Road & Track tested a 6spd manual with no options and got 6.1 from 0-60. Then I read up on Motor Trend i believe and they claimed under 6 seconds. Anybody know the real specs?

 

I have also heard 5.78 seconds from Automobile Mag....

<font color=red>http://www.G35.ca</font color=red> - A Canadian G35 Community

 

I've read anywhere from 5.5 to 6.2 depending on who's driving, where, and on which transmission.
Happy holidays. [img]/w3timages/icons/smile.gif[/img]

<font color=red>G</font color=red>S<font color=green>M</font color=green>
<font color=red>G</font color=red>S<font color=green>M</font color=green> <font color=black>Silverstone Coupe</font color=black>

 

shiaaattttt I got 0-50 in 5.2
yah right lol I wish

Quick Robin... TO THE BATMOBILE.

 

From what I can tell from all of the mags, 5.8 seconds can be expected from a 6MT. Anything quicker on a regular basis would probably toast the clutch in a hurry.

 

The "real" times are just that- times that people/car mags etc.. get when testing 0-60.

The problem is that there are sooooo many variables, such as road surface, temperature, humidity, wind, driving skills etc..

So if somebody got a time of 5.5 seconds, I'm sure it's a real world time. And if somebody else got a time of 6.5 seconds, I'm sure it's a real world time too.

 

As an example, Car & Driver had the 6MT G coupe 0-60 in one test at 5.5 and 6.0 in another. They also had the slightly heavier, slightly less powerful '04 Acura TL 6MT at 5.7. My guess is that the G coupe is probably about .2 seconds quicker than the TL, but that few owners will achieve the (lower) numbers in either car. My hunch is 5.8-ish in the G coupe and 6-ish in the TL for a reasonably skilled owner should be about right.

Car & Driver runs acceleration tests repeatedly until they get the best numbers possible with no regard to the abuse they subject the car to. The RX-8's 0-60 in 5.9 seconds is a perfect example. IIRC they dropped the clutch from a stop at 8K RPMs. You'd probably be able to do that a dozen or two times before the clutch erased itself, making the numbers pretty irrelevant to the car's actual performance in the hands of an owner.

 

5.78 is mine.

 

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Car & Driver runs acceleration tests repeatedly until they get the best numbers possible with no regard to the abuse they subject the car to

<hr></blockquote>

Actually, they do have some regard to the abuse of the test car. For instance, they never powershift a test car (they only do lift-throttle shifts) to get the best acceleration numbers.

Also, keep in mind that Car and Driver tests cars with a full tank of fuel and extra weight inside the car (in terms of test equipment).

I have found it very easy to beat published times in Car and Driver on more than one of my past cars, when running at Englishtown, simply by powershifting and running with less than 1/4 tank of gas to save weight.

 

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Actually, they do have some regard to the abuse of the test car. For instance, they never powershift a test car (they only do lift-throttle shifts) to get the best acceleration numbers.

Also, keep in mind that Car and Driver tests cars with a full tank of fuel and extra weight inside the car (in terms of test equipment).

I have found it very easy to beat published times in Car and Driver on more than one of my past cars, when running at Englishtown, simply by powershifting and running with less than 1/4 tank of gas to save weight.

<hr></blockquote>

Interesting. Have you (or anyone else for that matter) gotten better than 5.5 sec to 60 in a 6MT G coupe? It's true that they always test with a full tank and measuring gear including a clip-on wheel/speedo device and a computer, but that still leaves the playing field even except for considerations of fuel tank size. A car with a 22 gallon tank has an obvious testing disadvantage against a car with a 16 gallon one.

Regarding "powershifting", I may need some re-education here. I know of two kinds os shifting; the civilized "let the revs fall a bit with the clutch in and then release" type (normal driving), and the "jab the clutch in for a split second while releasing the throttle for the same split second and simultaneousely shifting, then stomp on the gas the instant the clutch is out". The whole thing takes about 1/4 second or less. That's what *I* call "speedshifting". It sounds like what you call it involves no throttle release. Is that correct? If so how do you avoid overrevving while the clutch is in? You do press the clutch, right? If it involves no clutch or throttle release then it sounds more like "gear jamming". I'm curious to know what it is you mean there. Thanks.

 

i believe what they mean by powershifting is shifting without release of the throttle but with the use of the clutch

 

BMW3toG35C,

First, let me say that my G is on order, so I don't have any real world experience with a G coupe, other than a few tests drives.

The extra weight is a disadvantage if you're comparing vehicles with different size gas tanks. Gas weighs about 7 or 8 lbs/gallon. But Car and Driver states in the fine print that they ALWAYS test vehicles with a full tank of fuel. I believe the test equipment is about 30 lbs.Plus, they usually do their acceleration testing BOTH directions and average the results, to cancel out any wind advantage/disadvantage.

Powershifting is just shifting extremely fast (yes, using the clutch), but never lifting off the throttle. It's definitely abusive to the car, but I've never blown a tranny in any car, and believe me, they've been powershifted plenty of times.

The big advantage with powershifting is that the revs do not drop at all between shifts. As a matter of fact, they go up a bit. Overrevving will not be a problem, even shifting at redline, because the rev limiter will step in, should you hit it. My shifting is quick enough to avoid hitting the rev limiter in nearly all the cars I've owned. The one exception was my M3. I hit the rev limiter on a regular basis when racing that car....

But it's true that I've been able to beat most published times in magazines when racing my car at the track. For example, my 99 M3 (5mt) had times of 14.0-14.2 in most mags. I ran mine, bone stock, in the 13.8-13.9 range quite a few times, simply by powershifting and running with as low weight as possible.....