Road & Track: 370Z vs Cayman S

klubbheads

I'm kind of surprised on acceleration numbers on the Z when it comes to 100mph and up. I would think it would be faster than the 2008 Cayman S when it comes to tripple digits.

Z is begging for a shorter FD. 3rd gear on that car is just too long.

Lug

I found a 0-60 at 5.2 kind of odd. We've already seen 5.1, 4.9, 4.8, 4.7 and 5.3. This range is pretty extreme even taking into account variations due to elevation and temp.

__________________
keep Chubbs in your pocket - Chubbs

!xoible

arent the numbers under 5 when the car is rolling?

Lug

Not with most. The best is a 4.7 but only Motor Trend got that. Car and Driver just got a 4.8 here Nissan 370Z vs. BMW 135i, Mazda RX-8 R3, and Pontiac Solstice GXP. Edmunds and Motorweek both got a 5.1 but they tend to be about .2 slower than everyone else on almost all cars. Road and Track originally got a 5.1 but blamed elevation for at least .1 of that and have gotten a smidge slower here. I just don't recall number varying this widely on most cars. Best example would be something like a Mustang usually which stays between 5.1 and 5.3 on everybody's reviews. We seem to have a full 1/2 second swing with the nissan. Makes me wonder if it might be overly temp or elevation sensitive. But another problem in this article is that they have a 3530 curb weight, the heaviest I've ever seen for a 370Z.

__________________
keep Chubbs in your pocket - Chubbs

!xoible

wow 4.7! my car doesnt even get a 4.7 lol so how do they get a 4.7 then 1/4 mile in high 13's? they're either lying about the 4.7, or what ^^ says above that 3-up gears are too long.

FairmanZ

MT got 4.7 and their 1/4 mile was not high 13's, it was 13.3 secs. C&D got 4.8 and their 1/4 mile, if you download the test sheet, was 13.4.

The others who got low 5's 0-60 were the ones with higher ~13.7 sec 1/4 miles. In this Road&Track test they specifically say the 90 degree heat was an issue that hurt the VQ's performance, which may explain the relatively poor 0-60 in 5.2 secs.

!xoible

oh okay. my bad. i read so many numbers i cant even remember.

Lug

I live south of Houston, Texas.

__________________
keep Chubbs in your pocket - Chubbs

Lug

Motor Trend got a 4.3 and a 12.7 Q/M out of your car.

2008 BMW M3 vs. 2008 Lexus IS F vs. 2008 Mercedes-Benz C63 AMG - Specifications - Comparison - Motor Trend

__________________
keep Chubbs in your pocket - Chubbs

Endgame

This does not bother me much as it seems to remind me of the articles that painted the 350z as being 3600 pounds. I SERIOUSLY doubt this car is as heavy as a Maxima...

I, for one, believe Nissan's numbers from the factory with the addition of the Sports pack (being about 50 pounds)....

FairmanZ

The curb weight is listed as 3360 lbs, about the same as in the MT & C&D tests. It's the test weight that is shown as 3530, but that includes the driver weight. R&T always includes the weight of their drivers in the "test" weight.

Lug

Then they need to start using jockeys or MiniMe as test drivers!

__________________
keep Chubbs in your pocket - Chubbs

!xoible

why would you assume so? the VQ obviously chokes and has a hard time revving up to give the extra hp. still gotta remember the VQ is still a bored out version of a 3.0 liter. nissan needs a new engine soon

klubbheads

That is not the reason. HR motors perform beautifully all the way till redline. My bimmer chockes after 6k rpm and has 1000rpm (from 6k-7k) dead spot.
The reason is that the gears are too tall for the G37/370z. from 2nd gear all the way to fifth are very long considering the car has a high-reving motor. If the gear ratios were the same as the first gen G35 with 6th gear actually being a gear not overdrive, then this car would have been much much quicker. As people start putting 4.01 FD on this car which i will probably do, you will see how much difference it makes in the acceleration.