Maybe it's just me - but why do they always look for a reason to do a comparison that includes the Z. Are we really going to compare a car that is 10years old to a car that hasn't even been released to the public yet? While I do enjoy the Z and I think it's a beautiful car - I just think it's unfair to compare it to the Corvette and the Mustang which will easily outperform it (just my opinion); throw into the comparison with the latest Z4/Supra and I just don't understand how it makes sense.
The Z is one of the last V6 NA sports cars that I can think of. Part of me used to be happy that they would still consider/add the Z to the equation bc it made me feel that even though my car is based off of 10yr old R&D - it still was able to compete. Now I just feel that while it might be able to compete - it doesn't make sense to compare it to cars that are newer and have more R&D behind it. Am I surprised that the writer came up with the Z being last - no bc if it didn't - I would be shocked with the cars that were being used to compare it. Again, this isn't to trash the Z - I just find it interesting that a lot of writers include the Z - and then sh!t all over it within their article like if the Z has been out for only a year or so.
|