Being BRZ fast as opposed to Supra fast is quite surprising. Now I want to see the 4 cylinder turbo Supra lapped as a comparing.
Photography by David S. Wallens; lead by Chris Tropea
If this were a fully rounded review of the new 2023 Nissan Z, we would tell you about how great it is on the road, the generous views out the windows, and the body that evokes every generation of Z-car up to today.
But this is a track review, so we have to start off with a word we’re not excited to use to describe the new Z. That word is disappointment.
On paper, our Nissan Z test car is the one you want. It’s a Performance model, which means it comes with the 19-inch Rays wheels, the mechanical limited-slip, the big brakes. It even has the six-speed manual transmission.
At $53,210 and 400 horsepower, this Z seems more aligned with the Toyota Supra than other comparative coupes, like the Toyota GR86 and Subaru BRZ.
With a full tank of gas, our Nissan Z Performance weighs 3274 pounds.
To see how these cars compare where it counts, we took the new Nissan Z to the Florida International Rally & Motorsport Park, GRM’s official test track. It was a warm, sunny day–the usual there.
Our initial track impressions of the Nissan Z: It’s good up until about 80% of its capability. It’s got solid steering feel, excellent sightlines and a pretty flexible powerband. You can see where you want to go and easily get the car there.
One thing the Nissan Z does very, very well: trail-braking down toward the apex. The brakes on this car are very good, very powerful and very responsive.
They help haul the car down into the corner while providing confidence-inspiring feedback, even with ABS intervention. In slower and medium-speed corners, the Nissan Z delivers the braking confidence you need to dive as deeply as you want.
But once the speeds increase, that confidence starts to erode. The Nissan Z becomes nervous and just doesn’t feel as fully locked down as a car in this class should be.
We think the biggest issue with the Z is a severely under-sprung chassis. This allows weight to transfer very, very slowly, meaning the chassis takes a while to take a set in the corners.
That’s usually not such a big deal, though, because a good set of tires will allow you to feel that weight transfer so you can let it take a set and just sort of wait.
The problem is that the Nissan Z’s throttle just isn’t a good partner here. The throttle has this very logarithmic application where it delivers a lot of power in the last few percent of pedal motion.
As a result, particularly at the exit of medium-speed and even slow corners, you’re waiting forever for the chassis to take a set as weight transfers backward while you’re also trying to throttle out of the corner.
You really have to match the timing between the chassis finally taking a set and the engine delivering the forward thrust. So there’s this moment when the rear is finally taking a set, you’re finally applying full throttle, and you’re getting way more engine than you want–way more engine than the chassis can handle.
Now you’re trying to fight the rear end from breaking away, and there’s this unfortunate lack of balance between the throttle and the chassis.
While the setup feels confident in slower, heavily loaded turns, there’s an overall nervousness and imprecision when trail-braking into higher-speed entries. Other cars–the Supra, the BRZ, the latest Civic Si–simply feel more confident here.
At the limit on track, the Nissan Z delivers a bit of a white-knuckle ride. At least, it felt that way as delivered from the factory–the same way we test other new cars.
What does the data show? The data traces for the Nissan Z and the latest Subaru BRZ nearly overlap. Look for video analysis soon.
The lap times are close, too: 1:23.16 for the automatic-equipped, current-edition Subaru BRZ and 1:23.44 for our Nissan Z test car.
Blue: Nissan Z; Red: Subaru BRZ
The latest Supra? It ran a 1:19.59 and felt confident doing so.
Blue: Nissan Z; Red: Toyota Supra
The speed traces clearly show the Nissan Z’s lazy acceleration–about on par with the BRZ and much slower than the Supra.
Was our car’s slowness partly due to a power deficiency? To find out, we strapped it to BSI Racing’s Dynojet. Our best figures: 353 horsepower and 360 lb.-ft. of torque. Once you factor in driveline loss, those pulls seem in the ballpark for an engine rated at 400 horsepower.
But why did Z Car Garage get 379 horsepower out of its dyno test? It could be the correction factor (SAE at BSI Racing versus standard at Z Car Garage) or the dyno itself. The results of our three back-to-back runs, though, were consistent.
This doesn’t mean the Nissan Z is a failure, but we’re eager to see how much more speed the aftermarket can unlock.
Being BRZ fast as opposed to Supra fast is quite surprising. Now I want to see the 4 cylinder turbo Supra lapped as a comparing.
not just BRZ-fast, but automatic BRZ fast. Very surprising.
Weren't the acceleration numbers for the automatic dramatically better than the manual, like way more than what you would expect? Makes me wonder if there's some torque limiting going on during actual driving that doesn't show up on the dyno. I know the BRZ has a weight advantage and it's generally agreed that the supras are pretty underrated, but this still doesn't make sense to me.
Hopefully the soggy suspension can be easily fixed in the aftermarket, along with the nonlinear throttle...
Surprising results for sure.
Is the new BRZ/FRS that good? It'd be interesting to see a comparison with a 370Z and a 2.0L FRS/BRZ
In throttle house track test it was about 0.5s slower than the manual GR86. Though the dead steering and high weight would be a bigger issue for me. But we won't get any over here anyway, and only very few GR86s, sad times.
I really need to subscribe again to GRM, I wish they could sort out my problems with renewal :/
In reply to Cedricn :
Send me a message with your info and what problems you're encountering and I'll see what I can do.
Well, that's disappointing.. Nothing the aftermarket can't sort out, but really seems like the sort of thing an OEM would have taken care of before shipping it :(
I noticed one little typo, on the line about braking, "They help haul the car down into the corner while providing confidence-inspiring feedback, even if with ABS intervention. "
Do you have a lap time for a 1SS 1LE at The FIRM?
In reply to WonkoTheSane :
What about the typo where they call the BRZ a Supra BRZ?
I think this is pretty typical of NIssan in general. Their "sports" cars have tended more towards GT than sports since the 300ZX days. I have owned a couple iterations of the Z car and the latter ones have been relatively heavy and softly sprung which is nice for a boulevard cruiser but not so good for a track car or a canyon carver. It is encouraging to hear the brakes are good. I would think that the aftermarket will address the spring/shocks and throttle issue in short order and the car will shine.
Because it's basically $55k car on a 20-year old chassis, with a 10-year old engine, that turns out to be LESS than the sum of its parts.
In reply to Run_Away:
Yes, the new 2.4 seems to be very underrated from the factory.
The old 2.0 rate at 200 or 205, tended to dyno around 160-165whp. The new 2.4 rated at 228 seems to be dynoing 210-215whp. 40-45whp difference with a much larger midrange. In a car that's only about 60lbs heavier.
In reply to Toyspyder :
Thank you for catching those typos. We've corrected the story. We appreciate eagle-eyed readers such as yourselves.
The relative age of the parts involved isn't the issue. It sounds like it's suspension tuning, and DBW throttle tuning, that lets the rest of the package down. Reading the brief article, I found myself wondering if just a set of uprated sway bars would have been enough to fix that half of the equation. The throttle doesn't seem so easy to fix unless the aftermarket can hack the ECU to change how throttle commanded is dealt with by the ECU.
Correct me if I'm wrong of course.
z31maniac said:Because it's basically $55k car on a 20-year old chassis, with a 10-year old engine, that turns out to be LESS than the sum of its parts.
In reply to Run_Away:
Yes, the new 2.4 seems to be very underrated from the factory.
The old 2.0 rate at 200 or 205, tended to dyno around 160-165whp. The new 2.4 rated at 228 seems to be dynoing 210-215whp. 40-45whp difference with a much larger midrange. In a car that's only about 60lbs heavier.
Yes, the new 86/BRZ seem to be more like 240hp in reality.
It's been a minute since I drove a first gen BRZ but from what I remember it's basically a different car. Which is actually pretty impressive considering that the chassis is basically the same as the first gen car minus some suspension tuning tweaks, and the engine is basically just an increased displacement version of the original. Kind of the same strategy that nissan took, but much much better executed and resulted in a car greater than the sum of its parts, not less like the nissan.
I am curious how it fares against its predecessor. A neat looking far, for sure. Too bad.
So I will throw this in the mix. I've raced car with a progressive throttle pedal set up. I.E. the first half of the pedal travel didn't equate to 1/2 throttle etc. I've raced a couple of two stroke GP bikes set up like this as well.
It definitely takes some getting used to; it's almost like dealing with older turbo cars, some racers will find it to be a handy tool and others will loathe it.
With that said it seems to me Nissan went for a more street friendly set up then a race track friendly one. I wouldn't call that disappointing as most people driving them will never take them to the track.
The fact that the car responds well to trail braking would be enough for me personally to deal with the throttle pedal issue.
Sounds like its suspension tuning needs some work. I think slow corner transitions are probably more due to being overdamped than undersprung?
The article didn't mention what tires the car was on. That could be a huge delta in lap time vs. other cars that we're comparing it to.
pres589 (djronnebaum) said:The relative age of the parts involved isn't the issue. It sounds like it's suspension tuning, and DBW throttle tuning, that lets the rest of the package down. Reading the brief article, I found myself wondering if just a set of uprated sway bars would have been enough to fix that half of the equation. The throttle doesn't seem so easy to fix unless the aftermarket can hack the ECU to change how throttle commanded is dealt with by the ECU.
Correct me if I'm wrong of course.
Already beta tunes for it, since it's basically the Inifinit engine/ecu.
ShinnyGroove (Forum Supporter) said:The article didn't mention what tires the car was on. That could be a huge delta in lap time vs. other cars that we're comparing it to.
That wouldn't result in the acceleration deficit, though. It matched the BRZ pretty nicely just about everywhere, and they don't exactly come from the factory with gumballs from my understanding.
But why did Z Car Garage get 379 horsepower out of its dyno test? It could be the correction factor (SAE at BSI Racing versus standard at Z Car Garage) or the dyno itself. The results of our three back-to-back runs, though, were consistent.
Not using SAE correction is a red flag for sure. Dynos are good tools for development if used properly, they're not really well suited to taking a random car in random conditions and doing a random pull. The BSI group obviously made more of an effort here, doing multiple runs and using industry standards.
z31maniac said:pres589 (djronnebaum) said:The relative age of the parts involved isn't the issue. It sounds like it's suspension tuning, and DBW throttle tuning, that lets the rest of the package down. Reading the brief article, I found myself wondering if just a set of uprated sway bars would have been enough to fix that half of the equation. The throttle doesn't seem so easy to fix unless the aftermarket can hack the ECU to change how throttle commanded is dealt with by the ECU.
Correct me if I'm wrong of course.
Already beta tunes for it, since it's basically the Inifinit engine/ecu.
And even if you can't get into the ECU, you can modify the signal from the pedal before it gets there. There are a number of products on the market that do this for various cars in the name of "improving throttle response".
Disappointing in its market? I figured it wouldn't of been as fast as the gr86 at the track tbh. If I was to buy the new Z, I'd never track it. This is certainly more of a street oriented car to me just like the Supra.
Can't wait to see Z1 and Stillen make tunes and a suspension kit that transforms them. I'm still thrilled Nissan is giving this a go.
Keith Tanner said:ShinnyGroove (Forum Supporter) said:The article didn't mention what tires the car was on. That could be a huge delta in lap time vs. other cars that we're comparing it to.
That wouldn't result in the acceleration deficit, though. It matched the BRZ pretty nicely just about everywhere, and they don't exactly come from the factory with gumballs from my understanding.
But why did Z Car Garage get 379 horsepower out of its dyno test? It could be the correction factor (SAE at BSI Racing versus standard at Z Car Garage) or the dyno itself. The results of our three back-to-back runs, though, were consistent.
Not using SAE correction is a red flag for sure. Dynos are good tools for development if used properly, they're not really well suited to taking a random car in random conditions and doing a random pull. The BSI group obviously made more of an effort here, doing multiple runs and using industry standards.
The higher trim comes with much better Michelin P4's than the crappy Bridgestones in the Z.
Which trim 86 did they use? Same thing there, high trim is on PS4 (not -s though) and the base car is on some Michelin that still has a pretty low tread wear rating but doesn't work nearly as well.
The 86 (not sure if the same for the brz) throttle mapping is the opposite, regressive I guess. "Half throttle" seems to be about 80% of max available torque, then the second half of the pedal travel does almost nothing.
I wonder if that throttle is akin to the oblong "throttle cam" on my Porsche 924S, which makes the throttle kind of laggy up until like 80% of throttle and then becomes linear. On the Porsche with a cable throttle, it's to improve driveability (I replaced it with a round "cam" and now it's TOO responsive in stop-and-go and requires a lot of foot attention). So maybe that's the concept? Though seems dumb on a car with electronic throttle.
Also, there isn't a "sport" mode or whatever that improves throttle response for performance driving? Seems like that would be a sensible feature for a car like this, since you can get it in sporty econo-cars.
--break--
In my experience, all Nissans are under-sprung from the factory. Seems Nissan has always been about softer springs and higher damper rates - at least in the last 20+ years.
In reply to irish44j (Forum Supporter) :
That's pretty much how the throttle pedal on my sports racer was. It was more user friendly especially under low traction.
Very strange the cornering speeds are about the same as the BRZ, but the speeds in the straights aren't significantly higher in the Z. Wonder if there was some power problem on track that wasn't present in the Dyno.
Just watched this, pretty disappointing.
Spoiler alert: Nissan gets walked, badly, by the Mustang and the Charger, both of which are ancient platforms...come to think of it, so is the 400z
The description of the DBW implementation reminds of a 996, which I find to have a very lazy throttle tip-in, then the rest of the pedal is like an on/off switch.
I read this not as an indictment of the Z, but further confirmation that GR86, Si, and Supra got things very right, right out of the box.
Driver confidence is everything.
yupididit said:Disappointing in its market? I figured it wouldn't of been as fast as the gr86 at the track tbh. If I was to buy the new Z, I'd never track it. This is certainly more of a street oriented car to me just like the Supra.
The Supra that was 3.5 seconds faster around the same track?
There's no reason why a car like this can't be great on the street and competent on the track as well at the press of a button on the dash, many other manufacturers have figured that out.
In reply to calteg :
It does better on the rolling start, but more worrisome is both times the reviewer said the Z was nervous when braking.
In reply to adam525i :
This 3.5 seconds faster on the track means nothing to me. I'd solely drive it on the street and probably wouldn't ever notice that difference in performance for my use. And 95% of the buyers of these cars will most likely be the same way. So, quoting that performance gap in reply to what I posted earlier just doesn't work.
I know they're not quite in the same ballpark but if I could find $53k for the Z I might try to find another $12k for a C8. Or spend a lot less on a used C6.
On paper it seemed like the 400Z would be an awesome all-around package but this doesn't make it sound like that's quite the case.
I drove the 400Z around on the street a bit and thought it was scary. I've driven plenty of high-horsepower cars, but doing a 0-60mph run in this car in the rain made me nervous. I didn't drive it long enough to tease out the fine details of what was wrong, but it just wasn't confidence inspiring. Something about the wonky chassis and dead steering made me feel like I'd be the last person to know the car was spinning as it took me with it into a ditch.
Oh, and it also felt slow. I texted JG after my time with it: "I'm betting 320 horsepower."
Tom Suddard said:I drove the 400Z around on the street a bit and thought it was scary. I've driven plenty of high-horsepower cars, but doing a 0-60mph run in this car in the rain made me nervous. I didn't drive it long enough to tease out the fine details of what was wrong, but it just wasn't confidence inspiring. Something about the wonky chassis and dead steering made me feel like I'd be the last person to know the car was spinning as it took me with it into a ditch.
Oh, and it also felt slow. I texted JG after my time with it: "I'm betting 320 horsepower."
Thank you for making me feel better about not waiting for this car vs ordering the BRZ I did.
Ouch. This is pretty bad.
Granted, I feel like the Supra punches way above it's weight on track, but I was expecting this to be closer to the Supra than a BRZ.
pres589 (djronnebaum) said:I know they're not quite in the same ballpark but if I could find $53k for the Z I might try to find another $12k for a C8. Or spend a lot less on a used C6.
On paper it seemed like the 400Z would be an awesome all-around package but this doesn't make it sound like that's quite the case.
Or, just spend a little less and get a Camaro 1LE or Mustang PP new, and in the case of the Camaro, get a track day car with a warranty.
So, the 370z was stretched to be the Infiniti G37 coupe
The G37 coupe has become the Q60 coupe which can be had with the 3.0tt/400hp
Is the new 400z just a shortened Q60 coupe? (auto trans only for Q60.)
Having just driven a Supra (with a 6MT) on tack yesterday, I can not overstate how different the experience of these two cars is. The Supra is like a GTP car, the Z is like a Pontiac Grand Prix GTP. Sorry I'm not buying all the excuses of "Well that's not what the Z was meant to be." On paper, these cars should be direct competitors and match up well. In the real world, they absolutely do not.
racerfink said:pres589 (djronnebaum) said:I know they're not quite in the same ballpark but if I could find $53k for the Z I might try to find another $12k for a C8. Or spend a lot less on a used C6.
On paper it seemed like the 400Z would be an awesome all-around package but this doesn't make it sound like that's quite the case.
Or, just spend a little less and get a Camaro 1LE or Mustang PP new, and in the case of the Camaro, get a track day car with a warranty.
Yep, if you want the 1SS with no options other than the 1LE package, the MSRP is $46k. And it's going to wipe the floor with everything around that price.
JG Pasterjak said:Having just driven a Supra (with a 6MT) on tack yesterday, I can not overstate how different the experience of these two cars is. The Supra is like a GTP car, the Z is like a Pontiac Grand Prix GTP. Sorry I'm not buying all the excuses of "Well that's not what the Z was meant to be." On paper, these cars should be direct competitors and match up well. In the real world, they absolutely do not.
Don't give away too much and get yourself in trouble!
JG Pasterjak said:Having just driven a Supra (with a 6MT) on tack yesterday, I can not overstate how different the experience of these two cars is. The Supra is like a GTP car, the Z is like a Pontiac Grand Prix GTP. Sorry I'm not buying all the excuses of "Well that's not what the Z was meant to be." On paper, these cars should be direct competitors and match up well. In the real world, they absolutely do not.
Oof. That's brutal.
In reply to tremm :
Tires on our test car–the stock Bridgestone Potenza S007–were very fresh and measured 9/32 all around after our visit to the FIRM.
JG Pasterjak said:Having just driven a Supra (with a 6MT) on tack yesterday, I can not overstate how different the experience of these two cars is. The Supra is like a GTP car, the Z is like a Pontiac Grand Prix GTP. Sorry I'm not buying all the excuses of "Well that's not what the Z was meant to be." On paper, these cars should be direct competitors and match up well. In the real world, they absolutely do not.
Wow.
I wonder if Nissan is ever going to lend you guys anything ever again, but I really appreciate that fresh and obviously real feedback.
Also. Wow.
David S. Wallens said:In reply to tremm :
Tires on our test car–the stock Bridgestone Potenza S007–were very fresh and measured 9/32 all around after our visit to the FIRM.
I know you guys intentionally test as delivered, but any chance you checked to make sure toe and camber weren't visibly off?
So will this car make people like the Supra more?
Tom Suddard said:I drove the 400Z around on the street a bit and thought it was scary. I've driven plenty of high-horsepower cars, but doing a 0-60mph run in this car in the rain made me nervous. I didn't drive it long enough to tease out the fine details of what was wrong, but it just wasn't confidence inspiring. Something about the wonky chassis and dead steering made me feel like I'd be the last person to know the car was spinning as it took me with it into a ditch.
Oh, and it also felt slow. I texted JG after my time with it: "I'm betting 320 horsepower."
Now this means a lot to me. This has a bigger impact on my sense for the car than it being 3.5 seconds slower than the Supra.
Did anyone check the alignment on this car?
I have experienced more than a handful of brand new cars off the hauler that came back with poor driving characteristics under warranty. On the rack they were "all greens" but not necessarily aligned well.
I see scales and a dyno, but no baseline on the alignment.
edit - Tree'd by Wonko!
yupididit said:Tom Suddard said:I drove the 400Z around on the street a bit and thought it was scary. I've driven plenty of high-horsepower cars, but doing a 0-60mph run in this car in the rain made me nervous. I didn't drive it long enough to tease out the fine details of what was wrong, but it just wasn't confidence inspiring. Something about the wonky chassis and dead steering made me feel like I'd be the last person to know the car was spinning as it took me with it into a ditch.
Oh, and it also felt slow. I texted JG after my time with it: "I'm betting 320 horsepower."
Now this means a lot to me. This has a bigger impact on my sense for the car than it being 35. seconds slower than the Supra.
JG mentioned that in the review too, cue: 400z leaves car meet and hits a pole meme...
First thing a friend thought when we were talking about the review and the throttle mapping how dangerous that can be.
You really have to match the timing between the chassis finally taking a set and the engine delivering the forward thrust. So there’s this moment when the rear is finally taking a set, you’re finally applying full throttle, and you’re getting way more engine than you want–way more engine than the chassis can handle.
Now you’re trying to fight the rear end from breaking away, and there’s this unfortunate lack of balance between the throttle and the chassis.
gumby said:Did anyone check the alignment on this car?
I have experienced more than a handful of brand new cars off the hauler that came back with poor driving characteristics under warranty. On the rack they were "all greens" but not necessarily aligned well.
I see scales and a dyno, but no baseline on the alignment.
edit - Tree'd by Wonko!
We actually had that problem with our GR86. Everything was in spec but the rear toe settings were at opposite ends of the tolerance band. On the street it drove fine especially with a passenger in the car. But at the limit on an autocross course it was much more prone to snap oversteer when turning left than when turning right.
As far as alignment goes, Throttle House on YouTube (based in Canada, btw) reported much the same issues with their test car.
Two year old review video of the Q60 Red w/ awd.
The notable comments were:
Though, he speaks much more kindly about the 400z here
JG Pasterjak said:Having just driven a Supra (with a 6MT) on tack yesterday, I can not overstate how different the experience of these two cars is. The Supra is like a GTP car, the Z is like a Pontiac Grand Prix GTP. Sorry I'm not buying all the excuses of "Well that's not what the Z was meant to be." On paper, these cars should be direct competitors and match up well. In the real world, they absolutely do not.
This is a fair cop but what if it's not an excuse.
It's entirely possible Nissan chose to make the car appeal to the Blvd crowd much like the 280ZX (complete supposition on my part).
Over the years there have been several sports/sporting cars that were absolutely frightening to drive in the rain yet sold like hot cakes.
As a Datsun guy I've been of the opinion that Nissan lost the plot long ago but I'm also aware I'm not their market.
In reply to Tom1200 :
Agreed. I can't help but remember the times when a manufacturer produced a true performance-focused car (FD RX7?) and were punished brutally in the sales dept. The sad reality is track performance is not what most buyers are looking for.
Some of the other road tests i have seen aren't thrilled with it either. This is so sad. Its the car so many have asked for, a nicely styled rear drive coupe, but maybe Nissan dropped the ball? A re'skinned 370Z is not what I expected.
I like the way the car looks, its nice inside too, even the screen mounted low and out of the way. The price is way too high. 50k for the "good" stuff!!
Ian F (Forum Supporter) said:In reply to Tom1200 :
Agreed. I can't help but remember the times when a manufacturer produced a true performance-focused car (FD RX7?) and were punished brutally in the sales dept. The sad reality is track performance is not what most buyers are looking for.
Not sure that's a fair comparison, all the 90s Japanese sports cars left the US in '96 (except the 3000GT) because of the Yen-vs-Dollar connundrum. Supra, RX-7, and 300ZX all left that year.
If you adjust for inflation what those top end cars cost in '96, it is approaching 80k in today's dollars.
It's a Nissan. I'd expect disappointment.
ddavidv said:It's a Nissan. I'd expect disappointment.
I wish that I disagreed. It just seems like the problems are fixable, and if I were Nissan I'd make that hard-core "Nismo edition" or whatever they want to call it available from the get-go. Seems like from a marketing perspective, you don't want to listen to the word "disappointing" for a year till you come out with the good stuff. Only one chance to make a good first impression and all that. The car may be perfect as is for 90 percent of its buyers, but the enthusiasts have an outsized contribution to a car's word of mouth.
I've tried to like Nissans in the past. Always wind up disappointed.
During my blissfully brief employment at a Toyota/Nissan/Mazda dealer, the techs and I shared an opinion: Nissan likes to think they are the next Toyota, but aren't. Mazda is closer to what Nissan wants to be but nobody notices.
Tom1200 said:
It's entirely possible Nissan chose to make the car appeal to the Blvd crowd...
I think it's this, that they designed the car to appeal to the 99.9% who'll never track the car, but who like to think that they own a sports car. The reality is that the vocal minority is just that, and doesn't move the needle enough on Nissan's features vs profit meter for them to bother. If you want to track the car, fine, make the necessary changes, and not to expect GTP performance right out of the box at a pedestrian price.
Tom1200 said:It's entirely possible Nissan chose to make the car appeal to the Blvd crowd much like the 280ZX (complete supposition on my part).
I just watched Tsuchiya's review on Car Prime (subtitled) and this seems to be the case. He didn't take it to a track, just cruised around city streets and remarked how comfortable it was, and supposed that a hard riding Nismo edition would be the one for track drivers.
You'll need to log in to post. Log in
