Troll or not, it's not
that terrible of a question.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by HKYStormFront
how the Z drives and feels and delivers the power is what makes it a great sports car, not just the stats.
|
I agree wholeheartedly (I own a Z, after all). I do find it funny, though, that when you reverse the situation and start talking about a car like the FR-S being underpowered or slow, FR-S enthusiasts/owners would likely use a similar response to this criticism (…“there’s more to the FR-S than sheer HP & acceleration stats”).
Truth is, when you have the stats to back you up, they’re fun to quote. When you don’t they’re easy to refute and excuse. I've been a stats junkie since I first started reading car mags as a kid, and while I agree that they only tell part of the story (look how legendary the Miata is) that doesn't stop me from commiting them to memory.
With all that said, the Z doesn’t need any excuses – it’s a top-notch sports car with great performance and amazing styling (that’s why I bought one).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cmike2780
It's an old way of thinking about performance.
|
Perhaps, but it's one of the few performance stats you can legally test on the open road within the speed limit (that is, unless you want to test the 1/4mi time of a Smart ForTwo). My old 2002 G20, as much as I loved it, was an absolute slug (0-60: ~10 sec). "But at least it handles well" is the G20-owner's mantra - but that only gets you so far. When you get dusted at a red light by a Versa, that's just wrong for a car with "sport sedan" pretensions.
Again, though, I don't think the Z has anything to hide within the realm of 0-60 testing. It sits right where it should given its power/weight and pricing. The new Accord's acceleration
is impressive, given the car's genre and price point, but that shouldn't be viewed as threatening to a Z enthusiast.