Z-32, likes, dislikes, opinions, and pics. (not dial up friendly)

[RTz]

And as far as a Z32 for autocrossing.... LOL not built for it. It was built to gun down Corvettes. And that the Twin Turbo did very well in the early 90s. The 'vette was not a autocross car either. It was a sports car. a Highway runner.

 

Not sure how you reach that conclusion. C4's are one of the most successful autocross cars in history. The Super Stock class exist solely becuase of the C4's outright dominance. Have a gander at the National results for the last 20 years... they tell the tale.

 

In my opinion, a Z32 and a C4 are two very different cars. A Z32 does a pretty darn decent job of combining DD duty with the sport of driving. The C4 is a very aggressively tuned car... rewarding and punishing simultaneously. It is narrowly focused. Anyone that believes a C4 is a highway cruiser doesn't have any windshield-time in one. If the Z32's target was a C4, then somebody screwed up. If I gotta drive one every day, I'll take the Z32.

[Guest TeamNissan]

I think its only fair to compare c4's and z32's of the same year range. Crossfire and tpi vettes stock were whooped on by everything in its class autox. I don't think until the lt1 did the vette really come into its own.

 

I agree with you Ron about the vast differences though. I owned a 85c4 for a short time and 2 z32's. You can never relax in that c4 or it will take advantage and if you beat on it, it will certainly beat back lol. The z32 though, cruise to your hearts content or push then just cruise some more.

[RTz]

I think its only fair to compare c4's and z32's of the same year range. Crossfire and tpi vettes stock were whooped on by everything in its class autox. I don't think until the lt1 did the vette really come into its own.

 

Only the first year of C4 had Crossfire ('84). '85 to '91 vettes were TPI and hugely successful (SS exists becuase of the TPI Vettes). Only a few people in LT1 Vettes have been successful in SS.

 

I'm not trying to start a debate between C4's and Z32's. In fact, this isn't really debatable. Hodo's claim, with respect to autocrossing, is factually incorrect (as well as LT1 superiority). The National records prove it. Just trying to 'keep it real', nothing more.

[Hodo]

Not sure how you reach that conclusion. C4's are one of the most successful autocross cars in history. The Super Stock class exist solely becuase of the C4's outright dominance. Have a gander at the National results for the last 20 years... they tell the tale.

 

In my opinion, a Z32 and a C4 are two very different cars. A Z32 does a pretty darn decent job of combining DD duty with the sport of driving. The C4 is a very aggressively tuned car... rewarding and punishing simultaneously. It is narrowly focused. Anyone that believes a C4 is a highway cruiser doesn't have any windshield-time in one. If the Z32's target was a C4, then somebody screwed up. If I gotta drive one every day, I'll take the Z32.

 

 

Ok so the C4 from 1986-96 were great cars..... I dont think so. I see more NEW vettes out there than those old ones. Why because the old ones were just that OLD... even when they were new. Nissan's release of the Z32 forced Chevy to come out with a new car. The Z32 TT was the top of the line for sports cars in 1990. Several car companies went back to the drawing boards. Mazda redesigned the RX7 and retired the FC3S and released the FD3S. Toyota retired the MZ MkII supra and put out the classic MKIII Supra (2JZ). Mitsubishi was the only one with a car close to the Z32 and that was the 3000GT VR4. Ford retired the aging Foxbody Mustang and put out the Arnobody Mustang. GM the same with the Firebird/Camaro/TA. The Z32 did exactly what the original S30 did... it changed the face of the sports car market.

[Guest TeamNissan]

I think I should without arguing clarify I was referring to amateur class racing. I assumed everyone knew tpi+ owned all in professional circuit racing which is why if I'm not mistaken they out right banned it from competing (after like 20 wins in a row? lol) which led then to the corvette challenge series.

 

Yes cross fire was just the 1st year, 84?

 

Also I didn't refer to the lt1 as superior but as I said it marked be beginning of what I consider the true impressive performers of the c4 class, where the AMAZING zr1, Callaway, grand sport etc turned the c4 into more a super car then sports car.

 

All that said and back on topic I can't see how in any way the z32 was to be a direct competitor for vette. The z32 is a great car and I believe it was definitely a wake up call to quite a few manufacturers to step up their game on the next gen however.

 

Maybe we can take this in a new direction. Am I the only one who thinks the z32 is the LEAST reliable of all the z series? Got to be one of the most finicky cars I have ever had the pleasure to own. One day it runs strong as a ox and the next its sputtering. Over and over day after day same routine. I don't think I would ever pick a z32 as a daily driver again.... unless it was a hybrid .

 

 

P.S. Hodo I would be care full not to piss off Ron and maybe pick a more neutral location. Just my advice as I have been in trouble for far less.

[yellazed]

Maybe we can take this in a new direction. Am I the only one who thinks the z32 is the LEAST reliable of all the z series? Got to be one of the most finicky cars I have ever had the pleasure to own. One day it runs strong as a ox and the next its sputtering. Over and over day after day same routine. I don't think I would ever pick a z32 as a daily driver again.... unless it was a hybrid .

 

You may well be in the minority.

I have a 2+2 and a 2-seater. Both were in great shape when I bought them and have been uber reliable. Naturally, you get what you pay for. Plenty of run-down Z32s out there needing a lot of work.

This was a super car in its day and deserves to be treated with TLC. Unfortunately, they have become so cheap that too many kids with hardly two bucks in their pockets get starry eyes and buy a car they have no ability to maintain. Result - more clunkers and even lower prices, then a bad reputation for the marque.

 

True enthusiasts would argue with you. A well maintained Z32 can be a joy forever.

 

[BRAAP]

I have to disagree with some of the points the original poster made about he Z32.

 

The intake is the biggest thing I have to disagree with. The plenum has a purpose other than just being BIG. Its the only intake plenum design that would fit underneith that low slung hood. As a matter of fact I am forced to remake the design for my VH45DE swap to fit it under the hood without cutting or puting a fuggly cowl on the Z32.

 

…...

 

 

Huh? Well I partially agree. It does have, “another purpose other just than being big”. It corrals and directs air to the cylinders as it was designed to do. The point still stands though, compared to most/all other intake manifolds, it is expansive and literally physically covers the entire top of the engine, from strut tower to strut tower, radiator to firewall, making it rather difficult to reach/tend to items below it, i.e. the rest of the engine and its ancillaries. FWIW, there is another OE Nissan intake manifold that “might” be low profile enough to fit under the hood of the Z-32 that came on the VG30DE engine that doesn’t cover the entire engine. Came on the VG30DET. Here is that intake manifold;

 

 

 

 

…..

 

I agree whole heartedly about the brakes... they are horrible for a vehicle for that size.

 

……

 

 

I am pretty sure I gave the brakes good grades from an OE standpoint. Of course, all OE production brakes can stand an upgrade when being used aggressively/abusively.

 

……

One of the pluses of these cars are the brakes. They work, and they work great. Suck your eyeballs out of your sockets good. Stock brakes are ok for mild playing. The Brembo slotted/drilled rotors with metal master pads allow for marginally more braking before fade and pedal pulsations set in, and they looked great, (first Z-32 had the Brembo metal master brakes). The Specialty Z brake kit with front and rear Baer rotors and Brake man pads are a true high performance brake kit AND the front rotors are, get this, exactly 5 lbs lighter per rotor than the stock and Brembo rotors! …..

 

 

Yeeup. I like the Z-32 brakes.

 

 

 

I have to disagree with some of the points the original poster made about he Z32.

…. And as far as a Z32 for autocrossing.... LOL not built for it. It was built to gun down Corvettes. And that the Twin Turbo did very well in the early 90s. The 'vette was not a autocross car either. It was a sports car. a Highway runner….

 

 

Hodo,

With all due respect, your post comes across as a Motor Trend write up, as such your post reads as you are merely quoting those Motor Trend articles from the ‘90’s. It doesn’t seem that you have much if any actual seat time, city, freeway, or in the context of this discussion, any competition seat time in either the C-4 or Z-32. Having had the opportunity to not only track an ’85 C-4 that was prepped for national level Solo-II competition and also drive that same C-4 on the street to and from work on more than a few occasions, I can tell you without doubt, it is demanding of the drivers attention, yet when playing at above 7-8 tenths the C-4 rewards the driver with stern, yet communicative feedback and response that is indicative of a race car. Just as Ron and Team Nissan stated, if the driver is not paying 100% attention to the C-4 while driving it, the C-4 can and will bite you at anything above city street driving. The Z-32 on the other hand is fun, taught, nimble for its obese weight, but definitely not a race car by any stretch of the imagination. My Q-45 was softer, but just as easy to drive. The C-4 is much closer to a race car than the Z-32 ever thought of being, whether it is Road Racing, and especially Auto crossing. Compared to an Altima, Maxima, Camry, Accord, the Z-32 handling is stellar, but compared to the serious sport cars on the market, it is merely ok.

 

Want more proof? Ok, here ye go..

 

SCCA Solo-II national events. The Super-Bowl of Autocross competition where only the best of the best come to compete to prove to each other and the world who is the best driver with best car in a tight transitional racing environment, i.e. who can make their car dance faster than the next guy. In looking over the archives, from years past, the hands down WINNINGEST car of all cars that ever competed in the SOLO-II nats is the C-4/C-5 Corvette! The 240-Z placed a few times amongst the Vettes, but NOT “one” Z-32 among every car ever offered in the states, that showed up to compete at the National SOLO-II events has yet to take a win, though there are literally hundreds of Vette wins!

Starting on page 249 of the link below is the archived winning results of the SCCA SOLO-II national events. I’m sure similar results can be found in many other forms of racing of comparably prepared C-4’s vs Z-32.

 

SCCA SOLO nats archive results...

 

 

In short, Motor Trend lies, actual race results don’t.

The Z-32 is fun and spirited, no one argues against that. Is the Z-32 a Vette killer on the track or freeway? Stock for stock, mod for comparable mod, not even close.

 

Is the Z-32 easier to live with as a daily driver vs the C-4? Very much a two thumbs up vote for the Z-32.

 

 

 

Ok so the C4 from 1986-96 were great cars..... I dont think so. I see more NEW vettes out there than those old ones. Why because the old ones were just that OLD... even when they were new…. .

 

What does that have to do with the price of Tea in China? Your reasoning on that flies like a lead balloon. Using your logic, what is your reasoning on why we don’t see many Datsun 510’s or early 240-Z's on the road any more?

 

 

Ok so the C4 from 1986-96 were great cars..... I dont think so. I see more NEW vettes out there than those old ones. Why because the old ones were just that OLD... even when they were new. Nissan's release of the Z32 forced Chevy to come out with a new car. The Z32 TT was the top of the line for sports cars in 1990. Several car companies went back to the drawing boards. Mazda redesigned the RX7 and retired the FC3S and released the FD3S. Toyota retired the MZ MkII supra and put out the classic MKIII Supra (2JZ). Mitsubishi was the only one with a car close to the Z32 and that was the 3000GT VR4. Ford retired the aging Foxbody Mustang and put out the Arnobody Mustang. GM the same with the Firebird/Camaro/TA. The Z32 did exactly what the original S30 did... it changed the face of the sports car market.

 

 

Again, reads like some ‘90’s Motor Trend article, not from a true performance sports car enthusiast.

 

Sorry Hodo, but most of your comments come across as not making sense and/or is written with little to no experience to support such claims.

 

Regards,

Paul

[BRAAP]

You may well be in the minority.

I have a 2+2 and a 2-seater. Both were in great shape when I bought them and have been uber reliable. Naturally, you get what you pay for. Plenty of run-down Z32s out there needing a lot of work.

This was a super car in its day and deserves to be treated with TLC. Unfortunately, they have become so cheap that too many kids with hardly two bucks in their pockets get starry eyes and buy a car they have no ability to maintain. Result - more clunkers and even lower prices, then a bad reputation for the marque.

 

True enthusiasts would argue with you. A well maintained Z32 can be a joy forever.

 

 

 

Percentage wise, based on the posts in this thread alone, (not counting the accounts of other Z-32 owners I have heard from that also agree with our sentiment of the Z-32 being finicky), that puts you in the minority. My first Z-32 was a clunker, price reflected such. I then set out knowing I was going to pay at least twice, if not more than I originally had paid for a decent Z-32. Found this one that I currently own. It is a VERY nice Z-32, reflecting price paid. Car was garaged, all maintenance and upkeep receipts since new, all factory maintenance kept up etc, yet still suffers from the “typical” Z-32 known issues as documented here.

 

We could only wish that a higher percentage of US Z-32’s have the same consistent dependable reliability that you have witnessed, but in all my conversations with other owners and shops that maintain and modify these cars, the consensus is that the Z-32 is a finicky breed as stated by others in this thread.

[yellazed]

Braap:

 

With all due respect,

 

Percentage wise, based on the posts in this thread alone, (not counting the accounts of other Z-32 owners I have heard from that also agree with our sentiment of the Z-32 being finicky), that puts you in the minority.

 

hardly a conclusive poll.

 

Both my cars were JDM direct imports. Both are TTs. Maybe there is a quality issue with your US cars, or problems dealing with some of your pollution legislation, I don't know.

 

There is a healthy contingent of very satisfied devotees Downunder, a great percentage of whom drive imports. There are also some who are struggling with cars that have been abused.

 

Visit www.aus300zx.com

 

Maybe it ends up that US Z32s are a problem, not Z32s per se.

[JustinOlson]

I've been thinking about doing a Z32 with this 2JZ engine I'm building. What are your guys thoughts on this? Is it worth doing? How light can you get a 2 seater Z32 with light seats, hood, ect. Is it just a pig of a car?

 

Justin

[Guest TeamNissan]

I've been thinking about doing a Z32 with this 2JZ engine I'm building. What are your guys thoughts on this? Is it worth doing? How light can you get a 2 seater Z32 with light seats, hood, ect. Is it just a pig of a car?

 

Justin

 

You can get the slick top, N/A, 2 seater down below 3k lbs without breaking the bank but that is still pretty heavy to some. Someone did that swap, I saw a video of it about 2 years ago but I cant find it now. Maybe its someone on this site? Or maybe someone has some more info.

[Hodo]

Thats funny everyone says that I must have read motortrend.... LOL I havent seen the older ones. But anyways.. look at the proof of the Z32TT... it too was banned from racing in a league because of the twin turbos.. it was said that it gave them a unfair performance advantage. Ok so the C4 was a good car, but to me the Z32 was better. Like compairing a A6M5 Reisen to a F4U Coursair. Its a matter of oppinion at this point.

[evildky]

these cars are overweigth, and more of a grant touring car than a true sports car, I personally feel tt is more closely related to the infiniti's than the Z's (well ok the Z31 GLL models were pretty bad too) they are sexy, and make road trips in confort, they do have great suspension and brakes, but minda underpowered for their bloated weight

 

and are a huge massive PITA to work on, the engineers on this one were pure sadists, I hate workign on my Z32TT, if I ever get around to replacing the oil pump I'm thinking it might get replaced with a Z33

[evildky]

goog god my typing sucks, and BTW the build quality on the Z32 is far superior to the C4, I gotta admit the vetts of the same era seem chincy in comparison

[crazy280]

I'm not taking sides here, just voicing some oppinions both ways. I love the Z32. I don't own one, but have test driven a few as I plan to buy one in the future. My father has a fairly stock 1988 C4 corvette. I've ridden with him many times in his vette (and he's no slouch, he has some scca experience), and driven the car myself a few times. I will say the vette is pretty fast in a straight line (definitely has a fatter low end than the Z32) and handles extremely well on a tight, winding road (better than my 240z, even with 1000 extra pounds).

 

However, the build quality is crap, and the car shares most of its parts with my old 85 Camaro; engine, trans, door handles, switches, knobs, etc, etc. (that's how Chevy kept the price down). Whereas the Z32 seems more like an "upmarket" car in terms of build quality (and its original price lol). When the C4 first came out, all the magazines praised it as being the "futuristic supercar that will change the industry", and all that crap. Then they said the same thing when the new Z32 came out 5 years later, so you have to take it all with a grain of salt.

 

Now, when you compare the Z32 to the C4, stock for stock, you have to consider the years. Since TPI C4's were almost identicle from 87-91, we'll call that "early" and since LT1 C4's were almost identicle from 92-95 (barring ZR1's and GrandSport's), we'll call that "late". Z32's were pretty much identicle their entire production run here in America, so you can use pretty much any year to compare them to the vette. Autocrossing trophies aside, generally comparing the "early" era C4 to the Z32, its fairly even in terms of performance (stock). The accelleration is pretty much even (both cars regularly record mid to low 14's in the quarter mile stock), and when new, both cars were praised by the magazines for their handling (with at least one account crowning the Z champ). The "late" C4's actually are a bit faster than the "early" ones (makes sense when the LT1 is rated at ~300hp vs. ~245hp for the TPI, even though we all know Chevy underrated them). I've driven a 94 vette and can say it was faster off the line than my dad's 88 (also had a nicer interior).

 

Overall, I would say that just becuase the magazines say one car is faster, doesn't make it so, and just becuase one car is more dominant in autox, that doesn't make it better either. I don't know much about the rules in Solo II, regarding what you are allowed to modify on the car, but maybe something in the rules has influenced the C4 dominance? I personally think the Z32 is slightly better than an early C4 overall, but slightly inferior to the late C4 overall.

 

Now here's the thing: the Z had much narrower tires stock than the C4 (f/r: 225/245 vs 275/275), and anyone with racing experience knows that tires are the single most important factor in a car's performance, especially when it comes to handling. Of course I'm only speculating at this point, but I believe a Z32 will outperform any stock C4 as long as you run similarly wide tires and maybe install the "HICAS eliminator kit" and/or stiff bushings (to fix the "handling feel" issues BRAAP mentioned). That's what I plan to do when I scrape up enough cash to buy one anyhow! lol

 

Sorry for the long post, I just thought this was an interesting thread! And good write ups from the owners of these cars too.

[RTz]

This is getting too far off topic.

 

I never said the C4 was a 'good' car.

I never said it was well built.

I never said I wanted one.

I never said its 'better' than a Z32.

 

What I said was, accusing a C4 of being a highway cruiser and not an autocross car, is factually inaccurate.

 

The National records prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that STOCK CLASSED C4's and C5's are some of the most successful autocross cars in history. They also show the opposite for a Z32. This is not an arguable statement. It is not debatable. Its not negotiable. It is recorded fact.

 

Lets drop the C4 vs Z32 debate and return to the original posters intent.

[Jehannum]

I quite like my Z32. Of course, if I didn't, it wouldn't still be my Z32.

 

The only serious weak spot I've noticed is the tendency to eat injectors. That was the second major repair I had to do to mine, after I bought it (2005). I have the plenum pull down to a 20 minute process now, though. Not enough of a hassle to make me wish that I had replaced it.

 

As I understand it, the long plenum runners are only advantageous in a NA application, but it's relatively easy to work around the plenum (I mean, who's really going to be replacing head/valvecover gaskets every week?) with the dremel modifications to allow access to the fuel rail, so the effort of designing a replacement isn't all that worth it to me.

 

The stock brakes provide a great feel for about the first 15 minutes of track time, but even with good pads, tend to fade pretty quickly afterwards. I have the Brembo 332mm kit, and even after 45 minutes of on-track time, I haven't found significant fade (stock ducting in place, Ford DOT 3 fluid).

 

IMO, the Brembo and Stoptech kits are the only ways to go, as they've properly selected piston size to correspond with the increased leverage so as not to confuse the ABS computer (at least, according to Stoptech propaganda). I'm unwilling to gamble my own butt when none of the other kit bodgers have anything other than "well that doesn't matter" to offer regarding ABS operation.

[Jehannum]

The rear multi-link suspension when driven at 9-10 tenths wiggles and squirms as the rear wheels are constantly slightly steering in and out based on cornering, braking, and power loads as Nissan intended, (see pic below). And that is the N/A cars. The HICAS on the Turbo cars adds even more uncertainty to the full tilt cornering experience. When driven at 5-6 tenths, i.e. typical of John Q-publics idea of spirited driving on the back roads, the car feels very taught and stable, just as the Nissan engineers intended for their target audience. It is when driven to the hard core 9 and 10 tenths that us Hybrid Z owners/builders find where the multi link shows its true inadequacies. For the non believers that feel the Nissan rear multi-link is a great sports car suspension, when is the last or only time, anyone has ever seen a Z-32 in the top rankings at national level autocross competition?

 

 

Erm, any multi-link suspension with rubber bushings will have deflection that results in changing toe. I'm somewhat curious as to the amount of toe. The only way you get around that is by putting sturdier bushings in. I'm told that the Energy set of urethane bushings does a pretty good job of that. If you want *no* toe deflection, I think your only option is a live axle.

 

I think the biggest issue with the rear multi-link in the Z is the limits of the tire you can throw at it without extending past the fenders.

[BRAAP]

Thank you for chiming in. Any pics of your Z-32?

Thanks for the info regarding brakes. My only brake upgrade is the Specialty Z rotors and pads, stock size, (Baer rotors), and couldn’t more pleased for “stock sized” brakes, noticeably more consistent braking when being abusive, vs the Brembo drilled/slotted rotor and Metal Master pads, (probably not as nice as the larger rotor and caliper kits available, but down right impressive for such small diameter brakes).

 

I don’t know much about the OE ABS other than mine is only a 2 channel, front and rear, (‘93 model), so for tight autocross events, “when” the inside front tire locks up, the ABS kicks in affecting both front tires and is slow to turn itself off once the tire regains traction, (the delay in disengaging itself is very noticeable in low traction situations such as gravel, etc). For Autocross duty, disabling the ABS should allow for slightly quicker lap times allowing the driver to modulate threshold braking. I would imagine that on a road course, the ABS might be just fine? What’s your experience and opinion of the ABS on road courses Jehannum? Any other mods other than brakes?

 

My ’96 Infiniti Q-45 has three channel ABS, when it was road worthy as my daily driver, its ABS was much quicker and more responsive and accurate to adjusting braking, and also quicker disengage itself once the tires regained traction. The thought has crossed my mind to install my Q’s ABS in the Z-32, though, that in itself will be a big project, and not sure if the Q-45 ABS/ECU will pay well in the Z-32? When the V-8 conversion starts, I’ll be looking into that little more.

 

20 minutes to Remove the plenum? Too bad you don’t live closer. I’d like to know the tricks to the get the plenum off in under 2 hours! The Dremel trick for injector R&R is a life saver for sure.

[Jehannum]

Thank you for chiming in. Any pics of your Z-32?

Thanks for the info regarding brakes. My only brake upgrade is the Specialty Z rotors and pads, stock size, (Baer rotors), and couldn’t more pleased for “stock sized†brakes, noticeably more consistent braking when being abusive, vs the Brembo drilled/slotted rotor and Metal Master pads, (probably not as nice as the larger rotor and caliper kits available, but down right impressive for such small diameter brakes).

 

I don’t know much about the OE ABS other than mine is only a 2 channel, front and rear, (‘93 model), so for tight autocross events, “when†the inside front tire locks up, the ABS kicks in affecting both front tires and is slow to turn itself off once the tire regains traction, (the delay in disengaging itself is very noticeable in low traction situations such as gravel, etc). For Autocross duty, disabling the ABS should allow for slightly quicker lap times allowing the driver to modulate threshold braking. I would imagine that on a road course, the ABS might be just fine? What’s your experience and opinion of the ABS on road courses Jehannum? Any other mods other than brakes?

 

My ’96 Infiniti Q-45 has three channel ABS, when it was road worthy as my daily driver, its ABS was much quicker and more responsive and accurate to adjusting braking, and also quicker disengage itself once the tires regained traction. The thought has crossed my mind to install my Q’s ABS in the Z-32, though, that in itself will be a big project, and not sure if the Q-45 ABS/ECU will pay well in the Z-32? When the V-8 conversion starts, I’ll be looking into that little more.

 

20 minutes to Remove the plenum? Too bad you don’t live closer. I’d like to know the tricks to the get the plenum off in under 2 hours! The Dremel trick for injector R&R is a life saver for sure.

I have plenty of pictures, but my gallery is blocked by my work firewall (damned chair force!)

 

I disable my ABS for road course events (not that there is a plethora of good road courses in New Mexico, but hey, I'll take what I can get). Aside from brakes, it's your basic Z32 - 15PSI boost pressure, fancified exhaust, JWT intake, richened AFR tables, 365HP.

 

The plenum is a lot easier to remove if you do the PCV reroute, eliminate the EGR, and delete the throttlebody coolant passages. All I have to do is unplug my PCV hoses (as they're now over top of the plenum into the valve covers), unplug my AICV, FICD, and warm-up solenoids, the coils, and the fuel rails, and it's off.