300ZX and Skyline GTR

[Tuck&Poke]

theyre both really similar so why did nissan opt to make them both.  theyre also pretty similar in price

[transient]

I don't think you can really compare the 300zx and a GTR. Yes, they're both 6cyl TT's, but that's about where the similarity ends.

[William]

they are completely different vehicles.  3.0L V6 vs. 2.6L I6.  AWD vs. RWD.  They do not cost anywhere near the same.  Skylines are a lot more expensive.  Skylines were meant to crush all (and do for the most part), where the Z was meant to be a sports car.  mustang GT vs. Cobra R, base model LS1 vs. Z06.  360 Modena vs. 550 Maranello  They went after different markets

[onebadm5]

the 300z is a drivers car,

the skyline is a "50,000 pound playstation", as jeremy clarkson would say. sure its a great car, but its cluttered with so much technology that takes away from the true driving experience. u don't really have to be a great driver to get a GT-R around the track, what with HICAS and ATTESA and whatnot, competetively. the z is a true testament to driver ability, if u can take a car like that around the track relatively quickly, then you know how to drive.

[Tuck&Poke]

well isnt a fairlady like 40g's and so is a gtr ...well... around 38g's? &nbsp;i dont know is one sportier than the other or something? <img src="http://www.zilvia.net/f/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt='???'>

[thich]

um..... GTR 38gs?? wow..... i WISH!
dood.. where'd u hear that info from?
even in Japan, they range up the 70k USD price range.
both are GT cars... but one outclasses the other.
I would understand if a GTS or a GTS-T ran for 38gs.. but i dun agree w/ the GTR running for 38gs

[Tuck&Poke]

whoa for real damn i heard the gtr was 38 but the sell it here for 90 through motorex

[gschroeder78]

to me I can't see anything similar about the 2. Now if you made the comparison of the new 350Z and the New Skyline I think they look similar but I couldn't comment on the engine cause I don't know anything about it.

[MK]

Nobody knows much about the new 350zx or GTR, all we've really had is some hersay and rumour, neither of which I've been sold on.

With regards to the 'why' the 300ZX TT and the "GTR" what we would be comparing is the R32GTR and the 300ZX's that came out around that time.
The R32GTR had only one purpose, a high speed touring class racecar that used the most state of the art engine (RB26DETT) and running gear that had been seen outside of anywhere for a very long time, sure it had been done before, but it hadnt ever been as successful as that. It blew everything away, heck they even changed the touring car rules in Australia to ban them (it was "unfair") as nothing could touch them.
Our ol' fav, the 300ZX was a confused car in the late 80's, Nissan wasnt sure if they wanted to make a rwd, powerful, sportscar/luxobarge and ended up with something of a mish-mash. Toyota and Mazda also had equivalents, Cosmo's and Lexus barges of various sorts. Its heavy, its powerful and has all the fittings of something like a cadillac. Later around 1990 the 300zx finally got the TT and the venerable VG30 had a bit more done to it as Nissan are wont to do with old motors. But at least it started getting some better performance, better brakes but they never really lost any of the weight...

I suppose the easiest way to define a car is to look at who buys them. Neither are cheap, so they end up in the upper-middle class. GTR's get bought by race car drivers, some get bought by people who drive them on the road but to me that seems a bit of a waste as you'll never get to use the car to its fullest potential. The ZX's are a bit more affordable and quite simply put, you dont really race them unless you want to spend weeks replacing panels, ripping out the interior goodies to 'maybe' get it down to 1200kg's, personally I was never really sold on the z'eds handling either. Who buys a 300zx? I guess people who like to have a car that looks like a million bucks but only costs $50k <img src="http://www.zilvia.net/f/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'>

[Ni5mo180SX]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (onebadm5 @ Mar. 08 2002,3:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the 300z is a drivers car,

the skyline is a "50,000 pound playstation", as jeremy clarkson would say. sure its a great car, but its cluttered with so much technology that takes away from the true driving experience. u don't really have to be a great driver to get a GT-R around the track, what with HICAS and ATTESA and whatnot, competetively. the z is a true testament to driver ability, if u can take a car like that around the track relatively quickly, then you know how to drive.</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
The Skyline is a 50,000lbs playstation?? Thats really BS when people say that technology takes away from the exp. To a point it does but not really in the Skyline. Ever read an article on the R34's drive?? The tech. works FOR you helping you get the best driving experience possible. Maybe cars that are using crude technology but the GTR is a top class sports car and didnt become that way by using that crude tech. or "lacking in drive exp". Dont have to be a good driver to get a 3500lbs car around the track quickly? If you've ever driven a car over 3100lbs very hard, you know its a bitch to keep that car under control. If you think the technology actually takes away from the car, do you think a Skyline stripped of its technology would be faster around the track?? Probably not.

[misnomer]

I'm partial to the Z. Prolly an unfair bias, 'cause I've never beheld a GTR in person. I just love the look of the Z, it's performance. . . You don't get on the Car and Driver top ten for your entire lifetime (z32) for nothing.