Nissan 350z or Peugeot RCZ?
Discussion
Good Evening Fine People,
I’m currently looking for a replacement for my MK3 MX5 and have currently narrowed it down to two cars:
Nissan 350z
Peugeot RCZ
I’m yet to drive either but that’ll change this weekend.
Does anyone have any experience of these cars for a daily driver?
I’ll be using it to commute (dual carriageways etc) so cabin noise could do with being reasonable (less than the MX5 anyway). I’d like it to handle well, have more storage than the Mazda and make a decent noise with an exhaust (Nissan wins that all day long).
Please let’s not add any other suggestions, it’s taken me a year to get here 😂
So which would you say is the better option for a fun daily?
I’m currently looking for a replacement for my MK3 MX5 and have currently narrowed it down to two cars:
Nissan 350z
Peugeot RCZ
I’m yet to drive either but that’ll change this weekend.
Does anyone have any experience of these cars for a daily driver?
I’ll be using it to commute (dual carriageways etc) so cabin noise could do with being reasonable (less than the MX5 anyway). I’d like it to handle well, have more storage than the Mazda and make a decent noise with an exhaust (Nissan wins that all day long).
Please let’s not add any other suggestions, it’s taken me a year to get here 😂
So which would you say is the better option for a fun daily?
I ran a 350z as a daily driver for 4 years. Average mpg was around 25, up to 32 on a run. Room for 2 medium suitcases in the boot and fairly comfy. It is more of a GT than a sports car so very good on a run. Makes a great noise with a different exhaust. No experience of your other choice but just from what I've read I'd be surprised if you preferred it to the nissan.
Servicing was reasonable although road tax was expensive for the post 2007 car, which is the one you want. Some costs are on my profile.
Servicing was reasonable although road tax was expensive for the post 2007 car, which is the one you want. Some costs are on my profile.
Two very different cars, and some will be along to say various unpleasant things about the RCZ but it largely depends on what you want.
They will be frothing to tell you about the fact the "Aldi TT" is so rubbish and not a proper mans RWD car like the 350Z, suspect the RCZ 260 bhp model is on a par performance wise but wont do the 350Z's big daft dog on a polished parquet floor act when its wet.
But the RCZ isnt a bad car, it looks good and is a lot cheaper to run than a 350Z which generally have £500 odd VED and 20 ish mpg. I had a 296 bhp 2007 Roadster and enjoyed it and the RCZ isnt perhaps my kind fo thing but I dont feel the need to slag it off to make a point, quite like them really.
Interiors on both are a bit rubbish, engines can ave issue on the RCZ, cam chain tensioners and stuff, not sure on the specifics but the 350Z engines, save for a few that use oil are largely indestructible.
You need to drive one of each, and perhaps look at the TT and some other stuff.
They will be frothing to tell you about the fact the "Aldi TT" is so rubbish and not a proper mans RWD car like the 350Z, suspect the RCZ 260 bhp model is on a par performance wise but wont do the 350Z's big daft dog on a polished parquet floor act when its wet.
But the RCZ isnt a bad car, it looks good and is a lot cheaper to run than a 350Z which generally have £500 odd VED and 20 ish mpg. I had a 296 bhp 2007 Roadster and enjoyed it and the RCZ isnt perhaps my kind fo thing but I dont feel the need to slag it off to make a point, quite like them really.
Interiors on both are a bit rubbish, engines can ave issue on the RCZ, cam chain tensioners and stuff, not sure on the specifics but the 350Z engines, save for a few that use oil are largely indestructible.
You need to drive one of each, and perhaps look at the TT and some other stuff.
Schmed said:
350z. French cars are s
t.
Absolutely. Go for the 350Z, which shares the same engine as a Renault Espace.t.Having driven both, I would say to go for the 350Z provided that you can live with having just two seats and spending a lot more petrol. It's much more raw than the Pug and I don't think early models are going to get much cheaper than they are already.
If you want four seats and a bit more MPG, you could do a lot worse than the RCZ. The looks are quite divisive, although they've grown on me a lot. They're a good steer too, and the 270bhp R version is seriously rapid, dare I say it faster than a 350Z on a twisty B-road.
Edited by MrGTI6 on Tuesday 4th June 21:33
I have a RCZ. Assume you're looking at the 200bhp one?
I'll echo what's previously been said about the 350z; the RCZ is more of a GT than a sports car. Having said that I came from a MK3 MR2 and wasn't dissapointed with the handling. It's very sure footed... Tackled the Col De Turini in pouring rain at night no problem.
It's incredibly comfy on a long drive... Put 2300 miles on it over the course of the week and had no complaints whatsoever. Interior quality also feels very good; it's well put together.
It's very refined, can comfortably sit at 80/90 all day long. Also surprisingly practical and the rear seats are big enough to get people in (probably no taller than 5 8' mind) for short journeys. Can also be out down for a surprisingly decent load space.
Sadly getting rid of mine as only hitting 30mpg due to a change in commute. Saying that I've averaged 44mog on a 120 mile motorway run.
I'll echo what's previously been said about the 350z; the RCZ is more of a GT than a sports car. Having said that I came from a MK3 MR2 and wasn't dissapointed with the handling. It's very sure footed... Tackled the Col De Turini in pouring rain at night no problem.
It's incredibly comfy on a long drive... Put 2300 miles on it over the course of the week and had no complaints whatsoever. Interior quality also feels very good; it's well put together.
It's very refined, can comfortably sit at 80/90 all day long. Also surprisingly practical and the rear seats are big enough to get people in (probably no taller than 5 8' mind) for short journeys. Can also be out down for a surprisingly decent load space.
Sadly getting rid of mine as only hitting 30mpg due to a change in commute. Saying that I've averaged 44mog on a 120 mile motorway run.
I had a 350Z back in 2007 as my daily, ran it for 4 years, covered 80k in it and loved every minute of it. I still miss it, the V6 3.5 is a peach of an engine, especially with a K&N CAI. I've also owned a 370Z and I still say the 350Z was loads better. Just look out for rust on any early models. Can't vouch for the RCZ, was never a fan tbh.
I've got a 370Z Roadster as a weekend car and if I'm honest I wouldn't really want it as a daily. The clutch/gearbox are quite wearing(enjoyable to use but not especially relaxing). With its modified exhaust its noisy(great for having fun/drone central on a long run!). So not the ideal daily for me and from what I've read the 350Z(had a short test drive in one) is even more mechanical to drive than the 370Z.
Funnily enough I've seen three RCZ's today and everyone turned my head and it is a car that I've always really liked. I've not driven one but I would imagine it to be a better all round daily than the 350Z.
Funnily enough I've seen three RCZ's today and everyone turned my head and it is a car that I've always really liked. I've not driven one but I would imagine it to be a better all round daily than the 350Z.
I’d have thought the RCZ would make a better daily. They look great and go as well as most hot hatches of similar ilk will.
The 350z is arguably a more special car. But likely going to feel a bit more hardcore to use everyday. It may be more GT than outright sports car. But it’s IMO a rung up from the Pug.
The 350z is arguably a more special car. But likely going to feel a bit more hardcore to use everyday. It may be more GT than outright sports car. But it’s IMO a rung up from the Pug.
J4CKO said:
They will be frothing to tell you about the fact the "Aldi TT" is so rubbish and not a proper mans RWD car like the 350Z,
my problems with the TT (the generations op will be looking at) are the heavy understeer from having the engine so far forward, the lack of feel from the chassis/steering and the on/off brake pedal.plenty of inspired fwd cars of similar vintage.
J4CKO said:
Two very different cars, and some will be along to say various unpleasant things about the RCZ but it largely depends on what you want.
They will be frothing to tell you about the fact the "Aldi TT" is so rubbish and not a proper mans RWD car like the 350Z, suspect the RCZ 260 bhp model is on a par performance wise but wont do the 350Z's big daft dog on a polished parquet floor act when its wet.
But the RCZ isnt a bad car, it looks good and is a lot cheaper to run than a 350Z which generally have £500 odd VED and 20 ish mpg. I had a 296 bhp 2007 Roadster and enjoyed it and the RCZ isnt perhaps my kind fo thing but I dont feel the need to slag it off to make a point, quite like them really.
Interiors on both are a bit rubbish, engines can ave issue on the RCZ, cam chain tensioners and stuff, not sure on the specifics but the 350Z engines, save for a few that use oil are largely indestructible.
You need to drive one of each, and perhaps look at the TT and some other stuff.
Spot on... let’s face it - if the RCZ had 4 rings on the bonnet everyone would be saying how well Audi had updated the styling on the ‘new’ TT. However - I would be worried about French v Japanese build quality - friend at work had RCZ which is now (3 years old) causing major issues mechanically. Never had a 350z but did have an S2000 for 5 years - faultless..They will be frothing to tell you about the fact the "Aldi TT" is so rubbish and not a proper mans RWD car like the 350Z, suspect the RCZ 260 bhp model is on a par performance wise but wont do the 350Z's big daft dog on a polished parquet floor act when its wet.
But the RCZ isnt a bad car, it looks good and is a lot cheaper to run than a 350Z which generally have £500 odd VED and 20 ish mpg. I had a 296 bhp 2007 Roadster and enjoyed it and the RCZ isnt perhaps my kind fo thing but I dont feel the need to slag it off to make a point, quite like them really.
Interiors on both are a bit rubbish, engines can ave issue on the RCZ, cam chain tensioners and stuff, not sure on the specifics but the 350Z engines, save for a few that use oil are largely indestructible.
You need to drive one of each, and perhaps look at the TT and some other stuff.
CABC said:
my problems with the TT (the generations op will be looking at) are the heavy understeer from having the engine so far forward, the lack of feel from the chassis/steering and the on/off brake pedal.
plenty of inspired fwd cars of similar vintage.
Come on, this is just another rehash of an over the top Clarkson comment on the RS6(iirc) , I'l give you the brake pedal though, ridiculously sharp, it feels like you achieve 85% of braking force with 20% pedal travel. plenty of inspired fwd cars of similar vintage.
A TT quattro has a weight distribution of 60/40 F/R which is better than the RCZ at 64/36 and hardly miles away from the 350Z at around 53/47
This is an interesting topic for me as I've had extensive use of mk1 & 2 Audi TT+TTS models, have been in a 308GTI but not a RCZ and quite fancy a Nissan 350Z.
aka_kerrly said:
This is an interesting topic for me as I've had extensive use of mk1 & 2 Audi TT+TTS models, have been in a 308GTI but not a RCZ and quite fancy a Nissan 350Z.
I'm pretty bias because I have a 370Z but I've also had a mk2 TTS, so for me if you fancy a 350Z I would recommend that you go for it for sure! 
I've never driven an RCZ but they do look pretty good, and the reviews at the time said it was a competent car. I remember when they first came out - it looked out of this world and very striking. Probably the first desirable Pug in many years. Pretty exclusive too, I rarely see them.
I owned a 350Z for about 4 years, so am a bit more qualified to comment:
Pros
- Looked good (imo), even now they turn heads
- The UK cars' exhausts were pretty decent as standard
- Well equipped (get a GT trim level): Bose, heated leather, Rays 18" alloys and a host of other stuff
- Drove well, I found mine was decidedly surefooted and an excellent cruiser. Handling wasn't the last word in excitement but decent turn-in and lots of feel through the steering wheel
- Felt very analogue (positive for the PH purists), RWD, heavy clutch, steering and a very reassuring gear change from the manual box
- Not too bad on running costs: tax was cheap (pre '06), servicing was peanuts (bar the P3 I think), insurance was cheap and fuel economy was surprisingly decent, but by no means is it frugal. 80L tank helped keep the fill ups down to a minimum.
Cons
- Hugely impractical - 2 seats obviously, and a boot which was obscured by a strut brace meaning you couldn't get bulky items in
- Headlights were a joke. Xenons but really made night time driving a chore
- Interior was cheap and plasticky
- Firm ride
- Generally unrefined and droney exhaust meant long journeys were a bit tiring
- Paint quality wasn't the best - also think there might have been rust or corrosion problems with some
- Common faults include faulty window motors, Bose speakers failing, a clicky axle
It's been a while since I owned it so some of the things I've said may not be 100% applicable, but all in all I thought it was a great car and looked good in grey with the Rays alloys.
I owned a 350Z for about 4 years, so am a bit more qualified to comment:
Pros
- Looked good (imo), even now they turn heads
- The UK cars' exhausts were pretty decent as standard
- Well equipped (get a GT trim level): Bose, heated leather, Rays 18" alloys and a host of other stuff
- Drove well, I found mine was decidedly surefooted and an excellent cruiser. Handling wasn't the last word in excitement but decent turn-in and lots of feel through the steering wheel
- Felt very analogue (positive for the PH purists), RWD, heavy clutch, steering and a very reassuring gear change from the manual box
- Not too bad on running costs: tax was cheap (pre '06), servicing was peanuts (bar the P3 I think), insurance was cheap and fuel economy was surprisingly decent, but by no means is it frugal. 80L tank helped keep the fill ups down to a minimum.
Cons
- Hugely impractical - 2 seats obviously, and a boot which was obscured by a strut brace meaning you couldn't get bulky items in
- Headlights were a joke. Xenons but really made night time driving a chore
- Interior was cheap and plasticky
- Firm ride
- Generally unrefined and droney exhaust meant long journeys were a bit tiring
- Paint quality wasn't the best - also think there might have been rust or corrosion problems with some
- Common faults include faulty window motors, Bose speakers failing, a clicky axle
It's been a while since I owned it so some of the things I've said may not be 100% applicable, but all in all I thought it was a great car and looked good in grey with the Rays alloys.
I can’t comment on the RCZ, but have owned my 350Z for five years, three as a daily.
I’ll broadly agree with the above points, but I never found driving it as a daily a chore. Yes the steering, clutch and gear change are heavy but for me this is the appeal of them. The clutch can be a little tiring in heavy traffic but it’s not something that would put me off.
Look at the later HR cars as they are generally the pick with a more powerful engine and a much improved interior (shared with the Rev-Up DE cars). They also hold their value better. Tax is a kick in the plums but versus the earlier cars we’re taking £300 more which isn’t much spread across the year.
Be very particular about the cars you view. Many, if not most, have been poorly modified/maintained by now. They are cheap enough to buy but still command some eye watering maintenance costs which people can cheap out on. Look carefully for rust around the rear arches as they are prone.
They’re wonderful cars, however I suspect the RCZ may be more refined and is certainly more modern. Go have a drive if both and you will see that they are probably chalk and cheese.
I’ll broadly agree with the above points, but I never found driving it as a daily a chore. Yes the steering, clutch and gear change are heavy but for me this is the appeal of them. The clutch can be a little tiring in heavy traffic but it’s not something that would put me off.
Look at the later HR cars as they are generally the pick with a more powerful engine and a much improved interior (shared with the Rev-Up DE cars). They also hold their value better. Tax is a kick in the plums but versus the earlier cars we’re taking £300 more which isn’t much spread across the year.
Be very particular about the cars you view. Many, if not most, have been poorly modified/maintained by now. They are cheap enough to buy but still command some eye watering maintenance costs which people can cheap out on. Look carefully for rust around the rear arches as they are prone.
They’re wonderful cars, however I suspect the RCZ may be more refined and is certainly more modern. Go have a drive if both and you will see that they are probably chalk and cheese.
Gassing Station | Car Buying | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff