im not sure which Q year to get... i know its gonna be a G50 though, because i want performance! But i dont want a car that will need constant fixing. I know performance will be lost in purchasing a 94-95 rather then a 90-93, but im pretty sure its more reliable. I know about the chain guides so no need in explaining about that.
-All you 90-93 guys, are your Q's reliable?
-What about you 94-95 guys?
-How much performance is lost within the years? (considering i have never driven a Q before.):(
-Since i have never driven a Q before, i kinda relate the expeirance to that of a 2002 caddy Deville DHS that i drove for a while. Does a Q perform better than a Northstar Deville?
Thanks for reading.:ylsuper
G50 reliability...
Re: G50 reliability...
dsmtuner wrote:im not sure which Q year to get... i know its gonna be a G50 though, because i want performance! But i dont want a car that will need constant fixing. I know performance will be lost in purchasing a 94-95 rather then a 90-93, but im pretty sure its more reliable. I know about the chain guides so no need in explaining about that.
-All you 90-93 guys, are your Q's reliable?
-What about you 94-95 guys?
-How much performance is lost within the years? (considering i have never driven a Q before.):(
-Since i have never driven a Q before, i kinda relate the expeirance to that of a 2002 caddy Deville DHS that i drove for a while. Does a Q perform better than a Northstar Deville?
Thanks for reading.:ylsuper
here we go again. The northstar will eat a Q for breakfast, if it's stock.
This can easily start ongoing arguements like democrat vs republican debate. Just please drive both, and make your own impressions. The two biggest thingd with the 90-93 are the guides (fix them once, dont worry again) and the transmission (add a cooler and a 93 or jwt tcu and your fine)
-
AZhitman
- Administrator
- Posts: 54542
- Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 2:04 am
- Car: 58 L210, 63 Bluebird RHD, 64 NL320, 65 SPL310, 66 411 RHD, 67 WRL411, 68 510 SR20, 75 280Z RB25, 77 620 SR20, 79 B310, 90 Z32, 91 GTi-R, 92 Silvia Qs, 98 S14, 23 Z.
- Location: Surprise, Arizona
- Contact:
^ Ryan is right.
Also, not as much difference in performance between 90-93 and 94-95 as many would have you believe. Again, a subject of intense debate, but I respectfully point to my own low 15's (on heavy 18" chrome rims) as Exhibit A.
Reliability? No worse than any other Nissan of the era, and certainly better than the offerings from GM / MB / BMW for that era.
Not really fair to compare a 90-95 Q to an 02 Caddy. However, I suspect that beyond 120 mph, the Q would assert itself quite well (even with the new Caddy).
And comparing a 90-95 Q to a 90-95 Caddy? No contest.
Drive a few and THEN decide. The great news? You live VERY near to Rob Siwicki, who owns a phenomenal 95 Q45t with several mods. I'm sure he'll chime in here soon.
Also, not as much difference in performance between 90-93 and 94-95 as many would have you believe. Again, a subject of intense debate, but I respectfully point to my own low 15's (on heavy 18" chrome rims) as Exhibit A.
Reliability? No worse than any other Nissan of the era, and certainly better than the offerings from GM / MB / BMW for that era.
Not really fair to compare a 90-95 Q to an 02 Caddy. However, I suspect that beyond 120 mph, the Q would assert itself quite well (even with the new Caddy).
And comparing a 90-95 Q to a 90-95 Caddy? No contest.
Drive a few and THEN decide. The great news? You live VERY near to Rob Siwicki, who owns a phenomenal 95 Q45t with several mods. I'm sure he'll chime in here soon.
AZhitman wrote:^ Ryan is right.
Also, not as much difference in performance between 90-93 and 94-95 as many would have you believe. Again, a subject of intense debate, but I respectfully point to my own low 15's (on heavy 18" chrome rims) as Exhibit A.
Your car runs with mods what a stock 90-93 ran in the 1/4 and in the traps. Freds lightly modded 91 managed a 99 in the 1/4. Robs heavily modified 94 runs a 97-98 in the traps. Again great speeds, and no bashing from me, but a few mph difference is quite a bit.
Reliability? No worse than any other Nissan of the era, and certainly better than the offerings from GM / MB / BMW for that era.
Yes!
Not really fair to compare a 90-95 Q to an 02 Caddy. However, I suspect that beyond 120 mph, the Q would assert itself quite well (even with the new Caddy).
I had the opportunity to race a few of my friend and his dads caddys. My 91 was dead even with his eldo 275 hp model. This was up to about 120. I also raced an ETC, which ran on me. I was not pulling at higher speeds. He was faster.
And comparing a 90-95 Q to a 90-95 Caddy? No contest.
Hitman is right. The first gen northstars may be faster then a stock Q, but their build quality is shotty. The Caddy didnt get nice until 98+. The engine was the only thing those had going for them, until 98+. Drive an older one, and you'll know what I mean.
Drive a few and THEN decide. The great news? You live VERY near to Rob Siwicki, who owns a phenomenal 95 Q45t with several mods. I'm sure he'll chime in here soon.
Indeed. I was really hoping the magazine review of my car would have some perforance times in it, but unfortunately Geoff was just letting them take it out for a cruise. However, based on Q45techs own statements a 90-93 with JWT should run a 14.6-14.7@97 or 98.. That's on par with robs car, which has significantly more modifications.
I believe a 90-93 perfect Q with all of robs mods would reach 100 or extremly close to it.
It just all depends. I can tell you the VH is more exciting in the 90-93 because of the twin hp peaks. It gives you a second rush, the later vhs just dont have. Doesn't mean they arn't quick, exciting to drive, but there is something missing.
The difference you can feel, so drive both and let us know what you think
Poor use of the quote feature
-
maxnix
- Posts: 22627
- Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2002 8:11 pm
- Car: 1995 Infiniti Q45
1995 Infiniti Q45t
2000 Infiniti Q45
Never had a problem passing any Caddy in the FY33, let alone a G50. The DeVlile is a large FWD people transporting box, sort of a luxury bus that does what it does very well. The G50 is a RWD four place sedan with with dynamic balance that the big Cadillac cannot approach. The G50 doesn't have all the gee whizzies of the later cars.
Best to decide for what purpose you want the car to fill, then choose.
Best to decide for what purpose you want the car to fill, then choose.
-
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
I think for cars this old the speed will depend more on current condition than on the year. Look for the lowest miles, but frankly I was you I would look for a 95. The reason I say that is the 90-93 had no center console, really crappy radios, and more gremlins. I think a lower-miles 95 will be a better ride and darn near as fast as anything from the early years. I had a 92 for 6 months and chased gremlins all the time on a 90k mile car.
dsmtuner.......well as Greg said.....I live in Miami Beach and I would be more than glad to let you run with my Q for test run to see if you like it or not.
Just shoot me an email via this website and we will hook it up. I honestly have to say that I probably have one of the very best 95 Q45's around town as I have always had it dealer maintained and just had about $6,000 worth of dealer work done to it at 141K miles.
The only difference in my Q vs. any other Q where you can easily get the mods is the headers.....the headers work great and I can scare the $hit out of just about anybody when I rev it up from a light as it sounds really mean and raspy with the headers, but the car stinks and I am working on getting this fixed either this week or next week
Just shoot me an email via this website and we will hook it up. I honestly have to say that I probably have one of the very best 95 Q45's around town as I have always had it dealer maintained and just had about $6,000 worth of dealer work done to it at 141K miles.
The only difference in my Q vs. any other Q where you can easily get the mods is the headers.....the headers work great and I can scare the $hit out of just about anybody when I rev it up from a light as it sounds really mean and raspy with the headers, but the car stinks and I am working on getting this fixed either this week or next week
rsiwicki wrote:dsmtuner.......well as Greg said.....I live in Miami Beach and I would be more than glad to let you run with my Q for test run to see if you like it or not.
Just shoot me an email via this website and we will hook it up. I honestly have to say that I probably have one of the very best 95 Q45's around town as I have always had it dealer maintained and just had about $6,000 worth of dealer work done to it at 141K miles.
The only difference in my Q vs. any other Q where you can easily get the mods is the headers.....the headers work great and I can scare the $hit out of just about anybody when I rev it up from a light as it sounds really mean and raspy with the headers, but the car stinks and I am working on getting this fixed either this week or next week
AWESOME! sounds great man.:ylsuper
Well RSI has the most heavily modified 94+ of anyone on this forum, and he runs in the 1/4 what a 90-93 runs with JWT mods.
It's not like it's massive, but I can tell ya I raced so many cars in my stock 91.. these were freeway races.. Palmer will tell you the same thing
From 70+ the 90-93 performed like a low 14 second car with high 90s traps. I raced countless e36 m3s, and from freeway speeds (70+) all the way to 130 and beyond, those cars never walked on me. This included Cobras and other low 14 second cars..
I've raced some cars in my 94, and have not had the same luck.
It may only be .5 to 1 and only 2-5 mph, but that difference is huge. If you are buying the Q for performance and ULTIMATE speed, the choice is clear.
If you like the luxury of the 94+, the choice is simple. Infiniti changed the Q around, because people didn't connect with it's original intent. They didn't connect with the 94+ either, but both are awesome cars.
Still nothing will ever beat ripping my 91 into 1st gear using the manu shift at 30 mph.. Car drops down to 1st at 5,500 rpm or so, and just SCREAMS to the redline. Pulls harder and harder. The 94 doesn't have the twin hp peaks, so the curve is flat from about 4,0000 rpm on.. where as the 90-93 gives you that second rush.
Drive both, report back.
It's not like it's massive, but I can tell ya I raced so many cars in my stock 91.. these were freeway races.. Palmer will tell you the same thing
From 70+ the 90-93 performed like a low 14 second car with high 90s traps. I raced countless e36 m3s, and from freeway speeds (70+) all the way to 130 and beyond, those cars never walked on me. This included Cobras and other low 14 second cars..
I've raced some cars in my 94, and have not had the same luck.
It may only be .5 to 1 and only 2-5 mph, but that difference is huge. If you are buying the Q for performance and ULTIMATE speed, the choice is clear.
If you like the luxury of the 94+, the choice is simple. Infiniti changed the Q around, because people didn't connect with it's original intent. They didn't connect with the 94+ either, but both are awesome cars.
Still nothing will ever beat ripping my 91 into 1st gear using the manu shift at 30 mph.. Car drops down to 1st at 5,500 rpm or so, and just SCREAMS to the redline. Pulls harder and harder. The 94 doesn't have the twin hp peaks, so the curve is flat from about 4,0000 rpm on.. where as the 90-93 gives you that second rush.
Drive both, report back.
i dont care what the car looks like, or if its luxurious. i just want a car that will be fast and be reliable.
my car right now is SLOW AS BALLS!eclipse-4 cyclinder non-turbo automatic. 155hp =(i once got beat by a Accord 4 door from dead stop then cught up and barely beat him. So now iam looking for something with POWER!!!
my car right now is SLOW AS BALLS!eclipse-4 cyclinder non-turbo automatic. 155hp =(i once got beat by a Accord 4 door from dead stop then cught up and barely beat him. So now iam looking for something with POWER!!!
-
nuQ
- Posts: 1659
- Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2003 1:39 pm
- Car: 2003 Infiniti M45
2009 Dodge Caliber SXT - Location: Bethlehem PA
i LOVE my 90Q!!!! pulls, and pulls and PULLS!!!! dropping it into first at 25mph,,,,,WOW!!! i guess i've been real lucky, but, realiability has never been an issue for me.,,, she's been perfect. had the guides replaced as soon as i bought it,,,along with the oil pump, plugs, tstat, valves resealed, etc. changed all fluids to mobil 1. never driven another gen Q, but can't imagine anything being better!!!hard part is finding a first gen Q in good conition.
-
natsoundup
- Posts: 669
- Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 4:27 am
I've said it before....I have both in my driveway....the 90 at 163k with a slipping 4th gear runs faster, harder, and better than my 94
However.... the 94 is a great daily driver....comfortable, smooth, and a better bose. I take the 90 out every once in awhile to get the feeling and surge from that beast.
However..I have turned it over to my 16 year old until it is ready to part out.
I dont see how anyone can say stock between gen 1 and gen 2 doesn't have that much of a performance difference.
However.... the 94 is a great daily driver....comfortable, smooth, and a better bose. I take the 90 out every once in awhile to get the feeling and surge from that beast.
However..I have turned it over to my 16 year old until it is ready to part out.
I dont see how anyone can say stock between gen 1 and gen 2 doesn't have that much of a performance difference.
sounds to me you wanted a porsche. You are comparing apples and oranges. Unless you put significant $ into maintaining the 90-93 Q to get the top performance, that top performance you expect is long gone now. The Q is like any other car, if you going to abuse it, the reliability goes down rapidly.Test drive some cars in the autotrader locally and you will know what you want.
-
texasoil
- Posts: 875
- Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2002 3:18 pm
- Car: '92 Infiniti Q45A
'94 Infiniti Q45A
'94 Mercedes-Benz SL600
Have 92a with JWT engine controller and 94a with front stb. Wife will not let me have her 92. It feels lighter, crisper, faster, more responsive all around.
94 is a dream of a car--it is so quiet and well appointed you really have to watch the speedo a lot more.
Maintenance the same if chain guides and transmission on 92 have been fixed.
94 is a dream of a car--it is so quiet and well appointed you really have to watch the speedo a lot more.
Maintenance the same if chain guides and transmission on 92 have been fixed.
i know for a fact that manually driving your automatic is bad for your transmission. i have done it in my auto eclipse before and had to have it rebuilt due to the burnt gears.nuQ wrote:i LOVE my 90Q!!!! pulls, and pulls and PULLS!!!! dropping it into first at 25mph,,,,,WOW!!! i guess i've been real lucky, but, realiability has never been an issue for me.,,, she's been perfect. had the guides replaced as soon as i bought it,,,along with the oil pump, plugs, tstat, valves resealed, etc. changed all fluids to mobil 1. never driven another gen Q, but can't imagine anything being better!!!hard part is finding a first gen Q in good conition.
rsiwicki wrote:dsmtuner.......well as Greg said.....I live in Miami Beach and I would be more than glad to let you run with my Q for test run to see if you like it or not.
Just shoot me an email via this website and we will hook it up. I honestly have to say that I probably have one of the very best 95 Q45's around town as I have always had it dealer maintained and just had about $6,000 worth of dealer work done to it at 141K miles.
The only difference in my Q vs. any other Q where you can easily get the mods is the headers.....the headers work great and I can scare the $hit out of just about anybody when I rev it up from a light as it sounds really mean and raspy with the headers, but the car stinks and I am working on getting this fixed either this week or next week
rsiwicki, i couldnt e-mail you thruogh the site:help
Most damage to a Q45 transmission is caused by overheating, more than anything else. Driving it hard shortens its life, but not tremendously in my opinion.
Early models (90-93) do not always have proper cooling. My Q had its transmission replaced at 50k. The replacement transmission enjoyed better cooling through an updated design of some sort to prevent clogging.
I added the external transmission cooler at 170k (bought that car at 169k). And its enjoyed flushes with Mobil 1 every year.
Whatever Q you buy, add a transmission cooler and flush every 12,000 miles. Guys with battered old Dodge Caravans who do the same routine get over 200k out of them.
-Jesda
Early models (90-93) do not always have proper cooling. My Q had its transmission replaced at 50k. The replacement transmission enjoyed better cooling through an updated design of some sort to prevent clogging.
I added the external transmission cooler at 170k (bought that car at 169k). And its enjoyed flushes with Mobil 1 every year.
Whatever Q you buy, add a transmission cooler and flush every 12,000 miles. Guys with battered old Dodge Caravans who do the same routine get over 200k out of them.
-Jesda
Jesda wrote:Most damage to a Q45 transmission is caused by overheating, more than anything else. Driving it hard shortens its life, but not tremendously in my opinion.
Early models (90-93) do not always have proper cooling. My Q had its transmission replaced at 50k. The replacement transmission enjoyed better cooling through an updated design of some sort to prevent clogging.
I added the external transmission cooler at 170k (bought that car at 169k). And its enjoyed flushes with Mobil 1 every year.
Whatever Q you buy, add a transmission cooler and flush every 12,000 miles. Guys with battered old Dodge Caravans who do the same routine get over 200k out of them.
-Jesda
how much does a transmission cooler cost?
