early Q engine longevity & 91-93 active

[bruce.weiland]

Hi all,

Years ago I owned a '91' Q45a and later a '95' q45a. I currently own a "stripped" 2005 G35 sedan with performance suspension.

I am about to take the plung to get a '91' to '93' Q45a, and do what is necessary to bring it up to snuff.

1. Barring chain problems, how long can I expect a properly cared for engine to last?

2. How about transmission?

3. Does texasoil have a website? Is he still rebuilding acctuators?

Thanks in advance for all the help.

BruceWhittier, CA

[elwesso]

Welcome to NICO bruce...

Engine longevity all depends on how good it was taken care of. if the oil was changed religiously every 3-4 months (4 months being a "just shoot me maximum"), you cna expect to see 300k out of the motor.... tech has like 320k on his and its showing no signs of giving up, but its not "as new" as they say, its obviously lost some compression and its a little iffy here and there, but its not bad and still runs great.

transmission can go a long time too! People are a lot harder on the Q trans than they should be. The RE4R03A trans is really a well built JATCO trans, the thing killing them is people not keeping fluid fresh and also people not putting coolers on... Thats what kills transmissions, HEAT!

Keith is still rebuilding acumulators.

[bruce.weiland]

Wes,

Thanks for the very quick reply and information.

I have found a 92 with 124k miles for $3995. Haven't seen it yet or driven it. I can see from the picture that it has some "parking lot" type body damage and a spoiler with brake light. It is pearl, as my first Q was, but with tan interior instead of white. If the car seems OK and the price comes down I am willing to put a new interior in it. Rebuild the suspension if needed, and ad trans cooler.

1 On a car with that many miles and probably no histroy would a trans flush be a good or bad idea?

2 Also I saw something about "better than JWT controller". Can you give me some direction on that?

3. Finally, what about the Knight ESC (electric supper charger)?

Thanks again for the replies, knowledge and time. I have been away from the Q for a long time.

Bruce

[elwesso]

I hope the trans fluid has been done, if it hasnt, you still have some life left it in (hopefully), just check the trans fluid and see if its red. If its reddish you are good, but plan on doing one as soon as you take delivery.. Remember flush isnt really a good term, its relaly just changing the fluid.... You should be fine...

We may be bringing back the NICO ECU's by the first of the year.

For the electric supercharger, dont waste your time, however thomas knight does build a real supercharger for the Q45!

[ceningolmo]

That price seems high to me... I think if you are patient you will find that you can pick up a 90-93 Q with similar/less mileage for roughly half your quoted price.

I own two 91 Q45a's and have paid $2000 and $1500 for the two.

[elwesso]

That price seems high to me... I think if you are patient you will find that you can pick up a 90-93 Q with similar/less mileage for roughly half your quoted price.

I own two 91 Q45a's and have paid $2000 and $1500 for the two.

[Q45tech]

Over the 311,000 miles the engine has had 2 new [EVERY POSSIBLE HOSE] sets of plenum hoses, 2 new knock sensors and harness, 2 valve cover reseals, 5 sets of NGK spark plugs, 70+ cans of BG44K, 90 oil and filter changes, 2 oil pressure switches, 2 new front and rear main seals. One total set of chain guides, oil chain, and tensioners at 100k.

3 rail flushes, 4 induction fog procedures, 7 throttle body cleans, 1 erg removal and clean, 1 IAC clean with new gaskets.

3 thermostats, 2 water pumps,

As built CAS, ignitors, fuel injectors, pressure dampener, fpregulator, TPS, cats, exhaust manifold gasket. never had the heads off .

[bruce.weiland]

All I can say is, "WOW!"

That engine is loved.

[Q45tech]

Just too expensive to abuse and allow to fail early [prior to 20 year life].

Jan 2010= 20 years.

The engine maintenance and repair costs [chain guides $1000] [oil $2500]around $6,500 for engine ~~ 2 cents per mile.

transmission maintenance and replacements about 1 cent per mile [some people end up spending 3 times as much with replacements]

This was insignificant [less than 1/4] compared to the $43,000 plus total M&R expense........................... 14 cents per mile.

17,300+ gallons of gasoline

[Q45tech]

have found a 92 with 124k miles for $3995

A 15 year old car is worth $2000 LESS the cost to repair to standard say $3,000-$10,000 so they should pay you $1000-$8,000 to take possession of it.......................unfortunately it doesn't work that way.

A non driveable junker is worth $500.

The way to attack the problem is to get a certified technican to examine and document the real cost of repairs and use that in bargaining.

Every used car needs $3,000 MINIMUM some need $10,000.

Engine, transmission, drive shaft, shocks, and brakes = $10,000 alone.

OBVIOUSLY CHAIN GUIDES $1300+ is the first order of business.

[lino]

My Q cost me an arm and a leg. I did overpay, but I wasn't as Q-educated as I am now. I paid more than the asking price of the one you're looking at now. The ACTIVE was dead when I bought my car, and was quickly revived, courtesy of a fine gentleman named Keith, known as texasoil on this forum. He made my Q45 a Q45A like it was born to be.

Here is his website:

http://www.q45asuspension.com/

[bruce.weiland]

Q45tech,

I like your thinking. I once sold a house and put $18k into escrow to walk away.

Maybe I can get a bidding war going on how much they will pay me to take their Q45a.

The one I was referring to ended up being in S.F.(300 miles away). I am in LA, so I will keep looking. An ideal car would be pearl white with white and black interior. Next would be pearl with black interior, to be upgraded to mostly white.

Thank you for the heads-up on the most likely repairs I will be facing with a 91 to 93 active.

Bruce

[bruce.weiland]

You have a gorgious car. Exactly the color combo I am looking for and what my 91 was.

I ran it with 255x50x16 Yoko AVS on 16x8, poly sway bar bushing on the chasis, and lowered the car about 1/2 by adjusting the ride height sensors. Drove it from 91 to 97.

I loved the way it handled. The 95 had 255x45x17 front and 275x40x17 rear. I did not like it nearly as well. I also missed that great front seat that was in the 91.

Thanks for including the great pictures.

[lino]

You have a gorgious car. Exactly the color combo I am looking for and what my 91 was.

Thanks for including the great pictures.

Thanks for the compliments. You can see more pics of my car here:

zer...age=5

Try around half way down the page.

I ran it with 255x50x16 Yoko AVS on 16x8, poly sway bar bushing on the chasis, and lowered the car about 1/2 by adjusting the ride height sensors. Drove it from 91 to 97.

How do you adjust the height sensors?

I loved the way it handled. The 95 had 255x45x17 front and 275x40x17 rear. I did not like it nearly as well. I also missed that great front seat that was in the 91.

Are you saying you didn't ike how the 95 handled or how it drove with the big 17" tire combo you were running?

[bruce.weiland]

Lino,

1 Your welcome. I could not get that page with pictures to come up.

2 Ahhh, now that is a secret. If I tell you I will have to kill you.

No, actually it is quit simple. I haven't done it in a long time. As I recall the front sensors are very easy to do. You need a phillips screw driver, as I recall. Look in your manual for the location, they are each out close to the control arms.

The rears are a little more difficult to get to, but not bad. You need two small wrenches, one for the locking nut and one to adjust it. I think they were 8 and 9 mm.

Measure you wheel arch height, car running, on a level surface. Pull the car up on ramps and adjust the front. The back the rear up on ramps and adjust the rear.

Drive the car around the block then put back on the level and see were your wheel arches are. At that point it will tell you how far you have to go.

It really is quit easy and does not take too long. Once your good at it, less than 30 minutes.

3 And YES, I did not like the way the 95 road. Handling was OK, but did not seem as responsive or comunicative as the 91. I don't know why 1/2 inch less side wall would make that much difference, but it seemed to. I had them mounted on 8.5x17 front and 9.5x17 rear. There were some differences in the 95 active as far as softer bushings and some program change. That may have been part of the problem.

I did a quick search for 255x50x16 tires at discount tires direct and did not come up with much.

What are guys and gals running now that give great handling without screwing up the ride.

I am in dry So. CA. so max. performance is fine.

Thanks

Bruce

[maxnix]

What are guys and gals running now that give great handling without screwing up the ride.

Pretty much have to go 17" (short term) or 18". On the best tires, the ride is still pretty darn good.

[bruce.weiland]

Brian,

I haven't looked at tires for a while. Do you say 17" short term, because there are less and less 17" tires available? Or was there a different reason?

Any size and brand recomendations?

Thanks

Bruce

[lino]

Lino,

1 Your welcome. I could not get that page with pictures to come up.

Go to the top link on this Forum called "OFFICIAL G50 (90-96 Q45) OWNERS CHECK IN!" and my car is on page 5.

That was the link I sent you.

Lino,

2 Ahhh, now that is a secret. If I tell you I will have to kill you.

No, actually it is quit simple. I haven't done it in a long time. As I recall the front sensors are very easy to do. You need a phillips screw driver, as I recall. Look in your manual for the location, they are each out close to the control arms.

The rears are a little more difficult to get to, but not bad. You need two small wrenches, one for the locking nut and one to adjust it. I think they were 8 and 9 mm.

Measure you wheel arch height, car running, on a level surface. Pull the car up on ramps and adjust the front. The back the rear up on ramps and adjust the rear.

Drive the car around the block then put back on the level and see were your wheel arches are. At that point it will tell you how far you have to go.

It really is quit easy and does not take too long. Once your good at it, less than 30 minutes.

Did the lowering of the car make a noticeable difference in feeling or just appearance?

Lino,

3 And YES, I did not like the way the 95 road. Handling was OK, but did not seem as responsive or comunicative as the 91. I don't know why 1/2 inch less side wall would make that much difference, but it seemed to. I had them mounted on 8.5x17 front and 9.5x17 rear. There were some differences in the 95 active as far as softer bushings and some program change. That may have been part of the problem.

I did a quick search for 255x50x16 tires at discount tires direct and did not come up with much.

What are guys and gals running now that give great handling without screwing up the ride.

I am in dry So. CA. so max. performance is fine.

Thanks

Bruce

I'm running Bridgestone Blizzak 215 65 Q15 winter tires since I bought the car. I put them on it a year ago, and still haven't changed them. I don't know what an 1991 Q45a feels like with real tires yet . I'm planning on buying new wheels and tires this spring.

[bruce.weiland]

Got to the page. Downloaded some of the pictures to give my mind something more concrete to image on.

Corners better a little lower. I have lots of winding roads available.

Wider lower profile tires, all things being equal, do not put more rubber on the road. The patch is the same area, just shorter front to back and wider side to side.

Wider tires have less slip angle when cornering. And, tires of lower profile are often stickier (read here - grip better - stop shorter - wear out faster and cost more). You will find the car handles a lot better with 50 or 45 series wider tires. However, there will be some ride trade off with an inch shorter and stiffer side wall then on your 215x65.

I am going to look to the wisdom of the group. I haven't researched tires for several years, so I don't really know what is good out there.

[maxnix]

I am going to look to the wisdom of the group. I haven't researched tires for several years, so I don't really know what is good out there.

Start with the tire sticky in Infiniti General.

[bruce.weiland]

Thanks Brian

[maxnix]

I haven't looked at tires for a while. Do you say 17" short term, because there are less and less 17" tires available? Or was there a different reason?

Any size and brand recomendations?

Performance tires have disappeared in 15" and 16" diameters with applications for the G50. They will be gone in 17" soon also.

Look at all Tier 1 manufacturer's top summer maximum performance tires. Look for XL load rated construction. Ideal in 17" is 255/45-17, in 18" 255/40-18. Choose your tire first paying attention to required wheel width. Then choose your wheels with an eye towards strength, quality, and fit. Tirerack can help, but their fitment data is a little behind the times.

Lots of helpful posts including the sticky in Infiniti General.

[bruce.weiland]

Brian,

Thank you. Very helpful, I have begun to do my research.

I was originally confused about "sticky" I thought it was a search term not a post that would "stick" at the top of the list.

Is anyone that you know of running staggered front and rears, like 275 or 285 in the rear?

Thanks again.

Bruce

[maxnix]

Is anyone that you know of running staggered front and rears, like 275 or 285 in the rear?

A few people are. But read Q45tech's posts about tires and dynamic handling. Little reason to add more rear grip which increases understeer. Now with different spring rates (springs, tires, and anti-sway bar).......

If you don't have 400HP at the rear wheel, it's an affectation, not a performance enhancement.

[bruce.weiland]

Haven't found Q45tech's handling dynamics post yet, but....

I did see your on wheel size and tires used.

Although I can adopt affectations at times, I am thinking 255x40x18

Either Yoko Adavan or Goodyear F1 on 18x9.

OK, I got the tires all I need is the car. Kind of like the beatles song "Drive my car"... I've got a driver and that's a start.

Thanks Brian

[maxnix]

Either Yoko Adavan or Goodyear F1 on 18x9.

OK, I got the tires all I need is the car. Kind of like the beatles song "Drive my car"... I've got a driver and that's a start.

The Goodyear are good, the Advan areprobably not strong enough.

Pay particular to load rating. Main reason PS2 in XL rating beat our F1 in the 255/40-18 for me. Get the right (well maintained) car!

[DrewQ45]

Haven't found Q45tech's handling dynamics post yet, but....

I did see your on wheel size and tires used.

Although I can adopt affectations at times, I am thinking 255x40x18

Either Yoko Adavan or Goodyear F1 on 18x9.

OK, I got the tires all I need is the car. Kind of like the beatles song "Drive my car"... I've got a driver and that's a start.

Thanks Brian

Just realize that once you go to 18", the expense increases dramatically.

Just about all 18" tires are high performance directional tires which cannot be rotated side to side without flipping them on the rim. That would garner the same cost as mounting them all over again. There are a few which are bi-directional such as the Sumitomo HTR+ which I am currently running. Now some people like directional tires because of the linear tracking feel they provide while on the highway or at high speeds. I personally like that feel at speed but dislike it at low speeds. On my Q, the steering had a tendency to fight to return to dead-center which I found annoying when tooling around. If you can go with 17" I'd suggest it based on $avings and less hassle.

..Drew...

[maxnix]

1.) Just realize that once you go to 18", the expense increases dramatically.

2.) Just about all 18" tires are high performance directional tires which cannot be rotated side to side without flipping them on the rim. That would garner the same cost as mounting them all over again.

3.). Now some people like directional tires because of the linear tracking feel they provide while on the highway or at high speeds. I personally like that feel at speed but dislike it at low speeds. On my Q, the steering had a tendency to fight to return to dead-center which I found annoying when tooling around. If you can go with 17" I'd suggest it based on $avings and less hassle.

..Drew...

1.) But so does the performance in the top tier. Many of the top tier tires are no longer available in 17" sizes that will work on the Q45. It's like you get for which you pay, or you take your chances. Since tires are the only interface between the car and the road, false economy here can cost you dearly on the street. Stopping 12' shorter and not be in someone's trunk or holding a curve at speed in the rain can be priceless.

2.) Personally, I flip mine every 5K anyway to extend life. Except the PS2 on the FY33 are directional and asymmetrical, so only rotation is front to back. Wear, so far, is excellent and better than my expectations. Another great reason to exceed the 95 minimum OEM load rating specification.

3.) Low or high speed, with AVS dB, Tech M500, SZ50 EP, or PS2, no problem with tracking vs. speed. If you mean following road imperfections, then yes, there is some exageration withstickier maximum performance tires. There is just more feedback available. With wider and lower profile tires, less of the tread is following in its own footsteps, so more information about the road surface is transmitted to the driver. Neither do I have to fight to return to center, but only the FY33 has non stock springs (Eibachs).

While 17" is certainly cheaper, the perforamnce frontier has moved on, and the future for 17" looks no better than 15" and 16" did a couple of years ago. I wish it weren't so, but it is.

[DrewQ45]

2.) Personally, I flip mine every 5K anyway to extend life. .

3.) Neither do I have to fight to return to center, but only the FY33 has non stock springs (Eibachs).

While 17" is certainly cheaper, the perforamnce frontier has moved on, and the future for 17" looks no better than 15" and 16" did a couple of years ago. I wish it weren't so, but it is.

Agreed with almost all of what you said. As you know I personally opted for 18" but not everyone is as willing to pay to play so I'm pointing out the drawbacks.

If you're paying to flip the tires every 5K, you might as well let them wear out faster and get new tires since the cost/time involved in mounting (in my experience) outstrips the cost of the tire. Of course you might have a few contacts that do it for cheap, but I have no such luxury. I've also had a few shops rip the bead right off the tire due to failure to lubricate everything so it's not a process I like to repeat too often.

Just wanted to clarify also... my steering had too much of a tendency to return to dead center and gave an increased resistance to low speed turns.

[elwesso]

I only run directional tires on my Q and I dont even rotate, and I get reasonable miles out of them. On my michelins/pirelli i was running on the Q last summer, they went to hell and back and still have one more summer worth of tread. There arent really any high performance tires that are non directional in 17s anyway..... Short term 17s are going to be cheaper, but like brian said all their high performance tires in sizes we need for the Q are disappearing. 18s dont ahve any sign of going away anytime soon...

The yokahoma advans are probably overkill for the Q.... depends if you were talking about the ADVAN or ADVAN NEOVA. The regular advans are a great tire, some of the best on the market right now and in a 255 they have an XL 99 load rating....

If you put on a rear sway bar a little extra rear grip would be nice... I know with my setup its a little oversteer-happy when on the throttle a little, and itd be nice to be able to throttle steer a bit more without lighting the tires up.