DavidM

Check out the latest copy of Motor mag for a comparo of their (long termer) Zed against the new Alfa GT. The numbers they managed were:

350Z:
- 0-100kph = 6.41sec
- 400m = 14.44 @ 159.6kph

Alfa GT:
- 0-100kph = 6.78sec
- 400m = 15.22 @ 153.3kph

Suprisingly the Zed was no quicker than the Alfa GT between 60 and 130kph (they did not publish numbers going any highrer). Still over 400m the Zed won by ~33meters (ie. 7 - 8 car-lengths) ... not sure how that happens when they accelerated (according totheir numbers) the same from 60 - 130kph. Either the GT literally 'dies' over 130kph, or it just gets out-launched by many, many car-lengths (which is hard to believe .... maybe 2).

Also they took their long-termer Zed to a 'cone dodging' driving course so a good 350Z coverage this month.

ps.
Besides the Zed, the have an awesome comparo from the 'Auto Motor und Sport' mag where they compare the Carrera GT, Enzo, SLR Mercedes, Murchielago, Bentleigh GT, and DB9.

KY350

I have not read the article yet (will buy the mag tomorrow) but I am highly suspicious of Motor times.

Fistly, according to Motor, the Z only runs a best of 14.37s 1/4 mile, according to their published best time. If that is the best they can do then quite frankly they cannot drive. On my very first 1/4 mile run in my life, I cut a mid 14s run and I screwed the start and hit the rev limiter. I consider myself to be only average at launching and I cut consistent 14.0x - 14.1x quarters in my completely stock Z. Motor have had the Z as a long term vehicle so they cannot hide behind the excuse that the Z is new to them and they have not figured out how to launch it properly (give me a car that I can abuse and I will show you how to launch it properly within 24hrs).

Secondly, how can the Alfa GT stick with the Z from 2nd to the top of 3rd? If it could do that then it would also stick with the Z through 4th, unless the Alfas 4th gear is equivalent to the Z's 5th gear. I cannot comprehend how the Z can put 2 BUSLENGHTS on the Alfa in 4th gear????
If the Z outlaunches the Alfa by say 2 car lengths (ie 1st gear), then the Alfa must be accelerating extremely hard in 2nd and 3rd to stop the Z's pull (which I cannot believe). So what gives??? I may have to visit an Alfa forum to find out.

Finally, check out the times for the EVO 8 from the BFYB contest. They manage a 13.84s 1/4 mile run, only 2/10th better than my stock Z. What bullcrap!!!!!
The EVO8 will outlaunch me by a minimum of 4/10ths, and as it is as quick as DavidM's exhaust and filter modded Z, it should pull another 2 - 3/10ths to the 400m marker. So by my calculations, the EVO8 should be a MINIMUM of 6/10ths faster than my stock Z, that is it should be cutting 13.4s quaters as an average time.
Well, looking at the Motor times for both the Z and the EVO8, the difference is about 0.6s, so I can safely draw the conclusion that they cannot drive either cars anywhere near their potential.

I am tempted to write then a letter and ask them for a please explain on the Alfa v Z 1/4 mile times if I cannot find a clear explanation in the article.

DavidM

Fistly, according to Motor, the Z only runs a best of 14.37s 1/4 mile, according to their published best time. If that is the best they can do then quite frankly they cannot drive.

I'm not about to defend Motor staffers accelerative skills (especialy after low Galargo numbers from PCOTY), but they do not publish the best time, but an 'average' time. What kind of 'average' is depends on the test, but usually Motor publish an avegrage of their 2 best runs in each direction. Also Motor (and Wheels) always run with 2 people on board (there's another couple 10th).

I'd love it if they published the 'best time'along with the average so that you can draw some conclusion about consistancy.

Secondly, how can the Alfa GT stick with the Z from 2nd to the top of 3rd?

I don't understand that myself, but it is odd that in the article they make a point of saying how much quicker the 350Z is at any speeds, any gear, and any revs. That does not match the numbers they published. I'm supsicious that these 2 cars were not 'clocked' at the same time as these exaclt same numbers were mentioned for the Zed in the 'long termer' report last month.

If the Z outlaunches the Alfa by say 2 car lengths (ie 1st gear), then the Alfa must be accelerating extremely hard in 2nd and 3rd to stop the Z's pull (which I cannot believe).

Here's a but more info on the numbers. To 60kph the Zed was 1sec quicker, but then this gap remained at 1sec all the way to 130kph. So if you went by that then you would think that the Zed will out-launch the Alfa by a good magring. Though, if you punched if from a rolling start then the Alfa would stay with you. I find that hard to swallow as the two cars weight (roughly) the same, but the Zed has extra 30kW and 60Nm on the Alfa .... that is a significant advantage.

then it would also stick with the Z through 4th, unless the Alfas 4th gear is equivalent to the Z's 5th gear.

The gearing for the Alfa and the Zed is practically identically through the first 4 gears, but the Alfa has a little bit more revs to play with as it revs to 7000rpm. That does make the Alfa's gearing a fraction shorter, but not significanly enough to make any real difference.

so I can safely draw the conclusion that they cannot drive either cars anywhere near their potential.

It's strange how they 'squeeze' numbers out of the cars. I remember when the (current) M3 came out, both the local mags were clocking it in 6.1 - 6.2 to 100kph and very low 14s over 400m. Then a few tests later they are in 5.7 - 5.8 range to 100kph, and high 13s over 400m. Now they are in low to mid 5s to 100kph and 13.5s in every single test. So over time they 'improved' by good 1sec to 100kph and good 0.6sec over 400m.

I would not be surprised to see the EVO8 numbers drop to mid 13s over 400m over the next year as they test it more. Though, that 'improvement' thing does not seem to always happen, and it's not always gradual. Take the S2000 for an example. First couple local tests had it clocked in 6.6 - 6.8sec to100kph, then the next couple at 7.2 to 7.6sec to100khp. Then it was quiete for a year or so and next thing you know they got 6.3sec out of it.

I'm sure that the conditions must have a very large part on the acceleration numbers they publish and that is where a lot of the variance comes from. I know from experience that some day there is a lot of grip 'out there', and some day very little. There are days where I cannot make a 1st-to-2nd gear-change slow enough to limit the wheel-spin that follows. That must loose a lot of time. Those days even the 2nd-to-3rd gear-change must sap at least a couple 10th from the time as there's just too much wheel-spin (or slow shift).

I am tempted to write then a letter and ask them for a please explain on the Alfa v Z 1/4 mile times if I cannot find a clear explanation in the article.

You should as I'd be interested to see what they say as well. Motor have archives of the speed-vs-distance-vs-time plots from every run so just by reading those you could tell exactly what/where is happening. I wish I could get my hands on those (and that is for any/every test).

KY350

Bought the mag today and read the article. The journos really do like the Z as a drivers car. Love this line from the article "on a windy road in this company the GT gets absolutely snotted".

Also Motor (and Wheels) always run with 2 people on board (there's another couple 10th).

I thought it was just Wheels that ran with 2 on board and Motor with a driver only, but if they both run 2 on board, the the times would probably blow out by 2/10ths.

I'm supsicious that these 2 cars were not 'clocked' at the same time as these exaclt same numbers were mentioned for the Zed in the 'long termer' report last month

Well if these numbers were pulled at the same time, you got to applaud Motor for their consistancy, getting the exact same results from the Z on 2 seperate occasions.

The middle of winter is not a great time to record the cars 0-100 and 400m times as it takes a lot to get some heat into the tyres and get good times out of the respective cars. Read the quote from one of the captions on a photo "You lie on the cold wet grass in the howling subzero gale". If its 0 degrees, good luck getting traction, not to mention the possibilty of driving into the gale to record the times, even if they are averaged in both directions.

To 60kph the Zed was 1sec quicker, but then this gap remained at 1sec all the way to 130kph.

I don't put too much creedence in the 0-60km/h times. The GT to 50km/h was only approx 0.5s slower than the Z and to 60km/h, that time blew out to a full 1s behind the Z. I suspect a gear change in the GT between 50 and 60km/h gave that result and the published time difference between the 2 cars would not be a true indication of the distance between them at that moment in time.

However, if you look at the times to go from 70-90km/h ( these speeds eliminate the requirement for a gearchange in either car) , the Z takes 1.73s and the Alfa takes 1.47s, so the GT must have a strong 2nd gear.

Anyway, after reading the article, I appreciate the capabilities of my Z compared to some of the other sporting marques products.

DavidM

Bought the mag today and read the article. The journos really do like the Z as a drivers car.

Yeah, I was a bit surprised to hear all those praises for the Zed. If they did not publish the numbers you would have thought that they compared the Zed to a Corolla. Though, I do agree with their comment "best coupe bellow $100k" .... I'd go as far as to say "best coupe for less than $140k" ... what coupe can you get for that money that beats the Zed? Boxster S is the cheapest car I can think of and that is not technically a coupe.

thought it was just Wheels that ran with 2 on board and Motor with a driver only, but if they both run 2 on board

I am sure that both Motor and Wheels do their runs with 2 people on board ... I asked them that going back about 2 years. I know that they sometimes make exceptions, but not usually for regular comparos.

On the other hand Wheels goes further with the whole 'average' thing (if I remember correctly) as they drop the worst and best time that they manged and then average the rest.

The GT to 50km/h was only approx 0.5s slower than the Z and to 60km/h, that time blew out to a full 1s behind the Z. I suspect a gear change in the GT between 50 and 60km/h gave that result and the published time difference between the 2 cars would not be a true indication of the distance between them at that moment in time.

I am pretty sure that the first 4 gears in the Alfa reach pretty much the same speeds as in the Zed. Just going form memory the gears went something like 62kph, 97kph, 140kph and 180kph. I thought that the Alfa does over 60kph in the 1st gear, but I may be wrong ... I'll check. If the Alfa does not reach 60kph in 1st, then I'm sure that the 70 - 130kph will see both with one 1 gear-change. That increment was pretty much same with 6.39 for the Zed vs 6.57 for the Alfa. So even from 70 to130kph there was nothing between them ... 0.2sec difference is smaller than between for the one car on two different days.

if you look at the times to go from 70-90km/h ( these speeds eliminate the requirement for a gearchange in either car) , the Z takes 1.73s and the Alfa takes 1.47s, so the GT must have a strong 2nd gear.

Yeah, I noticed that as well, the Alfa looks quicker there according to their numbers. I find it odd as they are both in 2nd gear (which reach just under 100kph), they both weight about the same, but the Zed has extra 30kW and 60Nm of power. It does not add up and I'm having hard time taking those numbers at face value. Something is out of place here in particular when you look at the 400m times and trap-speed (which are both in a big favour of the Zed).

ps. Then again, I was dissapinted with my Zed when I got it in the 2nd gear increment ... it was certainly slower there than the S2000 as I found out when I lined up the R8. Maybe the Zed (somehow) has a 'hole' there?! I know that now (ie. with the exhaust) my Zed feels pretty strong there.

ZEXC-33

Wheels tested that same Alfa GT a week before and did a high 14 hmmmm

That article was gay. The RX8 beats the Z in COTY and the journo says the Z is a better car than the torqueless RX8 and rough Monaro (then it would have ranked higher in Motor's own COTY, and they wouldnt keep dissing its industrial engine noise, lack of smootness at high rpm and rough suspension in every RX8 comparo test).......such contradiction just goes to show how unprofessional, unknowledgable and biased these journos are.

The Alfas have awesome in gear acceleration. My 2.0L with a blip of the throttle thanks to the semi-manual will c off ALOT of bigger engined cars between 60 and 100kays.

When they tested the 350Z against the GTV 3.2L (same detuned 3.2 as the GT) the GTV was quicker than the Z IN THE WET over the 1/4 (15.1 for the Alfa and 15.2 for the Z)!!! and mauled it in in-gear acceleration (the higher the gear the bigger the gap, up to 2secs at times), yet the journo went on to say the Z was quicker in gear yet the performance figures over the page proved otherwise

These Aussie journos r *******

If u want a professional read, without a 10page feature on a new color Holden have released, grab some of the UK and Euro mags

scathing

Wheels' COTY bases reviews on different criteria to Motor's PCOTY system.

And in the last PCOTY, the 350Z outranks the RX-8.

KY350

The RX8 beats the Z in COTY and the journo says the Z is a better car than the torqueless RX8 and rough Monaro (then it would have ranked higher in Motor's own COTY, and they wouldnt keep dissing its industrial engine noise, lack of smootness at high rpm and rough suspension in every RX8 comparo test).......such contradiction just goes to show how unprofessional, unknowledgable and biased these journos are

The way I read that section, the journos were making a statement on how much better of a "performance" sports coupe the Z is against the RX8 (no torque / soft suspension for twisty roads) and the Monaro (crap gearchange / too heavy for linked tight corners). But in the COTY contest, things like bootspace, 4 seats, comfortable ride, build, refinement and other such niceeties that the Z lacks means that it fairs abismally in COTY judgement against RX8 et al.
Each article / comparison must be read in context, otherwise it is easy to interperate comments as contradictory.
It appears that the journos have finally come to accept the purpose of the Z as a focused drivers vehicle for enjoying mountain passes / track work, with a good balance of lowish weight, descent power, tight suspension and great steering that make it a strong competitor at short tight slowish circuits and faster sweeping circuits alike. I believe that the writers have finally accepted that the Z owner is a driving enthusiast that is aware of the cars shortcomings as a daily driver and accepts those deficiencies or drives a 2nd vehicle Mon-Fri. Unfortunately, in initiall comparisons when the Z was first available, the Z was assessed as an overall daily car, which was not the correct method of accessing a focused vehicle like the Z. After all, I dont see the Motor journos making disparaging remarks on the stiff ride / lack of bootspace etc of Porsches and Ferraris. The Z should have been assessed as a sports car first and foremost, but unfortunately, its relatively cheap price means that it is an affordable ride and is judged as a similarly priced affordable "means of conveyance" that most cars are.

The Alfas have awesome in gear acceleration. My 2.0L with a blip of the throttle thanks to the semi-manual will c off ALOT of bigger engined cars between 60 and 100kays

That expains the good times in 2nd gear achieved by the GT.

When they tested the 350Z against the GTV 3.2L (same detuned 3.2 as the GT) the GTV was quicker than the Z IN THE WET over the 1/4 (15.1 for the Alfa and 15.2 for the Z)!!!

I didn't read that article.
Did they leave TC / VDC on for the 1/4 mile runs. If so that would also explain the high times of the Z.
Also, I hypothesise that even if they left TC / VDC off, the Z would have been spinning something fierce at launch and during the first 3 gearchanges in the wet, resulting in slow times. Also, if the driver was easier on the gas at launch and shortshifted to limit wheelspin, that would still result in poor times.
I'd want to have brilliant wet weather handling tyres and not crap RE040's if I was to drive as hard as possible in the rain.

and mauled it in in-gear acceleration (the higher the gear the bigger the gap, up to 2secs at times), yet the journo went on to say the Z was quicker in gear yet the performance figures over the page proved otherwise

That is definately contradictory reporting - WTF was he thinking when he wrote that crap???

If u want a professional read, without a 10page feature on a new color Holden have released, grab some of the UK and Euro mags

There definately is a lot of Holden and Ford content in the local mags, but I guess that is reflective of the market here in Aust.
I don't buy the OS mags as they also report on cars that are not sold here. Also, UK and Euro spec cars may be different to the cars that are sold here by the same manufacturer, so the information may be missleading or not relevat to our market.

ZEXC-33

hahaha KY, if u think the 350Z was having trouble getting off the line with the rears spinning in the wet, how hard of a time do u think the front wheel drive GTV was having

I know what u mean about the different criteria, but its as if they were really dissing the RX8, when in every test they cant stop shouting superlatives, including the comparo with the yellow RX8 and silver Z.

Im over Motor and Wheels. Its intended audience can continue to wage war at pubs across Aus re who's ute does the 1/4 quickest, but from now on, every performance test and argumentative statement goes through me like mexican water through a first time tourist

DavidM

hahaha KY, if u think the 350Z was having trouble getting off the line with the rears spinning in the wet, how hard of a time do u think the front wheel drive GTV was having.

I agree with what KY350 said before in regards to this. The more power you have, the more disparity between the dry and wet times. Take aBarina for example - it'll probably accelerate just as quick in the wet as in the drybecause even in the wetit has more traction than power. On the other hand the 350Z does not have enough traction for it's power even in the dry, let alone wet. Giving the Zed even more power will probably make it even slowerin the wet.

I personaly sometimes notice the limitations of the grip under acceleration even in the dry. Going back a month or so, when it was really cold, I could brake traction in the 1st gear even once moving and at ~30kph.

Another thing that helps with wet-weather traction is soft suspension ... which the Zed does not have and hence it will work against its traction. So I'm not surpsied to see the Aalfa quicker in the wet .... I'd expect Astra Turbo to be quicker than both of them in those conditions.

AflaGT- ... I suspect a gear change in the GT between 50 and 60km/h

OK, I looked up the gearing for the Alfa, and there should have not been a gear-change before 60kph. It'sgearing (at cut-out of 7000rpm) is 62kph, 97kph, 141kph, 186kph, 221kph and 263kph for all of it's 6thgears respectively.

KY350

I agree with what KY350 said before in regards to this. The more power you have, the more disparity between the dry and wet times.

Both rwd and fwd powerful cars will struggle in the wet. The problem with the Afla attempting to accelerate in the wet is the massive torque steer that will hinder its launch.

OK, I looked up the gearing for the Alfa, and there should have not been a gear-change before 60kph. It'sgearing (at cut-out of 7000rpm) is 62kph, 97kph, 141kph, 186kph, 221kph and 263kph for all of it's 6thgears respectively.

I really cannot understand why the Alfa was a full second behing to 60 when it was only 0.5s behind to 50??? Perhaps the driver changed up to 2nd a smidge too early before the cutout.

DavidM

The problem with the Afla attempting to accelerate in the wet is the massive torque steer that will hinder its launch.

True, but I do recall them saying in the article, that the Alfa had a very nice traction control. Not that it will see it launched like a RWD, but it should help when/if implemented properly.

Perhaps the driver changed up to 2nd a smidge too early before the cutout.

I was thinking the same thing, but then also why was the difference to 100kph 1/2sec as well? The numbers don't seem to'add up' or make sence .... I would still love to know if they clocked the 2 cars at the same time/place.

ps.
Interesting that Wheels tested the Alfa GT the previous month, and managed a much better 400m time (14.8sec @ 159kph) as well as a very respectable 14.9sec 0-160kph time. 0-160kph in less than 15sec is pretty quick .... quicker than I would have thought that a 1410kg car with 176kW has a right to be.