rodH

iTrader: (2)

these are magazine times so take them for what they are worth. I say that if times are within a few tenths, a race could go either way. Some say that mag times are bogus and that the drivers don't know how to drive and don't drive hard (which would make them get bad times on ALL cars, NOT just 1 particular car).

CAR and DRIVER..0-60...1/4...top speed

350Z (8/02)...................5.4...14.1...156MPH
Z28 (5/01).....................5.2...13.8...158
Mustang GT (9/02).........6.3...15.1...144
Boxster S(8/01).............5.3...13.9...155
Carerra 911(7/01).........5.5...14.0...168
Mach 1 (12/02)..............5.2...14.0...151
Mustang GT (5/01)........6.0...14.7...139
S2000 (10/99)...............5.8...14.4...147



MOTOR TREND

MCoupe (12/98)...........5.4....13.8@101.4 (this is the 240HP)
Mroadster (2/00).........5.3...13.7@101 (240HP)
S4 ((12/99)..................5.5...14.1@98.3
Z28 SS (12/99)............5.3...13.7@105.6
S2000 (2/00)...............5.2...13.8@100.5
CLK55 (3/01)...............5.4...13.6@105
TA conv(6/00).............5.5...13.9@102
TA WS6(12/99)...........5.0...13.5@107.4
BoxsterS(2/00)...........5.8...14.3@98.8
911cab ((9/99)...........5.4...13.8@103.3
911 C4(7/99)..............5.0...13.4@104.3 (these are 296hp)
Camero SS (12/01)......5.2...13.5@107.3
Bullitt(8/01).................5.6...14.1@97.9
Mach1(12/02)..............5.3...13.8@102.5
SVT Cobra 01(12/01)...5.4...13.8@103.3
G35SC (11/02).............5.8...14.2@99.4
350Ztour(9/02)............5.49..13.95@102.25
350Ztour(9/02)............5.5...13.9@102.3
350Zenth(1/03)...........5.7...14.0@101.9
WRX(1/02)...................5.6...14.2@94.4
boxsterS(8/01).............5.4...13.9@100.4
911cab(8/02)...............5.5...13.9@104.8(Auto trans, 320hp)


ROAD and TRACK

S4(10/99)...................5.5...14.1..142top
Mcoupe240hp(10/98)..5.5...14.3...137
Mroadster240(9/00)....5.4...14.0...137
CameroSS (4/99).........5.5...13.9...160
VetteCAb(1/00)...........5.2...13.6...165
VetteC5(9/98)............5.3...13.6...170 (345hp)
SVTcobra(4/99)..........5.5...14.1...160 (320hp)
S2000(9/00)..............5.5....14.1...150
BoxsterS(9/00)..........5.6...14.0...161
Carerra4cab(7/99).....5.6...14.0...174 (296hp)
CLK55(2/01).............5.3...13.7...155
BoxsterS(S&GT)........5.7...14.4...164
350Z(9/02)...............5.6...14.2...155

I have NOT included cars that are waaaaay faster than teh Z, anything under 0-60 in 5 sec (NSX, 911s in thier fastest trim, M3s, z06, C5, new cobras, Cobra R, etc....)

the Z times seem to range from (in all the mags, multiple trims and tests) 5.4 (c&d), 5.4(?), 5.49(MT), 5.5(MT), 5.6(r&t), 5.7(MT-in poor conditon where even the S2000 got a 6.3), 5.8(R&T-in poor conditions where even the M3 smg got 4.9, 911 got 5.0, Z06 got 4.5).....IF ANYONE else has any published Z times, let me know and add it to the list


this list isn't to start an arguement, but just gives an idea where the Z stands with other cars.

rodH

iTrader: (2)

btw, NOT many tests on the Bullitt that I could find, and the Mach1 as well (the 5.2 time for the Mach1 is probably slow, considering the Z time and the S2000 time for that same test are very slow).

sukkoi19

GM High Tech Performance
2001 Camaro SS M6 12.91@108

Muscle Mustangs and Fast Fords
2003 Mach 1 M5 13.15@106

My Road and Track has the 350Z going 14.4.

Have we not been here before? Magazine times are not a good standard for comparison. Lack of time to learn driving technique, relative difficulty in terms of launch technique, varying tracks, dates, temperatures, drivers all significanlty impair the times achieved.

Also you are using the slowest time MT got for an SS, thier best is 13.5@107. In any case all times achieved by MT are an average, they make 10 runs then average them all and post that, the time that is posted is NOT the fastest time but an average of all times achieved.

Again magazine times suck dont use them I have proved it time and again with my own car my average of my most recent 10 passes is 13.3 with the best being 13.01 throw out all your magazine times and go to the track.

BTW who cares about 0-60 that is such a pointless comparison, in a race so many factors can effect your launch that I wouldnt even use that as a number at all, to me all that counts is trap speed and E.T. 0-60 is just to early in a race to determine anything IMO.

02silverstanger

Geeez were they drunk when they tested the GT or were they runnin automatic trannies...I have a manual and bone stock it did 0-60 in 5.6 seconds, give or take 1/10 of a second since I was using a stop watch....those times are DEFINITATELY way off at least where the GT is concerned Oh and the bullitt only came with 10 more HP, had the same gearing (it had mostely suspension mods), so there times should be real close...oh well just my 2 cents.....

Caswell

Holy mag racing Batman! Not trying to being a dick here, but posts like these need to stop. my350Z.com is getting a rep among other enthusiast boards for being a haven of mag racers.

Reasons mag racing sucks:
1.) Different drivers - Motor Trend alone has three different drivers for the purpose of testing vehicle performance. I'm sure the other publications keep a small stable of drivers around as well.

2.) Different tracks - Motor Trend stated they have a handfull of testing locations, and surface conditions vary between them. The other mags operate in a similar way.

3.) Different test procedures - some of those mags get their acceleration numbers on prepped strips with permanent timing equipment, others get them out on surfaces resembling the street with temporary on-board instrumentation.

4.) Different times of year - these numbers are spread out all over the calendar. We all know that weather plays a large effect in performance.

Now, if you figure each one of those reasons puts an error of +/- 0.1 second into their quarter mile times (we'll use quarter mile because we all care how fast our cars take off from a stoplight). That's a combined error or +/- 0.4 seconds in our little unscientific exercise. So we're talking about possible swings of almost a second in quarter mile acceleration tests. Don't think it's possible? MT was almost as bad in a couple seperate tests of the Z06.

Just put the mag down. If you want to find out where you stand in the auto pecking order, hit up your local strip, autoX, track day, or auto show and see how 'ya do.

mag racing real car guys

brandboZ28

Amen! Also, may I say that I believe the magazines said my car in 93 ran the 1/4 in 14.6 or so. Honestly, do you think it still runs a 14.6? I hope not. Just because MT or C&D says a stock car runs XX.xx doesnt mean that every car is stock. You can never tell what mods someone has so be careful what you pick on in your Z or ANY other car. Something just might bite you. No flaming, just throwing another factor out there.

ZFlyer

The only thing I like about the mags is the fact that you can see how many g's the cars pull through the skidpad, braking distance(which I've also seen some incosistancies), and how fast the cars ran the slalom.

-Bryan

rodH

iTrader: (2)

I credit those times more tham the Ford or Chevy specific mags, for COMPARISON reasons, not for the actual time (since at least they may have some similar standards when they tested the Z and all other cars, while other mags do it different.

btw, I don't car as much about 0-60 times as much as many, BUT we all know the Z kills those cars in the other performance catagories, so that was a given (whether it me the Mach1, s2000, 911targa, M3smg, EVERY comparo for track times has been very good to the Z)

rodH

iTrader: (2)

EVERYONE CHILL!!!

I did say that my purpose wasn't to take these times as FACTS, but ONLY to state that if someone in a Z says he beat someone in a GT )or other similar car) it actually COULD be possible, and on the flip side, if someone with a GT says he beat a Z, that could actuallu be possible as well, we know they can change with a few tenths of a second EITHER way (for ANYCAR).

btw, I have beat a GT, but it seems like when someone actually posts that on this board it ends up with 200 flame posts, I guess NOBODY will be pleased either way (mags-crappy drivers, personal races-no witnesses????)

brandboZ28

I believe you. As it has been said a million times, ANYTHING can happen on the street. The Z is proving fast that it is a worthy competitor and I look forward to many run-in's with them in the future.

984.6gt

C'mon guys I know we are not stuping as low as posting BS magazine times!! Give me a break, here is a REAL BREAKDOWN.

Mustang GT= 13.7-14.5
CamaroSS/Z28= 12.8-13.5
Bullitt= Same as GT
S2k= 13.8-15.0
350Z= 13.7-14.3
Trans Am= Same as SS/Z28
Cobra(99-01)= 13.3-14.0
Cobra(03)= 12.4-13.0
Z28/LT1= 13.7-14.0
Corvette/LS1= 12.7-13.4
Z06= 12.0-12.7
Viper= 11.8-12.5

There are the times in the real world, the faster times are for the best drivers, the slower ones are for the not so good drivers, anything slower out of these cars and you should not be driving at all, I have seen timeslips/videos that back up my times, I am sure the 350Z can probrally go 13.6, but I have yet to see it? Posting magazine times is the most RICER thing you can do, please don't do it anymore, it simly does not give cars any justice, those drivers SUCK ***.

sukkoi19

Amen Brothuh!!!

AKAkracker247

350Ztour(9/02)............5.49..13.95@102.25
350Ztour(9/02)............5.5...13.9@102.3
350Zenth(1/03)...........5.7...14.0@101.9

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever...The enthusiast is the lightest Z out of those cars. And of course they have the same engine...Kind of odd to me.

281cobra

I just want to comment on the 99 Cobra times of 5.5 to 0-60 and 14.1 time for the 1/4 mile. In 99 SVT advertised the hp rating for the Cobra at 320hp. As soon as the magazines started testing the car they started questioning the hp rating. Since the car was no faster than the 96-98 Cobra. Owners started taking their cars to the dyno and finding out the car was not putting out the advertised hp. Ford SVT knew they had a problem and to their credit started fixing the car.
The only reason the 99 Cobra had horsepower problems was because of a last minute change to the exhaust system because of gound clearance issues. Then on top of that Ford found out that the intake manifold had casting flask blocking the flow of air in the intake. SVT took care of these problems with the infamous fix. The fix consisted of new catback system, Extrude Honed intake and a reflash of the EEC-V computer. Some of the Cobra's without "the fix" were running anywhere from a low of 240-265 rwhp. I didn't get my car dyno before "the fix" but after the fix the car dyno at 286 rwhp. Which took it to a 13.5@104 mph and that was when the car was stock.

rodH

iTrader: (2)

OK, FINE!!

Moderators, can I ask you to delete or LOCK this thread, I didn't realize it would make me look like such an ***!! I guess I should NEVER buy a car magazine again and NEVER look at the times they get since they are Soooooo bogus and have NO clue how to drive.

Seriously LOCK this thing, I am tired of all the CRAP!!! apparently I am the STUPID one and should have NEVER done such a thing (in the mean time I will continue to read Clubsi and listen to all the Civic owners talk about how the beat a 360 Modena.)

DELETE or LOCK THIS ASAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

rodH

iTrader: (2)

could be tires or the condition (that is why I think the 1/4 is better to look at than the 0-60 times, since it gives the car more time to perform).

LOCK this thread!!

rodH

iTrader: (2)

in other words it could have been an accurate time, BUt it exposed a fault by FORD, this sure looks like a much bigger problem with FORD and NOT the magazines that tested the car.

281cobra

In a word "Yes". In the July 01 issue of Car and Driver tested a 2001 Cobra (same as the 99's) and pulled a 0-60 time of 4.8 and a 1/4 mile time of 13.5@ 105 mph. Knowing about the hp problem with the 99 Cobra's and thinking Ford had slipped them a ringer. They asked for a convertible to test and quietly took both cars to have them dynoed. Both cars put down the same RWHP numbers of 272 rwhp. So the cars were making the advertised hp ratings.

984.6gt

Dude, no big deal, just saying, I mean c'mon, magazine times are know to be wrong all the time, they tested the 03 Cobra to 13's, and it should be mid 12's, they actually tested the s2k to a 15 one time, they just don;t REALLY drive the cars, they granny shift big time, they don't really launch the car well, sometimes they only make one pass with the car, I mean, you tell me, the first day you got your Z's what do you think you could have run? In order to really find out what a car runs you really need to own it, or drive it on a daily basis, it takes LOTS of practice to get a cars FULL potenyial, and thses magazines just don't do it. The best way to find out times is to look at tuner magazines, they REALLY drive the cars HARD, that is where you will find the low 13 high 12 second LS1 times, and the 13 secong GT times, the 13 second S2K times, and soon you will see the MID 13 Second 350Z times, that brings me to a question, what magazine do you Nissan guys have? And if you have one what were their times for the Z?