is the 94 q faster or slower than a 91 q45

[Infinitiguy19]

is a 1994-96 q45 faster or slower or the same in speed and acceleration than a 89-93 q45?

[lino]

That would depend on the condition of the car at this point.

I have to agree with everyone and say get it to stock performance and condition first. A while ago I wouldn't have said that. Let me explain...

As you can see my Q is far from OEM stock. I "thought" it was is pretty nice shape and I'm sure it is by compared to the average Q. I recently tested my 0-60, 40-80 times and with 6 PSI of turbo boost I have basically brought my performance back to OEM spec. That was very disappointing to say the least.

Regardless of what else you do I'd definitely test the knock sensors. I actually had my car on a dyno with a bad knock sensor and it was down 70-80 hp from normal just from a bad knock sensor. You'll feel that on those hills for sure.

[superuber]

Early Q's are fast! Get rid of the 2nd gear start and they haul!Of course mine would smoke any! ........esp BMW's! (Wes)

[lino]

No BMW bashing please and especially when it comes to Wes' car superuber

Don't forget, Wes will be driving your car and the last thing you wanna do is tick him off and have him let it out on your Q

[Kiven422]

Yea earlier Qs are a little faster but its entirely up to the condition its in

[Q45tech]

94 was heavier, had less agressive gearing in 1&2, and was less aerodynamic with grill and bumpers..................all this didn't change things more than a few tenths to 60 or quarter mile..............probably had more effect above 100 mph.

[lino]

Year Make & Model (0-60) (1/4 Mile)

1990 Infiniti Q45 7.2 15.41991 Infiniti Q45 7.3 15.61993 Infiniti Q45 7.5 15.61994 Infiniti Q45t 7.2 15.41995 Infiniti Q45t 7.9 16.2

http://www.albeedigital.com/su....html

[Jesda]

The Q aged just like me -- getting heavier and slower each year.

[Q45tech]

Unfortunately you cannot trust old magazine articles [just as today different altitudes and temperatures, different launches in D or in 1st]...................look at 94 vs 95 which were identical engines everything...........they obviously were confusing 1996 made in 1995.

Many of the 1990 made in May-June 1989 had a optimized ecu and were run on the best available gasoline which was no longer available after Spring -Summer 1990 thanks to CLEAN AIR ACT of 1990.

As best as I can tell Jan 1990 ecu was last of good ones..........thanks to wrecks I've had access to Sept 89, Nov 89, Dec 89, and Jan 90, later 91-93, Nico and JWT, and my favorite Dinan ecu*.................a nasty muther much like stage 3 NICO as far as advance and lean fuel.

Tests conducted prior showed 6.9/15.1* vs later California Magazine Test

* Test printed and referenced in 1990 brochure.

The NICO ecu takes advantage of some of the reserve placed into programming in Spring 1990 to deal with dismal US gasoline.

* Dinan known for BMW made a few then dropped out of other than BMW back in 1993............They sent me 4 different chips in 1 degree peak advance difference above 4,000 rpm.................I can assure you these [upper 3] are not satisfactory with current US gasoline except in winter!

All depends on ecu and gasoline and engine/transmission condition because a good low mile [100k] 1994 can literally walk away from the average condition older 90-93. Primarily because of blowby and poor compression [200k higher miles].

[maxnix]

If we could make that last Q45tech post a sticky or an Article posting, we could be done with these inane "Which model is faster?" postings.

[BadQ45t]

My favorite first gen is the 94', it has the grill, CD players, and overall I just like the most. I like the 97' coming in faster than the later 1st gens!!!

[qship96]

[QUOTE=Q45tech]Unfortunately you cannot trust old magazine articles [just as today different altitudes and temperatures, different launches in D or in 1st]...................look at 94 vs 95 which were identical engines everything...........they obviously were confusing 1996 made in 1995.

Incorrect assumption, as the magazine article was from late 1994, so it was indeed a 1995 model q45 that they tested, NOT a 1996.

[maxnix]

Just goes to show different days, different tires, different fuels, different drivers etc. all add variables.

There are no absolutes, only one time results. It should be noted that many magazines use drivetrain abuse to achieve those times that many a concientous owner would not for reasons of logterm maintenance expense.

[elwesso]

With the same ECU, 91 and 94 Q is going to be very similar... the first gear and extra weight really doesnt take that much of a factor... Theres actually quite a bit of difference in the ECU's from a 90 Q to a 94..

You line up a 91 and a 94 with the same ECU and in similar mechanical shape and its not going to be much different.. Dead stop, the 91 has the advantage. The 94 may have a slight advantage up top due to the taller 2nd gear. Either way, we're probably talking not even 1 second difference.

BTW I know your car would smoke my bimmer, namely because my shifter is broken as we speak. you dont go too far with only one gear.

[Denver90Q]

Don't know why, but my 1990 is way faster than either of my 1995's. Both cars have NICO ecu's with 90k on the 1995 and 160k miles on the 1990.

[CINNALOCKS]

["BTW I know your car would smoke my bimmer, namely because my shifter is broken as we speak. you dont go too far with only one gear."]

Damn Wes glad I did not buy that one.....................