Road & Track: 370Z vs Cayman S
 

Okay, hope THIS hasn't been posted:

Road & Track Magazine - Clash of the Coupes: 2009 Nissan 370Z vs. 2008 Porsche Cayman S (4/2009)

I am rather happy with the results. I still think the Z is the better choice regardless of price. The Cayman is too bland...it handles well and looks good, but its too mainstream and the interior isn't exactly astonishing. Porsche needs a serious update to their interiors...the flat pannel isnt cutting it.

I think the Z is a lot more fun around a track AND around town. Its more special too.

That would be kinda like going backwards for Pcars. As the 996 and 986's had curvey interiors etc.. Which many in the Porsche crowd disliked. ;)

Totally agree on the flat panel. I sports car interior should be hugging you; that flat panel stuff makes me think of the mustang.

If they tested against the 2009 Cayman S, the Z would have been creamed. Against the 08 Cayman S it was able to hold its own. But it would have been more competitive if not for the heat issue.

R&T exposed the Z's overheating oil issue. As noted in this thread, this issue is the Z's "achilles heel":
http://www.the370z.com/track-autocro...eally-bad.html

It seems this test car was not one of the early "ringer" press cars which had oil coolers installed. Nissan needs to fix this on the 2010 cars, otherwise the Z will not be track competitive!

I agree. I think I recall seeing 0-60 in 4.5 sec for the new cayman with pdk...

or people can just add the oil cooler if they want to track the car. thats what I would do.

Shouldnt need to have to add an oil cooler, though. Its a band aid for something Nissan will hopefully fix.

I'm kind of surprised on acceleration numbers on the Z when it comes to 100mph and up. I would think it would be faster than the 2008 Cayman S when it comes to tripple digits.

Z is begging for a shorter FD. 3rd gear on that car is just too long.

O.K. So.... The Z did 4.7 0-60 in MotorTrend. It is still within spitting distance.

I found a 0-60 at 5.2 kind of odd. We've already seen 5.1, 4.9, 4.8, 4.7 and 5.3. This range is pretty extreme even taking into account variations due to elevation and temp.

why would you assume so? the VQ obviously chokes and has a hard time revving up to give the extra hp. still gotta remember the VQ is still a bored out version of a 3.0 liter. nissan needs a new engine soon

arent the numbers under 5 when the car is rolling?

^When it comes to 0-60, i dont really care what it does. When it comes to conditions, yes they can make up to 1 second difference in 1/4 mile. When i was comparing the numbers that they have on the PDF file, i am assuming both cars are tested on same day. I really don't look at the numbers just to know what they do. I like seeing comparisons to other similar performing car to get an fairly accurate idea how fast the car is. Even a car with bad 0-60 or even 1/4 mile time can outperform a different car is tripple digit speeds. The perfect example is stock Evo/STI vs 6MT 03-06 G35.

That is not the reason. HR motors perform beautifully all the way till redline. My bimmer chockes after 6k rpm and has 1000rpm (from 6k-7k) dead spot. :(
The reason is that the gears are too tall for the G37/370z. from 2nd gear all the way to fifth are very long considering the car has a high-reving motor. If the gear ratios were the same as the first gen G35 with 6th gear actually being a gear not overdrive, then this car would have been much much quicker. As people start putting 4.01 FD on this car which i will probably do, you will see how much difference it makes in the acceleration.