me: 1990 Q45, tons of miles in good state of tunehim: 2002-2004 Mustang GT
We both eased off the line when the light turned, and I kept giving just enough throttle to keep him at my rear bumper. By the time I hit second gear the race was on. I shifted manually at redline and we kept at it until 90 mph, when I backed off. AT 90 mph, he had managed to get up to about my driver's door, but could not pass me. I bet he was shocked that he could barely keep up with a 15 year old luxury car!
raced a mustang in my Q today!
Sorry, the 94 would eat it.
I own both, and drive a 94. I have lost against Accord 6 speed coupes, off the line and up high.
94s without mods lose the battle against cars a 90 would crush
Quite frankly, I don't care what anyone "thinks"
I raced every weekend in my 91. I've raced a few cars in my 94. I don't think anyone on this forum has streetraced as much as I have in my G50. Lame or illegal or whatever, I will defend the 90 to the bone
Remember those extra .5 seconds and +2-3 mph in the traps make the difference.
Mods are totally different. I drive a well maintained 94 daily, and it's faster up high then down low, but the difference is muted
I own both, and drive a 94. I have lost against Accord 6 speed coupes, off the line and up high.
94s without mods lose the battle against cars a 90 would crush
Quite frankly, I don't care what anyone "thinks"
I raced every weekend in my 91. I've raced a few cars in my 94. I don't think anyone on this forum has streetraced as much as I have in my G50. Lame or illegal or whatever, I will defend the 90 to the bone
Remember those extra .5 seconds and +2-3 mph in the traps make the difference.
Mods are totally different. I drive a well maintained 94 daily, and it's faster up high then down low, but the difference is muted
hahahaa
I just fell out of my chair laughing
My 94 is well maintained. You can ask euro imports as they took most of my income last year fixing it.
.5 is not a stretch. Go look at your own magazine articles
C/D ran a 6.9 0-60 in a 90
In a 4 way comparison between bmw and a host of other sedans the 95 q45t ran a 7.9 to 60.
I'm tired of 94 fanboys thinking their is no difference in stock performance.
That's ridiculous. Anyone who has owned/driven one extensively will tell you otherwise
Me, palmer, plenty of others are on record saying it. Own one and you'll understand. I noticed the difference the first time I drove a 94
I just fell out of my chair laughing
My 94 is well maintained. You can ask euro imports as they took most of my income last year fixing it.
.5 is not a stretch. Go look at your own magazine articles
C/D ran a 6.9 0-60 in a 90
In a 4 way comparison between bmw and a host of other sedans the 95 q45t ran a 7.9 to 60.
I'm tired of 94 fanboys thinking their is no difference in stock performance.
That's ridiculous. Anyone who has owned/driven one extensively will tell you otherwise
Me, palmer, plenty of others are on record saying it. Own one and you'll understand. I noticed the difference the first time I drove a 94
Who cares
I sure don't
This issue will never be settled. You can say whatever you want, and I can.
Fact remains, I've owned 3 q45s. You have owned no first gen. Quite frankly, you have no right to speak on its performance.
I have seen countless magazine articles on 90-93s and 94+s
94+s have never managed better then a 15.5@93 in the 1/4. Often times slower then that.
That still isn't enough for you guys, fine. I've lost against cars, like honda accord 6 speed coupes. In fact my 94 could barely stay up with a RSX type S 6 speed.
Say what you want, I'm finished argueing. My experiences, Magazine reviews, and raw data support my side.
I sure don't
This issue will never be settled. You can say whatever you want, and I can.
Fact remains, I've owned 3 q45s. You have owned no first gen. Quite frankly, you have no right to speak on its performance.
I have seen countless magazine articles on 90-93s and 94+s
94+s have never managed better then a 15.5@93 in the 1/4. Often times slower then that.
That still isn't enough for you guys, fine. I've lost against cars, like honda accord 6 speed coupes. In fact my 94 could barely stay up with a RSX type S 6 speed.
Say what you want, I'm finished argueing. My experiences, Magazine reviews, and raw data support my side.
elwesso wrote:Im not concerned about magazine data, I want real world data....
My real world data is my Q runs a 6-6.5 0-60 (average with stopwatch) and a low "5" 50-80 (have seen as low has 5.2, normally around 5.5)....
What a joke. You're going to trust stopwatch data over countless magazine data, which In general use much more precision tuning.
Go get a GTECH, or run at the dragstrip, then I will trust your data.
Nobody has more real word data then me. Of course that is just me saying it.
Oh well. Hitman actually drag raced his 94, and so did rob. Both in semi different states of modification. You have a stopwatch.
Quote »Mine runs perfect and i think it would run with any stock 90-93....[/quote]
That is all you need to say. You are so clearly biased by your car, you have lost all objectivity on this subject. You think your stock 94 is as quick as any 90-93. Are you insane? Everyone knows, there is a performance difference. What is at issue, is just how much. Now you are saying there is essentially NONE.
Ridiculous. Members on this forum may be nicer in th way they present things, but the bias is just as severe as any ricer forum, or any bmw type forum. You can't even admit to a known fact. Unreal
That is all you need to say. You are so clearly biased by your car, you have lost all objectivity on this subject. You think your stock 94 is as quick as any 90-93. Are you insane? Everyone knows, there is a performance difference. What is at issue, is just how much. Now you are saying there is essentially NONE.
Ridiculous. Members on this forum may be nicer in th way they present things, but the bias is just as severe as any ricer forum, or any bmw type forum. You can't even admit to a known fact. Unreal
1qckser wrote:Timming with a stop watch is as accurate as as the vote count in FL.
Precisely
Should I take Wes word that a 94 q45 runs 6.0-6.5 0-60. Or Every other published performance figure of 7.5-7.9
Well if I was blatently biased, I can tell you which one I would accept as fact
There is no way in sam hell a stock 94 Q45 is getting to 60 in 6 seconds, let alone 6.5
If i had a bone stock first gen like I used to, I would be willing to stake titles on it.
-
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:
Listen I dont need to deal with the flaming... Yes! YOUR PRECIOUS GRILLESS Q'S ARE FASTER THAN THE 94!!!! No my data isnt accurate. Ill keep my grille, seat heaters, TCS, METAL BACKED GUIDES, resale value AND THE COMPROMISE and be 30 seconds slower in a DOG OF A CAR!!!! JEEZ!!!!!!!
I am not denying the fact that the 90-93 are faster. I know that, I have driven them (A known perfect one with Fred's engine) and I can say that its not THAT much different. Im sorry I set you off Ryan, but they're all G50's.. THEY ARE THE SAME GENERATION FOR A REASON. Yes they're different, are they as different as you say, I am unconvinced..
What you are doing is making it sound like the 9093 Q is like a super blistering fast car and the 94 is just this slow dog with cushy seats... And thats not the case!!
They're all phenominal cars and theres NO NEED to make one seem inferior to the other.... I can understand a 96 since they lost a lot of stuff......
I am not denying the fact that the 90-93 are faster. I know that, I have driven them (A known perfect one with Fred's engine) and I can say that its not THAT much different. Im sorry I set you off Ryan, but they're all G50's.. THEY ARE THE SAME GENERATION FOR A REASON. Yes they're different, are they as different as you say, I am unconvinced..
What you are doing is making it sound like the 9093 Q is like a super blistering fast car and the 94 is just this slow dog with cushy seats... And thats not the case!!
They're all phenominal cars and theres NO NEED to make one seem inferior to the other.... I can understand a 96 since they lost a lot of stuff......
Let's break it down here...
Quote »Listen I dont need to deal with the flaming... Yes! YOUR PRECIOUS GRILLESS Q'S ARE FASTER THAN THE 94!!!! No my data isnt accurate. Ill keep my grille, seat heaters, TCS, METAL BACKED GUIDES, resale value AND THE COMPROMISE and be 30 seconds slower in a DOG OF A CAR!!!! JEEZ!!!!!!! [/quote]
Now you are flaming the 90-93. Grill is subjective, I have TCS.. Metal backed guides are nice, but no big deal to anyone 90-93 owner, looking to keep their car.. Resale value? You sold your Q yet? Fact is G50s arn't worth anything. You may have a few grand more, if that.. That is because your car is a newer model year, 90-93 still outsold your 94+. I'll refrain from "flaming" on your 94. Loss of aerodynamics, high speed stability.. Seats are purely subjective. I prefer the 90-93. I'll take no wood trim over cheap looking fake wood trim. Oh wait im doing it, just like you did!
Quote » am not denying the fact that the 90-93 are faster. I know that, I have driven them (A known perfect one with Fred's engine) and I can say that its not THAT much different. Im sorry I set you off Ryan, but they're all G50's.. THEY ARE THE SAME GENERATION FOR A REASON. Yes they're different, are they as different as you say, I am unconvinced.. [/quote]
Well Freds ran a 99 in the 1/4. I bet you could barely run a 95. If you don't feel difference, sorry, but there is a huge difference. Deal with it. You sent me off, because you are wrong, and are driving the point into the ground. No way your car runs 6 or 6.5 to 60, sorry. No point in wishing it to be true, it just isn't.
Quote »What you are doing is making it sound like the 9093 Q is like a super blistering fast car and the 94 is just this slow dog with cushy seats... And thats not the case!! [/quote]
Compared to the 94, and the races you will win/lose if you own a 90 vs a 94, it is.
Quote »They're all phenominal cars and theres NO NEED to make one seem inferior to the other.... I can understand a 96 since they lost a lot of stuff.....[/quote]
YEP. You can't even say it about a 16 second 96, or the owners will get very upset, just as you are. Which proves my point even more.
Nobody likes admitting to any negatives of their cars. not even the slowest G50 year. Doesn't mean they don't exist.
Quote »Listen I dont need to deal with the flaming... Yes! YOUR PRECIOUS GRILLESS Q'S ARE FASTER THAN THE 94!!!! No my data isnt accurate. Ill keep my grille, seat heaters, TCS, METAL BACKED GUIDES, resale value AND THE COMPROMISE and be 30 seconds slower in a DOG OF A CAR!!!! JEEZ!!!!!!! [/quote]
Now you are flaming the 90-93. Grill is subjective, I have TCS.. Metal backed guides are nice, but no big deal to anyone 90-93 owner, looking to keep their car.. Resale value? You sold your Q yet? Fact is G50s arn't worth anything. You may have a few grand more, if that.. That is because your car is a newer model year, 90-93 still outsold your 94+. I'll refrain from "flaming" on your 94. Loss of aerodynamics, high speed stability.. Seats are purely subjective. I prefer the 90-93. I'll take no wood trim over cheap looking fake wood trim. Oh wait im doing it, just like you did!
Quote » am not denying the fact that the 90-93 are faster. I know that, I have driven them (A known perfect one with Fred's engine) and I can say that its not THAT much different. Im sorry I set you off Ryan, but they're all G50's.. THEY ARE THE SAME GENERATION FOR A REASON. Yes they're different, are they as different as you say, I am unconvinced.. [/quote]
Well Freds ran a 99 in the 1/4. I bet you could barely run a 95. If you don't feel difference, sorry, but there is a huge difference. Deal with it. You sent me off, because you are wrong, and are driving the point into the ground. No way your car runs 6 or 6.5 to 60, sorry. No point in wishing it to be true, it just isn't.
Quote »What you are doing is making it sound like the 9093 Q is like a super blistering fast car and the 94 is just this slow dog with cushy seats... And thats not the case!! [/quote]
Compared to the 94, and the races you will win/lose if you own a 90 vs a 94, it is.
Quote »They're all phenominal cars and theres NO NEED to make one seem inferior to the other.... I can understand a 96 since they lost a lot of stuff.....[/quote]
YEP. You can't even say it about a 16 second 96, or the owners will get very upset, just as you are. Which proves my point even more.
Nobody likes admitting to any negatives of their cars. not even the slowest G50 year. Doesn't mean they don't exist.
Hey guys what's up with the hostility.
The bottom line is that it is a know fact that the 90-93 were performance orientated and the 94-96 were geared more toward the luxury department.
That said and done lets not forget that all Q's first and second gen are nice cars. It just depends on your flavor or in my case budget. The 90 Q that I have was in my budget. A friend of mines is looking at a 94 Q with rims, in-dash dvd player, fuel pump and recent tune-up done for a tag of $4000
Wes I know you dont want to hear it but the price is dropping steadily that is just the downfall of the infinity line.
The only reason why resale is good on the 94-96's is that it cater's to the tastes of the "I want a luxury car on the level of the benz but without the price tag." People will pay 4,5,6 thousand for the second gen.
As far as power, I would vouch for my 90 anyday. There is already an acura tl on my kill list as well as my friends 5 series beamer, and my homegirl with a 94Q. But her Q is more for the bling bling factor.
By the ways many of the older american muscle cars loose steam at 4000 rpm where the Q is just getting started.
Now heres a questionWould the new 300C kill a first gen Q?
The bottom line is that it is a know fact that the 90-93 were performance orientated and the 94-96 were geared more toward the luxury department.
That said and done lets not forget that all Q's first and second gen are nice cars. It just depends on your flavor or in my case budget. The 90 Q that I have was in my budget. A friend of mines is looking at a 94 Q with rims, in-dash dvd player, fuel pump and recent tune-up done for a tag of $4000
Wes I know you dont want to hear it but the price is dropping steadily that is just the downfall of the infinity line.
The only reason why resale is good on the 94-96's is that it cater's to the tastes of the "I want a luxury car on the level of the benz but without the price tag." People will pay 4,5,6 thousand for the second gen.
As far as power, I would vouch for my 90 anyday. There is already an acura tl on my kill list as well as my friends 5 series beamer, and my homegirl with a 94Q. But her Q is more for the bling bling factor.
By the ways many of the older american muscle cars loose steam at 4000 rpm where the Q is just getting started.
Now heres a questionWould the new 300C kill a first gen Q?
Here is a pic of the SRT-8 300Chttp://www.babez.de/chrysler/300csrt8.php
The fact is really, no Q45 is that blazingly fast. Maybe te 90-93 is MORE performance oriented, but its no where near the performance of any said "detroit muscle car." Those are really geared towards performance. Take ur precious G50's (all years) up against a C5 and any speed and youll be spanked up and down the drag/freeway. Sorry, 15.0 is not fast.
and a c5 is one of the fastest cars on the road...
Take it against a mustang or m3 of the time, and its a different story
15.0 isn't fast. When you race after 70+ and you run or beat cars that run lower 14s (not a c5, but quite a few "performance cars of the time") then it could easily be considered fast.
Take it against a mustang or m3 of the time, and its a different story
15.0 isn't fast. When you race after 70+ and you run or beat cars that run lower 14s (not a c5, but quite a few "performance cars of the time") then it could easily be considered fast.
why is is that when ever a discussion on the power of the G50 comes up someone always comes up with saying " the G50 is not that fast or all that fast or now blazingly fast."
I mean what the hell do you want?
The Q is a fast car for real street conditions, you know "traffic" "stop lights" "stop signs" "speed bumps"
Yeah detroit muscle is for speed but also built as daily rides to get you from point a to point b.
If you notice the 300c is powerful but also looks like a luxury boat. It is the poor man rolls. Why buy it now when in a year or two you can spend probably 7 grand less.
And what kind of comparison is a C5 to a Q.
That is comparing a focus to a continental T.
I mean what the hell do you want?
The Q is a fast car for real street conditions, you know "traffic" "stop lights" "stop signs" "speed bumps"
Yeah detroit muscle is for speed but also built as daily rides to get you from point a to point b.
If you notice the 300c is powerful but also looks like a luxury boat. It is the poor man rolls. Why buy it now when in a year or two you can spend probably 7 grand less.
And what kind of comparison is a C5 to a Q.
That is comparing a focus to a continental T.