2009 Nissan 370Z Automatic - Short Take Road Test
 

Article

http://img.skitch.com/20090424-kgk73...a2bdg6cmag.jpg

Moving the shifter to the left from D to manual mode puts the car in a sporting mindset, with the paddles calling forth sharp, lightning-quick shifts that helped this car set the quickest acceleration times we’ve yet recorded from the new Z: 0–60 in 4.6 seconds and the quarter-mile in 13.1 at 108 mph, quicker by 0.2 and 0.3 second and 1 mph than our quickest manual car. With either the automatic or the do-it-yourself transmission, the 370Z is EPA rated at 18 mpg city/26 highway. We saw 18 with the auto, down 1 mpg from the manual 370Z.

4.6 and 13.1 on an Auto? Wow time to trade my manual :) seems like a ringer.

Automatics are so good now that a lot of them on sports cars are faster than a manual. Porsche's electronic double-clutch system is much, much quicker than their manual.

And for a long time, most turbocharged cars with an automatic have been faster than the same car with a manual.

And those results are with professionals driving the manuals. With "real people," I suspect 90% of drivers would be quicker with a good automatic (because they're just not that good with a manual).

thats great numbers ,close to my m3's numbers cant wait to purchase one

Makes me feel a little better I went with the auto ... a little.

I KNEW the auto would be faster!! This is even closer to the Cayman's PDK numbers.... WOW NISSAN!! Bravo!

^ It should be, since it's somewhere around $1,200 more :D

i need to see a video to belive this. i cant belive auto is faster than manual...im in shock.

That's a pretty significant advantage....108mph:eek:

I traded my manual in for an automatic just a few days ago, and I have no regrets. Definately a faster car on the straights, and I spent a lot of time practicing on that manual. Another nice bonus is increased fuel eocnomy in town. I'm getting much better milage now.

Matt

I'm sure this has been said a million times, but I wish the paddles moved with the steering wheel so it was easier to shift during turns.

It sounds easier but it's not. My TL-S paddles move with the steering wheel and I'm always wishing they were stationary. When I'm cornering my hands are never in the right place....

lol!! Right!

The numbers seem a bit optimistic. That puts it faster than a C5 vette (that's 100 lbs lighter, lots more torque, and 18 hp more) Didn't we had another article that had the auto at .2 sec slower than the manual? :confused:




edit: just noticed it doesn't have the sports package so is a bit lighter and maybe has less rolling resistance from the tires?

I think is printing error,Nissan says the Auto version hit 0-100km/h in 6.2 secs,but i only can get 6.8 secs,the best time.

I get 5.8 sec in my 350Z auto. Something is seriously wrong with your time.

This cant be right. Auto's are far inferior to a manual.

/sarcasm off

I would think that
 

these times (if true) are due more to a stronger engine then most. While Nissan auto's are good they are not dual clutch units like the PDK or used on the Ferrari and Lambo. I would still think the manual, car for car, would be a tad quicker with a professional driver. With an average driver, then I would give the nod to the auto in most situations that call for straight line acceleration. Again, I would have to see more tests with different cars to believe this test. I, am however, a sceptic under most conditions.

GUYS!! THe G37 7AT was faster than the G37 6MT. The 7AT is faster. Look it up!

This is not unexpected.

Something else: WHy would they lie? There are great reputation risk associated with that!

That's what I was going to say. It's amazing how people try to disprove the findings of these car magazines. I think they know a little about what they test. But hey, what do I know?

again there is NO way auto is faster than manual in the 370z. NO way i read auto 0-60 around 5 secs but no or never lower than 5

Well......:ugh2: The expert has spoken! There is "no way" the auto can be faster!

Juan may very well be able to shift his manual as fast as this auto paddle shifts at full throttle without lifting. He may also be able to explaine to the service manager at his local dealer why the syncros are shot and it won't go into gear anymore without grinding after doing that.... Good luck :rolleyes:

These results are likely due to a couple of things.

1..... A slightly faster than normal car. They are not all exactly the same and some are just going to be at the top of the heap when they're all compared to each other.
2..... Conditions that effect performance at the track on that given day.

Cool/dry air and sea level conditions can be a huge factor when it comes to performance as compared to warm/humid high altitude conditions.
When performance numbers are compared you have to remember that they are not all happening under the same conditions.
With that mph I'm going to bet they had some low density altitude conditions in this case.

Back in the old days the American auto competitors would send in a ringer to pump up performance numbers for a first test.
There just isn't any way that Nissan would be doing that with a car like this that is being mass tested by every mag in existance.
The people testing this car in this case don't have any reason to be misleading either. If there were after market parts involved then that would be another story.

Credentials? What's the recorded time on your 370?

Here is another misleading magazine source full of lies...
MotorTrend:rofl2:

http://img.skitch.com/20090425-pk1a7...fmk4ice6cn.jpg

It's not an automatic, but still it's under 5.0.

The problem is that those numbers just don't add up to the weight and amount of HP/torque the car has, auto OR manual. 90% of the reviews are getting 4.9 to 5.0, only MotorTrend got a 4.7 and it beating cars that are lighter, have more HP and significantly more torque. The tranny can make a difference, but it's not going to change the laws of physics. I'd LOVE for the auto to be that quick becuase that's what I'll be getting, but those numbers just don't add up. Also, another article tested the auto side by side with the manual and it came up .2 sec slower (which is an amazing feat for a slushbox in any case). Traditionally. it's usually around .5 sec. As far as the G37, you can't really comare two different tests that are several months appart (if I remember correctly). You also can't just go with the reviews that agree with you.

I bow out gracefully, Car and Driver and MotorTrend clearly are idiots and the experts reside here.

MotorTrend's numbers are with a manual.

****
Locked and loaded with a 332-horsepower, 3.7-liter VQ37VHR V-6 and unique "SynchroRev Match" six-speed manual, which blips the throttle on downshifts without a heel-toe maneuver, the Z rips to 60 in just 4.7 ticks on its way to a quarter-mile run of 13.3 at 105.7. While not an equal to the DBS, the 370Z is speedier than the racebred 306-horse. 3.5-liter Nismo 350Z we tested in 2007, which ran 4.9 and 13.5 at 103.9, respectively, thus making the 370 the quickest production Z we've ever tested.
*****

.....and getting 4.9 out of a stock 350Z? I've never seen anyone else do that. If you want to magazine race, we can find a WHOLE bunch of 4.9's 5.0's and 5.1's and even 5.2's. Even C and D got a 4.9 last time they ran the car. 4.6 just isn't logical.

0 TO 60 times are very subjective. Exactly how is that being measured right down to the .00 mph and .00 sec? The speedo? G-meter? GPS? Radar?
Personally... I don't believe any of these 0-60 times as being absolutely accurate.

The quarter mile oth..... If this test was done on a drag strip with NHRA sanctioned equipment, you can't just go saying "that's not right". The timing equipment on a legit track doesn't lie.
In this case the mph and et are right in line with each other so if this test was done on a legit dragstrip then it did it. Unless you think the testers are lieing.

One last thing.... this auto isn't a slushbox. A point that I think will be painfully proven to some who don't have one as time goes by.

Lug.. give it up...

And remember the tranny on your 350Z is not remotely near the same tranny on this Z.

This thread is ridiculous....LOL at all the manny tranny drivers getting insecure.

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.