Following up the S30 was never going to be easy. Nissan had sold over half a million of them since its debut in 1970, and it had something for everyone. Casual buyers loved its unbeatable mix of practicality and comfort, while enthusiasts were drawn to its impressive power and budget-friendly price.
Even with a few flaws, the motoring press couldn’t get enough of it. No other car in its class could quite match the Z’s performance, and that dominance lasted throughout the decade. While tightening safety and emissions regulations stifled many sports cars of the era, the S30 somehow managed to roll with the punches. It adapted like a champ.
But Nissan couldn’t keep it going forever. The growing pressure of fuel crises, stricter emissions laws, and evolving safety standards started taking a toll. As much as the S30 had proven its resilience, it wasn’t built with these new realities in mind. Nissan needed something fresh—something built for the ’80s.
Designing a new car isn’t just about artistry or technical skill. It takes a bit of foresight, too. The best designers don’t just follow trends—they anticipate what people will want before they even realize it themselves. Nissan’s product planners had their work cut out for them, trying to figure out what the future of the Z should look like. The planning stage actually went back as far as 1974, and the best place to start? Talking to the people who had already bought into the Z legacy.
For many Z owners, the car wasn’t just a weekend toy—it was part of their daily routine. They drove it to work, ran errands, and treated it like a practical coupe with a sporty edge. But even if most drivers never came close to its limits, they still wanted a car that felt exciting. Performance mattered, but so did the image.
Since a huge chunk of sales were expected in the U.S., Nissan knew they had to get the design just right for that market. The challenge? Creating something fresh while still delivering the essence of a true sports car.
Early on, designers were given free rein to sketch ideas from scratch. Some wild concepts emerged, but a few key elements remained consistent—a long, low hood, aggressive proportions, and a sharp rear stance. The little design details, though? That’s where things got tricky. One of the biggest debates centered around the B-pillar, with multiple variations explored.
As the process moved forward, the focus shifted to refining the shape. The front end, in particular, became a point of contention. The previous Z had a distinctive, open-mouth grille split by a bumper—memorable, but not exactly sleek. Finding a way to modernize it while improving aerodynamics became a priority.
Wind tunnel testing provided the breakthrough. Closing off the upper grille and channeling air through the lower intake made for a cleaner look and better airflow. A redesigned front spoiler helped with cooling while also cutting down lift, giving the car better stability at high speeds.
Headlight design sparked plenty of debate. Some pushed for a modernized look, while others believed staying true to the car’s heritage was more important. Although retractable lights were the latest trend, Nissan ultimately went with a fixed setup, valuing aerodynamics and brand identity over fleeting fads.
As the design process neared its final stages, two competing proposals emerged. Both shared a similar foundation, but the details set them apart. One featured a smooth, flowing front inspired by earlier models, with a seamless window treatment that gave it a sleek, unified look. The other took a bolder approach, incorporating sharper bumper lines and a more intricate window pillar. In the end, the second option won out, striking the right balance between nostalgia and modern refinement.
Design wasn’t the only thing on Nissan’s mind. The new Z had to be practical, comfortable, and safe enough for daily driving. That meant fine-tuning everything from crash protection to interior usability.
For safety, Nissan engineered the dashboard to absorb impact in case of a collision, reducing the risk of serious injuries. Inside, every control was adjusted for ease of use, and anything hard or protruding was swapped out for softer, more forgiving materials to minimize potential harm during an accident.
Seating was another area where Nissan made careful distinctions. The two-seater version retained the high-backed bucket seats from the 280Z, ideal for a more driver-focused experience. Meanwhile, the 2+2 model prioritized comfort, with lower-backed seats that improved visibility for rear passengers.
Speaking of visibility, Nissan put extra effort into improving sightlines. Slimmer A-pillars led to a slight but noticeable boost in frontal visibility—about a three percent improvement, verified with a fisheye lens to simulate the driver’s perspective. The rear view remained similar, but a larger back window let in more light, making the cabin feel more open and inviting.
The bumpers also got an upgrade. Now made from urethane, they blended more seamlessly into the design. On models destined for the U.S. and Canada, Nissan added shock absorbers to meet stricter safety regulations.
Space was another major win. The old S30 offered 57 cubic feet of interior volume, but the new model jumped to 73 cubic feet. Cargo space saw an even bigger jump—up 37%, from 7.47 to 12.61 cubic feet. A big reason for this was the switch to a space-saver spare tire, which freed up room in the cargo area.
But not every market got to enjoy this perk. In Britain, regulations banned space-saver tires, meaning Nissan had to stick a full-size spare in the trunk. This didn’t go over well with Motorsport Magazine, which aired its frustrations in a 1980 review. The tester grumbled about not being able to fit a suitcase without removing the cargo cover. Porsche, in contrast, found a clever workaround—offering a disclaimer and free roadside assistance for flats. The reviewer couldn’t figure out why Nissan didn’t take the same route.
Three years of development, hundreds of trial models, and extensive road testing led to the launch of a brand-new sports coupe in mid-1978. Shipments reached American shores by October, with dealerships beginning official transactions a month later. A noticeable shift in market positioning was reflected in its nearly five-figure entry cost.
Under the hood, an inline-six powered the machine, identical to what was offered in a previous exclusive model for North America. Buyers in Japan, however, had access to a smaller displacement option producing 130 horsepower.
Automotive writers got their first taste of the vehicle at an event hosted at a circuit in Portland. Right away, they could tell it had moved in a different direction from its predecessor. Car and Driver summed it up in one sentence: “1979 Datsun 280ZX Evolves Into a Personal Luxury Car.” Patrick Bedard noted that if a certain Detroit-based automaker ever decided to enter this category, it might resemble what Nissan had just introduced. Smooth and composed at lower speeds, reviewers described its behavior as more suited to comfort than outright performance.
Pushing it to the limit, however, revealed some unsettling tendencies. The rear had a habit of breaking loose too easily. Some degree of playfulness can make a sports car more exciting, but this one had a mind of its own, making it difficult to control. It even drew comparisons to a well-known German rival, though experienced drivers could manage that one better. The stretched-wheelbase version provided slightly more stability, but critics weren’t overly impressed with how it handled either.
While handling left something to be desired, the cabin more than made up for it. The seating position and gauge layout received praise, with reviewers noting its upscale feel compared to rivals from Japan and Britain. Bedard even claimed it outclassed competitors from both Mazda and Triumph in terms of refinement.
Seats managed to offer both comfort and firm support, with nearly endless adjustment options. The list of amenities also turned heads. High-end versions came equipped with power-assisted steering, cruise control, and a dashboard alert system that monitored various functions. One particular detail stood out—a fully automatic driver’s side window that lowered completely with a single press. According to the review, not even luxury brands like Cadillac had introduced such a feature at the time.
While handling left something to be desired, the cabin more than made up for it. The seating position and gauge layout received praise, with reviewers noting its upscale feel compared to rivals from Japan and Britain. Bedard even claimed it outclassed competitors from both Mazda and Triumph in terms of refinement.
Seats managed to offer both comfort and firm support, with nearly endless adjustment options. The list of amenities also turned heads. High-end versions came equipped with power-assisted steering, cruise control, and a dashboard alert system that monitored various functions. One particular detail stood out—a fully automatic driver’s side window that lowered completely with a single press. According to the review, not even luxury brands like Cadillac had introduced such a feature at the time.
While handling left something to be desired, the cabin more than made up for it. The seating position and gauge layout received praise, with reviewers noting its upscale feel compared to rivals from Japan and Britain. Bedard even claimed it outclassed competitors from both Mazda and Triumph in terms of refinement.
Seats managed to offer both comfort and firm support, with nearly endless adjustment options. The list of amenities also turned heads. High-end versions came equipped with power-assisted steering, cruise control, and a dashboard alert system that monitored various functions. One particular detail stood out—a fully automatic driver’s side window that lowered completely with a single press. According to the review, not even luxury brands like Cadillac had introduced such a feature at the time.
While handling left something to be desired, the cabin more than made up for it. The seating position and gauge layout received praise, with reviewers noting its upscale feel compared to rivals from Japan and Britain. Bedard even claimed it outclassed competitors from both Mazda and Triumph in terms of refinement.
Seats managed to offer both comfort and firm support, with nearly endless adjustment options. The list of amenities also turned heads. High-end versions came equipped with power-assisted steering, cruise control, and a dashboard alert system that monitored various functions. One particular detail stood out—a fully automatic driver’s side window that lowered completely with a single press. According to the review, not even luxury brands like Cadillac had introduced such a feature at the time.
One particularly quirky addition was the dual fuel gauge. The main dial worked like any other, measuring from full to empty. Beneath it, however, sat a second display that zoomed in on the final quarter of the tank. This might seem unnecessary today, but in an era of fuel shortages, it was a clever touch for drivers keeping a close eye on consumption.
Overall, reviewers found plenty to like—as long as the car stayed within its limits. It wasn’t the raw, engaging machine its predecessor had been, but taken for what it was, the new Z had its merits.
The original had dominated from day one, setting the benchmark in 1970. Nearly a decade later, things weren’t so simple. The competition had caught up. A Motor Trend test from 1979 made this clear, pitting the latest model against Toyota’s Celica Supra. Performance, refinement, and efficiency were nearly identical. Price, however, was another story—the Toyota undercut the Datsun by a staggering $4,000. While the design divided opinions, the publication ultimately saw the Supra as the stronger overall package.
In 1981, Car and Driver gathered a group of performance cars to see how they stacked up against each other. Some were relics of a past generation, while others hinted at the future of driving excitement. The Italian entries held onto their classic charm, embodying a style that was quickly disappearing. Porsche threw its hat into the ring with a more accessible option, while Mazda’s lightweight contender was shaping up to be the next big thing. Even the American powerhouse, long overdue for an overhaul, still had its fair share of admirers. With such a diverse lineup, there was plenty of variety—each machine bringing something unique to the table.
The first stretch of the trip took the group from Los Angeles through winding mountain roads and endless highways. The convertibles were in their element, carving through the curves with the top down and the open air adding to the experience. Despite their age, the charm of these machines left an impression, making it all the more puzzling why this style of car was fading away. The trade-off, of course, was the constant battle with wind and road noise, but for those behind the wheel, it was a small price to pay.
Meanwhile, the sleek Japanese and German options tackled every challenge with precision, showing just how far modern engineering had come. Even the muscle-bound American brute managed to win over its critics with sheer personality. Then there was the Z—perfectly fine in a straight line but lacking the excitement expected from something in this category. To those behind the wheel, it felt detached, more of a highway cruiser than a true performer.
The story didn’t change much when they pulled into Willow Springs Raceway the next day. Porsche’s entry thrived in a track environment, while Mazda’s contender wasn’t far behind, proving itself more than capable of keeping up. The Italian roadsters, while not precision tools like their rivals, still delivered an enjoyable drive. Surprisingly, the American powerhouse clocked the fastest lap, proving that brute force still had its place.
As for the Z? It struggled. Every shortcoming noticed during the previous day’s drive was magnified on the circuit. When the final rankings were tallied, it barely escaped last place, finishing just ahead of one of the aging Spiders.
These impressions weren’t isolated to a single test. Other publications echoed similar thoughts. Motor appreciated the refined and quiet powerplant but found it uninspiring to drive. Road Test ran it against two other heavyweights, only to rank it dead last. Don Fuller didn’t hold back, calling it a punishment to drive compared to the competition.
Reviewers longed for the previous generation, frustrated by the shift in philosophy. But for Nissan, this was exactly the plan. The Z was no longer a scrappy, budget-friendly sports car—it was transforming into a refined grand tourer, carrying the weight of representing the brand on a global scale. While the full transition wasn’t complete, the direction was clear. Whether die-hard fans approved or not was irrelevant. Buyers had already made their choice.
In its first year, over 64,000 units found homes, though both generations were still being sold side by side. As Brian Long pointed out, most of those sales still belonged to the outgoing model. By 1979, however, the new Z had firmly taken the reins, moving nearly 72,000 units. It even took home Motor Trend’s Import Car of the Year award, solidifying its place in the market.
That same year, at the Frankfurt Motor Show, Nissan had another surprise in store—a special version of the 280ZX, dubbed the 2+2 TT. The first “T” stood for its T-bar roof, while the second hinted at something even more exciting—a turbocharged engine.
Initially, a full targa top had been planned, but structural concerns and time constraints led to a compromise. The new roof design provided an open-air experience while maintaining rigidity, offering a balance between freedom and stability. Available for both the standard and extended-wheelbase versions, the removable panels could be stowed in a vinyl pouch in the rear. Even when installed, they let in extra light, giving the cabin a more airy feel.
The feature made its way to the U.S. in 1980, followed by a European release the following year. Though it wasn’t a full-fledged convertible just yet, it was a step in that direction.
The real game-changer for the lineup came in the form of a turbocharger. It officially hit the market in April 1981, but there were some limitations at launch. Initially, it was only offered in the two-seater T-top variant, and to the disappointment of many enthusiasts, it came exclusively with an automatic transmission. Nissan had concerns about whether their in-house manual gearbox could handle the added power, so they held off on offering a stick shift. Even the automatic required reinforcements to cope with the extra torque. A manual option did arrive later that year, and by the following year, the 2+2 version also gained access to the turbo setup.
Priced at $17,000 when new, adjusting for inflation would put that figure at nearly $55,000 in today’s money. For that price, buyers got a serious boost in performance. The Garrett AiResearch turbo took output from a solid 145 horsepower up to an impressive 180. To put that into perspective, the L81-powered Corvette from the same era, which was the most powerful American production car at the time, produced just 10 more horsepower.
Visually, there were a few key giveaways that set the turbo model apart. A single NACA duct positioned off-center on the hood hinted at the forced induction under the surface, while twin exhaust outlets at the back reinforced its more aggressive nature. On paper, these changes transformed the car from a relaxed highway tourer into something far more potent—at least in theory.
Japan had to wait a little longer to get in on the action. The turbocharged model didn’t reach that market until late 1982, and even then, only the smaller 2.0-liter version received the upgrade. The L20ET engine delivered 145 horsepower and 152 lb-ft of torque, bringing a significant performance bump to the domestic lineup.
In the U.S., Car and Driver put the turbocharged model through its paces, clocking a 0-60 mph time of 6.8 seconds—blisteringly quick for the early ‘80s. The magazine went a step further, declaring it the fastest automatic-equipped car in the country at the time.
With the performance and price tag now in a different league, it found itself up against some serious competition. In a head-to-head battle published in Car and Driver’s December 1981 issue, it faced off against some of the biggest names in the industry: Porsche’s 911, Ferrari’s 308GTS, the DeLorean DMC-12, and Chevrolet’s Corvette.
The car used in testing was actually a pre-production model with a manual transmission, which meant the build quality wasn’t quite as polished as the others. But that didn’t stop it from holding its own. In a straight-line sprint, only the Porsche managed to edge it out. When it came to top speed, Ferrari took the win. Yet despite going up against some of the most revered sports cars of the era, the turbocharged Z landed in third place—an impressive feat on its own.
But what really stood out was the price gap. Among the five contenders, Nissan’s entry had the second-lowest base cost. The Corvette technically undercut it with a $16,250 starting price, but the test model carried a sticker closer to $19,000. Meanwhile, the other three were in a completely different tax bracket, ranging from $25,000 all the way to a staggering $56,000. The fact that it could even be mentioned in the same breath as those machines was a win in itself.
What started as a letdown had transformed into something that could hold its own against far pricier competitors. Nissan expected this newfound reputation to boost demand, but things didn’t quite go as planned. Sales dipped to around 63,000 units in 1981 and slid further to 57,000 the following year. Fortunately, an update was already in the pipeline, aimed at breathing new life into the lineup.
The S130 era was relatively short-lived, sticking around for just five years. Behind the scenes, Nissan had been developing its successor, known internally as the Z31. While not a completely fresh platform, it built upon a refined version of the existing underpinnings. One of the biggest improvements was aerodynamics—the drag coefficient dropped from 0.385 to 0.30, a significant step forward in efficiency.
Styling also saw a modern overhaul. The classic recessed headlights were reimagined with an angular design that suited the sharper body lines of the new decade. In Japan, they even had a unique trick—drivers could flash their high beams without raising the lights, a handy feature for communicating with oncoming traffic.
Under the hood, the transformation was even more dramatic. The previous inline-six engines were phased out in favor of an entirely new V6 lineup. Outside of Japan, two versions of the 3.0-liter VG engine were available. The naturally aspirated variant put out 160 horsepower and 173 lb-ft of torque, while the turbocharged version cranked out 200 horsepower and 227 lb-ft. European models got an even more potent version, pushing closer to 230 horsepower with 242 lb-ft of torque.
With these updates, Nissan was ready to take the Z into a new chapter, one that leaned even further into the blend of performance and refinement that had become its signature.
Things played out a little differently in Japan. The turbocharged 3.0-liter initially delivered its full output, but after October 1986, its power rating dropped to 195 horsepower while torque remained unchanged at 227 lb-ft.
Japanese buyers also had access to a smaller engine option. The 2.0-liter turbo variant produced 170 horsepower and stayed in production until 1986, when it was replaced by an inline-six alternative. The new RB20DET brought an extra 10 horsepower over its predecessor, making it the more compelling choice.
One of the biggest advancements in this updated turbo system was the introduction of a ceramic turbine rotor. This innovation, developed in partnership with NGK, slashed the component’s moment of inertia by an impressive 45 percent. The result? Faster spool-up times, reduced turbo lag, and noticeably sharper throttle response. The technology was so effective that it earned Nissan an award from the Japan Gas Turbine Academic Society in 1986, a testament to how far turbocharging had come.
In 1987, Nissan introduced a major update under the hood—the VG30DE. This naturally aspirated, dual-overhead-cam V6 brought a whole new personality to the Z. Jack Yamaguchi summed it up best:
“The twin-cam engine delivers a rare combination of a flat torque curve low in the rev range and a willingness to wind instantly to the 7,000 RPM limit.”
By this point, late-model Z31s could be identified by their names. The RB20DET-powered versions were labeled 200ZR, with two variants—200ZR-I for standard-roof models and 200ZR-II for those equipped with a T-bar roof. The 300ZR housed the naturally aspirated VE30DE, while the turbocharged VG30ET models retained the 300ZX badge. Every 3.0-liter model came exclusively with a T-bar roof, further distinguishing them from their smaller-displacement siblings.
The Z31 officially hit U.S. showrooms in October 1983. Pricing started at $15,800 for the base two-seater, while the turbo model came in at around $18,200. A more affordable entry-level version, expected to cost roughly $13,000, never made it stateside due to voluntary import restrictions limiting the number of Japanese cars that could be sold in the country.
Its launch also marked the final transition away from the Datsun name. While the outgoing S130 carried the “Datsun 280ZX by Nissan” branding, this new generation fully embraced the Nissan identity, leaving no traces of the old badge behind.
Road & Track had a simple verdict: familiar, yet taken a step further. Enthusiasts who enjoyed the prior model would find plenty to like, while skeptics were unlikely to change their opinions. Though cornering ability had improved, the updates felt more like refinements rather than a complete overhaul.
To celebrate five decades in business, Nissan introduced a limited-production turbocharged variant in 1984. This edition featured a striking silver-and-black exterior, seamlessly integrated bumpers, gold-accented wheels, embroidered seats, and a distinctive set of gold-plated keys. Underneath, modifications included a revised front spoiler and firmer suspension tuning.
Buyers had only one major decision—manual or automatic. Everything else came standard. With a sticker price of $26,000, it was positioned as a premium offering. Availability was tight, with just over 5,100 heading to the U.S. and 300 reaching Canada, making it one of the most exclusive iterations of this generation.
The arrival of the Z31 brought a surge in demand. Around 71,000 units found buyers in 1983, climbing slightly to 73,000 the following year. But by 1985, interest had begun to wane, with sales slipping to 67,000.
A subtle refresh in 1986 introduced a reshaped nose, wider wheel arches, and sportier side skirts. Turbocharged variants lost the signature off-center hood scoop, giving the lineup a cleaner look. These tweaks were a precursor to a more significant overhaul the following year.
The 1987 redesign was a product of Nissan’s North American design team, based in San Diego. Established in 1979 and fully operational by 1983, Nissan Design International was still making a name for itself, and this project was a major milestone.
The changes included yet another front-end revision, slimmer taillights, updated wheels, improved suspension tuning, and larger brake calipers. However, none of this was enough to reverse declining sales. By 1987, demand had dropped to just 33,000 units. A year later, numbers fell below 20,000. It was clear that the Z31’s time was running out.
Production figures told the story. The S130 reached 414,628 units, while the Z31 totaled 328,599. Though both played a key role in keeping the Z name alive through the late ‘70s and early ‘80s, neither captured the cultural spotlight like the original. That would change with the arrival of the next generation in the 1990s.