"For $500 I could probably create a single G-nose that could have much less drag and lift than any G-nose that came from Nissan or comparble aftermarket vendor."
I like the "probably" above. PROBABLY Nissan had more substantial butget than $500, and tested more than one type of G-nose (as ilustrated by posts right on the begining). PROBABLY while at it, they have tried various configurations of: cooling ducts, vents, undertray plates, wheel arches, side sils and maybe EVEN rear spoilers.
"No need for most of us to hamstring ourselves with 35 year old aero tech. Look at it, learn from it, but don't limit yourself to it if you don't have to."
What has changed all those years in aerodynamics? Look at planes to get your answer. What can you change on your Z car to make it more slipery and still look like Z instead Pikes Peak Audi sport quattro? Not much.
Also, what is a point of comparing - don't get me wrong, I think it is great idea in itself, if done right - stock car with g-nose car and than admiting of shortcoming of g-nose instalation?
Maybe Alans G-nosed Z - which I belive is true replica of period racing Z, with the ducts and all - has to be wind-tunel tested and used as a benchmark for all subsequent comparisions.
Looks like we are trying reinvent a wheel here, just can not agree if it should be square or more like a triangle.
my 5 cents. m