Second, look at what Nissan has done with the VQ V-6 and compare:

2009 Z: 3.7L V-6, 332hp (EPA 17/26 w/6MT)*
2010 Mustang: 4.0L V-6, 210hp (EPA 17/26 w/ 5MT)
2010 Mustang: 4.6L V-8, 315hp (EPA: 15/23 w/ 5MT)
2010 Camaro: 3.6L V-6, 300hp (EPA highway 26)**

You fail to mention the Z requires premium fuel while the Mustang and Camaro use regular to make the power shown.

The Z’s motor does not use direct injection (as does the Camaro) – but it does have variable valve lift – and still has a higher specific output while achieving essentially the same (if not better) fuel economy.
The mustang numbers speak (quite poorly) for themselves).

The Camaro’s engine wasn’t designed for premium fuel. Had it been I would expect higher numbers. While I admit the current Mustang’s numbers aren’t great, the future 3.5 v6 Ecoboost will have some great figures.

This car is everything the 2010 Mustang and Camaro are not.

You are absolutely right. The Z is missing 2 usable rear seats and a good sized trunk. If fuel economy is your big issue you just answered your own question. The Z really isn’t special. The Corvette on the other hand is with it’s lower weight, 104 more hp, 16 mpg city/26 highway.

Too bad. Nissan was had a good run of nicely designed cars that for a brief, shining moment defied the Banglization of the industry.

I mean, that Cindy Crawford hadn’t just sat in.

I liked the new design of this Z except for the headlights and taillights. But that all changed when I finally saw one of the new Maximas in real life (yeah it took me a long time). What I found was that while, in pictures, the headlights stuck out as an eyesore, in-person they were much less sore-thumbish and actually accentuated the overall form of the vehicle pretty well. So I’m not worried about this car. I predict that when I see a 370Z in real life it will drop my jaw like I’m hoping it will. Kudos to Nissan for trying something new aesthetically and making it work. My only real beef with the car is the door handle design — right design, right position, just make them less prominent and obstructive of flow. When I look at the car, I don’t want my focus to land on the door handles. I think it was just a poor decision artistically.

That said, this is an awfully nice-looking car. Mazda has their work cut out for them.

Good looking car, other than the headlights and tail lights.

Juxtaposing the release of this vehicle against the testimony of the Gang of Four on capital hill….just says it all….

I wasn’t sure of Nissan’s new design direction when I saw pics of the new Maxima, but seeing that car “in the metal” — and now pics of this Z — it’s a good design direction.

Gorgeous.

1. Significantly dropped weight
2. Decreased wheelbase, for the above and nimbler handling
3. Decreased overall length
4. Lowered overall height
5. Increased track (better road holding)
6. Increased power
7. Kept price essentially the same

Items 5 and 6 are common for all “new models” these days, but when was the last time you saw a manufacturer do any (let alone all!) of the others?

I have to give Nissan props for fixing all the major criticisms of the old car, namely size and weight. By the time I’m done with grad school in 5 years I should be able to pick one up used for 15k, which will make for a superb performance bargain.

Two side notes: The rev-match manual is only the sport model, which I’d avoid anyway just because I like base-model cars.

Second, look at what Nissan has done with the VQ V-6 and compare:

2009 Z: 3.7L V-6, 332hp (EPA 17/26 w/6MT)*
2010 Mustang: 4.0L V-6, 210hp (EPA 17/26 w/ 5MT)
2010 Mustang: 4.6L V-8, 315hp (EPA: 15/23 w/ 5MT)
2010 Camaro: 3.6L V-6, 300hp (EPA highway 26)**

*Based on the G37 coupe, the Z should be higher as it weighs less and is more aerodynamic
**Off of Chevy’s web site, not an official figure and based off a 6-speed auto, not the manual. Manual will probably be lower.

The Z’s motor does not use direct injection (as does the Camaro) – but it does have variable valve lift – and still has a higher specific output while achieving essentially the same (if not better) fuel economy.
The mustang numbers speak (quite poorly) for themselves).

This car is everything the 2010 Mustang and Camaro are not.

A $30,000 Porsche is a symbol of what’s so wrong with Detroit. Companies like Nissan can squirt these remarkable things out every few years, while GM creates corporate hemorrhoids while straining to shit a Volt.