While we magazine race the G37 versus the 335i (and we totally forget about the A5/S5, CLK, TT, etc.), the Europeans don't seem too interested in magazine performance numbers. Europeans look to the auto magazines for journalistic impressions about the cars. When Europeans want to know how fast a car is, they find the car's lap time around the Nurburgring. The 335i runs a 8 minute 26 second lap around the Nurburgring. Same as the 350Z. The Nissan Skyline runs a 8:28; two seconds slower. Since we all know the G35 Coupe is heavier than the Z, this difference should not be that much of a surprise. The weight affects braking and cornering as much as it affects acceleration.

Now, the only real question is what will the G37's time be? Should we expect the G37 to be faster around the Nurburgring than the G35 Coupe? According to the magazines who reported on the G37 versus the G35 Coupe at Barber Motorsports (yes, Infinit also brought along a G35 Coupe), the G37 braked better, cornered better and had a wider power band. In theory, these should translate to faster lap times. If the G37 picks up two seconds around the 'Ring, then it ties the 335i. If not, it will be slower than the 335i. No matter what, when we know the G37's lap time, if we were European, we would be done talking about this.

 

If you've ever been on the Autobahn or Autostrada, you know how Europeans gauge the speed of their cars (or the stupidity of their right foot).

I actually agree with a good road course shoot-out as long as the drivers are consistent. It tells you a lot more about a cars' road manners, weight, HP, traction, etc. In the US we take 'em to the track, but usually hook up 3rd wheels and drive through cones, I guess because the results are more "quantified". I dunno. I wonder what the Euro reaction is to the new G.

 

I partly agree. The advantage of using lap time on a recognized standard course like the 'Ring is that you can distill all of the performance info into a single number.

But as devil's advocate, the problem with using 'Ring lap times is that you introduce more variables, like the driver and the line he takes... and factors like track condition, temperature and tires get amplified. When the North American journalists break it down to the elementals, like acceleration, braking, skidpad and slalom, they get the same essential info, but remove some of the variables.

More importantly, by doing this, you can see where a car is strong and where it is weak. For example, two cars can have the same lap time, but one is better at cornering and the other is quicker on the straights. A lap time doesn't reveal this -- whereas (comprehensive) elemental performance tests do.

 

^^ that is dead-on correct. It's the variables and the subsequent firestorm of debate that the NA journalists are hoping to avoid. Obviously, this doesn't always work

 

But as devil's advocate, the problem with using 'Ring lap times is that you introduce more variables, like the driver and the line he takes... and factors like track condition, temperature and tires get amplified.

Tires is one of the variables that can make a huge differance in lap times. Of course another big one is the driver. One of the cars that had a really fast lap time was the 997 turbo, and I believe that the tested car ran with racing tires. It was justified by the fact that those tires are an option for that car.

Ring times don't mean that much to me because of the variables. What I would love to see for all cars are 5/60 and 40/70 times. This would give the average driver a far better understanding of how his car will perform on the street than Ring times.

 

And let's not forget that some cars are better on certain tracks than others. Cars with more high end power might need to "stretch their legs" on long straights and if the tests are on tight courses, you may get flawed results.

 

I agree. 5-60, and 40 to even 80 or 100 are good gauges. But then how do you judge cornering ability? I know plenty of Rustangs that are great in a straight line, but handle like pooh

 

^^yeah, on a short road course the vette would be desperately trying to get out of the Elises way as it used it's momentum and serious handling superiority over brute force. I've seen it a million times on the track.

 

why not use some standard commutes as a bench mark? i mean, i'd rather know how long it'll take me to get to work, or back, than how fast it'll go on a track i'd love to drive on, but will probably never get the chance...

(yes, i am kidding)

personally i like the track times, preferably with video documentation of it's performance, so you can SEE how it not only performs, but behaves, and behaviour is much more important, in my books anyways, than the performance numbers. if two cars have the same time around the track, but one needs to be fought and pushed, and the other is predictable, level and poised as it goes around, i'd personally take the second, though some times i like a brute of a car.

if the cars are driven by the same driver, multiple times around the course, and a statistical result taken, it's just as "scientific" as a 0-60 test, assuming the 0-60 is done the same way.
Quantity of data is important, maybe they should advertise 0-60mph in 5.5secs +/-.2 secs, 19 times out of 20.
taken from a representative sampe of that model, from different assembly/manufacture dates, on the same track, under similar conditions using the same driver (or if possible, why not a computer?).

now that would be accurate.

pardon the long windedness,

 

muscarel - Every magazine lists lateral gs in their tests and I have no problem with that as being a good indicator of a car's cornering capability. I also have no problem with your suggested 40/80 or 40/100. My problem is with a 0/60 where someone drops the clutch at 6K or 7K, and gets some super time that hardly any of us can replicate because we don't choose to abuse our cars.

 

My problem is with a 0/60 where someone drops the clutch at 6K or 7K, and gets some super time that hardly any of us can replicate because we don't choose to abuse our cars.

Good point. If an auto journalist/ skilled driver is motivated to get a fast and verifiable 0-60 on behalf of a manufacturer, there are a couple tricks he can do to improve quickness off the line -- I used to do as many as I could before running 1/4 miles:

-pick a cold day
-set the run direction with the wind behind you
-remove everything that's removable (spare tire, headrests, even pocket change and spare keys!)
-run the fuel down to near-empty
-power everything down
-pick the widest, stickiest, but lightest tires offered
-deflate the tires slightly
-wet the tires and do a burnout just before the run
-get a cooler full of ice and empty it on the hood
-rev the engine hard a few times
-drop the clutch at the highest rpm that still allows the tires to grip
-and of course, do lightning fast shifts, which have been practiced

All this stuff can add up! If a car manufacturer really wanted a quick run, he could also make sure the car was tested in some place below sea-level, with the highest atmospheric pressure, but lowest temperature.

BTW, for the G, I found a 3700-4000 rpm clutch drop gets me away the quickest -- but I don't do this often for obvious reasons (and I'm already on my second clutch )

 

This is America, and we believe performance equals to

1. Horsepower
2. Side of the motor
3. 0-60
4. Quarter Mile
5. Top speed

If there is a number 6, it would probably be how long it takes to run around a left-turn-only banked circle track.

 

You 3 have an EXCELLENT point of view. I can honestly say this thread is by far the best thread in terms of points refering to technical problems such as performance.

In responce to Sukairain, as much as I hate this, you are dead on. Everytime I hear someone bragging about more HP, better 0-60's, better top speed, 1/4 miles without a true comprehension of how to analize these times, as if these times are everything in indicating a cars overall performance, I simply laugh inside of me.

Great discussion
.

 

FWIW, you can always tell if the car is stock or modified, and who modified it. You can also always tell if the car is on road tires or race tires. (This info is listed in parantheses after the car and driver description.)

Auto Motor & Sport routinely runs stock cars at the 'Ring. They only use two or three of their staff drivers and, supposedly, these drivers all turn equivalent times so you can cross reference the times without worrying about who was driving.

As for me, I will wait for the 2008 G37/Skyline times to get an idea if the new car is faster than the old. But, that's just for my own education. I will get a new G37 no matter what because it is the total package I am looking for. (I would not mind if it was faster, but the similarity of acceleration with the old G35 Coupe will not prevent me from getting a G37.)

P.S. IIRC, I think someone wrote a computer program some years ago that you can get any 3000 lb car 0-60 in just over 3 seconds ......... by pushing it off a cliff.

 

reminds me of statistics and econometrics *puke*