Active Suspension, should it stay or should it go?

A General Discussion forum for cars and other topics, and a great place to introduce yourself if you are new to NICO!
User avatar
QShip
Posts: 634
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2002 6:04 am

Post

My car is a 1991 q45a with 110k miles. It was bought used in NH with 62k miles on it. It was and still is a NE car.

The guides were done and the transmission was replaced before I bought the car. While I was looking for a Q, I test drove a 1991 Q45T, standard and active. The active felt the most powerful. So that is the one I bought.

My question is, from a performance point of view, should I switch to a conventional suspension?

I do know the 1991 Q45a was the only Q that was hit with a gas guzzler tax when they sold as new cars. I believe someone said the a/s adds about 400lbs to the car. I don't really care about the cost of maintaining the a/s nor the cost of replacing the conventional shocks every 40k miles, my concern is performance. Will my car perform so much better in acceleration and stopping that it is worth doing the switch?


User avatar
PalmerWMD
Posts: 14329
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 3:14 pm
Car: 2004 350Z

Post

magazine testers back then have, never found a performance difference otehr than a minor mpg penalty.

Fred...:)

User avatar
PalmerWMD
Posts: 14329
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 3:14 pm
Car: 2004 350Z

Post

I dont belive it adds 400 lbs but 200 lbs, also braking stability is probably improved.Also when converting you keep much of the system weight in the car still.

Fred...:)

maxnix
Posts: 22627
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2002 8:11 pm
Car: 1995 Infiniti Q45
1995 Infiniti Q45t
2000 Infiniti Q45

Post

All generation one Q45s (1990-1996 G50) were penalized as gas guzzlers.

User avatar
QShip
Posts: 634
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2002 6:04 am

Post

palmerwmd wrote:Also when converting you keep much of the system weight in the car still.
That's true Fred. If I do the switch, I'll have the entire system pulled out. :)

I don't plan on taking the car to the track, but I do want to sqeeze the most performance out of her as I can. From being a member of this forum, I have learned that heat and weight will rob your car of performance.

I do recall fxjackso saying the performance difference in his active Q and his standard Q, both with JWT ecu and tcu, was significant.

User avatar
QShip
Posts: 634
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2002 6:04 am

Post

maxnix wrote:All generation one Q45s (1990-1996 G50) were penalized as gas guzzlers.
Thanx for the correction, I thought it was just the active Q's :)

maxnix
Posts: 22627
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2002 8:11 pm
Car: 1995 Infiniti Q45
1995 Infiniti Q45t
2000 Infiniti Q45

Post

Quote »I do want to sqeeze the most performance out of her as I can[/quote] Then I would say keep it stock. If you don't like the active, then get a standard or t. It makes little sense to convert just because one bought the wrong model, and now envisions cost savings by converting it to the specifications of a different model.

As pointed out by Q45tech in the post following this one:Quote »A total retrofit would require new ecu, new power steering pump, pullies and belts plus another 5 - 6 hours of work over and above the simple pump loopback and 4 shock/spring change out.......to get every pound of dead weight and meet non active performance.

For most a $1300 change is enough vs a total $2,800 R&R.[/quote]

Keep it stock, or get the model you want.

fxjackso
Posts: 354
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2002 3:17 am

Post

Q-ship-

I did say that my 90 standard car is a bit quicker than my old 91 active.

But I liked the active car better, and I miss it every day.

Don't convert. Maintain the system, it's amazing when it works!

Fred

User avatar
szh
Posts: 15932
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2002 12:54 pm
Car: 2018 Tesla Model 3.

Unfortunately, no longer a Nissan or Infiniti, but continuing here at NICO!
Location: San Jose, CA

Post

maxnix wrote:All generation one Q45s (1990-1996 G50) were penalized as gas guzzlers.


True! The limit was $30,000 and anything above was taxed.

Z

BadQ45t
Posts: 3255
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 7:54 am
Car: '21 Nissan Leaf SL Plus (wife's car)
'05 Nissan X-Terra S 4x4
'97 Infiniti Q45t SOLD! Miss the old girl
'84 Nissan 300ZX (Original Owner)
'16 Mercedes Benz S550e V8 Power & 35 MPG
Location: Half Moon Bay, CA

Post

Wrong tax, that is the luxury tax, the gas guzzler tax was for a car that didn't average a certain MPG. I heard that the 97 reduction to 4.1 was to get out of that tax, but the luxury tax still remained.

User avatar
Sopdadope
Posts: 936
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 8:12 am

Post

Hmmm...I've been totally satisfied with my conversion. Believe me, after removing all the Active Suspension components, the car is definitely faster on its feet.

The ActSus system weighs about a good 250 lbs. I'd say, that's just the main components not including the fluid and lines. I have a 22mm custom rear sway bar, energy suspension bushings throughout and the tokicos. Body roll is significant reduced and I can honestly say, my Q handles better than any other Q I've ever driven, period and I'm still rollin on H-rated 215's.

User avatar
szh
Posts: 15932
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2002 12:54 pm
Car: 2018 Tesla Model 3.

Unfortunately, no longer a Nissan or Infiniti, but continuing here at NICO!
Location: San Jose, CA

Post

BadQ45t wrote:Wrong tax, that is the luxury tax, the gas guzzler tax was for a car that didn't average a certain MPG. I heard that the 97 reduction to 4.1 was to get out of that tax, but the luxury tax still remained.


Oh, yeah! You are right. My mistake! :dunce

Z

texasoil
Posts: 875
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2002 3:18 pm
Car: '92 Infiniti Q45A
'94 Infiniti Q45A
'94 Mercedes-Benz SL600

Post

Max performance on the track is different things to different folks. What kind of track? Straight line dragging dump all the weight possible.

Curves and bumps it's real hard to beat a working active Q. Those of us who have driven one in good shape love them. The secret is getting the accumulators recharged. No dive on braking,no squat on accelerating, flat cornering until over 0.5g, then system allow a little for feedback. No compromises on chassis compliance like there is with non-active stuff.

Only hitch is it doesn't handle well the negative G's(like getting all wheels in the air going over a sharp hill) --gets confused - car body has negative G force, wheels are showing lots of extension--not a normal situation the control algorithims are designed to master. Tends to hit hard--no damage, just not well mannered

bpmguys
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2003 4:30 am
Car: CARS, RACING, PERFORMANCE

Post

get rid of it. you can go with springs, struts etc.. and get great handling out of the car. the a/s does ride nice when it is working, the problem is maintaining it. when something breaks it big bucks. you can retro that car for appx 1200.00 and be done with it for good.

User avatar
QShip
Posts: 634
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2002 6:04 am

Post

Everyone that has weighed in on this topic has presented very influential opinions. I kinda figured it was going to be a matter of preference. The best solution would be to get a standard 1990 Q and restore the 1991 active back to factory specs. However, that's not likely to happen.

Decisions. Decisions.

Anyway thanks for the great advice. :)

User avatar
PalmerWMD
Posts: 14329
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 3:14 pm
Car: 2004 350Z

Post

I would also maintain it and keep it.

Fred...:)

ERicincal
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2002 11:47 am
Contact:

Post

I just recharged mine.. I like the way it feels. I didnt get this car to race around.. so the difference of 200 lbs, wont be THAT significant..... after drving the active for a while, its not MINDBLOWING amazing, but its a very comfortable ride. on the highway, or long swooping curves, you are cruising around at such a high rate of speed without any leaning, that it is really amazing that such a heavy car, stays so well planted.

Im glad I had mine recharged ( but then again its only been a few weeks) Ill let everyong know how the recharge hold up.

texasoil
Posts: 875
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2002 3:18 pm
Car: '92 Infiniti Q45A
'94 Infiniti Q45A
'94 Mercedes-Benz SL600

Post

I have to admit I have not collected all the active system parts and wieghed them, but I do have at least one of everything. For the life of me, I cannot get anywhere near the '250#' that is mentioned as 'the weight penalty'. That 250# must also include the rear sway bar and mounts and the heavier front sway bar..

The hydraulic accumulators (steel) wiegh about 45# total. The reservior full of oil weighs another 20#. The 3 solenoid valve assemblies and mounts weigh another 30# combined. The extra pump weight is probably another 10#, and the oil cooler and fan weigh another 15# all in. Sensors and wiring maybe another 10 # total. That's about 130 # so far. (the struts may weigh a couple of pounds more each say 10# for 4 , thats a total of 140. Plumbing can't weigh more than 30# in all,-for a grand total of 170#+/-

If one is racing take everything out, including all the sound insulation,seats, carpets, A/C system,power locks and windows--strip the beast. However, for 99.9% of the people, carrying around the equivalent weight 'penalty' of a passenger is not ever noticeable.

User avatar
PalmerWMD
Posts: 14329
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 3:14 pm
Car: 2004 350Z

Post

#170 isnt all that much in a 4000 lbs (well now #4170) car.

about the equivalent of one passenger.

Also I get the feeling you were giving hi estimates so as not be too optimistic.

I keep thinking the "a" is an interesting car that someday I would like to own.

Fred...:)


Return to “General Chat”