What's wrong with Road & Track
 

I got my new R&T today. I cannot understand the vast dicrepancy between their 0-60 numbers for the G35C and everyone elses. They must have used 450 lb test drivers. In this issue they also tried a minor comparison between RX-8 and the G35C. But they stuck that 6.1 second number in there and made it out that the Mazda out paces the G35C. As a long time R&T subscriber, I am concerned about the accuracy, objectivity, and eyesight!

Re: What's wrong with Road & Track
 

The RX8 is quicker. It is alot lighter and has the about 30 HP less than the G. This just makes the car quicker, you can't cheat physics. However in the area of looks an build quality I think you will find every comparison will rate the G far above the Rx8. Also remember that the engine is a rotary so to get a decent launch have to almost redline it to get enough launch torque.

Jason
Laser Red 03' Prem/Aero/6MT/SnRf

Re: What's wrong with Road & Track
 

The RX8 is not quicker... the Car and Driver article is 5.9 0-60 for the RX8
and
5.5 for the G ...

it also says the G was faster than a previously tested Z.

check the new thread I posted for the article link dude.

Later G's

Re: What's wrong with Road & Track
 

all your magazines suck.
I only have respect for Automobile, they rated the Z at 5.6s, RX8 at 6.2s 0-60 time
RX8 has no torque, thats why its slower


<font color=blue>-Ramb<font color=red>0</font color=red></font color=blue>

Re: What's wrong with Road & Track
 

G is simply the best!!!! :)

2003 G35 Coupe
Desert Platinum / Willow Leather
5AT / Premium Package

G35-Forum.com

Re: What's wrong with Road & Track
 

Who is trying the cheat physics? The torque rating for the 3000 lb RX-8 is 159 ft.lb.! For the 3435 lb. G35C it is 270 ft.lb.! Even my two dollar calculator can tell me that the 15% advantage in weight cannot overcome a 69% disadvantage of torque.

My issue with R&T is the 6.1, 0-60 time that R&T reports when C&D rated the G35C at 5.5 seconds. I am satisfied that the G35C is the better car sitting perfectly still, based upon a design comparison. The comparison is simple...gracefully designed, classically proportioned coupe secure in it's market niche, versus freakishly odd, crossover car with suicide doors that carries the engine concept and name of a successful sports car from the last millennium.

But that's just my perspective.

Re: What's wrong with Road & Track
 

The G35 is quicker and the better car no question. Although, I did get beat by a 4.6 Mustang GT that had intake, exhaust, and gear mods. :-(

It looked stock... :-)

Re: What's wrong with Road & Track
 

road & track and car & driver always rate what ever is newer as the best in that class, at least that is the trend i have been seeing lately.

Re: What's wrong with Road & Track
 

Yeah, that's the only reason why the G35 won the road and track article for luxury sports cars. Those points for the price of the vehicle were bogus.

Re: What's wrong with Road & Track
 

I've said it before, but these mags are out to make money. And we aren't the ones paying their paychecks (despite paying for subscriptions) - automotive companies that pay for advertising do. So the latest, coolest thing will naturally have the most advertising dollars thrown in for it, and naturally will also get the accolades.

R&T, C&D, etc are fine for entertainment reading but aren't worth the paper they are printed on as far as genuine automotive research goes.

Re: What's wrong with Road & Track
 

so do u have a suggestion on which mags is the most accutate ?

Re: What's wrong with Road & Track
 

i seriously believe that Automobile is a great magazine. I've had the subscription for over a year now.

http://www.automobilemag.com/
thats their website
Motortrend is OK but they are just too big headed with their "motor trend X of the year"

i've had Car and Driver in the past, it was fine until they started to get lame and biased.

Also note that i've never even opened a Road & Track magazine...im sure its not worth the read
Like someone said, Magazines are for entertainment purposes, but you do get somewhat real #'s inside of them, just dont take their comparos too seriously.
I mean, whats the point of throwing in a 400HP Mustang with the RX8 vs. G35c comparison???? Can you say "PAID BY FORD" ? Throwing 2 fords against a g35c, so obvious.

<font color=blue>-Ramb<font color=red>0</font color=red></font color=blue>

Re: What's wrong with Road & Track
 

As Rambo said, Automobile mag is relatively good. It's not as blatant about its biases as C&D, R&T, and MT are.

Re: What's wrong with Road & Track
 

I like Motor Trend the best. They give American cars thier due when they deserve it, and they picked our G35 as Car of the Year!

Now, there was that one mistake when they picked the 2002 Taurus Convertible, I mean Thunderbird, Car of The Year. But, they made up for it.

Re: What's wrong with Road & Track
 

Physics ? My lawn more might have more torque than an RX-8.

154 vs 274

http://photos.yahoo.com/bc/holymudda...dnm=speedo.gif