By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Topspeed? How is that a criteria for a sportscar that the general public can buy and drive on the street? You will never see it anyway unless you are prepared to be carted straight to jail. That's why I don't see HP as the best power criteria. It should be torque. Acceleration (0-60 time) is more important than tops speed.
By the way, I had a problem with the CD player, a disc jammed in it, so it had to be replaced. We drove 2 hours to the Infiniti place only to find that the wrong unit had been ordered b/c I have the nav system. The service manager said that he was really sorry for our inconvenience and that when the new part came in, he would drive to our house (2 hours away, remember) with a technician and have it installed in our carport. Believe it or not, that's exactly what happened. Incredible Infiniti service, that's for sure.
Maybe you will find someone there who has experienced this. I have to agree about the service, best I have ever seen or heard of in any make.
But Honda apparantly can build a limited production 2,800 lb convertible roadster with a 9,000 rpm engine with leather, xenon and a few other amenities for $32k. If Nissan CAN'T build a fixed roof 2-seater (i.e. should be lighter and less expensive than a roadster) with a real sports car engine for about $30k, they should get out of the business. I'm quite sure they CAN, it just appears they won't. That's fine, but I wish they wouldn't spend so many early marketing dollars on the 350Z trying to market it as a spiritual reincarnation of the 240Z. It's not.
Another category is the 2+2 or, better yet, the GT. Many of these are also fun to drive. But requiring it to be a "sporting" car leaves out many highly styled cars with uncomfortable back seats -- think Thunderbird.
JW
JW
Which brings me completely back to my point that I think the G35c is a better sports coupe than the 350Z is as a sports car.
Neither is going to satisfy someone who is looking for an Elise or Lexus, but depending on your tastes, either could be a good choice...
1. sunroof
2. much,much nicer interior
3. infiniti cust. service
4. back seat
5. better cruiser for trips to the shore
6. 4yr 60,000 mile warranty vs 3yr 36,000 mile for 350Z
7. While it is not as fun to drive as the 350Z it is still very enjoyable IMO
8. I can get the beautiful 18's w/automatic
9. The G35c 39m was less than the 350Z 39m lease
Sportscar:
F 360
C5 Corvette
New small Lambo.
Previous RX-7
Roadster: (not just GT convertible)
Miata
S2000
Boxster
previous BMW M/Z Roadster (Z4?)
Elise
GT / GT convertible:
911
M3
G35 coupe
350Z (I think it still belongs here)
Lambo. Murci.
Previous Supra
Mercedes sporty cars
it's a sliding scale, of course, but I think there's not a big performance penalty between traditional "sportscars" and GT's.
My Mustang is a "Mustang GT Convertible" and I certainly classify it as sportscar.
I have to somewhat disagree with you. The Honda S2000 is a great sports car, but why should Nissan build a car which is so similar with such a small demographic? Not everyone wants a low torque/high RPM 4-cylinder screamer. (BTW, I currently drive a high-revver myself which I love, Celica GT-S with 180 HP at only 2500 pounds, which MSRP'd for less than $25.000!) I like the 350Z for it's more substantial feel (reason for added weight), higher torque from the awesome V6, quieter ride, greater amenities, and interior space.
I think most of the true sportscars have a lot of difficulty passing crash test standards, and have been relegated to track duty.
ps...this isn't meant to say that your mustang isn't fun to drive or sporty, just that I believe most of the action in sporty and fun cars is happening in the GT category, not the sportscar category. I think the roadster category is closely tied to the sportscar category, with obvious differences. This excludes cars like the M3 convertible, which I would consider a GT convertible, but the Z3/Z4 is a tossup.
It's not legroom that's a concern it's rear headroom thanks to its shape.
I still maintain that the whole idea of wanting manual feel and connectedness to the environment from within an insulating, metal box called an AUTOmobile is a little silly. This is the reason why such raw cars are mostly gone--a much more potent experience can be had on a motorbike, making even the most raw, pure sports cars feel like nothing more than an overweight compromise. (Is an Elise really all that much more fun than a decent Yamaha superbike?)
In that sense, what Nissan/Infiniti have been doing with the 350Z and G35C is spot-on with contemporary notions of what performance automobiles ought to do.
The BMW 3.0 I6 is a great engine also used in a lot of applications, but one drive in a 8,000 rpm M3 is an entirely different experience.
I've loved that engine since I first test drove "your" 95 Maxima with the 3.0 liter, and a manual. Throttle response and willingness to rev is excellent, power is great, and now the exhaust note is even throatier. Test drive a Mazda 6 V6, like I did last weekend, and you will re-appreciate the Nissan V6. (Face it, you still like that "old" Maxima, otherwise you'd have gotten rid of it!) That engine is the only thing that kept me remotely interested in Nissan during the "dark years".
Sure the M3 sets itself apart from the run-of-the-mill 3-Series, but at $50,000+, shouldn't it? If Nissan were to make an "M3" variation of the V6, I don't think it would come in at $30,000 price target.
BTW, I also test drove an FX35 this weekend, with, you guessed it....THAT engine! Boy, was that thing fun! Even at 4200 pounds, that engine did very well, and the handling and braking were nothing short of amazing! It feels almost as good as a G35, plus I can take my wife, daughter, and labrador along, while towing my boat! I've already got my wife thinking that this will be her next vehicle. (Sorry I drifted off-topic, but I'm still in shock over the FX!)
Perhaps my view is tainted by having both a Maxima and Honda S2000. The visceral feel of the Honda is exactly what I was looking for in a "sports car" and it compliments the Maxima perfectly. Had I elected to replace the Maxima with a daily driving "sports coupe", the G35c or 330ci would have been my top choices. But, given that I had the luxury of having a Nissan V6 as a daily driver, I was looking for a little more pizzazz.
Enough splitting hairs. The 350Z may be a fine sports car for most, just not for me. The G35 coupe, on the other hand is something I will give consideration to in the future.
I think this engine is plenty capable for GT use, and probably would be great in a pure sports car also, given a proper chassis.
Now...put that FX45 V8 in the G35 coupe chassis, and you have a M3 level GT. It can't cost them more than another 2-3k to build the V8, rather than the V6, so they could price it around $40k, and capture a lot of the market.
My daily driver is a BMW M5 and I'm (still) looking to pick up a sports car / roadster this spring for supplemental use for the 80% of the time I am driving alone. Currently, the top two roadster contenders are the Boxster S and S2000. I am also on the list for the Lotus Elise, but it will not be in the US for another 12-18+ months. None of these cars can match the power or acceleration of my 4,000 lb 5 passenger sedan. But that's not as important as the driving feedback, tight and nimble handling, and, in the case of a roadster, the open air enjoyment.
The BMW I6 and Nissan V6 are among the best in their class. But neither are lightweights and, while you can try to upgrade the chassis to handle the weight, you lose some of the nibleness in the process. That's a lot less noticable or important in a 3,300 lb coupe or sedan, but a lot more noticable when you drive back to back with a 2,900 lb Boxster S or 2,800 lb S2000. Even as a BMW fan, I admit that the Z3 was a dog and the Z4 is a significant improvement, but not class leading in handling.
The extreme corrolary to this would be comparing a Viper to a Ferrari 360. Similar performance on paper, radically different driving experience in real life.
I hope Nissan/Infiniti are successful with the G35. I always liked the Q45 over the LS400/430, but I was in the minority (and still prefer the 5-series to either). I also hope that Nissan makes enough money to perhaps one day reincarnate a current, improved version of the 240Z. It was a heck of a car for it's day and price, considering the next better thing was a Jaguar E type at 3 times the cost.
On one board I watch, there are a lot of people upset that they have to rotate their Pilot Sport tires every couple of thousand miles if they want them to last more than 15000 miles or so ... but they love showing their friends, I'll bet, the performance tires on their coupe!
Now, the notion of the G45 Coupe intrigues me ... unless it means the front end will be significantly heavier with the longer engine having to be moved out further over the front axle.
JW
I think a torquey, free revving V6 could be a good choice in a light chassis car that could maintain a decent weight balance with it.
and, I'm not sure how much heavier the 4.5L is than the 3.5L, but stretching the wheelbase a couple of inches to maintain the weight balance would be acceptable to me
R35 Skyline GT-R
For example, when Ford put the Continental kit exterior spare tire on the '56 Thunderbird, it moved a bunch of weight to the rear. On paper, that counterbalanced the nose-heaviness of the '55 (although that wasn't the reason Ford did it...the reason was trunk space and style), moving static weight distribution closer to 50/50. So you'd think it handled better, right? Wrong -- period road testers found that the weight shift made for spooky, unstable high-speed handling.
What's really important is not just weight distribution, but what engineers call "polar inertia" -- that is, how the car's mass is arranged compared to its center of gravity. The closer the car's mass is to its Cg, the lower its polar inertia...which means it will be more responsive to changes in direction. That's the reason so many sports cars went for the mid-engine layout.
was this directed at me?
Stretching the wheelbase a couple inches to accomodate the V8, while also maintaining a 52/48ish weight balance shouldn't kill the Gcoupe's handling. They did the same thing between the 350Z and the Gcoupe and the handling became better, according to most people. Sure, some people prefer the shorter wheelbase characteristics, but the skidpad and slalom numbers got better, as well as (anecdotally) the stability. perfect for a GT.
I don't think stretching this platform a couple of inches to accomodate the V8 is going to trash the handling, and in the GT class, the horsepower and low end torque would really make this car a strong performer. It only makes more sense when you consider that the Merc's, new S4 and next M3 will all be V8's.
this is the statement I was referring to. The author makes the claim that the VQ and the BMW I6 are not lightweights, which I don't dispute. I would like to know how much heavier they are than the Porsche Boxster S flat 6, because I don't think it's a large amount.
The author of this post referred to upgrading the chassis to handle the extra weight of the VQ, and I think that the chassis itself is the main handling difference between the Boxster S, not the weight of the engine. If you built a mid engine Boxster with a VQ powerplant, it would still be an awesome handling car, and the engine would not be viewed as a weak link, in my opinion.
This was my point...that the VQ would make a good engine for a sports car, and not just in sedans, SUV's and GT coupes.
Further, I think that the FM platform could be 52/48 weight balanced with the 4.5 V8, with only a few inches of wheelbase extension. (not by hanging something off the back, as someone else gave an example of not having the desired effect). I think that this could have a slight detrimental effect on the sharpness of the handling, but would still produce a very good handling GT, because the bulk of the engine is inside the wheelbase. More importantly, I think havng this option would provide a solid competitor to the current S4 and future M3, AWD or no AWD. The future GTR could have either this V8, with AWD, or a turbo VQ, with AWD, but the manufacturing costs wouldn't be significantly more, so there is hope for a $40k GTR.
I'm not sure which part of this opinion offends?
Good luck!
Was the BMW deal for the same lease setup as you mentioned for the G35C? What BMW dealership did you go to for that?
Thanks for the help!
The BMW deal is gone with the wind. You won't see that type of deal on the 330i because the money factor is not as aggressive any more. The promotion that is running right now is on the 325i. As for the specifics of the deal it was the same as the infiniti 39m12k0down, the over mileage is higher at .20 per mile vs .15 for infiniti. The insurance and inception fees were also higher for the 330 BTW the dealer is Open Road BMW.
- Are heated seats standard/available? (I know this is trivial to some, but my wife and I enjoy this feature on cold days.)
- Is the navigation system a good one? Does it compare favorably to Acura/Honda and Lexus ones?
- Does the aero package make a noticeable (and presumably favorable) impression over the standard model? The aesthetics of the spoiler do not interest me much, but if 70mph cruising is noticeably more planted and secure, I'd consider it worthwhile.
- Lastly, I noticed the Edmunds TMV price pegs the value close to sticker. Is this consistent with what people are paying, or are some dealers willing to negotiate? (I'm in Atlanta, FWIW.)
Thanks in advance.
AFAIK, prices are still at or near MSRP. Haven't seen any reports of large (over 1K) discounts.
Where the heck did you find that piece of information, serebigal ... never seen it before, I have to admit. Reference, please?
JW
According to them, on their inventory list, the Aero package is indicated, but the sales rep I spoke with--who was otherwise very friendly and straightforward--claimed there are three different aero packages, with prices either $550, $2450, or $2900. Further, he was unable to tell me which of these packages would be on the car, and that if it were the most expensive one, the MSRP would be (including premium and nav packages) over $39k.
Can this be right? On the Infiniti site, only one aero package is listed for this model, and it's $550. Checking off all the boxes gets to $37,545, so I'm having a hard time believing the price could inflate to $39k.
Can anyone confirm?
The only aero option on the 6MT coupe is the "Aero Package" for $550 - basically a rear spoiler and different rear bumper with diffusers.
Now on the 6MT sedan, there are three packages: the same "Aero Package" for $550, but also two "Aero Body Kits" for $2910 and $2420. The difference between the two body kits is whether the spoiler is included or not. Both body kits include front, rear, and side skirts and body panels.
If you're getting a coupe the only aero option it is possible to have is the $550 spoiler option. The coupe already includes most of the stuff in the expensive sedan aero body kits, although I don't know the nuances of how an aero-body-kit sedan and a coupe might be different.
If you "build your own" on Infinit's web site, you'll see the different options on the sedan model.
- Mark
There is a 4 pc. aero KIT (#V92, $1190 on Edmund's), a 3pc. aero KIT (#V93, $600 on Edmund's), and an aero PKG (#R01, $550 on Edmund's).
The aero PKG is the one that is available. It has the underbody diffusers resulting in 0 lift, and the rear wing. The others (when they finally become available) will include side skirts, too, and/or the front lip. (Pictures are on freshalloy if you're interested.)
Infiniti has had trouble with the availability of doodad parts through its suppliers. The mudflaps, for example, are only beginning to come through (as a 'required option' whatever that is) on a few cars, the SAT option had to be dropped early on and a new wiring pkg is being used so later production cars can use the feature, and production supposedly was slowed on 6MT and AT cars with the 'wheel pkg' because of short supplies of the 18" wheels. Perhaps Infiniti was surprised by the popularity of the car.
Suggestion: since your salesperson is giving you questionable prices on the two KIT options, perhaps you should have him list the specific PKG number (if that's what you want) so there's no confusion (and bloated pricing).
Hope this helps.
JW
Aero (3 piece)
Premium package
performance wheels
MSRP: $35545
I have called around and here is what I've gotten. $1500 down and $553 a month...money down is for first months payment, security deposit...etc.
I have called another dealer 2 hours away and said that they are leasing this same car for $1500 down and $510 a month.
Has anyone out there heard of getting the $510 a month deal? Is the $553 to much? Right now I am very frustrated and have been doing my research and have seen an earlier posting of someone getting almost the same options for $500 a month with $0 down and first months payment...etc. at delivery.
What does everyone think? Is the $553 way out of the ballpark and I should be looking for a better deal? Is the $510 payment realistic with only first months payment...etc. down.
Please let me know your thoughts!
If you haven't experienced it you probably will. It is now a nationwide TSB#ITB03-21.
For those still wondering to buy a G35 Coupe. Gimme a break. The most beautiful, fast, sleek car on the road. Done.
Only Subaru (Japanese) and Porsche (German) uses Boxer engines in cars.
Later...AH