2006 M45 Sport C&D Stats...big pic

Post by **rsiwicki** » Sat Jan 15, 2005 3:12 pm

for some reason I was only able to scan in the last page....Click pic for readable image

Post by **rsiwicki** » Sat Jan 15, 2005 3:25 pm

if one of the moderators can do their handy work on making the pic more manageable that would be very much appreciated...

I noticed something interesting that applies to the current M45 and the new M45.

The M45 weighs 200lbs less than then Q45, but there are some interesting tire differences

M45 = 245/40/19 @ 94V @ 26.9 tallM45 = 235/45/18 @ 94V @ 26.5 tallQ45 = 225/55/17 @ 95V @ 26.7 tallQ45 = 245/45/18 @ 96V @ 26.9 tall

There are two things that surprise me....

1. Why would they put a smaller tire on the M45 when the 245/45/18 should fit perfectly gaining the performance braking/handling benefit of the 96 vs. 94 rating? Just becuase the car weighs 200lbs less that justifies the 94 load rating? My car weighed in at the scales with 1/4 gas @ 3,960.

2. Would not the speedo be off and reading too high for the M45? The drivetrains are the same so I would think that running a 26.5 vs. 26.9 tall tire would through speedo off by about 1.5%...not major.

I don't understand why market the M45 as a more performance muscle oriented sedan but yet put the lesser tires on the car that impact braking and handling. Also tire rack only carries 6 tires in this size so it really sucks to stay with this size compared to the 245/45/18 choices.

Also....the 1/4 ET's were not as impressive as I thought. Only 14.2 @ 101mph. I thought Q45tech posted that the car did it in under 14.0secs. Maybe that day was a very cold day in testing or the driver just sucks? I want this car to be in upper 13's....
Modified by rsiwicki at 8:43 PM 1/15/2005

Post by **elwesso** » Sat Jan 15, 2005 3:33 pm

It is an upper 13 second one, and it had been CONFIRMED with ones that are fully broken in (say over 5000 miles)...

Do they use the same brand tires across the board.. I mgiht assume the M might have a more performance tire, and the Q has an all season...

Post by **MiniMan** » Sat Jan 15, 2005 3:39 pm

There you go Rob.

Corey

[edit]No longer needed[/edit]

Modified by MiniMan at 8:37 PM 1/15/2005

Post by **rsiwicki** » Sat Jan 15, 2005 3:48 pm

Same brand is one thing...but that is not my point. According to Q45tech and other resources I have read from....increased tire load has a lot of performance benefits from reduced braking distances, increased handling, to longer life. I don't understand why they would put only a 94 load rated tire on the car.

btw...thanks corey but I need the admin to adjust the first pic

Post by **DAEDALUS** » Sat Jan 15, 2005 4:07 pm

Meh, this is one case where I really don't mind scrolling over to see everything!

$55k....wow. That's a lot of cash. Just over $1k/month for 5 years at 4%, not including taxes and whatnot. Wonder how much a 2006 model will cost in 2015?

Post by **elwesso** » Sat Jan 15, 2005 4:13 pm

I edited, and you click on it to make it the full size Rob posted...

yeah, i know im golden... I had to beat the other mod

Post by **DAEDALUS** » Sat Jan 15, 2005 4:17 pm

Your jpeg-foo lacks skill, grasshopper. Golden is not that which cannot be read.

YouTube · Post by **Jesda** » Sat Jan 15, 2005 4:18 pm

I cant believe there are still people buying the E-class with the 3.2, paying THOSE prices.

Post by **Rex** » Sat Jan 15, 2005 4:23 pm

Click the image in Robs first post, then once it loads in a seperate window maximize it's size. Most browsers will make it fit your window, but once you full size it you can read the numbers clearly.

Website · Post by **Mark86T** » Sat Jan 15, 2005 5:09 pm

rsiwicki wrote:Also....the 1/4 ET's were not as impressive as I thought. Only 14.2 @ 101mph. I thought Q45tech posted that the car did it in under 14.0secs. Maybe that day was a very cold day in testing or the driver just sucks? I want this car to be in upper 13's....Modified by rsiwicki at 8:43 PM 1/15/2005

My Feb Road & Track had these numbers, which are a lil different from the ones posted here.List price $48,500Price as tested $49,0900-60 5.31/4 mile 13.8 @ 101.6mphLateral acceleration .90g (skidpad)slalom 65.4 mphbraking from 60 114ft from 80 201 ftwheels/tires front and rear are the SAME 19x8 1/2 with 245/40/19 94W335hp340lb-fttop speed 145 mph electronically limited

Post by **PalmerWMD** » Sat Jan 15, 2005 7:35 pm

Sounds like a kick-*** car.

Hmm, if my income keeps going up should I trade in my Z in a year or 2?

Fred..

YouTube · Post by **Jesda** » Sat Jan 15, 2005 8:53 pm

In this issue of Automobile Magazine, they mentioned the new M had a bigger interior than the current Q. So, really, the Q no longer has a reason to exist. The flagship is falling behind! Much like Cadillac and their Deville, except the Deville is a huge seller with thousands of legacy (old people) and livery customers. The Q doesnt have anything like that.

Post by **DAEDALUS** » Sat Jan 15, 2005 9:59 pm

Fred if your income keeps going up there's no reason to trade in your Z. Just make sure you have a 2-car garage.

Post by **PalmerWMD** » Sun Jan 16, 2005 5:28 am

I have a craving for big Infiniti again.

Maybe I should also consider a 2 year used original Gen M45., those also rock and represent a great value

Fred..

Post by **elwesso** » Sun Jan 16, 2005 6:03 am

PalmerWMD wrote:I have a craving for big Infiniti again.

Maybe I should also consider a 2 year used original Gen M45., those also rock and represent a great value

Fred..

Ah ha! Once it gets in your blood, its never coming out!!! You can get a used F50 for under 30k now!!

Post by **97Q45t** » Sun Jan 16, 2005 8:42 am

rsiwicki wrote:
M45 = 245/40/19 @ 94V @ 26.9 tallM45 = 235/45/18 @ 94V @ 26.5 tallQ45 = 225/55/17 @ 95V @ 26.7 tallQ45 = 245/45/18 @ 96V @ 26.9 tall

The 18" tire size statistic from C/D could be wrong. According to infinitinews.com, 18" tire size is 245/45/18.

Post by **elwesso** » Sun Jan 16, 2005 8:45 am

From the M's website

Super-light cast alloy 19-inch wheels with P245/40WR19 Bridgestone Potenza RE050 high-performance tires, W Speed Rating P245/45R18 All-Season tires, V Speed Rating

Post by **rsiwicki** » Sun Jan 16, 2005 1:05 pm

yeah...the 2006 M45 has the 245/45/18 @96V but the current 2004 has 235/45/18 @94V which really surprises me that they would put on a tire that is 2 points less load rating when the car weighs 150lbs less than the current 2004 Q45. I thought for at least a 3,800+lbs car you need a load rating of at least a 95V...not a 94V.

My 95 Q weighed in at the scales at 3,960 with 1/4 tank of gas.....so now I am thinking that if Infiniti says the 94V is okay for the current 2004 M45 @ 3,850lbs then my Q weighing only 100lbs more should be okay to use this load rating as well. Hell...even the 2006 M45 Sport weighs in at 3,995 which is equal to my Q and with their 94V rating sport 19" wheels being good for Infiniti...then these wheels should be good for my Q without losing any safety....Am I correct? The new M45 Sport 19" wheels look sharp and I think they would look awesome on my Q.

Post by **PalmerWMD** » Sun Jan 16, 2005 3:04 pm

rswicki:

They would indeed look awesome!

Just pump up an extra couple psi and go for it!

Fred..

Post by **Jeff Williams** » Sun Jan 16, 2005 3:29 pm

It was really strange, finally seeing C&D say something nice about Infiniti. It seems, when they are puting more emphasis on luxury, they blast Infiniti for having too much power, then when they are emphasizing power, they blast the cars, for a smaller back seat, or harsh ride.

C&D have pissed me off so many times, in the last 5 years. I have almost cancelled my subscription numerous times. In the back of my head, I am thinking they will find some flaw they ca nrant about, when they test it against a similary equipped BMW or Audi.

I think the kicker was the criticism of the power rear shade, on the 2000 I30. They didn't see why it was on the car. If anybody has one, they would tell you how great they are. We leave ours up all the time. It is great at night, when people are behind you, and great in the daytime, to keep the car cooler in the summer.

The other thing I notices right away about this edition, is the lack of stiff crap in the issue. I usually spend the first 10 minutes tearing out ads that are made of cardboard. Tis issue only had one subscription offer, and it was loose!

YouTube · Post by **Jesda** » Sun Jan 16, 2005 4:14 pm

Automobile Magazine > *Gotta love David E Davis and Jamie Kitman.

Though, I find it hard to pass up Patrick Bedard, Csaba Csere, and the rest of C&D's editorial folks.

YouTube · Post by **Jesda** » Sat Jan 22, 2005 3:27 pm

The M45 order guide for anyone who's into this stuff.

2006 M45 Sport C&D Stats...big pic

2006 M45 Sport C&D Stats...big pic

Re: 2006 M45 Sport C&D Stats...big pic (rsiwicki)

Re: 2006 M45 Sport C&D Stats...big pic (rsiwicki)

Re: 2006 M45 Sport C&D Stats...big pic (rsiwicki)

Re: 2006 M45 Sport C&D Stats...big pic (elwesso)

Re: (DAEDALUS)

Re: 2006 M45 Sport C&D Stats...big pic (rsiwicki)

Re: (PalmerWMD)

Re: 2006 M45 Sport C&D Stats...big pic (rsiwicki)

Re: 2006 M45 Sport C&D Stats...big pic (97Q45t)

Re: 2006 M45 Sport C&D Stats...big pic (97Q45t)

Re: (Jesda)

Nissan Forums

Infiniti Forums

Datsun Forums

Technical Forums

Classifieds / Marketplace

Nissan Motorsports

General Forums