UNKNOWN_370

Anyone notice that when the Z came out in 2009; most tested car reviews rated the Z as going 0-60 in the 4.6 to 4.9 range... then in 2010 and later years it was measured more like 5.0 to 5.5. The quarter has gotten substantially worse as well. In 09 the range was 13.1 to13.3. Once the 2010 and aboves hit. The times reduced to 13.3 to 13.6.

Is this magazine bias & conspiracy to make the american v8's sound more respectable?
Is it ecu whine tsb's and other little engine tweaks have slowed the car down?
Or is it car reviewers are becoming less skilled over these last couple years?

I don't know but when I read nissan car reviews in magazines... there's always so much more nit-picking that I can't help to think there's some type of indirect hatred toward Nissan in certain moments. Things that other cars don't get pointed out, for a nissan, they will quickly point out.

Off subject EXAMPLE ONLY.. I really think the Z suspension has been so NEGATIVELY overrated. This car is not an unbearable drive. It actually gives a pretty good ride considering its wheel size, height and stance. Its a tad more taught than an altima 3.5se sedan. In reviews of the SE sedan and coupe. They say the engine and suspension are top notch and the rest of the car needs to step up. I can somewhat agree to a point.
The Z is maybe 5% stiffer. Gives power to the back wheels, in a lower stance, more power and extremely precise handling. All of a sudden, the same formula that makes the altima an excellent handler for what it is.. makes the Z murderous to drive. Its only like 5% firmer... Its like, "come on give me a break", these guys seriously need to make up there minds. Its like they test drove a Z and wanted a cadillac, then they test drive a benz and want a Z. Its getting sickening reading articles of reviewers with an identity crisis.

I was just wondering what you guys thought is the reason in the large gap in acceleration times according to these magazines??