Nissan 350z

There is a lot that can be said about Nissan's Z Car lineup. The Z has always been a staple in the budget performance market, often unrivaled. Car and Driver said it best in reference to the 240z: "it drove so well and was built so well that it elevated consumers’ expectations for all sports cars. It was a better Datsun—and Nissan—that would eventually inspire better Porsches, better Corvettes, and better Jaguars." That same statement remains true throughout the Z car's lifespan, from the 240z, to the 300zx, all the way up to the most recent 370z.

The 350z was similar to earlier Z cars in that it offered excitement for the everyday driver. As a huge Corvette enthusiast, I always somewhat balked at people claiming the Corvette offered cheap performance. While it's relatively cheap compared to the performance you get, a new Corvette cost anywhere from $45,000 to $55,000 back in 2003, while the Nissan started at just $26,000. Sure, the Corvette offers more performance, but $20,000 is A LOT of price difference. Sure, there are many other new cars that can provide some fun for a similar price (the Focus and Fiesta ST, or the Golf GTI) but those aren't true rear wheel drive sports cars. That, is what give the Nissan the crown for king of the blue collar sports car performance.

From the outside, the Z is a true stunner. On more than one occasion people asked me if it was a Porsche, one even stating "That's the best looking Porsche I've ever seen!" The car grabs attention from everyone with its wide hips and smooth, rounded curves. One of the best features of the 350z is that there are no bad angles. The front, rear, and side profile are all aesthetically pleasing and well proportioned.

On the inside, the 350z has a very nice looking cockpit. The quality of material is, as to be expected for the price, questionable at best. Seats in the Z are very comfortable, and do a great job holding the driver tight during hard corners. The gauge layout is among the best in terms of practicality. In dead center lies the tachometer, which is very important considering how quickly the VQ35 can rev. More than once when I first got in the car I found myself bouncing off the limiter in first gear, because the car keeps pulling so quickly to redline. To the right of the tachometer is a speedometer, and to the left smaller gauges for fuel level and coolant temperature.

Perhaps the most useful set of gauges is the set in the center of the dash directly above the radio. These gauges had me spoiled after 5 minutes of driving. On the far right is a voltage gauge. Useful and neat, but not incredibly important to most people (hence most vehicles just come with a battery light, no gauge.) The center gauge shows a nice analog oil pressure readout. Given the performance oriented nature of the car, and the fact that many (read: all) early VQ35's had a slight oil consumption problem, this is a mandatory gauge. Sadly, the oil pressure sensor likes to fail, pegging the gauge on maximum, which will cause a mild panic attack the first time it happens. The final gauge is the most important. It's a digital multi-gauge which can display speed, temperature, tire pressure, shift-light settings, lap timer, and a couple fuel economy monitors. Virtually none of these are important besides the speed indicator, which displays the speed at a perfect height to be out of the way, but easy to see.

With 287 horsepower, the Z is no slouch. The VQ makes plenty of torque at all parts of the rev range, yet still manages to provide that nice high strung rev-happy feeling that a lot of modern V8's and turbo cars lack. The engine revs seriously quickly, a lazy shift will slam you up against the rev limiter so hard you feel like rear-ended the Mustang in front of you. It's not as quick revving as a motorcycle, but it sure feels close. This characteristic also makes the car feel a lot quicker than it actually is. Low 14/High 13 second 1/4 mile times aren't particularly impressive, but the uninformed driver would likely believe this car is quite a bit faster than it actually is.

The main problem with the Z is its handling. The Z is supposed to be a proper handling sports car, but in stock form it simply isn't. Sure, there's a fair amount of grip and a nice feeling turn in, but pushed even remotely hard it simply wants to under-steer and scrub off tons of speed. I've driven front wheel drive cars that felt more neutral at the limit. The result is generally either being in a gear much too high for accelerating out of the corner, or feeling like you need to approach each turn much slower than the turn in makes you feel like you can. For a car with such good turn in, the mushy under-steer ruins any sense of a proper handling car.

Overall, Nissan created yet another parts-bin performance machine. While I truly like the Z, and owned one for several years, its inevitable flaw is that it really is a compromised car. With suspension and tire modifications I have no doubt the car could be a world class performer, but in stock form it leaves too much out of the mix. There isn't enough power to be a straight-line monster, there interior isn't nice enough to be a luxury tourer, and the under-steer kills any sense of a car that can be tossed into corners.

By all means, the Z still fills a niche market in the performance world. It's a car that provides a lot of grins for the average person while stock, and has plenty of potential for aftermarket improvements. The handling characteristics below the limit are phenomenal: great turn in, excellent feedback, and an easy to use rev-range. The problem only presents itself when pushed close to the limit of grip, which is vastly exaggerated in wet weather, perhaps even more-so than its competitors. For the price, though, there isn't anything that provides a better daily-drivable fun car. Fuel economy and reliability are on par with most any other modern Nissan, considering they use many of the same parts from the Maxima, G35, and other less performance oriented cars. The 370Z takes the Z car evolution another step, fixing many of the handling quirks of the 350. Prices on new 370Z's still fall into that same niche the 350z did when new, but on the used market they're still a bit too high. This means that for the money, you can either have a 370Z, or a C5/C6 Corvette, which isn't even a fair competition. The auto market needs a real budget performance vehicle: long live the Z car!

2015 Dodge Challenger R/T

Full, up front disclosure: I LOVE the new Dodge Challenger. I've loved it since it's reintroduction back in 2008, and even more after the facelift in 2015. It has always been a bit difficult to put my finger on exactly what draws me to the Challenger so much, because it surely isn't based on the sheer performance of the car. What it is based on, is the attitude.

375 horsepower out of the 5.7 liter V8 isn't necessarily A LOT of power, but coupled with the 410 foot pounds of torque its more than enough to get the Challenger up the road in a hurry. 1/4 mile times are somewhere in the mid 13 second mark, which is a good bit slower than a V8 Mustang or Camaro, but that isn't even important. The new Challenger isn't about being the fastest, its about bringing back the best of generations past. Think about it, what's good about an old muscle car? Its slower than a new Golf GTI, much worse on fuel, harder to drive, less reliable, frequently more expensive, and doesn't come with a warranty. There isn't a single measurable way to justify buying an old muscle car, but none of that even matters. Old muscle cars are about the attitude, the nostalgia, the charisma. Its about being in a car that looks like it wants to smack any import in the mouth. No other car has pulled this off since the death of the Trans Am WS6 in 2002. With its dual ram-air hood and garage-designed aero pack it looked like the guy in the gym who out-benches half the other gym members combined for absolutely no reason.  

That is what makes the new Challenger so perfect. In a world so seemingly obsessed with "just what's necessary" the Challenger is the overkill that's been missing in the car world. Sure, there isn't any reason for a two door car to be as long as a Chevrolet Tahoe, but in today's society there's no REASON to make a V8 car at all. However, no one (besides the EPA) wants to see those go away. Even just sitting in the Challenger feels cool. The feeling of nearly 8 feet of car in front of you and 8 feet behind you is just far too unique in the car world. Back in 1969 the Ford Mustang grew by nearly half a foot for absolutely no reason. Why? Because this is America, and in America bigger is better. It really is that simple. America embodies overkill, being bigger, being stronger, being in your face. Ever been in an altercation and wished that you were smaller? Wished that you were weaker? Wished that you were slower? Of course not, that's like going into an exam and wishing you didn't study so much.

Cruising along, the 5.7 liter V8 burbles and crackles no matter what gear you're in. The transmission shifts as smooth as butter. Dodge didn't make the same mistake Ford did by developing their manual transmissions in house, instead they opted to go with the tried and true TR6060. The engine revs smoothly and freely, and plenty of torque is available at any RPM. As far as physical characteristics go, the most impressive part of the 2015 Challenger is the interior. It has a very retro look, but with all the high quality materials and technology you would want in a modern car. The seats are comfortable, adjustable, heated and cooled, the steering wheel is smooth and heated for those cold mornings, and all touch surfaces feel absolutely perfect to the finger tips.  The outgoing 2014 Challenger was bland and boring on the inside, so the upgrade was much needed.

Unlike most, I actually truly enjoy the handling characteristics of the Challenger. It's by no means fast in the corners, but it is very fun. The transition from light throttle to full throttle out of a corner feels explosive, you can feel the rear end squat and dig for traction while that giant hood gets lifted. Sure, there are a lot of great handling cars that don't have a lot of power. The MX-5 is one example, its handling relies on carrying a ton of speed through a corner, and it's certainly much more capable of doing so than the Challenger.

People often compare the Challenger to a boat, which I can certainly see. What I can't see, is why they think of this as a negative thing. Have you ever been on a big boat with a big engine? Sure, there are jet ski's out there running circles around you, but none of that matters when you put the hammer down and lift that giant hull out of the water.

Red-Headed Step Child Corvette

Some Corvette enthusiasts say: "The best Corvette is the one you're driving!" Some say: "Any Corvette, is a great Corvette!" Most, however, tack on the extra line: "...Unless its a C4."

Its true, of all car models there isn't a more universally hated generation than the C4 Corvette. The Z31 Nissan 300zx was a hideous, slow, unreliable excuse for a car, but Z-car fans don't hate it nearly as much as Corvette fans hate the c4. The ONLY model that comes close to the hatred a C4 emanates is the 996 Porsche 911. Aside from the 996 turbo, there isn't much reason to own a 911 from that generation, but that's a story for another time.

Lets talk about some of the reasons the C4 is hated:

1. It was under-powered. 
2. It was unreliable. 
3. It was ugly. 
4. It didn't have the massive muscular fenders of the C3.
5. The chassis was way too flexy

Most all of these points can be defended, but almost all are flawed arguments. Early years had as little as 205 horsepower, and by modern standards this seems like hardly enough to get moving. Contrary to the anemic power levels though, the 1984 Vette dominated autocross events across the nation. This eventually leading to the creation of the "Corvette-Only" series, while the Vette was banned from regular SCCA racing. As the C4 aged, power levels increased drastically, including a 405 horsepower LT5 in the ZR1.

Unreliable? Just google "Optispark got wet" to see the horror stories. The issue may not be directly caused by the unit itself, but rather poor placement directly under the water pump, and careless owners washing their engines causing the units to fail. Aside from the bad stigma, many C4's have made it into the 200+ thousand mile club.

 It is a little ugly compared to other Corvette generations. Being an ugly Corvette, however, is somewhat equivalent to being the worst starting running back in the NFL: Its really not that bad.

It didn't have big flared fenders like the C3. That being said the C3 Corvette was terrible. If my dad was Hitler, I wouldn't be too upset when someone told me I didn't look like him.

The chassis flex was probably the worst thing on the list.While the chassis may have been much stiffer than the outgoing C3, the praise stops there, though I may just be spoiled by the hydro-formed rails in my Z06. GM clearly made the flexy chassis work, still, as evidenced by the SCCA domination.

With prices on C4's being so low, I had to get out and see what all the hate was about. The closest one I could find was a 1996 red automatic coupe. Personally I hate automatics in general, so I didn't have much hope for this car. People always talked about the one benefit to the C4 being the "Fighter-jet cockpit feel" when driving the car. I genuinely think this is just a phrase C4 owners use to make their cars seem cooler. Either that or they accidentally substitute the word "cockpit" when they meant to say "cramped" as the interior is relatively similar in shape and layout to the C5, just tightened up to make it hard for fully grown adults (read: Americans) to fit into.

Honestly though, I was most surprised by how the car actually drove. The LT1 made plenty of power and torque. I have no doubt that a well driven 6 speed LT1 Corvette could hold its own against any stock automatic c5, and even the automatic 2005 Corvette. The C5's and C6's may win out in the end, but the C4 is certainly in the same ballpark, and that's impressive in its own. Even with literally 100 less horsepower than my Corvette, I have no complaints about the power or power delivery. Getting on the throttle provided a very smooth and linear feel, though I was interrupted by unexpected shifts multiple times during my drive. This was most likely due to my inexperience in an automatic, rather than an issue with the car itself.

The handling was fantastic as well. For a stock base coupe, the car felt very planted and confident during spirited driving. My passenger was starting to get nervous far before I felt the car would get squirrely. Large mid-corner bumps, however, were another story. Corvettes in general don't really handle mid corner bumps very well. The first time I hit a bump mid corner in my 2001, I thought my rear tires got lifted off the ground. The C4 is no different, but it does feel as if they stiffened up the suspension to compensate for the flexy chassis, which makes the mid corner bump feel much worse than later model Corvettes. Many people consider the transverse leaf spring to be the cause of this issue, and going to a more independent rear suspension by way of coilovers to be the fix to the problem. This solution most likely fixes the problem by adjusting the valving in the shocks, rather than eliminating the leaf spring, so a properly valved set of shocks alone may help as well.  GM has found a way to make the leaf spring work very well,  it does a phenomenal job managing body roll and keeping a compliant ride, so don't throw it out the window just due to its archaic design.

Compared to any pre-2011 Ford Mustang GT, the LT1 Corvette is faster in all aspects. Sure, they're in slightly different classes of performance cars, but when you compare the fact that you can get a C4 for a fraction of the price of the GT, why wouldn't you? If you could buy a 3 bedroom house in a nicer part of town for less money, who would opt to pay more for the smaller house in a bad part of town, just because they were originally looking for 2 bedrooms? I would argue that until the IRS equipped 5.0, the C4 could easily be considered more fun than most any modern Mustang!

People often talk about dollar per fun when it comes to the Corvette. I've always hated that phrase when it comes to C5 Z06's because I think it downplays just how good those cars are. The C5 represents a car that's both better AND cheaper than a lot of alternatives, not almost as good for a whole lot less. The C4 better represents the dollar for value phrase, as it provides as much fun as a 2014 Mustang GT for well under $9000, often times as low as $3000-$5000 still in decent shape.

Next time you're talking Corvettes, don't bash the C4 too hard. It's not the worst car in the world. It isn't even the worst Corvette in the past 30 years, that is a spot held firmly by the automatic 2005 Corvette. Would I own one? Absolutely, but to be honest, they're still just too close in price the the C5. It would be hard to justify spending $9000 for a nice C4 when I could spend a little more and get another C5. This is more an issue of undervalued C5's rather than overvalued C4's, as a $10000 C4 still provides insane performane for the money. To the person who has a maximum budget of $9000 on an all around performance car, it would be hard to recommend anything else besides the once hated C4 Corvette.