C&D: 370Z auto - 0-60 4.6 - 1/4 13.1
C&D: 370Z auto - 0-60 4.6 - 1/4 13.1
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...take_road_test
2009 Nissan 370Z Automatic - Short Take Road Test
The 370Z that swaps its own gears might shift a few perceptions as well.
BY JARED GALL, PHOTOGRAPHY BY JORDAN BROWN AND PATRICK M. HOEY
April 2009
Chief among the benefits of working at Car and Driver—driving as a job responsibility, Platinum Elite status on Northwest Airlines, lunch at Buffalo Wild Wings on Wednesdays—is the fact that, when it comes time to debate test-car options, there’s no voice in the back of the room asking, “Hey, why don’t we get the automatic?” We are committed to the three-pedal manual. This sometimes feels like being the captain of the Titanic about an hour after meeting the iceberg, however, so we’re always on the lookout for automatics that can satisfy.
Hey, We Found One!
Cars that we already like are often the best place to start that search, which led us to the all-new 2009 Nissan 370Z. Although we would never call an automatic and one of our favorite sports cars a match made in heaven, this one at least seems made somewhere north of purgatory. For starters, the shift paddles are affixed to the steering column, meaning hands always know where to find them. Pull the left for downshifts and the right for upshifts. The shifter can also be used to effect gearchanges.
Moving the shifter to the left from D to manual mode puts the car in a sporting mind-set, with the paddles calling forth sharp, lightning-quick shifts that helped this car set the quickest acceleration times we’ve yet recorded from the new Z: 0 to 60 in 4.6 seconds and the quarter-mile in 13.1 at 108 mph, quicker by 0.2 and 0.3 second and 1 mph than our quickest manual car. With both the automatic and the do-it-yourself transmission, the 370Z is EPA rated at 18 mpg city/26 mpg highway. We saw 18 with the auto, down 1 mpg from the manual 370Z.
A pull on the left paddle nets a rev-matching downshift that will convince any bystander you are using both feet. The one negative we noted was a reluctance to crack off seamless multigear jumps. Call for a two-gear drop, and the engine briefly hangs up on the first before dropping into the second, sapping some of the joy and confidence from quick two-lane passes.
Aside from that hesitation, though, manually selected shifts feel so utterly natural that a passenger might not even notice your hands never leave the wheel as you chase the fast time through a winding backstretch. But they jolt the car so much that you really don’t want to shift for yourself while trundling around town, as there is no way to do so smoothly. Slide the shifter into D, and the car settles into commuting mode with slower and softer gearchanges.
How Many Shifts Would You Need to Reach Warp Speed?
Long ago, in a galaxy east of our Ann Arbor offices, automakers used to make two-speed automatics. But then bicycles started boasting 21 speeds, and car companies developed an inferiority complex. (That might not be the real reason.) Now we’re up to seven- and eight-speed automatics. Eight, we’ll say, are too many ratios unless you need to accelerate to 370 mph. Six are sufficient, and the seven cogs possessed by this Z might be the high end of the acceptable count, if not just past the apogee. Some staffers noted minor gear hunting from the seven-speed on the freeway, but the transmission is smooth enough to go unnoticed most of the time. And the 3.7-liter V-6’s 332 hp and 7500-rpm redline help to stretch the usefulness of each ratio.
The new Z is a great little car: powerful, riotously fun to drive, affordable, and flat-out gorgeous. Opting for the automatic—a $1300 upgrade—doesn’t pollute the experience much, and the slushbox’s character duality means it always behaves the way you want it to. We stand by our commitment to manuals, but if that ship were to sink, we wouldn’t much mind finding ourselves in this lifeboat.
VEHICLE TYPE: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 2-passenger, 2-door coupe
PRICE AS TESTED: $36,890 (base price: $31,950)
ENGINE TYPE: DOHC 24-valve V-6, aluminum block and heads, port fuel injection
Displacement: 226 cu in, 3696cc
Power (SAE net): 332 bhp @ 7000 rpm
Torque (SAE net): 270 lb-ft @ 5200 rpm
TRANSMISSION: 7-speed automatic with manumatic shifting
DIMENSIONS:
Wheelbase: 100.4 in Length: 167.2 in Width: 72.8 in Height: 51.9 in
Curb weight: 3368 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
Zero to 60 mph: 4.6 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 11.3 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 21.1 sec
Street start, 5–60 mph: 5.1 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 13.1 sec @ 108 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 156 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 161 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.91 g
FUEL ECONOMY:
EPA city/highway driving: 18/26 mpg
C/D observed: 18 mpg
The 370Z that swaps its own gears might shift a few perceptions as well.
BY JARED GALL, PHOTOGRAPHY BY JORDAN BROWN AND PATRICK M. HOEY
April 2009
Chief among the benefits of working at Car and Driver—driving as a job responsibility, Platinum Elite status on Northwest Airlines, lunch at Buffalo Wild Wings on Wednesdays—is the fact that, when it comes time to debate test-car options, there’s no voice in the back of the room asking, “Hey, why don’t we get the automatic?” We are committed to the three-pedal manual. This sometimes feels like being the captain of the Titanic about an hour after meeting the iceberg, however, so we’re always on the lookout for automatics that can satisfy.
Hey, We Found One!
Cars that we already like are often the best place to start that search, which led us to the all-new 2009 Nissan 370Z. Although we would never call an automatic and one of our favorite sports cars a match made in heaven, this one at least seems made somewhere north of purgatory. For starters, the shift paddles are affixed to the steering column, meaning hands always know where to find them. Pull the left for downshifts and the right for upshifts. The shifter can also be used to effect gearchanges.
Moving the shifter to the left from D to manual mode puts the car in a sporting mind-set, with the paddles calling forth sharp, lightning-quick shifts that helped this car set the quickest acceleration times we’ve yet recorded from the new Z: 0 to 60 in 4.6 seconds and the quarter-mile in 13.1 at 108 mph, quicker by 0.2 and 0.3 second and 1 mph than our quickest manual car. With both the automatic and the do-it-yourself transmission, the 370Z is EPA rated at 18 mpg city/26 mpg highway. We saw 18 with the auto, down 1 mpg from the manual 370Z.
A pull on the left paddle nets a rev-matching downshift that will convince any bystander you are using both feet. The one negative we noted was a reluctance to crack off seamless multigear jumps. Call for a two-gear drop, and the engine briefly hangs up on the first before dropping into the second, sapping some of the joy and confidence from quick two-lane passes.
Aside from that hesitation, though, manually selected shifts feel so utterly natural that a passenger might not even notice your hands never leave the wheel as you chase the fast time through a winding backstretch. But they jolt the car so much that you really don’t want to shift for yourself while trundling around town, as there is no way to do so smoothly. Slide the shifter into D, and the car settles into commuting mode with slower and softer gearchanges.
How Many Shifts Would You Need to Reach Warp Speed?
Long ago, in a galaxy east of our Ann Arbor offices, automakers used to make two-speed automatics. But then bicycles started boasting 21 speeds, and car companies developed an inferiority complex. (That might not be the real reason.) Now we’re up to seven- and eight-speed automatics. Eight, we’ll say, are too many ratios unless you need to accelerate to 370 mph. Six are sufficient, and the seven cogs possessed by this Z might be the high end of the acceptable count, if not just past the apogee. Some staffers noted minor gear hunting from the seven-speed on the freeway, but the transmission is smooth enough to go unnoticed most of the time. And the 3.7-liter V-6’s 332 hp and 7500-rpm redline help to stretch the usefulness of each ratio.
The new Z is a great little car: powerful, riotously fun to drive, affordable, and flat-out gorgeous. Opting for the automatic—a $1300 upgrade—doesn’t pollute the experience much, and the slushbox’s character duality means it always behaves the way you want it to. We stand by our commitment to manuals, but if that ship were to sink, we wouldn’t much mind finding ourselves in this lifeboat.
VEHICLE TYPE: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 2-passenger, 2-door coupe
PRICE AS TESTED: $36,890 (base price: $31,950)
ENGINE TYPE: DOHC 24-valve V-6, aluminum block and heads, port fuel injection
Displacement: 226 cu in, 3696cc
Power (SAE net): 332 bhp @ 7000 rpm
Torque (SAE net): 270 lb-ft @ 5200 rpm
TRANSMISSION: 7-speed automatic with manumatic shifting
DIMENSIONS:
Wheelbase: 100.4 in Length: 167.2 in Width: 72.8 in Height: 51.9 in
Curb weight: 3368 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS
Zero to 60 mph: 4.6 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 11.3 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 21.1 sec
Street start, 5–60 mph: 5.1 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 13.1 sec @ 108 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 156 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 161 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.91 g
FUEL ECONOMY:
EPA city/highway driving: 18/26 mpg
C/D observed: 18 mpg
that was already posted here: https://my350z.com/forum/2009-370z/4...eleration.html
BTW, that 13.1 1/4 mile time wasn't even done on a track.
BTW, that 13.1 1/4 mile time wasn't even done on a track.
Originally Posted by SOLO-350Z
Just a FYI. C&D uses a GTECH type of device. They did not take it to the dragstrip. And you know how those devices are. Let's wait and see people actually at the dragstrip before saying C&D actually beat it.
Originally Posted by S8ER95Z
This man is in fact correct...they use Vbox which isn't the same as a timeslip from a sanctioned track (though I am sure it could be close).. they also auto correct all track times to account for weather (so ~0 DA)...
Last edited by NISMO_558; Apr 28, 2009 at 12:31 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
From: Virginia
I think C/D numbers have gotta be bs. they have a review now showing an Audi TTS clocking a 4.8 0-60 time.....with 265hp and 258 lb-ft. With a weight not too far off from the 370, that sounds totally bogus.
Registered User
iTrader: (3)
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,447
Likes: 0
From: Rapid City, SD Ellsworth AFB
Trending Topics
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 795
Likes: 0
From: Oz
they use Vbox which isn't the same as a timeslip
If they're using VBOX, then you can't get much more accurate than that. VBOX uses 10Hz GPS signal to measure the speed ... it does not get much better than this device. It's pretty much a data logger like what race teams use.
http://www.racelogic.co.uk/?show=VBOX
they also auto correct all track times to account for weather
Though, if they do that, then that takes away any credibility from the numbers that they managed :-(
If they're using VBOX, then you can't get much more accurate than that. VBOX uses 10Hz GPS signal to measure the speed ... it does not get much better than this device. It's pretty much a data logger like what race teams use.
http://www.racelogic.co.uk/?show=VBOX
they also auto correct all track times to account for weather
Though, if they do that, then that takes away any credibility from the numbers that they managed :-(
Last edited by DavidM; Apr 30, 2009 at 01:23 AM.
New Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 849
Likes: 0
From: Quad Cities
they use Vbox which isn't the same as a timeslip
If they're using VBOX, then you can't get much more accurate than that. VBOX uses 10Hz GPS signal to measure the speed ... it does not get much better than this device. It's pretty much a data logger like what race teams use.
http://www.racelogic.co.uk/?show=VBOX
they also auto correct all track times to account for weather
Though, if they do that, then takes away any credibility from the numbers that they managed :-(
If they're using VBOX, then you can't get much more accurate than that. VBOX uses 10Hz GPS signal to measure the speed ... it does not get much better than this device. It's pretty much a data logger like what race teams use.
http://www.racelogic.co.uk/?show=VBOX
they also auto correct all track times to account for weather
Though, if they do that, then takes away any credibility from the numbers that they managed :-(
The Autocorrection thing was a big turnoff for me on the times as well. 
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 795
Likes: 0
From: Oz
While it might be accurate it will still produce slightly different results than a 1/4 track would using it's timing equipment
I'd go as far as to say that the times from VBOX will be more accurate. Still, agree with you that comparing them to dragstrip numbers is difficult if you don't know if the C&D used 1" roll-out like they do on a dragstrip. If they did not, then the time could be abother ~0.3sec or so quicker when measured with the 1" rool-out.
And with their 'correction' they're can't be compared to anything really.
Would like to know what times C&D managed before they applied their 'correction'. Not sure why they would do that ... might as well punch the car stats into a computer (ie. cartest) and let the simulator predict an optimal time. What's of interst is what times they actually clocked.
I'd go as far as to say that the times from VBOX will be more accurate. Still, agree with you that comparing them to dragstrip numbers is difficult if you don't know if the C&D used 1" roll-out like they do on a dragstrip. If they did not, then the time could be abother ~0.3sec or so quicker when measured with the 1" rool-out.
And with their 'correction' they're can't be compared to anything really.
Would like to know what times C&D managed before they applied their 'correction'. Not sure why they would do that ... might as well punch the car stats into a computer (ie. cartest) and let the simulator predict an optimal time. What's of interst is what times they actually clocked.
New Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 849
Likes: 0
From: Quad Cities
While it might be accurate it will still produce slightly different results than a 1/4 track would using it's timing equipment
I'd go as far as to say that the times from VBOX will be more accurate. Still, agree with you that comparing them to dragstrip numbers is difficult if you don't know if the C&D used 1" roll-out like they do on a dragstrip. If they did not, then the time could be abother ~0.3sec or so quicker when measured with the 1" rool-out.
And with their 'correction' they're can't be compared to anything really.
Would like to know what times C&D managed before they applied their 'correction'. Not sure why they would do that ... might as well punch the car stats into a computer (ie. cartest) and let the simulator predict an optimal time. What's of interst is what times they actually clocked.
I'd go as far as to say that the times from VBOX will be more accurate. Still, agree with you that comparing them to dragstrip numbers is difficult if you don't know if the C&D used 1" roll-out like they do on a dragstrip. If they did not, then the time could be abother ~0.3sec or so quicker when measured with the 1" rool-out.
And with their 'correction' they're can't be compared to anything really.
Would like to know what times C&D managed before they applied their 'correction'. Not sure why they would do that ... might as well punch the car stats into a computer (ie. cartest) and let the simulator predict an optimal time. What's of interst is what times they actually clocked.
It's the number desperity that makes these magazines lose credibility to me. That's why I like GMHTP, MM&FF, and the other magazines that just rent the local dragstrip and post up the times. Easy to compare to your own slips from a track and no 'calculations' or 'corrections'. 
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
From: Austin, TX
I will agree with you there man.. not sure why they do these things to themselves... I busted Motortrend out a few years back when they tested the SRT4 and Cobalt SS (Joysticks I think it was called)... they were 'calculating' some of the times and miscalculated... ended up with one car taking 14 seconds 0 - 100 yet running 13.8 @ 103mph in the 1/4 mile... It's the number desperity that makes these magazines lose credibility to me. That's why I like GMHTP, MM&FF, and the other magazines that just rent the local dragstrip and post up the times. Easy to compare to your own slips from a track and no 'calculations' or 'corrections'.
It's the number desperity that makes these magazines lose credibility to me. That's why I like GMHTP, MM&FF, and the other magazines that just rent the local dragstrip and post up the times. Easy to compare to your own slips from a track and no 'calculations' or 'corrections'. Dragstrips have ROLL OUT.
The 0-100 was just that ZERO to 100. From a standstill to 100. At a dragstrip, if you shallow stage you can have an entire foot of free time/mph. A fast car can easily get to 5mph within this foot so they're essentially starting their run at 5mph with a strong launch. Thus it's very possible that they can get 13.8@103 with roll out vs 14.0 to 100 without.
I will say that I appreciate when magazines state on every metric whether it is or is without roll-out. It's particularly important with 0-60 since rollout is good for .2-.4 seconds which makes a big difference. 4.8 sounds a lot faster than 5.2, etc. I'm starting to see this mentioned more often.
However, per your comment, Motortrend's testing isn't broken, you just don't understand how testing is done.
New Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 849
Likes: 0
From: Quad Cities
Dude you're retarded, I hope Motortrend wrote you a nice letter back that put you in your place.
Dragstrips have ROLL OUT.
The 0-100 was just that ZERO to 100. From a standstill to 100. At a dragstrip, if you shallow stage you can have an entire foot of free time/mph. A fast car can easily get to 5mph within this foot so they're essentially starting their run at 5mph with a strong launch. Thus it's very possible that they can get 13.8@103 with roll out vs 14.0 to 100 without.
I will say that I appreciate when magazines state on every metric whether it is or is without roll-out. It's particularly important with 0-60 since rollout is good for .2-.4 seconds which makes a big difference. 4.8 sounds a lot faster than 5.2, etc. I'm starting to see this mentioned more often.
However, per your comment, Motortrend's testing isn't broken, you just don't understand how testing is done.
Dragstrips have ROLL OUT.
The 0-100 was just that ZERO to 100. From a standstill to 100. At a dragstrip, if you shallow stage you can have an entire foot of free time/mph. A fast car can easily get to 5mph within this foot so they're essentially starting their run at 5mph with a strong launch. Thus it's very possible that they can get 13.8@103 with roll out vs 14.0 to 100 without.
I will say that I appreciate when magazines state on every metric whether it is or is without roll-out. It's particularly important with 0-60 since rollout is good for .2-.4 seconds which makes a big difference. 4.8 sounds a lot faster than 5.2, etc. I'm starting to see this mentioned more often.
However, per your comment, Motortrend's testing isn't broken, you just don't understand how testing is done.
http://motortrend.automotive.com/847...ecs-price.html
-----------------Cobalt SS---------------------SRT4-----
0-100:-------------15.4------------------------13.8-----
1/4:----------14.4 sec @ 99.3-----------14.4 sec @ 100.8
They responded in the front of the magazine...
I guess fortunately for me they didn't think I was stupid.
Last edited by S8ER95Z; Apr 30, 2009 at 08:13 AM.
