Check this out...

Quote:

DealersEdge.com Daily Briefing
Updated for July 27, 2001

Performance claims of new Nissan being questioned

Nissan Motor Company's ultra-luxurious new Infiniti Q-45 sedan is being questioned. Nissan claims the sedan can go from 0-to-60 mph in 5.9 seconds but some auto magazines and testing firms have questioned that claim.

Senior analyst with AMCI Inc., Jim Wangers has stated that their firm has conducted exclusive tests on the vehicle and it comes nowhere close to 5.9 seconds. Wangers added that it is almost a full second off the time Nissan says it can go.

The hype of the Nissan's acceleration is just another advertising tool to get consumers to purchase their product. Nissan is not the only one who has used this strategy to get the consumers to buy. Mazda admitted the 2001 Miata produced just 142 horsepower, compared to their advertisements claims of 155 horsepower. Ford too has been sited. They recalled their 1999 SVT Mustang Cobra after tests showed it didn’t achieve a promised 320 horsepower.

Speed is not the only issue at hand. Ford went as far to question Toyota's claim that its full-size Sequoia SUV had more cargo space then the Expedition.

End Quote

This seems to be happening more and more...

 

i think that's the problem with overestimating specs or stating them near their upper limit, like some companies seem to do often.

i think acura played it safe by reasonably underestimating times (especially with that 6.7sec tl, and probably with the cl-s too).

 

I don't know if this is happening more or not, but I did want to comment on this one.

From what I read, Mazda, at the last minute, decided to make some adjustments to the Miata to make it 50 state emission legal or something like that. They were stupid enough to NOT dyno the car after making the adjustments. So, it really did dyno at 155, it's just that the production version didn't because of the emissions adjustments. Who knows, maybe they didn't dyno it on purpose and were hence being shady. But it ** could ** have been an honest mistake.

 

I know that these will be incredible naive questions but I've read the some articles concerning the "misrepresentation" of the facts concerning all three of those cars. The only thing, if memory serves I can remember was that the Stang's could be returned and fixed(?) while the Miata's (again not very sure) could be exchanged or maybe the owners could be allowed some amount of refund monies.

My dumb questions are these:

1) Do the manufactures suffer any penalties?

2) Will this obtain regarding the manual 6 CL's?

[ 07-27-2001: Message edited by: Al Uminum ]

 

The manufacturers don't suffer any penalties per se. But they will get called to the mat by owners and lawyers.

Chrysler took it on the chin a couple of years ago for claiming their Dodge RAM could tow about 3,000 lbs more than it really could. They had to make corrections in the specs and ads. And I know that they had to buy a lot of these trucks back.

Ford got hammered for claiming the 1999 SVT Cobra had 320 HP. Some estimates had it off by as much as 50 HP.

And I think Mazda got beat up on the afforementioned Miata snafu. In that case they offered to by back the affected cars, or lifetime free maintenance and $500 voucher.

[ 07-27-2001: Message edited by: Rock Dog ]

 

So what is the Q-ship actually runnin 0-60?

 

It's all a sales pitch!

 

AMCI is the same company that established the performance figures of the CL/TL Type-S for Acura. The actual 0-60 performance of the new Q-45 is 6.8 seconds.

 

Yup the Lexus 430 (not the coupe), with less horsepower always was faster in the magazine comparison reviews.

 

GS or LS? Well if the Q45's 0-60mph time is 6.8 secs then both huh?

 

Hahah even the guys over at the Nissan and infiniti forums are fighting over it: freshalloy.ubbforums.com/forum/Forum14/HTML/000366.html

 

My M3 makes 380hp from the factory

 

The company I work for had a similar problem. One of our systems was stated as doing somethign it couldn't. It was narrowed down to a "difference between the tech/engineers and the salespeople."
The salespeople want to sell it... the tech guys want to maintain/design it. The peoblem is, the sales usually get the last word.

 

We get slammed by this type of claim all the time. Batteries in camcorders are rated at ampere/hours. People take that literally that if we say that a battery is good for 2 hours, they will bring it back and complain. They never read the criteria (Constant recording, no zoom, etc). You can get punished by the law against false advertising. Now all the audio manufacturers are starting to do what they did back in the 70's - 250Watts Peak Power when it's really only 30 watts a channel with whopping harmonic distortion. Specs are only there for a relative comparison. That is all. Good night.The management.

 

sure why not?
0-60 in 5.9 downhill

 

maybe even faster than that cuz it's so da*n heavy!

 

Don't forget the 50mph tailwind.

 

This type of thing is not uncommon.
How many of us actually get 6.6 0-60 stock?
Sales always gets the last word. At least thats how it is where I've worked. They make a claim that may or may not hold true, the customer gets the pruduct, finds out it doesn't do it well enough and complains to the tech. Then the customer tells the engineer its supposed to do this and this in a circle. Usually its news to us. Just go to any store and ask about the computers. Ask one of the idiots at Best buy if you can teleconference with a 56k modem... if he says yes he isn't fibbing... You can, if the picture is the size of a postage stamp and you have phone lines of solid gold.
Kapische?

 

But these are car mags that are not coming close to the Q45's manufacturer's claim of
5.9 secs for 0-60mph.. most 060 mph tested times are 6.6-6.9.. and by that same logic if car mags were off by that much for our car.. it would mean 7.5 secs for 0-60 mph for our car.. and no major car mag have tested our car that slow.. most times have been between 6.4-6.8 with an average of 6.6.. exactly what Acura testers (or their hired testers) had gotten and what was advertised

 

Car Magazines vary so widely in tests that it isn't even funny. My ZX2 was timed anywhere from 7.4 seconds to 60mph (R&T) to 8.8 secs (MT). That's a hella big difference.
Many people thought R&T got a ringer, but I dunno.

When every car magazine reports high numbers after a car manufacturer pulls some number like "Eleventy-seven" out of their ass, you gotta wonder.