0-30 - 2.30-40 - 3.30-50 - 4.60-60 - 6.10-70 - 7.90-80 - 10.10-90 - 12.50-100 - 16.0

1/4-mile - 14.6 @ 96.8 mph

The total 1st gear x diff ratio is still only 11:1 correcting for larger diameter tires something like 10.83:1 TOTAL compared to the first gen [90-93Q ....9.85:1 in 1st] so without an LSD and the power reducion at launch to avoid spins it still is suboptimum for 0-30 and 0-60 mph and quarter mile magazine tests.

They split the difference on the old [2002 Q] diff ratio and the optimum [for magazine acceleration] G35 ratio.

The 90Q @ $38k [1990 dollars] vs the M45 @ $42k corrected to 1990 dollars would be $27,000 almost $11,000 cheaper are they planning to destroy the used lux market or what,...... but it was possible to get 97/98/99Q for around $44k new just before each new year launch.

Interesting that the 60 mph is now [5% higher] @ 2150 rpm [in 5th] yet the highway mpg hasn't changed downward?

A royal screw up in trying to use a 5 speed designed for a high performance V6 [ratios] where mileage doesn't matter [much] with a V8 lux car where it does.....and they still left 0.2-0.3 seconds on the table to avoid the an even worse mpg penalty!

Makes one wonder if the Q [mules] used for the 5.9 second test published prior to launch had the correct ratio [3.331] then they tested the mpg and had a heart attack or did they plan from the start to follow the Audi A8 vs S8 different diff enhancement?

C& Driver tested the 2002 Q at 0-60 at 6.0 seconds.R&T numbers tend to run a bit slower than C&D's.I am waiting for an eval of the M45 in C&D, their newest issue has a first drive of the M45 in it.Albeit not with a test just an estimate for 0-60 at 5.7.Optimistic?Maybe.

Fred...

Saw a M45 live today at the dealer. It was a prototype, in that if didn't have a front plate holder.

This is a good looking car, even if it is a little thick (as is current style) above the front fenders. Kind of reminds me of an updated 1965-66 Chevelle.

The quality and features (loaded) brought the price to a MSRP of $48K. Personally, I think it will do well against the GS430. Salesman said it was noticeably quicker than the 2002 Q45. Brake rotors could be larger too. Look lost inside those 18" rims.

I am really liking the M45.

Maybe used in a couple of years?Or get a G35?Or a used 2002 Q45?

:help I'm confused

Fred...

palmerwmd wrote:I am really liking the M45.

Maybe used in a couple of years?Or get a G35?Or a used 2002 Q45?

:help I'm confused

Fred...

If you plan on driving the car into the ground, get the M45 or Q45. If you're not sure what you want, get the G35 since that'll be easier to sell if something better comes along.

palmerwmd wrote:C& Driver tested the 2002 Q at 0-60 at 6.0 seconds.R&T numbers tend to run a bit slower than C&D's.I am waiting for an eval of the M45 in C&D, their newest issue has a first drive of the M45 in it.Albeit not with a test just an estimate for 0-60 at 5.7.Optimistic?Maybe.

Fred...

I think all the magazine test numbers are bogus. I remember mags getting 6.2 sec 0-60 on G35, and now they're running 7.0 sec 0-60???

You really have to average all the tests together to get a more accurate result. Each run is just a subject, and you have to have lots of subjects to be statistically significant!

Same reason you should be skeptical of any article in a newspaper or magazines which starts out "A new study proves that..."

greg_atlanta wrote:I think all the magazine test numbers are bogus. I remember mags getting 6.2 sec 0-60 on G35, and now they're running 7.0 sec 0-60???"

It depends on conditions.

I only count the results that are not too far from sealevel and not too warm.

When a group of cars is slower due to conditions those numbers are only good for comparing between the cars in that comparo to eahc other.Some mags try hard to make sure their runs are close to sealevel and not at excessive temps.Those are the mags that often have the better numbers.

Under good conditions the G has been clocked between 5.7 and 6.2 sec to 60mph.

Fred...

Just remember California Sealevel at 40F [prelaunch test] and Atlanta at 100F is 8.5-9% plus 1.5% for humidity and power down by 10% IS 0.3 second minimum maybe 0.4 seconds on a G35 more on a Q/M in 0-60/quarter mile

I really wish they [testers] would delineate all the SAE parameters so people could correct between magazine, locations, and days. But they like the controversy!

I have the latest Oct 2002 Car and Driver. Damn that M45 looks good. Better than at the NY auto show. Palmer wait for the improved 2003 Q45 with improved ratio's and upgraded grill and taillights. It might be hot. The #' for the M45 are impressive!0-60: 5.70-100: 14.91/4 mile: 14.3 sec @98 mphCurb Weight: 3900

Must have had 2 gallons of gas {?} and a 75 pound test driver....where did they find 30F ambient in August at Sealevel oh was the test done in Southern Chile.......did Infiniti fill the gas tank with propylene oxide?

Just kidding but a 1.1 second difference in 0-100 is significant between the two test, now a 0.3 second difference in quarter is plauseable as is a 0.4 sec difference in 0-60.....different tires one tranny better than another ?

Anyway this ought to be a hoot for the over 50 crowd who are the target.......they'll be cobwebs on the last 30% of the throttle

The 2002 Crown Vic police car takes 23.34 secs to get to a hundred and the Impala version 26.27 secs....both are speed limited 124-129 mph.

Remember the song about "The Little Old Lady from Pasedena's....super stock Dodge ......ugh M45

The M45 has a shocking resemblance to this:

Cold Jason, cold!

It just surprised me the way it looked.