Originally Posted by SeattleLion (Post 753444)

It's easy to get bent out of shape by the C&D review. I suspect the Z didn't get considered for the test because of the brake failure in their earlier test. Annoying as it is, I can certainly understand how that could rule us out in their minds. As we all agree, handling is a very subjective experience.

I don't race and never plan to. So my subjective experienced is based on sub 100 MPH driving (80 to 90+ since we have some high speed limits here) and hopefully, less than 20 panic stops in 5 minutes.

We should also consider that we are a very biased group when it comes to our cars. It is a slap in the face not even to make the list of cars tested.

Another point has been bugging me snce readng the C&D brake reports. How come Consumer Reports and others have never seen brake failure or fade in their tests? The answer, of course, is that they use tests that emulate extreme real world driving conditions, not the different stresses that tracking creates.

Does anyone really believe that you drive a Z, even a Nismo out of the dealership and onto the track? You don't have to be an automotive genius to know that brake pads designed for daily driving are probably going to be engineered for long life and low dust; not the priorities when racing. That being said, it is still worrisome that C&D did find that a stock Z suffered total brake failure after repeated hard braking. It bothers me that they discovered that weakness, maybe enough to put SS brake lines and racing fluid on my street car.

Ok, so maybe it was the brakes that turned C&D off. I don't know. I do know that C&D and R&T over the years have shown very strong feelings for certain cars. R&T had a love affair with the 240Z. They appear to be pretty fond of the 350 and 370. If memory serves (meaning I may have imagined this), C&D was not a big 240Z fan back in the day. In fact, in those days C&D had a heavy bias for American cars. I stopped reading C&D years ago for that reason. They seemed to be in Detroit's back pocket. Now, I am not sure who their big advertisers are, but there could be a correlation between the amount of love they show a car and the ad budget of the companies that buy ads. I don't know. It just seems to me that given the fact that the Z is a popular sports car well under $100k, it should have been on that list of cars tested.

Originally Posted by HKYStormFront (Post 753488)

well yea no doubt, but they were talking about production sports cars, not tuner cars and for under $100k which i doubt any RuF is (and rightfully so). i believe RuF is the one who is dropping the engine out to swap in 3.8L innards in cayman's now. i know there is one out there. anyway, back on subject, after driving about half of those cars (many of them very hard when safe to do so) i can't argue with that list. the GTR gets me going because i'm a nissan fan and it ranks at the top of my list because of that too. but as a purist's driving car, it's not as rewarding to drive, nor as communicative.

Originally Posted by Modshack (Post 748545)

Ever drive a Cayman/Boxster? Then you'd know. They're pretty magical..

Originally Posted by KillerBee370 (Post 753639)

1st - Boxster. No surprise here. Having owned one, I can attest to that.
2nd - Lotus. C'mon, it's a go cart. Of course. I'm surprised it's second actually.

4th - M3. Really? Over a 370? pffffffffffffft I don't think so.