91-93 active vs 94 - 95 active - what do you think

[bruce.weiland]

Hi again all,

I have appreciated all the great input and help with the last topic I listed.

I am leaning toward a 91 to 93 active car for the reasons I will list.

Tell me if you think my thinking is sound, or should I broaden my search.

96 is out because, I believe 1) 95’s were the last actives imported and 2) variable valve timing was not on the 96 engine in order to meet emissions.

I like the 91 (first year of the active) through 93 because

1) the seat that some auto journalist called “the hand of God” just fits my butt (it was a real disappointment in my 95).2) 1st and 2nd gear are a lower ratio and with a 93 first gear start trans controller the 91 is just more fun for me.3) The ECU is more easily upgraded with socketed chips (in Calif. I need to go through emissions exams every two years) I would like to get another 50 hp and lb/ft out of the stock engine, if possible.

However, with a 94 or 95 car I would not have to think about chain guides or trans coolers. I could locate a pair of earlier seats to put in it, but I would still have a higher ratio in 1st and 2nd. I believe ECU update may not be available.

I did not talk about the active differences. I believe the 94 to 95 had two 16 bit processors and slightly different software. Any info on that?

OK. There is some my “thinking” what do you think?

And thanks in advance.

Bruce

[elwesso]

your mostly right....

The 94-95 ECU can bejust as easily modified.... takes some slightly different stuff but still works pretty easy. Besides, all our ECU's will pass cali emissions....

Honestly, i dont think any of the 90-96 seats are terribly comfortable... The 90-93 are firmer and slightly more supportive, but im not sure... the 94 seats are nice, nearly as supportive but lack the "butt support", i guess made for "wider loads".... Ive driven both for a reasonably long period of time and i cant really say I prefer one to the other.... Then again, i dont know what its like to take up more than 75% of the seat, and my "seat" doesnt add a whole lot of cusion....

Still, either seat is reasonably comfortable for long drives...

you STILL NEED to add a trans cooler on a 94-95... the twin cooler helps but its not as good as it should be...

The actives are different. The front and rear main control valve thingys were different (exact nomenclature i am not sure of) as well as the actsus controller itself... It just has different software, seems to be much better for better ride and better handling. All of those parts will bolt right on to a 90-93, FWIW...

honestly, the 90-93 trans 1st gear ratio doesnt make that big of a difference... 10% roughly, so hardly feelable...

It would probably be easier to find a super clean 94-95 active than it would to finda 90-93 active, but you never know.... These active cars are getting very hard to find in a non-destroyed state... if you can find one with an active that at LEAST has the fluid kinda full, snatch it up...

[bruce.weiland]

Wes,

You may have an idea there. It doe seem that the 91 - 93 active are becoming like hen's teeth. I will widen my search.

It seemed to me that my 91 active handled better than my 95 active. There may have been three reasons for this, a side from software and hardware. First, as I recall the earlier car had a faster turning ratio. Second, I believe they softened some of the bushings starting in 94. And finally I never could seem to find a set of 255x40x17 fronts and 285x40x17 rears on 8.5 and 9.5 that worked as well as the multiple sets of Yoko AVS 255x50x16 on 8" that I had on my early car.

Yes, both seat styles are very comfortable, I did like the adjustment in the ealier center arm rest. I just liked the way the early seat held on to me. At the time I weight about 180, I am 5' 11", so not a huge butt.

As to your thoughts on a 10% difference in first gear not making much difference, I need to ask this question. If an aftermarket exhaust could "really" add 10% torque (not 10 pound feet but about 30) to a Q45 engine, what would that be worth? And do you think that would be feelable?

Thanks for your reply. Anyone else want to jump in.

Bruce

[elwesso]

Bruce

Im reasonably sure that the 94/95 actives had the same steering ratio... You're right, the 90-93 had a quicker steering gear, however the 94-95 touring retained that quicker gear, and i THOUGHT the actives did too..!!!!

Remeber that handling is 85% tires and 15% suspension... So if you didnt have the same tires on the cars, then all bets are off.. Also, if the suspension wasnt OEM NEW on both, then all bets are off.. Too many variables when we talk about older cars.... In theory, the active hardware didnt change, so theres no reason why the 95 wouldnt handle as well... They may have used softer bushings, im not sure, but if your bushings are more than a couple years old, it doesnt matter what they were like to start out with!!!

Most exhausts wont add 30HP unless you join it with other mods... However, the general rule is that it takes 10-15HP to be BARELY noticeable... the 30HP the NICO ECU gains is noticeable, but its not a huge difference.... 10% isnt worth writing home to mom about....

the bottom line is, ive driven a known perfect 91 Q and a known perfect 94, both equally stock, and they arent htat much different... Maybe a little, but not a TON... Note that the ECUs in the 90-93 are more advanced (more HP), so by doing the ECU upgrade you may gain less HP on a 90-93 vs 94-95.. bottom line is, with the ECU upgrade, 90-95 Q become very VERY close....

FWIW im not trying to persuade you one way or another. There is something really goofy about those stupid 91/92 Q (93s are basically a 94 with a belt buckle)... Something that makes them feel special and unique... im not sure what it is, but they even feel different from my 94. WIth that said, i would trade my Q for a nice 91 or 92 active Q!

[lino]

The actives are different. The front and rear main control valve thingys were different (exact nomenclature i am not sure of) as well as the actsus controller itself... It just has different software, seems to be much better for better ride and better handling. All of those parts will bolt right on to a 90-93, FWIW...

I didn't know that. Better ride and better handling

[elwesso]

I didn't know that. Better ride and better handling

i knew i could depend on you to question that.... I have no direct proof, but i do know the software is different... What difference it makes, not sure? We have an article on Q45.org that outlines the difference...

[bruce.weiland]

Wes,

Don’t worry about trying to convince me. The purpose for this thread is to get as many informed opinions as I can.

I appreciate your input.

By the way, I realize that no exhaust system produces a 10% improvement, in fact many (intakes include) actually cause a loss of hp and torque. My point was that if one could have a “bolt-on” that would allow for 10% increase in torque, what would that be worth. Additionally, the new car, as you pointed out, has a bit less hp and torque than the earlier ones. That combined with an approx. 8% higher 1st gear can make launch feel less exciting.

One of the things have noticed about “feeling” more power is how much stronger my 2005 G35 pulls when the air temp is 65 instead of 95. I don’t recall how much denser the charge is 30 degrees F lower or how to calculate the hp and torque increase, but boy is it feelable.

As far as the suspension being new, my 91 I bought new and when the accumulators went flat they were replaced under extended warranty. The 95 had 24K miles on it and when it’s accumulators whet flat those were replace under warranty. I have no assurance that all the accumulators were replaced, but both cars were appreciably different (better) after the warranty.

But now off to what you have been discussing, a new Q. I have located one and will start a thread about it’s potential purchase. I would love for you to weigh in on that thread.

Thanks

Bruce