just got my latest motor trend, 05 sedan mt6 tested at 5.8sec and 1/4 at 14.1 sec at 99.7mph and braking 60 to 0 121ft (that's s**k )

 

Cool. Is the article a review of the sedan or a comparison to the new 3-series & possibly IS?

I think the 05 sedan is a little heavier than the 05 coupe (used to be the other way around), so we could guesstimate that the coupe could hit 60 in 5.7?

 

Wow, that 14.1 number is very impressive.

 

I think thats pretty good for a sedan.
The coupe has always been a few tenths faster, correct? So if thats the case, its possible that the coupe could be around 14.0 or 13.9. Thats not bad especially a 99.7mph trap on a sedan

 

Break-in period, I hate you

 

How does this compare to the numbers on the '04?

 

The Infiniti specs show that the 6M coupe and sedan both weigh 3512. The AWD sedan weighs in at 3650.

I dont know why the coupe would weigh as much as the sedan, how does that work?

 

Here's a site that compiles all of the published performance numbers.

Performance Numbers

Note that the 2003 6MT Sedan was found to run a 5.78 sec 0-60 by Motor Trend......so does that lead us to believe that the 2005 is 0.02 sec slower?!?!

All joking aside, the 2003 MT Sedan was clocked at 5.9sec by Car & Driver and the 2004 6MT Sedan was clocked at 6.3 secs by them as well.....however, C&D have some of the worst drivers and thus always post slower numbers.

 

Those are poor implications as the 05 6mt sedans now have the same power rating as the 6mt coupes (both at 298). I would expect the '05 6mt coupe numbers to be very similar.

 

You can't put a lot of stock in these numbers as far as comparing to cars with similar performance unless they are significantly different from the previous models. No one really knows what the weather conditions were like or even if they used the same driver. The only way to compare to cars is side-by-side or back-to-back with two people with similar driving skills.

the only thing mag racing does is give you a relative comparison of a cars performance.

 

I think we should wait for more tests. The 280 hp 6mt coupe had 0 to 60 times ranging from 5.5 to 6.1. So chalk this up as one of the slow ones. Also remember many of us can outdrive the professionals when conditions are ideal and get better times. Many people have gotten a flat 14 second 1/4 mile time run (I personally witnessed one) and this something that none of these mags could pull off.

 

Car mags use SAE correction factors when publishing performance #s to adjust for temp, humidity, etc.

 

That is correct. So, don't anyone fool themselves thinking they can always pull off magazine claimed times.

In the case of Road & Track, however, no correction factors are used. Their results are recorded as seen on the stop watch at that particular day, time, location, and condition. What you see is what you get. That is the reason their test results sometimes vary significantly from one moth/year to the other for the same vehicle. R&T test results also tend to read slower than competing magazines' for this very reason.

 

What THX723 said

But I agree that many of the others do. But I heard mags do not always use correction factors, and that when they do it isn't always accurate because of various factors. some engines may respond better to cold or less humid weather than others. Some may be more adversly affectly by hot and humid weather than others.

All I am saying is that when it comes down to a comparion and the difference is tenths of a second in 0-60 times, it is hard to place much stock in mag times. If a magazine tells you that one car is perhaps closer to a second or more faster 0-60 faster then you might say that the car is definitely faster than another. But it is hard for me to allow a few tenths of a second to be the "be all tell all" for me.

 

On paper, the 2005 6MT sedan is actually faster than a 2005 6MT Coupe.

Few things:

6MT Sedan and Coupe are showing the same weight as far as specs on the Infiniti site. Who knows what the reality is... but if it was a typo, I would hope it was caught and changed by now.

In the past, the coupe posted faster numbers... but it had more power (duh). This is now nullified.

The sedan has less drag - no kidding. CD of .27/.26 (with aero) compared to .29/.28 (with aero) for the coupe.

If a coupe has 19" wheels, that will actually hurt acceleration as well.

All of the above means that the sedan has marginally faster acceleration than a coupe for 2005. Not much, but a little.

As for the magazine numbers, there are so many variables it's not even funny. However, I would consider this an average/good showing. Much better than if they only ticked off a 6.1 and 14.4 @ 95 for the quarter, which would look very bad. Who knows how good the driver was, who knows how the weather was, who knows how many miles were on the car... etc.