Picking up from an earlier thread I started. I have a theory that the reason that the active Q did not get a higher "g" rating on cornering than the standard Q is due to the fact that the active model is under tired so that it can't exploit the advantage of the active suspension, particularly the resistance to roll.
My reason for this theory is that other active makes like the Citreon Xantia showed a major improvement in "g" rating when comparing the active and non-active versions
If this is true then with a larger wheel and wider lower profile tire of appropriate load rating and a good tread composition it may be possible to show a difference between the active and standard Q. Further improvement could also be expected if the after market computer / controller was fitted which allows the active system to work above 0.5g which is the standard set up.
One thing I am not sure about is when an active Q exceeds 0.5g, let's say 0.7 is the measured roll angle still less than the standard model. I would think it has to be otherwise the roll effect would be sudden and noticeable.
I am hoping for a good debate here with lot's of differing opinions!
Q45A versus Standard Q45 cornering ability at the limit
Since the board changed I can't find the thread regarding the active vs non active toyota soarer (sc400/300)
They had a picture of them both taking the same corner, the active had 0 body roll, while the regular model was floating hardcore
They also interviewed the drivers, and the choice was CLEAR: The active Soarer was the best handling, and most favoriable model available
If you read the review of my car, you will note how they praised the active suspension (which stillen had lowered 1 inch) They said against the 500E mercedes, it felt at home on the twisties in california, where as the 500E felt at home on long straights
I will have 18 inch ZR tires on shortly, and the car should be in running condition before too long.
I plan on taking part in as many roadcourse activities as I can.
I wish I could locate an aftermarket active ECU that raises the .5 limit, and includes greater functionality. Unfortunately, the only thing available is an aftermarket controller which will allow you to lower 2 inches, or raise 1 inch.
They had a picture of them both taking the same corner, the active had 0 body roll, while the regular model was floating hardcore
They also interviewed the drivers, and the choice was CLEAR: The active Soarer was the best handling, and most favoriable model available
If you read the review of my car, you will note how they praised the active suspension (which stillen had lowered 1 inch) They said against the 500E mercedes, it felt at home on the twisties in california, where as the 500E felt at home on long straights
I will have 18 inch ZR tires on shortly, and the car should be in running condition before too long.
I plan on taking part in as many roadcourse activities as I can.
I wish I could locate an aftermarket active ECU that raises the .5 limit, and includes greater functionality. Unfortunately, the only thing available is an aftermarket controller which will allow you to lower 2 inches, or raise 1 inch.
-
Q45tech
- Moderator
- Posts: 14296
- Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2002 3:19 am
- Car: 1990 Q45 342,400 miles 22 years ownership with original engine
1995 G20t 5 speed 334,000 miles 16" 2002 wheels - 205/50/16 Sr20ve vvl
Re: Q45A versus Standard Q45 cornering ability at the limit (rover3l)
Since the suspension system was designed for good camber gain, very little can be gained steady state by limiting body roll........except in transistional swings.
Front tires are the limiting factor in that 1521 pounds is easily exceeded: 1160 static + [transfer weight of 22/61= 0.36 x sprung weight x 1 G = 360 pounds] =1520 pounds.
The ACTIVE Q is worse since 58% of the 250 pounds is added to front subjecting each front tire to an extra 73 pounds........a 5% overload at 1G......going to 235/60/15 would at least compensate for that.
Finding a 2000 pound load range tire to stay in linear range] with a very soft tread and stiff sidewalls that will fit? Impossible.
A 255/50/16x 8 FORGED wheel Pilot Sport on front with 100Y 1764 pound load index is the one to reference..............250 pounds [177 in active version] of EXTRA reserve should improve skid pad by at least 0.06 G probably more compared to a 235/60/15. Obvoiously greatly superior to a 215/65/15.
255/50/16 AO32R [Yok might be a choice with its 60 tread wear index but lower 1687 # load strength.
Probably could use 15 x 10 Nascar tires with some body work but these tires are designed for a 3420 pound vehicle weight [872 per tire assuming 52/48]........but up to 400 pounds of jacking is allowed most teams use less than 200 pounds.
I still believe the lighter standard [with equal rear swaybar] Q can out handle the 250 pound heavier active Q with the same tires and wheels on both.
Front tires are the limiting factor in that 1521 pounds is easily exceeded: 1160 static + [transfer weight of 22/61= 0.36 x sprung weight x 1 G = 360 pounds] =1520 pounds.
The ACTIVE Q is worse since 58% of the 250 pounds is added to front subjecting each front tire to an extra 73 pounds........a 5% overload at 1G......going to 235/60/15 would at least compensate for that.
Finding a 2000 pound load range tire to stay in linear range] with a very soft tread and stiff sidewalls that will fit? Impossible.
A 255/50/16x 8 FORGED wheel Pilot Sport on front with 100Y 1764 pound load index is the one to reference..............250 pounds [177 in active version] of EXTRA reserve should improve skid pad by at least 0.06 G probably more compared to a 235/60/15. Obvoiously greatly superior to a 215/65/15.
255/50/16 AO32R [Yok might be a choice with its 60 tread wear index but lower 1687 # load strength.
Probably could use 15 x 10 Nascar tires with some body work but these tires are designed for a 3420 pound vehicle weight [872 per tire assuming 52/48]........but up to 400 pounds of jacking is allowed most teams use less than 200 pounds.
I still believe the lighter standard [with equal rear swaybar] Q can out handle the 250 pound heavier active Q with the same tires and wheels on both.
Rover,
Mini and I did extensive research, and I helped him purchase his active controller.
It allows you to lower up to 2 inches, or raise up to an inch (as the standard n/h button on the Q)
I have searched exhaustively and been unable to locate an aftermarket ECU for the active cars.
As for transitional swings, that is one area that would be hugely beneficial on a roadcourse, or autocrossing.
Can't wait to put all this theory in action
My eventual plan is to rehab the entire suspesnion so it is as when it rolled off the factory floor. Since Keith has the ability to recharge the accumulators to greater then stock limits, there is additional possibilities there.
Only one was made Rover, and it's now undergoing massive restoration
Mini and I did extensive research, and I helped him purchase his active controller.
It allows you to lower up to 2 inches, or raise up to an inch (as the standard n/h button on the Q)
I have searched exhaustively and been unable to locate an aftermarket ECU for the active cars.
As for transitional swings, that is one area that would be hugely beneficial on a roadcourse, or autocrossing.
Can't wait to put all this theory in action
My eventual plan is to rehab the entire suspesnion so it is as when it rolled off the factory floor. Since Keith has the ability to recharge the accumulators to greater then stock limits, there is additional possibilities there.
Only one was made Rover, and it's now undergoing massive restoration
Re: (1992Q45A)
Be happy with the active getting rid of a good part of the roll. Not realy that the lack of roll will improve the handling, but it would make taking the twisty county roads a little more fun. The Q will never be an autocross car.
Modified by louiegz at 10:03 AM 10/13/2004
Modified by louiegz at 10:03 AM 10/13/2004
-
Q45tech
- Moderator
- Posts: 14296
- Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2002 3:19 am
- Car: 1990 Q45 342,400 miles 22 years ownership with original engine
1995 G20t 5 speed 334,000 miles 16" 2002 wheels - 205/50/16 Sr20ve vvl
Re: (louiegz)
Old XJ12 were 225/60/16 and oem was a special extended load rating tire also almost unavailable today.
A close cousin is the Ultra High SUMMER Special Dunlop 2000E with a 102H rating 1874 pounds at 49 psi max inflation @ $135 each from Tirerack........200 treadwear and shaved to 8/32" from nominal 10/32" to take the stress.
This would be an interesting front/rear tire for those with 16" wheels.
Forgot this tire was still available.235/65/16 Goodyear for Bentley special 103V 1929 pounds at 44 psi but it is 28.5" and won't fit.
Finding something in 15 or 16 with 26-26.5" diameter and V rated is tough.
A close cousin is the Ultra High SUMMER Special Dunlop 2000E with a 102H rating 1874 pounds at 49 psi max inflation @ $135 each from Tirerack........200 treadwear and shaved to 8/32" from nominal 10/32" to take the stress.
This would be an interesting front/rear tire for those with 16" wheels.
Forgot this tire was still available.235/65/16 Goodyear for Bentley special 103V 1929 pounds at 44 psi but it is 28.5" and won't fit.
Finding something in 15 or 16 with 26-26.5" diameter and V rated is tough.
Hey Louie Shove it
There are various road reviews in which the Q scored over .8 G. The highest I've seen is .84G
Check your math jagoff
If a Q scores . 8 G and Q45tech says .06 that would take it up to .86 G which is a significant amount in the world of G ratings
.06 would knock even a .78 rating over 8
he said .06 not .006
There are various road reviews in which the Q scored over .8 G. The highest I've seen is .84G
Check your math jagoff
If a Q scores . 8 G and Q45tech says .06 that would take it up to .86 G which is a significant amount in the world of G ratings
.06 would knock even a .78 rating over 8
he said .06 not .006
I said it WOULD improve Auto crossing and various corners in track circumstances, which is exactly what Q45tech said
I never said it would an autocross car. .06 is a huge improvement, go enroll in math082 and maybe you will be able to understand that
.06 would take A Q over .8 easily, considering many of the reviews had it over .8g
An XJR with 18 inch wheels scores a .84G
I never said it would an autocross car. .06 is a huge improvement, go enroll in math082 and maybe you will be able to understand that
.06 would take A Q over .8 easily, considering many of the reviews had it over .8g
An XJR with 18 inch wheels scores a .84G
let's go over the figures, because we all knows fact make people like you squirm
.79G Road and track comparison between LS400 and Q45
.79 + .06 = .85G
Or how about this out of another comparison review
"The lateral rocking sensation was a detracattion" This was against a 535 and a 300E. Regular model Q
Now how about a review of an active Q in which they say it outhandles a 500E.
Deal with it.
Stop trying to detract from the Actives benefits.
.79G Road and track comparison between LS400 and Q45
.79 + .06 = .85G
Or how about this out of another comparison review
"The lateral rocking sensation was a detracattion" This was against a 535 and a 300E. Regular model Q
Now how about a review of an active Q in which they say it outhandles a 500E.
Deal with it.
Stop trying to detract from the Actives benefits.
Hahhahahaha
Here is a lesson for YOURSELF
When you make clear concise and degrading comments, you better make DAMN sure you're right
Reread Dennis's post. He said .06, not .6. That would bring you just under .8. Point is mute considering how hard you have to push it to get to the max. Just be happy with the active getting rid of a good part of the roll. Not realy that the lack of roll will improve the handling, but it would make taking the twisty county roads a little more fun. The Q will never be an autocross car.
Did I EVER say it would be the most optimal vehicle to autocross in?
NO
How hard you have to push it to the limit? Uhm, on a track or autocross, it's very easy
Facts make you squirm
Here is a lesson for YOURSELF
When you make clear concise and degrading comments, you better make DAMN sure you're right
Reread Dennis's post. He said .06, not .6. That would bring you just under .8. Point is mute considering how hard you have to push it to get to the max. Just be happy with the active getting rid of a good part of the roll. Not realy that the lack of roll will improve the handling, but it would make taking the twisty county roads a little more fun. The Q will never be an autocross car.
Did I EVER say it would be the most optimal vehicle to autocross in?
NO
How hard you have to push it to the limit? Uhm, on a track or autocross, it's very easy
Facts make you squirm
I said FACTS make you squirm, because you have nothing to say when you are owned by them
Dennis said there wasn't much benefit on stock tires/wheels. He did say there was IMPROVMENT in transitional swings with even it's undertired stock ratings
Deal with it
Maintenance? Keith bowers has proven it is no more expensive unless you have to replace the entire system
DEAL with it
Dennis said there wasn't much benefit on stock tires/wheels. He did say there was IMPROVMENT in transitional swings with even it's undertired stock ratings
Deal with it
Maintenance? Keith bowers has proven it is no more expensive unless you have to replace the entire system
DEAL with it
Not much improvement?
That's funny because when they reviewed the regular Q45s none of them won overall, and in fact they complained about the floatyness of the suspension and the ackwardness in body swinging.
Yet when automobile magazine reviewed a Q45A with improved tires and lowering of 1 inch they said it outhandled the 500E mercedes BUILT BY PORSCHE, and was a direct competitor to the M5 and A8, which were the best high performance sedans of their day
DEAL WITH IT
That's funny because when they reviewed the regular Q45s none of them won overall, and in fact they complained about the floatyness of the suspension and the ackwardness in body swinging.
Yet when automobile magazine reviewed a Q45A with improved tires and lowering of 1 inch they said it outhandled the 500E mercedes BUILT BY PORSCHE, and was a direct competitor to the M5 and A8, which were the best high performance sedans of their day
DEAL WITH IT
-
rover3l
- Posts: 514
- Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 3:22 am
- Car: 1998 Q45, 2000Q45 Anniversary, 1965 Rover 3L,
I have owned my active for exactly one year now and here are the benefits I would cite.
1. Complete absence of dive on braking and squat on acceleration
2. Under spirited cornering almost no roll. Very comfortable for passengers
3. Tremendous feeling of stability as the driver
4. Ride is very good on rough roads even though I have only rehabbed the 4 strut accumulators
Although I have driven very many cars cheap and expensive te Q45a has a very special feel to it that makes you want to drive it hard, particularly around turns.
Having said this I still have some issues like a knocking in the rear and another 5 accumulators to rehab. Today I am replacing the rear sway bar bushings and expect some further improvement.
1. Complete absence of dive on braking and squat on acceleration
2. Under spirited cornering almost no roll. Very comfortable for passengers
3. Tremendous feeling of stability as the driver
4. Ride is very good on rough roads even though I have only rehabbed the 4 strut accumulators
Although I have driven very many cars cheap and expensive te Q45a has a very special feel to it that makes you want to drive it hard, particularly around turns.
Having said this I still have some issues like a knocking in the rear and another 5 accumulators to rehab. Today I am replacing the rear sway bar bushings and expect some further improvement.
Re: (rover3l)
By the way Rover, I apologize that your thread turned into a name calling fest. 92Q can bring out the worst in people as proven in past post. Hopefully he will learn how to communicate like an adult, and these problems won't happen in the future. For the record, I’m not an active hater. I’d like to drive one, one day.
-
elwesso
- Posts: 30810
- Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2003 4:52 pm
- Car: 94 Infiniti Q45t 5 spd
2007 BMW M Coupe
2007 Infiniti G35 S 6MT - Location: Indiana
- Contact:
Re: (louiegz)
Dont make me close this.....
I think you BOTH need a hug.....
Ryan you started this, so dont blame it on anyone else..... Louie didnt help, but you didnt have to start it to begin with!
You know its bad when you wish PMQ would come by and post...... :
I think you BOTH need a hug.....
Ryan you started this, so dont blame it on anyone else..... Louie didnt help, but you didnt have to start it to begin with!
You know its bad when you wish PMQ would come by and post...... :
I don't have an anger management issue, I have a GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT YOU STUPID IGNORANT FANBOY problem
I work with people on a daily basis, and have no issues. Deal with it. Nice ignorant assinine assumption
WES READ THE POST. I didn't start this. Louie thought he would be a fanboy and point out incorrect math and incorrect assumptions to which I corrected, then he became angry.
d!ck? And I have anger management issues?
HAHAH
I argued with you for what seems like a lifetime regarding the difference Wes, then you finally DROVE one and even you king of fanboys, noticed it
Point is I'm right. I will argue to the death to prove it
The 90-93 is faster and the active is better
Deal with it
I work with people on a daily basis, and have no issues. Deal with it. Nice ignorant assinine assumption
WES READ THE POST. I didn't start this. Louie thought he would be a fanboy and point out incorrect math and incorrect assumptions to which I corrected, then he became angry.
d!ck? And I have anger management issues?
HAHAH
I argued with you for what seems like a lifetime regarding the difference Wes, then you finally DROVE one and even you king of fanboys, noticed it
Point is I'm right. I will argue to the death to prove it
The 90-93 is faster and the active is better
Deal with it
Face it any time someone says something negative about a Q, they have never driven or owned one.
Wes changed his mind about the performance of the 90-93s.
Louie: you've never driven an A, so don't comment. Keith Bowers himself said it's hard to beat an A in terms of cornering and bump soaking. Automobile magazine said the A model competed with the finest sports sedans of it's time
So get your fat head out of your a$$ before commenting, at LEAST have some experience with what you are talking about
Wes changed his mind about the performance of the 90-93s.
Louie: you've never driven an A, so don't comment. Keith Bowers himself said it's hard to beat an A in terms of cornering and bump soaking. Automobile magazine said the A model competed with the finest sports sedans of it's time
So get your fat head out of your a$$ before commenting, at LEAST have some experience with what you are talking about
-
elwesso
- Posts: 30810
- Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2003 4:52 pm
- Car: 94 Infiniti Q45t 5 spd
2007 BMW M Coupe
2007 Infiniti G35 S 6MT - Location: Indiana
- Contact:
Re: (1992Q45A)
Notice I never said that I changed my mind overall. I still like the 94s better, but I guess now its for amore justifiable cause...
-
elwesso
- Posts: 30810
- Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2003 4:52 pm
- Car: 94 Infiniti Q45t 5 spd
2007 BMW M Coupe
2007 Infiniti G35 S 6MT - Location: Indiana
- Contact:
Re: (rover3l)
Throw in a couple of idiots and this is what you get
Re: (louiegz)
Wes and I are friends. You shouldn't make judgements on situations/events you have no knowledge of. I guess that is that your specialty. You constantly make "incorrect statements" ranging from math errors to fit your position, or other such frivilous bull****.louiegz wrote:
Don't group me in with that a-hole Wes. You of all people should know what kind of an arse this guy is with the brawls you had with him. He a ****ing troble maker.
You have no idea how much I've spent on my car. I would be willing to wager it's no more then an average G50 Q45. Nice, throwing in personal insults, another speciality?louiegz wrote:I make a wrong calulation in my post, and this panty waste tells me to shove it. Why doesn't take that money trap Q that he going to restore and shove it up his arse.
Nice, another personal attack. Funny I'm restoring my car to street condition. I'll accept F1 racer as another assinine comment from a total jagoff. I'm sorry you are not famaliar with the term, however I feel it's fitting.louiegz wrote:And tell me one thing, what the hell is a fanboy? Stupid arse remark. I come here to NICO to discuss Qs and other cars in and inteligent way. With a d!ck like 92Q, you can't. I don't need this agravation. And your the problem. You had a problem with Wes and me. Who's next? You know what, just stay out of my way and live in your fantasy world of turning your Q into an F1 racer.
You're becoming very upset. You speak of anger management, yet have a hard time containing yourself when attacking me. I've been on this forum going on 5 years now. Thanks!louiegz wrote:Listen d!ck, free country and I can say whatever I want. You just better watch it before you piss off the wrong person or Moderator on Nico that will kick your *** out. Your a troblemaker so it wont take you long.
Nope. I disagree with Dennis's overall opinion on this subject, but respect his comments nontheless. That comment about the weight helps me with the setup of my car I respect his decision and use his input to make decisions regarding my car. ]louiegz wrote:So are you going to call Dennis an idiot or a fanboy because he doesn't agree with you. At least you know better who not to mess with on this board.
Modified by 1992Q45A at 8:03 AM 10/13/2004
You don't want to be called an idiot? What spares you of the noble title? You launched large amounts of personal attacks on a variety of levels, simply because I "disagreed" with you.
Both of our behavior on this thread is reprihinsible, we should both remove all of our threada and return the post to the original subject, which was a great discussion to be undertaking.
Modified by 1992Q45A at 8:10 AM 10/13/2004
Probably. Our pooper scoopers are only so big. You guys chill out. This is not acceptable.
http://www.nicoclub.com/zerothread?id=86411
http://www.nicoclub.com/zerothread?id=86411
It's obvious that Ryan won't end it, I guess it's up to me. I apologize to the Nico forum for my previous posts. I will delete my posts defending myself and I will edit the original post that I made a math error. I'm not here to pick fights or start trouble, but when someone starts in with me, I will let them know that I'm displeased. In the future, I will not respond to the name calling and just go on my way. Just remember that to error is human and every once in a while a person makes a mistake. Hopefully, next time I do, no one will start name calling and politely point out my mistake and disagree with me. Once again, sorry and thank you.