4th Feb 2005, 13:37

To the above comment again I would like to point out the Mitsubishi gallant vr4 (august 1996-2002) has a 2500cc twin Turbo NOT a 3000cc (3.0L) thanks. The VR4 has 276HP like the 350Z, but the vr4 is just a mid sized salon with a twin turbo on the other hand the 350Z is a race bred roadster so no contest!

VR4 whats wrong with you? Get a proper car.

23rd Oct 2005, 05:05

Alright Guys Put the train sets away, Do you not realise that you look really stupid driving a 350Z wearing an anorak!.

19th Mar 2006, 04:40

A question. Now that Renault has a significant control over Nissan. Has this car got a Renault engine and will that affect its long term reliability given Renaults appalling history in that department. I would have considered this car if it had been 100% Japanese, but it is a Renault really isn't it?

9th Jun 2006, 01:20

Yes, this car has a Renault engine, so I just can't trust in terms of long term reliability.

I guess just in one or two years this should a disaster and a headache for its owner. As all Renault does. O value depreciation will increase every year because of that.

Maybe it's a good car since you bought it new, but after a couple thousands of miles this should be sold and forgotten.

This is not what you buy for many years. This is just a stupid toy for anoraks. A thing of fashion. which will become rubbish in one year.



16th Jun 2006, 15:31

Why the sad face smiley when you say the car is so good?

20th Jun 2006, 17:35

Dude, Renault engine? It's a Nissan engine. THE LEGENDARY VQ engine that won Ward Top Ten engine award every single year. The engine is an evolution from the 300ZX engine (before Renault bought shares of Nissan). Renault own large shares of Nissan, but they have more of a partner relationship.

26th Jun 2006, 09:23

Renault designed the engine for Nissan, that's why it's not as raw as the old skool motors.

16th Jul 2006, 00:00

Renault does have a major share of Nissan's company, but they do have a small role in the design of the cars. Matter of fact, the new CEO of Nissan came over from Renault to help change the face of Nissan. Up until that point, Nissan made cars based solely on quality, but the new CEO wanted to bring some life back into Nissan. Heck all the performance models that you can buy. A little known fact is that until Renault stepped in, Nissan was billions in the hole. There is a book called "The End of Detroit". If you see it, pick it up and read just the section on Nissan and you will be amazed at what they have been through to get the point that they are now.

As for the 350Z, I don't own one, but a friend of mine does and I have driven it on may occasions. The only really thing that I didn't like about the car was the ride quality. I know it is a sports car, but I use to do alignments on high dollar cars for 2 years and feel that they could have done a better job in that area. But with that being my only grip, and one that even I could live with, I would consider getting this car and would recommend it to any one based on the over all value that you get for is over 25K.

15th Aug 2006, 10:45

The VQ engine is 100% Nissan people, please get your facts straight.

Most of the technology shared moves one way, from Nissan to Renault. After all we all know the build quality of the French.

"The VQ is built in Iwaki, Japan and Decherd, TN."



3rd Jun 2007, 18:08

I'm curious as to why you gave the car an overall negative review, but all your comment are positive. I'm confused.

3rd Jan 2008, 18:28

For those comparing the Vr4 to the 350Z, I've driven both and the Vr4 is faster in a straight line. It's got 320hp by the way. Although it's a heavier car, the 3.0LTT motor pulls a lot harder than the N/A 3.5.

20th Oct 2008, 19:36

On the topic of comparing the 350Z to a VR4. I own both. My 93 3000GT VR4 will blow the doors off of my 350ZR. The Z is my daily driver, and gets more attention than my VR4 ever did. The Z has great power and an even better gearbox IMO. Shifting the Z's 6 speed is like butter, but the VR4 has notchy, aggressive shifting. If I had to let one of the cars go, as bad as I hate to say it, the VR4 would be on autotrader.

29th Apr 2009, 00:39

I've owned both cars at one time or another, a 1992 3000VR4 and 2004 350Z. I'm in agreement with the previous review. The VR4 would take the Z (in the top end), handling on a tight track would be a toss up, and yes the Z gets more looks. You have to be a driver to appreciate and understand the VR4. The VR4 drives the same at city speed and at 160MPH, the Z is not as comfortable at top speeds, probably because of the shorter wheelbase. This where I differ with the reviewer, I'd have put the Z on the Trader, even with the 12 year differential.

Another reviewer questioned the longevity of the NISSAN motor, rest assured my Z350 runs strong after 80K.