has anyone raced a 90-93 VS 94-95 Q before?

Post by **BeefCake** » Fri Jul 15, 2005 1:36 pm

just like the title says...

Im just curious, the 95 Q pulls pretty strong. But people say the 90-93 Q pulls harder and is faster. Has anyone actually raced these two before?

I know that the early Q's got the better tranny and the sodium filled valves and some even claimed they were closer to 300HP. What about the 94-95 Q's, are they also closer to 300hp?

If not, some of you guys should get together and RUN IT!

Post by **elwesso** » Fri Jul 15, 2005 4:48 pm

The 90-93 Q is slightly faster... it definitely pulls slightly harder in 1st gear past 5000, due to the twin HP peaks..... it is noticeable.....

However, Im thinking that it would be VERY close 90-93 vs 94-95 (even 96) if they all had the same tranny...

Post by **zinkie13** » Fri Jul 15, 2005 8:32 pm

And add a y33 into the race....so no one loses! haha

Post by **BeefCake** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 6:06 am

so 0-60, the early Q is faster, but topend their about the same right?

Now i really want to go and test drive a 90-93 Q. To see how it feels like.

Post by **szh** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 8:41 am

BeefCake wrote:so 0-60, the early Q is faster, but topend their about the same right?

Probably! Having owned both a 1991 Q45 and a 1995 Q45, I can comment on this a tiny bit. The 1991 was definitely sportier. Tighter, more-precise steering, felt stronger and less scary at high speeds.

Although "scary" is a relative term here, since neither one felt out of control per se. I drove the 1991 at 145+ mph on an extended trip once and it was great! I probably would not have considered doing the same in the 1995, although I did take it to 120 mph to 130 mph without any problems.

Z

Post by **350zQ45a** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 10:55 am

Yea, it would be nice if only people who owned both chimed in, so let me.

My 91 was clearly faster then my 94. Twin HP peaks, better gearing, different heads all are factors.

Also my 94 wasn't nearly as stable at high speeds, due to the grill being added in, and the coefficient of drag increasing.

All that being said they are both so close to each other, it's not a night versus day diff. Neither one is quick off the line

Post by **elwesso** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 1:20 pm

350zQ45a wrote:Yea, it would be nice if only people who owned both chimed in, so let me.

My 91 was clearly faster then my 94. Twin HP peaks, better gearing, different heads all are factors.

Also my 94 wasn't nearly as stable at high speeds, due to the grill being added in, and the coefficient of drag increasing.

All that being said they are both so close to each other, it's not a night versus day diff. Neither one is quick off the line

Indeed, however the slightly taller 1st gear makes low end power just a little better..... bottom line the tranny sucks in all Qs, except the 5 speeds.....

With the tokico blues it makes it just as tight.....

Post by **350zQ45a** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 1:27 pm

The 90-93 was made with performance in mind first, the 94+ was an answer to all the whiny americans bitching about the cars best traits. It was a compromise.

You can say that is my opinion, but it's really the opinion of the motoring press, the engineers themselves, and myself
Modified by 350zQ45a at 4:54 PM 7/16/2005

Post by **BeefCake** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 1:55 pm

a 94-95 Q with an ECU upgrade would own a 90-93 right?

Post by **elwesso** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 1:58 pm

BeefCake wrote:a 94-95 Q with an ECU upgrade would own a 90-93 right?

A 94-95 Q with JWT, all else stock, is pretty close to a stock 90-93

has anyone raced a 90-93 VS 94-95 Q before?

has anyone raced a 90-93 VS 94-95 Q before?

Re: has anyone raced a 90-93 VS 94-95 Q before? (BeefCake)

Re: (BeefCake)

Re: (350zQ45a)

Re: (BeefCake)

Nissan Forums

Infiniti Forums

Datsun Forums

Technical Forums

Classifieds / Marketplace

Nissan Motorsports

General Forums