how accurate are those times you posted?
Um, I dunno, I wasn't there in '90 when they did the testing.
I would assume that a moto magazine would have their testing procedure pretty ironed out tho.
i swear if those numbers are correct, I should have been walking all over the g35.
Yeah, you should have. IF he was stock. And IF you were a trained motorcycle journalist, on a prepped drag strip, with a hand-picked, well-tuned, fresh factory bike, shifted optimally, got the track for a few hours to practice...etc.
Point being is that there are too many variables involved to determine why you were about even with the G35. Driver skill being biggest usually. No offense intended...it's my first motorcycle in 30 years that doesn't have knobby tires!
These high-revving fours don't have a lot of torque. Maybe try keeping the revs up next time?
I can only base my seat of the pants feeling of my bike's performance (haven't taken it to the track...yet) against my experience driving my car down the strip. I've got hard numbers on my car's performance, (and raced a couple G35s) and can tell you that my 91 400 feels quicker from a dig to around 50/60, but doesn't pull nearly as hard to 100 as my 12.2 @ 115 1/4 mile car. So, those magazine numbers seem about right.
You can always take it to the track & let us know your numbers...
Russ