3000gt vs 300zx

[flip888]

Originally Posted by kman10587

Don't get one of these at the age of 17, you WILL wreck it. Well, maybe the 3000GT SL, since it's front-wheel-drive, but still, I'd say just get an older sport compact with good reliability and a manual transmission to get some experience with, and then move up to one of these.

I agree 100%. Most people get performance cars to have fun with, and in my opinion, the 300zxtt is much more fun than the vr4 (ive driven them both).

On the street in good driving weather, the only notacible advantage AWD has on RWD is accelerating from a stop. And although the vr4 does have good handling, i would say the 300zx does handle better. Plus the nissan is has better reliability in general.

so go with the 300zxtt, i would have if i found one in good shape back before i got my car.

[MclarenF1]

Hey everyone.

I was just scanning down through this thread and had to ask: where in the world are you guys finding 300zx TTs for six grand or less? Where I live, even NAs that are going for less than 6 grand are either ragged out or high mileage. I'm not doubting anyone's truthfulness or anything, but for God's sake, please point me to the classifieds that you are looking at.

If we are indeed comparing turbo models, it really depends on your personal needs and preferences. (I realize this has been argued up side down and right side up, vertical and sideways, and finally to death in other threads, so I'm not going to say anything else in regard to the TT models.)

If we are talking NAs, I do think the 3000GT is a great looking car, but the FWD completely turns me off. I've driven lots of examples of both, and the SL 3000 just doesn't do much for me. The driving experience kind of reminds me of a Lincoln Mark VIII with a sportier interior and manual trans, sans the V8 moan. I might add that this quality isn't necessarily a bad thing, but the 300zx NA is indeed the purer, all around faster sports car. If anyone wants to argue this point, all I can do is point you to the PAX times and classing of the two cars in SCCA auto crossing. The Z is definitely in the higher ability category. Go to an autocross and watch the two cars run in the same event, and you'll see what I mean. But then again, maybe that isn't the least bit important to you. (And it's A-okay with me if you could care less about track times. You'll never hear me say the 3000 is a bad car-it just has different priorities.)

If anyone disagrees with my analysis, no problem. Let's just discuss this like civilized adults.

[Schister66]

I've always like the Fairlady.....but the 3000GT VR-4 is a damn nice car if you can afford it. I wanted a 95 300ZX TT, but i don't know what i'd pick between that and a nice 98 VR4......

It all comes down to what you like, what you can afford and what you can handle!!

[drunken monkey]

wow
3000Gt vs 300ZX.
never saw that one coming.

[MclarenF1]

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

wow
3000Gt vs 300ZX.
never saw that one coming.

Ohhhh.... do I sense some sarasm?


I've gotta admit, if there is one argument that has been worn out in these forums, it's the 3000gt vs. 300zx argument. I swear I think this one is getting as well played as the Comaro vs. Mustang fight. (Sometimes the gloves really come off in these arguments sometimes though. I've seen some of these threads get pretty heated.)

To tell the truth, as far as the NA models are concerned, I've never understood why the 3000 is compared to the Z so regularly. It seems like a more apples to apples comparison would be the Z to the NA Supra, SC300, or even a V6 Camaro.

The 3000 is best compared to other sporty front drivers, like the Prelude, Ford Probe GT, or even the 2005 and older V6 Eclipses.

At least this is way that I've always seen it.

Lastly, going back to the deal with the 6 grand budget: If you find a turbo model of either car that you can buy for that price, you can be rest assured it will really cost you more than that. The car would have to have such high mileage that it is ready for some serious maintenance.

If I were shopping for my fist car in this price range, I would look for a nineties model NA MR2, 240SX, or the next to last generation Prelude. (I say next to last because, once again, you will have a hard time finding a 97 and up Prelude that hasn't been ridden really hard for less than 6 thousand.) All of these cars would get great gas mileage and be lots of fun to drive. The MR2 would be the most pure sports car of the bunch, but would also be least practical. The Prelude and 240SX argument would be another apples to oranges comparison like the Z vs. 3000 idea, but in this case the front driver (Prelude) would be much lighter on its feet than the Mitsu ever thought about being.

Hope I haven't bored anyone with my rambling...

[3kgt222]

I agree with you because i do own a 3000gt sl and the turning is like crap compare to most car, i picked the 3000gt because in my opinion it look better and not that much people have this car, i see a lot 300zx around my place so i dont want the same car that everyone has but over all i wound say 300zx is a better car performance, but you wanna battle the Vr4 Mr edition your dead...hehe j/k

[youngvr4]

most Z owners and 3kgt owners are cool, debates dont usually get that heated, cause if you ask tem. if it wasnt the Z it would be the 3kgt, and visa versa.

but i havnt been round these parks in awhile

[98 3k gt monster]

hey guys, i own a 1998 3000gt sl and it is fast! I've smoked civics, celicas, and a 300z and im only 16. the girls go crazy when they see the gt. crazy

i think the only way to go is 3k. the 300zx n/a just cant compare the n/a does 0-60 in 8s. its just plain slow. plus if you were getting something to mod engine wise the 300zx doesnt compare. it would cost an arm and a leg to even try and turbo it. the 3k gt sl doesnt even need to many mods to be a street machine.

looks wise the 300zx is boxy, and 80's looking, the t-tops WILL leak, the 3kgt has smooth curvy body, one word sexy.




98 3000gt st
5-sp
injen intake
2 apex n1 mufflers
bomex body kit
17" enkies
perrelli pzero nero tires

[k3smostwanted]

Originally Posted by 98 3k gt monster

hey guys, i own a 1998 3000gt sl and it is fast! I've smoked civics, celicas, and a 300z and im only 16. the girls go crazy when they see the gt. crazy

i think the only way to go is 3k. the 300zx n/a just cant compare the n/a does 0-60 in 8s. its just plain slow. plus if you were getting something to mod engine wise the 300zx doesnt compare. it would cost an arm and a leg to even try and turbo it. the 3k gt sl doesnt even need to many mods to be a street machine.

looks wise the 300zx is boxy, and 80's looking, the t-tops WILL leak, the 3kgt has smooth curvy body, one word sexy.




98 3000gt st
5-sp
injen intake
2 apex n1 mufflers
bomex body kit
17" enkies
perrelli pzero nero tires

WTF are you talking about? do you know anything about the 300zx? your comparing 2 cars that have all too much similar performance to call one slow and not the other, or call one fast and not the other. looks are subjective but they had a Z that was 80's style...it was made from 84-89.

as for your SL being faster than every other 300zx N/A??? NO! been argued before and your wrong. they are about dead even in straight line performance, if anything the 300zx has the slight edge because of weight transfer and RWD off the line.

as for the t-tops leaking, moulding might need replace, one thing that Z32 owners dont complain about is leaky t-tops because it doesnt happen except on very rare occasion the window isnt in correctly after an accident or something.

as for everything else you said...

[MclarenF1]

Originally Posted by k3smostwanted

WTF are you talking about? do you know anything about the 300zx? your comparing 2 cars that have all too much similar performance to call one slow and not the other, or call one fast and not the other. looks are subjective but they had a Z that was 80's style...it was made from 84-89.

as for your SL being faster than every other 300zx N/A??? NO! been argued before and your wrong. they are about dead even in straight line performance, if anything the 300zx has the slight edge because of weight transfer and RWD off the line.

as for the t-tops leaking, moulding might need replace, one thing that Z32 owners dont complain about is leaky t-tops because it doesnt happen except on very rare occasion the window isnt in correctly after an accident or something.

as for everything else you said...

Agreed.

And where did he pull that "8 second" 0-60 time from? His ass? Even the 2+2 na automatic Z hits 60 in the mid seven second range. I'm also amused by the "it would cost an arm and a leg to even try and turbo it" comment. The situation would be much different with an SL 3000, right? (Please note sarcasm.)

If the kid ever works up the nerve to go to a dragstrip and run a well maintained, two seat 5 speed NA Z, he's in for a rude awakening. I'm not doubting that he outran a Z, but when comparing two cars with such close straight line performance, he better make sure he's comparing apples to apples. I've driven and run enough SLs both on and off the track to know how they compare, and I can say that it will take a hell of alot more than a couple of oversized mufflers and an intake for the SL to "smoke" a well driven 5 manual trans. Z on the strip. As far as an autocross or road course goes, the comparison isn't even worth making.

This sound like a classic case of "I'm sixteen and have no idea what I'm talking about syndrome." But then again, perhaps the mad tite Bomex body kit gives his car an aerodynamic advantage that Z owners can't even fathom.

P.S. I have a very close friend who drives an immaculate 97 3000gt five speed. Do you know how many time he has beaten me in 8th mile? Many. Want to guess how many times he beaten me in the quarter mile? None. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Once we get to the strip we switch cars pretty often, too. The result? Same as before. I provide this information to help explain why this comparison always strikes a chord with me. We have been sparring it out in our cars for the past two years now, so I can't help but feel motivated to respond.

[carbuzzard]

[quote=MclarenF1]

Lastly, going back to the deal with the 6 grand budget: If you find a turbo model of either car that you can buy for that price, you can be rest assured it will really cost you more than that. The car would have to have such high mileage that it is ready for some serious maintenance.

QUOTE]

Mr F1 speaks big truth. You will be much, much happier with a six grand budget to buy a better example of a "less desireable" car. Trying to fix a car on the side of the road in the rain isn't as glamorous as it might sound. Chicks really don't dig it. (Actually, if you have to count on a car to get the girls, what does that say about you? )

My experience, too, is to deal with a quality used car outlet. I bought a car for one of my daughters at a local good reputation dealer and when it had brake problems (nothing serious, just a dragging drum), they had a good repair shop on site that took care of it. On the other hand, I don't want to tell you about the mistake I made buying a car from a private party. They all aren't bad, but...it depends on what your tolerance for problems is.

So go to a local used car lot, one that can stand behind its wares, and look at the cars with $8,000 in the window. Then tell the salesman you only have $6,000 but you really love that car. It may not work, but it costs nothing to try.

But like F1 says, the lower price/high lust models are likely to be beat. He speaks great wisdom.

[youngvr4]

Originally Posted by k3smostwanted

WTF are you talking about? do you know anything about the 300zx? your comparing 2 cars that have all too much similar performance to call one slow and not the other, or call one fast and not the other.

LMAO you took the words right out of my mouth.

[Kurtdg19]

Well I haven't driven a 300zx but I have had experience with both 3000s and was I disappointed? Not in the least. From my experience the brakes are just damn great. The VR-4 is a whole other breed when you account the tremendous grip and acceleration. Although the SL I drove had a bad habit for buring oil (if any else has experienced this I am not alone). This problem made me hesitant in ever owning one of my own, but it may have well just of been a bad bananna. I don't have any experience driving the 300z, but I'm sure it wouldn't be anything near a disappointment from what I've heard of them.

Btw: the fwd drive 3000 I've driven was worse in the snow than my old rwd V6 firebird. The dang thing just didn't want to go anywhere with snow on the ground. Maybe you guys have had better experience than I. After scraping enough paths out of the snow so it can grip time after time it didn't really make me feel confident with it in that type of weather. Haven't driven the VR-4 in the snow, but I'm sure it fairs a lot better.

Anyways feel free to share your experiences, these are just mine.

[k3smostwanted]

i had a buddy with a mint SL, this thing pulled very hard but my 300zx edged it out everytime in about a 1/4 mile race. that is when i was automatic and n/a. we were always pretty even till about 50mph when i alwyas gradually pulled away. we raced to 120mph and i had probably 10 car length on him by that point. for those who have driven a 300zx, they know that 2nd and 3rd gear are nothing to mess around with.

i have also driven 2 VR4's...the first one hd high mileage but was still a performer. i was amazed at the pure grip this thing got off of the line. squat and go! the second one was modified and very well taken care of. this thing flew but both seemed to lose steem about 100mph it seemed. but maybe it through me back in my seat so hard that i couldnt press the pedal all the way down.

my buddy never has had any problems with his SL in the winter with all-seasons on the stock wheels. maybe the one you drove had performance tires on or they were bald?

[3kgt222]

i think someone is messing around, trying to keep the thread going....