You may want to double check those performance numbers.

Infiniti G37S sedan

C/D TEST RESULTS
60 mph: 5.4 sec
100 mph: 13.5 sec
1/4 mile: 14.0 @ 102 mph
Top speed: (governor limited) 155 mph
Braking, 70*–0 mph: 159 ft
Top speed : 155 mph
Lightning Lap: 317.5

Lexus ISF

C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 4.7 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 11.0 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 13.1 sec @ 110 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 169 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 159 ft
Lightning Lap: 305.4

They don't make the ISF anymore. Are you talking about the IS 500 F Sport?

 

I really like the truck and I am not a truck guy. We keep selling out of them. "Long in the tooth?" It was completely redone last year. The previous generation was definitely long in the tooth as it ran from 2005 to 2021. The crazy thing is that it still greatly outsold the Titan that went through almost 3 different generations during the same time.

You are right about dependability though. The Nissan VQ V6 that is used in any Nissan with a V6- Murano, Frontier, Pathfinder, Maxima, (previously Z & G37) is the most award winning V6 on the market today. I have a technician that just sold his old Frontier to his dad with 526,000 miles on it!?! The engine and transmission internals are still stock.

 

I always go by this article's review of the RWD 7AT G37S as it was the one that made me want to trade my 2004.5 G35S in for a 20013 G37S: https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/2...37-sedan-test/

0-60 is right around 5 secs flat for the G37S. This was written back when the trade rags were excited about Infiniti.

MT has the newer IS350 at 5.7 secs, despite having 10+ ft/lbs more torque. Guessing that most would not be able to notice the difference.

F Sport reference was regarding the "F Sport Performance Exhaust" that can be ordered as an option on the new IS350: https://parts.lexus.com/p/Lexus_2022...TR0353210.html

ISF was an 8 cyl back in 2012. Apples to oranges, so I was mistaken quoting the V-6 performance comparison. The older ISF (almost impossible to find used) is more akin to the new IS500, which I really like.

My understanding is that the Frontier changed sheetmetal and ammenities in 2022, but stuck with the same platform (chasis/4WD, motor from 2020 and carried over 9AT).

I could be mistaken as I do not follow trucks closely anymore and I probably let Doug's review here influence some of my opinions:

 

I really like the engine and look of the IS 500 F Sport performance, but the brakes, handling, tires (and probably transmission) could all be a lot better. Probably a step backward from the ISF, but I cannot confirm because I have yet to drive an ISF. However, I do not like the looks/tech. of the ISF as much as the IS 500 F Sport performance. I think it would be easier to get a new IS 500 F and upgrade it, but it would also be a lot more expensive.

The Frontier was all new in 2022. Maybe they kept some structural elements in the fully boxed truck frame, but the entire cab, box, and all the new tech and safety features first debuted in 2022. They upgraded the engine to get about an extra 50 hp and upgraded from a 5 speed to 9 speed transmission the year before in the old truck. Looking back that is a rather smart way to get real world testing done for durability before you release an all new vehicle.

 

Cool. In all my years as a G enthusiast (and MT subscriber) I never saw that particular test. Those are the best published #s I ever recall seeing for a G37, especially an auto. Definitely outliers IMO, but still cool.

 

For the last dozen years, I've always thought of the G as a 5.0 second car and 13.5 in the quarter mile. Figure that's about right. Easily a few tenths less when geared, modded and tuned.



What kind of freaked me out recently was reading about the performance stats of the Mustang EcoBoost. For decades the entry level engine in the Mustang has been crap, but not anymore apparently. (Although it still sounds like crap.)

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a4...leration-test/

 

I always benchmarked the G closer to what 4dr posted.

The ecoboost Mustang is solid. Perspective: a fox body 5.0 did mid/high 14s

 

I call bullsh-t on those numbers the car magazines publish because they aren't really the numbers they get in real life. Some do atmospheric correction, and other stuff, to get low numbers so the ones they publish are the numbers they ASSUME the car would get at sea level. I always trust Consumer Reports numbers because they publish numbers they actually got in real life. I have an IPL and I struggle to get anywhere close to 5 seconds 0-60.
https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-cul...60-tests-work/
https://www.hagerty.com/media/videos...cammisa-ep-03/

These are Consumer Reports numbers.

G37 Convertible
0 TO 30 MPH
2.4 sec.
0 TO 60 MPH
6.0 sec.
45 TO 65 MPH
4.3 sec.
QUARTER-MILE
14.4 sec. / 100 mph

G37 Sedan
0 TO 30 MPH
2.4 sec.
0 TO 60 MPH
5.6 sec.
45 TO 65 MPH
3.8 sec.
QUARTER-MILE
14.1 sec. / 104 mph

2007 G35X Sedan
0 TO 30 MPH
2.3 sec.
0 TO 60 MPH
5.6 sec.
45 TO 65 MPH
3.8 sec.
QUARTER-MILE
14.2 sec. / 101 mph

G25
0 TO 30 MPH
3.2 sec.
0 TO 60 MPH
8.5 sec.
45 TO 65 MPH
5.4 sec.
QUARTER-MILE
16.4 sec. / 89 mph

2007 G35 Sedan
0 TO 30 MPH
2.2 sec.
0 TO 60 MPH
5.4 sec.
45 TO 65 MPH
3.7 sec.
QUARTER-MILE
14.0 sec. / 102 mph

2003 G35 Sedan
0 TO 30 MPH
2.8 sec.
0 TO 60 MPH
6.8 sec.
45 TO 65 MPH
4.3 sec.
QUARTER-MILE
15.4 sec. / 93 mph

 

Those numbers are actually on par with virtually ever other main stream auto mag of the day. I consider Car & Driver the benchmark for instrumented testing. Really miss those tables of 0-x mph.

 

You've got a good point about magazine 0-60 times being nearly impossible to obtain and I finally figured it out a few years ago when Car & Driver published an article about how they achieve their road test results with rollout and how they were changing it to be more accurate. https://www.caranddriver.com/feature...hange-rollout/

That Road & Track article you posted came out a few months after the car and driver article so I am sure you are aware of this. For anyone else who has tried like crazy to match the 0-60 test results in your favorite magazine, good luck. I did the same thing in a few cars and came away disappointed. It turns out most magazines use a 1 foot rollout meaning that they allow the car to travel a foot before starting the clock. This usually makes the published 0-60 times look .3-.5 seconds faster than they actually are.

 

WHAT, 4.5s? That's just silly. I'd better not sleep on those if the situation ever comes up at a stop light, lol

 

Well... my G is crazy faster than the family crossover, and painfully slower than my buddy's Audi e-tron GT RS.

I'm not losing sleep over numbers.

 

I gravitate towards the more favorable numbers since my car runs exceptionally well. The truth is likely somewhere between the MT ideal and Consumers Guide more conservative numbers.

I owned a 2004 G35 and it was quicker than 6.8 seconds to 60mph as my 2017 FWD Honda Pilot has tested higher than that and the G35 was noticeably faster than the Pilot.

 

I am a bit biased for the Lexus brand but the IS was never a car that I would recommend to anyone based on it's size. It's so small you may as well just buy a 2 door sports coupe.

 

5.0 and 13.5 sounds about right. One thing to remember the numbers can vary by a lot based on conditions and driving (especially when equipped with a manual transmission).

0-60 is a lot about marketing and that's what ford prioritized for EcoBoost. Short gearing & traction management will yield you such results. The trap speed tells a different story, the car could be just marginally quicker than a G37 from a roll.