CNET - http://reviews.cnet.com/2007_Infinit...5.html?tag=txt - has a 10/26 review of the G35, with an emphasis on the technology. They gave it an 8.7/10 rating, "Excellent." It should be added to the reviews sticky.

 

Wow - so much for the 10% efficiency gain over the previous generation:

"Unfortunately, this is not an economical engine. One handy screen on the LCD shows fuel economy, instantaneously and over time. The only times we could keep the mileage consistently over 20mpg was by going downhill. Even in sixth gear on the freeway we couldn't keep it over 20mpg. The EPA rating for the manual-transmission G35 is 19mpg city and 27mpg on the highway, but our overall observed economy was 16.4mpg. "

That's about all I can get out of my current G also.

I've scheduled to take a '07 home for the day/night later on this week or next so we'll see what this vehicle has in store. Hope it's impressive as it seems...

 

Sounds like the electronics may not be as intuitive as we were hoping either.

 

i think the final drive is increased, which lowers fuel economy and offsets the increased engine efficiency but helps to provide the amazing 0-60 time

 

i said this before and everyone laughed at me...well who's laughing now? this is a big problem.

 

Pricing as quoted in the article is a little bit off .....

Premium pkg is $2350 (not $2850) and the sun roof is included (NOT an additional $1k)

So, the car's as tested price should be: 32250+2350 = 34,600 (not 36,100 as stated)
So its even more value for the $$

 

My combined fuel economy for a 2004 FX35 is 17mpg, so I'm calling bull**** on CNET's rating. They don't review cars anyway, all they analyze is technology (and poorly at that) so their reviews mean absolutely nothing to me.

 

I agree. Even on previously model, Car and Driver had a combined of 18+mpg even in "spirited driving".

After reading this article, I then checked out their review of the IS350. The article praised the IS350 for "good and precise steering feedback". Well, it kind of show they don't know much of driving.

 

Even if they are correct regarding the fuel economy, it is a non-issue for me. I am not expecting super great fuel efficiency out of a 306HP 3500lb Sedan......if I wanted 40mpg I would of bought a Civic.

 

^+1 ...

It would have been interesting to see the reactions if the new G was super fuel efficient but was a dog in terms of acceleration.
I am sure the reviews would state something like what you said .....
"If we cared about fuel economy, we would get a Civic .... give us a fast car"

LOL

 

The bad: It's difficult to find satellite radio stations with the car's interface, and the Bluetooth cell phone integration can be operated only by voice command. Gas mileage isn't particularly good.

What do they mean by the BT comment? Because when I paired my K750i with the BT, I was able to make/accept calls just fine using the touchscreen.

 

LOL, I agree. The smile on my face when driving my new G will remind me why I bought this car and not a car that saves me a few bucks at the pump. If Infiniti rates my G at 27 mpg highway and I only get 25 mpg, no big deal really.

 

CNET sucks, period.

 

It reads to me like they were basing the fuel economy on the car computer only both while driving and on the final analysis. It's quite possible that method is not providing an accurate measurement compared to a fill and calculate.

Their numbers were so far off it doesn't sound realistic at all.

 

In another audio interface foible, MP3 and WMA CDs can be navigated only from folder to folder, with no ID3 information, such as album or artist, displayed on the search screen. The system will show a static display of ID3 information, but only when a button labeled Text is selected.

I found this quote funny:

The only times we could keep the mileage consistently over 20mpg was by going downhill.