I used to own an M3 and its credentials were 240hp and 232 lbs of torque if I can remember. People were able to pull 14.0 and 13.9 quarter mile times with the right tire pressure. The car weighed in at about 3200 to 3300 lbs. I ordered a 350Z and in no way am I believing that it does the quarter in 14.1. This my friend's is not possible. Think about it... At least 47 more hp and 40 more lbs of torque....You do the math. With an excellent driver I expect this car to mid 13's.

 

I agree, I would think you will see some stock 13.6-13.8 times....

 

It won't be mid 13, but it will be high 13's.

I think we should be able to pull 13.8..etc.

 

If you had a 96 to 99 M3 your car had closer to 260hp and not 240hp.

 

You are absolutely wrong. the car was a 3.2 liter with 240 hp and 246 lbs of torque. Do your research. I owned the car.

 

I own one right now. The 95 M3 was a 3.0L rated at 240hp and 225lb/ft. In 96 they increased the displacement to 3.2L and the TQ increase to 246, but the did not change the HP rating for insurance purposes. The 96-99 M3's make more power at the wheels than the 95. Usually over 250hp at the crank.

 

Wew boys settle down

 

I'm under the impression that both the 0-60 time and the 1/4 mile time/speed are numbers that Nissan gave out to the press and aren't the acctual test results of Car and Driver.

For instance, remember when the Q45 first came out? A buncha magazines were reporting that it did 0-60 in 5.9 seconds even though none of them had yet tested it. That was because that's what Nissan had told them in their Q45 press kit. When they acctualy got to test the Q though it ended up being slower then what Nissan had claimed. Then when they reviewed the Q they all made a point to talk about how it performed well under Nissan claims.

I think because of this a lot of magazines (C&D excluded) are now chosing not to print Nissan's claimed performance figures and instead simply waiting untill they get a chance to really flog a production 350Z and run their own tests before printing any such numbers.

 

I never saw anyone get mad at someone saying their car had more horsepower than they thought.

C&D reported the Z dropped a 14.1 @ 101 quarter, and those numbers don't actually jive with each other. Either 101 is right, and its a 13.8 car, or 14.1 is right, and its about a 98 trap. My estimation is that the Z is a 13.8@101 car. Someone could do the ol' GT3 test (after all, how'd they know the car would have 287HP before Christmas).

 

The 96-99 M3's have more displacement (3.2L) and use the OBDII Computer, while the 95's have a 3.0L displacement.

They both create the same amount of HP. The 96-99 are a bit more torquey down low but still create the same power.

I dont know where you got the 250hp .. but that is just false.

 

My friend has a 99 M3, with a Dinan chip. The conditions were 92 degrees with high humidity, and he dynoed at 206whp and 211wheel ft-lbs of torque. If the conditions were a bit better, I think his numbers would have been slightly better.

 

More proof C&D drivers suck: They pulled a 12.9@111mph for the 03 Cobra a few months ago..

Then, a couple of weeks ago this message was posted on a viper forum : STOCK 03 Cobra runs 12.3@118mph

So have faith, the 350Z by no doubt will be a 13second car!

 

I don't ask for much, all I want is 13.99999999999.....

 

Dyno a 95 and a 97 side by side.

 

I have seen 14.1 sec at 98 mph WRX and also 14.0 at 103 MPH NSX. So it is possible to get a wide range of trap speeds for a given time.