Edmunds Comparison: Infiniti G37 Journey vs. Acura TL SH-AWD
11-20-2008, 07:21 PM
#81
Chloe @ 17mo
11-21-2008, 04:50 PM
#82
Instructor
Well you can't really judge a car by just looking at it or just by reading about it in magazines. If you had test-driven it and still didn't like it, I would have had a lot more respect for your opinions. As far as missing the mark, they may have missed it for you, but not for me and others who's needs are met with this latest itineration of the TL.
Who knows, maybe it will grow on me over time or Acura ends up making a few minor changes which improves things in my view, we'll see.
11-21-2008, 10:47 PM
#83
Racer
Dont forget the G37X with "S" sport package. They were comparing the Journey model which leans on comfort. Still a great matchup and really the customers choice. Both are very close.
11-22-2008, 12:47 AM
#84
You'll Never Walk Alone
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 37
Posts: 9,493
Received 835 Likes
on
519 Posts
Thanks for the feedback, I'm sure the 4G is a nice car just not for me right now as I was hoping for something different with this TL and a test drive isn't going to change my feelings at this point.
Who knows, maybe it will grow on me over time or Acura ends up making a few minor changes which improves things in my view, we'll see.
Who knows, maybe it will grow on me over time or Acura ends up making a few minor changes which improves things in my view, we'll see.
11-25-2008, 03:52 AM
#85
The article about how the 3G TL-S beats a G35 around the track is the Holy Grail itself. One article from Edmunds in which the almighty TL SH-AWD loses and suddenly they aren't credible. Give me a break. 
Then again I shouldn't expect much beyond that, dissing any Acura is like a stranger scolding a parent's child. Blasphemy! It's not ugly, you just have to get used to it!
A member here once said the 4G is like a really ugly chick with a great personality. Just like a car..... no matter how good it is, how the hell can you stand being with it if you can't even look at it in the face without flinching?
Opinion this, opinion that all you want. The plain and simple truth is that cars like the BMW 3-series outsells its competition (price or size-wise) by over 2-to-1 in some cases, despite being older/smaller/more expensive/less powerful/D. All of the above in many cases. Factually speaking that's ridiculous, and anyone (I'm assuming tens of thousands) who buy a 3-series without using some sort of opinionated rationale is just silly. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and looks are purely opinion, and in my opinion the 3-series sedan is funny looking and yet it crushes its competition. Also going back to the so-true saying but in reverse..... you can have a really hot chick but if she's stuck up, annoying and has a smelly taco, you're not going back for seconds, are you?
No, I'm not a BMW fanboy.
Just the devil's advocate.
@ the 
Never driven a powerful manual transmission, RWD car, aka a man's car before? Yeah.... get used to it. There's not much dampening when the shifter is right on top of the transmission itself. And yet one of the unanimously best-feeling shifters out there is, drumroll please.... the S2000, which happens to be FWD! [/sarcasm]
Then again I shouldn't expect much beyond that, dissing any Acura is like a stranger scolding a parent's child. Blasphemy! It's not ugly, you just have to get used to it!A member here once said the 4G is like a really ugly chick with a great personality. Just like a car..... no matter how good it is, how the hell can you stand being with it if you can't even look at it in the face without flinching?
Opinion this, opinion that all you want. The plain and simple truth is that cars like the BMW 3-series outsells its competition (price or size-wise) by over 2-to-1 in some cases, despite being older/smaller/more expensive/less powerful/D. All of the above in many cases. Factually speaking that's ridiculous, and anyone (I'm assuming tens of thousands) who buy a 3-series without using some sort of opinionated rationale is just silly. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and looks are purely opinion, and in my opinion the 3-series sedan is funny looking and yet it crushes its competition. Also going back to the so-true saying but in reverse..... you can have a really hot chick but if she's stuck up, annoying and has a smelly taco, you're not going back for seconds, are you?
No, I'm not a BMW fanboy.
Just the devil's advocate.How does Infiniti compare to Acura in terms of re-sale value?
Also, I understand that the G35, though very fast, was a bit raw and unrefined in many ways. Has the G37 been improved in those areas?
I test drove a G35 in 2006, you could actually feel the shifter vibrate and actually move during hard acceleration!
I would bet that is still the case with the G37 and one of the main reasons why I have a TL-S and not a G35 or 37.
Also, I understand that the G35, though very fast, was a bit raw and unrefined in many ways. Has the G37 been improved in those areas?
I test drove a G35 in 2006, you could actually feel the shifter vibrate and actually move during hard acceleration!
I would bet that is still the case with the G37 and one of the main reasons why I have a TL-S and not a G35 or 37. @ the Never driven a powerful manual transmission, RWD car, aka a man's car before? Yeah.... get used to it. There's not much dampening when the shifter is right on top of the transmission itself. And yet one of the unanimously best-feeling shifters out there is, drumroll please.... the S2000, which happens to be FWD! [/sarcasm]
11-25-2008, 07:20 AM
#86
Burning Brakes
Never driven a powerful manual transmission, RWD car, aka a man's car before? Yeah.... get used to it. There's not much dampening when the shifter is right on top of the transmission itself. And yet one of the unanimously best-feeling shifters out there is, drumroll please.... the S2000, which happens to be FWD! [/sarcasm]
11-25-2008, 02:14 PM
#87
Honda Fanboy
11-25-2008, 03:56 PM
#88
some undeniable facts that will always keep Acura down a peg in comparison testing.
Honda fails to embrace a gearbox with more than 5 gears and still fails to deliver on raw power. So what if the car has 300hp, when everyone else has alot more & better gearing, the 300 is still down a peg. Acura had an opportunity to get VERY SERIOUS with the TL AWD model, and yet again, the G still beats it.
Also, i think Edmunds is correct in their assessment of the SHAWD system...read waveloggers original post about his numbers and some of his observations line up with Edmunds (about how the AWD behaves from at stomp vs easing into the pedal etc)....Maybe Acura is trying to safeguard the power of the engine or the system.....
Honda fails to embrace a gearbox with more than 5 gears and still fails to deliver on raw power. So what if the car has 300hp, when everyone else has alot more & better gearing, the 300 is still down a peg. Acura had an opportunity to get VERY SERIOUS with the TL AWD model, and yet again, the G still beats it.
Also, i think Edmunds is correct in their assessment of the SHAWD system...read waveloggers original post about his numbers and some of his observations line up with Edmunds (about how the AWD behaves from at stomp vs easing into the pedal etc)....Maybe Acura is trying to safeguard the power of the engine or the system.....
11-25-2008, 04:34 PM
#89
[QUOTE=MMike1981;10224424]some undeniable facts that will always keep Acura down a peg in comparison testing.
Honda fails to embrace a gearbox with more than 5 gears and still fails to deliver on raw power. So what if the car has 300hp, when everyone else has alot more & better gearing, the 300 is still down a peg. Acura had an opportunity to get VERY SERIOUS with the TL AWD model, and yet again, the G still beats it.
Also, i think Edmunds is correct in their assessment of the SHAWD system...read waveloggers original post about his numbers and some of his observations line up with Edmunds (about how the AWD behaves from at stomp vs easing into the pedal etc)....Maybe Acura is trying to safeguard the power of the engine or the system.....[/QUOTE]
Yeah we all know it's not the fastest Batmobile, but it still moves nicely. And I did post in the 'Wavehogger's perfomance' thread about what happens when trying to brake torque. It basically puts the car into 2nd gear if you try to torque it and then switches back to 1st when you take your foot off the brake (the brake pedal is its signaling mechanism) and start rolling.. so it's better to launch below 1300rpm, any higher and you start in 2nd. And you will lose between (.75-1.0 sec) 0-60 if you torque it over 1300 rpm.
Honda fails to embrace a gearbox with more than 5 gears and still fails to deliver on raw power. So what if the car has 300hp, when everyone else has alot more & better gearing, the 300 is still down a peg. Acura had an opportunity to get VERY SERIOUS with the TL AWD model, and yet again, the G still beats it.
Also, i think Edmunds is correct in their assessment of the SHAWD system...read waveloggers original post about his numbers and some of his observations line up with Edmunds (about how the AWD behaves from at stomp vs easing into the pedal etc)....Maybe Acura is trying to safeguard the power of the engine or the system.....[/QUOTE]
Yeah we all know it's not the fastest Batmobile, but it still moves nicely. And I did post in the 'Wavehogger's perfomance' thread about what happens when trying to brake torque. It basically puts the car into 2nd gear if you try to torque it and then switches back to 1st when you take your foot off the brake (the brake pedal is its signaling mechanism) and start rolling.. so it's better to launch below 1300rpm, any higher and you start in 2nd. And you will lose between (.75-1.0 sec) 0-60 if you torque it over 1300 rpm.
11-25-2008, 05:34 PM
#90
You'll Never Walk Alone
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 37
Posts: 9,493
Received 835 Likes
on
519 Posts
The article about how the 3G TL-S beats a G35 around the track is the Holy Grail itself. One article from Edmunds in which the almighty TL SH-AWD loses and suddenly they aren't credible. Give me a break. Then again I shouldn't expect much beyond that, dissing any Acura is like a stranger scolding a parent's child. Blasphemy! It's not ugly, you just have to get used to it!
A member here once said the 4G is like a really ugly chick with a great personality. Just like a car..... no matter how good it is, how the hell can you stand being with it if you can't even look at it in the face without flinching?
Opinion this, opinion that all you want. The plain and simple truth is that cars like the BMW 3-series outsells its competition (price or size-wise) by over 2-to-1 in some cases, despite being older/smaller/more expensive/less powerful/D. All of the above in many cases. Factually speaking that's ridiculous, and anyone (I'm assuming tens of thousands) who buy a 3-series without using some sort of opinionated rationale is just silly. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and looks are purely opinion, and in my opinion the 3-series sedan is funny looking and yet it crushes its competition. Also going back to the so-true saying but in reverse..... you can have a really hot chick but if she's stuck up, annoying and has a smelly taco, you're not going back for seconds, are you?
No, I'm not a BMW fanboy. Just the devil's advocate.
@ the
Never driven a powerful manual transmission, RWD car, aka a man's car before? Yeah.... get used to it. There's not much dampening when the shifter is right on top of the transmission itself. And yet one of the unanimously best-feeling shifters out there is, drumroll please.... the S2000, which happens to be FWD! [/sarcasm]
Then again I shouldn't expect much beyond that, dissing any Acura is like a stranger scolding a parent's child. Blasphemy! It's not ugly, you just have to get used to it!A member here once said the 4G is like a really ugly chick with a great personality. Just like a car..... no matter how good it is, how the hell can you stand being with it if you can't even look at it in the face without flinching?
Opinion this, opinion that all you want. The plain and simple truth is that cars like the BMW 3-series outsells its competition (price or size-wise) by over 2-to-1 in some cases, despite being older/smaller/more expensive/less powerful/D. All of the above in many cases. Factually speaking that's ridiculous, and anyone (I'm assuming tens of thousands) who buy a 3-series without using some sort of opinionated rationale is just silly. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and looks are purely opinion, and in my opinion the 3-series sedan is funny looking and yet it crushes its competition. Also going back to the so-true saying but in reverse..... you can have a really hot chick but if she's stuck up, annoying and has a smelly taco, you're not going back for seconds, are you?
No, I'm not a BMW fanboy.
Just the devil's advocate. @ the Never driven a powerful manual transmission, RWD car, aka a man's car before? Yeah.... get used to it. There's not much dampening when the shifter is right on top of the transmission itself. And yet one of the unanimously best-feeling shifters out there is, drumroll please.... the S2000, which happens to be FWD! [/sarcasm]
In this Edmunds test though, the TL lost because its straight line performance is not as good as the G37. Yes, it's true the G37 is faster in the straight than the TL, but the numbers from Edmunds are questionable. They make the TL seem to me MUCH slower than what it is. 0-60mph in 6.7s? 2009 TSX 6MT can do that. And Wavehogger has already demonstrated, with videos as proof, that the TL can do 0-60mph in 5.4s. Edmunds also got 5.4s in the G37. Of course, Edmunds is typically slower than others, the fastest I've seen for the G37 7AT is 0-60 in 5s flat.
11-25-2008, 08:51 PM
#91
Racer
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Ft Lauderdale Fl
Age: 48
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The article about how the 3G TL-S beats a G35 around the track is the Holy Grail itself. One article from Edmunds in which the almighty TL SH-AWD loses and suddenly they aren't credible. Give me a break. Then again I shouldn't expect much beyond that, dissing any Acura is like a stranger scolding a parent's child. Blasphemy! It's not ugly, you just have to get used to it!
A member here once said the 4G is like a really ugly chick with a great personality. Just like a car..... no matter how good it is, how the hell can you stand being with it if you can't even look at it in the face without flinching?
Opinion this, opinion that all you want. The plain and simple truth is that cars like the BMW 3-series outsells its competition (price or size-wise) by over 2-to-1 in some cases, despite being older/smaller/more expensive/less powerful/D. All of the above in many cases. Factually speaking that's ridiculous, and anyone (I'm assuming tens of thousands) who buy a 3-series without using some sort of opinionated rationale is just silly. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and looks are purely opinion, and in my opinion the 3-series sedan is funny looking and yet it crushes its competition. Also going back to the so-true saying but in reverse..... you can have a really hot chick but if she's stuck up, annoying and has a smelly taco, you're not going back for seconds, are you?
No, I'm not a BMW fanboy. Just the devil's advocate.
@ the
Never driven a powerful manual transmission, RWD car, aka a man's car before? Yeah.... get used to it. There's not much dampening when the shifter is right on top of the transmission itself. And yet one of the unanimously best-feeling shifters out there is, drumroll please.... the S2000, which happens to be FWD! [/sarcasm]
Then again I shouldn't expect much beyond that, dissing any Acura is like a stranger scolding a parent's child. Blasphemy! It's not ugly, you just have to get used to it!A member here once said the 4G is like a really ugly chick with a great personality. Just like a car..... no matter how good it is, how the hell can you stand being with it if you can't even look at it in the face without flinching?
Opinion this, opinion that all you want. The plain and simple truth is that cars like the BMW 3-series outsells its competition (price or size-wise) by over 2-to-1 in some cases, despite being older/smaller/more expensive/less powerful/D. All of the above in many cases. Factually speaking that's ridiculous, and anyone (I'm assuming tens of thousands) who buy a 3-series without using some sort of opinionated rationale is just silly. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and looks are purely opinion, and in my opinion the 3-series sedan is funny looking and yet it crushes its competition. Also going back to the so-true saying but in reverse..... you can have a really hot chick but if she's stuck up, annoying and has a smelly taco, you're not going back for seconds, are you?
No, I'm not a BMW fanboy.
Just the devil's advocate. @ the Never driven a powerful manual transmission, RWD car, aka a man's car before? Yeah.... get used to it. There's not much dampening when the shifter is right on top of the transmission itself. And yet one of the unanimously best-feeling shifters out there is, drumroll please.... the S2000, which happens to be FWD! [/sarcasm]
11-25-2008, 09:04 PM
#92
11-25-2008, 09:58 PM
#93
Three Wheelin'
What in that statement is bashing? It's just a question.....the G was never designed from the beginning as a convertible and I was curious how the convertible body would stand up over time. You and your troll brothers come here and blatantly "bash" the 4G all the time. So it's wrong to question the "holy" Infiniti but ok to slam the 4G all the time? In case you haven't noticed, this is a 4G forum, not an Infiniti forum. You're so infatuated with the G, it shows in every post you make.....grow some balls and buy one so you could make a shrine out of it.
11-25-2008, 10:48 PM
#94
Chloe @ 17mo
Split 5-spoke 18 x 7.5-inch aluminum-alloy wheels with 225/50R18 (front) and 18 x 8.5-inch 245/45R18 (rear) summer performance tires (RWD models) • Split 5-spoke 18 x 7.5-inch aluminum-alloy wheels with 225/50R18 all-season performance tires (front/rear) (AWD models)
• Sport brakes with 4-piston opposed front calipers with 14-inch rotors and 2-piston opposed rear calipers with 13.8-inch rotors (RWD models)
• Unique front fascia and side sills
• Solid-magnesium paddle shifters (not available on G37 Sport 6MT)
• Front sport seats with manual thigh extension and driver’s power torso and thigh support adjustment
• Unique sport stitching on steering wheel and front seats
• Aluminum pedals and footrest
• Sport-tuned suspension (RWD models)
• Viscous Limited-Slip Differential (RWD models)
• Sport brakes with 4-piston opposed front calipers with 14-inch rotors and 2-piston opposed rear calipers with 13.8-inch rotors (RWD models)
• Unique front fascia and side sills
• Solid-magnesium paddle shifters (not available on G37 Sport 6MT)
• Front sport seats with manual thigh extension and driver’s power torso and thigh support adjustment
• Unique sport stitching on steering wheel and front seats
• Aluminum pedals and footrest
• Sport-tuned suspension (RWD models)
• Viscous Limited-Slip Differential (RWD models)
11-26-2008, 02:07 AM
#95
What in that statement is bashing? It's just a question.....the G was never designed from the beginning as a convertible and I was curious how the convertible body would stand up over time. You and your troll brothers come here and blatantly "bash" the 4G all the time. So it's wrong to question the "holy" Infiniti but ok to slam the 4G all the time? In case you haven't noticed, this is a 4G forum, not an Infiniti forum. You're so infatuated with the G, it shows in every post you make.....grow some balls and buy one so you could make a shrine out of it.
This whole bickering will fade away soon. The same thing happened in 2004!
Last edited by bmode; 11-26-2008 at 02:09 AM.
11-26-2008, 12:27 PM
#96
Well, that 3G TL-S vs G35 was done by a well known profesional race car drivers.
In this Edmunds test though, the TL lost because its straight line performance is not as good as the G37. Yes, it's true the G37 is faster in the straight than the TL, but the numbers from Edmunds are questionable. They make the TL seem to me MUCH slower than what it is. 0-60mph in 6.7s? 2009 TSX 6MT can do that. And Wavehogger has already demonstrated, with videos as proof, that the TL can do 0-60mph in 5.4s. Edmunds also got 5.4s in the G37. Of course, Edmunds is typically slower than others, the fastest I've seen for the G37 7AT is 0-60 in 5s flat.
In this Edmunds test though, the TL lost because its straight line performance is not as good as the G37. Yes, it's true the G37 is faster in the straight than the TL, but the numbers from Edmunds are questionable. They make the TL seem to me MUCH slower than what it is. 0-60mph in 6.7s? 2009 TSX 6MT can do that. And Wavehogger has already demonstrated, with videos as proof, that the TL can do 0-60mph in 5.4s. Edmunds also got 5.4s in the G37. Of course, Edmunds is typically slower than others, the fastest I've seen for the G37 7AT is 0-60 in 5s flat.
The dynolicious program is generally at its best .24s off and at average .5s off and even up to .66+ sec off when compared to other such programs let alone more sophisticated measuring devices.
I am sure professional auto mags use better measuring devices than an iphone with a $12.99 downloaded dynolicious package on it. If not i hope wavehogger can find a 09 Audi 3.2 as one mag got a 5.7s 0-60 and im sure he should be able to get mid 4's from the Audi at this rate.
This is no slag to wavehogger as i thank him for the tests he has done to show how the different starts vary on the 4G and this has been stated in other mags as well but you have to take the numbers for what they are worth and thats strictly entertainment value.
11-26-2008, 12:55 PM
#97
I don't really bash the 4G but, im just saying what my opnions are, im sure that you think the car will get weaker at the frame b/c of the convertible design, but you can tell how they changed the way the body, and frame were designed different, then the sedan, im sure infinity thought this out before they would make it.
11-26-2008, 01:13 PM
#98
As much as i enjoy Wavehoggers thread on his performance numbers with his iphone you are making it sound like its hard scientific proof of his numbers.
The dynolicious program is generally at its best .24s off and at average .5s off and even up to .66+ sec off when compared to other such programs let alone more sophisticated measuring devices.
I am sure professional auto mags use better measuring devices than an iphone with a $12.99 downloaded dynolicious package on it. If not i hope wavehogger can find a 09 Audi 3.2 as one mag got a 5.7s 0-60 and im sure he should be able to get mid 4's from the Audi at this rate.
This is no slag to wavehogger as i thank him for the tests he has done to show how the different starts vary on the 4G and this has been stated in other mags as well but you have to take the numbers for what they are worth and thats strictly entertainment value.
The dynolicious program is generally at its best .24s off and at average .5s off and even up to .66+ sec off when compared to other such programs let alone more sophisticated measuring devices.
I am sure professional auto mags use better measuring devices than an iphone with a $12.99 downloaded dynolicious package on it. If not i hope wavehogger can find a 09 Audi 3.2 as one mag got a 5.7s 0-60 and im sure he should be able to get mid 4's from the Audi at this rate.
This is no slag to wavehogger as i thank him for the tests he has done to show how the different starts vary on the 4G and this has been stated in other mags as well but you have to take the numbers for what they are worth and thats strictly entertainment value.
But you sound more ridiculous than my results, when you say that I would get a mid 4" time in the Audi. My times have not been very far off from the reviewers. Enjoy the entertainment, everyone else is.
And Happy Thanksgiving to everyone!
11-26-2008, 01:24 PM
#99
i mean cmon...the TL is NO SLOUCH! G is fast too but its not like we are talking huge differences..the cars are toe to toe, edmunds just was a bitch and wants to bring the G in bed with them, and not to mention the fact that like every other poster has pointed out, they are comparing RWD to AWD...cmon
11-26-2008, 03:44 PM
#100
Suzuka Master
Numbers and specs are great and all the reviews, but I think in the end are you buying the car to race of have bragging rights or do you buy it becaue you like it and the way it rides. MOST people buy becasue they like the car and the way it rides. The point here I think is Honda/Acura madea a bold design decision and some of us will like it, some will hate it and others won't care. I wish the TL were more of an evolution from the 3G as the 3G was to the 2G in styling. In the end I don't care if the 4G is the fastest badest handling car on the planet for under $40K, I need to WANT and LIKE the car as many others do. I LOVE my 3G Type-S and liek the ride of a 4G SH, but the styling is the deal breaker for me, whether a G37 is slightly better fo wrose on the skidpad or faster ir not, in the end the G37 sedan delivers what I desire now that the 4G TL does not. I think many are trying to rationalize decsions and opinions, in the end you either liek the car or your don't.
11-27-2008, 12:13 AM
#102
You'll Never Walk Alone
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 37
Posts: 9,493
Received 835 Likes
on
519 Posts
As much as i enjoy Wavehoggers thread on his performance numbers with his iphone you are making it sound like its hard scientific proof of his numbers.
The dynolicious program is generally at its best .24s off and at average .5s off and even up to .66+ sec off when compared to other such programs let alone more sophisticated measuring devices.
I am sure professional auto mags use better measuring devices than an iphone with a $12.99 downloaded dynolicious package on it. If not i hope wavehogger can find a 09 Audi 3.2 as one mag got a 5.7s 0-60 and im sure he should be able to get mid 4's from the Audi at this rate.
This is no slag to wavehogger as i thank him for the tests he has done to show how the different starts vary on the 4G and this has been stated in other mags as well but you have to take the numbers for what they are worth and thats strictly entertainment value.
The dynolicious program is generally at its best .24s off and at average .5s off and even up to .66+ sec off when compared to other such programs let alone more sophisticated measuring devices.
I am sure professional auto mags use better measuring devices than an iphone with a $12.99 downloaded dynolicious package on it. If not i hope wavehogger can find a 09 Audi 3.2 as one mag got a 5.7s 0-60 and im sure he should be able to get mid 4's from the Audi at this rate.
This is no slag to wavehogger as i thank him for the tests he has done to show how the different starts vary on the 4G and this has been stated in other mags as well but you have to take the numbers for what they are worth and thats strictly entertainment value.
Again, I'm not even claiming the TL is faster in a straight line than the G37. But 6.7s? That's an entertainment number for me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-DFbJQbeSY
Here is a video that you may be interested in. It's a test of that dynolicious program. It's being compared against the G-tech pro and a dyno graph. They also took the car to the drag track. Of course you can argue that the video may be biased. But then the same can be said about other mags.
Anyways, on the track, they got 15.614@91.29mph, and on the dyno, it shows 165.6whp. On the Iphone, it got 15.65@90.6mph. Measured power is 170whp. That's pretty accurate if you ask me. In fact, the readings are slower than what it really is.
IMO, the most important part of using the dynolicious program is, how much effort you put in to make sure the iphone sits tightly in your car without it moving around. If you just let it sit there without using anything to hold it down, then obviously it's not going to be accurate. After all, it uses the built-in accelerometer. The G-tech pro also uses accelerator, but I think the problem with the G-tech pro, according to the video, is that it's hard to hold it in place (on the car's windshield). IMO, once you can measure g, calculating the velocity, the distance traveled, and the elapsed time is not hard at all. The g changes all the time of course but that's still relatively easy to calculate. As long as you have a good accelerometer, a good setup (iphone sitting tightly in your car), it's going to be quite accurate.
11-27-2008, 07:51 AM
#103
You can try using a video editing software to see for yourself. Do it frame by frame or something similar and you will see the that indeed 0-60mph in under 6s isn't hard in the TL, or at least it's not hard in wavehogger's TL.
Again, I'm not even claiming the TL is faster in a straight line than the G37. But 6.7s? That's an entertainment number for me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-DFbJQbeSY
Here is a video that you may be interested in. It's a test of that dynolicious program. It's being compared against the G-tech pro and a dyno graph. They also took the car to the drag track. Of course you can argue that the video may be biased. But then the same can be said about other mags.
Anyways, on the track, they got 15.614@91.29mph, and on the dyno, it shows 165.6whp. On the Iphone, it got 15.65@90.6mph. Measured power is 170whp. That's pretty accurate if you ask me. In fact, the readings are slower than what it really is.
IMO, the most important part of using the dynolicious program is, how much effort you put in to make sure the iphone sits tightly in your car without it moving around. If you just let it sit there without using anything to hold it down, then obviously it's not going to be accurate. After all, it uses the built-in accelerometer. The G-tech pro also uses accelerator, but I think the problem with the G-tech pro, according to the video, is that it's hard to hold it in place (on the car's windshield). IMO, once you can measure g, calculating the velocity, the distance traveled, and the elapsed time is not hard at all. The g changes all the time of course but that's still relatively easy to calculate. As long as you have a good accelerometer, a good setup (iphone sitting tightly in your car), it's going to be quite accurate.
Again, I'm not even claiming the TL is faster in a straight line than the G37. But 6.7s? That's an entertainment number for me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-DFbJQbeSY
Here is a video that you may be interested in. It's a test of that dynolicious program. It's being compared against the G-tech pro and a dyno graph. They also took the car to the drag track. Of course you can argue that the video may be biased. But then the same can be said about other mags.
Anyways, on the track, they got 15.614@91.29mph, and on the dyno, it shows 165.6whp. On the Iphone, it got 15.65@90.6mph. Measured power is 170whp. That's pretty accurate if you ask me. In fact, the readings are slower than what it really is.
IMO, the most important part of using the dynolicious program is, how much effort you put in to make sure the iphone sits tightly in your car without it moving around. If you just let it sit there without using anything to hold it down, then obviously it's not going to be accurate. After all, it uses the built-in accelerometer. The G-tech pro also uses accelerator, but I think the problem with the G-tech pro, according to the video, is that it's hard to hold it in place (on the car's windshield). IMO, once you can measure g, calculating the velocity, the distance traveled, and the elapsed time is not hard at all. The g changes all the time of course but that's still relatively easy to calculate. As long as you have a good accelerometer, a good setup (iphone sitting tightly in your car), it's going to be quite accurate.
I actually thought of posting that vid but I didn't want to start a big debate on the whole thing. And if it isn't secure, or not set up correctly for the vehicle, i.e, adjusting weight, drivetrain loss etc, and that takes some adjusting, which I spent a lot of time doing. You don't just turn it on and go. 6.7 is funny (well possible if you try to brake torque=2nd gear launch,damm Acura,lol), and I just read on another thread how the Audi 2.0T with 211hp 3900lbs can do it in 5.7sec, now that's entertainment. I will get excited if I line up with the 3.2but not the 2.0T. 
11-27-2008, 10:50 AM
#104
You'll Never Walk Alone
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 37
Posts: 9,493
Received 835 Likes
on
519 Posts
lol, I just wanted to find out more about that dynolicious program. IMO, that program is cheap at $13, but the hardware (the iphone) it uses isn't really cheap.
You know, I'm actually not surprised by the Audi A4 2.0T's time. I think it's actually somewhere around 3600-3700lb for the Quattro model. The 3.2L model is the one that's close to 3900lb. I guess its immense amount of torque really helps. But the 3.2L will eventually pull away after 80mph or so, where hp matters. Just look at the trap speed of the 2.0T, it's at 94.4mph, that's quite a bit slower than the TL and A4 3.2L.
You know, I'm actually not surprised by the Audi A4 2.0T's time. I think it's actually somewhere around 3600-3700lb for the Quattro model. The 3.2L model is the one that's close to 3900lb. I guess its immense amount of torque really helps. But the 3.2L will eventually pull away after 80mph or so, where hp matters. Just look at the trap speed of the 2.0T, it's at 94.4mph, that's quite a bit slower than the TL and A4 3.2L.
11-27-2008, 11:22 AM
#105
As much as i enjoy Wavehoggers thread on his performance numbers with his iphone you are making it sound like its hard scientific proof of his numbers.
The dynolicious program is generally at its best .24s off and at average .5s off and even up to .66+ sec off when compared to other such programs let alone more sophisticated measuring devices.
I am sure professional auto mags use better measuring devices than an iphone with a $12.99 downloaded dynolicious package on it. If not i hope wavehogger can find a 09 Audi 3.2 as one mag got a 5.7s 0-60 and im sure he should be able to get mid 4's from the Audi at this rate.
This is no slag to wavehogger as i thank him for the tests he has done to show how the different starts vary on the 4G and this has been stated in other mags as well but you have to take the numbers for what they are worth and thats strictly entertainment value.
The dynolicious program is generally at its best .24s off and at average .5s off and even up to .66+ sec off when compared to other such programs let alone more sophisticated measuring devices.
I am sure professional auto mags use better measuring devices than an iphone with a $12.99 downloaded dynolicious package on it. If not i hope wavehogger can find a 09 Audi 3.2 as one mag got a 5.7s 0-60 and im sure he should be able to get mid 4's from the Audi at this rate.
This is no slag to wavehogger as i thank him for the tests he has done to show how the different starts vary on the 4G and this has been stated in other mags as well but you have to take the numbers for what they are worth and thats strictly entertainment value.
In the end i was actually complimenting you for doing the tests to actually show us via video how the starts differ.
11-27-2008, 11:46 AM
#106
You can try using a video editing software to see for yourself. Do it frame by frame or something similar and you will see the that indeed 0-60mph in under 6s isn't hard in the TL, or at least it's not hard in wavehogger's TL.
Again, I'm not even claiming the TL is faster in a straight line than the G37. But 6.7s? That's an entertainment number for me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-DFbJQbeSY
Here is a video that you may be interested in. It's a test of that dynolicious program. It's being compared against the G-tech pro and a dyno graph. They also took the car to the drag track. Of course you can argue that the video may be biased. But then the same can be said about other mags.
Anyways, on the track, they got 15.614@91.29mph, and on the dyno, it shows 165.6whp. On the Iphone, it got 15.65@90.6mph. Measured power is 170whp. That's pretty accurate if you ask me. In fact, the readings are slower than what it really is.
IMO, the most important part of using the dynolicious program is, how much effort you put in to make sure the iphone sits tightly in your car without it moving around. If you just let it sit there without using anything to hold it down, then obviously it's not going to be accurate. After all, it uses the built-in accelerometer. The G-tech pro also uses accelerator, but I think the problem with the G-tech pro, according to the video, is that it's hard to hold it in place (on the car's windshield). IMO, once you can measure g, calculating the velocity, the distance traveled, and the elapsed time is not hard at all. The g changes all the time of course but that's still relatively easy to calculate. As long as you have a good accelerometer, a good setup (iphone sitting tightly in your car), it's going to be quite accurate.
Again, I'm not even claiming the TL is faster in a straight line than the G37. But 6.7s? That's an entertainment number for me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-DFbJQbeSY
Here is a video that you may be interested in. It's a test of that dynolicious program. It's being compared against the G-tech pro and a dyno graph. They also took the car to the drag track. Of course you can argue that the video may be biased. But then the same can be said about other mags.
Anyways, on the track, they got 15.614@91.29mph, and on the dyno, it shows 165.6whp. On the Iphone, it got 15.65@90.6mph. Measured power is 170whp. That's pretty accurate if you ask me. In fact, the readings are slower than what it really is.
IMO, the most important part of using the dynolicious program is, how much effort you put in to make sure the iphone sits tightly in your car without it moving around. If you just let it sit there without using anything to hold it down, then obviously it's not going to be accurate. After all, it uses the built-in accelerometer. The G-tech pro also uses accelerator, but I think the problem with the G-tech pro, according to the video, is that it's hard to hold it in place (on the car's windshield). IMO, once you can measure g, calculating the velocity, the distance traveled, and the elapsed time is not hard at all. The g changes all the time of course but that's still relatively easy to calculate. As long as you have a good accelerometer, a good setup (iphone sitting tightly in your car), it's going to be quite accurate.
Here is a link that shows the dynolicious program tested against a VBOX testing device that the professional mags use and various manufactures. They can range upto $10,000 + and show the technical differences on how they achieve their times.
http://www.motivemag.com/pub/news/Te...sus_VBox.shtml
As you can see the times vary alot and if you add the avg .5 sec off (actually .66 from 0-60) to the avg times wavehogger is getting you can see where his times are actually close to the other magazine tests of mid to low 6s.
Sorry for hijacking this thread as these posts should actually be under the other testing thread. Its just when you posted that the TL got a 5.44s people are now posting it on other boards such as TOV and even stating that it was done on a ligit Dyno (which is just false). Even Jeff who is very respected for what he does over at TOV laughed at the prospect of it doing a 5.44
11-27-2008, 05:50 PM
#107
You'll Never Walk Alone
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 37
Posts: 9,493
Received 835 Likes
on
519 Posts
Hmm, from that link, the ipod is showing 0-60 in 6.66s, while the Vbox is showing 6s flat. In other words, the ipod is showing a slower time than what it really is. Don't you think you should be taking 0.5s off to the average times by wavehogger rather than adding 0.5s?
Also, I have used the same the mounting hardware they are using with the iphone when I was working for a construction company. I used to mount a camera on the windshield using that mounting kit and drive around the highway. It's a pain in the @$$ to set it up. Pumping air into the suction cup using that little white knob was very time consuming. Anyways, I can tell you I had to drive fairly safely and smoothly to avoid too much vibration. It always felt like it's going to fall off. Every little bump on the road, every little input from me (applying the throttle and/or the brake) would move the camera somewhat. That's not the main problem, since if you strap the iphone down, it's still going to feel the bumps. The real problem is, the mounting kit doesn't damp out the shocks (well it does, but the damping coefficient is very low, it will bounce back and forth before coming into an equilibrium value). If you put a dynometer on that thing (the iphone in this case), obviously it's going to be very inaccurate due to all the extra forces. The longer level arm of that kit simply makes the problem worse as you can imagine.
The setup they have with the VBOX is much different. At the very least, there's no lever arm to amplify the vibration.
Sorry for writing such a long post. Anyways, I guess what wavelogger and I are trying to say is, perhaps 0-60mph in 5.44s is too fast, butunder 6s is possible. Car and Driver did brake torquing and achieved 6s flat. According to wavehogger brake torquing will make the car shift into 2nd gear when launching. I also believe wavehogger mentioned earlier that simply stomping on the gas isn't the fastest way too. His way of performing his tests is touch the pedal lightly, then go WOT. Wavehogger, please correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks.
Also, I have used the same the mounting hardware they are using with the iphone when I was working for a construction company. I used to mount a camera on the windshield using that mounting kit and drive around the highway. It's a pain in the @$$ to set it up. Pumping air into the suction cup using that little white knob was very time consuming. Anyways, I can tell you I had to drive fairly safely and smoothly to avoid too much vibration. It always felt like it's going to fall off. Every little bump on the road, every little input from me (applying the throttle and/or the brake) would move the camera somewhat. That's not the main problem, since if you strap the iphone down, it's still going to feel the bumps. The real problem is, the mounting kit doesn't damp out the shocks (well it does, but the damping coefficient is very low, it will bounce back and forth before coming into an equilibrium value). If you put a dynometer on that thing (the iphone in this case), obviously it's going to be very inaccurate due to all the extra forces. The longer level arm of that kit simply makes the problem worse as you can imagine.
The setup they have with the VBOX is much different. At the very least, there's no lever arm to amplify the vibration.
Sorry for writing such a long post. Anyways, I guess what wavelogger and I are trying to say is, perhaps 0-60mph in 5.44s is too fast, butunder 6s is possible. Car and Driver did brake torquing and achieved 6s flat. According to wavehogger brake torquing will make the car shift into 2nd gear when launching. I also believe wavehogger mentioned earlier that simply stomping on the gas isn't the fastest way too. His way of performing his tests is touch the pedal lightly, then go WOT. Wavehogger, please correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks.
11-27-2008, 11:09 PM
#109
Racer
I was not knocking the 4G, just stating the Journey package vs the sport..
Last edited by Hugh9269; 11-27-2008 at 11:12 PM.
11-28-2008, 01:10 AM
#110
11-28-2008, 01:51 AM
#111
Honda Fanboy
Just so you know, the G37 that was used did have the sport package. It was not called the G37 Sport because the G37 Sport is the manual only model. The G37 that was used was the Journey model with the sport package. It has all the upgraded features of the sport model, minus the manual transmission. That includes the bigger wheels, upgraded suspension, larger brakes, and aerodynamic work.
11-28-2008, 02:44 AM
#112
Chloe @ 17mo
Those are available ONLY on the RWD model. Which means NOT for AWD. If the sport package for the AWD G37 did include better brakes and revised suspension and better tires, then it would be an ideal contender.
11-28-2008, 04:05 AM
#113
Thanks for noticing that as i should have looked at it closer before running back out to work. In the end though it shows clearly how the two achieve their results with the VBOX using a more precise way of getting their numbers and how innacurate the iphone method can be.
Do you actually think that a prof automotive magazine would use thousands of dollars worth of equiptment to get their accurate results or use a ipod with a $13 program and risk their reputation and lively hood??
at least we do agree that the 5.44s time has something wrong with it. I would like to know how many runs these mags do before averaging out their 0-60 times. I am sure C&D did break into the very high 5's when everything was running well and the stars where all in alignment, but on average i am sure your going to keep seeing low to mid 6's (except) for the 6MT when it comes out.
http://www.vboxusa.com/
11-28-2008, 10:03 AM
#114
Geez, look what happens when I'm gone for a day.
I think we've all come to the same general conclusion. My numbers pretty much line up with what the magazine say given a standard margin of error that every testing device will report as well as factoring in weather, wind etc. And iforyou was just trying to explain my point about the launch issues with 2nd gear. The absolute best way to launch is at 1200-1300rpm so it stays in 1st, and shift just before 6800 limiter. I do have info to add. I noticed that if you shift at 6800 you will shave .2-.3 off the 0-60 and 1/4 mile time but you will also lower the trap speed a few mph. This is caused by pushing that rpm to the point where you have past the peak HP/torque point but it still benefits your time because you land in the next gear at a higher rpm and HP, but because of holding the gears longer you prevent the engine from getting the car up to a higher trap speed. I didn't explain that well, maybe someone else can do better. lol
So maybe I got lucky a few times or the dynolicious was off and got a few sub 6 second runs or maybe not. All I know is if you time the vids I posted they are in under 6sec, as well as a few others I didn't post. Either way the point is, you can't brake torque it or it's almost a second slower.
Thanks everyone for getting so involved. I know this thing isn't perfect. I was only giving everyone some real world vids, notes and data from a person and not just the magazine testers. They don't go into detail about the little idiosyncrasies of every car they test, and what works better or worse etc.
And yesterday I visited family, and everyone from 6-75yrs old said it was a really beautiful car and the women called it powerful and masculine. I told them that reviewers don't like it, as well as some current 3G owners, and to be honest because I want real input but they all seriously loved its look. Then after a test drive they were just blown away with it. They all speculated that the ecomony is why they aren't selling. Time will tell.
I think we've all come to the same general conclusion. My numbers pretty much line up with what the magazine say given a standard margin of error that every testing device will report as well as factoring in weather, wind etc. And iforyou was just trying to explain my point about the launch issues with 2nd gear. The absolute best way to launch is at 1200-1300rpm so it stays in 1st, and shift just before 6800 limiter. I do have info to add. I noticed that if you shift at 6800 you will shave .2-.3 off the 0-60 and 1/4 mile time but you will also lower the trap speed a few mph. This is caused by pushing that rpm to the point where you have past the peak HP/torque point but it still benefits your time because you land in the next gear at a higher rpm and HP, but because of holding the gears longer you prevent the engine from getting the car up to a higher trap speed. I didn't explain that well, maybe someone else can do better. lol
So maybe I got lucky a few times or the dynolicious was off and got a few sub 6 second runs or maybe not. All I know is if you time the vids I posted they are in under 6sec, as well as a few others I didn't post. Either way the point is, you can't brake torque it or it's almost a second slower.
Thanks everyone for getting so involved. I know this thing isn't perfect. I was only giving everyone some real world vids, notes and data from a person and not just the magazine testers. They don't go into detail about the little idiosyncrasies of every car they test, and what works better or worse etc.
And yesterday I visited family, and everyone from 6-75yrs old said it was a really beautiful car and the women called it powerful and masculine. I told them that reviewers don't like it, as well as some current 3G owners, and to be honest because I want real input but they all seriously loved its look. Then after a test drive they were just blown away with it. They all speculated that the ecomony is why they aren't selling. Time will tell.
11-28-2008, 10:18 PM
#115
You'll Never Walk Alone
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 37
Posts: 9,493
Received 835 Likes
on
519 Posts
cp3117, lol about the 4.78s comment.
Nah, I guess you are misunderstanding my point. Wavehogger is right, both of us are just saying base on the videos and wavehogger's experience, 0-60mph under 6 seconds is achievable, and it's not very hard. Again, use a video editing software and analyze it frame-by-frame. There's going to be error again, but it's not going to huge.
Also, again, the ipod is only accurate if you strap it down properly, otherwise, forget it. Accelerometers are very sensitive to movements. And of course, it doesn't compare to professional equipment. That's why again, both Wavehogger and I don't really think 5.44s is a realistic number, we think under 6 is possible, that's all.
Wavehogger, I'm actually not too sure about the mph. I mean, a few mpg is quite a lot. In most cases, especially for Honda engines, it's best to push it all the way to the redline for the best performance. Also, you need to consider the actual torque going to the wheels. You have to multiply the torque at a given rpm by the gears and wheels, etc. Most likely you make the most torque at the wheels in 1st gear at like 7000rpm.
I guess the reason that you are seeing a lower trap speed is because you are shaving some time off the 1/4 mile. I guess my point is that, let's say, if you short-shift at like 6500rpm, then you will get 14.8@98mph or something like that. But if you shift it right at the redline, you will obtaine 14.5@97mph. As you can see, it took you less than to reach the 1/4 mile mark. But it also means you have less time to accelerate (14.5s vs 14.8s). Perhaps that 0.3s difference is where that 1 mph is? Afterall, under the same conditions, trap speed depends mostly on hp. If you have less time to accelerate, then I think your trap speed is lower.
Nah, I guess you are misunderstanding my point. Wavehogger is right, both of us are just saying base on the videos and wavehogger's experience, 0-60mph under 6 seconds is achievable, and it's not very hard. Again, use a video editing software and analyze it frame-by-frame. There's going to be error again, but it's not going to huge.
Also, again, the ipod is only accurate if you strap it down properly, otherwise, forget it. Accelerometers are very sensitive to movements. And of course, it doesn't compare to professional equipment. That's why again, both Wavehogger and I don't really think 5.44s is a realistic number, we think under 6 is possible, that's all.
Wavehogger, I'm actually not too sure about the mph. I mean, a few mpg is quite a lot. In most cases, especially for Honda engines, it's best to push it all the way to the redline for the best performance. Also, you need to consider the actual torque going to the wheels. You have to multiply the torque at a given rpm by the gears and wheels, etc. Most likely you make the most torque at the wheels in 1st gear at like 7000rpm.
I guess the reason that you are seeing a lower trap speed is because you are shaving some time off the 1/4 mile. I guess my point is that, let's say, if you short-shift at like 6500rpm, then you will get 14.8@98mph or something like that. But if you shift it right at the redline, you will obtaine 14.5@97mph. As you can see, it took you less than to reach the 1/4 mile mark. But it also means you have less time to accelerate (14.5s vs 14.8s). Perhaps that 0.3s difference is where that 1 mph is? Afterall, under the same conditions, trap speed depends mostly on hp. If you have less time to accelerate, then I think your trap speed is lower.
11-28-2008, 11:20 PM
#116
Racer
Just so you know, the G37 that was used did have the sport package. It was not called the G37 Sport because the G37 Sport is the manual only model. The G37 that was used was the Journey model with the sport package. It has all the upgraded features of the sport model, minus the manual transmission. That includes the bigger wheels, upgraded suspension, larger brakes, and aerodynamic work.
G37X design, same as perfromance listed before. It could be a glitch, since it says RWD, but it has been on the site for awhile, so I guess it is an option,
11-29-2008, 08:28 AM
#117
cp3117, lol about the 4.78s comment.
Nah, I guess you are misunderstanding my point. Wavehogger is right, both of us are just saying base on the videos and wavehogger's experience, 0-60mph under 6 seconds is achievable, and it's not very hard. Again, use a video editing software and analyze it frame-by-frame. There's going to be error again, but it's not going to huge.
Also, again, the ipod is only accurate if you strap it down properly, otherwise, forget it. Accelerometers are very sensitive to movements. And of course, it doesn't compare to professional equipment. That's why again, both Wavehogger and I don't really think 5.44s is a realistic number, we think under 6 is possible, that's all.
Wavehogger, I'm actually not too sure about the mph. I mean, a few mpg is quite a lot. In most cases, especially for Honda engines, it's best to push it all the way to the redline for the best performance. Also, you need to consider the actual torque going to the wheels. You have to multiply the torque at a given rpm by the gears and wheels, etc. Most likely you make the most torque at the wheels in 1st gear at like 7000rpm.
I guess the reason that you are seeing a lower trap speed is because you are shaving some time off the 1/4 mile. I guess my point is that, let's say, if you short-shift at like 6500rpm, then you will get 14.8@98mph or something like that. But if you shift it right at the redline, you will obtaine 14.5@97mph. As you can see, it took you less than to reach the 1/4 mile mark. But it also means you have less time to accelerate (14.5s vs 14.8s). Perhaps that 0.3s difference is where that 1 mph is? Afterall, under the same conditions, trap speed depends mostly on hp. If you have less time to accelerate, then I think your trap speed is lower.
Nah, I guess you are misunderstanding my point. Wavehogger is right, both of us are just saying base on the videos and wavehogger's experience, 0-60mph under 6 seconds is achievable, and it's not very hard. Again, use a video editing software and analyze it frame-by-frame. There's going to be error again, but it's not going to huge.
Also, again, the ipod is only accurate if you strap it down properly, otherwise, forget it. Accelerometers are very sensitive to movements. And of course, it doesn't compare to professional equipment. That's why again, both Wavehogger and I don't really think 5.44s is a realistic number, we think under 6 is possible, that's all.
Wavehogger, I'm actually not too sure about the mph. I mean, a few mpg is quite a lot. In most cases, especially for Honda engines, it's best to push it all the way to the redline for the best performance. Also, you need to consider the actual torque going to the wheels. You have to multiply the torque at a given rpm by the gears and wheels, etc. Most likely you make the most torque at the wheels in 1st gear at like 7000rpm.
I guess the reason that you are seeing a lower trap speed is because you are shaving some time off the 1/4 mile. I guess my point is that, let's say, if you short-shift at like 6500rpm, then you will get 14.8@98mph or something like that. But if you shift it right at the redline, you will obtaine 14.5@97mph. As you can see, it took you less than to reach the 1/4 mile mark. But it also means you have less time to accelerate (14.5s vs 14.8s). Perhaps that 0.3s difference is where that 1 mph is? Afterall, under the same conditions, trap speed depends mostly on hp. If you have less time to accelerate, then I think your trap speed is lower.
See that's why I left this part to you i! I knew you'd clear it up. I totally forgot about the fact that it's also a shorter amount of total time to get there, hence a lower speed/faster time. Because if I let it shift in D mode it shifts around 6400 give or take a 100, and my trap speed is always 1-3 mph higher than shifting at 6800. And because of the launch problem it has a higher 60' time which really keeps the trap speed down. And I have also tried to time the vid of 5.44 and it's a little under, and probably more like 5.8-5.9. And dynolicious has only given me that time once, all the rest are coming in around 5.8-6.0.
11-30-2008, 12:01 AM
#118
11-30-2008, 12:49 AM
#119
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Raleigh, NC - USA
Age: 82
Posts: 7,674
Received 2,599 Likes
on
1,581 Posts
Has any magazine done better & posted a result then C&D's 0-60 in 6?
11-30-2008, 09:48 AM
#120
14.8 @95.1 ,(14.9 @97.9mph & 14.5 @ 97.3)
And if you average them out you get 14.73 @ 96.76 and MotorTrend just reported 14.70 @ 97.2
edited to add: No bear I haven't seen any, maybe when they read these forums and figure out you can't brake torque it.
