New BRZ vs Z

[zeroomega]

I think these 2 cars serves difference purposes. The 86s are more like, they are for people who enjoys driving and want's to be a better driver. They are so easy to control at limit in their stock forms. The Z (I only drove Z34) is more for people who want's a fast comfortable sports car. Z34 understeer a lot on racetrack and you need a lot of work to make its driving dynamics to be more balanced.

I actually doubt you can get a new 400Z at $34,995, even though except for the body, nothing on the new Z is new (engine from infiniti Q, chassis from old Z34), they added a turbo this time and there will be a lot of things need to be addressed. If you want a 400Z with adequate options to drive it on track, it would probably way over $40,000. Even the current NA 370Z will easily over heat on racetracks, and now 400Z has a turbo, who knows how much you need to pay to cool this new engine down. For 86, you just need an oil cooler (less than $1000 with installation), good brake pads and dot4 fluid. The new gen 86 even have oil cooler from factory. That's a huge price gap if you intended to use these new cars as track car.

I personally don't think new Z will hurt new 86s' sales number, but new Z would probably makes Supra harder to sale. Though new Supra's cooling are quite adequate on race tracks if you don't tune it, I doubt it would be the same for the Z though.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by gogriz91

I like the new Z. You can see the styling from the S30 and the 300 in it.

IMO like the "new" Camaro in 2010, the "new" Mustang in '05, etc., it tries to play homage to an older design but ends up looking bulky and CAD rather than svelte and sculpted. Design looks awkward to me.

Its going to have an option for more horsepower, hopefully, twin turbo. It's a re-badged G blah blah blah. The original Z had a version of the L motor out of the 510 with two more cylinders, the rear end was out of the Gloria, the styling borrowed from other GT cars.

The stuff it borrowed didn't result in it being 500 lb. overweight though!

Comparing it to the BRZ is apples to oranges. The BRZ is a lighter momentum car, the Z will have more power at the cost of weight.

Ah, that's my problem with it. For me, a "Z" (as opposed to "ZX" maybe) should be a relatively lightweight car, not a 2-seat version of a luxury coupe/sedan/SUV platform.

I've had a first gen Z since 86, driving the BRZ is similar except for the brakes and the creature comforts.

I miss my 240Z, bad :'(
A cab-rearward 2-seat version of the FT86 with a 300ish N.A. V6 would be a perfect modern Z.

[timurrrr]

Originally Posted by NARFALICIOUS

I never understood buying a car like the BRZ, or even the Nissan Z, and thinking about resale value. IT IS NOT AN INVESTMENT. It is for enjoyment, good times, nice cruises, car meets, maybe some weekend racing, or just a daily commute, whatever you want.

[...]

When my FR-S eventually becomes worth nothing in value, it's still going to have been worth all the money I spent buying it and fixing it up

One other way to think about it is that it's not about investment and more about minimizing depreciation.

If you plan to run the car to the ground so that it becomes nothing in value, then your "cost of ownership" = "purchase price" + "how much you spent on it". But if you can eventually sell it for some amount of money, your cost of ownership can be smaller. If you buy a new BRZ for $30k, drive it for a few years, and sell it for $15k, your cost of ownership is significantly higher than buying a used one for $20k, do all those same things, and sell it for $10k.

Someone I know recently sold his Golf R for the same amount of money he previously bought it for, despite putting a substantial amount of miles on it and even doing some autox. Owning that car for a few years only cost him a couple of thousands of $, which IMO is a pretty good deal.

[shiumai]

Originally Posted by ZDan

I miss my 240Z, bad :'(

I can relate. I miss my old 280Z as well, but not having to maintain it. It was a love-hate relationship. Here's a link to an old thread when I first got my BRZ to replace that 280 where I compared the two. https://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=35028

[Lelandjt]

Originally Posted by timurrrr

One other way to think about it is that it's not about investment and more about minimizing depreciation.

If you plan to run the car to the ground so that it becomes nothing in value, then your "cost of ownership" = "purchase price" + "how much you spent on it". But if you can eventually sell it for some amount of money, your cost of ownership can be smaller. If you buy a new BRZ for $30k, drive it for a few years, and sell it for $15k, your cost of ownership is significantly higher than buying a used one for $20k, do all those same things, and sell it for $10k.

Someone I know recently sold his Golf R for the same amount of money he previously bought it for, despite putting a substantial amount of miles on it and even doing some autox. Owning that car for a few years only cost him a couple of thousands of $, which IMO is a pretty good deal.

This. Depreciation doesn't concern me on a $30k car. At worst it'll cost me $18k to own. If I get a Porsche or BMW, besides the initial shock of spending $60+k on something that's not a house, there's the consideration of how much of that money I'll never see again. It wouldn't change how I'd use the car but it does figure into the initial "can I afford it" and new-vs-used equation.
A huge appeal of the twins to me is they're the "practical choice". I'd never feel financially irresponsible getting one. Everyone's financial situation is different but for me there's a lot of grey area between what I CAN afford and how I SHOULD be spending my money. I guess this is part of entering your 40s: Finally having the means to acquire things you've lusted after while also realizing that "saving for retirement" isn't a distant concept anymore.

[Summerwolf]

Modern Nissan vs modern Toyobaru.

I honestly don't think I'd choose either, but Toyobaru has a better track record for the most part. Nissan is a struggling company right now.... who knows where they'll be in three or four years.

[shiumai]

Originally Posted by Lelandjt

Everyone's financial situation is different but for me there's a lot of grey area between what I CAN afford and how I SHOULD be spending my money. I guess this is part of entering your 40s: Finally having the means to acquire things you've lusted after while also realizing that "saving for retirement" isn't a distant concept anymore.

If people start saving for retirement when they first start working in their 20's, they'll have a much better chance of affording what they wanted (but not needed) two decades later, and that decision would be less of a struggle. As you mentioned, everyone's financial situation is different, but it's good practice to set some aside when you're young, even if it's not much each time. The amount you're willing to spend on a non-essential purchase like a weekend car will be proportional to your comfort level at that age, based on where you are financially. Having a good retirement set aside, house paid off, no debt etc is going to allow you to buy something more expensive that you'd have been comfortable with in your earlier years. It's that thing that some people mistakenly refer to as the mid-life crisis; when it's just the point you've reached in life where you can finally afford something you've wanted for a long time, but put off until you felt financially stable enough to buy.

I've never looked at cars as an investment (since I can't afford any type of special car that ends up appreciating over time), and don't think much about depreciation or selling them either, as we keep them for a long time. I basically look at them as money that's gone that I don't expect to get back, and just enjoy driving/using them without worry.

[Sport-Tech]

Originally Posted by shiumai

If people start saving for retirement when they first start working in their 20's, they'll have a much better chance of affording what they wanted (but not needed) two decades later, and that decision would be less of a struggle.

In major urban centres up here in Canada most younger peoples' "retirement savings" are getting sunk into 25 year mortgages. The average house in Toronto recently topped $1.1 million, and prices rose about 10% in the last 12 months, even with Covid. Dumpy little condos worth under $100k 20 years ago are now valued at over $500k.

[Lelandjt]

Originally Posted by Sport-Tech

In major urban centres up here in Canada most younger peoples' "retirement savings" are getting sunk into 25 year mortgages. The average house in Toronto recently topped $1.1 million, and prices rose about 10% in the last 12 months, even with Covid. Dumpy little condos worth under $100k 20 years ago are now valued at over $500k.

Imagine what's it's like across the street from the beach on Maui. Many fun cars worth of dollars and most of my retirement plan are sunk into being able to hear the waves well enough from my bed to know which size surfboard to take out of the shed at dawn.

[shiumai]

Originally Posted by Sport-Tech

In major urban centres up here in Canada most younger peoples' "retirement savings" are getting sunk into 25 year mortgages. The average house in Toronto recently topped $1.1 million, and prices rose about 10% in the last 12 months, even with Covid. Dumpy little condos worth under $100k 20 years ago are now valued at over $500k.

Similar situation here in the Los Angeles area, and especially in the beach cities/coastal area where I live. But I'm talking about the luxuries that young people spend on, in addition to the crazy mortgages they're paying. Not everything they spend on is essential, and if they can put aside $500/month instead of leasing that new BMW or trendy Tesla or eating out less during the week, that's where some of that discretionary money can be 'sacrificed' and put towards retirement. Or that daily $5 coffee vs. making one yourself. The little bits eventually add up.

When I graduated in 1990 and got my first job, most of my college buddies who also got their first jobs bought new cars within the first year. I drove my 280Z which I'd had since 1985 until 2013, when I bought my first new car for myself - my BRZ. 28 years for the first new car is an extreme example, of course, but I had co-workers who kept changing cars every few years, and saw them spend money that could have gone towards a better retirement nest egg. It's about priorities, and making some of the sacrifices now (when you're younger) in order to benefit yourself 20-30 years down the road.

[DarkSunrise]

Based on my experience having owned both an FR-S and 350z, I'd take the next gen GR86 over a 400z. That's especially true with both cars basically re-using the prior gen chassis.

[Sasquachulator]

I need back seats so that elminates the Z, and the Supra, and the Miata....

Basically leaves me with the twins, the pony cars or the luxury coupes.

[shiumai]

Originally Posted by Sasquachulator

I need back seats so that elminates the Z, and the Supra, and the Miata....

Basically leaves me with the twins, the pony cars or the luxury coupes.

Don't forget the hot hatches. The need for a pseudo back seat was another thing that drove me to get the BRZ, and eliminated the Z or any other 2-seater, back in 2013. While small, the kid back seats do come in handy.

[Transport3r]

Originally Posted by shiumai

Don't forget the hot hatches. The need for a pseudo back seat was another thing that drove me to get the BRZ, and eliminated the Z or any other 2-seater, back in 2013. While small, the kid back seats do come in handy.

Nah. I need 4 seats too, but I won’t buy something that’s not RWD. The twins are really it once you realize that everything else with 4 seats is 3400lbs+.