2010 g37 fuel economy

[sonicloud]

I am wondering if the +1 mpg on the 2010 G is the result of the new firmware for the 7 AT, if that's the case then I might consider bring mine in for the TSB for the rough down shift.

[Alex57r]

I dont think firmware can do that. Once you are in 7th, thats it. i hope they dropped the gear ratio of 7th gear a bit. Right now 6th and 7th are like 100rpm appart which makes one of them useless. No reason to be revving more than 1800 rpms at 65mph while cruing in my opinion. My car is at 2000rpms at 60mph in 7th.

[2009Black]

They did not drop the gear ratios.

[mw09g37]

if you see the sticker the numbers for the epa mpg ratings is crazy ( mean for any of them the 2008/2009/2010) they'll give a huge delta range: like expected 15-21 for city 19mpg and expected 24-32 for hwy 27mpg which gives the 22 mpg rating. .

I mean I can tell you from experience.

my commute is 13 miles each way. it's a mix of expressway (no traffic) and city streets
in my previous 2008 G35S 5AT Sedan I achieve 22mpg on the commute
in the 2008 G37S 6MT Coupe I achieve 20 mpg on the commute
in the 2009 G37S 7AT Sedan I achieve 17 mpg on the commute.
in the 2008 EX35S 5AT Loaner I achieve 19mpg on the commute.
in a IS350 6AT I get 23 mpg on the commute.

when i get to use the HWY bump all those numbers by 2mpg.


I mean it really really sucks how big this range is. I mean I say either some major tuning is in order or some better engine management.

personally I don't mind 17mpg. but my car better have more than 330 hp... I mean shoot m3s get better mileage than most of the 2009s out there.

[da mayor]

the most impressive highway mileage is from the corvettes w/ 28mpg from a 400-hp v8.... talk about low rpm's

[Boomer-Bob]

Originally Posted by mw09g37

if you see the sticker the numbers for the epa mpg ratings is crazy ( mean for any of them the 2008/2009/2010) they'll give a huge delta range: like expected 15-21 for city 19mpg and expected 24-32 for hwy 27mpg which gives the 22 mpg rating. .

I mean I can tell you from experience.

my commute is 13 miles each way. it's a mix of expressway (no traffic) and city streets
in my previous 2008 G35S 5AT Sedan I achieve 22mpg on the commute
in the 2008 G37S 6MT Coupe I achieve 20 mpg on the commute
in the 2009 G37S 7AT Sedan I achieve 17 mpg on the commute.
in the 2008 EX35S 5AT Loaner I achieve 19mpg on the commute.
in a IS350 6AT I get 23 mpg on the commute.

when i get to use the HWY bump all those numbers by 2mpg.


I mean it really really sucks how big this range is. I mean I say either some major tuning is in order or some better engine management.

personally I don't mind 17mpg. but my car better have more than 330 hp... I mean shoot m3s get better mileage than most of the 2009s out there.

That seems low for a '37...? I don't have an S, but, mixed driving for me is amost always over 20. I think I drive conservatively, the wife dosen't.

[sonicloud]

If hardware stays the same for 2010, then why is it gets +1 mpg than 09's?

[crazjayz]

Originally Posted by sonicloud

If hardware stays the same for 2010, then why is it gets +1 mpg than 09's?

Different tires, change in diff ratios, or even change in EPA testing.

[mw09g37]

Originally Posted by Boomer-Bob

That seems low for a '37...? I don't have an S, but, mixed driving for me is amost always over 20. I think I drive conservatively, the wife dosen't.

ha tell me about it. I've been on infiniti/nissan arse every week about a fix... I mean dude it's a 7 speed automatic.

i mean the only other aspect of the car that's different besides the better tranny and engine is the tech package... and I'll be damned if the tech package brings down the fuel economy.

[kanariya]

i got 25mpg for cruising @ 70..

usually i get ~16mpg or less for local NYC traffics.

[Alex57r]

Originally Posted by da mayor

the most impressive highway mileage is from the corvettes w/ 28mpg from a 400-hp v8.... talk about low rpm's

Yeh, those things rev like 1400 on the highway at 65mph. Awesome.

I wish infiniti lowered 7th gear, its such a great transmission but why make all of us pay for the unnecessary gasoline is beyond me.

[crazjayz]

Originally Posted by Alex57r

Yeh, those things rev like 1400 on the highway at 65mph. Awesome.

I wish infiniti lowered 7th gear, its such a great transmission but why make all of us pay for the unnecessary gasoline is beyond me.

Agreed. I'm also pissed off at the 2nd gear. Why do you need an extra shift to get to 60. IMO, if they made the 2nd gear ratio slightly lower, making the shift at 62 instead of 52, and lowered everything else, it would have been much better. 90mph would have been ~3k in 7th.

[mark34]

I get 17 from almost exclusively around town driving, only about 10% highway. I have to admit I was surprised, though I shouldn't have been. This was my move to a responsible car from my Cayman S... it got 16.5.
(G37S sedan, 2009)

[Marc Collins]

Originally Posted by crazjayz

Agreed. I'm also pissed off at the 2nd gear. Why do you need an extra shift to get to 60. IMO, if they made the 2nd gear ratio slightly lower, making the shift at 62 instead of 52, and lowered everything else, it would have been much better. 90mph would have been ~3k in 7th.

It's geared like so many U.S. cars for impressive acceleration instead of overall usefulness. Check out how many European cars have different final drive ratios or even different transmissions for the models exported to the US. The other problem is a lack of torque in the 3.7 engine. Again, they boosted the HP for marketing purposes at the expense of torque. I would gladly reverse the numbers and have 270 hp and 330 ft-lbs. of torque...it would be a much more driveable engine and you could have 7th gear idling along at 60 mph. But how many agree or even understand this? Volvo (!!) is one of the few who have consistently focused on this...and what is their sporty reputation?

[allagaroo]

Originally Posted by Marc Collins

It's geared like so many U.S. cars for impressive acceleration instead of overall usefulness. Check out how many European cars have different final drive ratios or even different transmissions for the models exported to the US. The other problem is a lack of torque in the 3.7 engine. Again, they boosted the HP for marketing purposes at the expense of torque. I would gladly reverse the numbers and have 270 hp and 330 ft-lbs. of torque...it would be a much more driveable engine and you could have 7th gear idling along at 60 mph. But how many agree or even understand this? Volvo (!!) is one of the few who have consistently focused on this...and what is their sporty reputation?

The current Audi A4 has a 4cyl. turbocharged engine with torque of 258 and HP of 211. Doesn't have the acceleration of the G but no slouch and far better fuel economy. 0-60 high 6's and 30mpg on the highway. Max torque also comes on at low rpms so car is very driveable.
J