Hyuri Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 i call that the corvette floating feeling. that used to be the case with them as well. how hard is it to hit 140 in a stock s30, i thought all z/zx's hit a brick wall at about 90mph and slowly crawled up unless youve got some performace mods under the hood goiing on. 83 N/A. Rock solid past 120 MPH, gets pretty squirrely above 100 with the windows down, somewhat more stable with T-tops off and windows down. All on straight, more-or-less level surface; speeds estimated from digital tach reading (accurate, but imprecise). Pulls pretty well even in 5th once it gets above about 3k. Runs out of go rather abruptly somewhere around 5k in 5th, which should be about 135, which I think is a fueling issue. Even at this point, it still feels steady enough to steer one-handed. (Before anyone jumps, I don't, but it feels that stable.) Only "performance mods" are a Z31t coil, and a PO swapped a 3.7 R200. Everything else, including the aero parts and drivetrain, is beat to hell stocker "junk". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnum380Z Posted July 8, 2009 Author Share Posted July 8, 2009 makes sense to me! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rolling Parts Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 The 240Z never had wind tunnel testing before the shape was finalized (who did tunnel testing at all in 1968 for street cars?) and no changes were done to address what it lacked in high speed aerodynamics during the entire 10 year production run. Changes to the 240Z all had to do with bumper/side safety, emissions reductions, some differential placement problems, the advent of unleaded fuel, and increasing engine size just to keep performance from slipping. Counter that scenario with the ZX. The ZX already had the mature driveline available so it spent a lot of time on new chassis optimization. Shape optimization meant that there was a lot of wind tunnel testing on the chassis shape done before the a shape was finalized. Low drag and high speed stability were designed into the car and (other than the turbo and rear disk brakes) was one of the few high points in the entire design. The car is marvelously stable at 120mph in stock form because it was made to do that and Nissan did it well. It all came down to focus. The 240z had to be stylish and reliable to beat the competition; the 280ZX built on that reliability and style and added aero improvements when they did the chassis redesign. Really nice, subtle use of filling several gaps, adding a chin spoiler, and adding a shallow depression just before the front seam of the hatch just to name a few. NOW the car was one of the slickest ever made in the 80's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soundmasterg Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 The 240Z never had wind tunnel testing before the shape was finalized (who did tunnel testing at all in 1968 for street cars?) and no changes were done to address what it lacked in high speed aerodynamics during the entire 10 year production run. Changes to the 240Z all had to do with bumper/side safety, emissions reductions, some differential placement problems, the advent of unleaded fuel, and increasing engine size just to keep performance from slipping. Counter that scenario with the ZX. The ZX already had the mature driveline available so it spent a lot of time on new chassis optimization. Shape optimization meant that there was a lot of wind tunnel testing on the chassis shape done before the a shape was finalized. Low drag and high speed stability were designed into the car and (other than the turbo and rear disk brakes) was one of the few high points in the entire design. The car is marvelously stable at 120mph in stock form because it was made to do that and Nissan did it well. It all came down to focus. The 240z had to be stylish and reliable to beat the competition; the 280ZX built on that reliability and style and added aero improvements when they did the chassis redesign. Really nice, subtle use of filling several gaps, adding a chin spoiler, and adding a shallow depression just before the front seam of the hatch just to name a few. NOW the car was one of the slickest ever made in the 80's. The weird thing with aerodynamics is that something butt ugly like the Audi 5000 had a drag coefficient of .29 in the 80's, so Nissan could have done better with the ZX I guess. That said, I bet the ZX is more fun to drive...... Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnum380Z Posted July 8, 2009 Author Share Posted July 8, 2009 im loving the responses and the insight ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slownrusty Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 I just drove my ZX Turbo for long periods inexcess of 100mp/h on the Interstate just yesterday going to work and it was solid, car felt like a rock. My S30 felt sold up until 75 - 85mp/h. The ZX has superior brakes, suspension and better balance for sustained long high speed runs...it is the Jag XJS, BMW 6 series or Benz SEC of Japanese Cars. Regards, Yasin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnc Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 I just drove my ZX Turbo for long periods inexcess of 100mp/h on the Interstate just yesterday going to work and it was solid, car felt like a rock. Some would also describe that feeling as: dead, unresponsive, beached. How any of these 30+ year old cars feel at speed has much, much more to do with the condition of the car then anything Nissan engineered. A 1969 240Z with a complete suspension re-do will feel light years better at 120 mph the a beater 1983 280ZXT with three blown shocks and air for suspension bushings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank280zx Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 Some would also describe that feeling as: dead, unresponsive, beached. How any of these 30+ year old cars feel at speed has much, much more to do with the condition of the car then anything Nissan engineered. A 1969 240Z with a complete suspension re-do will feel light years better at 120 mph the a beater 1983 280ZXT with three blown shocks and air for suspension bushings. amen to that ... even stock replacements make all the diffrence .. most cars i have loaded up in the US had worn .. well any bushing and balljoint for that matter ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlatBlack Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 Some would also describe that feeling as: dead, unresponsive, beached. How any of these 30+ year old cars feel at speed has much, much more to do with the condition of the car then anything Nissan engineered. A 1969 240Z with a complete suspension re-do will feel light years better at 120 mph the a beater 1983 280ZXT with three blown shocks and air for suspension bushings. I agree - My 78 S30 feels rock solid up to way over highway speeds, but my 86 Z31 feels "iffy" above 80 [stock suspension with newish shocks]. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m4xwellmurd3r Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 I definitely can tell my Z gets a bit lifty at around 90+ I have no air dam, no bumper, no underpan that the 78's had, and what's more, ALL my bushings are pretty much shot (especially the front right LCA bushing) Going straight, no problem, but I can feel the steering get a little lighter, and the nose does want to wander a bit. I did do a little test. I ran it up to 90+ with the hood fully closed, then while driving at speed, I popped the hood open to vent. Weirdest feeling ever. the steering felt a bit heavier and the nose didn't want to wander so much. But it's still a bit hair raising. I would NOT want to have to turn at anything over 90 in that car at all. and it hits a brick wall at around 85-90. Gets up to 80+ in 3rd pretty quickly, and gets up to 90 in 4th pretty easily, then it just drags and drags and drags before hitting 100 (all indicated. it appears i hit 110 when i indicate 100 though) I think I'm going to make a cheap duct for my radiator and block off the giant basking shark mouth my 78 has. It may not have a fancy airdam, but it may help a bit. eventually I want to install a Gnose with an airdam on it, along with some belly pans. I can definitely tell that these cars didn't have much wind tunnel testing done to them. I've been in cars up to 120mph that felt much more stable than mine. and my buddies New Beetle Turbo S was up to 140+ and was stable enough for him to forget he was doing 140mph. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rolling Parts Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 A 1969 240Z with a complete suspension re-do will feel light years better at 120 mph the a beater 1983 280ZXT with three blown shocks and air for suspension bushings. And just how is that vintage oil burning 1969 2.4L with worn SU's (making 104 rwhp) ever going to even get up to 120mph? Your post hinges on an unfair comparison. Of course a car with mechanical problems that is pushed to 120mph won't feel too happy! I thought that the topic assumed that the cars were at least in decent stock mechanical condition? It's not a real discussion if you have to make a point by throwing in that one car has serious mechanical problems due to poor/bad/zero maintenance... Having owned both cars NEW in my life, I can say that the ZX is much more at home in a high speed cruise at 120-130mph. Having never sold either car, I can say that the 240Z still gets your attention when the nose starts to lift at 85-90 while the ZX actually seems to squat down a bit as speed builds! The heavier and slicker and more powerful ZX wins hands down at high speed sustained interstate driving, the lighter and less powerful 240z wins on just blasting down twisty country roads. They are different cars and that's fine. You can mod the 240Z with better power and better aerodynamics to make it happy at 120mph and you can also strip a ZX and make it nimble and win the SCCA championsip. Like maintenance, modifications can change everything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woldson Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 Some would also describe that feeling as: dead, unresponsive, beached. Even I got to admit that is very funny;)! You start getting above 130, (I did have t-tops off, windows down, 2 persons), the ride starts to deteriorate very quickly. Some time I will have to talk about my single 50ish car pass on that same trip. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rolling Parts Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 You start getting above 130, (I did have t-tops off, windows down, 2 persons), the ride starts to deteriorate very quickly Yea, if you add some gaping holes in the top and sides of the car then I bet it starts to handle poorly at 130. Best I could ever do in a slicktop was burying the the speedo (130mph right up to the trip odometer reset shaft?) but never had GPS or verified the actual speed. It would however do 100-110 all day long and feel great. Personally I did not want uber-responsive steering at 130+ !!! At those speeds it all better be straight line or very close to it. I personally don't desire "twitchy" or "quick" feeling in a car while at high speed. Modern varriable resistance power steering intentionally get less responsive as speed goes up so it's not a bad thing... Speaking of open windows and wind, I seem to remember that the original Nissan ZX (and many imports) cheated on their reported drag coeficients. Also can't prove it but I seem to remember that early imports measured with a more nose-down stance in order to lower their reported numbers. With a 5 dregree lowered nose the numbers looked a lot better (sort of like the early days of reporting engine power at the flywheel with no accessories attached). Great numbers, just not representative in the final product. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboHLS30 Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 theres a guy here in florida with a 2jz in a S30 and he runs 8.70 all day with no air dam on it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowlerMonkey Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 The thing that affects high speed scariness the most on both the S30 and S130 is your toe settings.....at speed. I had a friend who took a pic of my s130 going past at 125mph which allowed me to study the attitude of the car at that speed. Then I went to the alignment rack and duplicated the attitude with strapping and jacking and performed an alignment. Though the car then made lots more noise in underground parking garages and turn in was a lot less crisp (from excessive toe in at low speed), it felt perfectly fine right up to the limiter on a 3.54 geared 280zx turbo with 215/60 tires (proabably over 135) even though I lacked a front spoiler........for that matter....the front valance. If you want good alignment at both high speeds and for ultimate turning, you really need to stiffen up the car to reduce attitude and ride height changes to minimize toe and camber changes through a wide range of conditions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edz280zx Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 Why the hell would you wanna go over 125 mph on the public street??? j/w Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rolling Parts Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 Why the hell would you wanna go over 125 mph on the public street??? j/w Because there were no speed limits on that State Highways at that time I suppose.. You could still ask the question "who the hell would wanna drive across Wyoming at 70mph???" Today, open road speed limits (and driver ability) are so much less GUMBALL! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zxtman Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 The thing that affects high speed scariness the most on both the S30 and S130 is your toe settings.....at speed. I couldn't agree more, assuming the rest of the suspension is up to par. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stationwagonguy Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 its polyurethane i believe, i have had several times where i have hit things/bottomed out so im glad i got urethane instead of fiberglass both have advantages, both depend on how you drive, where you drive, how much you drive pis of a polyurethane airdam on a s30, gotta believe the s130 airdam is worse because its square shape Damn, how fast were you going to make it bend back like that? Haha 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stationwagonguy Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 You could still ask the question "who the hell would wanna drive across Wyoming at 70mph???" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.