0-60 Question
#1
02-28-2005 | 02:45 PM
Thread Starter
|
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
0-60 Question
In the latest Motor Trend, there's an article about the Mustang GT convertible. This porker weighs 3690lbs and packs 300HP. MT reports a 0-60 time of 5.2 sec and a 1/4 Mile time of 13.8 @100.9
Can someone please explain to me how it can be a 1/2 second quicker than a 280HP G35 coupe which weighs 200lbs less? It's even reportedly faster than the 287HP 350Z which only weighs 3250lbs (MT 0-60 time of 5.8 for the non-Track version).
I know there's more to launch times than Weight vs. Horsepower, but I thought this was the overiding factor. Could someone please explain the physics to me?
Thanks,
-Mr. Confused
Can someone please explain to me how it can be a 1/2 second quicker than a 280HP G35 coupe which weighs 200lbs less? It's even reportedly faster than the 287HP 350Z which only weighs 3250lbs (MT 0-60 time of 5.8 for the non-Track version).
I know there's more to launch times than Weight vs. Horsepower, but I thought this was the overiding factor. Could someone please explain the physics to me?
Thanks,
-Mr. Confused
#2
02-28-2005 | 03:01 PM
Charter Member Florida G35 Club
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 803
Likes: 1
From: Orlando, Fl
#3
02-28-2005 | 03:05 PM
Guest
Posts: n/a
Not only that, a convertible has much worse aerodynamics than a coupe so that would slow it down as well. The answer to this question is easy: magazines are just not reliable because they just do their own testing. Car & Driver tested a 330xi once and gave it a 0-60 time of 5.7 seconds....yeah, sure. You should always trust a car manufacturer's 0-60 specifications as they tend to be more conservative and more accurate - since they built the car, I'd imagine they know how to drive it.
I do feel that the G suffers in the 0-60 department a bit simply because of inadequate rear traction. The 245-series rear tires are just too thin for such an edgy rear-driver with 280hp. The engine produces a lot of torque so there is always a LOT of power being sent to the wheels. If the G35C came with 255's or 265's in the rear, I feel the G35C would deliver more consistent 0-60 and 1/4 mile times.
I do feel that the G suffers in the 0-60 department a bit simply because of inadequate rear traction. The 245-series rear tires are just too thin for such an edgy rear-driver with 280hp. The engine produces a lot of torque so there is always a LOT of power being sent to the wheels. If the G35C came with 255's or 265's in the rear, I feel the G35C would deliver more consistent 0-60 and 1/4 mile times.
#4
02-28-2005 | 03:07 PM
Originally Posted by masetodd
In the latest Motor Trend, there's an article about the Mustang GT convertible. This porker weighs 3690lbs and packs 300HP. MT reports a 0-60 time of 5.2 sec and a 1/4 Mile time of 13.8 @100.9
Can someone please explain to me how it can be a 1/2 second quicker than a 280HP G35 coupe which weighs 200lbs less? It's even reportedly faster than the 287HP 350Z which only weighs 3250lbs (MT 0-60 time of 5.8 for the non-Track version).
I know there's more to launch times than Weight vs. Horsepower, but I thought this was the overiding factor. Could someone please explain the physics to me?
Thanks,
-Mr. Confused
Can someone please explain to me how it can be a 1/2 second quicker than a 280HP G35 coupe which weighs 200lbs less? It's even reportedly faster than the 287HP 350Z which only weighs 3250lbs (MT 0-60 time of 5.8 for the non-Track version).
I know there's more to launch times than Weight vs. Horsepower, but I thought this was the overiding factor. Could someone please explain the physics to me?
Thanks,
-Mr. Confused
#5
02-28-2005 | 03:09 PM
Guest
Posts: n/a
Fact is, they are faster. There was an auto GT at the track one day when only about 10 people were out there. It was brand new and he was running 13.7 [abouts] all day while I was still trying to get a 14 flat in my auto G. I think I read somewhere they only lose like 15hp to the wheels while we lose 30?
#6
02-28-2005 | 03:13 PM
Charter Member Florida G35 Club
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 803
Likes: 1
From: Orlando, Fl
#7
02-28-2005 | 03:24 PM
Trending Topics
#9
02-28-2005 | 03:54 PM
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
It has nothing to do with peak horsepower. Peak horsepower rating, even on a good day, is a remote indicator of performance. What counts is the horspower vs. RPM curve. Or more specifically the area under that curve in conjunction with gearing. I suspect the Mustang has the advantage versus the G35. Could also be Ford is sandbagging on HP rating.
#10
02-28-2005 | 04:06 PM
Originally Posted by ChazM
They could be underrated too, ford doesn't want to get in trouble again like they did with the old cobra's.........the newer cobra's were way underrated as are the 05 GT's most likely.
Yeah. I think Ford learned their lesson on the whole overrating of the 99-02 Cobras. For 03, they definitely underrated the Cobra and are probably doing the same for the 05 Stangs.
#11
02-28-2005 | 04:47 PM
#12
02-28-2005 | 07:45 PM
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by MrElussive
Not only that, a convertible has much worse aerodynamics than a coupe so that would slow it down as well. The answer to this question is easy: magazines are just not reliable because they just do their own testing. Car & Driver tested a 330xi once and gave it a 0-60 time of 5.7 seconds....yeah, sure. You should always trust a car manufacturer's 0-60 specifications as they tend to be more conservative and more accurate - since they built the car, I'd imagine they know how to drive it.
I do feel that the G suffers in the 0-60 department a bit simply because of inadequate rear traction. The 245-series rear tires are just too thin for such an edgy rear-driver with 280hp. The engine produces a lot of torque so there is always a LOT of power being sent to the wheels. If the G35C came with 255's or 265's in the rear, I feel the G35C would deliver more consistent 0-60 and 1/4 mile times.
I do feel that the G suffers in the 0-60 department a bit simply because of inadequate rear traction. The 245-series rear tires are just too thin for such an edgy rear-driver with 280hp. The engine produces a lot of torque so there is always a LOT of power being sent to the wheels. If the G35C came with 255's or 265's in the rear, I feel the G35C would deliver more consistent 0-60 and 1/4 mile times.
But what i have found is that most of acceleration loss comes from traction loss in first and second gear...or babying the throttle at the start.
I want to see what G can do, if you raise the rpms to a conservative 2.5k rpm and drop the clutch and actually take-off as opposed to spinning.
Last edited by da45king; 02-28-2005 at 07:48 PM.
#14
02-28-2005 | 09:23 PM
Charter Member Florida G35 Club
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 803
Likes: 1
From: Orlando, Fl
#15
03-01-2005 | 01:15 AM
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by ChazM
A better question should be:
How can a Nissan Altima SE 5spd run low 14's with 250hp and less torque (not exactly sure on the number, but it is less than the 250hp) and only weigh a couple hundred less than the G35?
How can a Nissan Altima SE 5spd run low 14's with 250hp and less torque (not exactly sure on the number, but it is less than the 250hp) and only weigh a couple hundred less than the G35?