# Car and Driver tests the new G37 coupe...



## LoveTAH (Dec 25, 2005)

C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 5.3 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 13.2 sec
Street start, 5-60 mph: 5.9 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 13.9 sec @ 103 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 164 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.89 g
EPA cityhighway driving: 17/25 mpg
C/D-observed: 18 mpg

http://www.caranddriver.com/shortroadtests/13239/tested-2008-infiniti-g37-sport-coupe.html?al=112

For comparison, the 335i coupe, tested 11/06:
Zero to 60 mph: 4.9
Zero to 100 mph: 12.1
Street start, 5-60 mph: 5.6
Standing 1/4 mile: 13.6 [email protected] 105 mph
BRAKING, 70-0 mph: 160 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.87 g
EPA city/highway driving: 19/28 mpg
C/D observed: 18 mpg

http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtests/11733/2007-bmw-335i-coupe.html


----------



## pilotman (Feb 2, 2006)

pretty comparable numbers. less than .5 seconds across the board.

Slight modifications to the G37 such as CAI/exhaust would make it a neck and neck run.

competition is good. But there is a pretty significant price difference between the two.

BMW has a better residual, but they are selling the brand new G35's for a few hundred over invoice, and you can get one pretty loaded for thousands and thousands less than the 335.


----------



## Kayani_1 (Dec 8, 2005)

That is pretty significant difference in performance. Is that thing seriously making 330hp.....because if that is the case I dont think all of that power is getting to the ground.:dunno:

On the other hand I guess rumors are right that 335i is seriously underated with regards to horsepower. For some reason I would expect better numbers from a car that is making 330hp/270 Ib-ft of torque then those posted by G37 in C/D recent article. 

Other then that I like the looks of new G37 a lot better then G35. I also like the new interior far better and for the price it is still hell of a bargain. I forgot couple of other things that I dislike and from reading that article. The G37 has seemed to gain more weight and has become more porky and for some reason they said that the steering feel is not as precise as it was in last generation version.


----------



## LoveTAH (Dec 25, 2005)

Kayani_1 said:


> That is pretty significant difference in performance. Is that thing seriously making 330hp.....because if that is the case I dont think all of that power is getting to the ground.:dunno:


Makes you wonder. Never mind running slower than the 335, it's barely quicker than the G35 (5.3 vs. 5.5, 13.9 vs. 14.1), which is supposedly making two dozen less HP.

The other thing that surprises me is the braking distance; 164 ft. is on the long side, for a car with 14" rotors.


----------



## LoveTAH (Dec 25, 2005)

More numbers, from Edmunds....

0 - 30 (sec): 2.0 
0 - 45 (sec): 3.5 
0 - 60 (sec): 5.4 
0 - 75 (sec): 7.9 
1/4 Mile (sec @ mph): 13.8 @ 102.0 
30 - 0 (ft): 28 
60 - 0 (ft): 115 
Slalom (mph): 71.3 
Skid Pad (g-force): 0.86 

Edmunds 335i numbers:
0 - 30 (sec): 1.8 
0 - 45 (sec): 3.2 
0 - 60 (sec): 4.8 
0 - 75 (sec): 7.1 
1/4 Mile (sec @ mph): 13.3 @ 105.9 
30 - 0 (ft): 28 
60 - 0 (ft): 114 
Slalom (mph): 68.4 
Skid Pad (g-force): 0.88


----------



## fuz (Feb 6, 2002)

LoveTAH said:


> Makes you wonder. Never mind running slower than the 335, it's barely quicker than the G35 (5.3 vs. 5.5, 13.9 vs. 14.1), which is supposedly making two dozen less HP.
> 
> The other thing that surprises me is the braking distance; 164 ft. is on the long side, for a car with 14" rotors.


The braking distance is from 70mph, not 60mph. There is an exponential rise in the amount of energy that has to be dissipated as velocity increases.


----------



## LoveTAH (Dec 25, 2005)

fuz said:


> The braking distance is from 70mph, not 60mph. There is an exponential rise in the amount of energy that has to be dissipated as velocity increases.


Thanks for the newsflash and the physics lesson, but I'm well aware of both tidbits. :thumbup:

My point was I think 164 ft from 70 mph is long, compared to a few heavier cars with smaller brakes and tires that are able to stop shorter.


----------



## pilotman (Feb 2, 2006)

I know some magazines seem to getting 4.8 times for the 335, but I'm calling BS.

I have driven both the G35 and 335 back to back and the 335 is *not* that fast.

It is a very quick car, but not a sub 5 second car.

I love how all the BMW fans here now are in love with the 0-60 turbocharged times!

It seems like we are in bizarro world now, BMW is the one throwing blowers on their engines while the G37 pulls a higher skid pad number.

I thought BMWs were all about the handlng?


----------



## brkf (May 26, 2003)

pilotman said:


> I know some magazines seem to getting 4.8 times for the 335, but I'm calling BS.
> 
> I have driven both the G35 and 335 back to back and the 335 is *not* that fast.
> 
> ...


Read most reviews and they still say the 3 handles better and feels better, regardless of the numbers. :dunno:


----------



## LoveTAH (Dec 25, 2005)

pilotman said:


> I know some magazines seem to getting 4.8 times for the 335, but I'm calling BS.


Well see, occasionally some people put down magazines and actually take their cars to a track. And occasionally, some people step away from the internet to find their facts. If you gave either a try, you'd see stock 335's running low/mid 13's all night long. Do we need to calculate from that what the 0-60's times are?



> I have driven both the G35 and 335 back to back and the 335 is *not* that fast.
> It is a very quick car, but not a sub 5 second car.


Gotta love those butt dynos! :thumbup: :rofl:
I'm sure that's the way it may seem, with the G roaring and letting in all that noise, but facts and numbers speak a different story.



> I love how all the BMW fans here now are in love with the 0-60 turbocharged times!


And I love how all old-school, E46ers who're stuck in the past love to hate on anything to do with the E9X!



> It seems like we are in bizarro world now, BMW is the one throwing blowers on their engines while the G37 pulls a higher skid pad number.
> 
> I thought BMWs were all about the handlng?


Nope, we've seen this story before, it's just a different chapter: the less powerful BMW outpaces the bloated-engined, HP-overrated nissan. But congrats to the G on beating it in such a crucial area as the skidpad. :rofl: :tsk:


----------



## Plaz (Dec 19, 2001)




----------



## pilotman (Feb 2, 2006)

Plaz said:


>


Was this aimed at me?

I don't have an e46, so I'm not jealous. I have a 2005 911 as my weekend driver, so I don't have any fanboy problems either. I have run my 911 against my buddy's 335 and handily beat him on virtually every run at the local dragstrip. We even switch cars to account for potential differences in driver ability (we are about equal) and the 911 always wins.

Now I guess if you get the 335 up to 4k and dump the clutch you could pull those kind of numbers, but who does that except magazines? It is well accepted that the street start is a much more realistic number, and in this case those are only 3/10ths of a second apart which is next to nothing.

All I'm saying is that BMW's numbers don't add up, and there are threads here listing times of people who have the Procede chip that are the same speed as the supposed "stock" 335.

In fact, I don't particular care for Nissan products, no need to be so harsh guys. Please think before you judge me, you don't know anything about me.


----------



## Plaz (Dec 19, 2001)

pilotman said:


> Was this aimed at me?


Actually, no. :rofl:


----------



## LoveTAH (Dec 25, 2005)

pilotman said:


> I have run my 911 against my buddy's 335 and handily beat him on virtually every run at the local dragstrip. We even switch cars to account for potential differences in driver ability (we are about equal) and the 911 always wins.


And this is where you're basing you're whole argument, from experiences with ONE car? Well that's settles it then, people, his buddy's isn't capable so NONE of them are. :rofl:



> All I'm saying is that BMW's numbers don't add up, and there are threads here listing times of people who have the Procede chip that are the same speed as the supposed "stock" 335.


OK then, we'll go by your word or those threads. Never mind the ones I've seen with my own eyes, or videos or timeslips, or scans of PROcede'd 335s that run in the 12's @ high-100's, or stock ones that run right in line with what mags have published. :tsk:


----------



## mantisG35 (Nov 28, 2006)

im actually disappointed in the G37, but anyway i found this article:

http://digg.com/business_finance/It_s_Official_Infiniti_G37_Trounces_BMW_335i

what you guys think? dont get me wrong im not here to say one car is better than the other, to be honest im not 100% satisfied with either of them


----------



## mantisG35 (Nov 28, 2006)

pilotman said:


> pretty comparable numbers. less than .5 seconds across the board.
> 
> Slight modifications to the G37 such as CAI/exhaust would make it a neck and neck run.
> 
> ...


price doesnt matter when it comes to the satisfaction the car gives you. I hate how the G "wins" by price! if this is the case then a honda accord coupe wins over most cars.

what really bothers me is neither cars are really satisfying or at least up to expectations. Infiniti bragged so much about their new VQ37VHR that i thought the G37 might take an M3. instead Infiniti decided to add 200 more lb's to the car making it as fast as the G35.

i cant say either is significantly better than the other but one thing for sure is the G37 isnt anywhere near where i'd like my car to be


----------



## Rob325_in_AZ (Oct 22, 2004)

> EPA cityhighway driving: 17/25 mpg
> C/D-observed: 18 mpg
> 
> For comparison, the 335i coupe, tested 11/06:
> ...


This was an important factor for me when looking at BMW vs other sport sedans. :eeps:

Now 2-3mpg is a decent difference (enough to be a factor for me), but oddly the observed mpg was the same for each.


----------



## LoveTAH (Dec 25, 2005)

mantisG35 said:


> im actually disappointed in the G37, but anyway i found this article:
> 
> http://digg.com/business_finance/It_s_Official_Infiniti_G37_Trounces_BMW_335i
> 
> what you guys think? dont get me wrong im not here to say one car is better than the other, to be honest im not 100% satisfied with either of them


That test is actually amusing. The 3 has the edge in a few things like acceleration and mileage, they tie in braking and handling, and they clearly state neither has the handling edge over the other, and that neither could pull away from the other. Yet and still, the cover, which is obviously designed to draw attention, reads "THE KING IS DEAD! How G37 _Beats 335i_." :rofl:

I guess I overlooked the part where they explained how that happened. :dunno:


----------



## pilotman (Feb 2, 2006)

mantisG35 said:


> price doesnt matter when it comes to the satisfaction the car gives you. I hate how the G "wins" by price! if this is the case then a honda accord coupe wins over most cars.
> 
> what really bothers me is neither cars are really satisfying or at least up to expectations. Infiniti bragged so much about their new VQ37VHR that i thought the G37 might take an M3. instead Infiniti decided to add 200 more lb's to the car making it as fast as the G35.
> 
> i cant say either is significantly better than the other but one thing for sure is the G37 isnt anywhere near where i'd like my car to be


Maybe for you price is no object, but if that is the case then you should be driving something much more high end than a sport sedan.

But for everyone else, a 10k difference in price for cars that have nearly identical performance is pretty significant, hell, I could go out and buy a lot of nice toys for that much cake.

I'm not saying the Infiniti's are better, I still give BMW the slight edge but talking about this on a BMW forum is pretty retarded; the conclusion is always the same.

People keep attacking me simply because I give credit to Infiniti where credit is due, competition is good for BMW.


----------



## pilotman (Feb 2, 2006)

LoveTAH said:


> That test is actually amusing. The 3 has the edge in a few things like acceleration and mileage, they tie in braking and handling, and they clearly state neither has the handling edge over the other, and that neither could pull away from the other. Yet and still, the cover, which is obviously designed to draw attention, reads "THE KING IS DEAD! How G37 _Beats 335i_." :rofl:
> 
> I guess I overlooked the part where they explained how that happened. :dunno:


The conclusion is very simple, and clearly spelled out:

The cars are identical except in two areas:

1. the G37 has more equipment which is also more user friendly (compare iDrive (which, by the way, everyone here hates) and keyless entry; and

2. there is a big, big price difference (for example, BMW charges $500 for keyless entry on a near $50k car, and they do it with a straight face while their competition includes it standard).

From a purely engineering standpoint, I don't understand how you can't give the win to the G37. They matched the BMW's performance with Japanese reliability for thousands and thousands less.

if price were no object, than the BMW is the slightly better car (at least I think so), but how can you justify paying $7-8k more for the exact same performance?

Now many here will say they don't buy the 335 for the whiz bang gizmos, but rather for the engine, trans and performance. Well, that logic just doesn't hold up because if you want absolute best performance for that kind of money you aren't buying a 335 that is heavy and loaded with technology, you'll get something else.


----------

