We've had the 2011 Infiniti M56 in our office before and the results have always been the same, "great numbers, but boy does that sport ride get tiring."
Our new Long Term Infiniti M56, however, does not have the sport package. It rolls on 18-inch wheels with all season tires but still has that great 420-horsepower V8 and solid chassis. So it's got some good stuff going and it doesn't have the rough suspension which should add up to a better every day car. But.what's it add up to on the track? This is a sport sedan, right?
Vehicle: 2011 Infiniti M56
Odometer: 1,290
Date: 12/14/10
Driver: Chris Walton
Price: $67,225
Specifications:
Drive Type: Rear-wheel drive
Transmission Type: Seven-speed automatic
Engine Type: Naturally aspirated, direct-injected, V8, gasoline
Displacement (cc/cu-in): 5,552 / 339
Redline (rpm): 6,700
Horsepower (hp @ rpm): 420 @ 6,000
Torque (lb-ft @ rpm): 417 @ 4,400
Brake Type (front): 12.6-in one-piece ventilated steel discs with 2-piston sliding calipers
Brake Type (rear): 12.1-in one-piece ventilated steel discs with 1-piston sliding calipers
Steering System: Hydraulic-assist rack-and-pinion power steering
Suspension Type (front): Independent double-wishbones, coil springs, monotube dampers, stabilizer bar
Suspension Type (rear): Independent multilink, coil springs, monotube dampers, stabilizer bar
Tire Size (front): P225/45R 18 91W M+S
Tire Size (rear): P225/45R 18 91W M+S
Tire Brand: Michelin
Tire Model: Primacy HX MXM4
Tire Type: All-season
As Tested Curb Weight (lb): 4,037 (55.8% front)
Test Results:
0-30 (sec): 2.2 (2.4 TC ON)
0-45 (sec): 3.4 (3.6 TC ON)
0-60 (sec): 5.0 (5.2 TC ON)
0-75 (sec): 7.1 (7.3 TC ON)
1/4-Mile (sec @ mph): 13.2 @ 107.3 (13.3 @ 107.4 TC ON)
0-60 with 1-ft Rollout (sec): 4.7 (4.7 TC ON)
Braking
30-0 (ft): 30
60-0 (ft): 118
Handling
Slalom (mph): 63.5 (62.3 TC ON)
Skid Pad Lateral acceleration (g): 0.86 (0.85 TC on)
Db @ Idle: 42.3
Db @ Full Throttle: 72.4
Db @ 70 mph Cruise: 65.1
Acceleration Comments: There was no advantage to using the transmission's sport mode for acceleration runs -- shift speed and shift RPM were identical to Normal mode (but sport does quicken throttle response and hold gears longer in full Automatic). The M56 wants to creep forward when overlapping pedals, so RPM could not be greatly raised before launch.
Braking Comments: stopping distances were repeatable and fade wasn't an issue; pedal feel was moderately firm. But the pads were smoking heavily after the last stop.
Handling Comments: Skidpad: Does not exhibit the edginess of the sport suspension and summer tire equipped M56. This one pretty much wants to circle the skidpad in a steady understeer push. The ESC was aggressive at cutting the throttle when turned on but the result proved only slightly slower. Slalom: Softer suspension and all-season tires translate to a les precise but more forgiving M56 than the sport package model we previously tested. Still, the chassis remains responsive to the point that you still need to keep on your toes about oversteer- both power on and drop-throttle.
yellowbal says:
10:46 AM, 01/17/11
I wonder if this engine/transmission would fit into a G coupe. Name it the G56 and it would be ridiculously fast.
joefrompa says:
10:55 AM, 01/17/11
Might be unfair, but I expected a bit faster quarter mile times and speed for the displacement of the engine, horsepower and torque, and weight of the car.
Maybe the all-seasons are holding it back some...
konocar400h says:
11:02 AM, 01/17/11
From that angle, the car looks like a frumpy whale.
As for the performance, I think the engine is a beast but it needs summers, as said above. I also agree that Infiniti, if they can, fit it in the G and show it off!
Not too bad numbers overall though.
tellurium says:
11:05 AM, 01/17/11
@yellowbal: Yes, something similar to your idea has been done. Look up "Top Secret V35GTR" on the youtubes.
kevm14 says:
11:23 AM, 01/17/11
I think the performance is about right. It is 170lbs heavier than my 05 CTS-V but has 20 more HP, and the 1/4 mile ET and mph are basically the same as mine.
ptcdawg says:
11:29 AM, 01/17/11
Once you get under 6 seconds to 60...a car is plenty fast enough in my humble opinion. I mean really, who goes around driving like that all the time. There are much more important things in a car than pure drag racing stats. At least where I live...we have speed limits, etc.
half_ton says:
11:36 AM, 01/17/11
Enough debate has already taken place when it comes to 20's on cars; MOST will suffer in terms of ride quality regardless of the manfucturer ( exceptions include previous-gen S8 and Porsche Panamera and MAYBE the Alpina 7 Series). If it were mine I would leave off the sport package, upgarde to 19's with performance rubber and call it a day. That set up allows better handling with a much more compliant ride.
ed124c says:
12:10 PM, 01/17/11
@ptcdawg: I agree. The 0-60 time is just to category the car. Even though you may never go to 60 as fast as you can, it is nice to know how your particular model ranks with other cars. It may affect your choosing a new car. But a few tenths or even a second is really minor if the faster car is just not to your liking.
@konocar400h: Yeah, not a flattering pose. It looks kind of bulbous. Up close it looks better, I think.
majin_ssj_eric says:
12:14 PM, 01/17/11
Just disgraceful IMO that you guys bought a neutered M56. Grow a pair will ya!
bimmerjay says:
02:24 PM, 01/17/11
Not bad for a non-sport version. The right numbers are there - quick acceleration and solid braking, with the expected lower handling limits.
dougtheeng says:
02:30 PM, 01/17/11
"From that angle, the car looks like a frumpy whale."
It looks like a frumpy whale from every angle. Compared to the new 5 and the new E, I can't imagine how anyone could call this car attractive.
itm1221 says:
03:55 PM, 01/17/11
everything is decent but the slalom performance is disappointing.
audisport says:
03:56 PM, 01/17/11
Not a looker but good numbers. Infiniti should start their performance division by nestling this motor under the hood of a G sedan or couple instead of offering the tarted up G version they just brought out.
bimmerjay says:
05:32 PM, 01/17/11
"It looks like a frumpy whale from every angle. Compared to the new 5 and the new E, I can't imagine how anyone could call this car attractive."
I saw one on the road the other day and it definitely does look better in person than in the pictures. I still like the E-Class better, but it's definitely not as bad in the flesh, IMO.
mrryte says:
06:35 PM, 01/17/11
Tire Size (front): P225/45R 18 91W M+S
Tire Size (rear): P225/45R 18 91W M+S
Given the size of this vehicle, I wonder why Infiniti didn't give it wider OEM tires on the base & non-sport models....
cr_driver says:
07:46 PM, 01/17/11
joefrompa says:
10:55 AM, 01/17/11
"Might be unfair, but I expected a bit faster quarter mile times and speed for the displacement of the engine, horsepower and torque, and weight of the car.
Maybe the all-seasons are holding it back some..."
Really?
This car is almost as fast in every acceleration category as the mustang 5.0, despite being around 350+lbs and having only 8 more horses. (yep, more torque as well).
And this is a luxury midsize sedan, with basic all season tires.
jayrandall says:
08:33 PM, 01/17/11
Amazing how everyone on this site makes negative comments about the styling of the M, and Infiniti's in general. Why don't you all check out the car in person, and then comment? I don't think the pics represent the styling accurately, and I don't know why. But in person, this is a gorgeous car, from every angle.
bmwm1 says:
09:28 PM, 01/17/11
Road & Track got the M56S to to 0-60 in 4.6 Seconds, so this thing is quick as hell...
I think it would be able to put up a decent fight with a new 5.0 Mustang GT.
j2j says:
10:25 PM, 01/17/11
While the M's styling has its trouble spots, it's not like the exterior designs of the E Class and new 5 Series are that great either.
firstwagon says:
12:53 AM, 01/18/11
"Why don't you all check out the car in person, and then comment?"
I'd be happy to if I ever see one. Still looking, still have not seen a single one on the road.
I'm beginning to think they have yet to sell even one in British Columbia.
htr_hardtech says:
05:25 AM, 01/18/11
Good to know my G8 4 door large sedan can still keep/pass up with this near 70k+ by the time its delivered w/ taxes. That 59% more expensive, just not seeing it.
I can think of a lot of things at 70k that would be better and just as nice... CTS-V anyone?
bmwm1 says:
08:31 AM, 01/18/11
"Good to know my G8 4 door large sedan can still keep/pass up with this near 70k+ by the time its delivered w/ taxes. That 59% more expensive, just not seeing it."
I actually think the G8 is a really great car for the money and I hope to see it back under the GM brand. But people who buy $70k cars, don't really care much about drag racing and tenths of a second differences in acceleration. All of the advanced safety & electronics in the M alone probably add up to at least $20k, not to mention materials and material quality and the cost of the engine and transmission.
htr_hardtech says:
09:30 AM, 01/18/11
@bmwm1
Oh I understand they would not be shoping for a G8 if they had 70k. And someone spending 70k I would tell them not to buy a G8. But CTS-V is on the same line as that Infinity. Seems 70k in that would be better spent.
Im just shocked that my sub 30k car would keep up and beat that 70k car. Because you know the people that get these think they are king on the road and will assume passing anyone on the road will be effortless. They would be wrong if they tried to cut me off on the onramp (by passing on the ramp) as a person in a G37 tried to do the other day.
Now if a CTS-V did that well I would not even have a chance, he would pass me without much issues. In my 70k car it better be able to take out a stock sub 30k car but I would still want it to be refined and still show 70k value.
Just my opinion though, I think if this car was about 10k less I wouldnt knock it as bad since its not sitting in the CTS-V playing field.
half_ton says:
11:45 AM, 01/18/11
@htr_hardtech
Just curious; did you get a look on the face of the G37's driver after their failed attempt?
bimmerjay says:
01:02 PM, 01/18/11
"Im just shocked that my sub 30k car would keep up and beat that 70k car."
Why is this shocking? A Mustang GT could beat an Aston Martin V8 Vantage and costs a fraction of it. Cheap speed always has and always will exist, the price differences that define these cars goes well beyond such a basic measure of acceleration.
htr_hardtech says:
01:09 PM, 01/18/11
@half_ton
When they finely passed me on the highway he looked a little ticked while I was laughing. Then again im not a stock G8 which he would have had issues with anyways. Tune + CAI + HFC + Exhaust = ~GXP area.
This Infinity should be sitting a bit cheaper than the 550I area.
smallfield says:
07:59 PM, 01/19/11
"Oh I understand they would not be shoping for a G8 if they had 70k. And someone spending 70k I would tell them not to buy a G8. But CTS-V is on the same line as that Infinity. Seems 70k in that would be better spent."
I don't know if this is true. I love my LS1 GTO and E90 M3. I'm looking at a ~70K replacement that is bigger than an M3 and performs reasonably well. I wanted a CTS-V wagon, but the back seat is really pretty small for a mid-size car. If they released a G8 GXP with a LS3 or LSA tomorrow, I think I'd need one with a 6MT. I really like the G8 backseat and trunk space and would sacrifice a little handling and interior quality for V8 rumble and more space for kids.
Just my 0.02.