As I said, I'm getting the auto. It's not a dual cluch which means it is a slushbox, abet a great one. You just can't alter physics because we wish we could. Show me one other car where a traditional auto takes the manual and I'll become a believer. These numbers say this car will beat a 350 hp vette that is lighter and has a LOT more torque, manual OR auto. Plus, no one else has been able to get this autop to run faster than the manual. It's a case of ignoring all the data but the data you like, sorry.

Not trying to add fuel to the fire, but the opposite, to clarify a bit. Test numbers have to be taken for what they are, which means in what conditions they were performed. Of course Car & Driver and Motortrend know what they are doing, but they certainly test differently than Edmunds, who obtained a 5.3 (5.8 with traction control enabled) seconds time from 0 - 60 mph with a Touring 6MT. Why the difference? It's actually a good read:

Edmund's 370Z track test

How Edmunds tests cars

A lot of the difference is to do with the 1-foot rollout (read the second article to understand the details). So without knowing exactly how Car & Driver and Motortrend, or anyone else has tested the car, it's impossible to compare numbers with another test and have reliable results.

By the way, I had no idea about any of this until a couple of days ago, when i saw the Edmunds results and thought "These guys have no idea how to test a car!". I kept reading and finally understood.

I actually don't disagree that I can't figure out how it would not just beat, but trounce the C5 vette, which as lug stated, had more hp, more torque, and was lighter.

Plus there was an article where they comapred the Auto and the Manual side by side. The numbers in that one were 5.1 for the manual and 5.3 for the auto. It was posted here but I can't find it now. There is variation in every car but at least this test had same time, altitude, temp, humidity etc when comparing the two. I think it may have be done in England but not sure.

Sigh... G37 7AT IS faster than the G37 6MT. No reason why the Z would be any different. I believe the numbers. That is all.

Is the issue that the auto is faster, or that it's that fast?

As someone already stated the G37 has consistently gotten better times with the 7AT. Don't forget the Bmw 335i that C&D reported is faster with the "slushbox". There are plenty of cars out there with the latest auto tranny's that are pulling better numbers than manuals. I'm tempted to think that you just haven't been keeping up. Hell even the IS-F is a traditional slushbox but shifts nearly as quick as dual clutch trannys.

BMW 335i Coupe

A coupe version of BMW's best-selling 3-Series, the E92 body style on which the 335i Coupe is based, was released in August 2006.
Fast Facts

1. Class: Mid-size luxury
2. Passengers: 5
3. Engine: Turbocharged 3.0 Liter I-6
4. Transmission: 6-speed manual, 6-speed automatic
5. Fuel Efficiency: 17/26
6. Power: 300 hp @ 5800 RPM
7. Torque: 300 (lb-ft) @ 1400 RPM
8. MSRP: $41,200
9. 0-60: 5.3 seconds (manual), 5.5 seconds (automatic)

BMW 335i Coupe - Mahalo

There was some bruhaha oave an automatic 335i that was overly fast but it turned out to be overboosted by .5 lbs. Don't remember the article. Th test is a lot more valid if they have both cars on the same day. The 370Z changes gears in 500 milliseconds. Not bad at all but a duel clutch can achieve 30 milliseconds or less. The biggest number that jumps out at me on this test is a 13.1 second quarter mile. That smokes a C5 vette, manual OR automatic. Unless Nissan is lieing about their HP numbers (which we know they aren't from dyno readings), they would have to have magic fairy dust to make up for less hp less torque and more weight. As I said earlier, one mag review (which I can't find now) did a back to back test on an auto vs manual and the manual was .2 sec faster. That would tend to agree with how 99% of testing has gone in the past. I see everyone here jumping on this one test and ignoring all others. That's just selective data gathering.

This is a pretty interesting discussion. Without saying that one is faster than the other (because I don't know), keep in mind that heavier cars have an advantage on putting power down onto the road by simply having more weight on the tires (that's why Formula 1 cars have downforce, after all). Also, when looking at 1/4 mile times, cars are going fast enough that aerodynamics start to creep into the results.

Just food for thought.

^You're using BMW's claims for performance. And there was never any bruhahaha as far as I remember unless you are talking about a specific article from some other mag. There is nothing wrong with using BMW's performance claims....just like any other manufacturer they post a slower time for the slushbox. That never stops anyone from proving them wrong though.

There's even talk of the new Camaro being faster with the slushbox....despite the manual having a hp advantage.

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.