Anyone Notice???
 

Anyone notice that when the Z came out in 2009; most tested car reviews rated the Z as going 0-60 in the 4.6 to 4.9 range... then in 2010 and later years it was measured more like 5.0 to 5.5. The quarter has gotten substantially worse as well. In 09 the range was 13.1 to13.3. Once the 2010 and aboves hit. The times reduced to 13.3 to 13.6.

Is this magazine bias & conspiracy to make the american v8's sound more respectable?
Is it ecu whine tsb's and other little engine tweaks have slowed the car down?
Or is it car reviewers are becoming less skilled over these last couple years?

I don't know but when I read nissan car reviews in magazines... there's always so much more nit-picking that I can't help to think there's some type of indirect hatred toward Nissan in certain moments. Things that other cars don't get pointed out, for a nissan, they will quickly point out.

Off subject EXAMPLE ONLY.. I really think the Z suspension has been so NEGATIVELY overrated. This car is not an unbearable drive. It actually gives a pretty good ride considering its wheel size, height and stance. Its a tad more taught than an altima 3.5se sedan. In reviews of the SE sedan and coupe. They say the engine and suspension are top notch and the rest of the car needs to step up. I can somewhat agree to a point.
The Z is maybe 5% stiffer. Gives power to the back wheels, in a lower stance, more power and extremely precise handling. All of a sudden, the same formula that makes the altima an excellent handler for what it is.. makes the Z murderous to drive. Its only like 5% firmer... Its like, "come on give me a break", these guys seriously need to make up there minds. Its like they test drove a Z and wanted a cadillac, then they test drive a benz and want a Z. Its getting sickening reading articles of reviewers with an identity crisis.

I was just wondering what you guys thought is the reason in the large gap in acceleration times according to these magazines??

not sure, why dont you check with the spec racer crowd? :confused: i skim through reviews as if im reading articles in the paper. for me it's just to learn wat's out there as reference, not to really learn about some biased way people explain things.

so 0-60mph if around 5sec, that's pretty quick. if 7sec kinda slow, if 9sec super slow if 3sec super fast. kinda like that.

Well lots of factors come into play that make those difference like: Driver skills, temperature, altitude of track as they dont always test at the same location, humidity, mileage and condition of test car, etc etc. Those factos plus others can make a difference of a couple tenths of a sec.

so you're saying 09>the newer models... sweet :happydance:

As far as the acceleration times go, like you said my best guess is the various tweaks to make the car milder are the culprit. Other than that, while the Z is undoubtedly a firm ride, bordering on very firm, I just spent last weekend driving a buddy's 05 G35 coupe with I believe the sports package, and the ride was nearly identical, as well as marginally quieter than our much maligned noise levels in the Z. I think that while you can find parallels in almost every somewhat similar car in the market, the sum of all the Z's traits are fairly unique in it's price range and target demographic, and it almost makes it hard to review objectively for some reviewers.

1) Driving stick is starting to become a lost art with the advancement of technology for auto-transmissions.

2) Reviews are like a-holes, everyone has one. You have one, too, and your butt meter says it's a good car for you.

3) I do not know of the changes, maybe our heated mirrors are weighting the car down ^_^;;;

I remember only one 4.6 and one 4.7 sec, both from MotorTrend (auto and stick respectively). Other than that I remember mostly 4.9 to 5.1 form the rest of the world. The harsh ride and noise comments have always seemed rediculous to me, like claiming a Tesla uses too much electricity when compared to gasoline powered cars. :D

Just the hype in 2009 to get everyone into the 370 and buying one. Some say its sales marketing for a new car :ugh2:

Your data might be a little inaccurate OP. The posted time of 4.6-4.9 sec is with 1 foot of roll like on a drag strip. This is how most magazines tested cars until a few years ago when they started posting real ZERO-60 times. In those instances, its more like 4.9-5.5.

There are a lot of variables to take account, like alt., temp., track cond., etc. Also, not all Z's built, produce the same amount of power. Some have a little more, some a little less. A tenth of a second or even half a sec could also come down to who's driving.

black '09s were proven to be the quickest.

/thread

From my experience they are the slowest due to heat soak in that black paint...lol :stirthepot:

Stop being so fat, maybe that'll shave 0.2 s off your times.

:icon18:

not trying to :stirthepot: but with the advancement of the AT
these writers of the articles when they get the MT don't have the skills
to get the most out of the 370......

i guess my point is anyone can put it in D and stomp on the gas....

Agreed, autos will always rule in consistency as well which is a prized value for objective testing. I was never one to care about quoted performance figures just because of the variables involved but I think of them more as ball park estimates: better drivers can meet or exceed them while less spirited drivers know what the car is capable of.