Awesome numbers.

Here's an article where the 370Z manual is faster than the Auto (but not the one I read before). Seems light on data though.

Nissan 370Z

Those are the good old days man...... we are on the 21st century now:driving:

I AGREE !!! Just face the facts No human hand is quicker than this 7 at

The 7AT switches gears in 500 milliseconds. That's very fast for a traditional Auto, but you can switch gears manually quicker. The gear ratios can play a role as well. A dual clutch is truely far faster than anyone can manually switch gears.

Well one thing to remember is the rear axle ratio for the auto trans car. A lot of times the auto has shorter gears that help it accelerate faster. I don't know what this car has but it sounds logical since this auto trans has one more cog. Or the car could use the same rear axle ratio but use shorter gearing in the auto trans itself for the first few gears. Then usually the auto trans has taller gears in the last few gears. So that could easily explain the quicker times. Also the weather plays some of role in drag times as well.

But for the guys with the manual, you guys bought that to feel connected to the car and really experience the driving pleasure at its fullest. Who cares if the auto is a few tenths quicker?

I just wish C and D spoke to the car more since this model tested was without the sports package. I wonder how it rode and how it handled compared to the SP model. I am not sure what model I want. Now I am thinking base 370z either with 6MT and the SP or base with auto without SP. I have been leaning towards the 6MT with the SP.

Aman Carguyg35.

Here's some raw data on our 6MT vs 7AT gear ratios based on the service manual and simple multiplication:

6MT:
Rear Diff 3.692
1st 3.794
2nd 2.324
3rd 1.624
4th 1.271
5th 1.000
6th 0.794
Rev 3.446

7AT:
Rear Diff 3.357
1st 4.924
2nd 3.194
3rd 2.043
4th 1.412
5th 1.000
6th 0.862
7th 0.772
Rev 3.972

Total gearing, 6MT:
1st 14.007448
2nd 8.580208
3rd 5.995808
4th 4.692532
5th 3.692000
6th 2.931448
Rev 12.722632

Total gearing, 7AT:
1st 16.529868
2nd 10.722258
3rd 6.858351
4th 4.740084
5th 3.357000
6th 2.893734
7th 2.591604
Rev 13.334004

Those numbers are horseshit.

There's no way a 3.7l ~3300lb car with a 3.3 axle ratio is going to trap 108mph in the 1/4. Either that care is making way more power than stock, or the numbers are measuring a *terminal* speed of 108mph, instead of an *average* (over 66 feet) speed of 108mph.

And here's the "closeness", as percentage change in ratio during each shift:

6MT:
1-2: 38.75%
2-3: 30.12%
3-4: 21.74%
4-5: 21.32%
5-6: 20.60%

7AT:
1-2: 35.13%
2-3: 36.04%
3-4: 30.89%
4-5: 29.18%
5-6: 13.80%
6-7: 10.44%

Those tiny numbers at the end of the 7AT make sense to me. I hardly ever actually use 6th, I tend to double-click back and forth between 7 and 5 because the ratios are so close up there it's almost silly. 7th is the "cruising for best gas mileage" gear, and 5 is the "slight downshift to pass" gear. Starting anywhere under 110-ish or so, I'd drop to 4 (or lower as the case may be) to really accelerate on the highway though.

In any case, in most of the lower gears you'd use on a track, the 6MT's final ratios are definitely closer-geared than the 7AT.

I don't think there's any question that an automatic transmission will yield more consistent straight line acceleration versus the average driver with a manual transmission.

Whether an automatic transmission is simply faster than a manual in general is another question. Other than shift speeds, the power robbing torque converter should be taken into account. Modern automatic transmissions shift very fast and the torque converters are becoming more efficient, but it still takes away some power.

In terms of the an auto versus manual 370Z, well gearing should be taken into account. The automatic is geared more aggressively in the lower gears compared to the manual, so other than shift speed, I think that's where the main advantage is. On a road course however, with an experienced driver, the manual should prove to be the better alternative.

These debates never end though. No need to defend what you drive or what you prefer. For myself, I'll always take a "slower" manual over the dual clutch and automatic transmissions out there.


http://i43.tinypic.com/110ykp0.png

Oh didn't read the entire thread, so missed those couple posts above me. I guess I repeated some of the same things.

There's only one way to settle this ..........take it to the track! LOL:cool:

I think most of you are missing the point Lug is trying to make.

1997-2004 Chevrolet Corvette coupe / convertible - Modern Racer - Auto Archive
And then 1999 Chevrolet Corvette Hardtop - Suspension, Handling & Price - First Drive & Road Test Review - Motor Trend
My question is why are we making times same as a c5 vette with 350 hp 360 lb-ft and weighing less th an us?

Hey Forrest,

It could be down to a lot of different things. For example:

• Suspension geometry, which will determine how the power is transferred from wheels to ground
• Power loss to the drivetrain. Stated horsepower is usually at the flywheel. For that power to make it to the wheels, it needs to go through the drivetrain. This induces losses, and these losses can vary quite a bit between cars, but usually average about 20%. For example, in the 370Z, the stated horsepower at the flywheel is 332. A lot of people have dynoed their cars stock, which will measure horsepower at the wheel (whp) and obtained around 270-280 whp. I am not sure what the C5 had at the wheel.
• Torque curve, not just the overall torque number you see advertised. These can vary dramatically between engines
• Car weight and weight transfer. The more weight on the traction wheels, the more power they can put down before exceeding the traction limit. Weight transfer can also be very different between chassis, and that will alter how much weight is placed on the traction wheels during launch and acceleration

All that being said, it could be none of these, and could be simply down to how the tests were performed, and the differences between these tests.

Nissan 370Z - 332 HP - 270 ft/lb torque Curb weight - 3232 lbs base
2004 C5 - 350 HP - 375 ft/lb torque Curb weight - 3210 lbs base

Unless it's impossible for a good driver to utilize more than 270 ft/lb of torque and the Vette's extra 105 ft/lb of torque are wasted, there has to be some really good magic fairy dust to get that 4.6 and 13.1 1/4 mile. Forget the 0-60 for a sec, these numbers have a heavier car with 105 less ft/lb of torque and less hp trouncing the vette in the 1/4 mile (the vette is reported at 13.3 to 13.5). This could all well be true and the other numbers we've seen for the auto could be all lies, but I'm still waiting for a reasonable explanation as to why besides "they said so".

You also might want to consider how much hp the Vette was actually making. Does anyone here think that GM in 1999 wouldn't pump up the numbers to increase sales. GM doesn't exactly have a track record of honesty when it comes to..... well.......anything:ugh2:
In other words......... maybe the Vette wasn't making that much hp and todays Z actually makes as much or more than that Vette really did. Which would explain how in this case, it is possible for the car with the 'lower numbers' to be faster.
Quarter mile and rated hp numbers have always been more important to GM when it comes to selling a American hotrod like the Vette or Camaro. I would question GMs numbers before I would question what came up on the timers when a independent tester ran it at the track.

Lug,

Without a more in-depth analysis, please consider that the 375 ft/lbs of torque in the C5 may happen in a narrow band of the RPM spectrum. Newer engines are becoming better at delivering a flatter torque curve, which means that their torque is available pretty much off the line. Older engines, or different designs, might only deliver that torque at the end of the RPM spectrum, in which case they might not be as good at the initial acceleration on a 1/4 mile. Since this drag run happens in such a small amount of time, this could incur some of the difference.

Just a possibility.

It's possible. I have read that Nissan claims the GT-R's engine (new engine design and Nissan's mentality of marketing) will make "at least 480 hp". Top Gear reported that one of the American auto magazines (they don't mention which) benched their GT-R engine and measured 507 hp at the flywheel. Who knows if that's true or not, but an interesting story. Can anyone (MC, maybe you?) corroborate that?

The LS1s always made more power than they were officially rated for - so you've got it backwards. GM always underrated the power of the LS1. An LS1 will typically put down 300/300 on a dynojet bone stock. I've seen as high as 300/330, stock. That's a good 35hp, and more than 100 ft-lbs of torque than the z is making, and it's a marginally lighter car to boot.

Unfortunately, people are getting hung up on the 0-60 or the 1/4 ET. Those numbers are believable - they're a function of traction. What doesn't compute to me is the trap speed of 108mph. That's a joke. 105 I believe for the auto, but not 108.

If you look at real world dyno results (that vary widely, of course) you will see that the vette averages around 300 hp stock and over 300ft/lb of torque. We haven't seen that on the 370. (more like 260 to 275 hp and significantly less torque). There would have to be some really fancy gearing that no other manufacturer had ever figured out to make up for such a large difference. I can understand how the WRX's and the like do the 0-60 times they get, but these are both rear drive vehicles. The quarter mile numbers are even more far-fetched.

Hey Lug,

Thanks for the info. Do you have a link to a dyno chart for the LS1? I am interested to see what the torque curve looks like. Even though you mentioned that the dyno shows 300 ft/lbs, we need to see if that's for pretty much the entire RPM curve, or just in a certain spot.

Thanks,

Here's a dyno chart link for an LS1. This is mated to a T56 (6 speed manual), and came out of a 2002 Camaro (but was install in an RX7 apparently). They're pretty flat on torque, all things considered:

Edit: You'll have to view it from the forum yourself, they prevent remote direct linking:

http://www.rx7club.com/showpost.php?...6&postcount=20

Oops, unauthorized image linking...

Here we go: RX7Club.com - View Single Post - Pictures of my LS1 T56 build (final product)

Yep, very flat. That means it's more likely now that the difference then is not down to torque.

There have been a couple of new owner/forum participants here with little to no drag strip experience, simply drive out to their local track and record 13.3/105+mph numbers.
They even scanned and showed their time slips. These aren't fantasy performances. That being said... I don't see how a (albeit steller) lone performance of 13.1@108 is "impossible".
The 13.3s at 106 have been documented. That's a fact and if you factor it in, another -.2 sec/+2mph is in the range of just being a everything came together event as far as track and weather conditions.
Anybody with alot of actual drag racing experience knows how much of a factor track conditions can make. Huge. And when it all comes together it can be surprising.
I do not expect that this kind of performance is going to be the norm but there are just too many variables to compare tests that weren't even done on the same track under the same conditions and by different people.

I think rather than argue what is possible or not... just wait and see. I believe that simple bolt-on intake and exhaust mods have the rear wheel dyno numbers over 300 and the real world performance capabilities of these cars will start to show up pretty quickly now that spring is here and some of these are starting to go to the local tracks.

This looks typical to what I've seen. Some like Dynojets will read up to 320.
http://image.corvettefever.com/f/953...dyno_run_1.jpg

105mph for an auto - I'll buy. 106mph... maybe. In excellent conditions. But 108mph is just not realistic. 108mph and 106mph are a long way away - 2mph in the big end is a huge difference.

The only way a mag is gonna get 108mph out of this car is if they were testing 1400 feet instead of 1320, and that 108mph was measured at the very end. In the real world, there isn't going to be a single 7AT 370z driven from the showroom floor to any legit 1/4 track in this country and average 108ph over the last 66 feet of the track.

I haven't driven the 370z yet, but I've had my VQ35DE down the 1/4 over 300 times. My wife has done it over 100 times, and probably close to 50 times in her HR.

Ha ha lol.. priceless... modern day autos are getting to the point where the tq converters are doing AMAZING work. I am not surprised at all.. but with that said... only time will tell which is faster... there are only like 4-5 recorded qtr mile times ... so lets wait n see... but im sure they are VERY close

I agree that 2 mph is a big diff. Being passed by another car at the finish line that is going 2 mph faster doesn't leave any doubt as to who's in charge at that moment.

My only point is (and I have thousands of quarter mile passes in everything from 13 seconds to 7 seconds), weather and track conditions could account for such a difference. If legit 106 mph runs have been made at a density altitude of 2000' (which is probably about average and would certainly not be considered undesirable) and the 108 mph run was made at a sea level/60* temp with a 10mph tailwind... there's your difference.

I don't recall that the people doing this 13.1/108 performance stated exactly what the conditions were or where they actually performed their test so I agree that's a consideration to question.
They also just rounded off those numbers so was it a 107.51 rounded up? I will say that those numbers do match up correctly assuming about a 1.9 60'.

I don't want to sound like I think that these cars are going to be laying down 108 mph runs on a regular basis. I guess my point is... just because somebody may have done it, doesn't mean that there's some kind of fairy dusting monkey business going on.

I will agree however that the validity of all these different test results are open to question concerning just how they were measuring the numbers. I actually don't believe any of these 0-60 numbers as being truely accurate. 60' times on a drag strip...yes. 0-60 mph measured in tenths of a sec.... no.

If these quarter mile times were done on a NHRA cert drag strip using the same equipment that would be used at a sanctioned race, then there isn't any room for argument. On the other hand.... if the guy was just looking at the speedo....:gtfo2:

The C5 corvette is faster than the times you posted from these mags... We're not making the same times, if you go to a corvette forum you'll see what kind of times a stock C5 can really run. The fastest times posted for the 370Z are in the ballpark but not as fast as the corvette

i looked at some corvette forums, its hard to tell whos useing a c5 stock or c5 z06.

Like here if you post your times, we want to know how much your underwear weighed so we can figure everything down to the T.

best i cound find so far is this but they still dont clearly mark things.
http://forums.corvetteforum.com/perf...imes-list.html

I don't know what's so hard to believe....

Infiniti G37 sedan 6MT - 0-60 5.2 sec 1/4 mile - 13.9 @ 103mph
Infiniti G37 sedan 7AT - 0-60 5.0 sec 1/4 mile - 13.5 @105.xxmph

Nissan 370Z 6MT - 0-60 4.9 sec 1/4 mile - 13.3 @ 106mph
Nissan 370Z 7AT - 0-60 4.6 sec 1/4 mile - 13.1 @ 108mph

According to mags it seems to fall in line with the same engine in a heavier vehicle. Get over it already.

hmmmmm... perhaps it is the 7AT but in MANUAL MODE!!! oh no, now what, it's some sort of freak of a transmission, what do we classify this as??? 7AT MM???

we could have 3 sets of 0-60 times, one for 6MT, one for 7AT, and one for 7AT MM...

Maybe putting the 7AT in manual mode is like when Sylvester Stallone turns his hat backwards in "Over the Top".

I'm just kidding of course. This thread is halarious, and the best part is other car forums are talking about this too. I "googled" it, and found a Subaru forum having the same debate regarding the 370z... this is great.

All good points. However, this article was in C&D, and the test procedures for C&D are published and well known.

Most of the time metrics are not collected at a sanctioned track - they are collected whereever the opportunity presents. And the timings are tracked with a unit called a VBOX. I can't remember the technical details, but C&D had quite an interesting article detailing the testing equipment several years back. From what I recall, the unit was very accurate - accurate for figures like ET and g's. However, this is a guess here, I would imagine the trap speed figures would be "optimistic" - much like a gtech.

But that's just a guess.

Can you find any record of an owner-driven G37 Sedan going 105mph in the 1/4 with the 7at gearbox?

I think this is quite an interesting discussion - academically of course. I don't dispute the fact that stock for stock, the 7at might show slightly quicker ET's than the manual counterpart. The 7at has more aggressive final gearing in the first four gears, the only gears that will be used all-motor. The 7at won't put down as much power to the ground as the 6mt, but the difference would be offset by the shorter gearing. And the 7at will just flat out launch better, with more consistency.

However, the 7at will not out-trap the 6mt. Not gonna happen. Not stock.

Yea... if that's what they're doing, they might as well be using a stopwatch as far as I'm concerned. I mean how hard is it to use a legit track for that kind of testing. I know the mags used to use Pomona in SoCal all the time.
Anyway..... I would be interested in reading that article because years ago I put a gtech in a Mustang that was running high 11s at the time on slicks. A guy that was marketing them gave me one to try out. I figured the sudden launch of dumping the cluch with slicks was just too much for the thing to deal with because the results were not even close to accurate.
I wouldn't doubt that that type of equipment is better now but I would have to see identical numbers repeated on a track with real timers to confirm before I'll believe what amounts to a g-meter/calculator can 'figure' down to 1/10s of sec/mph with repeatable accuracy.
Maybe someone with real life experience of doing that can chime in.

Anyway...... real 106s are being produced and what I'm really interested in seeing are some real track numbers from one with the new long intake and exhaust combinations. If the Stillen intake with pullys and HFC makes as much power on the track as claimed on the dyno I think we'll be seeing some 108s (or more:rolleyes:) that won't be debatable.