All magazines post corrected numbers. This is nothing new.

As someone already stated, we need to look at the dyno charts to compare power. The G35 is making 298 hp at the PEAK!!!! But what does it make at 4000, 4500, 5000 rpms. etc.? The IS350 probably makes more power along the curve.

What's most impressive is how quickly the Lexus does 0-100 mph - 12.8 seconds! The G35 took 15 seconds. That's a big difference and a measurement of top end domination.

 

IMO, MT usually pulls off the best times. C&D is usually in close second with their numbers. I'll admit it, the new IS350 appears to be a much faster car. It's interior is sexy and well put together and the exterior is very nice. Apparently the handling and ride leaves something to be desired though. It's not a perfect car. A 13.7@104mph is eye opening and rivals that of the E46 M3 SMG. Honestly, I thought the numbers for the IS350 would be in the lower 14s. With that said, this was one test and as far as I know, no one else has done a fully instrumented test on the car. Wait and see what MT, R&T, and SCC get out of the car and then start reading what the owners are getting out of the car. Right now, I'm more inclined to believe that the car was a bit of a ringer and that the true production models will be in the 14.0@100mph range which would make more sense. This could change if everyone starts clicking off 13.6-13.8@102+mph in these cars. That would be the deal of the century if it's true.

In the end, if Infiniti doesn't dramatically beef up the G35 on the 2nd gen car, I'll probably be looking to the IS350.....assuming someone figures out how to defeat the TC/VSC.

 

The new Road and Track, Speed, and Automobile magazines all have full instrumented tests of the IS350. They all say between 5.6 and 6.0 0-60 and 14.0+ ¼ of a mile. This car has actually been fully tested by all other magazines already. It was not anywhere near as fast in any other comparison. This car was a ringer or the data was fudged pure and simple! That being said it is a fantastic car! It should have won even with its real world numbers. The problem I have with the article is that the BMW won without performing well at anything. If a car breaks down then it should be disqualified! Instead C&D decided to use numbers from a previous test where the conditions were not the same. As it turns out the braking was the difference between the 330i winning and coming in second. There is no excuse for picking the 330i first. It is not a better car in any category than the IS350.

 

I never disputed the numbers of the rankings, I just posted the as tested prices, which were (as most of us expected) well over $35k for both the BMW and the IS350. It may sound cliche, but you can do a lot of work to your G35 for the $8k difference between it and the IS350/330i. Then again you could just go out and buy an M35, too.

 

The C&D article had the 298hp 6-speed G35 versus the automatic IS350. The G35 had 5.9 to 60 with a 14.6 1/4th. The IS350 had 5.1 to 60 and 13.7 in the 1/4th. Motortrend recently did a test of the IS350 and had 5.5 to 60 and 14.0 in the 1/4th. The IS350 rated at 306hp did significantly better than the 298hp G35. Quick synopsis.

 

I'm okay with the G coming in 3rd in this comparo, especially for the money, but I'm definitely on the side of "no way are those the IS350s real track numbers."

With a new generation engine, plus a smartly geared 6 speed auto, I'll swallow 0-60 in 5.5 .... but 5.1 is just a butt-whooping I can't possibly imagine. This is a Lexus ringer.

 

I'd like to know what ammenities the '06 G is lacking that makes it a 6 out of 10 relative to it's peers. And if the BMW is about 22% more expensive, wouldn't you think they would mark it down lower than a 17 out of 20 for the cost?

 

I was wondering the same thing. How can $8,000, or 22% be only worth a demerit of 3 points? This is a $35,000 sedan comparo and their testing sedans that are $43, and $46k as tested. What's up with that? Bentley should start listing it's base price as $35k, then just tack on 100k of options.

I was talking to the 330xi (2005) owner here in my building earlier and even he mentioned that when he was looking for cars he actually looked at the M instead of the G. His spent $11,000 more on his car than I did on my G. At this price point there is no way cars with that kind of price difference are in the same class.

 

The G is still the best bang for your buck sports sedan. You need to pay a nice $8K - $10K premium to get a better handling 330 (I think the G is pretty close), or a really fast IS350 (but no stick, and intrusive computer).

I'm just glad I had the king of $30K sports sedans for 2 years (I got my 6MT in 2003). Looks like the title has been passed on to the 3 right now(I don't consider the IS350 to be the king because its driving dynamics suck) I really expect new redesigned models to have better performance, its the way all tech works. I can't wait to see what Nissan does with the next generation G.......

 

After reading the article (thanks for the link mpgxsvcd), I can accept the BMW winning. It's mechanical failures should not of affected it's final judgement since it was just a fluke thing. They described what happened and that's good enough. Even though it's expensive, the BMW does everything really well. The G35 is starting to show it's age and they did comment on it's bargain price.

What I can't accept, is the Lexus taking 2nd and it's fudgy numbers. They didn't seem to have much good to say about it besides it's hp and fit/finish. They commented that it didn't feel connected like the BMW or G35 and didn't like that there is no MT option. You cannot turn off the stability controls and there is understeer. It looks great but I would expect a car magazine to choose driving feel over beauty.

 

mpgxsvcd: Whooho! thanks - I read your posts on this thread. IMHO, you nailed it with each post! Folks have to stop being so gullible - just because a commercial publication makes a claim - doesn't make it so. Always dig deeper and beyond commercial enterprises to draw your own educated conclusions. Thanks again.

 

I doubt that the IS350 Car & Driver got is a ringer that explains the difference between it's test results from other magazines. If Lexus gave C&D a ringer, they would have given the same to all the other magazines too. The different magazines did their test under their own conditions & obtain their own set of results. There's nothing unusual about that. It's the same with the G35, most mags. got high 5 seconds/low 6's 0-60 for both G35 sedan & coupe 6MT, there are just a couple tests that got 5.5 & 5.6 sec., & as owners we tend to believe the best results.
The IS350 is the newest & most powerful car in this class & the G35 the oldest among the top 3, so it's holding it's own very well.

 

I've been a big fan of C&D for a long time, and I admit that I been quite gullible in believing almost everything they write. I prefer it over the other mags, as evidenced by my subscription. Having said that...

I really do have trouble believing those figures. If they were just a few tenths of separation, that would be one thing. But over a half-second in the 60 and almost a full second in the quarter is a little too much to swallow.

Almost everybody has suggested that these numbers were corrected. I remember reading a column in a previous issue a year or so ago that went over the testing methodologies, but I can't remember if the times are specifically SAE, or some analog, corrected. For this review, at least for the times published for the 05 6MT, I don't think there's any correction. They quoted a 14.6, correct? My best personal time in my 05 6MT was a 14.7, and that was in nearly 100 degree, humid southeastern weather. Not to mention the fact that it was my first time at the track, ever, in any car. And the fact that I'm still learning to drive a friggin manual in the first place. And that I wasn't staging my tires(warm-ups, etc). And that my best time was after 3 back-to-back-to-back runs(read:heatsoak). These guys drive these cars all the time, and they can wring some awesome times out of the cars. They ****** sure can do better than that in an 05 6MT. Those numbers are guaranteed NOT corrected.

Another point of reference. In the August 05(at least I think that's the issue, the one with the super sedan comparo; BTW - since when did the m3 come with four doors?), they have a short-take on the Magnum SRT8. It's got the 6.1 liter hemi. Granted, it's grossly overweight at 4400 lbs. But they quoted times of 5.1 in the 60, and 13.6 in the quarter. Almost exactly the same numbers as the IS in this article. I just can't believe that a lexus mid-displacement v6 can put down those times. Call me a skeptic. Or ignorant. I will NOT believe those figures until I see actual timeslips, with related atmo. conditions.

Now here's my issue. I just stated plain and simply that I don't believe the published figures. Conversely, I don't readily believe that C&D is deliberately skewing the metrics. So if the numbers are just plain wrong, and there's no money-related conpiracy going on, then what the hell is?

 

So, any solid proof of real-world pricing? Keep in mind that there is an IS 250 as well. I could see this being in the low 30's, with the 350 being 10K more. My G was under $32K. I'll use that 10K to feed/clothe her over the next few years!

 

You can't expect the G to be the best car for ever. The Lexus and the BMW are both BRAND NEW redesigns, while the G is an older model.

I highly doubt the Lexus did the numbers it did, I'm sure it's faster than the G...but not THAT MUCH FASTER!

All in all, this is great for the consumer (us)...can't wait to see Infiniti's response with their next Generation G..I know it's going to be SICK!