96 vs 2000 Q45 article

[1qckser]

http://www.freshalloy.com/site...shtml

I think this was posted a couple of years ago but its still a good read

[PalmerWMD]

i've read it but they took the 96 which was the least typical G50 (ie early) Q45 to represent the early Q's.

That makes that comparison less valid.

Nico member have written comparisons of more substance , albeit w/o pretty picvs, over the years.

Fred..

[elwesso]

I agree,it would have been fair to compare it to a 94 or something.....

But you notice that they even say the 96 feels faster...

[1qckser]

Its a decent article, however the 2000 should have had the factory size wheel and tire package, and even though less sporty the 2000 is still a very hot car, remember we have 2 or 3 members with non-stock versions of these cars and they do run hard, the wieght reduction is a big reason for this, do a power to wieght ratio and it really shouldnt be that big a deal, I would take 2000 Q with out a moments thought, as I get older I enjoy a nice smooth comfy luxo ride with none of the first gen Qs little quirks we all love, even though on my 4th year of ownership my Q has yet to show me any injector problems, vibrating problems, or fluid leaks (well right side valve cover now leaks). As a lover of Q45-41s I have nothing bad to say because they all do what they are supposed to do and do it good, maybe not as fast or as sharp as the 90-93s but still awesome cars.

[Rex]

^Very well said^

If I ha to do it again, I'd look around for a great deal on an AE model and spend less on maint and more on mods. I think a few $$ spent wisely can make the VH41 "tolerable".

[1qckser]

I will post the AutoWeek article on the 1999 Infiniti Indy Q45, and I agree with you, my next Q will be atleast a 98 on up.

[Jesda]

My next Q will be a Seville, M45, or CTS.

[Rex]

Well, the M45 & CTS are in different price ranges than an AE Q45, and with the new smoooooooooth idle, you may never replace your Q.

[elwesso]

Honestly, at this time, i would personally see no reason for us to get rid of our G50 in the event of an upgrade.. All of us take good care of the cars (to a certain degree) and the such low value, you seem stupid to get rid of it, even if you just put it away for a year.....

[russg]

As a previous owner of both a 1994 and 2000 Q45 (both purchased new), I am reasonably qualified to compare and contrast both cars.

Unquestionably, the 94 was a higher performance car. The 2000 never really quite had the balls of the 94, although it certainly was no pig. However, that's pretty much where the advantage ends for the 94, in my opinion, and for many it would be sufficient for the comparison to end there.

The 1997-2001 Q45 was brutally maligned by the automotive press almost without exception. The car was really a much better car than how it was typically reviewed, however I will admit that it was the wrong direction for Infiniti to take the Q model. But the second generation Q's praises are rarely sung. Without question, the second gen Q was by far a more reliable and less expensive car to maintain. That reason alone makes it a superior choice as a used car, if maintenance cost are an issue. My 2000 was an Anniversary Edition, which is essentially identical to a 2001 Q45t. It was the Tuscan Beige color, with the blacked out grill and headlight treatment, 5-spoke alloy 17 wheels, and sport-tuned suspension (pics in my gallery). It was arguably a better looking exterior than my Black Emerald 94, but a close call. No such close call when comparing the interiors. The 2000's interior simply blew away the 94's interior. The wood/leather steering wheel and extensive wood treatment throughout the cabin, with the nicely gathered leather upholstery clearly out-classed the 94, and was a more pleasant environment overall. The 2000 had a better stock Bose stereo, but I preferred the shifter in the 94.

For those considering purchasing a pre-3rd generation Q45 as a used car, it would be a mistake to not consider a 2nd generation car. I suspect that on average, these cars can be found with less hard miles on them, obviously due to their more recent vintage, but just as importantly due to their being less desirable to enthusiasts (read people who typically drive the piss out of them).

Russ

[1qckser]

Thanks for the awesome write up, I agree 100%

[elwesso]

Nicely written Russ...

Still, there is something captivating about the G50...

Id love to have both, but if I had to chose, id probably still take the G50.. However, ive not been offered this so i dont know... I still have yet to drive one.....

Also, the FGY33 is still a better luxury car than the G50 is a performance car.....

[pito11213]

My friend bought a 98 Q with 80,000 miles on it. Unfortunately he put some ugly *** rims on it but hey. The car itself is pearl white and tan interior (what Q isnt now adays) The car is definately made to be luxury status. If my finances were better I would get one but be mad about the performance loss but then not care after a while. My 90 still outperforms alot of cars even with two bad injectors. But I need longevity in my life and with the money I would spend on a G50 to make it last I would rather get a more recent year vehicle. Honestly I would prefer a 1998 GMC yukon. Im a big dude and should have a big ride.

This current Q is an excellent ride just has the little "first gen G50 quirks" which are becoming to frequent for me right now.

[natsoundup]

I think I will own a 2000 anniversary edition some day.... or the 2001 q45t.

[maxnix]

I think I will own a 2000 anniversary edition some day.... or the 2001 q45t.

Be prepared for a large shock to your wallet when the shocks need replacement. Why for me the standard model in these years is the more desirable choice. Also, unlike some others, I find the light maple rather yellow and garish.