Rolling Parts

I agree completely. I guess some people would spend money to turn a Porsche into a Pinto too. A+ for fully executing such insanity to such a high degree of precision.

I'm glad that there are still parts. Yea, I thought that the 2M4 had the "test mule" look to it so I can believe that it was a technology testbed for the Corvette. If they had started with the cleaner looks and better power of the later V6 cars then maybe they would have had better success. I was completely underwhelmed driving the 2M4. Well, if you define "mid-engine" as having just the crankshaft of a transverse engine located between the axles then lots of cars can claim to be mid-engined. I'm not so sure that the Fiero's engines were ever "mid" enough to actually get better balance to the car. The RWD S130 had a 50/50 weight distribution with a front engined cars so I don't see the Fiero had any advantage gained by moving the FWD package to the rear. It's an interesting car and a snapshot of GM from the 80's. It made the list.

The Z was a lot more than style (every sports car had a style). The Z was finally a car with dependability, serviceability, and could win races. The Fiero on the other hand was hobbled by GM Citation parts, hard to work on, and I would not call it a "mid engine sports car" because people who owned mid engine sports cars did not consider the Fiero to be one. Moving a Citation FWD package to the rear of a car made it a RWD Citation. Sacrificing all usable space without gaining performance is not an engineering triumph or a selling point. I thought the Fiero was an "almost car", GM stopped short of going the extra effort to make it a winner. I just saw one yesterday on the road with it's headlights wired permanently in the up position.

ABSOLUTELY! The S130 WAS designed to be a better "car" by being wider, actually aerodynamic, better A/C and heating, more hatch space, upgraded brakes, and 1980's crisper styling. It had way better high speed stability because of the aerodynamics and greater width and the front vented brakes and new rear disks felt immune to fade. The change in rear suspension (on the other hand) was a mixed bag. It gave a lot of hatch space and let a 21 gallon gas tank be installed, but all that added new space came at a price. The suspension did not travel well over rough roads(and a lot of road noise and bumps) and if you ever hit a turn too fast you NEVER hit the brakes in the S130 because the change in car pitch would let the rear wheels change camber instantly. Instead on riding nearly flat tread the rears would tilt in and loose some contact with the road. The more you stiffened the suspension to stop it, the less travel and rougher the ride (and the original S130's were set up awfully loose for a softer ride). I OWNED an S30 new in 1976 and an S130 new in 1980. Each car had their better points, but the rear suspension was just not an improvement, even "in the day".

Historically, the "Z car" had used a Chapman strut rear end. They CHANGED that in the ZX for reasons that were not because of performance. That did away with the unique Chapman struts to minimize parts counts between product lines. Just like the 810 sedan got the 6 cylinder engine from the Z, the ZX now got the rear suspension from the 810 sedan. The rear trailing arms are not bad, but they were done for cost savings and DID warrant attention because of their tendency to "squat" under hard acceleration and "steer" under hard breaking in a turn. That tendency actually gets much worse with wear/age. Those tendencies are the "why" they can be addressed with stiffer springs, re-valved shocks, and/or stiffer bushings. If you KNOW how to drive, it's not really an issue. Since the 280ZXT was on the street, it's not uncommon for manufacturers try to tame the "surprises" out of a car for the uninitiated. Hitting the brakes HARD in a turn in a ZX can easily swap-ends! It's not a knock at the suspension, it's just what happens.

We were talking about stock ZXT production changes. We were talking about the rear suspension. We were talking about the suspension doing what they refereed to as "wagging". We were discussing an attempt by the factory to address it. You seem to keep bringing up other manufactures, racing, and now fictitious team efforts? For what end?

The Turbo ZX is stellar parts car for 1st Gen cars, The turbo swap is a "sticky" on Z sites. The rear trailing arms in the ZX were used because they were cheaper, also not a secret. The rear trailing arms do go "schizophrenic" as the bushings age and can get downright scary if driven to limits. Adding a Turbo will pretty much guaranty that it will be driven more to it's limits of the suspension. Sorry, I always assume that people with vintage S130's already know the good and bad points of the car and are mature enough to discuss them openly. I never take it personally when people discuss facts and reasons why Nissan did things a certain way, I just find it interesting how the car has transitioned and why.

I just restated that NISSAN chose the suspension for cost-cutting parts commonality. That's as logical, unemotional, and fact supported as it gets. Also, since the article mentions that the changes were made "for less wigwag in corners" then there had to be annoying "wigwag" in the first place.

GM had particularly bad interiors in the 80's, I've never heard anyone rave about them. I drove a brand new Fiero in the rain and the front end hydroplaned badly. The headlights are like 2 huge drag chutes that pop up right into your view. The Chevy Citation power plant and suspension is not top-drawer engineering design. The weight distribution (as I remember it) was more like 40/60. It was not just the blind spots, it was also lack of usable space and functionality. It was a car that looked interesting, I just don't think GM had their heart in making a serious competitor to the other 2 seat GM sports offering. YMMV.

Wrong. ALL BETS ARE OFF when you talk about racing. That's a complete red herring since successful ZX racers were never stock. The discussion is on street production cars here. The stock ZX rear end was used by Nissan for cost cutting. The ZX rear end was not chosen for performance, just parts commonality. If only just changing a bushing would have magically changed the suspension to be race worthy...

Yea, that is definitely one that gets your attention when on frequency! Though I did hear a calm (yet interesting) exchange between our tower and a C172. The 172 was convinced he was on a long final but the tower did not have him in sight. The tower asked a series of increasingly curious questions about the view the pilot had. You see, there was a Strategic Air Command base a little over 5 miles west of our our field that had runways in the same orientation and...

And yet, the rear end in the ZX was still a mixed-bag 810 transplant that ANY hint/hope of making it less pedestrian than it's sedan roots would have been welcome. What important is the turbo 280ZX's legacy. That legacy is being a stellar parts car for 1st gen cars that don't need to deal with the cheaper and schizophrenic semi-trailing arms at all.

Been flying before I could legally drive and have been an owner for just the last 25 years. I guess the most interesting times were working with F16 development(C&D)and then the follow on F22. Now most flying is just being mostly retired flying around the country for fun in a Tiger (till the RV-10 gets finished). Actually it's just a lot of fun to tinker in the hanger while listening to the hand held. When the tower broadcasts the phrase "say intentions" it's funny how many people stop what they're doing to listen in on what's about to happen.

I drove several Fiero's. They had terrible interiors, no handling in the rain, DUMB headlights, terrible weight distribution, and huge blind spots when in traffic. Most also had low power engines so the car had less ooomph than any 4-door import sedan. I wanted to like the car but it was always a car that was made as cheap as possible by GM. The V6 was appreciated but never fixed the other maladies in the car. It was never a sports car. As far as the 280Z being listed, I fear that it will raise prices. I've enjoyed it being under-the-radar as undervalued....

That sounds A LOT like the press releases before the final production car. There were the typical "teaser" articles in the magazines. The ZX was on it's way out by the time (after the ZXR, and the "10th") and by the time the turbo came out they were well into the design of the 300ZX. They did not spend a great deal of money on any real changes on the chassis so it's all "media BS".