this isnt a butt dyno, this is my friends car and vs. mine. We raced to 70 mph off the line probably 20 times, switching cars back and forth. The gearing for the bimmer is just better with the extra gear so i'm sure that has something to do with it. I just think bimmer underrates their power and infiniti overrates it. Think of the 07 vs 06. u think 27 horses would make that much of a difference from low 6 to low 5 0-60 mph. i mean that's pretty huge. Don't get defensive, i love my g and it costs less money to maintain, and it's 8g's cheaper. Remember too i'm not comparing it to the old 330i that put out 225 HP, im talking about the 06+ that were 255/225 i think. I know for a fact the 04 and 05 330i will get beaten by any G on a straight away, though the bimmer suspension is still better stock vs stock

 

Many of these times are very suspicious.

Just to clarify: you will never, and I really mean never, see a 330i get anywhere near 14.3 stock in LACR. This guy must have been using LACR's "correction" formula. If he did, this would mean he was running 14.7 @ 93.3 mph. Even 14.7 @ 93.3 mph for a stock 330i would sound suspicious at LACR.

Trust me, I've been to LACR numorous times. If I don't see a credible timeslip or video, I will never assume its correct.

And the "14.15 @ 101.5" with just an intake would be believeable under VERY ideal track conditions. Ideal as in negative DA's.

.

 

The difference between the output of the HR motor and the non-revup VQ35DE is most certainly greater than 27hp at peak. The HR puts down about 265 to the wheels stock, whereas the non-revup DE puts down about 210 to 215 stock at the local dynos. The HR also puts down about 230tq stock, compared to ~210tq stock for the non-revup DE.

 

dude my g35 will run the 330 they aint nothing ... we got the true engine man

 

Don't know what to tell you because the 330i and 03-06 G35s are very evenly matched with the nod going to the G35 in the higher mphs. I would never consider a 330i a threat in the least. Let ask you, are you manually shifting the 2-3 and 3-4 shifts in your G35? Are you using a brake stall launch? Both of these are required to get the most out of the car. If you let the tranny shift itself and don't brake stall enough, it's the difference between running a 14.3 and a 14.7. Also, a race to 70mph really doesn't show anything because the G35 has quite a bit of pull in the finall 1/8 mile (75mph+). Lots of Gs, including mine, see 22-23mph in the last 1/8 mile which means the car has a very fat usable powerband. If a car can hang with my in the 1/8, chances are it will get walked in the final 1/8 because most cars will only see 19-20mph.

I think you two racers should take your cars to the 1/4 mile track to settle this once and for all. Street racing is absolutely pointless because it can't factor in 60' and reaction time. Using legit timers will reveal the truth and I'm certain both cars will be very close in performance.

 

Just a word of caution on comparing raw numbers like hp/tq and # of gears...my neighbor has a V-12 Freightliner dynoed at 877hp and 1023ft/lbs, with 16 forward gears, but obviously nobody needs to worry about getting their doors blown off by that monster.
hp has practically nothing to do with 0-60 times, that's all torque and gearing. Not the number of gears, but the actual ratios between the engine, trans, and rear. While in-lines (like the BMW) do traditionally make more torque than a comparable V engine, even a car with lower torque can have faster 0-60 times if it's geared taller, especially in the first two or three gears. Plus, in-lines tend to make their torque over a broader rpm range that starts lower, making it more usable (and more noticeable to the butt-dyno).
As for number of gears, this is one area where less is usually more, as time spent shifting is time wasted, even in an automatic. More gears translates to closer ratios and therefore less time spent under power in each gear, and anything over 4th or 5th is overdrive anyway, which only affects top speed. You won't find a drag car with more than four speeds, usually only two or three. I routinely reach 110mph+ before even thinking of shifting out of 4th, and never even see 6th on the tracks near me.
Another factor to consider is power-to-weight ratio of each vehicle. Which is where I become skeptical of the '07 G35's being significantly, or even measureably, faster than the 1st gen's. Sure they've got 26hp more than the (automatic) 1st gen's, but torque is only up by 8 lbs/ft, and with the overall increase in weight, you're talking about what should be marginal (+1-3%) increases in performance. All other factors (traction, fuel, drivers, climate, etc.) being equal, I don't see the '07's outdoing their 1st gen predecessors.

 

sorry.. i meant Auto G35's...

 

Sorry dude, my friend has one and I kill him everytime... I have also driven it several times and it does not feel faster to me. .

 

My buddy has a 330i. He was so sure he could beat me so we took it to Bud park (local race track/strip) for a $500 wager. I'm an 03 5AT with pop/z-tube, spacer, mid pipe. He was running full exhaust and intake. We did 3 runs and the only thing he had a chance on was the launch because his was a manual. I'd say off the launch he had a bumper on me but after that it was no contest. Took him about car and a half everytime.
I've also taken many many many 330i's on the road with my 04 maxima 4AT and now with my G.
Sorry but 330i's don't come close. It feels good beating any Beemer cause the owners who drive these cars where I'm from, 80% of the time are flaming douchbags.

Even when i was bone stock on both maxima and G, 330i's never had a chance. Sorry to burst your bubble.

 

What did you do with the $500? I hope you bought him a drink! That had to hurt his ego.

 

^ This comment IMO makes the most sense.

 

yeah that was BS. the 2nd gen kills the 1st gen end of story. 1-3% difference my ***

 

Yeah, sorry about that; when I do math in my head it doesn't always come out exactly right. Plus I was focusing on the 6MTs, which are my preference. Now I've gone ahead and actually used real numbers and a calculator:

07 autos and X's gain 7-7.7% in hp, but lose 3% torque compared to 05/06
07 6mt's gain 2% hp and 2.5% torque over 05/06 6mt (like I said)

Proving one of my other earlier points, where the 07's are making their money is gearing, by running a 3.69 rear, compared to 3.36 (auto) and 3.54 (6mt) in the 1st gen's, which equate to 10% and 4% differences. Reportedly, trans ratios are geared lower as well, but I can't find any published numbers.

 

The FD's are about 5% shorter for the 6MT's compared to the first gen, and about 9% shorter for the 5AT's compared to the first gen. The gear ratios remain unchanged.

And your hp/tq numbers don't make any sense. First, you're comparing manufacturer released numbers(at the crank), not to mention the changes in the SAE standards across the model years.

In 05, the 6MT's were rated at 298/260 by Infiniti. My car dyno'd 242/211 bone stock. Assuming a 17% drivetrain loss for the 6MT(a figure which has proven to be more accurate than not over the past 4 years), and that puts my car making 291/254 at the crank. One might argue Infiniti was a little optimistic in it's ratings.

Later on Infiniti adopted the new SAE practices, and the new numbers came in at 293hp and 258tq(not sure on the tq). That is almost exactly what my car made stock, extrapolated to the crank.

The HR is officiallyrated at 306 and 268. That's a difference of 13hp and 10tq, absolute, or a relative difference of 4.25% for hp and 3.8% for torque.

Now let's compare real, measured numbers. My wife's car dyno'd just two weeks ago at 267/232. Compared to my car, the differences are 24hp and 21tq, absolute, or a relative difference of 9.4% for hp and 9.1% for torque. As you can see, the actual, real world numbers paint quite a different story.

If you'd like to see an actual overlay of the two stock dyno's, see the attachment. The stock pull for my car(05 6MT) is the red line, and my wife's pull is denoted by the blue line. Pay no attention to the starting points for the dyno's, and you can safely ignore the fact that my dyno ended at 6600rpms instead of redline. The endpoints for my run would not effect peak numbers, nor area under the curve, so the comparison is still valid.

In summary, I think you are seriously short-changing the new car.

PS - my wife's car has a lot more power left in it, just by adjusting fuel. I have never seen a naturally aspirated motor run so rich from the factory. If the ecu would run leaner, say 13:1 up top, then the car would be good for another 10 to 15hp.

 

Of course I'm comparing the manufacturer's advertised power ratings; I think that's all that even the most educated prospective new car buyer can be expected to do, and that's certainly what's been going on in this thread and any other when somebody says "Car X is better than Car Y". Nobody's going to walk into a dealer and be like, Sure, YOU say the car has 306hp, but you don't mind if I take one down to the local dyno and wind the snot out of it, do you? So, in the absence of empirical evidence, all we can really go on is what the manufacturer tells us. Are those numbers always acurate? Of course not, because they want to sell cars and when it comes to hp/tq, consumers like bigger numbers. I'm also not getting 26mpg hwy, but I'm not gonna call Infiniti on that either, because 25mpg is close enough.

My hp/tq numbers don't make sense because they're not hp/tq numbers. As I stated earlier, there's no sense in comparing those numbers by themselves. So to make the hp/tq numbers a (little) bit more meaningful, I divided the manufacturer's advertised hp/tq numbers by the manufacturer's advertised curb weights for comparable vehicles from '07 and '05 (sorry to leave out the earlier 260/260 crowd), resulting in power-to-weight ratios for three different trim levels (X, 6mt, and autos) for each of the two model years. Then I took the '07 ptw ratios and divided them by the ptw ratios of the respective '05 model, resulting in the differences (percentages) I stated earlier. Factor in the final drive improvement, and of course the '07's look even better.

No, I didn't account for Infinit's adoption of the SAE rating practices, because in another 2-5 years, somebody will come out with a different way to measure hp/tq. Some manufacturers will adopt it because it makes their cars look more favorable, some won't because it makes their cars look bad, and we'll be back in the same boat again.

They should just put a chassis dyno at every dealer, and everybody gets a couple runs before they leave the lot with their new car!

I'm not (purposefully) short-changing the 2nd gen G's, I just don't think they 'kill' the 1st gen's. Especially when you consider the rather timid styling direction they took, but that's about as subjective a subject as there is....