2009 Nissan 370z vs 1996 Toyota Supra

TongMan

Hey guys, a couple buddies of mine were just hanging out and the topic of comparing RWD sports cars from Japan was brought up as they were admiring my 370z. In modern times, there really isn't a car worthy of competing with the Nissan 370z. The RX-8 is garbage. The Genesis Coupe 3.8 is from Korea. The Mustang/Challenger/Camaro are domestic muscle cars. Out from Japan, there is no competitor. But we could have missed something.

So we go back and bring back the good 'ol six cylinder twin turbos from back in the days. We have the 300zx TT, Mitsubishi 3000GT TT, Toyota Supra TT, and the RX7 TT. These four cars were the king of the hill back in the 90's. If you wanted a fast car, these were the ones.

So we try to compare them with the Nissan 370z. Specifically comparing two totally stock cars: the 1996 Toyota Supra vs the 2009 Nissan 370z. What is your opinion on which is faster around the track and which is quicker through the quarter mile.

1996 Toyota Supra
Engine liters 3.0
Turbo/supercharged Standard
Cylinder configuration I-6
# of valves 24
Recommended fuel premium unleaded
Limited slip differential Standard
Fuel economy city 19 mpg
Fuel economy highway 23 mpg
Fuel tank capacity 18 gal.
Engine displacement 183 cu.in.
Engine horsepower 320-hp @ 5,600RPM
Engine torque 315 lb.-ft. @ 4,000RPM
Curb Weight 3,485 lbs
MSRP $50,400

2009 Nissan 370z
Engine liters 3.7
Turbo/supercharged N/A
Cylinder configuration V-6
# of valves 24
Recommended fuel premium unleaded
Limited slip differential Standard
Fuel economy city 18 mpg
Fuel economy highway 26 mpg
Fuel tank capacity 19 gal.
Engine displacement 226 cu.in.
Engine horsepower 332-hp @ 7,000RPM
Engine torque 270 lb.-ft. @ 5,200RPM
Curb Weight 3,232 lbs
MSRP $29,930

I think the Nissan 370z wins in every category.

ImportConvert

Except that part about performance/driving.

http://mkiv.com/publications/road&tr...3/rt393_06.jpg


here is another one. $37K as-tested.
http://mkiv.com/publications/motor_t...d-Mar-93-4.jpg

http://mkiv.com/publications/car&dri...3/6-cd3-93.jpg



4.6--------- 0-60,
13.1@109--- 1/4 mile
68.5mph---- 700' Slalom
.98g-------- 200' Skidpad
29.9sec---- 0-150
70-0-------149'

You find me documented (like above) tests that show the 370Z beating these figures. You can combine best single features from a test, etc. just like I did, but find a 370Z test showing better than the performance offered by the MKIV Turbo Supra. I dare you.


The MKIV Supra was a better performing car, even on mid 90's rubber. The only test I think you can find the 370Z doing better in is the 200' Skidpad and the 700' Slalom, but it won't be a landslide.

Here is what I found for a 2009 370Z:
http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezfl...61a7a3bb51.pdf

0-60--- 5.1 (I have seen faster, I think 4.7)
70-0---151' (This is close to tops here from what I have read)
0-150---35.1 (ouch. No way you are going to find an example over 5 seconds faster, Supra owned it hard.)
1/4 mile---13.7@104 (I have seen better, but no 13.1@109's)
.98g----300' skidpad (I have seen .99 tested before)

TongMan

Price makes the Supra very unappealing compared with the Nissan 370z. Nissan's competitor to the Supra was the 300zx TT. I thought that the 300zx was much faster than the Supra due to weight. It was also much cheaper too.

shadoquad

to be fair, some of the "progress" we've experienced over the years has made our vehicles slower. All the computer hardware, the safety features that have added weight... It's a lot. In fact, it's why we have the hp wars we currently have. Got to move the whales faster.

Also, I know that the Z isn't your cup of tea, but on a daily basis, how much more do you need than 0-60 in 5 seconds and 332bhp? I know that you crave more, but not everyone does.

ImportConvert

In my daily commute, 0-60 in 10 seconds works well enough in my G20.

Why would you need 5-seconds?

These cars are about WANT, not need. That is my point. The OP was comparing the Supra to the 370Z, and stating that the 370Z "won in every category". To me, 0-60 is a category, one of performance.

I agree the cars have gotten heavier, but the MKIV was heavier than the 370Z is. Also, all that technology and the lighter weight and the 370Z still isn't out handling or out braking the Supra. They handle and stop so close to each other that it's a wash in my opinion. Same for their 0-60's. Where the Supra stomps on the Z is after they get rolling.

Both are nice cars, and I would rather own a new 370Z than a used MKIV, but I'm just saying I disagreed with the OP's assessment.

ImportConvert

What, 37K too much? look at the links I posted. 37-42K MSRP "as tested". I see plenty of Z's that sell for that.

The 300ZX may have been faster than the NA Supra, but the 300ZX TT vs. the Supra T, the Supra won that one.

3.SLOW6MT

Although the Supra is fairly old, you would STILL see necks snapping as one passes by. They are very rare to see, especially in turbo form. The exhaust note is 2nd to none (though the Z sounds amazing as well), the styling is great (especially for a mid 90s car), although the Z may slightly win this one, and the performance was simply staggering when it came out.

However, I will say that the 'turbo' definitely adds to it's already stellar character. If the Supra was an NA car only, it wouldn't get half the attention it does. I feel the Z would get more attention as well if it was offered with a turbo, even in a 3.0L.

__________________
'06 Accord 6spd Coupe
Bolt ons/3.84s/Tune
13.28 @107.56 - 2.19 60'

Jeffblue

i guess stock for stock the 370z wins. However, the 370z is pretty much tuned to the max from factory, there isn't much more to squeeze out of the engine. The supra on the other hand, is pretty detuned. add 5k of whatever mods you want to each car, and the supra will run circles around the 370z.

and before people get all pissy about comparing modified cars, i'm not talking about 'mod the Z to equal the cost of some more expensive car thats stock. stock vs modded is a stupid comparison.

i guess my point here, really is, theres so much tuning potential in the supra, theres so much you can get out of the car. With the 370z, there really isn't unless you're dropping 15-20k on forced induction.

the supra does, however, have one of the ugliest interiors of any car. i'd still take one though.

kenchan

stop watches weren't very accurate or reliable back then either.

Zaggeron

Those prices from the links you posted were in 1993 dollars. Converting 40,000 in 1993 dollars to 2009 dollars ends up being around 58,000.

__________________
2010 Platinum Graphite 370z Roadster:Touring/Sport
2013 Subaru BRZ Limited

Kcuba370z

lol nice one

kenchan

back then 0-60 @ 6sec just felt like 4.3sec... so they just jot that down.

Red__Zed

I think those Supra's are one of the best affordable cars ever produced. Alongside the 93-95 RX7's, there's quite a bit of history and epicness I don't think we will see again, especially with the way safety requirements are going.

Cmike2780

No doubt the Supra was/is a beast of a car, but it was killed off for a reason. Like the RX7, Z and even the 3000GT, the high prices eventually led to their downfall. It's for that single reason the 350z wasn't some twin turbo monster with a high price tag.

You gotta give the RX8 a little credit. Around the track, it can keep up with the best of them. True it lacks the grunt in the straights, but it's an extremely well balanced car. Swap in a 20b and you got yourself a winner. Check out the Speedsource RX8. Far from stock, but the chassis has always shown a lot of promise. The only disappointment was the lack of power and lack of aftermarket support for engine upgrades comparable to the rx7.

You forgot the S2000, discontinued I know. Can't keep up with the Supra stock, but still worth the mention. NSX should be in the mix also. Other cars worth mentioning from the present although not from Japan, Corvette, Exige/Elise, Porsche Cayman S, M3, Z4, 1 series M & Boss 302. Only four major Japanese car companies to choose from anyways.

__________________

[09][MB][6-Spd MT][Touring][Stillen Gen III][K&N][Borla CBE][Evo-R]

ImportConvert

I think you're doing it wrong...

But lets check this out:

Average Income in the United States (1913-2006) ? Visualizing Economics

Income in the mid 90's wasn't far or from income around 2006 (as good as my graph shows).

Now you brought up inflation.

So people are making LESS now (or in 2006...) than they were in 1996. Considering you make the same amount of even more worthless dollars now than then, as a whole.

Your inflation statement has cast just the opposite light on the situation than what you have intended.