By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Well – I also have not yet read the article, but from the description given, my guess is that CU is essentially taking issue with the a transition to oversteer during high speed cornering when the throttle is lifted. The typical driver deals with (terminal) understeer better than oversteer, particularly when the adrenalin is pumping and the guardrails (or worse) are rapidly growing larger.
Their point, I’d guess, is that even if not pushing a car at nearly the handling limits, it is possible to encounter a situation demanding immediate throttle lift and / or hard braking and steering, approaching the handling limits very quickly. And a car that wants to swap ends under those circumstances is much, much more difficult to control than one that does not. Particularly for someone who was not hustling the car and alert for such behavior.
Just my $.01 worth (deflation strikes . . .)
Cheers,
- Ray
Always trying to keep the pointy end headed forward and the shiny side up . . .
Frank
Frank
I am considering a coupe. I am hoping some problems are fixed in the '04 model since that is likely what I will get. I have read much about easily scratched center consoles, short brake life (~10K miles) and easily chipped paint.
Under "Lows: at-the-limit handing (even with stability control)"
and
"When pushed hard in a corner, lifting of the gas encourages the tail to slide out - an effect that the standard stability-control system works hard to control. The G35's speed in the avoidance maneuver was high, but it wasn't as predictable as the other cars here."
It is hard to know whether CR is just taking a very conservative position on the G35's handling and knocking it down a notch because its handling is not "dumbed down" with lots of understeer to handle drivers with poor skills. Or perhaps the car does have a pronouced and abrupt from understeer to oversteer with throttle lift. This has been mentioned before in other road tests, although not to the degree that CR has done.
There is no way an abrupt transition to oversteer on throttle lift can be considered desirable and it takes a very well-trained driver to handle snap oversteer cars like early Porsche 911s. I don't think the bar should be so high that average drivers have to demonstrate extraordinary skills to drive a car in emergency situations. OTOH, if the transition is not abrupt and the oversteer not severe, then this might make the car a little more entertaining for a driver willing to learn its habits.
It is not a black/white issue and CR didn't say the car is dangerous or unacceptable. In fact, they rated it 4th out of a pack of 15 for people in which "sportiness is more important".
What I think is revealing is that CR continues to rate the BMW 330i the highest. (Although they no longer recommend it because of subpar reliability.) And no one disputes that it is a very sporty car to drive. So there is no need to make a car tricky to drive to have it handle very well.
- Mark
Drive the car for yourself and purposely slam the gas pedal down in the middle of a turn. Nothing happens!
I agree with Cr's reliability ratings quite often but consistently their reviews are so far off base that they're as worthless as the hype-filled-trash printed in motor trend, R&T, C&D, automobile and the rest of those magazines.
Some interesting things to think about...does this measurement reward the fact that the speed was high, or only look at the performance at the limit, regardless of how high the limit is? An emergency avoidance maneuver, like an emergency lane change, is a great thing to test. But, how fair is it to compare a red circle at 60mph to a black circle at 75mph? (just making up numbers). That 75mph car could be a red circle at 60mph.
and, is it just me or does "The G35's speed in the avoidance maneuver was high, but it wasn't as predictable as the other cars here" sound mostly positive, with some reservations. This doesn't sound like a black circle comment to me.
and, one more thing. The M3 had better get the same black circle from them, as it's extremely tail happy when pushed.
What would be your basis for this statement. Have you tried emergency avoidance maneuvers at the edge of a cars handling ability? If the 330i didn't get the black circle, I'm not sure the M3 would either.
There is no problem. Even with lame non summer tires my car at Vet stadium parking lot could handily perform well in some extreme situations. I spent an hour pushing cars suspension in dry and then an hour in wet conditions. I get to know all my cars this way as soon as purchased and maybe again 6 mos later. The car is exTREMELY well balanced and inspires no more confidence than the [non-permissible content removed] can handle. WITH AND WITHOUT VDC. VDC give you MORE control no doubt in a turn you are driving to fast through. MT test had Sedan 2mph over 330 in slalom and the midship win agains.
I had the thing at 80 and tried to throw the [non-permissible content removed] and it kept coming back. All you need is throttle control given by RWD. I
The problem is not VDC. You can turn that off. The problem is BLSD, or Brake Limited Slip Differential, which does not work with the engine like VDC. It applies the brake to the offensive corner of the car. I think that's what intervened.
The problem with disabling BLSD is that it is on the same circuit as ABS. So Nissan does not want to help us as a liability issue. I was told that by Infiniti Consumer Affairs.
Not satisfied with that answer, I sent a letter to VP/GM of Infiniti Mark C. McNabb. I included the article from SportsCar Magazine on the BLSD problem, and a letter explaining that there is liability created by BLSD intervention in the hands of a skilled driver fighting BLSD for control. I sent this to his HOME address in Irvine.
My 2000 Lincoln LS Manual has no Traction Controls of any kind. At an LM sponsored Mania 1 track day in January 2001, I was setting almost times of the day in my car. Then everyone had to drive the smaller, tighter Gymkhana course in a LM supplied LS. These were V-6 automatics with Traction Control. Well, driving this thing was like trying to wrestle God for control. I ended up with the Cone Killer Award. Traction Control is great for the casual driver and I would welcome it for driving on tree-lined two-lane twisties. But out on the open/flat areas of Solo 2, it's a nightmare.
So when you hear of an Nissan product doing weird things in handling tests, always suspect the VDC if on and the BLSD that you can't even reduce or eliminate. The guy who figures out a patch for this evil software is going to make some money and put the G35's back on the track.
SportsCar speculated that the G35s tested by car magazines were "ringers" without BLSD activated.
CR buys their cars at random. They are "consumer models".
The G leads the class right now and no one and no crappy black cirlces matter at the level of minutia this was shown. I along with more and more every day find the 35 a clear alternative if not exceptional alternative to the 3 based on rigidity and balance. BMW may have the interior and the tranny but we've got the same or better vehicle dynamics at the edge - hands down according to every editorial I have seen and from personal experience.
Get over it 3ers, you are fighting uphill now on the performance front not to mention the arguably obsolete styling that gets worse in 05 and the 530i pricing.
For 18k enjoy your .2 secs over my stock friends and your arguably similar handling - g does slaloms at near 66 and brakes like a ferrari or porsche. I haven't seen the times for your ZHP? And it looks the same as 500 others around me every day - nice though don't get me wrong.
While you can believe what you want and say what you want, CR seems to have found an issue. No car is perfect, certainly the BMW is not perfect and neither is the G35. Each of the cars is a compromise. It certainly appears to be a good car for the price, but CR has found what it found, you can ignore it, argue it or deny it. Saying the G35 is a better car and then conveniently ignoring this data point is interesting. While I wouldn't pan a purchase of the G35 with this datapoint, I find it the sort of disbelief interesting.
Additionally, BMW offers many configurations of cars with many performance options and price points, coupe, sedan, convertible, 2.5L, 3.0L, 3.2L etc. Not every configuration can beat the G35 in a straight line race, but to some people that doesn't matter.
One more thing, if you remember blueguydotcom was seriously looking at the G35. So I challenge the assertion that people who look at a $27K G35 wouldn't be looking at a $45K ZHP, as BGDC ended up with the ZHP.
Lastly when I see CR showing the black little circle in the emergency handling box for the M3, that's when I'll believe it.
I dont want to drive it its not what I want to spend on a marginally better car. What I said is still valid. If you want G power in 3. You will spend 42k minimum - thats 14k and not the zhb or whatever.
My research is done as I've purchased...and we all will be second to someone in this class well before we are done with our obligations to the G's 3's.
And for the 'issue' - drive it and if you cant handle it buy the 3. The g's midship platform provides 52/48 weight dist. If you want better control than G provides and traction I suggest the M or the vette as a better alternative for 66 slalom and .86 skidpad. Those tests dont lie or get blown off from some dufus's black circle. And the same dufus drove the 330 and gave that car too many stinkin black circles too.
I didn't suggest M would fail any test, but in fact would want the M as it is reasonable in the line up. for the 330, an 15k or 18k or 13k markup over the base model screams markup and dealer proft that I would prefer not to give.
whoa...you're letting CR make your handling judgements? I was just saying that there was sommething wrong if they didn't have a black box there, because it's one of the most tail happy cars out there. I'm not busting on the car, it's just one of its characteristics. If it's a problem on the G35, it's a problem on the M3. If it's fun on the M3, why is it a problem on the G35?
Have you driven an M3?
"But keep in mind that a consequence of a more immediate release of the M3's enormous power is the need to keep tabs on the rear end."
"Through the slalom, however, oversteer helps to turn the car"
"The first couple of laps I tried to fight the tendency to want to drive the M3 sideways," Herta comments. "But after two laps I just give up and drive the car sideways all the way around. On corner entry, I pick up a little mid-corner understeer off power, but as soon as I touch the throttle again, the back wants to be sideways."
It's still a great car, but it's tail happy.
18k?! I paid 40k for my ZHP with Xenons, moonroof and leather as the extra features.
The same people that buy 27k G will not be looking for 45k 330i.
27k? Yeah a stripped G. The 2004 G35 MT I wanted had an MSRP of 33-34k and I was looking at about 31-32k for it. I was dead set on the G, then I drove a 330i ZHP.
Of course the Infiniti didn't come with some features I wanted (bi-xenons, sport seats, free maintenance, 18s, metallic paint) and the lease rate on the Infiniti couldn't touch the 0.0003 MF I snagged from BMWFS.
What's the best MF from Infiniti? Lets say 0.0020 or 4.8% (which is ludicrously low). Assuming a 34k MSRP, 31k drive-off, $750 in fees and 59% residual, 7.75% tax I'd face payments over $460 a month on a 2004 G35 outfitted as I wanted.
I pay $20 bucks more a month for my ZHP. And I get free maintenance, all the features I want, have it now instead of August/September and it outperforms the car I originally wanted.
And it looks the same as 500 others around me every day - nice though don't get me wrong.
Actually, though this doesn't matter much, it doesn't look like a regular 330i. Different interior and exterior.
Great deal! And the MR for leasing G sucks you are right but i dont lease and saved 193 a month from deal on 330 for purchasing. when I was buying in Jan the marketing sales blitz for BMW had not begun quite yet and I was getting some "our cars dont need discounted shiite". Sorta why I am so against paying so much more.
Thats an apples to oranges comp. You would see me lease 3 before leasing G anyday as the money rate is ludicrous. They want 53% residual after 3 years.... You have however eliminated the Gap that I couldn't as a buyer. Enjoy
Soon enough the G and the much better lineup should change that leasing problem for the badge. I would want to buy a BMW even more than a G though in long run as the value has held up better. Lets not forget short history of G though. No real used market yet and G is only 2 years old and unrefined the way the 3 is. It will be interesting to see who else comes up with a REAL competitor to 330. Volvo sure is trying but that 300hp doesn't seem to provide much better times than what we get.
But I said, Gee, I could have a V-8!
So I'm picking up an FX45 at Grubbs Tuesday. About the same cost as a 330i ZHP, only $734 a month on a 39 month, 15k lease, and 0-60 6.3 and .87g on the skidpad.(C&D,2/2003)
The one thing you guys have not talked about is interior space. The 3 series would be too small for my family of 4. The G is larger, and the Lincoln LS is larger still.
I'm going to miss the manual, though.
There is nothing like a manual transmission.
Saves brakes too.
BTW, the 330 ZHP is an awesome ride and you got a great deal!!
Congratulations!
Frank
We all understand that buy one get one free means you buy two for the price of one. Regardless, if one is paying for a car one generally must include maintenance costs as an extra fee added to yearly cost-to-operate. In the case of Bimmer and Audi, you simply fold that into the cost of the car. Guess if I add the yearly maintenance cost to the G35 I wanted to buy I'd be pretty darn near the pirce I'm paying now for my BMW.
Frank
I tried to make a deal with a local dealer on G35s last weekend. They quoted me a price and insisted it was at the invoice price (actually it was about $360 higher than the invoice price I found from all the other resources). I still thought it was not bad at the beginning. However, once finding out they didn't have the color I like in stock, they added $500 more for "cost to locate the car". Making the deal even worse, they offered me a ridiculously low price on the trade in. It immediately turned me off when I realized they had been playing games all the time. Well, at least I learned a lesson from it.
LOL, now that's funny!
The invoice prices on Edmunds do not include the regional advertising fee that most dealers pay on every car they sell. $360 is about right for this and it is a legitimate cost for them.
If a dealer needs to get a car from another dealer, they may need to pay for the shipping costs if the model they want is considered desirable. $500 sounds a little high, but it is entirely possible this is the cost it would be to them to get the car from another dealer. If you were to order a car, either from the factory, or from a future allocation, you should be able to do better.
Finally, if you're basing their "ridiculously low price" for your trade-in because sources like Edmunds show a higher value, join the club. My experience is that KBB, NADA, Edmunds, and other online guides overestimate trade-in values by about 10% in most markets. And trade-in values have a lot of noise in them - if you tune in to the "Real World Trade-In Values" forum here, you'll see that trade-in values can be all over the map. I'd post a message there and see what their opinion is of your trade to find out if you're being realistic.
I'd certainly try another dealer.
- Mark
Why is that funny? Is $240 a year in maintenance on a G35 not within the distinct realm of possibility? 3 synthetic oil changes (every 5k miles or is the G every 3750?) will get one near 150 without blinking. According to my figures, a MF 0.0020 and residual of .59 on a 34k msrp (31k sale price) will cost 460 a month. I pay less than $20 more than that per month for my BMW and get maintenance in that fee.
markjenn,
Advertising fees are now legitimate? ROFL. That's the cost of doing business. If they want to advertise the car at that price, fine but make it up front and don't tack it on in an underhanded way. I purposely bought from a dealer that didn't smack me with ludicrous fees (training, floorplanning, maco, etc).
But seriously, I paid about $25 - total - for my last 3. Course I did them myself and didn't get raked over the coals for synthetic and dealer markups on everything. But, hey... it's your nickel.