Motor Trend tests the 05 280 5AT G sedan...it's not faster
#31
Originally Posted by DaveB
1) Member dynos suggest no extra power
2) Member 1/4 mile times suggest no extra power.
3) The tested times suggest no extra power.
Once a 05 5AT breaks a 14.2 or 98mph, then you can tell me my assumptions are wrong.
2) Member 1/4 mile times suggest no extra power.
3) The tested times suggest no extra power.
Once a 05 5AT breaks a 14.2 or 98mph, then you can tell me my assumptions are wrong.
#32
Registered User
iTrader: (8)
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,647
Likes: 12
From: South East Texas
Q50 Red Sport 400 RWD
We can all agree that the 2005 models are not really faster. If they are it is negligible. We know you still prefer your 05's b/c this and that and that is ok. But let us face it we (2003/2004ers) are not as screwed when the 2005s came out as the G20 owners were when the G35 came out. You feel me? There will never be as huge a jump between any future updates as there was b/t 2002 and 2003--whether that is a minor freshening up or a total new model.
Was there a G20driver.com forum--umm, no.
My point--we have nice cars, now go outside and enjoy.
http://autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.jsp?rd...y&cardist=1863
http://www.nctd.com/review-intro.cfm...0&ReviewID=510
Was there a G20driver.com forum--umm, no.
My point--we have nice cars, now go outside and enjoy.
http://autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.jsp?rd...y&cardist=1863
http://www.nctd.com/review-intro.cfm...0&ReviewID=510
Last edited by Texan1; 07-25-2005 at 01:59 AM.
#33
Originally Posted by DaveB
1) Member dynos suggest no extra power
2) Member 1/4 mile times suggest no extra power.
3) The tested times suggest no extra power.
Once a 05 5AT breaks a 14.2 or 98mph, then you can tell me my assumptions are wrong.
2) Member 1/4 mile times suggest no extra power.
3) The tested times suggest no extra power.
Once a 05 5AT breaks a 14.2 or 98mph, then you can tell me my assumptions are wrong.
#34
Originally Posted by ABQ_G35
Oh, and so you think Motor Trend was biased on this story a couple of years ago?
G35-CTS-300i
G35-CTS-300i
#35
In Desert Day Dynoing Article - Sport Z Magazine, Summer 2005 - we documented the dynojet performance of two pure stock G35 AT Sedans, an 03.5 and an 05. The 03.5 had 23.6k miles and the 05 had 1,258 miles on their respective clocks. In this particluar case the 05 made more horsepower and torque under the curve.
#36
#37
Originally Posted by mpgxsvcd
Was the new test done with automatics or manual transmissions? Maybe that is why the times are so slow?
While at the airport today, I saw the new Motor Trend with a comparo test of the 05 G35 sedan 5AT, the 06 BMW 330 5at, and A4. The 05 G went 14.7@95.9mph. The quickest G35 sedan they ever tested went 14.6@97.1mph. That was an 03 model. Remember that MT corrects all their times to standard conditions (sea level, 20% humidity, 29.8 baro).
#38
Originally Posted by Texan1
We can all agree that the 2005 models are not really faster. If they are it is negligible. We know you still prefer your 05's b/c this and that and that is ok. But let us face it we (2003/2004ers) are not as screwed when the 2005s came out as the G20 owners were when the G35 came out. You feel me? There will never be as huge a jump between any future updates as there was b/t 2002 and 2003--whether that is a minor freshening up or a total new model.
Was there a G20driver.com forum--umm, no.
My point--we have nice cars, now go outside and enjoy.
http://autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.jsp?rd...y&cardist=1863
http://www.nctd.com/review-intro.cfm...0&ReviewID=510
Was there a G20driver.com forum--umm, no.
My point--we have nice cars, now go outside and enjoy.
http://autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.jsp?rd...y&cardist=1863
http://www.nctd.com/review-intro.cfm...0&ReviewID=510
#39
Going by what DaveB said in the first post, we're talking about a test regarding 5ATs.
I think performance gains or lack of performance gains should be referred to those cars and the 6MTs left in another thread.
The question of performance numbers here has nothing to do with 298/260, but rather 260/260 (rated) vs 280/270 (rated).
Does anyone agree with that? (at least?)
I think performance gains or lack of performance gains should be referred to those cars and the 6MTs left in another thread.
The question of performance numbers here has nothing to do with 298/260, but rather 260/260 (rated) vs 280/270 (rated).
Does anyone agree with that? (at least?)
#41
Originally Posted by GeeWillikers
The answer to your question was in the very first post of the thread... Now highlighted for your convenience.
#42
#43
Originally Posted by GeeWillikers
No sweat - just trying to keep things on the level as this topic interests me. There are usually strong feelings when the comparison of the 05 is made to the previous model years.
Pretty soon the 06s will be here and we can all compare ourselves to them - LOL.
Pretty soon the 06s will be here and we can all compare ourselves to them - LOL.
#44
Originally Posted by dirrtybear
Dave, I think he was referring to your assumption that the only thing changed on the 05 was the exhaust sound (which btw is not true). Fact is, the 04 6MT has more low-end torque and the 05 6MT has more high-end horsepower. You don't accomplish that by only altering the exhaust note.
#45
Registered User
iTrader: (8)
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,647
Likes: 12
From: South East Texas
Q50 Red Sport 400 RWD
Originally Posted by mpgxsvcd
I agree that the performance improvements are debatable between the 03 and the 05 G35’s. However, there is one thing that kept me from buying the 03. That stupid little box on the trunk! Once they took that away I was interested in the G35 again. And now that they have revised the front and rear designs I could not resist.
You could have purchased an 03.5--No doggie door trunk.