G50 Performance - Year to Year

[Nosser25rs]

Hi all,Well, after selling my '90 three years ago and missing it ever since, I am in the market for a G50 again. I definitely prefer the styling of the 93-95 (no 96 for me because I want VCT) cars and they seem a little easier to find, but I'm not sure how much performance they give up to the early cars. Can anyone advise what I would really be giving up? 0-60? 1/4 mile? Handling? Would a '93 with basic mods equal or best a '90 in these terms?

[elwesso]

Main difference in performance between the older Qs (90-92) and the newer 94-95 is the weight and the slightly taller 1st gear.....

with an upgraded ECU, 90-95 are all pretty close.

[maxnix]

I believe there is a thread that compiles published times, but different cars tested at different times in different locations at different temperatures with different gasolines are hardly comparable.

Follow the mantra for acquiring any vehicle, especially a G50, and check service history first. Any one you get now will require a few thousand to put right.
Modified by maxnix at 10:57 AM 7/22/2006

[Jesda]

If you want to tighten up the 94-95, a few suspension mods and tire upgrades will do the trick. Acceleration improvements from the R.B. NICO ECU would bring it a bit closer to a stock '90-93, but I dont know how close. Consider also that any 90-93 you compare to is probably a bit worn out.

Welcome back to NICO.

[Nosser25rs]

Any one you get now will require a few thousand to put right.

Really? I bought my last one at 90k, put another 30k on it in two years, and the most serious repair I had to do to it was burping the heater core and replacing the front rotors. It basically needed *nothing* during the time I had it and everything worked flawlessly. Did I just get exceptionally lucky?

[maxnix]

Really? I bought my last one at 90k, put another 30k on it in two years, and the most serious repair I had to do to it was burping the heater core and replacing the front rotors. It basically needed *nothing* during the time I had it and everything worked flawlessly. Did I just get exceptionally lucky?

No, you just squeezed the last miles allowed with no maintenance.

Most here aiming for 300+k with as new performance.

[elwesso]

If you want to tighten up the 94-95, a few suspension mods and tire upgrades will do the trick. Acceleration improvements from the R.B. NICO ECU would bring it a bit closer to a stock '90-93, but I dont know how close. Consider also that any 90-93 you compare to is probably a bit worn out.

Welcome back to NICO.

actually 90-93 and 94-95 with the same ECU are gonna be pretty close, only difference is about a 100lbs heavier the 94/95 is (assuming no HICAS/ACTIVE)

[qsiguy]

Don't forget that the 90-93 will probably need chain guides.

I'd go with the one you like the best. All things being pretty close to equal, it's down to cosmetics. I'm not a big fan of the "belt buckel". I like my '94

[66mgb]

Don't slam the belt buckle - man!

It's more aero friendly than a big ol' grill!

90-93 Q's probably get 5-10 mpg better gas mileage at 100+ mph!

[Rex]

Don't forget that the 90-93 will probably need chain guides.

I'd go with the one you like the best. All things being pretty close to equal, it's down to cosmetics. I'm not a big fan of the "belt buckel". I like my '94

Believe it or not, there was one hideous Q on ebay someone posted once, that was a 90-93 with the 94 fender/hood/bumper. Theoritically, that would give you both .

[tkd_q45]

My 92 drove better than both my 94a and 96. Steering is better, transmission was more responsive, power was better. Better quality build/materials as well. I'd adivse get a well sorted 92 or earlier Q. I do like the look of the 94 but if I had the money, I'd take a 92 or earlier Q and update the body.

[maxnix]

Besides differing conditons and cars, one has to realize that a used car with deferred maintenance comparable to a new one. Sure the engine might be a little looser and post better acceleration times, but rubber, transmission, shocks, brakes, tires, fluids etc. are closer to their expiration date than the tested cars. Maintenance schedules vary and thus a maintained car of a year that tested slower can actually be faster than a poorly maintained car of a year that tested faster.

You should buy the actual car, not the published results from years ago.