Pauly: You've started something now!
I'm afraid I have to jump in here and spring to defence of the true sports car.
I know it's an argument that has raged for ever and will never end, but I must disagree with the 2+2 lovers here. Perhaps this thread should never have started!
Flame suit well and truly donned, IMHO, the 2+2 is the ugly duckling, the heavy rear end at odds with the sleek nose. The squared-off roofline awkward compared to the gracious curve of the 2-seater.
The 2-seater was the original, i.e. 240Z, which AFIK was never offered in a 2+2 variant. The 2+2 emerged with the arrival of the 260Z as a sop to the American market, wanting a shopping trolley.
A true sports car must be a 2-seater - others are Tourers. The clean, balanced lines of the E-Type Jag were cruelly spoiled years later by the 'pregnant pastie' took of the 2+2. More angular, the 260Z suffered the same overweight appearance when the 2nd row of seats was jammed in. It could have been done better.
This continued with the Z31 - ungainly shape with the 2+2, almost tolerable in the 2-seater.
Finally with the Z32 Nissan got it right. Subtle lengthening of the wheelbase and a rearrangement of the fuel tank position resulted in a smooth shape almost indistinguishable from the 2-seater, apart from a couple of degrees more rake on the rear hatch and 100mm or so in the dog leg. The fuel filler position is the real give-away.
I have a 2-seater Z32 and a 2+2. I like them both. If I had to choose though, I would keep the 2-seater.
Practical though the S30 2+2 may be, sadly in the design stakes it's a distant second for me. I bought a 2-seater 260Z and would not have considered a 2+2.
There! Let the argument rage!!