Which particular volume of BMI/Hotversion are you referring to?

Thanks

 

The 03 and 04 G's don't have the top end breathing of the rev-up 05 and 06 Coupes, but you're so dissatisfied that it doesn't matter. Get FI or another car like the Z06 or M3. I think the G has class-leading performance without sacraficing anything in the luxury department all for under $40k. Cars like the Mustang or GTO may be faster, but can't touch the list of luxury features the G has. If you're not willing to do without the luxury, then an M3 or anything with AMG on it will satisfy you.

 

Actually, the IS350 isn't available in AWD, nor in a 6-speed manual.

ORIGINAL POSTER: Part of the issue here, I believe, is the power delivery.

I drove for many years 5.0 Mustangs. While nobody can dispute their prowess at the dragstrip, their driving manners and roadholding left a LOT to be desired. Power delivery was brutal, the shifter notchy (you needed a map to find 3rd) and the rear end would step out on you if you so much as held your mouth wrong.

With a K&N filter, a Hurst shifter, and a bunch of testosterone, I plowed her down the strip to a whopping 14.7 at around 94 mph.

Flash to 2004

Imagine my surprise when my new v6 sedan (automatic at that) tripped the lights to an almost identical 14.7 at 94.5 mph her first trip to the strip.

The smooth, buttery power of the VQ hustled the heavier sedan (~3400# vs ~3100# for the rustang) to about the same time as my "sports car" 5-liter did, stock for stock.


You should take her to the track and see just how "slow" she is.

 

should've kept the MKIV. i would've. G35 only looks nice. EK's, EG's, 240's all kill G35's here in hawaii. the G weighs as much as one of our islands.

 

I think it's the return of the rotary video. not too sure though. they started the g35 in the back and weaved the car through and got second to the s2000. i wouldve loved to see how a mazdaspeed miata would do on the tsukuba circuit.

___

If you're coming from a 500hp FD down to a G35, what did you expect? it's like me after a day of racing formula race car then stepping into my G35 and expecting it to not feel sluggish around the corners.

 

does that company pay you? well they should!

 

14.7 is not really all that fast.

 

the latest vid with the rev up G35 in it lapping at 1'09 is titled "racing bonanza." it features a battle between the Z33 35th anniv, S2k and two editions of the RX-8. the one with the latest M3 is "350z shock." there's also the "rotory reborn" and "GTR the ultimate" which feature the brembo equipped coupe.

 

Toyota Supra TT Handles like S**T compared to the G btw, cant even compare the two. The supra's suspension is like a down pillow - way too soft and I dont even know where you can bring up a piece of crap mitsubishi evo in the same post with a G , its like comparing a honda civic to a mercedes. A stock supra isnt that much faster than the G. It only weighs 3lbs more and has +22fwhp , the torque is the only big deal - You have to remember the Supra is behind almost 10 years in technology -

 

Supra handles similar to stock G... it doesn't handle like **** at all. And stock Supra puts down 290rwhp compared to 240rwhp G puts down. Supra is 10 years behind technology for sure, but it still is a very fast car and getting 400rwhp out of one is easy and cheap(About $2k). In fact, I think it is better than a lot of new cars out right now.

I think some people are getting this all wrong... I'm not bashing G35 in any way or was expecting it to beat 500hp Supra. I thought I could live with more luxury and less performance, but now I think I was wrong. I was just posting my thoughts... there is no reason to get on my *** about it. G was a wrong car for me, but that doesn't mean it's a bad car... it, in fact, is the best car you can buy under $40k if you want both luxury and performance as I said many times in various threads. Do I make myself clear?

 

I think my G outperforms most any car on the road.

It gets more looks stock than my friends who have $20K plus in their cars. That is why I bought it. If I wanted an ugly high power car I would have bought a GTO.

 

Instead of taking a hit trading her in....get a SC or ST or TT. For 5-10K, you can have the ultimate car and still be under 50K. I'm geting 385rwhp on my SC'd G.

You also have to realize that life is too short to be unhappy. If the car doesn't make you feel good everytime you get in...get something that will. No point in being unhappy. Some people like low-end power of american muscle. Some people like gas guzzling trucks. Some people like striped down import performance. Whatever your pleasure...get it and be happy.

I personally like a bit of both performance and luxury which is why I went with the G.

 

My point was that the car feels slower than it is.

BTW, nobody said 14.7 was fast. The Rustang went on to turn low 12's, and my '04 "X" has run 14.50.

What do you run?

 

Get off your high-horse. The G isn't a Mercedes, and the EVO is well above a Civic. The G and EVO run about the same price but simply differ in their approach, as we're all aware.

Sub-$20K Civic = $35K EVO and a $35K G = $60K-$80K 'Benz? So with two cars that are the same price, somehow the gap between them extends to Civic-Mercedes based entirely on their interior trim level or exterior design? As a car guy, that sounds extremely superficial to me.

The EVO certainly does belong in this guy's thread because he's not happy with the emphasis that Nissan placed on luxury over performance. They're both sporty cars at the same cost. Even though they both take a very different approach (all sport v. luxury/sport blend), if you're in the market for a fast car with a $35K-$40K cap, then it is a viable option... ...especially if your priority is on going fast. The next step is deciding what's more important to you as the buyer... ...all out performance and agressive (love-it-or-hate-it) styling or great looks, nice luxury features and adequate performance. Just because you chose the G doesn't mean that it's the best choice, it was just the best choice for you (as well as many others here ).

Before anyone gets bent out of shape, please keep in mind that I've been that other route and willingly chose the super hot, yet-a-bit-chunky G this time. Not only can I live with the choice, but I'm happy with it. But it seems patently wrong to diss a guy who isn't happy with it and is in search for better performance even while sacrificing luxury or exterior looks. He doesn't sound at all crazy to me, he just sounds like a fellow car guy. Passing up good looks and luxury for pure performance... ...As a car guy, how could you diss someone for doing that?

 

Ahhh. Thanks, GT-Ron. Finally someone who understand my reasoning! That is exactly what I was trying to say but you only said it better.