD DSM 0-60 in 7. Not to mention a bone stock 1g DSM AWD will run the 1/4 mile in about 14.8, while a FWD version will run it in about 15.2. You are out matched, out smarted and just plane DUMB. I HONESTLY suggest you back out of the thread because you're making a COMPLETE *** of yourself as usual. Thank you so much for making me laugh. I'm honestly in tears over here I'm laughing so hard. Everyone on Maxima.org just got a huge laugh at your expense.

Doggy don't even bother, BOSS is a lost cause, such a moron.
 
Old 04-19-2004, 10:11 AM
  #49  
I'm needing a caw
iTrader: (82)
 
Jeff92se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 34,147
Have even looked up the 0-60 times for the evo/sti vs a 300zx TT before opening up your trap?? In this AWD (and some other) discussions, you really have no idea what you are talking about.
Sorry but you just got and already by formz.

Originally Posted by BOSS
You are way off here buddy LMAO!

as far as I know, 300ZX TT weighs approx 3400 lbs whereas the STI weighs approx 3300 lbs. You think that 100lbs or so difference makes the STI so much faster, that is, nearly a second faster when it comes to 0-60 for instance?

Also, since when does AWD help the car's straight line performance???? If anything, the EVO's and STI's ought to be slower just because of that - being AWD. Perfect example - recall that eclipse GST's (rear wheel drive) always had better 0-60 and 1/4 mile times than the GSX's (AWD). The reason STI's and WRX's are made AWD has nothing to do with them being faster than a 300ZX TT you idiot.

They are pro rally cars, where most pro rally races and results are determined in corners on dirt or gravel roads - you do need AWD for that. That is why these cars run $100,000 suspensions etc. One can speculate that both the STI and EVO's would be even faster with rear wheel drive.
Jeff92se is offline  
Old 04-19-2004, 10:12 AM
  #50  
formz
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
If he even comes back in this thread (which I doubt but I do hope he does) he's gonna be super ****ed haha
 
Old 04-19-2004, 10:26 AM
  #51  
I'm needing a caw
iTrader: (82)
 
Jeff92se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 34,147
Just for the uninformed

Mitsu EVO: http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....&page_number=1
Acceleration, 0-60 5.3 sec
1/4 mile 13.9 sec @ 100.3 mph
Braking, from 60 mph 111 ft
from 80 mph 197 ft
Skidpad 0.89g

Subaru STI
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....&page_number=1
5.7 sec / 14.4 1/4 mile

300zx TT http://www.twinturbo.net/ttnetfaq/stats/mtapr92.html
5.7 sec 14.2 1/4 mile
Jeff92se is offline  
Old 04-19-2004, 10:28 AM
  #52  
formz
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Aaaaaand that folks... is the end of the argument.
 
Old 04-19-2004, 10:29 AM
  #53  
DoGGy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
omg that was the most ignorant comment i've ever heard in my life !!

"Also, since when does AWD help the car's straight line performance????"

dude AWD makes a big difference on straight line performance. its called traction
 
Old 04-19-2004, 10:31 AM
  #54  
DoGGy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Jeff92se
Just for the uninformed

Mitsu EVO: http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....&page_number=1
Acceleration, 0-60 5.3 sec
1/4 mile 13.9 sec @ 100.3 mph
Braking, from 60 mph 111 ft
from 80 mph 197 ft
Skidpad 0.89g

Subaru STI
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....&page_number=1
5.7 sec / 14.4 1/4 mile

300zx TT http://www.twinturbo.net/ttnetfaq/stats/mtapr92.html
5.7 sec 14.2 1/4 mile

hmmmmm?

those numbers are off, 300zx tt does 5.5 / 13.9

evo and sti are both sub 5 sec cars to 60. dunno 1/4 ....
 
Old 04-19-2004, 10:34 AM
  #55  
I'm needing a caw
iTrader: (82)
 
Jeff92se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 34,147
Tell R&D that. And tell twinturbo.net that their site specs are wrong

But of course every mag / site is going to have different #'s

Originally Posted by DoGGy
hmmmmm?

those numbers are off, 300zx tt does 5.5 / 13.9

evo and sti are both sub 5 sec cars to 60. dunno 1/4 ....
Jeff92se is offline  
Old 04-19-2004, 11:14 AM
  #56  
BOSS
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Jeff92se
Just for the uninformed

Mitsu EVO: http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....&page_number=1
Acceleration, 0-60 5.3 sec
1/4 mile 13.9 sec @ 100.3 mph
Braking, from 60 mph 111 ft
from 80 mph 197 ft
Skidpad 0.89g

Subaru STI
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....&page_number=1
5.7 sec / 14.4 1/4 mile

300zx TT http://www.twinturbo.net/ttnetfaq/stats/mtapr92.html
5.7 sec 14.2 1/4 mile
You're telling me to shut my trap when you post bs specs urself taken from one of the most inaccurate magazines ever - that is, roadandtrack. It's just as inaccurate as edmunds.

I remember roadandtrack getting a 1/4 mile time for an 02 BMW M3 6-spd of middle 13's!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That's total crap!

Hello, there are videos of good drivers running 12.6 in bone stock 02 6-spd M3's. www.Racingflix.com recently had one. Roadandtrack sucks, their stats suck, and most of all, apparently their drivers suck even more. It is a well know fact that bone stock STI is capable of getting the SAME EXACT NUMBERS AS THE 02 M3. It does 0-60 just slightly below 5 seconds and its 1/4 mile time is always only a .1 or .2 seconds higher than that of the M3. What granny 1/4 mile tracks do you go to?

Also, I do realize that GST's were front wheel drive, my mistake. I honestly knew that, but my argument still stands - GST is front wheel while GSX is AWD and IS SLOWER. GST being rear wheel drive would put up even better numbers. Now please explain to me why the GST (being front wheel drive, my bad, duh) gets better numbers than GSX???? I mean GSX is AWD with so much better "traction" as all you idiots put it, so why is it getting left behind both in 0-60 and 1/4 mile with the exact same internals?????? thank you.
 
Old 04-19-2004, 11:24 AM
  #57  
BOSS
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by DoGGy
hmmmmm?

those numbers are off, 300zx tt does 5.5 / 13.9

evo and sti are both sub 5 sec cars to 60. dunno 1/4 ....
yeah, you're right, you don't know their 1/4 mile because if you did, you wouldn't be opening your mouth

wow, jeff said 5.7 and you say 5.5 - OMG that's so important, considering that it's 1/4 mile is simply pathetic!

Damn, I knew the 300zx TT was a slow POS, but I didn't honestly know it sucked that much. If it indeed does 1/4 mile in 13.9 then

...wait, am I getting this right? a 3.0L TT 300ZX does a 1/4 mile in nearly the same time as a 4th gen NA 3.0L Maxima with good tires, ecu, exhaust and other BPU's??? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

yeah, go buy urself a 300ZX and to it

 
Old 04-19-2004, 11:27 AM
  #58  
formz
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
BOSS thats it. You're a ****ing moron, plain and simple. GST'S ARE NOT FASTER 0-60 OR IN 1/4 MILE COMPARED TO AN AWD DSM. WHO THE HELL IS TELLING YOU THAT?
 
Old 04-19-2004, 11:31 AM
  #59  
BOSS
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
First off, they are faster, I will show you their specs in a few minutes.

Second, IT IS YOU WHO CLAIMS THAT AWD HAS "TRACTION" SO UNDER YOUR ASSUMPTION, THE GSX MUST NOT ONLY BE SAY "AS FAST AS" THE GST, BUT REALLY BE SMOKING THE GST, WHEN INDEED IT DOES NEITHER! HAHAHA
 
Old 04-19-2004, 11:40 AM
  #60  
formz
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I OWNED a DSM for 4 years. I've BUILT 3,4,and 500hp DSMs. My knowledge of this is heads and tails above yours.

Here are some quotes from some DSM boards:

This is for a 1g:
"That's definately a pretty good time for your car. I have also heard 14.7 for stock GSX. Stock GST is 15.1"


This is for a 2g:
"a stock 2g gst runs 15.3 and a gsx runs 15.1 that is a two car differance, with the stock tires on both i think a gsx would take the gst by 3 off the line"
"AWD 2G's are quicker stock than FWD. 0-60 in 6.4, 1/4 mile 15.0 vs. 0-60 in 7.0, 1/4 mile in 15.4 sec."

Do you need more or do you want to jam your foot farther in your mouth?

Face it Boss, you're an idiot. I owned a 12 second DSM. What did you own that makes you an expert about DSMs? Your maxima? HA!
 
Old 04-19-2004, 11:46 AM
  #61  
formz
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Here's some more proof:

1990 Mitsubishi Eclipse GS-T 7.4 15.9
1990 Mitsubishi Eclipse GSX 6.9 15.2
1992 Mitsubishi Eclipse GSX 7.0 15.3
1993 Mitsubishi Eclipse GSX 6.8 15.2
1995 Mitsubishi Eclipse GS-T 6.4 15.0
1995 Mitsubishi Eclipse GSX 6.4 14.9

blah blah blah your foot is getting deeper
 
Old 04-19-2004, 11:54 AM
  #62  
formz
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
And even though I know you won't read this because 1) you're too stupid and 2) you will never admit you're wrong, I'm still going to post this. Why don't you try arguing with the owner of Far North Racing eh?

I just stumbled across a thread - now closed, and for good reason - in which the relative merits of FWD vs AWD were "discussed".

Normally I'd just let you kiddies fight amongst yourselves, but my name was taken in vain a couple of times, so I intend on setting the record straight.

But we'll use science instead of bull****, and who knows? Maybe one of you will listen and actually learn something.

Let's begin:

The single most important fact in vehicle dynamics - that's the science of what makes a car handle is this:

"The harder you push a tire into the ground, the more it sticks, but the ratio of stick vs push falls off the harder you push on the tire"

Almost everything related to handling revolves around this fact.

What it means is this - placing more load (and in a non-aero-downforce world, that means "weight") on a tire makes it grip more. But the amount of grip you get diminishes as you add load (weight) to it.

So let's say you have a tire. Add 100 lbs of weight to it, and you get 100 lbs of grip. Add another 100lbs of weight (so 200lbs now) and you get 80 lbs of grip (180 total) Another 100 lbs, you get 60 lbs of grip (300lbs weight -> 240lbs grip) and so on and so forth.

Adding weight always adds more grip, but the curve tails off. Different tires have different curves, but they all round off this way.

OK, so we're sitting at a start line in a FWD car. The lights drop, we let out the clutch, and we hammer the gas. What happens?

Well, you get pressed back in your seat for one.

But what does that mean from a vehicle dynamics standpoint? It means that **weight is being transfered rearwards**

Y'all have seen "The Fast and Furious", right? Remember the big ol' V8 from the end of the movie? Big honkin' wheelie? That's extreme rearward weight transfer under acceleration.

THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO TO STOP THIS - IT'S PHYSICS!

Because of this, when we accelerate, we take weight off the front wheels and put it on the back wheels. But this is a FWD! Those front wheels are what are driving the car!

So what happens? The harder we accelerate, the more we unload the fronts. The more the fronts are unloaded, the less grip they provide. Eventually, so much weight is transferred rearward that the amount of power we're trying to put down exceeds the amount of grip we can provide, and the wheel starts spinning.

Once that happens, the amount of grip plummets (a spinning wheel has much less grip than a non-spinning wheel) and the rate of acceleration drops. When _that_ happens, weight transfers forward, the grip level rises, and eventually the tire bites again - and acceleration increases, weight goes rearward, the tire unloads, and away we go again.

What does a FWD sound like on a hard launch? Chirp chirp chirp, as the tire unloads and loads again as the weight transfer seesaws back and forth.

Or if you have a modded FWD that is making enough power, the thing just unloads and spins, because there's enough power to keep the wheel spinning even when the car has basically slowed to a stop - there's not enough grip to re-establish the tire.

OK, how about an AWD then?

Launch the car, and the exact same thing happens, as far as weight transfer is concerned. But this time, we have a pair of drive wheels back there. As weight transfers rearward, the rear tires GAIN grip, not lose it. You can put down a lot more power from just that fact alone.

But we're not done yet...

The second thing to consider is that for a given power level, an AWD has 4 contact patches to use, not just 2. Let's say that a FWD can put down 200 HP before it starts spinning tires, and let's also assume that the FWD has an LSD so we don't have to worry about an open diff acting as a fuse. That means that each tire can put down 100 HP.

Well, all else being equal, that means an AWD can put down 400 HP **on the same tires** before you get wheelspin, because each drive tire can support 100HP, and we';ve got 4 of them (actually, a little more because the rears gain capacity with weight transfer, call it 450...)

But we're still not done yet...

If you think about the nature of the tire/load curve, you'll come to the conclusion that you get the most grip out of any set of tires when they are all equally loaded. Think about it - as you transfer load from one end of the car to another (or from one side of the car to another) the end that is gaining load is gaining grip, but at a slower rate than the tires that are being unloaded, for a net loss of grip.

But... DSMs are inherently nose-heavy. They start off something like 60/40 front/rear weight distribution. Well, if you start off 60/40, and you transfer 10% of the weight rearward, what do you get? Perfect weight distribution, and the maximum possible grip from a set of tires.

Compared to an AWD, all else being equal, a FWD can only put down between 25 to 40 percent of the power that the AWD can.

Now, this doesn't come without penalty. An AWD is by necessity heavier than a FWD of the same chassis type - it's got more parts, and most of those parts are heavy. So now we've got two variables to worry about, power capacity and overall weight.

Power capacity you worry about exiting turns. If you are down on power, you cannot accelerate as fast as the guy who has more power than you. Weight, however, bites you everywhere. A heavier car is punished in acceleration, in braking, in steady-state cornering, and in transitional cornering. More weight is *always* bad.

So if we're talking about a race where we have to turn the car, slow the car, and accelerate the car, it is entirely possible that a light, underpowered car will beat a heavy, powerful car, no matter what their respective drivelines are.

If we are talking about cars that are underpowered (from a spinning the tires perspective) then the grip advantage from having AWD doesn't buy you anything over a FWD, unless the surface gets so slick that there's suddenly "enough" power to spin tires and make you care again. If the AWD car has to give up weight to the FWD car, then the FWD car will probably be faster - it depends on how much weight, grip, and power we're talking about.

But as you start adding power, the inability of the FWD to put it down (especially on corner exit - but why that is I leave as an exercise for the students) starts becoming more and more of an issue. Eventually, as power increases, the FWD cannot make any more gain from it, and the weight penalty doesn't make up the difference any more, and the AWD will be faster.

When you're racing nearly-stock cars, and when you can reliably count on both the cars being underpowered and the AWD version being heavier than the FWD, the FWD may well be faster (it depends on how much lighter the FWD is and how underpowered the cars are)

Who cares about nearly-stock cars? The exciting cars are the modded ones. And having AWD lets you use freakishly large amounts of power - AND my AWD is 2826lbs dry - lighter than most DSM FWDS - so there's no weight penalty to make up any difference.

A FWD may well start out a little faster (excepting standing starts) but the more you mod it, the less and less true that is. Weight transfer off the drive wheels inherently limits the performance potential of a FWD car - and the harder you accelerate, the worse it gets. A FWD car is its own worst enemy from an engineering perspective.

The OEMs make FWDs for one reason and one reason only - packaging. With a FWD driveline, all the drive parts are forward of the firewall. You don't need to accomodate a transmission or driveshaft hump in the cockpit, so you can make more interior room for the same external dimentions. There is NO performance argument for using a FWD, not if you can use a RWD or AWD driveline and get down to the same (or close enough) weight

In SM, the class I run in, the FWD cars are given MASSIVE weight breaks (they can be a lot lighter) in order to keep them competitive. Without a built-in weight advantage like that, they'd never be able to keep up.

So then, the bottom line is that assuming you can make the power, and especially if you can lose the weight, AWD trumps FWD.

Any questions?

DG
http://farnorthracing.com
 
Old 04-19-2004, 12:32 PM
  #63  
Supporting Maxima.org Member
iTrader: (12)
 
Chickan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,051
#1 Boss: you once again prove you are a fing idiot. Its all supply and demand, which although it is partially based on reliability, anyone wanting to push serious HP, is NOT LOOKING FOR RELIABILITY, they are just succumming to SDS (Small **** Sydrome). The only reason why supras go for so much cash is b/c the average moron going through a midlife crisis saw the Fast and The ***gish and was like damn I need to get one. Notice there are no 300ZX's in that movie? They tend to stay out of that hype crap. As for power, there are many 300ZX's that have hit 800-1000 HP, with more and more coming all the time.

#2 Supras are rediculously overrated. And the suck, that is all there is to it, they suck. I'll **** all over anyone who claims anything else. I'll never drive a toyota.

#3 300ZX's (and 300ZXtt's) are very reliable HIGH MAINTENENCE car, if you don't maintain it, sure its going to run like ****, stall, and give you problems, just like any car, except that it is a true performance car, meaning the specs are tighter, with less margin for error, and thereby less tolerance to neglect. I have personally owned a 90 300ZX NA, and it ran great with 115K on it until I sold it for something I could drive year round (got $6.5K for it, then bought a 95 Max for $4500) My brother owns a 93 2 seater, runs flawlessly, and my good friend owns a 90 2+2, his has 130K on, still runs and looks brand new. Reliability is all in how you take care of the car.

#4 300ZX changed very little over the years, with the exception of new heads between 1990 and 1991, to correct an error in production, so if anything, it would be 1991+ that you would want (though 1/3 of all 90-6 300ZX's built were 1990 models).

#5 Everyone should buy a supra and run it into a wall, that and every other toyota out there.
Chickan is offline  
Old 04-19-2004, 01:10 PM
  #64  
Member
 
95MAXIMASExy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 84
Originally Posted by Chickan
#5 Everyone should buy a supra and run it into a wall, that and every other toyota out there.
Chicken you are an idiot, toyota is one of the best automakers there is if not THE BEST. Ever hear of lean manufacturing? Toyota is the model company for any company that wishes to succeed- ie boeing and countless others. They make some of the most reliable cars in the world as well as some of the best performing. Chicken just go home, you suck at life.
95MAXIMASExy is offline  
Old 04-19-2004, 01:30 PM
  #65  
BOSS
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by formz
And even though I know you won't read this because 1) you're too stupid and 2) you will never admit you're wrong, I'm still going to post this. Why don't you try arguing with the owner of Far North Racing eh?
HAHA, you dumba$$, OMG you just made a complete jacka$$ of yourself. He specifically states:

If we are talking about cars that are underpowered (from a spinning the tires perspective) then the grip advantage from having AWD doesn't buy you anything over a FWD, unless the surface gets so slick that there's suddenly "enough" power to spin tires and make you care again. If the AWD car has to give up weight to the FWD car, then the FWD car will probably be faster - it depends on how much weight, grip, and power we're talking about.

But as you start adding power, the inability of the FWD to put it down (especially on corner exit - but why that is I leave as an exercise for the students) starts becoming more and more of an issue. Eventually, as power increases, the FWD cannot make any more gain from it, and the weight penalty doesn't make up the difference any more, and the AWD will be faster.

When you're racing nearly-stock cars, and when you can reliably count on both the cars being underpowered and the AWD version being heavier than the FWD, the FWD may well be faster (it depends on how much lighter the FWD is and how underpowered the cars are)

Who cares about nearly-stock cars? The exciting cars are the modded ones. And having AWD lets you use freakishly large amounts of power - AND my AWD is 2826lbs dry - lighter than most DSM FWDS - so there's no weight penalty to make up any difference.

A FWD may well start out a little faster (excepting standing starts) but the more you mod it, the less and less true that is. Weight transfer off the drive wheels inherently limits the performance potential of a FWD car - and the harder you accelerate, the worse it gets. A FWD car is its own worst enemy from an engineering perspective.




HAHA, there you have it noob. I guess you missed that. And yes, from the very beginning of this thread, my concern was ONLY stock for stock of the same year and last of the GST/GSX generations, something I have mentioned repeatedly when comparing the GSX with the GST.



Originally Posted by formz
Here's some more proof:

1990 Mitsubishi Eclipse GS-T 7.4 15.9
1990 Mitsubishi Eclipse GSX 6.9 15.2
1992 Mitsubishi Eclipse GSX 7.0 15.3
1993 Mitsubishi Eclipse GSX 6.8 15.2
1995 Mitsubishi Eclipse GS-T 6.4 15.0
1995 Mitsubishi Eclipse GSX 6.4 14.9

blah blah blah your foot is getting deeper
HAHA, great , now where’s your proof? Looks to me that both 95 GST and GSX are the same. Now please don’t tell me that you got those from roadandtrack?


Originally Posted by formz
I OWNED a DSM for 4 years. I've BUILT 3,4,and 500hp DSMs. My knowledge of this is heads and tails above yours.

Here are some quotes from some DSM boards:

This is for a 1g:
"That's definately a pretty good time for your car. I have also heard 14.7 for stock GSX. Stock GST is 15.1"


This is for a 2g:
"a stock 2g gst runs 15.3 and a gsx runs 15.1 that is a two car differance, with the stock tires on both i think a gsx would take the gst by 3 off the line"
"AWD 2G's are quicker stock than FWD. 0-60 in 6.4, 1/4 mile 15.0 vs. 0-60 in 7.0, 1/4 mile in 15.4 sec."

Do you need more or do you want to jam your foot farther in your mouth?

Face it Boss, you're an idiot. I owned a 12 second DSM. What did you own that makes you an expert about DSMs? Your maxima? HA!
Yeah, that’s even more pathetic knowing that you owned a 12 second DSM and still talk all this BS about FWD being much slower than AWD. Just stfu

Your arguments are so freakin retarded and weak, you know you have no case so you reside of DSM boards. That is sooooooooooo stupid of you. You have proved nothing with these lame comments by others. Notice words like “heard” and “I think”. You are extremely imprudent, so please just stop posting. What you are doing is analogous to someone in the DSM forum arguing that bone stock 4th gen Maximas are capable of running a 14.5 because a bunch of newbies on Maxima.org said so.


Now, as for the 300ZX TT being a complete POS, I’m done arguing that. Go around and ask legitimate import enthusiasts about them and you will be amazed at what they have to say about this “precious” vehicle. Just as it is a fact that 99 Maximas have constant and are most prone to ignition coil failure, it is also a fact that the stock twin turbo-chargers that came with the 300ZX fail quite often and quite fast.

Lastly, you might want to reread this entire thread where many here specifically stated that the 300ZX TT is a POS, especially after seeing what their friends had to go through by owning one.
 
Old 04-19-2004, 01:43 PM
  #66  
BOSS
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by 95MAXIMASExy
Chicken you are an idiot, toyota is one of the best automakers there is if not THE BEST. Ever hear of lean manufacturing? Toyota is the model company for any company that wishes to succeed- ie boeing and countless others. They make some of the most reliable cars in the world as well as some of the best performing. Chicken just go home, you suck at life.


Chickan you are the biggest dipsh!t here, and for a minute I thought it was formz. OMG Chickan please, you need to stop posting, I really mean it. Go say what you said on any other forum, being a 300ZX or a Supra forum, and see how bad you get owned and ripped on. EVERYTHING you said is complete BS. COMPLETE BS. There was a huge demand for Supras waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay before the gay "fast and furious" ever came out

Where the **** were you at all this time, that is, the time before that stupid movie? You shouldn't even be allowed to say **** like that. And NO, it's not a matter of opinion in this case, those are facts. Supras went for $40k long before the movie you tard. They are definitely one of THE BEST performing imports EVER produced, not to mention their astonishing reliability when compared to others. How dare you even compare a POS 300ZX to a Supra?
 
Old 04-19-2004, 01:50 PM
  #67  
formz
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Boss he says FOR UNDERPOWERED CARS. 200hp and 200tq is NOT UNDERPOWERED. I give you facts, you give me BS. Face it, you're not even smart enough to be on a MAXIMA board let alone a board with a wealth of technical information. I don't even go to DSM boards anymore because I don't own one. When you build even a 300hp car come talk to me, because until then, you don't know a damn thing about cars.

I RAN a 14.7 in my DSM bone stock. Where is YOUR proof?
 
Old 04-19-2004, 02:04 PM
  #68  
BOSS
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
and then he says "Who cares about nearly-stock cars"

he specifically refers to the fact that when stock, these cars ARE UNDERPOWERED. 200hp IS UNDERPOWERED, because they have much power potential than that, that is, much more than 200hp, espcially since they're turbo'd and with a simple increase of PSI you get more, much more, but you know all that. He than adds that the GSX is heavier. So in the end, when stock, or "underpowered" (same thing in this case, but keep reading, maybe you'll get it one of those days), GSX is heavier and tends to be slower according to his analysis.

Sorry bud, but you just knocked yourself out.
 
Old 04-19-2004, 02:21 PM
  #69  
Senior Member
 
WillMax95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 951
if u got ne extra money left over, maybe u can put some brand new parts on it...i say go for it!
WillMax95 is offline  
Old 04-19-2004, 02:32 PM
  #70  
Most Perverted Member of the SE-L Club
 
fearthegecko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,512
Originally Posted by XeroX
Sex in a 2 door? i can vouch for that in my 89 pontiac grand prix....its hard...yet entertaining....

Havent had sex in the max yet..dont really wana, lol...ill leave my bed for that,

desperate times call for desperate measures....... Don't worry, when the time comes (no pun intended), there's plenty of room in the max.


The reason why toyotas are so high in demand is because they have a near-mythical reputation of reliability. MY father owns a camry, and it had problems, and even though it was bought used, toyota came through then as much as they do today. It's not their cars that are reliable, it's their dealers and service people. They understand that every customer is worthwhile, and that if that particular service station does not make the customer completely satisfied, that customer may go somewhere else.

Nissans are getting to that point now. People who bought used sentras and 200SXs and pathfinders have found out that nissans are extremely reliable. Add in cars like the new Z roadster, and how the altima was redesigned, and you'll see that nissans will be in demand soon enough.



At this point in the thread, i'm confused as to what we're arguing about....

Kta920 has decided against buying the 300ZX. Not because of any reasons listed here, but because the car was not as advertised.

Now are we arguing about whether a supra is better than a 300ZX, or if a 300ZX is not reliable as a whole?

If it's about whether a supra is better than a 300ZX, then it's a winless argument. There's no doubt that people have done great things with both cars. If it's really that big a deal, take it to the track, and OUT of the MAXIMA forums.

If it's about the reliability of a 300ZX, then how about this: IF 300zxs were not reliable, i highly doubt we would see as many of them on the road as we do today, considering the fact that US production was stopped in 96.
fearthegecko is offline  
Old 04-19-2004, 02:39 PM
  #71  
formz
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Hey BOSS where are your facts? I've shown you what DSMers say, why don't you find some to back up your mindless babbling. I dare you
 
Old 04-19-2004, 02:42 PM
  #72  
Senior Member
iTrader: (3)
 
maxlinegtr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,740
Hi guys,
this is quite entertaining, it just reminded me back in the days of street races when I raced against the best of them( from eclipses to american muscles).
I liked to say I got smoked by a GSX, he just left me and I couldn't catch up but when I raced against a GS-T we were pretty much neck and neck with me just leading by a bit.( I was N/A at the time) as far as the 300zx my friends own alot them, my experience with the Z was very expensive to maintain and mod.It was hard to get between the motor and such..trust me you will spend tons of $$...same thing went with the Supra, and the RX-7. Supra was costly cuz of the parts not too much on labor, RX-7 had their apex seals and overheating. NE ways "sports car" are hard to maintain in respects to fundage...if you have the cash go for it. just have the $$ to fix it when it goes down.
maxlinegtr is offline  
Old 04-19-2004, 03:06 PM
  #73  
BOSS
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by formz
Hey BOSS where are your facts? I've shown you what DSMers say, why don't you find some to back up your mindless babbling. I dare you
Showed me? Showed me what? lmao You showed me the long a$$ article, which ironically proved you wrong instead, as I already explained above

It's funny how you flame yourself in the process of attempting to flame me.
 
Old 04-19-2004, 03:13 PM
  #74  
formz
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
So ok.. I posted times...quotes from other DSMers... and a large article written by a DSMer on how awd was faster... and you posted.... you posted... uh... what have you posted to back up your argument? Again, back out of the thread.
 
Old 04-19-2004, 03:22 PM
  #75  
Supporting Maxima.org Member
iTrader: (3)
 
wariow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,087
Originally Posted by fearthegecko
If it's about the reliability of a 300ZX, then how about this: IF 300zxs were not reliable, i highly doubt we would see as many of them on the road as we do today, considering the fact that US production was stopped in 96.
again its the supply & demand. I RARELY see supras as daily drivers and I see a couple of 300zx's from time to time. If you want a supra that badly go get a sc300.
wariow is offline  
Old 04-19-2004, 03:26 PM
  #76  
BOSS
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
you still don't get it - you posted nothing, or simply crap. The article written by a DSMer is on how awd IS SLOWER and it itself disproved your every point. ...learn how to read, you're just a moron, end of story. On top of that, you actually thought that by "underpowered" he was referring to something totally different, when in fact he was referring to both a stock GST and GSX. That made you look like a big enough dumba$$ so shut up already.
 
Old 04-19-2004, 03:49 PM
  #77  
formz
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Hm.. still no facts to back up his claims!
 
Old 04-19-2004, 04:16 PM
  #78  
Senior Member
 
Eric425's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 334
AWD is faster from a stop, as in 1/4 m. FWD is faster from a roll, when traction is not an issue. Less drivetrain loss. GSTs usually trap higher speeds, but be slower overall. The 2g turbo DSMs make 210 hp stock, which is not underpowered. Underpowered means that the cars lack the power to break traction. In that case, the drivetrain loss is less for the FWD, meaning more power to the wheels, meaning it's faster. But you can spin the fronts from a stop with the gsts, meaning traction is an issue. With the gsx, you can launch from 4k rpm without wheelspin. That's why the gsx runs better quarter times in every publicated comparison.
Eric425 is offline  
Old 04-19-2004, 04:51 PM
  #79  
formz
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Don't even bother. Boss will come up with some "excuse" as to why you're wrong.
 
Old 04-20-2004, 08:29 AM
  #80  
Senior Member
iTrader: (3)
 
maxlinegtr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,740
formz...aren't they(GSX) faster than ~14.9? I did a 14.9 when i was N/A with some bolt ons and he took me about 1 and a half car length. he was also smokin stangs. i could of sworn they did low to mid 14s...STOCK.
maxlinegtr is offline  


Quick Reply: Maxima or 300ZX TT?



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:14 AM.