Choices Choices: 300zx Twin Turbo or MR-2 Turbo - Page 3

kman10587 · 10-19-2004, 02:48 AM

Well, if you look at the original definition for a sports car, you have rear-wheel-drive, a manual transmission, and a small, lightweight design. I think we can all agree that the MR2 is smaller and nimbler than the 300ZX, and with proper suspension, tires, brakes, and a good driver, it'll outhandle almost anything. Sports cars aren't about power, they're about handling, and as good as the 300ZX is, the MR2 is ultimately better.

And yeah, I have no reason to doubt the reliability of the 300ZX. All the other Nissans from that era - the Altima, the Maxima, the 240SX, the Sentra - were notoriously reliable, and I have had first-hand experience with most of them. They hold up incredibly well, so I don't see why the 300ZX shouldn't. But when you have a sports car more than ten years old, a bucketload of problems is inevitable.

freakonaleash1187 · 10-19-2004, 06:54 AM

have any of you guys who says the mr-2 outhandles the 300zx have any proof? and like k3 said, yeah, the z is a little bit on the heavy side, but it handles it's weight very very well.

kman10587 · 10-19-2004, 01:07 PM

I'm sure I could find some. Yeah, I'll admit that the 300ZX has excellent handling for a car it's size, but I don't think it can top a lightweight MR, seeing as how (correct me if I'm wrong) MR is the lay-out they use in F1 racing, it's also the one most commonly used by supercars, and the MR2 weighs nearly 500 pounds less than the 300ZX.

k3smostwanted · 10-19-2004, 03:21 PM

im not gonan argue with you about the mr2's handling. it is very impresssive but i think the 3400 lb 300zx can very well holds it own against it in that department.

i think the definition of a sports car has evolved since the early days. now most of your high end sports car consists of 2 seats, engine wherever is needed, v-8 and up. 400hp and up so i think sports car has evolved into a different set-up. with newer technology, car engineers didnt have to put the engine in the rear to make it a quick and very responsive car. nissan's concept of the 300zx was to have the engine in the rear. it was called a mid-4. but then a nissan engineer created HICAS which is a 4 wheel steering system. it ables the car to handle at high speeds just as well as it 20 mph. there was no need to put the engine in the back.

me personally if im looking for a sports car, i want something with pure power for the straight aways and somethings that will handle with the nimblest of cars on the turns. i feel that the 300zx is one of a few cars that can do that.

MR2Driver · 10-19-2004, 04:31 PM

Wow, this poll has become a debate:

And although im an MR2 owner I really dont like alot of the things being said about the Z. The MR2 being MR doesnt make the 300Z any less of a sports car. Sports cars arent exclusively MR.

Most people keep talking about how the Z cant handle well or only on a much wider track. I've driven the Z and I can tell you firsthand that its easier to drive fast in corners than the MR2. It would take a well trained driver who is familiar w/ the MR layout to drive the MR2 better than an intermediate driver in the Z.

And to the person who said the MR2 not being as much of a sports car because it was a 4 cyl turbo, has a pretty narrow definition of a sports car. I guess the Lotus Elan, Elise and Exige were grocery getters because they were 4 cyls?

Can we just leave it at this, they are two great cars with different goals and excell at different motorsports?

I understand there are some Z Turbo horror stories but for the most part, a car is only as reliable as the man who maintains it.

They are both good cars...

kman10587 · 10-19-2004, 04:38 PM

Quote:

And although im an MR2 owner I really dont like alot of the things being said about the Z. The MR2 being MR doesnt make the 300Z any less of a sports car. Sports cars arent exclusively MR.

I take that back, as long as a car is RWD, that's good enough. I hear you on the MR2 being really hard to control, but I think that if you can do it properly, it'll ultimately show more potential in the twisties than the Z.

freakonaleash1187 · 10-19-2004, 07:14 PM

Lachean summed it up pretty well. the horror stories you hear about a z's reliablility are from owners who don't take care of their cars. good post lachean.

TatII · 10-19-2004, 08:50 PM

i find this funny becuase this is all coming from people who owns non turbo Z's. even just doing your routine maintainese will cost you a fortune. so you gotta pay alot more to maintain the car, and when something does break, its goin to cost you a fortune^10.

k3smostwanted · 10-19-2004, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TatII

i find this funny becuase this is all coming from people who owns non turbo Z's. even just doing your routine maintainese will cost you a fortune. so you gotta pay alot more to maintain the car, and when something does break, its goin to cost you a fortune^10.

ok...routine maitenance on a n/a is that same as on the twin turbo. yes when something breaks on a z32 it is going to cost more than a more average car. as for it costing a fortune. basic things are all the same price. i dont know where you guys get this info. basic things break on n/a's just as much as on TT's. just because it has two turbo's strapped to the back of the engine, doesnt make it more expensive to fix a blown headgasket. broke as ****, who posted earlier can vouch for the Z and he owns a TT.

both great cars, but dont say that the Z sucks because it has maitenance issues. we all know, the more engine equals the more problems. mustang 5.0's break down alot, not becasue they are shitty and require alot of maitenance, its because previous owners tear the shit out of them.

like i said before, i love the mr2 but im tired of people dissing the z32 (specifically in reliability) and they dont even know the car. i have 95,000 miles on my z and the only thing ever to go out was the starter. talk about reliability. you know why, because it was well taken care of. it isnt pussied around either. every scheduled maitenance has been performed and eveything is checked on a regular basis. thats key to a car of a higher caliber. not saying the mr2 isnt a higher caliber.

freakonaleash1187 · 10-20-2004, 12:07 AM

so what you are saying is just becuase we own a n/a means we know nothing about the TT? the only different thing that can go wrong between the two are the turbos. and the vg was built as such a strong motor, that the turbos really don't put much stress on the engine. in another point, the more stress that the engine gets from having turbos is contradicted in the n/a by the n/a having a higher compression ratio.

DeleriousZ · 10-20-2004, 12:34 AM

alright, to set a few misconceptions straight here... first: the n/a and tt engines on the z32 are the same engine, only with different pistons, different exhaust system(obviously) some beefier injectors, a different ecu, and a few more vacuum lines.
second: z cars are not unreliable. they require the same routine maintinence(sp?) as any other high end car. timing belts are recommended to be changed every 60k miles, and when that 60k comes you can replace it with a different compound that lasts for a much much longer time. turbo's are not unreliable (not mentioned yet in this thread) they can last anywhere from 120k miles to ??? miles if they're taken care of properly. i currently have 259, 000 k on my car and it runs as if she came off the lot yesterday.

now onto looks... in my eyes, the z's are prettymuch unrivaled unless the car's got a 6 figure price tag, call me bias, but just keep in mind i owned a honda before owning my z and i spent months of looking at different cars and the one car that really caught my eye was the Z.

don't get me wrong, i'm not dissing the mr2 in any way, i think it's a pretty cool car, i'm just too captivated by the legacy of the Z to even think of owning another car for performance purposes.

ghetto7o2azn · 10-20-2004, 07:06 PM

well first of all... i think that mr2s are more rare on the streets then 300zx's... i see 300zx's all the time but see mr2's maybe a couple times a week...

mr2's are known to last arround 200k and will last even longer if taken care of properly without any major maintenence problems...

i think overall the mr2 probably does have less maintenance problems then the 300zx but both are pretty comprable in reliability...

my choice would be the mr2 though

k3smostwanted · 10-20-2004, 10:03 PM

must be area. because in my area, i am 1 of 2 people that own 300zx's. and i see mr2's almost daily. as for reliability, i have to agree with you. both are really reliable cars as long as they are taken care of properly. 200,000 miles plus, is no porblems for either car.

NISSANSPDR · 10-21-2004, 09:59 AM

People really dont tend to go single turbo on the Z32 though...reason being...the Supra is an inline 6...while the Z32 is a V6...so it pretty much has two of everything already so they keep w/that and go w/two bigger, better turbos rather than going w/one...

k3smostwanted · 10-21-2004, 02:45 PM

usually...plus a few more things have to be customized on a 300zx beings it has dual throttle bodies and what not. joel grannas for example. go to http://z32power.com/ that is his own personal web site. he did a single turbo conversion on an n/a convertible.

POST REPLY TO THIS THREAD