94 vs. 95 vs. 96

[Peterofdevon]

Hi Guys,

What are the differences between these years. I know the 96 does not have the double valves. Here are my observations:

I've found that the 96 does not have the sound deadening ability of the 94 while driving, oddly, the 96's doors close more vault like. The steering seems lighter on the 96. Funny though, performance wise I don't experience any major diff in power. I have not driven or owned a 95.

Any other thoughts here?

Peter
Modified by Peterofdevon at 11:34 AM 2/12/2007

[maxnix]

94 and 95 perform the same, 96 does not have intake camshaft advance mechanism. Many running changes on later 94 became standard on 95. 1995 never had HICAS, 1996 never had active.

[elwesso]

IMO the 95-96 interiors have inferior quality materials, especially the door panels.. 95 and 96s always have the wear spot on the door panel worse than the 90-94s.... The seats seemto have a different leather....

IMO the best year for the Q was the 94.. still had the richness of the 90-93 with improvements.... 95 and 96 is when things started to go downhill, not Y33 downhill, but starting downhill.. I really like HICAS, most people dont dig it but I really like it..

The reason your 94 has heavier steering is because its a T.. The T model got the 90-93 steering rack which has a different gear than the 94 standard.. I believe 95 and 96 T models got the 90-93 gear as well, however I cannot recall for sure. like Brian said, 94 was the last year for HICAS and 95 the lats year for active.

Im sure the performance is similar, theyre pretty close stock vs stock, you shoudl experience a flatter powerband with the 96.... Think of the ones with VVT like having 2 different cams... The 96 basically just splits the difference.. You shouldnt get that RUSH you get above 4 grand on the 94... With an ECU you should notice a big difference 94 vs 96. The extra few HP the 94 has is probably offset by the added weight of HICAS.

[qship96]

i dont see any difference in interior materials/finishes at all between 94,95,96 whatsoever-they are identical-do you really think nissan spent the $ to research/develop material changes during the end of the product lifecycle of a slow selling vehicle? all they did was to cut existing,unseen expensive "hang on" items like hicas,etc to save $,and stop bringing over the slow selling second "a" model to cut their losses-changes to 96 {obd2} were epa mandated and I`m sure-frustrating and expensive to do for a car with 1 model year left in it.

[Peterofdevon]

I think the interior leather is of higher quality on the 96. Its softer, an indication of a better grade. Having owned or owning a 91, 93, 2-94s and a 96 I feel the 96 has a more refined "feel" to the interior. It could be they used a different grade of leather for the black dye or a different supplier. I remember when I first got a 94--I thought the interior was far finer---but, LAUGH, I was comming off a 93 with 220K on it with crapped out seats and arm rest.

Peter

[Q45denver]

Both my 1995's had leather door panels similar to my 1990's although the leather may be thicker. Might have something to do with the build date as I've seen several 1995's that used vinyl on the top door panels. No contest as far as the seats however, the 1990's are much better. Much thicker leather but not as soft. Basically the latter interiors have a more luxurious feel and look.

[RyanH]

I'm in a '95 t model, and the interior has held up very well. I'm the third owner, and it just ticked over 100,000 miles about 3 weeks ago (19th of January if I recall - was on a date and missed getting a pic of the odometer rolling over 100k). Anyway, the interior is in excellent shape. The only place that has any visible wear is the top of the center console lid. Oh, and the Infiniti logo on the rear floor mat on the driveshaft/trans tunnel has seen better days, but otherwise its mint.

[maxnix]

changes to 96 {obd2} were epa mandated and I`m sure-frustrating and expensive to do for a car with 1 model year left in it.

Only withdrawn from US market due to expense to manufacture. The G50 lived on as the President in the Japanese market until 2002.

[louiegz]

The other difference between the 94, 95 and 96 is that the standard 94 were still sporting those ugly pie pan rims while the 95 & 96 had the more palatable turbines. I'd rater have the BBS of the active models, but I'll live with the turbines. I like my 95.

[qship96]

Only withdrawn from US market due to expense to manufacture. The G50 lived on as the President in the Japanese market until 2002.

real question is did the later g50{96+} go to obd2 in japan also? and did it retain vvt? I dont think the g50 left usa because of cost to build,rather it had run its course as far as desirability to capture buyer interest in a then 7-8 year old design.

[Jesda]

90-93 Qs use a polyester-wool headliner. It was changed to something cheaper in 94 probably because no one noticed except me.

On road trips my hands move about the cabin and I find myself petting my wool roof.

[lino]

90-93 Qs use a polyester-wool headliner. It was changed to something cheaper in 94 probably because no one noticed except me.

On road trips my hands move about the cabin and I find myself petting my wool roof.

all that while singing funky town

[maxnix]

On road trips my hands move about the cabin and I find myself petting my wool roof.

Time for another girlfriend, or at least a blow-up Brenda for those long road trips.

Hint: The latter requires fewer rest stops.

[tkd_q45]

I sure noticed the cheapend up headliner!!!!!! The 96 has a lot of cost cutting measures. The door panels appear to be vinyl (or REALLY cheap leather) as well. Even the lug nuts are a cheaper, non chromed version.

I've both a 96 and a 94 and previously a 92. The 92 had a much higher feeling of quality overall. It's hard to explian, it just drove/felt like a higher quality vehicle. Interior had a much higher feeling of quality despite lacking wood trim. Steering was definitly better and steering wheel was thicker. transmission was more reponsive as well (despite being 2nd gear start). It felt much more driver's car than either my 94 or 96. And though Wes will disagree w/me - the seats were more comfortable/form fitting. I think it's because of the seam running the lenght of the spine on the seat back vs the gathered leather look of the 94+. Rear pacel deck also has cheaper materials. I do like the power headrest of the 94+ seats, but that's about it.

I do like the look of the 94 exterior more than the 92. To me best of both world would be to take a 92 or earlier, make sure the chain guides are fixed and swap the body panels w/a 94.

[Q45tech]

The 93 was about as good as it got..........gold clock, map pockets on rear of front seats, 1st gear start on old geared transmission, R12 cooling with muliple speed condenser fan, and all of the 90-92 positive tweeks................few sold so rarer.

[maxnix]

The 96 has a lot of cost cutting measures. The door panels appear to be vinyl (or REALLY cheap leather) as well.

As Greg (AZHitman) has noted, the leatherette is used on the door panels from at least 1995 on. I bet it is from inception as I never see cracked door panels like one does seat leather on old G50.

Personally, I think it is good choice as leather would deteriorate quickly in the sun.

Never noticed rear parcel shelf differences, but I am happy with the 1995 quality.

Remember, a lot of MB in the 70's and 80's came with MBTex seating, which is a high grade vinyl.