2009 Nissan 370Z Automatic - Short Take Road Test

Lug · 04-28-2009, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

miguez · 04-28-2009, 11:00 AM

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,

wstar · 04-28-2009, 11:06 AM

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

miguez · 04-28-2009, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wstar

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:

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

Oops, unauthorized image linking...

miguez · 04-28-2009, 11:09 AM

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

miguez · 04-28-2009, 11:11 AM

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

wellarmed · 04-28-2009, 11:43 AM

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.

Lug · 04-28-2009, 11:56 AM

This looks typical to what I've seen. Some like Dynojets will read up to 320.

MarcusMIA · 04-28-2009, 12:54 PM

t-ray · 04-28-2009, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wellarmed

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.

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.

shabarivas · 04-28-2009, 02:16 PM

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

wellarmed · 04-28-2009, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t-ray

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.

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....

WUKILLABEEZ78 · 04-28-2009, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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?

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

Forrest · 04-28-2009, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

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

Quote:

Stock(Street Tire)
12.79x @ 109.80 - boostyfox Details
12.84x @ 111.xx - Ramsiec5 Details
12.98x @ 110.xx - lrbinwpb Details
12.990 @ 107.01 - Mistamike17 Details
12.99x @ 109.81 - c5vette_dallas Details
13.025 @ 105.54 - CRV3TT3 Details
13.10x @ 105.xx - slvrC5vert Details
13.1xx @ 108.xx - CarsRfun's Dad Details
13.1xx @ 106.xx - prwest Details
13.377 @ 104.87 - Roadsho Details
13.401 @ 109.44 - Gideon's_Test Details/Slip
13.465 @ 104.52 - Deathstrike Details
13.637 @ 102.32 - Novicetoo Details

zman1910 · 04-28-2009, 03:53 PM

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.

04-28-2009, 11:06 AM	#63 (permalink)
wstar A True Z Fanatic Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 4,024 Drives: too slow Rep Power: 3594	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 __________________ 7AT Track Car! Journal thread / Car setup details

04-28-2009, 11:56 AM	#68 (permalink)
Lug A True Z Fanatic Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Texas Posts: 1,926 Drives: 2006 350Z Rep Power: 19	This looks typical to what I've seen. Some like Dynojets will read up to 320. __________________ keep Chubbs in your pocket - Chubbs

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
MotorTrend First Test: 2009 Nissan 370Z test drive 4.7 sec 0 to 60 11.25.08	AK370Z	Nissan 370Z Photos / Spyshots / Video / Media Gallery	47	11-11-2009 09:06 PM
MotorWeek Road Test: 2009 Nissan 370Z	dlmartin81	Nissan 370Z Photos / Spyshots / Video / Media Gallery	10	03-16-2009 01:59 AM
2009 Nissan 370Z - "NEW" Road Test By Car and Drive 02.04.09	AK370Z	Nissan 370Z General Discussions	6	02-05-2009 09:06 PM
ROAD & TRACK Video - Full Test: 2009 Nissan 370Z	sbsmoov	Nissan 370Z General Discussions	4	12-02-2008 12:05 AM
Great C&D article... 2009 Nissan 370Z - Road Test	ctzn	Nissan 370Z General Discussions	21	12-01-2008 05:34 PM

04-28-2009, 11:00 AM	#62 (permalink)
miguez Enthusiast Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Columbus, Ohio Posts: 359 Drives: '04 Cavalier Rep Power: 181	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,

04-28-2009, 11:09 AM	#65 (permalink)
miguez Enthusiast Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Columbus, Ohio Posts: 359 Drives: '04 Cavalier Rep Power: 181	Here we go: RX7Club.com - View Single Post - Pictures of my LS1 T56 build (final product)

04-28-2009, 11:11 AM	#66 (permalink)
miguez Enthusiast Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Columbus, Ohio Posts: 359 Drives: '04 Cavalier Rep Power: 181	Yep, very flat. That means it's more likely now that the difference then is not down to torque.

04-28-2009, 11:43 AM	#67 (permalink)
wellarmed Base Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Tucson, Az. Posts: 42 Drives: 09 370Z Rep Power: 16	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.

04-28-2009, 12:54 PM	#69 (permalink)
MarcusMIA Base Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Cap Hill, Seattle, WA Posts: 71 Drives: '14 370Z Blk MT Rep Power: 16

04-28-2009, 02:16 PM	#71 (permalink)
shabarivas A True Z Fanatic Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Sacramento, CA Posts: 2,188 Drives: 370z MB 6mt Rep Power: 914	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

04-28-2009, 03:53 PM	#75 (permalink)
zman1910 Enthusiast Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: FL Posts: 361 Drives: 2011 Audi S4 Rep Power: 428	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.