Looking online for articles on the 280ZX I came across an article going through all the generations of Z Cars. http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...ticleId=100641

Just reading through it, the way it praises the original series of Z's and then seems to be hard on the 280ZX is kind of disheartening. In alot of ways it doesn't make sense how they were so much easier on the downgrade of the 240Z to the 260Z, but then the 280ZX went Turbo and for some reason it's as if it wasn't that special. The article seems to make it like everything after the 280Z up until the Z32 was just a giant burden on the Z world. It's also funny to read in the article how it seems to mention about the HP drop from the 280Z to the 280ZX, but where I consistantly hear that it's all not true. According to some of the specs online the 280ZX was quicker than the 280Z, but then I hear other people saying the 280Z was alot quicker. Who knows. I just hate reading things like this article. It's odd how the 260Z doing 0-60 in 9.9 seconds wasn't so bad, but the 280ZX just had god awful acceleration and was only passable when the engine "got" 145 HP.

Edit: After looking through that article, and reading the sticky jfairladyz posted. I find it funny that there's such a drastic difference in the 0-60 time. Especially considering j said he refrenced a bunch of different sources.

Just don't like these articles bashing on my Z.

Plus it's late and I'm bored on the internet. In that case, why am I still awake?

 

It's not suprising... first model year cars (especially a new version) tend to get mixed reviews. Usually more negatives than pos, which is what we call "constructive criticism." The 79 & 80 280zx's were pretty bland, but Nissan got back into it w/ the turbo. Plus, they were really just trying to mix a light sports car, w/ a luxury car.... It doesn't always work out overnight.

 

dang they were really harsh on the poor ZX in that article ouch

 

Yeah. And to think, it's the same way between the 2+0 and the 2+2 ZXs.

S'all good though. Doesn't matter to me what some pencil jockey writes about my cars - I know the pros and cons of my cars, I know the handling characteristics of my cars, and I know the shortcomings of my cars. It's all RELATIVE to your perspective.

Technically, the 280ZX is the bastard child of luxury getting freaky with an original Z in the late '70s. And when a car built after an original, and is followed by several models of nicer performing concepts, of course it's going to have the unfair disadvantage. It's all in our viewpoint.

I don't think any of us here would own our Zs if we all compared them to a Z32 [in performance], or an S30 [for nostalgia and cool-factor]. We own 280s because WE WANT ONE. That's all that should matter.

Rock on, fellow Z bros.
-Dave-O

 

That sum's it up right there... eat sheeet John Pearley Huffman!

 

It is funny the way the Z32 was supposedly the best Z car ever, but it looks like there's enough problems to go around for everyone who owns a Z32 especially the TT.

 

I personally don't give a rat's *** about someone else's opinion about the ZX. Even Datsun (Nissan) doesn't see the ZX as a "sport car". They would rather everyone consider it a "Touring car". BLAH!! It's sporty, and kicks butt!! 'nuff said...

 

They can bash on the 280ZX all they want to, but the fact remains that it was the best selling of all the generations of Z cars. All in all over 300,000 280ZX's were sold in the U.S. alone. This is a feat unmatched before or since for any sports car in a 4 year period. It's performance may be somewaht sluggish compared to whatever benchmark the automotive press were holding it up to... so what. I've said it before, it was the first Z that could be considered a true GT car rather than a simple sports coupe. Let them knock it if they want to. Doesn't stop me from loving it.

Rod.

 

It does sound like a little bit of upgrading on the suspension, and just a few slight mods can really begin to unleash this car. Like you guys said, it doesn't stop me from liking my 280ZX at all. I love the car. Just hate these people's stupid opinions. It's also funny how the Z32 was practically the best Z car in their opinion, but at the end of the article they say they'll start whining if Nissan decides to add another X to the current Z's name.

 

Ditto here, I love the 280zx even more than the original Z's. It was my first Z car, and it is nostalgic to me. And has a lot of sentimenal value, and you can't knock a car too much that had record sales across the board. But I could care less how many were sold of any of the years and bodystyles. It is all about personal tastes. And that moron, has no taste whatsoever, saying the 350z is the best Z car ever. Give me a friggin' break, it is definately in my opinion the fattest, gawdiest, and ugliest Z to ever hit the market. I have seen them up close, and people at my work have them. I am not impressed at all, and I think they need to lose weight, and be a little thinner. Okay I am off my soap box, i just had to say my peace on this. That is what this thread is all about eh?

 

That's the problem too. It'd be like if we were to right an article about the Z cars. If I were to write it, it'd be biased towards the S30s, praise the S130s, and then probably downplay the Z31, Z32, and Z33. This is why I don't write articles, they should get someone with less bias to write these.

 

The fact of the matter is, that only a mindless lemming would make their choice of what car to buy based on the automotive press and their recommendations. If we all bought into what they report, we would all drive a Honda with Michelin tires on them. Those two companies have spent so many millions of dollars over so many years telling us that what they have to offer is superior, that even the people who should know better have fallen victim to the propaganda. Honda builds good cars, Michelin builds good tires... so what, so do many many other companies that don't force feed the public their "Quality First" diatribe. After being in the automotive business for nearly two decades I can tell you that Honda's break down just as much if not more than any other kind of car. Michelin builds good tires for the most part, but in my experience... I have never seen a "Major Brand" with a higher failure rate or a worse customer service approach when trying to warranty a bad product. They actually believe their own advertising.

The truth is, that the automotive press for the most part is both horribly biased and woefully under-researched. I can't tell you how many articles I have read in "Mainstream" auto magazines that were factually challenged or outright incorrect across the board. Plus, the guy's that write these articles are, for the most part... car guy's just like us. They grew up loving car's but their is always a brand or a particular make of car that is so dear to them sentimentally, that they wouldn't daer give it a bad review or at least they might overlook some serious shortcomings. There will also be brands that they don't particularly like for whatever reason (Maybe the guy that stole their girlfriend in High School drove a GTO so now they hate Pontiac).

Don't worry about what they write in magazines. There is a reason our generation of Z sold as well as it did. Maybe it's not the prettiest or the fastest, but it's got some quality that goes beyond all of that enough to make it desireable to more people purchasing a new Z car than any other Z car variant before it or after it.

99.9% of those articles wind up lining a bird cage or in a land fill within a month or two after they are printed. "Our" generation Z car is still around and still turning heads after 26 years. That should be all the validation we need.

Rod.

 

you said it. my friend has a 1990 z32 n/a, and that car has so many problems its rediculous. when i visited him in Virginia (driving my ZX on my way from AZ to NY) his transmission literaly came apart on the HWY as i was following him. $1300 later it still doesnt shift right and the car has to go back to the shop to fix the fact that it doesn't shift into any gear until it hits 4500rpms (yeah, its an auto ). the car sure looks hot, a lot nicer than mine for sure, but it's still got more problems than my s130.

 

Bah in my opinion I still love the looks of the S30s and the S130s the best. My friends like the S130 but hate the looks of the S30s. They like the looks of the Z32, but yea it is all opinion. Now is it true about what they said, with the 79 ZX 2+2 doing 0-60 in 11 or whatever? According to the info that j had cross-refrenced had shown the 79' 280ZX 2+2 doing 0-60 in like 8 something.

 

Blah, it's like Rod was saying, I wouldn't even worry about that article and the author's obvious spite towards the 80's zx's. Too bad he didn't take into account the 135hp rating came when the sae standard for hp also changed, and in 1981, the 280zxt was one of the fastest cars in a straight line that you could buy. The a/t 280zxt was faster than it's manual trans sibling in the 1/4 so I don't know why he's bashing it saying it was a mismatched tranny. The 280zx was Motor Trend's Import Car of the Year so it couldn't have been that bad right? Sad part is that author now works at Sport Compact Car (yeah that mag has gone downhill the last couple of years).

 

The auto was faster in the 1/4 than the 5-Speed?

 

As far as I know, stock for stock yes. You never have to let off the gas with the a/t and all you gotta do is powerbrake it off the line to build about 4 lbs of boost before you launch. Can't remember where I saw the #'s but I think the 81 zxt was faster than the 82 m/t that some magazine tested. My own stock zxt ran a 15.3 compared to the average of 15.7 by the magazines for a m/t. (mine is an a/t...hopefully it'll change one of these days)

I do prefer the m/t though, as it allows way more control over the car during hard driving. I hate leaving my car in 2nd cause it tachs out at 78mph before I have to put it into D. But once it's in D, that friggin tranny kickdown mechanism will make an increasing radius turn a nightmare if it downshifts mid-corner when the speed dips below 55mph. I almost lost it one night when that happened...

 

I can see then what you're saying about them calling it a mismatched tranny. My guess about the mismatch is just due to the lack of overdrive. If anything they're probably looking at it from a regular cruising point of view, which wouldn't make sense for that article considering they're looking at everything else from a sport point of view, but I agree the 5-speed is hell of alot more fun. I think the 5-speed can go alot faster considering there's better gear ratios and more gears, but I could be wrong. Besides it's alot more fun shifting up and down, especially with a blow off valve.

 

Here You go, the timeline of the Z car:

240Z: Sports Car
260Z: A sports car losing its grace
280Z: Looks like a Sports Car
280ZX: GT car
280ZXT: Still a GT (hey if it comes in 4 seats and AC then it's NOT a sports car)
300ZX (Z31): Still a GT, though more towards the grand side and less toward touring)
300ZX: Not a Sports Car, not a GT. A Super Car (only super cars have that many problems )
350Z: Just keeping the Z car alive til we get something better (not that it's not a great car, it is. But we're definitely going to get something better. Atleast we better)

Now for some factual information. Sports Car is formally supposed to be reserved for cars with only 2 seats and 2 doors (or less of either). Also, a sports car places its emphasiss more so on its handling than any of it's other characteristics. It should accel at acceleration, braking and manueverability. No where does it say that because a car has power windows, or AC that it's no longer a sports car. The emphasis of the Z has always been on handling more than anything else. And when you hear an enthusiast speak of his Z it usually comes up at somepoint the way the car handles.

And then going back sort of to what Rod said. When you get numbers from a magazine or internet article you have to remember that those numbers generated by a man in a particular machine. Now if you put that same man in a supposedly identical machine, he'll probably get different numbers. Same goes for if you put a different driver in the same machine. Now if you put a different driver in a different machine you're not likely to get the same numbers as the other guy even though they were driving the same type of car. If my wife made a quarter mile pass in my car and then I made a pass in my car and then looked at the times on the slips you'd think we were driving two totaly different cars.

Its the "Chaos Theory" for you movie buffs

 

I just had to put up this picture after j mentioned chaos theory. I see what he's saying though. Good ol' Z's.

 

I thought it was that the auto turbo Z was faster in 0-60 and by only 1 tenth of a second. But the quarter mile it was slower.
Still, its amazing that from a dead stop that auto can accelerate faster than the manual...but barely.

 

Although it usually feels like the manual can do it faster.