When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
On the new model, I like how they allow you to select the Mark Levison Stereo and sport suspension with LSD as seperate packages. The F Sport Performance Exhaust is a nice option as well (some believe its made by Tanabe).
You may want to double check those performance numbers.
Infiniti G37S sedan
C/D TEST RESULTS 60 mph: 5.4 sec 100 mph: 13.5 sec 1/4 mile: 14.0 @ 102 mph Top speed: (governor limited) 155 mph
Braking, 70*–0 mph: 159 ft Top speed : 155 mph
Lightning Lap: 317.5
Lexus ISF
C/D TEST RESULTS: Zero to 60 mph: 4.7 sec Zero to 100 mph: 11.0 sec Standing ¼-mile: 13.1 sec @ 110 mph Top speed (governor limited): 169 mph Braking, 70-0 mph: 159 ft
Lightning Lap: 305.4
They don't make the ISF anymore. Are you talking about the IS 500 F Sport?
I see it getting slammed in trade rags for being "long in the tooth", but for me, that translates into "Reliable". I like the way it looks and perfomrs (for a 4x4).
Also, the both the Toyota 4Runner and Tacoma are also built on fairly mature RWD based truck platforms.
I really like the truck and I am not a truck guy. We keep selling out of them. "Long in the tooth?" It was completely redone last year. The previous generation was definitely long in the tooth as it ran from 2005 to 2021. The crazy thing is that it still greatly outsold the Titan that went through almost 3 different generations during the same time.
You are right about dependability though. The Nissan VQ V6 that is used in any Nissan with a V6- Murano, Frontier, Pathfinder, Maxima, (previously Z & G37) is the most award winning V6 on the market today. I have a technician that just sold his old Frontier to his dad with 526,000 miles on it!?! The engine and transmission internals are still stock.
ISF was an 8 cyl back in 2012. Apples to oranges, so I was mistaken quoting the V-6 performance comparison. The older ISF (almost impossible to find used) is more akin to the new IS500, which I really like.
My understanding is that the Frontier changed sheetmetal and ammenities in 2022, but stuck with the same platform (chasis/4WD, motor from 2020 and carried over 9AT).
I could be mistaken as I do not follow trucks closely anymore and I probably let Doug's review here influence some of my opinions:
I really like the engine and look of the IS 500 F Sport performance, but the brakes, handling, tires (and probably transmission) could all be a lot better. Probably a step backward from the ISF, but I cannot confirm because I have yet to drive an ISF. However, I do not like the looks/tech. of the ISF as much as the IS 500 F Sport performance. I think it would be easier to get a new IS 500 F and upgrade it, but it would also be a lot more expensive.
The Frontier was all new in 2022. Maybe they kept some structural elements in the fully boxed truck frame, but the entire cab, box, and all the new tech and safety features first debuted in 2022. They upgraded the engine to get about an extra 50 hp and upgraded from a 5 speed to 9 speed transmission the year before in the old truck. Looking back that is a rather smart way to get real world testing done for durability before you release an all new vehicle.
0-60 is right around 5 secs flat for the G37S. This was written back when the trade rags were excited about Infiniti.
Cool. In all my years as a G enthusiast (and MT subscriber) I never saw that particular test. Those are the best published #s I ever recall seeing for a G37, especially an auto. Definitely outliers IMO, but still cool.
For the last dozen years, I've always thought of the G as a 5.0 second car and 13.5 in the quarter mile. Figure that's about right. Easily a few tenths less when geared, modded and tuned.
What kind of freaked me out recently was reading about the performance stats of the Mustang EcoBoost. For decades the entry level engine in the Mustang has been crap, but not anymore apparently. (Although it still sounds like crap.)
For the last dozen years, I've always thought of the G as a 5.0 second car and 13.5 in the quarter mile. Figure that's about right. Easily a few tenths less when geared, modded and tuned.
What kind of freaked me out recently was reading about the performance stats of the Mustang EcoBoost. For decades the entry level engine in the Mustang has been crap, but not anymore apparently. (Although it still sounds like crap.)
I call bullsh-t on those numbers the car magazines publish because they aren't really the numbers they get in real life. Some do atmospheric correction, and other stuff, to get low numbers so the ones they publish are the numbers they ASSUME the car would get at sea level. I always trust Consumer Reports numbers because they publish numbers they actually got in real life. I have an IPL and I struggle to get anywhere close to 5 seconds 0-60. https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-cul...60-tests-work/ https://www.hagerty.com/media/videos...cammisa-ep-03/
These are Consumer Reports numbers.
G37 Convertible
0 TO 30 MPH
2.4 sec.
0 TO 60 MPH
6.0 sec.
45 TO 65 MPH
4.3 sec.
QUARTER-MILE
14.4 sec. / 100 mph
G37 Sedan
0 TO 30 MPH
2.4 sec.
0 TO 60 MPH
5.6 sec.
45 TO 65 MPH
3.8 sec.
QUARTER-MILE
14.1 sec. / 104 mph
2007 G35X Sedan
0 TO 30 MPH
2.3 sec.
0 TO 60 MPH
5.6 sec.
45 TO 65 MPH
3.8 sec.
QUARTER-MILE
14.2 sec. / 101 mph
G25
0 TO 30 MPH
3.2 sec.
0 TO 60 MPH
8.5 sec.
45 TO 65 MPH
5.4 sec.
QUARTER-MILE
16.4 sec. / 89 mph
2007 G35 Sedan
0 TO 30 MPH
2.2 sec.
0 TO 60 MPH
5.4 sec.
45 TO 65 MPH
3.7 sec.
QUARTER-MILE
14.0 sec. / 102 mph
2003 G35 Sedan
0 TO 30 MPH
2.8 sec.
0 TO 60 MPH
6.8 sec.
45 TO 65 MPH
4.3 sec.
QUARTER-MILE
15.4 sec. / 93 mph
I call bullsh-t on those numbers the car magazines publish because they aren't really the numbers they get in real life. Some do atmospheric correction, and other stuff, to get low numbers so the ones they publish are the numbers they ASSUME the car would get at sea level. I always trust Consumer Reports numbers because they publish numbers they actually got in real life. I have an IPL and I struggle to get anywhere close to 5 seconds 0-60. https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-cul...60-tests-work/ https://www.hagerty.com/media/videos...cammisa-ep-03/
These are Consumer Reports numbers.
<SNIP>
Those numbers are actually on par with virtually ever other main stream auto mag of the day. I consider Car & Driver the benchmark for instrumented testing. Really miss those tables of 0-x mph.
I call bullsh-t on those numbers the car magazines publish because they aren't really the numbers they get in real life. Some do atmospheric correction, and other stuff, to get low numbers so the ones they publish are the numbers they ASSUME the car would get at sea level. I always trust Consumer Reports numbers because they publish numbers they actually got in real life. I have an IPL and I struggle to get anywhere close to 5 seconds 0-60. https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-cul...60-tests-work/ https://www.hagerty.com/media/videos...cammisa-ep-03/
You've got a good point about magazine 0-60 times being nearly impossible to obtain and I finally figured it out a few years ago when Car & Driver published an article about how they achieve their road test results with rollout and how they were changing it to be more accurate. https://www.caranddriver.com/feature...hange-rollout/
That Road & Track article you posted came out a few months after the car and driver article so I am sure you are aware of this. For anyone else who has tried like crazy to match the 0-60 test results in your favorite magazine, good luck. I did the same thing in a few cars and came away disappointed. It turns out most magazines use a 1 foot rollout meaning that they allow the car to travel a foot before starting the clock. This usually makes the published 0-60 times look .3-.5 seconds faster than they actually are.
I gravitate towards the more favorable numbers since my car runs exceptionally well. The truth is likely somewhere between the MT ideal and Consumers Guide more conservative numbers.
I owned a 2004 G35 and it was quicker than 6.8 seconds to 60mph as my 2017 FWD Honda Pilot has tested higher than that and the G35 was noticeably faster than the Pilot.
Yeah, the CVT is definitely not for enthusiasts or engagement with the car. I think most manufacturers that followed Nissan's lead did it for the mpg benefits. Speaking of A/T cars, has anyone driven a Lexus ISF 2012 or newer? I hear good things about this car, but I am not sure about the ride quality as a daily driver and I never get too excited about an A/T of any kind. This one looks like a good deal.
I am a bit biased for the Lexus brand but the IS was never a car that I would recommend to anyone based on it's size. It's so small you may as well just buy a 2 door sports coupe.
For the last dozen years, I've always thought of the G as a 5.0 second car and 13.5 in the quarter mile. Figure that's about right. Easily a few tenths less when geared, modded and tuned.
What kind of freaked me out recently was reading about the performance stats of the Mustang EcoBoost. For decades the entry level engine in the Mustang has been crap, but not anymore apparently. (Although it still sounds like crap.)
5.0 and 13.5 sounds about right. One thing to remember the numbers can vary by a lot based on conditions and driving (especially when equipped with a manual transmission).
0-60 is a lot about marketing and that's what ford prioritized for EcoBoost. Short gearing & traction management will yield you such results. The trap speed tells a different story, the car could be just marginally quicker than a G37 from a roll.
09-09-2023, 03:37 PM
