1/4 mile predictions for G37 Coupe?
#76
Well I am glad someone finished it up for Hypnoz.
Thanks for explaining, Muscarel and FAST1.
With DR's, it's hard to figure, but I imagine 6K would still be unnecessarily high.
Time will tell.
Thanks for explaining, Muscarel and FAST1.
With DR's, it's hard to figure, but I imagine 6K would still be unnecessarily high.
Time will tell.
#77
Originally Posted by muscarel
Car and Driver:
2007 G35 - 0-60 in 5.5 seconds and 5-60 in 5.9 seconds. That's 0.4 seconds off.
2007 335 Sedan - 0-60 in 4.8 seconds and 5-60 in 5.6 seconds. That's 0.8 seconds different.
2007 Corvette Z51 - 0-60 in 4.3 seconds and 5-60 in 5.2 seconds. That's 0.9 seconds different.
The above is counter-intuitive from what I have read about the BMW's lag-fee turbos and Corvette's low-end torque. It also would support that the G35 (or 7) is not a low-torque slug that needs the snot beat out of it to move.
Fast1, how do you explain the above? It would seem that the G35 is able to take advantage of a greater % of it's full performance in daily driving than the corvette or 335.
2007 G35 - 0-60 in 5.5 seconds and 5-60 in 5.9 seconds. That's 0.4 seconds off.
2007 335 Sedan - 0-60 in 4.8 seconds and 5-60 in 5.6 seconds. That's 0.8 seconds different.
2007 Corvette Z51 - 0-60 in 4.3 seconds and 5-60 in 5.2 seconds. That's 0.9 seconds different.
The above is counter-intuitive from what I have read about the BMW's lag-fee turbos and Corvette's low-end torque. It also would support that the G35 (or 7) is not a low-torque slug that needs the snot beat out of it to move.
Fast1, how do you explain the above? It would seem that the G35 is able to take advantage of a greater % of it's full performance in daily driving than the corvette or 335.
1.That 5.5 is very impressive for the G35. Was that the G35 sedan's time? As a matter of fact the 5.9 for 5/60 is the time listed by most magazines for the 0/60 for the G coupe.
2. I saw a base '07 C6 with the Z51 option being advertised by Kerbeck for $44K a few months ago. A 4.3 for a $44K car is beyond belief.
3. A 5.9 for 5/60 is truly impressive for such a relatively heavy car as the G35.
4. I agree that the data you presented would definately lead to the conclusion that the '07 G35 and presumably the G37 are not low-torque slugs that have to be abused to get their best performance. The data would suggest that even though the Gs may not reach maximum torque until near 5K rpm, they still must make a substantial amount of torque at the lower rpm range.
Hats off to Infiniti. Those who will be buying the G37 should have a very respectable street performer.
#78
muscarel - One last thought about the G's times for the 0/60 and 5/60. Did you read the magazine article regarding the test? Sometimes because of the tires on the tested car or because of track conditions, the tester may have traction problems. It may very well mean that the G35 could be much faster with a different set of tires, and I won't be surprised if much faster 0/60 times are posted by some other magazines.
Last edited by FAST1; 06-03-2007 at 05:09 PM.
#79
Originally Posted by wyatthanson
I must be horrible at reading. So please explain to me what you meant and what I missed in that original post I quoted?
"12s no doubt with DRs and 5-6K launch."
I said stop speculating, and why would this car need a 6K launch.... Hmm, yeah, I can't read.
"12s no doubt with DRs and 5-6K launch."
I said stop speculating, and why would this car need a 6K launch.... Hmm, yeah, I can't read.
I said "12s no doubt with DRs and 5-6K launch.
The higher the rpm when launching the more power the car is creating, and with DRs you will get more traction. Hence my point, a lower 60' and a lower 1/4 time. What is hard to understand about that?
If you could get full traction at any rpm then you would want to launch at the RPM with the most power. Understand?
#80
I said "12s no doubt with DRs and 5-6K launch.
A 12.8 - 12.9 1/4 for a G37 with DRs is certainly within the realm of possibility with a 5K rpm launch and a driver skilled at handling high rpm launches. It won't be long before we have to end the speculation since I expect magazine reports on the G37 before too long.
A 12.8 - 12.9 1/4 for a G37 with DRs is certainly within the realm of possibility with a 5K rpm launch and a driver skilled at handling high rpm launches. It won't be long before we have to end the speculation since I expect magazine reports on the G37 before too long.
#81
Originally Posted by FAST1
Some observations from the data you presented:
1.That 5.5 is very impressive for the G35. Was that the G35 sedan's time? As a matter of fact the 5.9 for 5/60 is the time listed by most magazines for the 0/60 for the G coupe.
2. I saw a base '07 C6 with the Z51 option being advertised by Kerbeck for $44K a few months ago. A 4.3 for a $44K car is beyond belief.
3. A 5.9 for 5/60 is truly impressive for such a relatively heavy car as the G35.
4. I agree that the data you presented would definately lead to the conclusion that the '07 G35 and presumably the G37 are not low-torque slugs that have to be abused to get their best performance. The data would suggest that even though the Gs may not reach maximum torque until near 5K rpm, they still must make a substantial amount of torque at the lower rpm range.
Hats off to Infiniti. Those who will be buying the G37 should have a very respectable street performer.
1.That 5.5 is very impressive for the G35. Was that the G35 sedan's time? As a matter of fact the 5.9 for 5/60 is the time listed by most magazines for the 0/60 for the G coupe.
2. I saw a base '07 C6 with the Z51 option being advertised by Kerbeck for $44K a few months ago. A 4.3 for a $44K car is beyond belief.
3. A 5.9 for 5/60 is truly impressive for such a relatively heavy car as the G35.
4. I agree that the data you presented would definately lead to the conclusion that the '07 G35 and presumably the G37 are not low-torque slugs that have to be abused to get their best performance. The data would suggest that even though the Gs may not reach maximum torque until near 5K rpm, they still must make a substantial amount of torque at the lower rpm range.
Hats off to Infiniti. Those who will be buying the G37 should have a very respectable street performer.
To answer #1 - Yes, that's an 07 sedan with the HR (the closest thing to the new G37).
All test were from Car and Driver. I must say, I am surprised of the gaps in the torquier cars myself.
#82
Originally Posted by FAST1
muscarel - One last thought about the G's times for the 0/60 and 5/60. Did you read the magazine article regarding the test? Sometimes because of the tires on the tested car or because of track conditions, the tester may have traction problems. It may very well mean that the G35 could be much faster with a different set of tires, and I won't be surprised if much faster 0/60 times are posted by some other magazines.
The new sedans are almost all showing low 5's for 0/60 in the car mags.
Different sets of tires may help, but I can't see it being too different unless you go to DR's (which I don't consider apples to apples).
#83
Originally Posted by muscarel
The new sedans are almost all showing low 5's for 0/60 in the car mags.
Different sets of tires may help, but I can't see it being too different unless you go to DR's (which I don't consider apples to apples).
Different sets of tires may help, but I can't see it being too different unless you go to DR's (which I don't consider apples to apples).
No matter which way you cut it however, the G37 will be a quick car, especially for a luxury GT with all of the amenities. I'm still impressed by the .4 differance in time between the 0/60 and 5/60 that you posted for the G35 sedan.
#85
Hypoz - I clearly understood what you meant. But until it's done, I wont believe it. And even with traction, that doesn't mean 6K is the launch point. If you want to watch the RPMs bog down a little bit, go for it.
I simply said stop speculating, since that is all you are doing. No need to claim I can't read.
I simply said stop speculating, since that is all you are doing. No need to claim I can't read.
#86
Originally Posted by wyatthanson
Hypoz - I clearly understood what you meant. But until it's done, I wont believe it. And even with traction, that doesn't mean 6K is the launch point. If you want to watch the RPMs bog down a little bit, go for it.
I simply said stop speculating, since that is all you are doing. No need to claim I can't read.
I simply said stop speculating, since that is all you are doing. No need to claim I can't read.
#87
Originally Posted by wyatthanson
Hypoz - I clearly understood what you meant. But until it's done, I wont believe it. And even with traction, that doesn't mean 6K is the launch point. If you want to watch the RPMs bog down a little bit, go for it.
I simply said stop speculating, since that is all you are doing. No need to claim I can't read.
I simply said stop speculating, since that is all you are doing. No need to claim I can't read.
#88
I can't find the reciew with the 0.4 sec difference now. Here are some others:
http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtest...ecs-page4.html
This review shows 0-60 in 5.2 and 5-60 in 5.8 (0.6 sec difference)
http://www.caranddriver.com/shortroa...i-g35-6mt.html
This is a 1st Gen review. 0/60 - 5.9 and 5/60 in 6.3 (0.4 sec difference).
http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtest...ecs-page4.html
This review shows 0-60 in 5.2 and 5-60 in 5.8 (0.6 sec difference)
http://www.caranddriver.com/shortroa...i-g35-6mt.html
This is a 1st Gen review. 0/60 - 5.9 and 5/60 in 6.3 (0.4 sec difference).
#89
I too am more concerned with 5-60.
But it so happens that's even harder to speculate on.
I know it comes from trial and error. Every car is different. There is no set "most power = best launch". Too many factors included. And I was surprised Hypnoz had so much experience that he could narrow down the optimal launch to a 1K range. At first I simply asked, but he decided to nitpick my reading comprehension for some reason.
But it so happens that's even harder to speculate on.
I know it comes from trial and error. Every car is different. There is no set "most power = best launch". Too many factors included. And I was surprised Hypnoz had so much experience that he could narrow down the optimal launch to a 1K range. At first I simply asked, but he decided to nitpick my reading comprehension for some reason.
#90
Originally Posted by Hypnoz
You obviously lack comprehension skills. Tell me where I said it NEEDS to be launched at that high of rpm? I laugh at the fact that you tell me to stop speculating when that is exactly what you are doing as well.
Originally Posted by Hypnoz
12s no doubt with slicks and a 5k-6k drop.
I expect stock trap speeds 104+
I expect stock trap speeds 104+
If you call my argument speculation as well, I see your point... but I'm not throwing out numbers that I think are accurate. Instead, I'm trying to filter through the BS to see what's realistic. So you're right, it is speculation to an extent. Your claim might be realistic - - only time will tell. Not sure why you are so defensive. My first post just asked WHY because that seemed like too high of a launch to me. But if you want to get defensive, go for it.