I just got the April 2005 issue of Motor Trend and they test the 35th Anniversary 350Z with the new 300hp motor and the car went 5.8 0-60 and 14.3@101mph (corrected for atmospheric conditions). Thier last 350Z tested (Touring) did a 5.5 0-60 and 14.3@101. The quickest Z (Track) they've tested has did a 5.4 0-60 and a 13.8@101mph. They did mention that grip was in short supply because of the desert track they used for the test, but even so, the trap speed doesn't lie because it's hard to mess up trap speed, even with a bit of wheel spin. They made a good point though, the increased upper rpm power above 6000rpms makes for better track racing, which I completely agree with.

This corresponds exactly with what I thought would happen with these new motors. The reduced torque in the low/mid range hurts 0-60mph performance and not until the end of the track has the new motor caught up with the 03/04 motor.

I imagine the 298hp 6MT Gs will be no quicker than their 260hp/280hp counterparts either.

 

I wouldn't have expected a difference with a 13hp boost. It just gives bragging rights to the 300hp Z owners. Hmmm.....I like it too....."My car has 300hp". That does sound good.

 

DaveB

Your post makes me feel better now. I have felt this from the first week of my 2005 G35 6mt.
I know the 2005 is faster I can sure feel it. But still my 2004 6mt is better at around town driving. It looks to me that the best mod for the 2005 6mt would be some long tube headers.
IM still waiting for somebody to dyno a 2005 6mt with the spacer plate or Crawford plenum.
What are your thoughts? Anybody?

 

Nissan has played fast and loose with horsepower ratings versus actual output on the VQ35DE since it arrived in '02. (See Maxima, Altima, 350Z, G35, et al.) Last month's Car and Driver test of the same 35th Anniversary Z came up with similar results to the MT story.

So, if it's good enough for Nissan, it's good enough for me. I've been playing imaginary numbers myself with two horsepower on my 6MT. When anyone asks, I just tell 'em 300 are under the hood. Two-ninety-eight sounds silly, and you can bet that the two horsepower difference between the Z and 6MT was dreamed up in a corner office in the marketing department. Can't have the Top Dog sports-car in the Nissan/Infiniti North American lineup be anything other than the 350Z, and rightly so.

 

actually, don't performance results often vary quite a bit? i remember when the 2003 g35 coupe first came out, it was tested at about 5.9 secs 0-60. a couple years later and many more tests done by car mags, we have even faster recorded times now (5.5 secs 0-60). it all depends on the conditions and the driver.

 

Uh, oh. Here we go again. Broad generalization based on a minum of data.

Heaven forbid we bring reason and facts back into the discussion, but what the hell - why not.

First of all, you're magazine racing and should be ashamed of yourself. Very, very, very ashamed of yourself. Even with times corrected for atmospheric conditions, this does not by any means correct for the plethora of variables such as the actual drivers, different track conditions, weather, etc. Not really very comparable, unless conducted on the same day with the same driver... over and over in controlled conditions. Especially highly variable 0-60 times which are basically worthless for comparison purposes.

Second of all, different cars with different mileage... different states of output. Since the 35th Anny model is pretty new (when the tests were actually carried out), you can fairly safely assume it was pretty fresh.

Third, Touring is actually 52 pounds lighter than the Track... should make for faster acceleration. Just like the early 90's Musting LX was lighter and had slightly faster acceleration than the "sporty" GT model.

Fourth, the 35th Anny has heavier 18" wheels/tires than the standard 17" wheels on the Touring model - good for cornering, bad for straight line acceleration. See comment above about Mustang acceleration.

Fifth, different outputs for a given vehicle. The Touring could have been a bit of a "diamond" from the factory with higher-than-average ouput - it does happen. Who knows... just another variable.

Sixth, the trap speed doesn't change. Like you said, trap speed matters a lot and is a fairly consistent data point. And if you did indeed have a faster car but with traction issues, you would expect a longer 1/4 mile time, with a slightly lower trap speed - which is basically what happened. Seems to support the theory that 35th Anny was making slightly more power and faster acceleration. But again, you can't as reliably apply highly variable 0-60 times to the theory that low-end power is affecting the initial 0-60 times that much.

Seventh, you're talking bout 13 HP gained and about 14 ft/lbs torque lost for the 350Z - basically a toss-up and not going to make a huge difference either way. But then to apply this unsupported theory to the 38 HP gain with only 10 ft/lbs torque loss of the G35 6MT is beyond intelligent reasoning.

I'm not saying you're right or wrong, but by no means can you make a blanket statement based on so little pertinent and variable data. However, given the issues and conditions stated above, I would say that your theory is definitely not supported, and most definitely not proven.

Again, more data is needed, and it will trickle in over time as people go to the track with the '05 models, get dynographs of the '05 models, break-in their '05 models, etc.

But until then, you're creating generalizations that go AGAINST the published output figures, historical facts and common sense/reasoning.

 

You know I've been doubting this car a lot lately, mainly because I don't care to open her up, everytime I do, I have blue and red lights flashing behind me.

On the way home from my parents house, I pulled up next to a Boxter S, we both kinda gunned it off the line, I shifted at about 5500 and got a lil chirp, then we were both goin at it, he never pulled past my front door (he had a passenger) and we let off at about 70.

Then I finally get to the on ramp for the freeway, a nice hard right hand turn with a long straight away. The WRX wagon in front of me was goin kinda slow and I was on his ***. He takes off, then hits the brakes for the turn, I down shift into second and gun it behind him. Shift into third at his bumper, pull into the left lane and pulled on him (had about 3 car lengths at mid 80mph) all the way till redline. He had a passenger as well.

I couldn't believe it, this engine is actually bad ***. All my speculations on it were based from after it was broken in, and it seems the more mileage I get on it, the better the engine feels. This is obvious with all cars, but I said before I was dissapointed with it, after today I love it even more. I don't have a doubt, this thing could beat a 260hp G, not easily, but it would pull on it.

 

I think those that don't "like" the 298hp rating on the motor tend to be more negative with their attitude towards it.

 

I test drove one and respected the tightness of the new engine (less than 15 miles). While I used full throttle, I did not rev it over 4000 in respect for the new owner. Still, I was not impressed by the throttle response in comparison to my 2003 sedan 5A. The exhaust did make far nicer sounds than my car though. So far, I am not ready to pony up 10K difference, as my '03 only has 24000 miles on it.

 

I need to make a correction, the magazine was Car & Driver, not Motor Trend.

Car & Driver and Motor Trend typically rip the most consistent test data out of the all the mags in comparison to what most of us are seeing at the track. MT and C&D correct their ET/MPH to standard atmosphere, they test their car with a full tank of gas, and with 50lbs of test gear. Sure, there will always be guys that run their X type car at the track and go a bit quicker and faster than the mags, but that often is because of amazing conditions (ie Density Altitude) and a 1/4 tank of gas and stripped trunk. With stellar conditions, it's quite possible to be running in air which is as dense at 4000' BELOW sea level. This makes a huge difference in the way a car perform. The closer you are to sea level, the more dense the air. This is often the sole reason why some people pull off amazing ET/MPH.

C&D and MT has tested NUMEROUS 350Zs over the past 3 years and they consistently get low 14s (14.0-14.2@100mph+) out of them with a 13-second pass here and there. They all test the same exact cars and the numbers are within .1 and 1mph in each mag. 14.3 is slowest I've seen and that's out of the Touring (aka convertable model 120lbs heavier). These mags have had lots of time behind the wheel of these cars to know what it takes to get the most out them. BTW, some of the quickest Zs tested were Track Z's with 18" rims

The point is this new 300hp motor is no quicker than the 287hp motor it replaced. Many fail to realize that low to midrange power has much more effect over performance than topend punch. Why? Because most of the motor's acceleration is spent in the midrange, not the last few hundred RPMs of the powerband. HP wins buyers, power under the curve wins races.

As for the 6MT G gaining "38hp", I think a few of us know that the 03-04 G sedans already had 280hp to begin with. Add the Z pipe and you're dang close to the 350Z. It's just another case of Nissan doing funny math with their power ratings. On the dyno, there is very little difference (<5whp/wtq)between a 03/04 coupe auto and a 03/04 sedan auto and the same goes for the 6MT.

Call me a magazine racer if you wish. It doesn't bother me. I've spent lots of seat time at the 1/4 mile track (~250 1/4 mile passes in my Z28 and Maxima), understand how to calculate DA, how to calculate optimal shifts points from dyno data, understand the importance of power under the curve, etc. I'm not some ricer racing magazines.

 

I thought those numbers looked similar. Or identical.

I'm sure you're right, Dave. Another recent example of Nissan using its marketing department to engineer horsepower into the VQ was in 2002. The '02 Altima 3.5 SE was rated at 240 horsepower and 246 pound-feet of torque. The '02 Maxima was rated at 255 horsepower ans 246 pound-feet of torque. Both checked in at about 3250 pounds. With 15 extra horsepower at the same RPM, the six-speed Maxima was quicker at the drag strip than the five-speed Altima, yes?

Uh, no, much to the chagrin of the look-down-your-nose '02 Maxima guys. Both cars ran in the 14.2 to 14.6 range @ 97 to 99 mph with a manual; add three to five-tenths for an automatic. Dyno tests indicated both cars put down similar power to within five or so whp, give or take. Most knowledgeable folks felt that the VQs in those cars made between 250 and 260 horsepower at the crank.

The G35/350Z have a totally different, freer-breathing intake system among other major differences from the Maxima/Altima VQ. We all felt that the 260 rated horsepower for the G35 sedan was a little low, as they were clocking similar (or maybe a tenth or two faster) quarter-mile times with a 6MT while weighing in at 3500 to 3600 pounds, a good 200 to 300 more than the Nissan twins. The trap speeds were similar, indicating the power-to-weight ratios were similar for all three cars and killing the RWD traction theory. Thus, we all kinda felt the G35 was really putting out your estimated 280 at the crank in the sedans as well.

I've posted a few times before that I felt the 6MT sedan I flogged during my test-drive didn't feel any faster in the second-gear 30-to-60 mph range than my Altima. Two things: One, "feel" doesn't mean a thing to anyone but me as only I know the seat of my pants; and Two, the 6MT was very green with only 150 miles or so on the odo.

I never drove a 260-horse '03 or '04 6MT sedan so I can't comment on that. But I did drive an '04 5AT as a service loaner and was decidedly unimpressed with the power and automatic transmission in that car. The thing was slushy and slow to respond and frankly my Altima would've blown it out of the water in the quarter. The '05 5AT I drove, though, was night-and-day better. They did a lot of work on that combination and it shows. It was excellent.

Finally, if one more person posts a message about the '05 6MT sedan or coupe "losing" 10 pound-feet of torque over the '03 or '04 models I will scream. Those cars were rated at 260 pound-feet of torque. The '05 6MT is rated at 260 pound-feet of torque. No difference. The confusion arises from the '05s 5AT rating of 270 pound-feet. To recap:

2003/2004 sedan 6MT/5AT rated power: 260 horsepower & 260 pound-feet for both
2005 sedan 6MT/5AT rated power: 298 horsepower & 260 pound feet / 280 horsepower & 270 pound-feet

What's it mean? Not a whole heckuva lot apparently on the street or at the strip. Paper bragging rights maybe for the 6MT owners, particularly those of us who favor rounding up tens. I will say that the 6MT tester didn't run out of breath above 6000 rpm like my Altima did; it revved well, and with urgency and power, to 6500 where I took mercy on the poor thing and shifted. (The '04 5AT loaner I drove had the same upper-rpm breathing difficulties my Altima did. The '05 5AT tester subjectively felt somewhere between the two, not unsurprisingly, when I accidentally bumped the thing into the rev limiter playing with the manual mode.)

 

I guess I'll have to see it when I believe it. Did you ever run your Altima at the track? Not trying to be a smartass, I'm just asking because I don't spend a lot of time on their forum. On Maxima.org, the Maxima 02/03 3.5 VQ autos make about 195-200whp and typically get 14.8-14.9@93mph in the 1/4 mile. Every once in a while there's a Maxima auto that runs a 14.4-14.5 stock. The stock 03/04 G sedan autos are making about 210whp and seem to be getting 14.5-14.7@96mph and then there's the few auto sedans that have done 14.2-14.3 stock. From what I've read over at www.altimas.net, the Altima 4 speed autos are getting 15.0-15.1 and the newer 5 speed autos are getting upper 14.9-15.0@92mph+ so it seems pretty comparable to the 02/03 Maxima auto because both the Maxima and Altima make the same power and their power to weight is nearly indentical. From the slips I've seen on the net and from what I've seen at the track, the G sedans are slightly quicker in ET and a good bit faster in MPH.

As for dynos, not only does the G/Z VQ make more power than the Maxima/Altima VQ, it makes more power at all points on the graph and above 6000rpms and holds a majority of that peak power till fuel cut at 6600rpms. Take a look at a Maxima/Altima VQ dyno and you'll see the power peak at around 5900rpms and then fall off around 6200rpms. The stock G/Z VQ on the otherhand makes peak power at 6200rpms and holds most of that power till 6600rpms. I know I'm making a mountain out of a mole hill, but I'm just trying to show how and why the G will typically out trap the Maxima/Altima by a few MPHs.

If you agree with me that the 03/04 sedan's 260hp was underrated and was actually 280hp, then wouldn't you have to agree that it would mean the sedan was also making 270tq just like the 03/04 280hp/270tq coupe?

 

Who's making longtube headers for the G/Z? I haven't seen any headers that are what I call "longtube". You're right though, if they do exist, longtubes are the only way to go for the best power, period. The headers I've seen from Nismo, Crawford, and DC are hardly what I call longtube headers hence the reason these headers don't make much power. To me, longtube means the tube to the primary is 24+" long. Put shorty headers (ie Crawford/Nismo/DC) on an LS1 and gain 5whp. Put longtubes on the LS1 and gain 25-30whp. Yeah, it's that significant. I've installed LTs on my friend's LS1 Z28 and he dynoed 27whp/30wtq and dropped from a 13.6@103mph to a 13.1@106mph. The real question is how in the world can you fit LTs under the G/Z hood? I'd love to have them.

 

I'll will say that my 05 6MT feels MUCH quicker after 1600 miles than it did at half that mileage. I was not that impressed with WOT during my initial test drive. The VQ is a tight engine from the factory, AT or MT. To compare an 05 6MT with <100 miles on it on a test drive to an 03-04 with 10000+ miles on it is not a fair comparison. Butt dyno baby. We'll see what happens next Sunday. We are having a little dyno day out here in Vegas. There are going to be 03-04-05 sedans and coupes, AT and MT. My 05 is 100% stock at this point so I'll have test data put head to head year vs. year, coupe vs. sedan, AT vs. MT. Problem is that every one else is running at least a Z-tube, up to high flow cats and crawford plenums. I'll post the data after the fact for those that are interested.

 

You posted this anecdote once before, so I'll respond to it once again with the hopes you actually comprehend the reponse.

If you did not go over 4000 RPMS, then you did NOT get into the extra power of the 298HP egine - which is in the upper RPMS. I bet dynographs of the 2 engines laid on top of each other will hardly show much difference below 4000 RPM. If you didn't go above 4000 RPMs, then you wouldn't have seen the extra power.