Road and Track: Q45 vs. LS400

[Jesda]

I scanned the article I bought on eBay, finally.

Enjoy!

http://www.q45.org/q45vsls400

I also bought a huge 18" Q45 and M30 1990 brochure, with pictures of trees and mountains and such on it speaking of the beauty and power of nature. I need to take it to Kinkos -- my scanner cant handle it.

-Jesda

[natsoundup]

good read. I probably read it years ago....just can't remember.

[louiegz]

Interesting mistake in the article. In the last page under suspension, they say that the Q has a rear sway bar. We all know the standard Q doesn't have a rear sway bar. I wonder if Infiniti cheated when they sent the Q to the guys at R&T. On the third page, they made a comment that the Q had Michelin Sport XGT V that was supposed to be only available with the T, according to R&T. Maybe the sway was slapped on before the test to skew the handling results in favor of the Q.

[Chad91Q45]

Very interesting.

Boy, reading all of it made me quite happy with the Q except for the last page... when I saw that the Lexus had more head room, I became slightly jealous.... but that often happens when you are 6'8".... :-)

[szh]

On the third page, they made a comment that the Q had Michelin Sport XGT V that was supposed to be only available with the T, according to R&T.

Hmmm ... my 1991 Q had Michelin Sport XGT tires when I got it (new) and it was not the T model.

Z

[Q45tech]

Lots of the early 90 Q came with rear sway bars which the dealers removed because the customer complained about the non Lincoln ride. It really was the Michelin Sport XGT V tires........as the 15.9 mm bar was there to match the equivalent tiny one on the 90 LS400. Dealers tried lots of other inferior tires before the Special Dunlop D80V4 was produced to placate owners who didn't understand what they were buying.Sway bars that small [15.9] won't affect slalom or skid pad what they did wrong was not decrease the GIGANTIC front bar [29mm] which caused the moderate understeer instead of mild understeer.

0-30=2.90-60=6.90-80=11.30-100=17.515.4/93.5................147 foot braking?

Strange numbers yet some are right on the majority we see today: 0-30 and 0-80............fresh transmission single shift? Would have been nice to know altitude and temperature of tests

200ft Skid pad = 0.79G700ft slalom = 58.2 mph

[russg]

I also bought a huge 18" Q45 and M30 1990 brochure, with pictures of trees and mountains and such on it speaking of the beauty and power of nature. I need to take it to Kinkos -- my scanner cant handle it.

-Jesda

Neither could the American car-buying public. That initial ad campaign is widely blamed for the Q's early relatively dismal sales, from which the car never fully recovered. It will make a terrific case study for years to come for marketing students to learn how not to run an automotive campaign. It was a marketing faux pas nearly in the league of "New Coke".

[Jesda]

Case study for marketing students? Why, yes! http://www.kellogg.nwu.edu/fac....html

The more I own and drive my Q, however, the more I finally come to understand all those silly, vague ads (see http://www.q45.org/media.html for video clips).

The calm and peaceful displays of streams, flocks of birds, mountains, hills, and slogans like "The Power of Nature Is That" and "The Beauty of Nature Is That"...they all make sense to me now. Driving a well-maintained Q45 is a cathartic experience. On an open road, all of the world's suffering, stresses, nonsense, and conflict disappear.

Take it from a Buddhist: Skip the Four Noble Truths and take a shortcut to enlightenment with a Q.

-Jesda

[maxnix]

I think the campaign reflects more poorly on the average American's perceptions. It certainly made me curious why they were so confident they didn't have to talk about the car. And the sales figures don't show 1990 model as a terrifically low seller in caomparison to the other models.

I think the failure to address the timing chain guide problem did more harm.

[russg]

I think the campaign reflects more poorly on the average American's perceptions. It certainly made me curious why they were so confident they didn't have to talk about the car. And the sales figures don't show 1990 model as a terrifically low seller in caomparison to the other models.

I think the failure to address the timing chain guide problem did more harm.

The inaugural LS outsold the inaugural Q by 3 to 1, and things got worse from there. And this with the majority of the automotive press highly favoring the Q over the LS at the time. I think we had more than a perception problem. From a corporate perspective, there was a serious underperformance of results problem, as measured in unit sales. First year unit sales were less than half of goal. Not all of the problem can be blamed on the ad campaign, but it certainly shoulders a considerable amount. Dealer count was inadequate, and the car itself catered to the desires of a market that was much smaller than was anticipated - certainly much smaller than the one that the LS catered to.

As to the chain guide issue, it's difficult for me to put very much weight there. I bought my first new Infiniti in 1991, the second one in 1992, the third in 1994, the fourth in 2001, and the most recent one in 2003. These included two Q45s. I'd like to think I was a pretty well informed consumer of Infinitis, and I can tell you that the first I ever heard of the chain guide issue was last year when I started reading this forum. I suspect the chain guide issue has had a much bigger impact on the resale of Q45s than it did on sales of new units. I tend to believe that the majority of new Q45 sales were in fact leases or purchases by consumers who never had any intention of owning the car for an extended period of time or logging extremely high mileage. Most buyers of new cars in the Q's price range tend to flip every 2-4 years, and typically do not own the car out of warranty. Why would they care about a chain guide issue, if indeed they were even aware of it?

It's somewhat unfortunate that Infiniti's ability to design and build wonderful cars has always outdone their ability to market them. While it has historically provided for some awesome deals for the buyers of their upper end cars, it also contributed to the near financial ruin of Nissan. Fortunately, under Mr. Ghosn's capable leadership, much has changed for the better, and Nissan now stands as the most profitable builder of cars when measured per unit. Much marketing work still needs to be done to position the Infiniti marque in its proper place in the psyche of the marketplace. The G series and the FX series have been a huge success in that area, but the M45 was a mis-step, as was the current generation Q. I have very high hopes for the next generation M, but much will hinge on a successful launch of a new flagship, and there's next to no information as to where that is headed. It will be interesting to watch.

[Jesda]

We put a lot of weight on flagship cars, but for brands like BMW, the big sellers and moneymakers are in the lower end (Mini, 3-Series, X3). Same for Audi (A4) and Acura (RSX, TL, TSX).

While its important for the flagship to be the best the brand can offer, as a halo product, it doesnt necessarily have to be very popular to be effective.

It just seems hard to imagine an Infiniti without a strong emphasis on the Q45, but its just not as important as it once was. In the 90s, the Q and G20 (and briefly the M30) were the only distinctly unique Infiniti products in the US. But now, things have changed dramatically.

I'll probably be driving a G50 Q45 of some sort until I finish grad school. So, until then, I'll focus on the power and beauty of nature.

-Jesda

[Rex]

The inaugural LS outsold the inaugural Q by 3 to 1, and things got worse from there. And this with the majority of the automotive press highly favoring the Q over the LS at the time. I think we had more than a perception problem. From a corporate perspective, there was a serious underperformance of results problem, as measured in unit sales. First year unit sales were less than half of goal. Not all of the problem can be blamed on the ad campaign, but it certainly shoulders a considerable amount. Dealer count was inadequate, and the car itself catered to the desires of a market that was much smaller than was anticipated - certainly much smaller than the one that the LS catered to.

As to the chain guide issue, it's difficult for me to put very much weight there. I bought my first new Infiniti in 1991, the second one in 1992, the third in 1994, the fourth in 2001, and the most recent one in 2003. These included two Q45s. I'd like to think I was a pretty well informed consumer of Infinitis, and I can tell you that the first I ever heard of the chain guide issue was last year when I started reading this forum. I suspect the chain guide issue has had a much bigger impact on the resale of Q45s than it did on sales of new units. I tend to believe that the majority of new Q45 sales were in fact leases or purchases by consumers who never had any intention of owning the car for an extended period of time or logging extremely high mileage. Most buyers of new cars in the Q's price range tend to flip every 2-4 years, and typically do not own the car out of warranty. Why would they care about a chain guide issue, if indeed they were even aware of it?

It's somewhat unfortunate that Infiniti's ability to design and build wonderful cars has always outdone their ability to market them. While it has historically provided for some awesome deals for the buyers of their upper end cars, it also contributed to the near financial ruin of Nissan. Fortunately, under Mr. Ghosn's capable leadership, much has changed for the better, and Nissan now stands as the most profitable builder of cars when measured per unit. Much marketing work still needs to be done to position the Infiniti marque in its proper place in the psyche of the marketplace. The G series and the FX series have been a huge success in that area, but the M45 was a mis-step, as was the current generation Q. I have very high hopes for the next generation M, but much will hinge on a successful launch of a new flagship, and there's next to no information as to where that is headed. It will be interesting to watch.

I agree with nearly all of the above, the Q sales underperformed due to marketing (whether it was research or effectiveness of the advertising campaign). The "dependability" cost of the guides to sales has to be little to nil until the late 90's when anyone (and as he said very few should have) reahced the 7yr/100k milestone and lost the motor before re"upping". The bigger cost was the depreciation and the hit the owners took as they went to re-new. You have to figure anyone who "bought" an early Q was beside themselves with anger when they couldn't get 50% of their purchase back 2-3 years later. And if the bothered to compare the re-sale with the LS they simply grew furious and never came back. The early weakness is purely marketing (research/campaign).

One point where I differ is the M45, I think this is Infiniti's fault as they've built/brought a car to the US market to compete in an arena where it should do well and haven't positioned it correctly with the Auto Mags. The ads I've seen are going after the right buyer, but they don't get the articles in the mags to back it up. It was brought to be the best V8 RWD luxury/perfromance value in the market and I'd challenge anyone to find a better one. The fact that it's not "new" JDM model, sould help as they're not offering 3 new lines, with the possible new model anomalies (bugs) and one (M45)should have none of that.

I think they've hit the buyer's market in the "proce range" sweet spot with both the G35 and the FX35, and offering the FX45 as an upgrade is very nice.

(I'm sure this is a ramble, but I'll edit later if needed, suppossed to be somewhere ... NOW)

[1992Q45A]

Can someone post up a review of a Q45A?

I still have yet to read a review of the A model, exclusively. Just articles mentioning the suspension.

Does anyone have a review when the A launched?

[louiegz]

The problem with the M45 bad sales was that it wasn't that good looking of a car. It is not a thing of beauty like the new one that’s coming out. Either you love it or hate it. And looking at the sales numbers, most people hated it. Same with the first 3 years of the grill less G50, people didn't like that. Maybe if the first G50 looked like the grilled ones, I think it would have sold more. Unfortunately they didn't hold the price, from $38k in 1990, to $52k in 1995, the year my father got the Q I'm driving. The new M should really do well, if they keep the price right.

[Jesda]

Good point, but when Motor Trend did a long term (1 year) wrap-up on the Q45, their survey showed that the reason customers liked it most was the styling.

-Jesda

[PalmerWMD]

Good deal!

Fred..