Early 350Z v Late 350Z v Early 370Z

[TameRacingDriver]

Hi all. I'm the ex-owner of a modified 350Z Roadster, currently in an MX5, but seriously thinking about coming back to the Z, though most likely a Coupe this time.

Not sure which route to take though. Essentially, I'm after the car for much the same reasons as most, the GT-like capabilities, the noise, drama and character etc, which even the cheapest Z can deliver.

Because of how often I change cars, I don't want anything that will still depreciate, I'm done losing a few grand just because I'm bored. With that said, I see 3 options, bearing in mind my MX5 is worth about £5k-£6k tops: -

An early 350Z or the revised 296 bhp model are the cheapest points of entry. If lucky you could get a decent one for £5-£6k. The later model features the high VED.

A late 350Z HR would be nice but they seem to be more expensive than some early 370Zs which are now appearing for sub £10k in places. The 370Z certainly appears to have more than a few worthwhile upgrades, but they might still have some depreciating to do just like the 350Z before it became older/rarer.

Any thoughts on which way to go? For me, a cheap 350Z can deliver on the key traits of character, sense of occasion, noise etc. A 370Z looks and feels more modern, is faster etc. I really like both so I'm just trying to get the most bang for my buck.

[cerb4.5lee]

cerb4.5lee said:

Currently I've lost about £3.5k on my 370Z Roadster over 4 years(paid £13.5k for it), but the Roadster does seem to depreciate more heavy than the Coupe though. Plus I think that both the 370Z Coupe and Roadster will keep depreciating more as well as you say.

So if you're trying to avoid depreciation then I think that going for the 350Z is the best bet. Also from what I've seen(but I'm not an expert) if anything the 350Z is actually starting to appreciate a bit for the nice ones too.

It would be good for you to try a 370Z I reckon though, because then at least you get to try something similar to the 350Z, but still a little bit different too.

I just thought that I'd add in my reply from the other thread TRD.

[RATATTAK]

I had a 2004 350Z DE from new and I would probably still have it today if my local garage hadn't killed it. If I considered going back to a Nissan Z, I would look look for a low mileage, UK original, 2007+ HR car in Midnight Blue.

[300bhp/ton]

Just had a look at 370z on Autotrader. Most of the cheap ones seem to be automatic convertibles.

And nearly all of them are in dreadfully boring colours. I guess if you want a white, black or silver one you have some choice. But if you want a blue or yellow one.....

[Shifter1]

TameRacingDriver said:

Essentially, I'm after the car for much the same reasons as most, the GT-like capabilities

I often hear this. Do people really see the 350Z as a GT? To me it is like a Japanese Camaro or Mustang. So not a GT at all. None of them have the finish or comfort to be a GT. The Comfort is the main point of a GT really. It's what makes the car a GT. Otherwise it's just a cheap performance 2 door car. So I'm always at a loss when I see the 350Z, 370Z, RX8 and a few others referred to as GT.

Back to your original question, given your needs/wants, the answer is clear IMO. Early 350Z, 370Z, late 350Z, in that order. But if you liked the 350Z and don't want to lose more money, early 350Z is a non brainer.

[TameRacingDriver]

cerb4.5lee said:

I just thought that I'd add in my reply from the other thread TRD.

Thanks Lee

RATATTAK said:

I had a 2004 350Z DE from new and I would probably still have it today if my local garage hadn't killed it. If I considered going back to a Nissan Z, I would look look for a low mileage, UK original, 2007+ HR car in Midnight Blue.

I remember that thread. Heartbreaking. I've never heard of another Z having such a catastrophic failure and all because the dealer screwing up.

300bhp/ton said:

Just had a look at 370z on Autotrader. Most of the cheap ones seem to be automatic convertibles.

And nearly all of them are in dreadfully boring colours. I guess if you want a white, black or silver one you have some choice. But if you want a blue or yellow one.....

Yeah I've noticed that. I found cheaper ones on eBay, manuals but still dull colours, I can live with grey I guess, with a suitably darkened wheel colour they can still look pretty cool I reckon.

Shifter1 said:

I often hear this. Do people really see the 350Z as a GT? To me it is like a Japanese Camaro or Mustang. So not a GT at all. None of them have the finish or comfort to be a GT. The Comfort is the main point of a GT really. It's what makes the car a GT. Otherwise it's just a cheap performance 2 door car. So I'm always at a loss when I see the 350Z, 370Z, RX8 and a few others referred to as GT.

Back to your original question, given your needs/wants, the answer is clear IMO. Early 350Z, 370Z, late 350Z, in that order. But if you liked the 350Z and don't want to lose more money, early 350Z is a non brainer.

I guess I'm just repeating what others say about it but my old 350ZR was a very pleasant companion to take on a long journey. However, if you dare call it a sports car then people get upset with that as well let's just call it a Z-car or sports coupe

Yeah the early 350Z makes the most sense when you think about it although they're getting surprisingly rare now.

The other wildcard of course is the other Z, the BMW Z4 Coupe (which I also owned, but an auto, would have to be a manual this time).

[ChrisH72]

I've always liked the Z cars being a bit of a Jap fan.

This one is particularly lovely..

http://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/2022100103...

Although I appreciate you're not spending that much!

The Z4 coupe gets a lot of positive comments on here too and they do look amazing.

Have you considered the later E89 Z4 3.0?

http://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/2023011332...

You can still have the roof open like the mx5.

[TameRacingDriver]

ChrisH72 said:

I've always liked the Z cars being a bit of a Jap fan.

This one is particularly lovely..

http://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/2022100103...

Although I appreciate you're not spending that much!

The Z4 coupe gets a lot of positive comments on here too and they do look amazing.

Have you considered the later E89 Z4 3.0?

http://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/2023011332...

You can still have the roof open like the mx5.

That 350z is far too much ££££ but it does look very nice I agree for a few grand more if I wanted to spend that much I could be in a 370z nismo and that would truly be a no brainer for me.

I have actually thought about the Z4 e89 but it would have to be a 35i variant as they're quite heavy and I imagine an n52 would not feel as sprightly in that as it does in an e86. They are however very nice looking cars for sure.

[coldel]

I wont repeat either my views on the Z4C haha, thats been done to death in other threads. Its a cracking car though, I think it beats the 350z I owned side by side on lots of attributes. I would take it over a 350z.

In terms of the question of a GT car, the 350z was designed for the American market as a GT car to tackle the miles but also be a bit muscle. But its no V8 and that was a big thing back then for the US market so it sat nicely in the GT space, and the RX8 is a completely different beast, lighter chuckable and revvy whereas the 350z is a heavier cruiser that doesnt rev but uses the torque to generate the pace.

I think if you want something that looks a bit classic and will hold value the 350z, I think the 370z have a little bit more to fall but to be honest you will spend more in petrol than what you lose in value of the car. The 350z interior was pretty dated when it launched, its very old now, it feels it. I would definitely be going for the HR engine too over an earlier DE or revup. Just make sure oil gallery gaskets are done.

[Shifter1]

TameRacingDriver said:

I guess I'm just repeating what others say about it but my old 350ZR was a very pleasant companion to take on a long journey. However, if you dare call it a sports car then people get upset with that as well let's just call it a Z-car or sports coupe

Yeah the early 350Z makes the most sense when you think about it although they're getting surprisingly rare now.

The other wildcard of course is the other Z, the BMW Z4 Coupe (which I also owned, but an auto, would have to be a manual this time).

I know what you mean. Calling it a sports car will get all sorts of people jumping in to tell you it doesn't handle like one etc. The thing here is GT has come to mean, somehow, how a car handles or be used to define how a car drives rather than the real definition of GT. GT is not that. A Ferrari F12 will have many saying it handles like a sports car and calling it one. While others will say it's a GT. Because GT is not a handling level. GT is just a luxury car, with normally 2 doors and some sport pretentions. But I see where things get clouded.

So the best way to define the 350Z is a sports car, if you think of it. In the same vein the Z4 coupe is. It's just a heavy sports car. Some will say there is no such a thing and a heavy sports car is a GT. But only if it's luxurious enough thought. Then it doesn't even need to be a sports car, of course. But honestly the 350Z is a 2 seater and sporty. It's a sports car. Good or bad but it's one. I think it's the best definition for it.

I would be inclined in going with the Z4 coupe. Since neither is the last word in speed and handling, I think the Z4 sounds better at least and is more rare. Looks is in the eyes of the beholder of course. I like both, apart from their front ends.

[Lexmaster]

The early Z's are most likely the best value for money. I had an 04 a couple of years ago and my brother still has his HR Z. The driving experience is not that different, the HR gives you an additional 1k rpm to play with, but it's still not that rev happy tbh.
Revised gearbox synchros, bi-xenon headlights and some other minor changes are nice to have though and the people that switched from the 350 to the 370 seem to be really happy with their choice as well.
From a depreciation and value for money perspective, i would go with an early Z, but since you already had a 350, i would take a look and test drive a 370.

[Shifter1]

coldel said:

In terms of the question of a GT car, the 350z was designed for the American market as a GT car to tackle the miles but also be a bit muscle. But its no V8 and that was a big thing back then for the US market so it sat nicely in the GT space, and the RX8 is a completely different beast, lighter chuckable and revvy whereas the 350z is a heavier cruiser that doesnt rev but uses the torque to generate the pace.

I see where you are coming from. But a cruiser is not really the definition of a proper GT. You could say a luxury cruiser is. But even that is not really. A GT, the original definition, involved some brawn and sport pretentiousness. But with luxury! A cruiser doesn't necessary need to be sporty. Probably 2 very similar types of cars, but with enough differences. A cruiser will normally be waffly. A GT not. Not as hard as a sports car. But not as soft either. A few other things I guess.

When I think of a cruiser I think RR Wraith or Cadillac Eldorado. When I think GT I think Astons.

Fine line or even semantics for some. Still fun to discuss on a car forum.

[cerb4.5lee]

Shifter1 said:

TameRacingDriver said:

I guess I'm just repeating what others say about it but my old 350ZR was a very pleasant companion to take on a long journey. However, if you dare call it a sports car then people get upset with that as well let's just call it a Z-car or sports coupe

Yeah the early 350Z makes the most sense when you think about it although they're getting surprisingly rare now.

The other wildcard of course is the other Z, the BMW Z4 Coupe (which I also owned, but an auto, would have to be a manual this time).

I know what you mean. Calling it a sports car will get all sorts of people jumping in to tell you it doesn't handle like one etc. The thing here is GT has come to mean, somehow, how a car handles or be used to define how a car drives rather than the real definition of GT. GT is not that. A Ferrari F12 will have many saying it handles like a sports car and calling it one. While others will say it's a GT. Because GT is not a handling level. GT is just a luxury car, with normally 2 doors and some sport pretentions. But I see where things get clouded.

So the best way to define the 350Z is a sports car, if you think of it. In the same vein the Z4 coupe is. It's just a heavy sports car. Some will say there is no such a thing and a heavy sports car is a GT. But only if it's luxurious enough thought. Then it doesn't even need to be a sports car, of course. But honestly the 350Z is a 2 seater and sporty. It's a sports car. Good or bad but it's one. I think it's the best definition for it.

I would be inclined in going with the Z4 coupe. Since neither is the last word in speed and handling, I think the Z4 sounds better at least and is more rare. Looks is in the eyes of the beholder of course. I like both, apart from their front ends.

I've always classed my 370Z as a GT mainly because of the weight(versus stuff like the 200SX/GT86 etc), plus as TRD says if you call it a Sports car on here everyone will throw their toys out of the pram!

The 350Z/370Z do sit in a bit of an odd place I reckon. I used to have a F13 640d M Sport Coupe and that felt like a proper GT car to me(it would've been even better with the petrol V8 under its bonnet too). However the 370Z is miles better than that was for me in terms of its handling/ride and being thrown into corners. The 640d basically hated corners, whereas the the 370Z laps them up in comparison.

The great thing with the 370Z is that you can grab it by the scruff of the neck if you wish and it will get on with it(throw it into bends etc), but generally I do tend to cruise more in it, and I enjoy the revs occasionally rather than drive it flat out everywhere.

[Shifter1]

cerb4.5lee said:

Shifter1 said:

TameRacingDriver said:

I guess I'm just repeating what others say about it but my old 350ZR was a very pleasant companion to take on a long journey. However, if you dare call it a sports car then people get upset with that as well let's just call it a Z-car or sports coupe

Yeah the early 350Z makes the most sense when you think about it although they're getting surprisingly rare now.

The other wildcard of course is the other Z, the BMW Z4 Coupe (which I also owned, but an auto, would have to be a manual this time).

I know what you mean. Calling it a sports car will get all sorts of people jumping in to tell you it doesn't handle like one etc. The thing here is GT has come to mean, somehow, how a car handles or be used to define how a car drives rather than the real definition of GT. GT is not that. A Ferrari F12 will have many saying it handles like a sports car and calling it one. While others will say it's a GT. Because GT is not a handling level. GT is just a luxury car, with normally 2 doors and some sport pretentions. But I see where things get clouded.

So the best way to define the 350Z is a sports car, if you think of it. In the same vein the Z4 coupe is. It's just a heavy sports car. Some will say there is no such a thing and a heavy sports car is a GT. But only if it's luxurious enough thought. Then it doesn't even need to be a sports car, of course. But honestly the 350Z is a 2 seater and sporty. It's a sports car. Good or bad but it's one. I think it's the best definition for it.

I would be inclined in going with the Z4 coupe. Since neither is the last word in speed and handling, I think the Z4 sounds better at least and is more rare. Looks is in the eyes of the beholder of course. I like both, apart from their front ends.

I've always classed my 370Z as a GT mainly because of the weight(versus stuff like the 200SX/GT86 etc), plus as TRD says if you call it a Sports car on here everyone will throw their toys out of the pram!

The 350Z/370Z do sit in a bit of an odd place I reckon. I used to have a F13 640d M Sport Coupe and that felt like a proper GT car to me(it would've been even better with the petrol V8 under its bonnet too). However the 370Z is miles better than that was for me in terms of its handling/ride and being thrown into corners. The 640d basically hated corners, whereas the the 370Z laps them up in comparison.

The great thing with the 370Z is that you can grab it by the scruff of the neck if you wish and it will get on with it(throw it into bends etc), but generally I do tend to cruise more in it, and I enjoy the revs occasionally rather than drive it flat out everywhere.

I think the main problem is everything went south once the internet took over. So you will see people saying a 350Z or 370Z are not sports cars, but then see others saying a Giulia Q, M3, M4 and even a Mustang or Camaro are all sports cars, when they are actually not.

I would say a 6-series is definitely a proper GT.

But the definitions are basically worth nothing anymore with internet hearsay, combined with carmakers marketing departments distorting everything to help push sales.

The original definition of GT normally also included a slippery or streamlined body. Makes sense as it's better if it's aerodynamic to cruise in high speeds through the continent. But these days they have enough power and tech to push any brick to go fast enough.

[coldel]

Shifter1 said:

I see where you are coming from. But a cruiser is not really the definition of a proper GT. You could say a luxury cruiser is. But even that is not really. A GT, the original definition, involved some brawn and sport pretentiousness. But with luxury! A cruiser doesn't necessary need to be sporty. Probably 2 very similar types of cars, but with enough differences. A cruiser will normally be waffly. A GT not. Not as hard as a sports car. But not as soft either. A few other things I guess.

When I think of a cruiser I think RR Wraith or Cadillac Eldorado. When I think GT I think Astons.

Fine line or even semantics for some. Still fun to discuss on a car forum.

The 350z had heated seats, a great long distance driving position, etc. you have to bear in mind the design of it is now over 20 years old. Im sure compared to other GT cars of that era it was relatively luxurious.

[coldel]

coldel said:

Shifter1 said:

I see where you are coming from. But a cruiser is not really the definition of a proper GT. You could say a luxury cruiser is. But even that is not really. A GT, the original definition, involved some brawn and sport pretentiousness. But with luxury! A cruiser doesn't necessary need to be sporty. Probably 2 very similar types of cars, but with enough differences. A cruiser will normally be waffly. A GT not. Not as hard as a sports car. But not as soft either. A few other things I guess.

When I think of a cruiser I think RR Wraith or Cadillac Eldorado. When I think GT I think Astons.

Fine line or even semantics for some. Still fun to discuss on a car forum.

The 350z had heated seats, a great long distance driving position, etc. you have to bear in mind the design of it is now over 20 years old. Im sure compared to other GT cars of that era it was relatively luxurious. And GT isnt just luxury, its from italian for Gran Turismo which means to do miles but i a sporty fashion with a bit of luxury thrown in. The 350z for its time, did that.

[300bhp/ton]

coldel said:

Shifter1 said:

I see where you are coming from. But a cruiser is not really the definition of a proper GT. You could say a luxury cruiser is. But even that is not really. A GT, the original definition, involved some brawn and sport pretentiousness. But with luxury! A cruiser doesn't necessary need to be sporty. Probably 2 very similar types of cars, but with enough differences. A cruiser will normally be waffly. A GT not. Not as hard as a sports car. But not as soft either. A few other things I guess.

When I think of a cruiser I think RR Wraith or Cadillac Eldorado. When I think GT I think Astons.

Fine line or even semantics for some. Still fun to discuss on a car forum.

The 350z had heated seats, a great long distance driving position, etc. you have to bear in mind the design of it is now over 20 years old. Im sure compared to other GT cars of that era it was relatively luxurious.

I think it is sometimes a very thin and blurred line on what is or isn't a GT car....

MGB GT for instance is just a coupe version of the roadster. I wouldn't say any more luxury. Although I guess long distance the coupe was probably quieter and had more luggage space. Same with the Triumph GT6, clearly GT in the name. But just as raw and sporty as a TR6 or Spitfire.

When you get to something like a Jag XJ-S/XK8 or a big Aston Martin I think GT is more clearly defined in something that has sporting intentions but continent crossing ability and can waft along with the best of them.

I suspect with the 370z it only gets lumped as GT due to slightly heavier steering and curb weight. But it weighs less than many a modern supercar. Also in the UK market there really was nothing to directly compare it too.

[Shifter1]

coldel said:

coldel said:

Shifter1 said:

I see where you are coming from. But a cruiser is not really the definition of a proper GT. You could say a luxury cruiser is. But even that is not really. A GT, the original definition, involved some brawn and sport pretentiousness. But with luxury! A cruiser doesn't necessary need to be sporty. Probably 2 very similar types of cars, but with enough differences. A cruiser will normally be waffly. A GT not. Not as hard as a sports car. But not as soft either. A few other things I guess.

When I think of a cruiser I think RR Wraith or Cadillac Eldorado. When I think GT I think Astons.

Fine line or even semantics for some. Still fun to discuss on a car forum.

The 350z had heated seats, a great long distance driving position, etc. you have to bear in mind the design of it is now over 20 years old. Im sure compared to other GT cars of that era it was relatively luxurious. And GT isnt just luxury, its from italian for Gran Turismo which means to do miles but i a sporty fashion with a bit of luxury thrown in. The 350z for its time, did that.

I have a friend who has leather heated seats in his SSangyong, which he uses in his farm.

I would disagree the 350Z kept up with proper GTs of its time. I'm sure a XKR, BMW 6 etc are all way above it.

Exactly, the definition is a long distance driver which can go fast, a bit sporty and luxurious. The luxury must be there for the long distances. so it's an important part of it. It doesn't need to be ultra luxurious like a Bentley or Rolls Royce. But the 350Z just falls too short with the cheap materials and budget interior. Leather doesn't really mean luxury anymore and hasn't for a few decades now. So many cheap cars have leather. Tiburon, Camaro, Mustang, the list goes on.

[Shifter1]

300bhp/ton said:

coldel said:

Shifter1 said:

I see where you are coming from. But a cruiser is not really the definition of a proper GT. You could say a luxury cruiser is. But even that is not really. A GT, the original definition, involved some brawn and sport pretentiousness. But with luxury! A cruiser doesn't necessary need to be sporty. Probably 2 very similar types of cars, but with enough differences. A cruiser will normally be waffly. A GT not. Not as hard as a sports car. But not as soft either. A few other things I guess.

When I think of a cruiser I think RR Wraith or Cadillac Eldorado. When I think GT I think Astons.

Fine line or even semantics for some. Still fun to discuss on a car forum.

The 350z had heated seats, a great long distance driving position, etc. you have to bear in mind the design of it is now over 20 years old. Im sure compared to other GT cars of that era it was relatively luxurious.

I think it is sometimes a very thin and blurred line on what is or isn't a GT car....

MGB GT for instance is just a coupe version of the roadster. I wouldn't say any more luxury. Although I guess long distance the coupe was probably quieter and had more luggage space. Same with the Triumph GT6, clearly GT in the name. But just as raw and sporty as a TR6 or Spitfire.

When you get to something like a Jag XJ-S/XK8 or a big Aston Martin I think GT is more clearly defined in something that has sporting intentions but continent crossing ability and can waft along with the best of them.

I suspect with the 370z it only gets lumped as GT due to slightly heavier steering and curb weight. But it weighs less than many a modern supercar. Also in the UK market there really was nothing to directly compare it too.

I agree. And the line gets even more blurred by the carmakers themselves. The GT letters on model names mean absolutely nothing. Probably never have. How many would see a Golf GTi as a proper GT? Or the countless small, cheap cars with GT slapped on the name?

[coldel]

Shifter1 said:

I have a friend who has leather heated seats in his SSangyong, which he uses in his farm.

I would disagree the 350Z kept up with proper GTs of its time. I'm sure a XKR, BMW 6 etc are all way above it.

Exactly, the definition is a long distance driver which can go fast, a bit sporty and luxurious. The luxury must be there for the long distances. so it's an important part of it. It doesn't need to be ultra luxurious like a Bentley or Rolls Royce. But the 350Z just falls too short with the cheap materials and budget interior. Leather doesn't really mean luxury anymore and hasn't for a few decades now. So many cheap cars have leather. Tiburon, Camaro, Mustang, the list goes on.

Its a car that can do miles but does it sporty and has a bit of luxury, it does not have to be luxurious. The sportiness bit seems to have a bigger priority over the luxury bit as well. As defined by the italians that coined the phrase.

Anyway happy to agree to disagree on this one. Not to detract from the point of the thread

Anyway