Infiniti: G-Series news **Next Generation Spied (page 75)**
05-21-2007, 01:01 AM
#2001
Team Owner
dude 300lbs of torque isnt enough for u guys??
how many honda/acura have 300lbs of torque?
how many honda/acura have 300lbs of torque?
05-21-2007, 01:02 AM
#2002
Team Owner
Originally Posted by GreenMonster
Yes... but a s2k only weighs in at 2855 lbs... the G37 is 3668 lbs....
Have you seen the hp/tq figures for a Lotus Elise ?? It does pretty good with only 130 something ft/lbs of torque... but it weighs even less then the s2k...
Now a Mustang GT (3300lbs) weighs closer to the G37 but it has more torque then HP... 320ft-lbs vs. 300hp... BMW usually makes some low hp but high torque cars too...
Lots of people are just more impressed with high HP figures... I like low weight and high torque figures...
Have you seen the hp/tq figures for a Lotus Elise ?? It does pretty good with only 130 something ft/lbs of torque... but it weighs even less then the s2k...
Now a Mustang GT (3300lbs) weighs closer to the G37 but it has more torque then HP... 320ft-lbs vs. 300hp... BMW usually makes some low hp but high torque cars too...
Lots of people are just more impressed with high HP figures... I like low weight and high torque figures...
If u look at the M cars... HP is usually a lot more than torque... (usually high rev = less torque)
Last edited by oonowindoo; 05-21-2007 at 01:06 AM.
05-24-2007, 12:27 PM
#2003
Intermediate
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Roswell, GA
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's a TON of misinformation on this thread.
First, high revving in itself does not equal low torque. However, high revving does equal high horsepower. Why? Cause horsepower is a function of torque x revs / 5252. So you can see you can make 200 ft-lbs of torque at 5000 rpms vs 200 at 10000 rpms and while the actual pulling power is the same, the horsepower is going to be significantly higher with the 10000 rpm engine. So what you really mean to say is "high revving engines have torque numbers which are lower than low revving engines WITH THE SAME horsepower."
Second, torque, as people are defining it, does not win races (That saying is absolutely retarded, at least in the context that most people use it in). Torque as defined as force generated AFTER GEARING does win races. Here's the kicker- high revving DOES INCREASE TORQUE TO THE WHEELS. By being able to stay in a lower gear ratio (high numeric ratio) for a longer period of time, you are effectively able to increase the amount of torque at the wheels, not to mention the more aggressive gearing that you can use in a high revving car allows for more torque multiplication.
Third, most cars with huge torque numbers do not have torque in the peak power band. Look everyone loves low end power but when you are racing, you want to stay in the lowest gear as long as possible. If you have a 7000 rpm redline car, and peak torque is at 3000 rpms, that 3000 rpms will NEVER come into play, UNLESS you shift before redline (which is necessary for the best times in some cars - you can actually make a graph from a dyno plot and multiply it through your gear ratios and where the numbers connect from gear to gear is where you want to shift). But if you shift before redline, then the next gear's torque multiplication will be worse. The truth is that if that same peak torque were at 5000 rpms instead, it would be much more useful in terms of full out acceleration. The Vishnu tuned 335i comes immediately to mind with its 400 lbs of torque at 2500 rpms, but only ran a time similar to the heavier, all-wheel drive laden (more drivetrain loss), and 100 ft-lbs of torque deficient (more than that at the wheels) Audi RS-4, which is still a 12.9 mind you. Which is very quick, but pure torque is obviously not what wins races.
In conclusion, torque is mostly a function of displacement (braking the 85 ft-lbs of torque per liter naturally aspirated is much harder than breaking the 100 hp per liter but you'd be an idiot not to get at least 60 ft-lbs of torque per liter). The reason for all the high revving performance cars is to take advantage of that torque from that displacement and put it in the powerband to take advantage of gearing as much as possible. This is why a AP1 153 ft-lbs S2000 keeps up with cars with a 100 ft-lbs more torque.
I'm glad Infinity realized this and went with the new VQ3xHR series. Trust me, even with less peak torque, the flatter torque band with 900 rpms more redline than the 1st version of the VQ in the Z will more than make up for it. That 3.7 seems like a gem of a motor but I do wonder if stroking a motor AND raising its redline will increase noise and vibration (which would be ok for the Z but not the G), especially when I think the VQ falls short of Acura's J series and especially short of BMW's I-6's in this regard.
First, high revving in itself does not equal low torque. However, high revving does equal high horsepower. Why? Cause horsepower is a function of torque x revs / 5252. So you can see you can make 200 ft-lbs of torque at 5000 rpms vs 200 at 10000 rpms and while the actual pulling power is the same, the horsepower is going to be significantly higher with the 10000 rpm engine. So what you really mean to say is "high revving engines have torque numbers which are lower than low revving engines WITH THE SAME horsepower."
Second, torque, as people are defining it, does not win races (That saying is absolutely retarded, at least in the context that most people use it in). Torque as defined as force generated AFTER GEARING does win races. Here's the kicker- high revving DOES INCREASE TORQUE TO THE WHEELS. By being able to stay in a lower gear ratio (high numeric ratio) for a longer period of time, you are effectively able to increase the amount of torque at the wheels, not to mention the more aggressive gearing that you can use in a high revving car allows for more torque multiplication.
Third, most cars with huge torque numbers do not have torque in the peak power band. Look everyone loves low end power but when you are racing, you want to stay in the lowest gear as long as possible. If you have a 7000 rpm redline car, and peak torque is at 3000 rpms, that 3000 rpms will NEVER come into play, UNLESS you shift before redline (which is necessary for the best times in some cars - you can actually make a graph from a dyno plot and multiply it through your gear ratios and where the numbers connect from gear to gear is where you want to shift). But if you shift before redline, then the next gear's torque multiplication will be worse. The truth is that if that same peak torque were at 5000 rpms instead, it would be much more useful in terms of full out acceleration. The Vishnu tuned 335i comes immediately to mind with its 400 lbs of torque at 2500 rpms, but only ran a time similar to the heavier, all-wheel drive laden (more drivetrain loss), and 100 ft-lbs of torque deficient (more than that at the wheels) Audi RS-4, which is still a 12.9 mind you. Which is very quick, but pure torque is obviously not what wins races.
In conclusion, torque is mostly a function of displacement (braking the 85 ft-lbs of torque per liter naturally aspirated is much harder than breaking the 100 hp per liter but you'd be an idiot not to get at least 60 ft-lbs of torque per liter). The reason for all the high revving performance cars is to take advantage of that torque from that displacement and put it in the powerband to take advantage of gearing as much as possible. This is why a AP1 153 ft-lbs S2000 keeps up with cars with a 100 ft-lbs more torque.
I'm glad Infinity realized this and went with the new VQ3xHR series. Trust me, even with less peak torque, the flatter torque band with 900 rpms more redline than the 1st version of the VQ in the Z will more than make up for it. That 3.7 seems like a gem of a motor but I do wonder if stroking a motor AND raising its redline will increase noise and vibration (which would be ok for the Z but not the G), especially when I think the VQ falls short of Acura's J series and especially short of BMW's I-6's in this regard.
05-25-2007, 07:52 AM
#2006
Senior Moderator
^ What's with the hate, fellas? At least ITR#203 added something to this thread. One word responses = PW'ing ... and we know that 
doesn't like foolish posts like that. 
Anyway ... G37 motor seems like a very interesting piece of engineering. Maybe it might win an award at that award show that sucks BMW's dick ...
doesn't like foolish posts like that. Anyway ... G37 motor seems like a very interesting piece of engineering. Maybe it might win an award at that award show that sucks BMW's dick ...
06-26-2007, 08:50 PM
#2007
G37 barely wins MT comparo against 335i, slushbox battle
Last edited by Viscous; 06-26-2007 at 08:53 PM.
06-26-2007, 09:32 PM
#2010
Originally Posted by oonowindoo
dude 300lbs of torque isnt enough for u guys??
how many honda/acura have 300lbs of torque?
how many honda/acura have 300lbs of torque?
Not one, not one...
06-30-2007, 01:37 PM
#2011
Race Director
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Illinois
Age: 45
Posts: 10,741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by phile
Not one, not one...
06-30-2007, 09:14 PM
#2012
Originally Posted by AlterZgo
According to this dyno chart, it looks like the VQ37HR makes more power and torque than the VQ35DE at virtually all RPMs.
It doesn't appear that Nissan sacraficed hp at the cost of lower torque when they redesigned the VQ motor.
It doesn't appear that Nissan sacraficed hp at the cost of lower torque when they redesigned the VQ motor.
im still not impressed with anything nissan/infiniti has put out.
06-30-2007, 09:22 PM
#2013
Racer
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Vancouver, BC
Age: 36
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by CleanCL
peak HP at 7300 RPM, whats redline again?
im still not impressed with anything nissan/infiniti has put out.
im still not impressed with anything nissan/infiniti has put out.
07-01-2007, 12:54 AM
#2014
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: H-town
Posts: 1,010
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by CleanCL
im still not impressed with anything nissan/infiniti has put out.
07-01-2007, 09:07 PM
#2016
Intermediate
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Roswell, GA
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Python, sorry I didn't spell check the entire post to make sure that there was no mistakes cause really, I thought my post was a doctorate dissertation. Not to mention the level of ignorance that involves making claims that "torque wins races" without any idea of the validity of that claim is the same level of "misinformation" as misspelling Infiniti. :rolleyes
Last edited by ITR#203; 07-01-2007 at 09:11 PM.
07-02-2007, 06:43 AM
#2017
It's in the thread title as well. You really don't have an excuse. 
07-02-2007, 08:04 AM
#2018
Fahrvergnügen'd
Originally Posted by ITR#203
Sorry Python, sorry I didn't spell check the entire post to make sure that there was no mistakes cause really, I thought my post was a doctorate dissertation. Not to mention the level of ignorance that involves making claims that "torque wins races" without any idea of the validity of that claim is the same level of "misinformation" as misspelling Infiniti. :rolleyes
07-11-2007, 01:35 AM
#2019
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: H-town
Posts: 1,010
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
07-11-2007, 07:11 AM
#2021
Race Director
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Illinois
Age: 45
Posts: 10,741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i would love to get the G37 now, but since I always drive in stop and go traffic i couldn't use the power anyways.
driving on the expressways sucks in Chicagoland!
driving on the expressways sucks in Chicagoland!
07-11-2007, 12:59 PM
#2024
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: H-town
Posts: 1,010
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
looks like both are good on the track...but u'd prolly need a better driver in the G37 to keep up with the 335...335 seems to be the easier car to drive, especially with all that torque down low
Hmmm...i think the G might be bak on my list..especially with these recently release ivory pearl pix
i really think those pre-production mules made the car look bad from the start
Hmmm...i think the G might be bak on my list..especially with these recently release ivory pearl pix
i really think those pre-production mules made the car look bad from the start
07-11-2007, 05:10 PM
#2027
Team Owner
Originally Posted by Phil05
But if you want to sell or trade your Nissan/Infiniti in the future doesn't the value of it drop down significantly compared to BMW or Lexus?
Every car is resale value is different. Demand is more important than brand. Of course there are many other factors.
G35 Coupes have one of the BEST resale value. It has better resale values than most BMWs. Now if you buy a QX56, the resale value is shit.
Usually if the car is VERY popular, then the resale value is usually pretty high.
07-11-2007, 10:19 PM
#2028
Great video, to bad they could not finish laps with 335i. I can't wait to test drive G37.
07-12-2007, 06:04 PM
#2029
It starts to look a little better in those pics.
I'm more anxious to see how the 09 Z turns out...should trump the G37 in all the performance categories if assumtions about it are correct. Style-wise it might be a little more impressive (I'm hoping)
I'm more anxious to see how the 09 Z turns out...should trump the G37 in all the performance categories if assumtions about it are correct. Style-wise it might be a little more impressive (I'm hoping)
07-13-2007, 10:12 PM
#2030
Race Director
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Illinois
Age: 45
Posts: 10,741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
looking at the white G37 again, to me the white G37 sport makes the car look sharp and about as mean as the G35 coupe did. Actually to me it looks more like the G35 coupe now except of the different shaped headlights, which is a good thing.
07-13-2007, 10:29 PM
#2031
Senior Moderator
After just having come from the track today, there was a stock 07 G35X running consistent 14-flat ETs (@98mph). As this is likely the slowest version of the 2G G, I am now VERY eager to see how the new G37 performs AT THE TRACK.
07-18-2007, 05:40 PM
#2035
Race Director
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Illinois
Age: 45
Posts: 10,741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
that G37 convertible looks way sexier than the 350z convertible 
i like it! but, i would just buy the regular G37.
chalk up another thing that Acura doesn't offer or ever has offered
didn't Infiniti have a convertible before? i think they did, it was the M30 or something way back in 1991.
i like it! but, i would just buy the regular G37.
chalk up another thing that Acura doesn't offer or ever has offered
didn't Infiniti have a convertible before? i think they did, it was the M30 or something way back in 1991.
07-18-2007, 07:10 PM
#2036
Senior Moderator
Originally Posted by Crazy Sellout
convertible
And I would not be surprised if Infiniti brought out a convertible for the G37 ... that would be a 'luxury' thing to do ... and people would flock to it in droves.
07-18-2007, 08:13 PM
#2037
The convertible reminds me a little of the Lexus SC.
07-18-2007, 08:14 PM
#2038
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lower Nazzie, Pa
Age: 46
Posts: 5,349
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by 04EuroAccordTsx
that G37 convertible looks way sexier than the 350z convertible
i like it! but, i would just buy the regular G37.
chalk up another thing that Acura doesn't offer or ever has offered
didn't Infiniti have a convertible before? i think they did, it was the M30 or something way back in 1991.
i like it! but, i would just buy the regular G37.
chalk up another thing that Acura doesn't offer or ever has offered
didn't Infiniti have a convertible before? i think they did, it was the M30 or something way back in 1991.
marky mark and ice cube were arguing about whether lexus or infiniti had the convertible in 3 kings...i think they found the m30 convertible in saddam's collection then.
07-18-2007, 08:37 PM
#2039
Senior Moderator
Originally Posted by derrick
I'm no expert at looking at pics ... but doesn't it look like a 'chop? The shadow on the driver's headrest doesn't look right, nor does the rear driver's side seat.
And I would not be surprised if Infiniti brought out a convertible for the G37 ... that would be a 'luxury' thing to do ... and people would flock to it in droves.
And I would not be surprised if Infiniti brought out a convertible for the G37 ... that would be a 'luxury' thing to do ... and people would flock to it in droves.
Could be, but hes a high res pic.
It does look more like a shop in this
http://pictures.topspeed.com/cars/in...nvertiblew.jpg
07-18-2007, 09:13 PM
#2040
Fahrvergnügen'd
Originally Posted by Crazy Sellout
Could be, but hes a high res pic.
It does look more like a shop in this
http://pictures.topspeed.com/cars/in...nvertiblew.jpg
It does look more like a shop in this
http://pictures.topspeed.com/cars/in...nvertiblew.jpg
