When the German cars in that test were slower than the G?
All the cars in that test got slow times for some reason. 7.3 seconds 0-60 for the 330i, for example. Sounds like poor conditions or the track was to blame.
I'm waiting for my issue of C&D. Post Office taking too long. But you should pore over the report to see if they mention anything relevant. For example, what was the temperature? Altitude? Remember R&T doing a comparison test of expensive sport sedans about 2 years ago. They did it in SW USA. Higher altitude and hotter temp. 0-60 and 1/4 mile times were terrible. Most cars added at least a second to the 0-60 sprint. But R&T was clear about what was adversely impacting the results.
You also have to keep in mind that no two G35s will perform the same. Some will outperform others. There is variability and that variability leads to a distribution around the mean. Would be interesting to see what car makers know about the mean and standard deviation of performance results from their cars. And a new, green car will be tight and likely perform worse than a properly broken in car.
The explanations that are proferred can possibly explain part of it, but when you have huge differences in sound levels, you question if there is any consistency to their testing methods. Motor Trend did a comparo of the G35, CTS, and 330i. The G35 walked all over the competition.
The 330i automatic did 7.3 sec 0-60, which is about 4% slower than the BMW-specified time of 7.0 sec. Unlike BMW, Infiniti doesn't provide perf. numbers, but 7.1 sec is about 14% slower than the average 6.2 sec that R&T, MT, and PBS Motorweek each independently obtained.
So while the 330i was a little slower than the factory spec, the G35 was considerably slower than previous tests.
I thought the major car mags all use atmospheric correction -- IOW the provided numbers aren't "raw" as tested values, but are corrected for temperature, altitude, etc. I thought I've read past editorials about how they do this, but I also vaguely recollect statements like Reiz mentioned, where (at least some) hot & high tests were slower.
I'd think they'd almost have to use atmospheric correction as a general rule -- engine performance just varies too much otherwise. They couldn't afford to wait for a 70F day at sea level for each test, esp since some mags are based in Michigan. Each 10F increase costs about 1%, each 333 ft altitude increase costs an additional 1%, plus humidity can also vary power. Cumulatively, it's easily possible power could vary by over 10%. Without correction, performance tests would have little consistency and meaning. Even little web-based reviewers like www.thecarplace.com use atmospheric correction.
My own G35 does 0-60 consistently in about 7.2-7.5 sec under optimal conditions (70F, VDC and a/c off, sea level, brake torque launch). It's possible there's a batch of slow G35s out there.
Alternatively maybe the numbers weren't corrected, and some cars were more sensitive to temperature than others. I know my G35 is very heat sensitive. When I dyno'd it, power dropped by 4-5% after a *single* full throttle run.
Sound levels are difficult to standardize across different car mags. The road surface makes a tremendous difference on sound. They can't all use the same test track, as they're based in different locations.
Also tire choice does makes a big difference. Did the G35 in the Oct C&D test use the same tires as the G35s in the R&T and MT tests?
How do you explain the braking differences? In every other test done by C&D and other testing organizations, the G35 had tremendous stopping numbers. In this test it took 29 more feet to stop from 70. That's hard to swallow. Were they testing on ice?
could be tires also, I would guess most cars could improve their first stop distances merely by putting on stickier tires. Certainly a sports sedan will have shorter distances with sport tires than all season rubber.
joes230... If you read the road test summary pages from C&D, R&T, and MT, they give their methodology and discuss is they adjust the numbers for atmospheric conditions. If memory serves me, C&D and MT do adjust but R&T does not. R&T talks about what level of difference is needed to be statistically significant. Thus, one car may beat another going 0-60 mph by .1 second but their footnote will indicate a result of something like .3 or better is statistically significant.
C&D has long argued that the most relevant sprint statistic is their 5-60 mph "street start". That is something all drivers can do. Unlike many, like myself, who might periodically botch a high RPM, brakes engaged, smokey tire tranny drop into first gear. How does the "street start" number compare from this latest test to the earlier C&D test?
I find it hard to believe C&D doesn't comment somewhere in the test about the degraded performance numbers for the G35. Don't they mention earlier test data at all?
Sometimes car makers give "ringers" to auto press. More prevalent back then than now, but still happens. Lincoln introduced the MY 00 LS V-8 in CY 99 with a 3.58:1 final drive. Only built a few before switching over to 3.31:1 final drive. All the early tests done with the hotter final drive. But few, if any, buyers actually could get a MY 00 LS8 with the 3.58:1. Car mags never seemed to noticed. Enthusiasts did! Did Infiniti use a "ringer" for the early tests?
Riez is correct about "ringers". This was a common practice. Besides individual ringers, the Lincoln LS scenario shows how a whole batch of performance-optimized "press cars" could be made. That way it's less devious, yet the 1st reviews all mention the better numbers.
Similarly it's possible running ECU changes to improve emissions or gas milage could adversely impact performance.
Re braking distence, the MT test used Goodyear GS-D summer performance tires and 60-0 was 110 ft. The R&T test used high-perf all-season RS-A tires and stopped in 122 ft. So tires make a huge difference.
Also C&D doesn't do 60-0, they do 70-0, so you can't compare the other mags 60-0 numbers.
If the Oct C&D G35 had Bridgestone Turanza EL42 touring tires, it's expected the stopping distence would be longer. That's the lowest-performance of the three G35 tire options. Does anybody know what tires it used?
Despite the ringer possibility, my current theory is C&D changed their testing methodology either intentionally or unintentionally. Why? Although the 330iA was only 4% slower than factory spec, it was 12% slower than the 6.5 sec average of R&T and MT. This was roughly similar to the G35 % slowdown. It's very unlikely C&D would suddenly get two non-ringers simultaneously, or that both cars would have similar performance-sapping running changes.
Just a slight error like miscalculating atmospheric correction (or forgetting to apply it), or neglecting to deactivate VDC/DSC would cause this change.
But I'm still suspicious about G35 0-60 performance since my car (plus a few other owners) only does about 7.2 to 7.5 sec under optimal conditions.
This is a bit of a departure from the normal G35 discussion, but a while back there was an exchange about the merits and relative de-merits of automatic transmissions.
The thread moved from one opinion to the next, from Manuals being the "one and only" choice for performance and enthusiast enjoyment, to automatics and the future automatic gearboxes being the final "future" optimal solution for driving performance.
I come back to this Manual vs. auto debate again beause over the weekend I was speaking to a formula 1 racing enthusiast at a party, and he let me know that he was going to forward me an article from one of his racing newsletters about a semi-adaptive computer controlled automatic transmission that was banned from Formula 1 while still in the early testing stages.
The system, in simple terms, was programmed with the track information, and thru a series of accelerometers and GPS, "knew exactly where is was on the track, hence, what turns were coming up and the maximum performance configuration for the car upon attacking that part of the course.
Fed into the equation was the cars current speed, its position along the width of the track (passing manuevers) g-loading, etc...
On initial testing of the system, the test drivers turned laps at a blistering pace using a modified Ferrari chassis and engine setup mated to a computer actuated SMG with a switch for manual override...
Initial testing of the alpha-system was so successful, and so expensive, that FIA the governing body of Formula 1 promptly outlawed its introduction into the production cars for an unspecified amount of time.
Features of the system included a "ghost-car" mode where the computer memorized the shift-points and locations of the car on the track effectively memorizing hot lap characteristics in the same way as telemetry data does currently. The difference is that the computer would then be able to reproduce these characteristics under driving conditions.
He was far more articulate than I in explaining the electronic and electro mechanical details of the system, and the interaction between recorded data and interpreting that into useable output for controlling the car, but all in all it was an amazing topic and I'll make sure to post it to the forum as soon as he sends me the copy of the paper...
Though far from something that might be employed on the street. I just thought it was a strong piece of supporting evidence of my believe that a manual shifted gearbox is NOT the pinnacle of performance, it is merely a good compromise at the moment... One that has been lingering for far too long... I'm certain that when the first "computers" came about with their spinning cams and gears, people were patting themselves on the back saying, "What could be better?"
I've just always been of the believe that a driver should "drive" and not be responsible for "power management" which is what a manual transmission forces you to do. If there were a system that could hit the shift points for you at the proper times given any particular situation, I can guarantee you that you would be able to drive faster and with more precision than if you had to manage that bit yourself...
Many were arguing that shifting was basically "manly" and that it became second nature and was no longer a problem once you learned to do it correctly... but no matter how unobtrusive you could get the operation of a manual transmission, it will ALWAYS be a distraction... The single greatest argument for the manual transmission is that it is in many ways better than the current incarnation of automatics, but that is rapidly changing...
when even the extroid CVTs that can handle the increased HP loads (still not the best solution) begin to appear in production, AND they smoke their manually shifted counterparts, the stick will slowly dissappear...
I think you can get used to shifting, but it can never be "instinctive" if it was, then why do professional Off-road rally drivers have that giant honking number in the middle of the dash reminding them what gear they're in?
neo_gtrw... Please read carefully before blasting from the hip (so to speak). If you study my comments you will see I most certainly did NOT state Infiniti used a ringer. I clearly phrased it as a question. And it was in a paragraph discussing what Lincoln did with its final drive ratios in CY 1999. I only brought it up as a POSSIBILITY. Not a certainty. And I do NOT think the probability is high. Nissan/Infiniti was burned badly by the not too distant Q45 horsepower fiasco. Just like Ford was with their not too distant Mustang Cobra horsepower fiasco (that led to an entire model year being abandoned). Companies know someone will likely check. This isn't the 1960s. If they try to cheat and get caught, the price paid in the market is horrendous. Bad press, angry buyers, dissuaded potential buyers, and lawyers lining up to sue on a contingency basis.
Your time of 7.2s to 7.5s, is that for street start or did you preload the drivetrain? Also, which city do you live in and how were the weather and road conditions when you ran the test?
Re my G35 doing 7.2 to 7.5 0-60, the faster numbers used a 3000 rpm brake torque launch (powertrain pre-load).
City is Seattle, alt is nearly sea level, temp 70F, VDC and a/c off, no wind, 1/4 tank of fuel, road level, 175 lb driver, traction not an issue.
I tested a 227-hp Infiniti I30 within 1 hr of my G35 -- same road, same conditions, same technique. It did around 7.8 - 8.0 sec, which is approx. what car mags get. That's another reason I think my G35 is abnormally slow. A few other G35 owners report similar 0-60 times as mine, whereas others have reported low-6s.
To riez's point I think 0-60 ought to reflect real world conditions, not what a pro-driver can get. I would like to know what I can get reasonably out of my car. Maybe report two numbers. This is probably a topic for another conversation, but I certainly would like to know if the 7 secs BMW reports for the 330i is a street start, and what the times really represent in the mags.
Using a stopwatch? I'm afraid I'll believe the MANY reviews which consistantly get the car in the low sixes before I believe someone with a stopwatch or a Gtech. Particularly when you consider that the power to weight ratio is about the same as a Mustang or old M3. Launching a car to get optimal 60 mph per hour times isn't rocket science and does'nt require "professional" drivers(oh brother).
I don't know whay you mean by launching a car? Is that where you hold your foot on the brake and rev the engine till the torque converter burns out? I would like to see the old two step process reported in magazines, that is: 1. remove foot from brake 2. place foot squarely on accelerater.
KD you're a manual driver, right? When you know you've gotta sprint you don't rev the engine a bit to that sweet spot and at just the right moment, slip the clutch, feel the wheels grab and take off like a bat outa hell? Same thing with an auto...what's wrong or weird about that?
Only difference...no clutch modulation and far less skill in getting the wheels to grab just right.
You're right of course, but with an auto it levels the playing fleld and makes for an easy comparison. And gives an indication of the acceleration from a dead stop.
Only a few decades ago, stopwatches timed the olympics, horse races, etc. We still rely on the statistics so produced. They are perfectly adequate for 0-60 testing if used properly. You might have +/- 1 or 2 tenths, but that's not the performance anomaly we're talking about here -- it's over 1 second. I think any reasonably coordinated person can use a stopwatch to within 2/10s of a second.
I was speaking to a dealer yesterday and he mentioned to me that the Twilight Blue color is going away in favor of a light blue being used for the coupe. Has anyone heard of this that could provide confirmation? Thanks.
Thanks for reminding us of the use of the stopwatch. However, if the 330i accelelerates to 60 in 6.898 secs and the G accelerates to 60 in 6.901. Which car is faster and do you really believe we have to be accurate to .005 secs.? But if we are only accurate to 1 decimal place one could say the 330i clearly wins.
I too am a fan of F1, so although I've never heard of the semi-adaptive transmission story before, it doesn't surprise me that F1 would be at the fore front of any effort to develop one.
Although I can only speak for myself, I think that for many enthusiat drivers you may be missing the point of the manual vs. automatic argument. For me it's not necessarily a question of achieving the quickest time through a switchback or decreasing radius ramp. Rather it's a question of the visceral feedback I get from a car while pushing the envelope a bit. I don't want the car making all the decisions for me all the time. I've long accepted the reality that I'm never going to get to chase Michael Schumacher around in his Ferrari. But I can turn any off ramp into my personnel turn one at Monte Carlo. I want to make that experience as engaging as possible no matter how fast or slow the conditions. I need a manual to maximize those moments.
I read the posts about the major cars mags and the different testing and performance numbers. "Consumer Reports" buys their own cars like the average person therefore avoiding "ringers". They may not publish the all the "tech" numbers but you can be sure they are testing a car that wasn't "hopped up" for the test. Plus they can be very unbias as they accept no advertising $'s from the car companies.
I also subscribe to C&D and once in a while compare the numbers to CR's and they come pretty close. It will be interesting to see how they compare to C&D/R&T and MT when they test the G35.
I found the previous posts to be very interesting as I always learn alot! Thanks!
While I don't remember the earlier C&D test, there are three other reasons why there could be differences in the G35's test. I doubt that this was a brand new car. If it isn't, then here are my thoughts:
1. Dirty(ier) air filter restricting airflow. 2. Summer gas formulations. 3. Adaptive transmission "learning" to drive moderately (I really dislike these things).
Anyway, it appears to be a more systematic problem in the test as they all appear to be slower than earlier reported (I haven't read the article)? As has been mentioned before, without more statistical information, it is really hard to tell.
BTW, which vehicle "won"?
Scott
PS. Faenor - Great comment, very interesting. Check on the copyright of the article as Edmunds.com will not allow posting of copyrighted material. Maybe send me a copy...
How did you get an accurate reading of the speed? What sort of instrument did you use to make sure it was exactly 60.00 mph? Magazines such as R&T and C&D have sophisticated equipment to measure speed and time. If a stopwatch is only 0.1sec off, why should they even bother investing in such expensive equipment? Have you ever tried to do a 1/4 mile run? If you can find a straight and level stretch of road, and you have the means to measure distance accurately, then I think your 1/4 mile time would be closer to the magazines' numbers. In any case, I would trust R&T, C&D, Edmunds and Motorweek numbers. In the case of latest C&D issue, I can only assume the tests were done in less than optimal conditions (high temp, high alt, etc.)
Just talked to Carrie at Infiniti customer service #800-662-6200.
She said that they finished testing and their fix was successful. This was on Aug. 21. First customer tested it in Arizona when it was 104 degrees and said it was quiet and he was perfectly satisfied. She said they have a fix kit and it will be sent to the dealers very soon. Love the G but not the horrible noise so if the fix works I will be 100% satisfied. Long time coming so lets cross our fingers. I think that keeping up the pressure made them realize that they better do something, you know the squeeky wheel thing!
I haven't read the C&D article either, but I've heard 330i finished first and the G35 came out fourth. C&D complained about G35's harsh ride, touchy brakes, some oversteer and too much interior noise level. Regarding the harsh ride, touchy brakes and oversteer, I would take them as compliments for the G because they give the car its sport sedan personality. If C&D had thrown in ES300 to the mix, I bet it would have won the comparison. C&D has become a car mag for the old geezers.
What puzzles me the most is that in the C&D's May issue, they were singing praises for G35's compliant ride, capable handling and quiet interior. They even mentioned G35's slight tendency to plow when pushed hard (understeer!). So what gives? Are they even testing the same car for the Oct. issue?
yes, is it understeer or oversteer? might be different drivers' opinions.
I also agree that the ES would have placed well in this comparison. The IS's placing could have explained the results too, if they tested it. The new accord or camry might have won the test, with the price differential. (being only slightly sarcastic here)
neo_gtrw said: "What sort of instrument did you use to make sure it was exactly 60.00 mph?"
I cross-checked the speedometer with a GPS to ensure its accuracy, then used the speedo.
"Magazines such as R&T and C&D have sophisticated equipment to measure speed and time. If a stopwatch is only 0.1sec off, why should they even bother investing in such expensive equipment?"
Because (a) the fancy equipment automates testing (b) automatically records the data for ease of later use, and (c) eliminates one source of human error.
But my main point is a possible stopwatch error of +/- 1 or 2 tenths means little when we're talking about a performance variance of a second or more. It's sufficiently accurate for that scenario, and a > 1 sec slowdown shouldn't be attributed to timing error.
Twilight Blue is history. There are probably still a few on dealer lots, but it can no longer be ordered. This is one of the running changes for 2003.5.
Thanks for the confirmation. I just wanted to know if anyone else had heard of it. As it turns out I am flying down to Atlanta this Friday from Washington D.C. to pick up my new twilight blue car on Saturday morning. Then I will drive it home Sunday. This was the closest dealer within 650 miles to have the car optioned the way I wanted it for a price I was willing to pay. Around here, the cost is MSRP to $1500 over sticker. I got the car down there for $1200 below sticker. I'm so excited, I can't wait to drive it home.
Just noticed something interesting today. When the power window lock is on, the driver's controls for all of the passemger windows is turned off as well. I've never had a car act this way...
I've test drove the G35 twice in the last 2 weeks...love it. I wanted to get a "twilight blue" model but now I hear it's discontinued. Any idea why? Any replacement color known? Does anyone know of any other changes for 2003.5 or 2004 model year??
I live in the Washington D.C. area. One particular dealer I don't like. Has any one else bought in the same area and/or is it worth trying nearby cities? The lowest "unofficial" price quote I have received was MSRP - freight ($495).
My understanding is twilight blue was felt to be too similar to black, so they're going with a lighter blue to expand the clor palate.
Here's the other announced changes:
G35 Sport Sedan
Infiniti's new G35 burst onto the sport sedan scene in March 2002 as a 2003 model. It combines leading-edge design and technology, driver-oriented performance and a high level of luxury. The G35 features a standard 260-horsepower 3.5-liter V6, 5-speed automatic transmission with manual shift mode, 4-wheel independent multi-link suspension and rear-wheel drive. It also offers exceptional interior roominess, aggressive aerodynamic styling and a long list of luxury amenities.
Running changes to the 2003 G35 sport sedan include: · The addition of a close-ratio 6-speed manual transmission (February availability) · Standard xenon headlights on Leather Luxury model · Addition of sunroof to Premium Package · Available satellite radio (choice of XM or Sirius)
My understanding is that the trunk latch is supposed to be changed eliminating the square on the trunk.; but its not on the above list.
I'm very interested in buying the G35. It seems like a great car. I'm curious about the mileage. I've seen the 19/24 estimates on the stickers, but I've also seen 17 mpg in some articles. Can anyone tell me about their experience with their G35?
I concede your point that the enthusiast slant on manual transmissions will continue for as long as cars resemble cars and don't start flying
But in the same way that the tiller became a steering wheel, the engine crank was replaced by the starter motor, and a spark plug grew from a "wick" that stuck into the piston to ignite the fuel-air mix, the manual transmission will evolve into something more efficient, perhaps something completely unexpected by all.
Although the number of advancements in automotive design do not come at the speed or giant incremental levels they once did in the infancy of cars, they do appear in stages. Case in point is the extroid CVT transmission, a logical babystep into the future and worthy design goal replacement for the sad compromise that is the geared transmission.
A manual transmission is a whirling mess of friction, mechanical disadvantage, and power loss. If you were to see a manual transmission with "innocent" eyes, knowing only that you were trying to maintain the powerband from a shaft output to drive wheels... You'd probably throw up I think Leonardo Da Vinci has a sketch of a primitive forerunner of a CVT transmission for a windmill in the Uffizi Gallery in Italy
What's working against us here are the three M's of any type of design effort; manufacturing/materials/mindset... CVT transmissions or anything like them that can handle the power of modern engines are very expensive, Materials that can handle the stresses of modern engines are again, prohibitively expensive, and the last perhaps most difficult obstacle... People are used to, and LIKE to shift! *laughing* and that is the mindset.
I think I wrote about this one previously in another message on this board. From age three, you were pushing toy cars around on the floor making two sounds; screeching of tires, and shifting of gears Its a mindset. Its how its always been done so that is how we want it done and anything else is "weird" and somehow inferior in its unfamiliarity..
A computer that frees a driver to drive not only increases performance potential, but enhances safety. To my mind, a grand combination.
The fly-by-wire systems in modern aircraft have increased the performance and safety of modern jets ranging from an A320 Airbus, to a F/A-18 Hornet. It won't be much longer until systems far more advanced than VDC will not only be helping with stability and roadholding, but power transmission as well.
Transmissions have remained relatively unchanged in their basic operation because there was no impetus for radical change... The system worked alright, and new materials and manufacturing techniques made the dinosaur systems more "palatable" Its like titanium alloys and molybdenum coated mating surfaces are the BBQ sauce we pour on our slightly spoiled steak... Then you can eat it and it doesn't seem so bad
I have no idea what the optimal transmission solution is, but I certainly know that the geared manual transmission is NOT it...
Now the whole idea of enthusiasts hanging on to MT's once something far better comes along, that is a forgone conclusion. People still drive Model T's around by God (and it does look like alot of fun)
But never fail to keep your mind open to new solutions, I've read on this board some people making statements like MTs are the ultimate solution... MTs will always be better than ANY automatic transmission... MTs are the only way to go... These kinds of statements make me nervous that nothing will ever change.
When the Head up display was first introduced by engineers into fighter aircraft, pilots threatened to rip them out because they were ridiculous contraptions that did nothing but block your view out the cockpit...
Try to find a fighter pilot who wouldn't want one in his plane today... or couldn't tick off the countless advantages of having one...
Will pushing the time machine forward show you the image of a sleek car of the future rocketing toward a freeway offramp, dashboard as a collection of screens and status indicators... and at the last moment he stands on the brakes as he runs right up behind a vintage Ferrari F40 in a full four wheel drift, holding the corner as tight as its antique tires can...
and the driver of the modern car muttering under his breath "Freakin' antique collectors..."
What you enjoy is what you enjoy, but I'm betting even money that MTs will go the way of the starting crank and tiller steering...
I am glad I got mine when I did! I love the Twilight blue on the G35. I always liked the darker blue BMWs too. I think they look really classy. Us owners of the Twilight blue G35 will be in a minority! Okay by me! I like having a rare car these days...........but if they sell like they say they will, I am sure to see more of them.
that doesn't cost a fortune to maintain and works as advertised from day one and continues to do so for 150 - 200K miles. Sounds like a reasonable problem statement, and one I thought was do-able a few years ago. It wasn't, at least for me.
I own a Lincoln LS with a manual, and one of the G35 features that attracts me is the promise of a manual -- the LS has just discontinued it. Perhaps the G will do the same in due course. The fact remains that a manual is a fairly simple machine requiring little maintenance and no electronics.
Any of you participated in driving home in the "limp-home" mode?
If you think a manual transmission looked at with "innocent (would that be ignorant?) eyes" would make one regurgitate, what, pray tell, would this same pair of eyes think of today's automatics, including the electronics, the optical (or other) sensors and the requirement for complete fluid changes every 20 - 30K miles? Automatics in the days of yore required none of this and actually worked for years at a time, albiet with an efficiency penalty.
When do those changes come into effect? I'm especially interested in xenons with luxury leather, since it was hard to locate a car with xenons but without premium package. Is the pricing of those packages going to change?
John, my mileage has been about 19 on average, city and stop/go freeway, with not much cruising mileage. Best I've done is 22 to 23 cruising. This seems to be the average experience from most people.
neptun, I agree, love the Twilight Blue on the G. I was also told by an Infiniti engineer that they were discontinuing the color because it was too close to the black.
pwrhngry, rumor has it that the so-called "2003.5" model changes will start appearing in October, but it's already September. I would doubt that availability will be high very soon. Ask your dealer, they are always honest and in the know (lol). Actually, they will tell you anything to sell what they have on the lot.
By the way, if you really want more information and more obsessive opinions, be sure to get caught up in an even more active forum at freshalloy.com.
Riez mentioned an initial batch of Lincoln LSs were built with a hotter final drive ratio, so the initial magazine reviews had better 0-60 times.
I just remembered the initial G35 hiway milage was 24 (I think), and was later changed to 26. It's conceivable something similar happened with the G35, and the initial batch got worse hiway milage but better 0-60 time. Not just final drive ratio, but also ECU changes, fuel mapping, emission control changes, almost anything could cause that. Often performance and gas milage go in opposite directions, so a gas milage increase would be consistent with a performance decrease.
I can't prove this, I just remembered the milage change and it seemed relevant to the 0-60 discussion.
cdnpinhead - As for automatics, I would imagine that you could very easily extend the change interval of the fluids, if you used higher quality fluids than those that come from the manufacturer and drove "normally". Come to think about it, I don't have the service manual handy, but I don't think that the G35 requires 30K mile fluid replacements on the auto tranny. I don't think that the '95 Chrysler Sebring the G35 replaced did either.
However, I remember that the clutch in manual transmissions had to be replaced every 45-55K miles. I would not think that you can go much beyond 70K miles, especially if you drive them hard. After all, it IS a friction device.
joes230 - As for gas milage, we get about 22-24mpg on a regular basis. However, we have been as low as 16.5mpg, but I was TRYING to see how low I could get the gas milage. I should note that our typical commute is ~20 miles with about 60% of that in non-rush hour highway conditions. I should also note that I am a rather aggressive driver, while my wife is not.
I would leave the testing to professionals or at least use professional equipment. I can see potential for lots of human error. If you factor in human reaction time alone, say 0.2 for start of run and 0.2 for end of run, that's already 0.4 seconds. You can also factor in error in reading of the speedometer at 60 mph and add that to the fact that you are not a professional driver. That can easily account for the 1 second defecit.
Well no, actually I meant looking at a geared manual transmission with "innocent" eyes
Ignorant would entail "Uhhh.. what the hell is that?"
"Innocent" as in unsullied or unbiased by knowledge of previous trends or techniques would entail the following...
---This reciprocating gasoline combustion engine drives an output shaft... Given the characteristics of the engine, it reaches its peak effeciency at exactly 5400 rpm...
To maintain a particular speed by driving a set of road wheels while maintaining the optimal powerband RPM on the engine requires a specific gear ratio from moment to moment...
this ratio is exact and specific and continuous for all speeds, BUT because we can't put 5 thousand gears in the enclosure, you get instead... 5... please make them work as close to optimal as you can... I know it will be a huge concession but hey, what else is to be done?
Lets figure out how we can make a gear ratio that changes continuously...
No, its easier to just take these 5 and make them kind of work...
=====
You're comparing MTs to the current crop of automatic transmissions (which have many faults as well), and almost buying into the notion that compromise should be the only solution.
Never lose site of the fact that they make geared transmissions because they are cheap and established, not because they are trying to give you the ultimate mechanical solution.
It still makes me laugh when the talk about "high effeciency" combustion engines, the reciprocating piston engine is a travesty of energy waste...
Not taking into account the raw fusion energy one could extract from gasoline and looking at the far more forgiving measurement of simple heat energy, an automobile converts approximately 1-3% of the total combusting heat energy potential of gas into mechanical force at just the output shaft! then you have to degrade that further thru the drivetrain and finall to the wheels!
But hardly anyone says "time for a new engine alternative!" because everyone says "why?"
I guess that shiny new red corvette body is just a great distraction from the obscenely wasteful powerplant under the hood.
I was just trying to state that the stick will not always be there with the same surety that everything else in automobiles is enjoying an innovation explosion... except for the engines... the Middle East nations ahve got the lock sewn in on that one staying the same
I enjoy being able to control the car using the engine's torque characteristics, and the most intuitive and satisfying way I've found is the traditional manual.
I could see myself being swayed by the quick shifting automanuals, but feel that most of the automatic based ones are somewhat compromised, offering long delays and phantom shifts. The BMW and Toyota systems are interesting to me, especially with the BMW's fully adjustable shift speed. Toyota needs to add the fully auto mode functionality and add an enthusiast mode to their shift speeds. it's a no brainer, I can't believe that they didn't add it already.
I guess I would be ok with a CVT as long as it offered an intuitive way of adjusting engine torque to control vehicle speed and acceleration. But, only if it proved significantly faster or more efficient than the horrifying manual that it replaces
Comments
All the cars in that test got slow times for some reason. 7.3 seconds 0-60 for the 330i, for example. Sounds like poor conditions or the track was to blame.
You also have to keep in mind that no two G35s will perform the same. Some will outperform others. There is variability and that variability leads to a distribution around the mean. Would be interesting to see what car makers know about the mean and standard deviation of performance results from their cars. And a new, green car will be tight and likely perform worse than a properly broken in car.
So while the 330i was a little slower than the factory spec, the G35 was considerably slower than previous tests.
I thought the major car mags all use atmospheric correction -- IOW the provided numbers aren't "raw" as tested values, but are corrected for temperature, altitude, etc. I thought I've read past editorials about how they do this, but I also vaguely recollect statements like Reiz mentioned, where (at least some) hot & high tests were slower.
I'd think they'd almost have to use atmospheric correction as a general rule -- engine performance just varies too much otherwise. They couldn't afford to wait for a 70F day at sea level for each test, esp since some mags are based in Michigan. Each 10F increase costs about 1%, each 333 ft altitude increase costs an additional 1%, plus humidity can also vary power. Cumulatively, it's easily possible power could vary by over 10%. Without correction, performance tests would have little consistency and meaning. Even little web-based reviewers like www.thecarplace.com use atmospheric correction.
My own G35 does 0-60 consistently in about 7.2-7.5 sec under optimal conditions (70F, VDC and a/c off, sea level, brake torque launch). It's possible there's a batch of slow G35s out there.
Alternatively maybe the numbers weren't corrected, and some cars were more sensitive to temperature than others. I know my G35 is very heat sensitive. When I dyno'd it, power dropped by 4-5% after a *single* full throttle run.
-- Joe
Also tire choice does makes a big difference. Did the G35 in the Oct C&D test use the same tires as the G35s in the R&T and MT tests?
-- Joe
C&D has long argued that the most relevant sprint statistic is their 5-60 mph "street start". That is something all drivers can do. Unlike many, like myself, who might periodically botch a high RPM, brakes engaged, smokey tire tranny drop into first gear. How does the "street start" number compare from this latest test to the earlier C&D test?
I find it hard to believe C&D doesn't comment somewhere in the test about the degraded performance numbers for the G35. Don't they mention earlier test data at all?
Sometimes car makers give "ringers" to auto press. More prevalent back then than now, but still happens. Lincoln introduced the MY 00 LS V-8 in CY 99 with a 3.58:1 final drive. Only built a few before switching over to 3.31:1 final drive. All the early tests done with the hotter final drive. But few, if any, buyers actually could get a MY 00 LS8 with the 3.58:1. Car mags never seemed to noticed. Enthusiasts did! Did Infiniti use a "ringer" for the early tests?
Before jumping to conclusions or making accusations against Infiniti, please provide your proof first.
Similarly it's possible running ECU changes to improve emissions or gas milage could adversely impact performance.
Re braking distence, the MT test used Goodyear GS-D summer performance tires and 60-0 was 110 ft. The R&T test used high-perf all-season RS-A tires and stopped in 122 ft. So tires make a huge difference.
Also C&D doesn't do 60-0, they do 70-0, so you can't compare the other mags 60-0 numbers.
If the Oct C&D G35 had Bridgestone Turanza EL42 touring tires, it's expected the stopping distence would be longer. That's the lowest-performance of the three G35 tire options. Does anybody know what tires it used?
-- Joe
Just a slight error like miscalculating atmospheric correction (or forgetting to apply it), or neglecting to deactivate VDC/DSC would cause this change.
But I'm still suspicious about G35 0-60 performance since my car (plus a few other owners) only does about 7.2 to 7.5 sec under optimal conditions.
-- Joe
The thread moved from one opinion to the next, from Manuals being the "one and only" choice for performance and enthusiast enjoyment, to automatics and the future automatic gearboxes being the final "future" optimal solution for driving performance.
I come back to this Manual vs. auto debate again beause over the weekend I was speaking to a formula 1 racing enthusiast at a party, and he let me know that he was going to forward me an article from one of his racing newsletters about a semi-adaptive computer controlled automatic transmission that was banned from Formula 1 while still in the early testing stages.
The system, in simple terms, was programmed with the track information, and thru a series of accelerometers and GPS, "knew exactly where is was on the track, hence, what turns were coming up and the maximum performance configuration for the car upon attacking that part of the course.
Fed into the equation was the cars current speed, its position along the width of the track (passing manuevers) g-loading, etc...
On initial testing of the system, the test drivers turned laps at a blistering pace using a modified Ferrari chassis and engine setup mated to a computer actuated SMG with a switch for manual override...
Initial testing of the alpha-system was so successful, and so expensive, that FIA the governing body of Formula 1 promptly outlawed its introduction into the production cars for an unspecified amount of time.
Features of the system included a "ghost-car" mode where the computer memorized the shift-points and locations of the car on the track effectively memorizing hot lap characteristics in the same way as telemetry data does currently. The difference is that the computer would then be able to reproduce these characteristics under driving conditions.
He was far more articulate than I in explaining the electronic and electro mechanical details of the system, and the interaction between recorded data and interpreting that into useable output for controlling the car, but all in all it was an amazing topic and I'll make sure to post it to the forum as soon as he sends me the copy of the paper...
Though far from something that might be employed on the street. I just thought it was a strong piece of supporting evidence of my believe that a manual shifted gearbox is NOT the pinnacle of performance, it is merely a good compromise at the moment... One that has been lingering for far too long... I'm certain that when the first "computers" came about with their spinning cams and gears, people were patting themselves on the back saying, "What could be better?"
I've just always been of the believe that a driver should "drive" and not be responsible for "power management" which is what a manual transmission forces you to do. If there were a system that could hit the shift points for you at the proper times given any particular situation, I can guarantee you that you would be able to drive faster and with more precision than if you had to manage that bit yourself...
Many were arguing that shifting was basically "manly"
when even the extroid CVTs that can handle the increased HP loads (still not the best solution) begin to appear in production, AND they smoke their manually shifted counterparts, the stick will slowly dissappear...
I think you can get used to shifting, but it can never be "instinctive" if it was, then why do professional Off-road rally drivers have that giant honking number in the middle of the dash reminding them what gear they're in?
Faenor/Dane4
City is Seattle, alt is nearly sea level, temp 70F, VDC and a/c off, no wind, 1/4 tank of fuel, road level, 175 lb driver, traction not an issue.
I tested a 227-hp Infiniti I30 within 1 hr of my G35 -- same road, same conditions, same technique. It did around 7.8 - 8.0 sec, which is approx. what car mags get. That's another reason I think my G35 is abnormally slow. A few other G35 owners report similar 0-60 times as mine, whereas others have reported low-6s.
-- Joe
1. remove foot from brake
2. place foot squarely on accelerater.
Seems like a reasonable thing to do.
Only difference...no clutch modulation and far less skill in getting the wheels to grab just right.
-- Joe
Although I can only speak for myself, I think that for many enthusiat drivers you may be missing the point of the manual vs. automatic argument. For me it's not necessarily a question of achieving the quickest time through a switchback or decreasing radius ramp. Rather it's a question of the visceral feedback I get from a car while pushing the envelope a bit. I don't want the car making all the decisions for me all the time. I've long accepted the reality that I'm never going to get to chase Michael Schumacher around in his Ferrari. But I can turn any off ramp into my personnel turn one at Monte Carlo. I want to make that experience as engaging as possible no matter how fast or slow the conditions. I need a manual to maximize those moments.
I also subscribe to C&D and once in a while compare the numbers to CR's and they come pretty close. It will be interesting to see how they compare to C&D/R&T and MT when they test the G35.
I found the previous posts to be very interesting as I always learn alot! Thanks!
1. Dirty(ier) air filter restricting airflow.
2. Summer gas formulations.
3. Adaptive transmission "learning" to drive moderately (I really dislike these things).
Anyway, it appears to be a more systematic problem in the test as they all appear to be slower than earlier reported (I haven't read the article)? As has been mentioned before, without more statistical information, it is really hard to tell.
BTW, which vehicle "won"?
Scott
PS. Faenor - Great comment, very interesting. Check on the copyright of the article as Edmunds.com will not allow posting of copyrighted material. Maybe send me a copy...
Have you ever tried to do a 1/4 mile run? If you can find a straight and level stretch of road, and you have the means to measure distance accurately, then I think your 1/4 mile time would be closer to the magazines' numbers. In any case, I would trust R&T, C&D, Edmunds and Motorweek numbers. In the case of latest C&D issue, I can only assume the tests were done in less than optimal conditions (high temp, high alt, etc.)
She said that they finished testing and their fix was successful. This was on Aug. 21. First customer tested it in Arizona when it was 104 degrees and said it was quiet and he was perfectly satisfied. She said they have a fix kit and it will be sent to the dealers very soon. Love the G but not the horrible noise so if the fix works I will be 100% satisfied. Long time coming so lets cross our fingers. I think that keeping up the pressure made them realize that they better do something, you know the squeeky wheel thing!
Paul
What puzzles me the most is that in the C&D's May issue, they were singing praises for G35's compliant ride, capable handling and quiet interior. They even mentioned G35's slight tendency to plow when pushed hard (understeer!). So what gives? Are they even testing the same car for the Oct. issue?
I also agree that the ES would have placed well in this comparison. The IS's placing could have explained the results too, if they tested it. The new accord or camry might have won the test, with the price differential. (being only slightly sarcastic here)
I cross-checked the speedometer with a GPS to ensure its accuracy, then used the speedo.
"Magazines such as R&T and C&D have sophisticated equipment to measure speed and time. If a stopwatch is only 0.1sec off, why should they even bother investing in such expensive equipment?"
Because (a) the fancy equipment automates testing (b) automatically records the data for ease of later use, and (c) eliminates one source of human error.
But my main point is a possible stopwatch error of +/- 1 or 2 tenths means little when we're talking about a performance variance of a second or more. It's sufficiently accurate for that scenario, and a > 1 sec slowdown shouldn't be attributed to timing error.
Kinda strange.
I live in the Washington D.C. area. One particular dealer I don't like. Has any one else bought in the same area and/or is it worth trying nearby cities? The lowest "unofficial" price quote I have received was MSRP - freight ($495).
Here's the other announced changes:
G35 Sport Sedan
Infiniti's new G35 burst onto the sport sedan scene in March 2002 as a 2003 model. It combines leading-edge design and technology, driver-oriented performance and a high level of luxury. The G35 features a standard 260-horsepower 3.5-liter V6, 5-speed automatic transmission with manual shift mode, 4-wheel independent multi-link suspension and rear-wheel drive. It also offers exceptional interior roominess, aggressive aerodynamic styling and a long list of luxury amenities.
Running changes to the 2003 G35 sport sedan include:
· The addition of a close-ratio 6-speed manual transmission (February availability)
· Standard xenon headlights on Leather Luxury model
· Addition of sunroof to Premium Package
· Available satellite radio (choice of XM or Sirius)
My understanding is that the trunk latch is supposed to be changed eliminating the square on the trunk.; but its not on the above list.
But in the same way that the tiller became a steering wheel, the engine crank was replaced by the starter motor, and a spark plug grew from a "wick" that stuck into the piston to ignite the fuel-air mix, the manual transmission will evolve into something more efficient, perhaps something completely unexpected by all.
Although the number of advancements in automotive design do not come at the speed or giant incremental levels they once did in the infancy of cars, they do appear in stages. Case in point is the extroid CVT transmission, a logical babystep into the future and worthy design goal replacement for the sad compromise that is the geared transmission.
A manual transmission is a whirling mess of friction, mechanical disadvantage, and power loss. If you were to see a manual transmission with "innocent" eyes, knowing only that you were trying to maintain the powerband from a shaft output to drive wheels... You'd probably throw up
What's working against us here are the three M's of any type of design effort; manufacturing/materials/mindset... CVT transmissions or anything like them that can handle the power of modern engines are very expensive, Materials that can handle the stresses of modern engines are again, prohibitively expensive, and the last perhaps most difficult obstacle... People are used to, and LIKE to shift! *laughing* and that is the mindset.
I think I wrote about this one previously in another message on this board. From age three, you were pushing toy cars around on the floor making two sounds; screeching of tires, and shifting of gears
A computer that frees a driver to drive not only increases performance potential, but enhances safety. To my mind, a grand combination.
The fly-by-wire systems in modern aircraft have increased the performance and safety of modern jets ranging from an A320 Airbus, to a F/A-18 Hornet. It won't be much longer until systems far more advanced than VDC will not only be helping with stability and roadholding, but power transmission as well.
Transmissions have remained relatively unchanged in their basic operation because there was no impetus for radical change... The system worked alright, and new materials and manufacturing techniques made the dinosaur systems more "palatable" Its like titanium alloys and molybdenum coated mating surfaces are the BBQ sauce we pour on our slightly spoiled steak... Then you can eat it and it doesn't seem so bad
I have no idea what the optimal transmission solution is, but I certainly know that the geared manual transmission is NOT it...
Now the whole idea of enthusiasts hanging on to MT's once something far better comes along, that is a forgone conclusion. People still drive Model T's around by God (and it does look like alot of fun)
But never fail to keep your mind open to new solutions, I've read on this board some people making statements like MTs are the ultimate solution... MTs will always be better than ANY automatic transmission... MTs are the only way to go... These kinds of statements make me nervous that nothing will ever change.
When the Head up display was first introduced by engineers into fighter aircraft, pilots threatened to rip them out because they were ridiculous contraptions that did nothing but block your view out the cockpit...
Try to find a fighter pilot who wouldn't want one in his plane today... or couldn't tick off the countless advantages of having one...
Will pushing the time machine forward show you the image of a sleek car of the future rocketing toward a freeway offramp, dashboard as a collection of screens and status indicators... and at the last moment he stands on the brakes as he runs right up behind a vintage Ferrari F40 in a full four wheel drift, holding the corner as tight as its antique tires can...
and the driver of the modern car muttering under his breath "Freakin' antique collectors..."
What you enjoy is what you enjoy, but I'm betting even money that MTs will go the way of the starting crank and tiller steering...
Faenor/Dane4
I own a Lincoln LS with a manual, and one of the G35 features that attracts me is the promise of a manual -- the LS has just discontinued it. Perhaps the G will do the same in due course. The fact remains that a manual is a fairly simple machine requiring little maintenance and no electronics.
Any of you participated in driving home in the "limp-home" mode?
If you think a manual transmission looked at with "innocent (would that be ignorant?) eyes" would make one regurgitate, what, pray tell, would this same pair of eyes think of today's automatics, including the electronics, the optical (or other) sensors and the requirement for complete fluid changes every 20 - 30K miles? Automatics in the days of yore required none of this and actually worked for years at a time, albiet with an efficiency penalty.
Just asking.
I'm especially interested in xenons with luxury leather, since it was hard to locate a car with xenons but without premium package.
Is the pricing of those packages going to change?
neptun, I agree, love the Twilight Blue on the G. I was also told by an Infiniti engineer that they were discontinuing the color because it was too close to the black.
pwrhngry, rumor has it that the so-called "2003.5" model changes will start appearing in October, but it's already September. I would doubt that availability will be high very soon. Ask your dealer, they are always honest and in the know (lol). Actually, they will tell you anything to sell what they have on the lot.
By the way, if you really want more information and more obsessive opinions, be sure to get caught up in an even more active forum at freshalloy.com.
I just remembered the initial G35 hiway milage was 24 (I think), and was later changed to 26. It's conceivable something similar happened with the G35, and the initial batch got worse hiway milage but better 0-60 time. Not just final drive ratio, but also ECU changes, fuel mapping, emission control changes, almost anything could cause that. Often performance and gas milage go in opposite directions, so a gas milage increase would be consistent with a performance decrease.
I can't prove this, I just remembered the milage change and it seemed relevant to the 0-60 discussion.
-- Joe
cdnpinhead - As for automatics, I would imagine that you could very easily extend the change interval of the fluids, if you used higher quality fluids than those that come from the manufacturer and drove "normally". Come to think about it, I don't have the service manual handy, but I don't think that the G35 requires 30K mile fluid replacements on the auto tranny. I don't think that the '95 Chrysler Sebring the G35 replaced did either.
However, I remember that the clutch in manual transmissions had to be replaced every 45-55K miles. I would not think that you can go much beyond 70K miles, especially if you drive them hard. After all, it IS a friction device.
joes230 - As for gas milage, we get about 22-24mpg on a regular basis. However, we have been as low as 16.5mpg, but I was TRYING to see how low I could get the gas milage. I should note that our typical commute is ~20 miles with about 60% of that in non-rush hour highway conditions. I should also note that I am a rather aggressive driver, while my wife is not.
Scott
Ignorant would entail "Uhhh.. what the hell is that?"
"Innocent" as in unsullied or unbiased by knowledge of previous trends or techniques would entail the following...
---This reciprocating gasoline combustion engine drives an output shaft... Given the characteristics of the engine, it reaches its peak effeciency at exactly 5400 rpm...
To maintain a particular speed by driving a set of road wheels while maintaining the optimal powerband RPM on the engine requires a specific gear ratio from moment to moment...
this ratio is exact and specific and continuous for all speeds, BUT because we can't put 5 thousand gears in the enclosure, you get instead... 5... please make them work as close to optimal as you can... I know it will be a huge concession but hey, what else is to be done?
Lets figure out how we can make a gear ratio that changes continuously...
No, its easier to just take these 5 and make them kind of work...
=====
You're comparing MTs to the current crop of automatic transmissions (which have many faults as well), and almost buying into the notion that compromise should be the only solution.
Never lose site of the fact that they make geared transmissions because they are cheap and established, not because they are trying to give you the ultimate mechanical solution.
It still makes me laugh when the talk about "high effeciency" combustion engines, the reciprocating piston engine is a travesty of energy waste...
Not taking into account the raw fusion energy one could extract from gasoline and looking at the far more forgiving measurement of simple heat energy, an automobile converts approximately 1-3% of the total combusting heat energy potential of gas into mechanical force at just the output shaft! then you have to degrade that further thru the drivetrain and finall to the wheels!
But hardly anyone says "time for a new engine alternative!" because everyone says "why?"
I guess that shiny new red corvette body is just a great distraction from the obscenely wasteful powerplant under the hood.
I was just trying to state that the stick will not always be there with the same surety that everything else in automobiles is enjoying an innovation explosion... except for the engines... the Middle East nations ahve got the lock sewn in on that one staying the same
Faenor/Dane4
I could see myself being swayed by the quick shifting automanuals, but feel that most of the automatic based ones are somewhat compromised, offering long delays and phantom shifts. The BMW and Toyota systems are interesting to me, especially with the BMW's fully adjustable shift speed. Toyota needs to add the fully auto mode functionality and add an enthusiast mode to their shift speeds. it's a no brainer, I can't believe that they didn't add it already.
I guess I would be ok with a CVT as long as it offered an intuitive way of adjusting engine torque to control vehicle speed and acceleration. But, only if it proved significantly faster or more efficient than the horrifying manual that it replaces