09 7AT times?
03-02-2009, 03:09 PM
#16
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I, too, have been eager to see any "official" test times for the '09 coupe (non-X) with the 7AT. The only one that I've seen thus far is one from Popular Mechanics (http://www.popularmechanics.com/blog...s/4306387.html). In this article, they test the 2009 7AT G37 coupe vs. the 2010 Hyundai Genesis coupe.
In this comparison, they pulled a 5.69 0-60 and a 13.90 quarter-mile @ 101.2. I'm not familiar with Popular Mechanics testing, so I don't know if they normally get "good" times or not, but I am a bit disappointed...especially in light of the G37 sedan's reported times and the G37x's reported times.
In this comparison, they pulled a 5.69 0-60 and a 13.90 quarter-mile @ 101.2. I'm not familiar with Popular Mechanics testing, so I don't know if they normally get "good" times or not, but I am a bit disappointed...especially in light of the G37 sedan's reported times and the G37x's reported times.
03-02-2009, 03:36 PM
#17
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hear ya, Achilles. It's just that I was expecting something in the very low 5's, given the great review on the G37 sedan. I know the G sedan is some lighter, but something just seems wrong when a model's sedan is faster than the coupe. Also, the G37x coupe's numbers pushed me to expect more. I understand the traction advanage of the Gcx, but I didn't think the spread would be that great. Oh, well...
Don't get me wrong, I still love the G coupe.
Don't get me wrong, I still love the G coupe.
03-02-2009, 03:38 PM
#18
0-60 is not a good measure of acceleration. Sure it gives you a relative indication but quarter mile and trap speeds are better to look at. Folks should stop fretting over tenths of a second to 60 MPH. That can be made up or loss very quickly. However a couple of tenths of a second in the quarter mile at 100 + MPH is a nopticeable difference- two car lengths.
With that said unless there is at least half second gap between two times posted from a test done in the exact same conditions -0-60 times don't mean much. When you get beyond that- 1/2 second or more- then you might be able to make a relative claim that one car is sigficantly quicker than another.
Even then if someone doesn't really know how to launch a car or if one mag uses a different technique than another (ex using a roll out before starting the clock) then the numbers wont help much comparitively speaking.
Please take a look at the link, th ecar has already proven capable of very low 5s... 5.2 0-60 and 13.7 in the quarter. Thus it's a bit counterintuitive to look at the worst times and conclude that is what the car can do.
With that said unless there is at least half second gap between two times posted from a test done in the exact same conditions -0-60 times don't mean much. When you get beyond that- 1/2 second or more- then you might be able to make a relative claim that one car is sigficantly quicker than another.
Even then if someone doesn't really know how to launch a car or if one mag uses a different technique than another (ex using a roll out before starting the clock) then the numbers wont help much comparitively speaking.
Please take a look at the link, th ecar has already proven capable of very low 5s... 5.2 0-60 and 13.7 in the quarter. Thus it's a bit counterintuitive to look at the worst times and conclude that is what the car can do.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
