Re: Restoring a 300ZX Twin Turbo
Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 12:34 pm
I know. I'm not trying to tell someone the car doesn't mean something to them. But some of the words he used in explaining the performance of the car were disingenuous. Or ignorant. Both in terms of the context of that performance now, and in terms of the performance relative to cars available in the exact same time period. It's like "hey, I remember the 300ZX, those were sick dude! Fast as hell!" Except a 2013 Accord V6 traps 101 (through the auto) and, shit, a 2003 Accord V6 trapped 98 (with a manual)! Performance standards thankfully did not freeze in time. Just like a 90s Maxima accelerating as quickly as an 84 Corvette.
Plus there was an added layer of mysticism to 90s Japanese anything that a lot of people found simply irresistible, and I never really bought on to 90s Japanese car worship, especially JDM-only cars. I mean I liked Japanese cars that did not have a cult, posters-on-the-wall following, like the Q45 or Nissan Maxima. That's just how I am. I was explaining to Bill the other day after I showed him the 79 Fleetwood and he shrugged it off that it is sure convenient for me that my dream car isn't everyone else's $20k, $30k, $40k or more dream car (60s restored muscle being a prime example). The Impala SS was vaguely poster-worthy but not anywhere near what these 90s Japanese cars enjoyed.
Anyway, none of the words he used in the article intro explain the advantages the car actually has (Matt Farah covered most of it in one of his One Takes). Most casual car enthusiasts still don't understand subtle things like steering feel so we continue to see simple, easy to measure metrics like acceleration be referenced. Either disingenuous (appealing to a wider audience on purpose) or ignorant (not knowing that the car wasn't the fastest thing at the time, or mediocre by modern performance standards). Really all I had issue with was the intro. The rest of it was a great, step by step, cost by cost, breakdown of exactly why I would never want to own one of these. I suspect these cars got a free pass by almost all casual observers of possessing the same 90s Japanese reliability as a 92 Camry. They had lots of tech and it did not age well. Again, I suspect the Supra may be a little better, but I am sure it costs crazy money to repair still and you pay for it anyway because people pay ridiculous amounts of money for them. I should also mention that unlike the pedestrian Hondas and Toyotas, these cars were all very expensive.
The thing with the ITR is it is a pretty simple car, even if the overall performance is even lower.
Plus there was an added layer of mysticism to 90s Japanese anything that a lot of people found simply irresistible, and I never really bought on to 90s Japanese car worship, especially JDM-only cars. I mean I liked Japanese cars that did not have a cult, posters-on-the-wall following, like the Q45 or Nissan Maxima. That's just how I am. I was explaining to Bill the other day after I showed him the 79 Fleetwood and he shrugged it off that it is sure convenient for me that my dream car isn't everyone else's $20k, $30k, $40k or more dream car (60s restored muscle being a prime example). The Impala SS was vaguely poster-worthy but not anywhere near what these 90s Japanese cars enjoyed.
Anyway, none of the words he used in the article intro explain the advantages the car actually has (Matt Farah covered most of it in one of his One Takes). Most casual car enthusiasts still don't understand subtle things like steering feel so we continue to see simple, easy to measure metrics like acceleration be referenced. Either disingenuous (appealing to a wider audience on purpose) or ignorant (not knowing that the car wasn't the fastest thing at the time, or mediocre by modern performance standards). Really all I had issue with was the intro. The rest of it was a great, step by step, cost by cost, breakdown of exactly why I would never want to own one of these. I suspect these cars got a free pass by almost all casual observers of possessing the same 90s Japanese reliability as a 92 Camry. They had lots of tech and it did not age well. Again, I suspect the Supra may be a little better, but I am sure it costs crazy money to repair still and you pay for it anyway because people pay ridiculous amounts of money for them. I should also mention that unlike the pedestrian Hondas and Toyotas, these cars were all very expensive.
The thing with the ITR is it is a pretty simple car, even if the overall performance is even lower.