I'm not sure a [insert any] is a convincing sports car if an electric hippopotamus on four wheels can rip it on the 1/4 mile.
I think I am going to refer to that one later.
Both funny, and both capable and not condemning of long-form commentary... I think I may have found a home.
Ricer X and Devon both make good points.
I often wonder, and try to discern for myself how wide the margins of comparisons are... hyperbole and hyper-focus tend to lose sight of the forest for an up close examination and evaluation of a few trees.
Whether you watch Chris Harris, Savagegeese, Doug DeMuro, JayEmm, Shmee150, Matt Farah, or any number of people, on any number of topics, it can be challenging to parse their opinions, due to the context.
It may be subconscious, it may be unintentional, or may be it is intentional... but what you've driven before informs what you think about what you are driving now. Experience informs critical thinking.
Not only that, but the nature of presenting information to people depends on keeping attention and interest, which fosters and motivates drawing comparisons clearly, even if the relative margin of the differences may be smaller than they are portrayed.
But I also don't think most reviewers are trying to be intentionally misleading, and are trying to get real information out there. They highlight differences because that is what makes the difference between appeal and not.
Bringing that back to 370, fundamentally, it was not a bad car. Good layout, good floorplan, good suspension format, good pricetag.
But that isn't the whole story... it was a bad aesthetic move. There are aspects of the suspension, engine, and other tuning aspects as stock that aren't necessarily ideal, and show cost cutting and lack of Nissan's interest in keeping the car competitive. A basic interior is one thing... an interior that doesn't look or feel good enough for the car's cost is a small degree of change, that makes a big difference in demand, just like controversial or poorly received aesthetics.
Letting something stagnate, especially something that wasn't cutting edge in the first place, when 370 succeeded 350, is further problematic. It led Doug DeMuro to say that the 370Z had no business being sold as a new car last year, because a fully depreciated used car 10 model years older is functionally no different other than having been used.
The flip side is why Z35 Nissan Z can be a success, even based on an evolution of 350 and 370Z before it... because relatively minor and acheivable differences can be made without re-invention, just a bit more care and tuning the product attributes that are already there, and an eye for aesthetics and appeal.
The things that make BRZ and 86 affordable, but yet good handling, can be implemented with Z's better suspension design. More power will make Z the better road car overall as well, by not having to drive it like Ricky Bobby all the time to make it perform. Maybe the CoG won't be quite as low, but the suspension is a better, more geometrically advantageous design. If Nissan doesn't perfect it, the aftermarket can.
The new interior with the gauge screen, and dash design, and 10 year advancements in materials can help the interior.
We can already see that the exterior design is immediately better looking, and even Z35's slightly debateable front end is still better than most angles of the 370Z's appearance and proportions, even based on the same chassis hardpoint dimensions.
It isn't going to be a Porsche. It isn't going to be a muscle-car like a Mustang V8, or even the same as a Mustang minus the V8... It isn't a BRZ, either.
But hopefully it will be a great return to what has made Nissan Z appealing in the past... a great mix of style, substance, and attainability for a 2-seat sports car that isn't the same thing as everything else on the market.
www.gearpatrol.com
