Q45 -1997 & 1998

[Di Dissuer]

Iam considering getting another Q to go along with my 1994 Q45. I really like the 1997 body style but I wanted to know if anyone can tell me more about this style car, performance, recalls....the good and the bad.

Thanks!

[elwesso]

The 97-01 Q45 is said to be one of the most reliable Qs made..

Not many problems, and more reliable than an average to poor maintained 1st generation.....

Performance is adequate for most, but not as brutal as the first gens. Then again, the 94s are slow so it should be about the same

Basically, the good is reliability, styling, and appeal

Bad is performance

[Di Dissuer]

I thought the 94's were considered fast and decent? lol According to some techs they said the 94's were one of the fastest...So now...let me get yours and other op's on that.... thanks.

Di Di

[pito11213]

You are going to open a can of worms hear asking which Q is faster. By the way I have a 90 and I smoke alot of cars on the road. Including a 98 BMW 528 that is well maintained. They are fast no doubt about it.

[natsoundup]

My 90 could smoke the 94.

When you hit it hard in the 90 your head goes back into the headrest.

The handling also seems tighter in the 90.

[Jesda]

The 96 is the slowest, and weight reductions in the new 4.1L 97 made all the difference, despite less power. Its (said to be) somewhat floaty compared to the 90, but they target an entirely different audience.

[1992Q45A]

There is no can of worms, PERIOD

The 90-93 will devestate any 94-96 Q if they are equal.

Only lieing fanboys will tell you different. I own both, and can tell you from actual experience, not fanboy logic

[Falkdesigns]

By devestate, do you guys mean like .5 sec's in 0-60 and maybe the same in 1/4 mile? I'd be suprised if the numbers are more than that.

That said, as a 98 owner, I can ONLY say positive things about this beautiful machine. Very well built, smooth, smoooth, smoooooth power, sliky smooth. Good handling, strong brakes, comfy, supportive seats. Rear seat leg room isn't that great, but still adequate. Great air, stereo sounds decent for a stock system. All in all, I love spending time in / with my FGY33 Q45t. If you need pics to persuade you, go down the page to the "finally got my wheels on" thread, there are a bunch of pic's of my Q.

[elwesso]

After the weekend with Jesda's (PRISTINE RUNNING) Q, i will say there is a difference, more than I thought.... It just pulls harder.....

If Jesda's idle was better (dirty plenum and mounts), and the interior wasnt ripped, hed have top 5 nicest Q on the board, period.....

Also, somehting else I noticed... Unless something was goofy with my 94, the door panels and fenders dont sound as hollow as my 94 did... The hood and trunk close with solidness, instead of clanging metal...

[Falkdesigns]

As often happens, this is off of what the original post was about: 97-98 Q45's.

Here are some numbers I found:

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______16.21997 Infiniti Q45t_____________7.5______15.7

Now in my book, those are hardly "devestating" differences. They may *feel* different to some people, but those are pretty similar numbers. Heck, even the "slower" FGY33 is going 0-60 as quickly as the "faster" 93 G50. So there you go Di Di regarding performance, they're about the same.

[Di Dissuer]

Thanks Everyone- I have fallen completely in love with both the 97 and the 98 and I think Iam hooked. Looking around quietly now for some good prices- If I could find a navy that would be nice or just get it and have it painted.- Di Di

[1992Q45A]

Those numbers are off

They are correct for the 90

Look on q45.org for accruate test numbers of a 94+

There is a .5 difference to 60 and in the 1/4 mile

That is a world of difference. I own both, and attest to it. SO does anyone who has driven both

[1992Q45A]

This is YET another example of false propoganda being spread. You are telling curious people who may base their decision on your data, that something is true, that isn't

Do your research. This is exactly why I loathe these kind of discussions.

[pito11213]

Q45a....I think they mean real world results. .5 Seconds is not going to matter street light to street light or even on most highways other than open straights.

[1992Q45A]

UH.. actually it will

Real world data? I drive a 94 currently. I owned a 91 previously, and i own a 92 as well

Sorry, but .5 is a world of difference. Stop light to stop light, 1/4 mile to 1/4 mile, or any way you cut it.

[1992Q45A]

Under my new policy, YOU are correct

Enjoy your BS. You own neither calls and are not qualified to speak, BUT YOU'RE RIGHT!

[elwesso]

Cool it down boys.....

[pito11213]

Dude I have a 90 Q. A late 89 model. I think that more than qualifies me to speak about performance of this car. In case you didnt know the 90 is the fastest one. Dont change your policy of being an a$$ wipe for me.

And I race mines on the real roads of New York. I kill my friends 98 BMW all the time. I killed a new TL. I killed a 94+ Q. I killed a 98 Q. I have real world experience. When I am pushing the Q I always shift the gears my self as I am used to stick shift. It is my preference. I never back down from any race.

I dont know your qualifications and you dont know mine... leave it at that. That is the nature of getting to know someone.

[1992Q45A]

You are a moron

That was ALWAYS my point regarding the 90s

I OWN A 94 THAT WAS MY ENTIRE POINT

The 90-93 WILL ALWAYS BE FASTER

[metaverse3]

I've had the privilege of driving both the 94Q45T and the 98Q45T.. My choice, I'd pick the 98Q45T.. The car feels more lighter and easier.. I would not rule the 94 out, just a personal choice on my part... Honestly I like the interior on the 98 a lot more better and the anniversary edition is a must have...black on black.. Sadly, I drive my cars hard and the Q would also be treated as a daily driver...not to mention I'm not a big fan of leather seats...blah.. that is just me.. However, given the resale value of q's..I would not mind a black 97Q45T...any price will be right and the car is a beaut in my book..

[1992Q45A]

Meta:

Definetely. I would hate making that decision. A 2k+ Anniversary Q is a sweet ride. Interior looks great, Hid looks great.

I may seem like performance means everything, but really it doesn't mean much. I just like the truth, that's all

All Qs are nice

Y33 G50 F50

[pito11213]

I stated that because you stated I dont own either car. So I put it down for you. I researched the car before I got it. A Q is never affordable. It is a car that you buy because you like it and want it.

Metaverse bottom line got with the better deal with the better look and better feel. Those Q's are nice at what they do and what they are meant for. A luxury cruiser.

Sorry that the thread leaned another way.....

[Falkdesigns]

This is YET another example of false propoganda being spread. You are telling curious people who may base their decision on your data, that something is true, that isn't

Do your research. This is exactly why I loathe these kind of discussions.

Don't know if you're referencing me there or not but I DID my research, as you can see by the numbers I FOUND and posted above. I would be willing to bet that those numbers are pretty close. EVERY magazine or other auto publication will come up with slightly different numbers, so for you to say those are wrong is pure ignorance.

I work for SIMPSON racing designing uniforms for racers. Our customers range from NASCAR and IRL teams to American LeMans and NHRA. Our drivers include John Force, 12 time NHRA champion. He set a new record about 3 weeks ago, going 333 mph in the 1/4 mile in 4.66 seconds in a Funny Car. Let's say his competition lost by .3-.5 seconds, so 5.1 lets say. That is NOT "Devastating", yeah, he lost, but not by a mile. If you think that .5 seconds in 0-60 is Devastation, then hey, good for you. In MY BOOK, that is negligible. Now if you told me, my car does 0-60 in 7.5 while yours does it in 5.5, I'd be like "dang! that's fast!". However, .7.1 vs. 7.5 seconds is piss. That small time difference could easily be made up with a quicker reaction time on my behalf, and we'd be even.

You say you like the truth, well, here it is: read 5 magazines reviews and you'll get 5 different sets of results. The numbers I posted are acurate for the testers involved. And your "Butt dyno" is not as accurate as you think.

Di Di, sorry that your thread turned into an e-Thuggin' thread, but hopefully you can form YOUR OWN opinion based on the information presented.

Kev

[1992Q45A]

Sorry, but you're wrong

If you race you should know .5 makes all the difference in the world at a drag strip or on the street.

Your numbers are WRONG. Sorry

WRONG WRONG WRONG

No stock 94 Q is going 0-60 in 7.2 seconds with a 1/4 of 15.2

FIND ME ONE MAGAZINE WITH THAT DATA

I challenge you. You've never driven one, so you have no clue. Find me one magazine backing up your data. That data is basura

[1992Q45A]

Furthermore:

1/4 mile doesn't mean much on the G50. It's a much faster car from 70+ which the 1/4 mile has no real way of measuring.

Robs car runs a 14.7@98 or so, yet he won't lose an inch to an XJR on the freeway.

XJR 0-60 5.5. 1/4 = 13.8@103

[PalmerWMD]

This thread is locked.

One member decided to bring the level of discussion down by using accusatroy and unseemly languague.

I expect members of this board to behave themsleves and dont want to see it dragged down.

Fred

[AZhitman]

Let me chime in here if I may...

To start with, I concur with Ryan that the numbers for the G50 seem out-of-whack (certainly not Falk's fault, he's just quoting).

94 and 95Q are the 2 most identical years of the G50 series (no differences), yet there's a mysterious difference in the times noted. I can guarantee that the 95 time of 16.2 is WAY wrong.

Someone stated that "no stock 94 Q is running a 15.2"... I don't see those numbers anywhere.

Someone also stated that pito doesn't own a Q, but he very clearly posted in the 4th post of the thread that he does, in fact, own a 90 - one of the most desireable Q's.

To top that off, someone accuses someone else of "never having driven one". That's a stretch. How can you know?

Slow down and read carefully.

My issue here is with the vehemence and vitriol spewed by those who disagree with something that's posted. There's a right way and a wrong way, and calling people "moron" (when they've simply stated their experiences, just as you have done) is beyond comprehensible, ESPECIALLY if you don't read carefully.

Bottom line? I'll expect ANYONE who wants to continue to blather on about performance to "put up or shut up". No more of this "I beat BMW's and Jaguars on a daily basis" nonsense.

There's a track in every state, use it. And then tell us about it.