General Vehicle Discussion/News Non-Mustang Vehicle Chat, Other Makes

G37 Coupe (G35 Replacement)

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Mar 21, 2007 | 01:04 AM
  #1  
cntchds's Avatar
Thread Starter
 
Joined: August 23, 2004
Posts: 3,599
Likes: 3
From: Bay Area, California
G37 Coupe (G35 Replacement)

http://www.leftlanenews.com/infiniti-g37-coupe.html
Is anyone else not really seeing much visual change?
Reply
Old Mar 21, 2007 | 07:49 AM
  #2  
TomServo92's Avatar
Legacy TMS Member
 
Joined: June 18, 2004
Posts: 3,990
Likes: 34
From: Conroe, TX
Changes are there but they're subtle. This is more of an evolution of the old design than a redesign.
Reply
Old Mar 21, 2007 | 08:28 AM
  #3  
Zastava_101's Avatar
TMS Post # 1,000,000
Serbian Steamer
 
Joined: January 30, 2004
Posts: 12,636
Likes: 0
From: Wisconsin / Serbia
Ugly.
Reply
Old Mar 21, 2007 | 08:35 AM
  #4  
Blue Notch's Avatar
 
Joined: December 5, 2006
Posts: 31,454
Likes: 71
From: Trapped in Minnesota
It's too soft looking!!
Reply
Old Mar 21, 2007 | 08:57 AM
  #5  
dhg2496's Avatar
GT Member
 
Joined: July 13, 2004
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
I think the G35 looked alot more aggressive than the G37. It's too rounded and remind me too much of the FX35/45. Maybe it's just less aggressive, and if they went more aggressive they would have just ended up with the GT-R.
Reply
Old Mar 21, 2007 | 11:39 AM
  #6  
Vermillion06's Avatar
Cobra Member
 
Joined: May 16, 2006
Posts: 1,322
Likes: 0
From: NV
It reminds me of the change from the '94-98 Mustangs to the '99-04 bodystyle. Same kind of evolution.

The G35 was the only foriegn car that was close to the S197 when I was car shopping. I'm a Nissan fan as well. It's really close in horsepower (298) and the curb weight and overall size are really close. The F/R weight distribution is exactly the same. The G35 even has some of the same problems areas that the current Mustang does such as the hard to fill gas tank. It even has a hood prop rod . But I didn't think it was worth the extra $10K or so over a Mustang equipped the way I wanted, and the Mustang styling just looks better to me.
Reply
Old Mar 21, 2007 | 12:14 PM
  #7  
rhumb's Avatar
 
Joined: January 30, 2004
Posts: 2,980
Likes: 0
From: DMV
Very evolutionary, for sure, didn't move the ball much down the field from where it was. I don't think the redesign will have a long shelf life before it starts looking really old. Not bad looking really, but I agree that it looks a bit soft, like it could use a touch of gym time.
Reply
Old Mar 21, 2007 | 12:20 PM
  #8  
Moosetang's Avatar
Tasca Super Boss 429 Member
 
Joined: February 1, 2004
Posts: 3,751
Likes: 0
Jeez, I thought the Jellybean look died aout with the previous-gen Taurus.
Reply
Old Mar 21, 2007 | 09:14 PM
  #9  
cntchds's Avatar
Thread Starter
 
Joined: August 23, 2004
Posts: 3,599
Likes: 3
From: Bay Area, California
If only, if only. ^

I was hoping that this one would have more solid lines. Or even hard creases that follow the curves.


Oh well. I guess it's not final till it's final.
Reply
Old Mar 21, 2007 | 09:49 PM
  #10  
hi5.0's Avatar
FR500 Member
 
Joined: August 15, 2005
Posts: 3,084
Likes: 0
From: Honolulu
really don't like the area where the headlight, fender, and bumper cover meet - looks disorganized. doesn't seem to "flow".
Reply
Old Mar 22, 2007 | 01:25 AM
  #11  
Hollywood_North GT's Avatar
Closet American
 
Joined: July 17, 2005
Posts: 5,851
Likes: 1
From: Vancouver, BC (Hollywood North)
Wow, not nearly as nice as the concept they showed last year. Pretty overall, actually.

330 HP is nice - but only 270 ft lbs of torque (less than the IS350) and, of course, much less than the Mustang GT...all factors to keep in mind when you also consider the G37's 3,682 lb curb weight.

And I agree that it will not age well. It already looks "old" to me...and I had thought about one of these for a while. It's a nice evolution of the current design...but I fear it doesn't go far enough. It looks good from some angles, but rather boring from others. More pics here.

Seems to handle quite well, though.

Looking around at the various forums, most people seem to feel the existing G35 coupe looked better. They just don't seem to be "feeling" this new car, even though its performance and handling dynamics are significantly better than the car it replaces. You'll also get a kick out of the sniping on this Bimmer thread (pay particular attention to post #21 - it'll be hard not to ).
Reply
Old Mar 24, 2007 | 11:48 PM
  #12  
mfo33's Avatar
V6 Member
 
Joined: January 21, 2007
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
I kinda like it.. but the gap between the rear wheel arches and the door is sooo bigggg. I know it helps making the rear cabin more spacious(one thing that kills the mustang's rear cabin) but it should be a sports car first, and look good before its practical.

Looking at the specs of that engine, I can't wait on the 350Z replacement, a 370Z i guess. That would be a nice car, the Zs have always looked better than the G35. I don't really mind the lack of torque, if it could feel like a potent high revving engine like the E46 M3's engine, that would be awesome.
Reply
Old Mar 25, 2007 | 11:28 AM
  #13  
AnotherMustangMan's Avatar
Cam Tease
 
Joined: September 30, 2004
Posts: 1,378
Likes: 0
I feel like an asshat every time I say "G37."
Reply
Old Mar 26, 2007 | 11:00 PM
  #14  
eci's Avatar
eci
Banned
 
Joined: August 16, 2006
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by Vermillion06
It reminds me of the change from the '94-98 Mustangs to the '99-04 bodystyle. Same kind of evolution.

The G35 was the only foriegn car that was close to the S197 when I was car shopping. I'm a Nissan fan as well. It's really close in horsepower (298) and the curb weight and overall size are really close. The F/R weight distribution is exactly the same. The G35 even has some of the same problems areas that the current Mustang does such as the hard to fill gas tank. It even has a hood prop rod . But I didn't think it was worth the extra $10K or so over a Mustang equipped the way I wanted, and the Mustang styling just looks better to me.
Forget about HP. Torque is what you should look at when comparing engines.
Reply
Old Mar 27, 2007 | 01:56 AM
  #15  
Hollywood_North GT's Avatar
Closet American
 
Joined: July 17, 2005
Posts: 5,851
Likes: 1
From: Vancouver, BC (Hollywood North)
Originally Posted by eci
Forget about HP. Torque is what you should look at when comparing engines.
That's an oversimplification. It depends upon the application, and generally, it's the relationship between HP and torque in each individual case that matters the most.
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Rando
2010-2014 Mustang
8
Aug 25, 2021 11:12 AM
kponypower
GT
13
Jun 17, 2020 07:17 AM
austin101385
'10-14 Shelby Mustangs
3
Oct 2, 2015 01:00 PM
PonyMuscletang13
2010-2014 Mustang
4
Sep 29, 2015 09:40 AM




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:55 PM.