Folks Who compare the X-fire to a 350Z kinda miss the point. The "Z" car is about 20% bigger/heavier/etc. Don't get me wrong, I've seen these at various trackday and Auto-X events and they work quite well when driven correctly but they are kind of bulky and clunky out on the cones.

"is it me or do the (door) handles look like they should open a fridge ?"

And then there is the styling...er, too Japan/cheesy like so many new imports; awkward proportions attempted to be disguised by overly busy trim details on head/tail lights, door handles, vents and body seams running "Bangle-style" all over the body without any regard to shape or form.

My boss bought one of the convertible 350Z cars. Jeez is it ever UGLY !

Slim

 

EXACTLY. What happened? The Z cars were at one time some of the most beautiful cars on the road. I think they tried to be all things to all people, and watered it all down. They need to get back to basics.

 

i bet you that if the z had as many mods as we do they would have died long ago.

 

Sheesh... I was going to get a 350z but my parents told me they'd only buy a Chrysler because my Dad works there.

Shame, I really love the 350z looks... I wish I had one still instead of my crossfire - but I really can't complain!

 

All the more reason to save your cash and buy what you want. It will drive better, feel better, and last longer because you spent your own hard earned money on it.

 

Buy a Mustang and you know exactly what you're getting. The Mustang formula hasn't changed in over 40 years. The Z has gone from a sporty to luxury sporty to luxury coupe to high performance luxury and now back to high performance. The Mustang has remained true to it's heritage. The Z reinvents itself with every new model.

Cincinnati Slim has a point about the styling. Japanese cars sold in the US use to be designed for the American market. But the Japanese domestic market has gotten big enough where the Japanese car companies now tailor their designs to the locals. Unfortunately what works for them leaves the international markets perplexed. I remember when the Mitsubishi 3000 had a restyle in the mid 90s. Mitsubishi attempted to give the car the look of a noted Japanese figure (don't remember is this was a historical person or an animation). The style did not catch on in the US. Try to explain the latest Toyota Camry. And don't even get me started on the RX-8. Of course this works in reverse to and I'm sure there are overseas folks puzzled over US cars like the Charger.

 

Trying to block out the mental trauma that was the Mustang II are you? A Pinto by any other name, even with a little horsey emblem in the grille, is still a Pinto. And when the Mustang II was finally sent to the glue factory, the immediate replacement was not a great car, not by any stretch.

 

In my opinion, the 350/370 Z IS better than a Base or Limited in many ways, and not in others.

Compared to an SRT-6, there is NO COMPARISON! The SRT-6 OWNS the Z!!!

 

I was going to comment on the Pinto II but figured that the car was self explanatory. Besides, what car from that time frame wasn't neutered?

The follow on generation wasn't to promising at first but by the end of the production run I thought they were pretty decent. Problem was Ford kept the platform in production way to long and didn't sufficiently increase the HP of the 5.0 to keep pace with GM. How ironic that when Ford finally gets a killer engine in the first outstanding Mustang in decades there's no competitor from GM.

Given a choice between a Mustang and a 350Z I'll go with the Mustang.

One of the flight instructors at the airfield I work at has a Mustang II. So I get to see one several times a week. I'm surprised it's still running.

 

I have posted this article before from Road and Track.
The Z is clunky, but feels better on the track.
The SRT6 looks better and kicked the Z...

Good article
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....rticle_id=1985

 

I have my doubts about what the article implied or didn't print. For instance, the SRT-6 got pinged for being unsettled going over bumps. I attribute that to the stiff suspension. But the Z was a S-tuned one which means suspension work. I bet the Z was just as, if not more, stiff compared to the 6 and bounced as much over the bumps.

The gearbox was noted as not being as engaging as the other cars. Well gee, it's an automatic! And though a manual would have been nice it was either an auto or no SRT-6 at all. That was a pointless point to bring up.

The 6 was noted as the most distant feeling but lots of tire and horsepower made up for that. Yet the Z had the biggest tires of the bunch. Put the same size tires on the Z and see how it performs.

Marked understeer was also noted. Other reviews have noted only a little understeer. All cars have slight understeer tuned in for safety reasons. The marked understeer statement struck me as being exaggerated

Even more egregious (never thought I'd use that word in my lifetime) was the comment on the brake fade and how the brakes were always a concern. This is the only review that has ever brought up brake fade. Every other review I've read never brought it up or noted that brake fade was not experienced at all.

Chrysler really needs to spend more advertising dollars on R&T.

 

Me thinks you have forgotten that travesty known as the Mustang II.

Coyote

 

A friend of the family had a Mustang II with a 4 cyl. it took a day and a half to go from 0 to 60.

 

Brent, I'm not praising the Z. Just posted article.
My point was, 'Look which car kicked butt.'
BTW, I can't argue with some of R&T's points...
Love my SRT6 and would not want to be
caught in a Z...

 

I was seriously considering purchasing a 350Z and test drove one right before the Crossfire. But after getting behind the wheel of the XF I fell in love with it and had no interest at all in the 350Z.

 

Did not! Got it covered on page 3.

 

I had a G35Coupe 6MT that I purchased brand new in 2005. It was a really nice car, but didn't get nearly the attention that my SRT6 gets. It was fast, but nothing like the SRT. It did feel a bit more refined though. The Xfire seems a bit feeble; like any minute it could break something like the engine, tranny, or a console switch. Not saying that it would, just that it feels that way. I had much more confidence in the reliability of the G; HOWEVER, my g and many, many others with the 6MT (manual), which had the 298 hp engine, had major oil consumption issues. It used about 1qt for every 1,000 miles. Nissan is apparently aware of the problem and is working on a recall fix for the problem.

 

I didn't have an issue with your post at all. It's was the R&T article that bothered me with subtle snide remarks directed at the 6. It's just not R&T either, the Crossfire has taken hits in all of the big driver mags. And yet us owners have had a much different experience. The R&T article is certainly correct with some of the observations on the 6. But I suspect similar observations were experienced with the other two and yet weren't commented on.

Go back to page 4 of the article and the beginning of the last paragraph. It starts as: "All this while being a very kind ride on the street, offering a smooth-enough ride,..." This leads me to question what the street ride is like with the other cars. It's the little stuff like this that can alter the whole direction of the article. While nitpicking the ride of the 6 earlier in the article the writers could have inserted a teaser such as "and yet this suspension had some surprises in store for us". The tone of the article could have hinted how Chrysler really had something special and so read the article to get the juicy details. Instead the article struck me more as "Yeah, we tried our best to knock the SRT-6 but it still came out on top. Better throw in some praises at the end so we don't get flooded with hate mail."

I know I'm getting real nitpicky over this myself. But after multiple reviews in the same vein I'm just jaded over it all. And I can't help but think that if Chrysler advertised more in R&T the Crossfire would have been reported on more favorably.

As for the Z, I don't think there's anything fundamentally wrong with it. The car does what it's suppose to do in it's market quite well. It's just that when I look at the current Mustang I see a cool looking retro design with a V-8, low price, and pretty impressive performance. When I look at a Z the car is just...there.

 

How did you get a 2-3k price difference? People were getting srt-6's for 2-3k less than the 350z, and the srt-6 runs a 13.1 quarter mile, it would cost you 6 grand to go that fast in a 350z, and then your motor will blow. A base crossfire is about 13k less than a 350z, and you could build a custom turbo kit or get the $10,000 dollar supercharger kit from kleeman and make 330 hp and destroy a 350z with 3k left over. Plus, the crossfire handles better, maybe not a better suspension but moreso because we have huge rubber in the back. Now the 2009 400z, that's gonna be a bad azz car.

 

Brent, I look at auto mags the same way...
Sometimes I wonder if they are driving the same
car. There has been misjustice done to
the SRT6. I look at it this way, you have to own
one to really appreciate it. I think the word has gotten
out though. SRT6's are being ****** up as quick as
they get on ebay, car trader, etc. I'm trying to
keep mine as pristine as possible. I appreciate the car
more just driving on weekend road trips.