2009 Nissan 370Z Automatic - Short Take Road Test

Forrest

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?

miguez

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.

wellarmed

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
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.

miguez

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?

Lug

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.

__________________
keep Chubbs in your pocket - Chubbs

t-ray

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.

WUKILLABEEZ78

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

__________________
2008 G35 Journey in Platinum Graphite with Sport/Premium/Navigation and Technology Packages with 4WAS/Splash Guards and Spoiler
2005 Nissan Xterra S in Super Black (Dog Hauler)

Forrest

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

zman1910

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.

t-ray

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

zman1910

No and truthfully I don't really care to. I got what I needed to out of the mags and that is simply that the 7AT is quicker. All those times are from the same mag using the same testing procedures and fit right in line given the weight of the vehicles. Whether the trap is 105 mph or 103 mph the point is that the 7AT is quicker than the manual.

The most important point to take from this is that it is even harder to screw up straight line acceleration in an AUTO.

t-ray

That's not necessarily true - the 7AT being quicker that is. According to C&D it was, but they were two different cars measured by different drivers in different conditions. C&D's corrections for conditions are aweful. Also, they plainly state in the testing procedures that for manuals they do not launch the car hard, nor do they shift particularly fast.

For example, in an article that compared the g35 sedan against the bmw 330(before the 335), amongst others, the best time they were able to wring out of the was something like 14.5 at roughly 100mph. And that was *corrected*. I've got the same car, and with highflow cats, it ran 13.7@102mph. Stock, it ran 14 flat at 101mph.

Automatics will be harder to screw up, and they will be more consistent. But until you mess with the torque converter, the manuals will be able to launch harder. That's a fact. In the real world, the manuals will be faster than the autos - that is, until you start running major boost.

scorpion90

Believe what you want to believe, but the marvel of electronics and engineering are making the manual tranny old school. Clearly, the Nissan GR-R uses basically a super auto tranny with great performance, so what so hard to believe that some of that technology is in the 370Z auto tranny. Believe what you want, but the times are a changing.

ChrisSlicks

Actually the GT-R is a super manual sequential tranny, that has 2 clutches and computer controlled.

You're right about the technology though, the auto tranny has come a long way from the 3-speed slush boxes of old.

Lug

Not trying to be a jerk, but you really need to read this.

HowStuffWorks "How Dual-clutch Transmissions Work"

__________________
keep Chubbs in your pocket - Chubbs