I know that car will have great new technology and a decently powered 2.0 turbo (268 hp / 280 lb-ft torque and ave 26/27 mpg).... but let's not kid ourselves. The EX looks better...sexier... My EX35 is faster... The EX37 is faster. No, they don't get the same MPG, but there are other similar or more powerful 2.0 turbos out there that do..

With all the research and development for their adjustable compression 2.0 turbo, you would think it could compare with the power of the new Civic type R 2.0 turbo (306 hp / 295 lb-ft torque @ 2500 rpm ave 25 mpg), the mercedes CLA 45 or GLA 45's 2.0 turbo (375 hp / 350 lb-ft torque and 26 ave MPG), heck, even the 2.0 turbo from Cadillac ATS (272 hp / 292 lb-ft torque & 26 mpg ave)...
Subaru WRX has a 2.0 turbo that has been around for a long time, cranking out 268 hp / 258 torque... their 2.5 turbo is similar to Honda's 2.0 specs (305 hp / 290 torque)

No, the engine is more comparable to the new Honda accord sport. (252 hp / 273 lb-ft torque and 30/31 mpg ave) or the 11 year old Acura RDX engine (240 hp/260 torque pre-Hondata... Post-Hondata it was 265 hp and 285 torque, but the MPG was horrible and maybe 17/19 combined average.


What do you think? Why all the hype and so long to develop it and not have it be the superior engine out of all the engines above?

I think the hype is justified. Obviously, this thing has been reigned in for the initial release and is capable of more. Flat torque from 1600 to 4800 isn't a natural mechanical limit, but rather a limit placed in the software. At 4800, that torque rating calculates to 263 horsepower. In other words, essentially flat horsepower from 4800 to 6000, letting the engine operate at peak horsepower the entire time it is accelerating, even when inserting fake shift points-- that also obviously is a limit in the software. No doubt, this is a very conservative tune to ensure maximum durability of such a radically new engine. Even so, Nissan is traditionally conservative with acceleration numbers and the new QX50 claimed times are slightly faster than what they claimed for the previous model (they claimed 6.5s to 60 for the current QX50, even though it clocked almost a second faster in testing). Take the reigns off, and it is undoubtedly capable of more.

For combined fuel economy of 27 mpg in a crossover (compared to 20 combined for the current car), that output is pretty impressive already. Remember, a big market for this is intended to be Europe, where it will compete with lower power but heavier and more expensive diesels that essentially make the same fuel economy.

But there is a lot of potential there. Consider it like the 252 hp Accord version of the Honda 2 liter turbo, with a higher output version being offered from the same engine (as seen in the type R). Or think of the different versions of the same 2l engine seen in Mercedes or VW models with significant variation in max output.

Currently, Infiniti is underrated their 3.0t twin turbo engines. Rated at 300 Hp and 295 foot-Ibs torque to the flywheel on the non Redsport model.
Tuners started dynoeing these 300 HP variant and most result were either 5hp down or 15 hp more and torque is either 5ft-Ibs less or 15-Ibs more to the wheels !

I have a 2018 Q50 luxe AWD 3.0t (300 Hp/295 torque)
Looking at the coming QX50 290 foot-Ibs of torque, oh yeah! That is one -low to midrange happy engine! It will be smoother and more pull than the VQ engine. If you don’t drive above 100 mph often, you don’t need 300 HP engine, you need more torque to propel you from dead stop or in the city. Don’t underestimate a 2.0 L turbo engine. (Is that engine from Mercedes Benz?)

BTW my Q50 300 hp/295 ft-Ibs torque is more fun (quicker) than my old 2015 Q40 awd 328hp/269 ft-torque (Ecutek tuned) . Hopefully, the 2.0 turbo 4 cylinder engine output is also underrated by Infiniti...

Sure, the new 2.0 L in the upcoming QX50 doesn't put out as much peak power as the VQ35/37 and doesn't appear to be as exciting as the outgoing model, I think Infiniti is doing the right thing. I bet these things will easily outsell the EX/QX50 and they'll be reaping the profits. It looks a little bit they're following the path of Acura when they softened the RDX. It became less fun, but sales took off.

Like mentioned, also keep in mind that Infiniti had to address the fuel economy. It desperately needed a MPG bump like 3+ years ago. The old platform was just, you know, old . While it was stylish and fun, we all know it was overdue for an update.

The only thing that sucks is that enthusiasts like us lose another desireable model to choose from. Unfortunately, enthusiasts are just a small minorty of the car buying market. While they can be among the most vocal, they can only influence the manufacturers so much. I think there are still a good number of fun cars available for sale today (I actually find it a bit surprising how many), but you have to be willing to temper your expectations and alter your focus just a bit...

Or, you can wait a few years, pick up an out of warranty pre-owned model without the depreciation hit. There will probably be a tune out there that you can slap on, and I'm sure that there's headroom for a lot more power. After all, it is a turbocharged engine, where power gains can be attained a bit more easily.

Yes - I know and say that the engine will be nice... but this was a long time in development. It can't touch the type R, the mercedes, the cadillac. I am just saying they had plenty of time to best those...and they failed. Everything you can do to their new 2.0 to increase the performance, the same can be done to the Type R, the ATS, the Accord and the Subaru and then you are still not up to their standards... that's all I am saying. I am sure it will be a fun engine, but there are more fun engines out there that you didn't have to wait a decade for.

XIS wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 22, 2017 7:37 am

...Everything you can do to their new 2.0 to increase the performance, the same can be done to the Type R, the ATS, the Accord and the Subaru and then you are still not up to their standards...

Fundamentally, this statement is wrong. You cannot vary compression ratio on any of those engines. That is a big deal. There is far more potential (and complexity) in tuning when adding that in. This engine has higher thermal efficiency than any of them. Based on the artificial nature of the output ratings, the initial offering is in no way the limit of the engine. Nissan has already stated that this engine is just the starting point for the architecture.

Remember, the VQ launched in the Maxima with just 189hp-- do you consider the VQ a failure as well?

Also, if you look at the curves, the only place where the 3.7l VQ would make more power is above 6000 rpm. For everyday driving (unless you routinely drive between 6000 rpm and redline) this will feel more powerful. The engine in current tune is far less peaky, makes more torque and makes power at lower RPM. Take the reigns off, and it will do more.

Meh, im with XIS, color me unimpressed. Sure the engine is a technological marvel, but they could have done more to be competitive on paper. I think overall we're losing out on another enthusiast model.

I love my ex35, I do feel that this replacement is a step backwards. I'm sorry, I cannot be excited about a front wheel drive, transverse engined, CVT based platform replacing my EX35/EX37/QX50... As an enthusiast, these are all the wrong items that brought me to this platform initially.

I've been a BMW guy for almost 20 years. The EX35 gave the BMW offerings a run for their money in price/performance and most of all, beat BMW's by a mile on reliability. That's why I bought a Ex35.

I dont feel that any of those items remain with the QX50's replacement. I'll be looking elsewhere, like XIS says, probably Cadilac, Subaru, or something else sporty.

That's just me, i'm sure the replacement will sell like hotcakes.

sev wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 26, 2017 10:35 pm

I love my ex35, I do feel that this replacement is a step backwards. I'm sorry, I cannot be excited about a front wheel drive, transverse engined, CVT based platform replacing my EX35/EX37/QX50... As an enthusiast, these are all the wrong items that brought me to this platform initially.

I've been a BMW guy for almost 20 years. The EX35 gave the BMW offerings a run for their money in price/performance and most of all, beat BMW's by a mile on reliability. That's why I bought a Ex35.

I dont feel that any of those items remain with the QX50's replacement. I'll be looking elsewhere, like XIS says, probably Cadilac, Subaru, or something else sporty.

Well, this is pretty much where this class of luxury compact lifted wagons/hatchback/crossovers (or whatever you want to call it) seems to be headed.

I think that the X1, GLA, NX200, and maybe even the Q3 are the most comparable to the QX50, and I believe that their platforms are all similar in architecture (transverse 2.0T, FWD based). I think it's going to be harder to find a replacement from any brand really that would match what the EX/old QX50 offered in terms of platform layout and just plain fun.

You're right, you'll probably have to look elsewhere. It just won't quite be the same as you'll have to give something up, whether it be luxury, body type, reliability, etc.

Agreed. It’s totally where the segment is heading. Kind of sad, I guess.

Hey at least my ex35 is reliable, lots of life left in it! (Knocking on wood)

I am talking about after the fact...post-purchase. Do you think the WRX or the STI or the Type R comes stock at it's limit? Hell to the no.

lne937s wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 22, 2017 8:43 am

XIS wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 22, 2017 7:37 am

...Everything you can do to their new 2.0 to increase the performance, the same can be done to the Type R, the ATS, the Accord and the Subaru and then you are still not up to their standards...

Fundamentally, this statement is wrong. You cannot vary compression ratio on any of those engines. That is a big deal. There is far more potential (and complexity) in tuning when adding that in. This engine has higher thermal efficiency than any of them. Based on the artificial nature of the output ratings, the initial offering is in no way the limit of the engine. Nissan has already stated that this engine is just the starting point for the architecture.

I will say it again for emphasis or so you don't think I think it will be a crappy engine. It wont. it will be nice. It will probably sell.
It is not as good / sexy looking as the EX (to me) and they had PLENTY of time to make that engine the cream of the 2.0 turbo crop. IT IS NOT.... It isn't even 2nd or 3rd best....maybe 4th behind Mercedes, Honda and Cadillac (didn't include the Focus RS @ 350 hp since it is a 2.3), but they had time to make it the most impressive and powerful 2.0 Turbo, and they flat out didn't... I still might learn to love it, but I would learn to love it more with the Honda Civic Type R engine coupled with a 7 or 8 speed tranny and paddle shifters...or if I was willing to spend more, the AMG 2.0T and it's tranny. Now we are talking!

sev wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 26, 2017 10:35 pm

Meh, im with XIS, color me unimpressed. Sure the engine is a technological marvel, but they could have done more to be competitive on paper. I think overall we're losing out on another enthusiast model.

I love my ex35, I do feel that this replacement is a step backwards. I'm sorry, I cannot be excited about a front wheel drive, transverse engined, CVT based platform replacing my EX35/EX37/QX50... As an enthusiast, these are all the wrong items that brought me to this platform initially.

I've been a BMW guy for almost 20 years. The EX35 gave the BMW offerings a run for their money in price/performance and most of all, beat BMW's by a mile on reliability. That's why I bought a Ex35.

I dont feel that any of those items remain with the QX50's replacement. I'll be looking elsewhere, like XIS says, probably Cadilac, Subaru, or something else sporty.

That's just me, i'm sure the replacement will sell like hotcakes.

Great post. I bought my EX35 because they are reliable, decent room with the hatch, RWD biased AWD and a great engine. The trans is meh, ok, and the phone integration pre 2010 could be much better (WTF do I have a CF card slot?), but those weren't why I bought it. It's a lifted coupe with a hatch, and I love mine. Glad it only has 78k km on it, going to last a long time. As an enthusiast, they are fantastic vehicles.

That said, the general car buying public aren't enthusiasts. They are people who I think will eat this new car up. Actually when I read about this new engine, I actually got excited for it. Big torque from 1600 rpm sounds great, and the mpg upgrade would be very welcomed. But I won't be buying one.

EX35WinterBeater wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 09, 2018 12:28 pm

sev wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 26, 2017 10:35 pm

Meh, im with XIS, color me unimpressed. Sure the engine is a technological marvel, but they could have done more to be competitive on paper. I think overall we're losing out on another enthusiast model.

I love my ex35, I do feel that this replacement is a step backwards. I'm sorry, I cannot be excited about a front wheel drive, transverse engined, CVT based platform replacing my EX35/EX37/QX50... As an enthusiast, these are all the wrong items that brought me to this platform initially.

I've been a BMW guy for almost 20 years. The EX35 gave the BMW offerings a run for their money in price/performance and most of all, beat BMW's by a mile on reliability. That's why I bought a Ex35.

I dont feel that any of those items remain with the QX50's replacement. I'll be looking elsewhere, like XIS says, probably Cadilac, Subaru, or something else sporty.

That's just me, i'm sure the replacement will sell like hotcakes.

Great post. I bought my EX35 because they are reliable, decent room with the hatch, RWD biased AWD and a great engine. The trans is meh, ok, and the phone integration pre 2010 could be much better (WTF do I have a CF card slot?), but those weren't why I bought it. It's a lifted coupe with a hatch, and I love mine. Glad it only has 78k km on it, going to last a long time. As an enthusiast, they are fantastic vehicles.

That said, the general car buying public aren't enthusiasts. They are people who I think will eat this new car up. Actually when I read about this new engine, I actually got excited for it. Big torque from 1600 rpm sounds great, and the mpg upgrade would be very welcomed. But I won't be buying one.

I'd love to be in the service dept after a number of these 4 cylinder inventions are on the market. Great to watch the techs trying to figure out why this and that is happening and how to go about figuring out the fix! Even if Infiniti has the software for the fixes.... where are those that understand how to work the computers to understand all the steps in trying to find out from all the choices what the fix is? In addition... most techs at new car dealerships are fresh out of mechanic school. I'm not feeling all warm and fuzzy having these newbies working on my New expensive Infiniti! Gheeze.

Bocatrip wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 09, 2018 5:43 pm

EX35WinterBeater wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 09, 2018 12:28 pm

Great post. I bought my EX35 because they are reliable, decent room with the hatch, RWD biased AWD and a great engine. The trans is meh, ok, and the phone integration pre 2010 could be much better (WTF do I have a CF card slot?), but those weren't why I bought it. It's a lifted coupe with a hatch, and I love mine. Glad it only has 78k km on it, going to last a long time. As an enthusiast, they are fantastic vehicles.

That said, the general car buying public aren't enthusiasts. They are people who I think will eat this new car up. Actually when I read about this new engine, I actually got excited for it. Big torque from 1600 rpm sounds great, and the mpg upgrade would be very welcomed. But I won't be buying one.

I'd love to be in the service dept after a number of these 4 cylinder inventions are on the market. Great to watch the techs trying to figure out why this and that is happening and how to go about figuring out the fix! Even if Infiniti has the software for the fixes.... where are those that understand how to work the computers to understand all the steps in trying to find out from all the choices what the fix is? In addition... most techs at new car dealerships are fresh out of mechanic school. I'm not feeling all warm and fuzzy having these newbies working on my New expensive Infiniti! Gheeze.

Can't speak on behalf of Infiniti, didn't have many dealers as clients. But other OEM's tend to have pretty extensive training courses for things like this. I would anticipate there'd be at least one master tech from each dealer going to receive training, and they'd be the ones pulled onto these jobs until others are fully trained. Just a hunch though.

I sat in the new QX50 tonight at NAIAS in Detroit. It was comforting. The appearance is something I got used to very much. The specs, not so much....except for the welcoming 27 mpg. With that said on mpg, I might as well wait for an electric vehicle daily driver. What drew me to the Ex35/37 was probably the powered rear seat downs for cargo space.... It turns out the new QX50 lost that option.

The rep said that they will be available for test drive in March and I'm honestly waiting for the drive to convince that it's good.

Eamess wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 27, 2018 7:55 pm

I sat in the new QX50 tonight at NAIAS in Detroit. It was comforting. The appearance is something I got used to very much. The specs, not so much....except for the welcoming 27 mpg. With that said on mpg, I might as well wait for an electric vehicle daily driver. What drew me to the Ex35/37 was probably the powered rear seat downs for cargo space.... It turns out the new QX50 lost that option.

The rep said that they will be available for test drive in March and I'm honestly waiting for the drive to convince that it's good.

They got rid of that? Seems silly. Maybe it just wasn't on the trim level they had at the show? Doubting it, since I'd think the show one would have all the bells and whistles.

That said, the power rear seats a frustration in their own right. Because of the lack of rear seat space, they usually won't go down or up by themselves, because the head rest hits the front seats. Anyone else have that issue?

Eamess wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 27, 2018 7:55 pm

I sat in the new QX50 tonight at NAIAS in Detroit. It was comforting. ...What drew me to the Ex35/37 was probably the powered rear seat downs for cargo space.... It turns out the new QX50 lost that option.

I tell you what, I have had my QX30s for only a week now and already missed that power rear seat option twice!

EX35WinterBeater wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 29, 2018 9:53 am

Eamess wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 27, 2018 7:55 pm

I sat in the new QX50 tonight at NAIAS in Detroit. It was comforting. The appearance is something I got used to very much. The specs, not so much....except for the welcoming 27 mpg. With that said on mpg, I might as well wait for an electric vehicle daily driver. What drew me to the Ex35/37 was probably the powered rear seat downs for cargo space.... It turns out the new QX50 lost that option.

The rep said that they will be available for test drive in March and I'm honestly waiting for the drive to convince that it's good.

They got rid of that? Seems silly. Maybe it just wasn't on the trim level they had at the show? Doubting it, since I'd think the show one would have all the bells and whistles.

That said, the power rear seats a frustration in their own right. Because of the lack of rear seat space, they usually won't go down or up by themselves, because the head rest hits the front seats. Anyone else have that issue?

I asked the representative and that kind of option won't be available. I was very surprised considering how the Ex35 were advertising that function and it was fun in its own right to hold the button and watch the seats return.

I removed the head rests in the back seat of my EX long ago... They are in the garage somewhere, providing me more visibility in the back for sure...and easy up/down of the back seats.

Back to the engine.... ugh. Have you checked out the specs on the new RDX and it's beast of a 2.0 turbo? 272 hp, 280 lbs of torque (stock...you know Hondata will come out with something to add 30-40 hp & torque also)
22/28 mpg, combined 24 (2-3 less than the QX)
Oh...and a 10 speed tranny with paddle shifters instead of the buzz-killing CVT.

I still think that after 20 yrs, this engine would be a bit more powerful and they should have at least a 7 speed DCT paired to it)

Something tells me (logic) that the 2019 RDX will be quite a bit more fun than the 2019 QX50

XIS wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 12, 2018 7:34 am

Back to the engine.... ugh. Have you checked out the specs on the new RDX and it's beast of a 2.0 turbo? 272 hp, 280 lbs of torque (stock...you know Hondata will come out with something to add 30-40 hp & torque also)
22/28 mpg, combined 24 (2-3 less than the QX)
Oh...and a 10 speed tranny with paddle shifters instead of the buzz-killing CVT.

I still think that after 20 yrs, this engine would be a bit more powerful and they should have at least a 7 speed DCT paired to it)

Something tells me (logic) that the 2019 RDX will be quite a bit more fun than the 2019 QX50

When I bought my 08 EX35 last summer, it was really between them and the first gen RDX. Sporty, smaller SUV was the goal. I enjoyed both but what drew me to the EX was the interior, it was just significantly nicer IMO. Although I still look at the RDX, a turbo engine just opens up opportunities.

That said if I was buying new today, I'd probably go to the RDX, really liek what Acura has done. But I haven't driven either, so that could change.

I had the Gen 1 RDX and added Hondata and it screamed! BUT the MPG was beyond unacceptable (13-17 max average...19 on hwy) and the ride was horrible. The handling (SHAWD) is exceptional though. I traded it for my My EX and it has such a nicer exterior, interior, ride, MPG, etc...
The new 2019 RDX will be much nicer than the 1st gen (and 2nd gen) in every aspect.

XIS wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 12, 2018 7:34 am

Back to the engine.... ugh. Have you checked out the specs on the new RDX and it's beast of a 2.0 turbo? 272 hp, 280 lbs of torque (stock...you know Hondata will come out with something to add 30-40 hp & torque also)
22/28 mpg, combined 24 (2-3 less than the QX)
Oh...and a 10 speed tranny with paddle shifters instead of the buzz-killing CVT.

I still think that after 20 yrs, this engine would be a bit more powerful and they should have at least a 7 speed DCT paired to it)

Something tells me (logic) that the 2019 RDX will be quite a bit more fun than the 2019 QX50

Maybe you'll go full circle and end up in another RDX sometime in your future .

While I don't think the new RDX will quite match up one-for-one with the EX/old QX50 in terms of driving dynamics and overall feel, I think it'll probably come pretty close, especially if you put it in Sport+ mode. The only crossovers in this class I think that would probably be more exiting to drive are Euro models (Porsche, Alfa, etc.).

XIS wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 13, 2018 8:57 am

I had the Gen 1 RDX and added Hondata and it screamed! BUT the MPG was beyond unacceptable (13-17 max average...19 on hwy) and the ride was horrible. The handling (SHAWD) is exceptional though. I traded it for my My EX and it has such a nicer exterior, interior, ride, MPG, etc...
The new 2019 RDX will be much nicer than the 1st gen (and 2nd gen) in every aspect.

After driving with Nissan's ATTESA on the EX35 and the SH-AWD on an MDX, I've come to prefer Acura's AWD system. I've never really had an issue with ATTESA; but it was more of a reactive system. SH-AWD, on the other hand, is more predictive and makes the ATTESA in the EX look primitive in comparison. Ford's Twinster AWD system in the Focus RS is similar to SH-AWD in terms of it's general architecture.