So I threw the Q onto a dyno last week

[hk20000]

Stock 96 Q45t (so late model without the VVL and all that good stuff) on a Mustang Dyno calibrated to Dynojet Levels. Transmission is a Z32 5 speed and the suitcase muffler removed from the rear. The cats and resonators remain OEM.



227RWHP and 264lbft of RWTQ. I suppose that's pretty healthy? I don't really know...

The AFR map reads that the car is riching up at higher RPMs.


very typical of OEM tuning I suppose.

Just thought you might be interested to know the stock power output of a G50.

[IThaJ0kaI]

Dang I knew my 96 was slow, but 220hp is super lame.

[hk20000]

Its alright this is 270 at the crank lol. This number beat a couple sr20 and 3sgte.

[N/A Q45]

You have any 0-60 times or 1/4mile ?

[hk20000]

Nope. Maybe in the summer

[N/A Q45]

You could run a quick vid of a 0-60. I wonder what it would do. I know when I did 0-60s on the stock 94 (vvt) it was low to mid 8s.. just be interesting to see what the no vvt does it in stock.

[ph34r]

Might have to put my 94 on the dyno this weekend to see what she does. Even with the active suspension I would think better than 220.

[qship96]

Plan on being disappointed then.If you dig back many years here,you will see that 225 rear wheel horsepower was about all any of the 90-96 q45 were capable of in stock form.....and they were much newer with lower miles back then when many members had them tested on the dyno. The 227hp tested in this example equates to 280 HP at the crank,with a 19% drivetrain loss......normal.

[IThaJ0kaI]

Might have to put my 94 on the dyno this weekend to see what she does. Even with the active suspension I would think better than 220.

This is with a 5 speed, too!

Plan on being disappointed then.If you dig back many years here,you will see that 225 rear wheel horsepower was about all any of the 90-96 q45 were capable of in stock form.....and they were much newer with lower miles back then when many members had them tested on the dyno. The 227hp tested in this example equates to 280 HP at the crank,with a 19% drivetrain loss......normal.

But those numbers are still for the auto, correct? He mentions his car is using the z32 5 speed. His numbers should be higher than the auto numbers. I know personally my 94 is WAY faster than my 96, tested it the day I bought the 94. 94 is 100% OEM and the 96 only has coilovers and no exhaust.

[maxnix]

Every other year of the G50 is faster than the 1996.

"Calibrated to Dynojet?"

Shirley, you jest!

[qship96]

Every other year of the G50 is faster than the 1996.

"

Really?show me some better track numbers{not magazine ringers} from another stock 90-95 q45 that are any better than this-taken at the track with long time member RSIWICKI.


NICO Member FastLane 1996 Q45 that ran with me 1/19/05
.............#1
R/T.....0.099
60'......2.493
330'....6.773
1/8.....10.125
MPH....73.82
1000'...12.995
1/4.......15.431
MPH......92.75

[N/A Q45]

Dam that's slow.

Reaction---.7388
60ft ---2.4150
1/4 ET ---14.9523
1/4 MPH---94.48

That wasn't stock but it had a very restrictive intake on it that had a 2 1/2" ID so the power shouldn't have been much over stock or even as much.

[qship96]

Dam that's slow.

Reaction---.7388
60ft ---2.4150
1/4 ET ---14.9523
1/4 MPH---94.48

That wasn't stock but it had a very restrictive intake on it that had a 2 1/2" ID so the power shouldn't have been much over stock or even as much.

"that wasnt stock"....you just failed at following simple directions.

Not a single stock 1994,1995,or 1996 q45 has ever cracked a below low-mid 15 second quarter mile.Even in "magazine tests", the production 1990-1993 has not either {one pre-production press test car,in 1989 was the only one to even get in the very high 14s,and every other test done on actual production models failed to match that number,or even come close to it}

[N/A Q45]

I didn't fail at anything lol- the avg for the 1/4 was 15.1s. That was just the "best" run that got recorded at the 1/4 when I went.

Don't be hating cause you don't have vvt -

[qship96]

You failed,because your car is not "stock". no stock 1994 ever did the 1/4 in 15.1. even the 90-93,which everyone thinks was 'faster" than the 1994, failed to do so. see here both are tests of a production 1990 model,the one everyone thinks is "so fast" pffff,a v6 honda or toyota would cream it.
"http://www.q45.org/cd1989comparison/CD_ ... n_pg10.pdf

and here http://www.q45.org/q45vsls400/scan0007.jpg

[qship96]

You could run a quick vid of a 0-60. I wonder what it would do. I know when I did 0-60s on the stock 94 (vvt) it was low to mid 8s.. just be interesting to see what the no vvt does it in stock.

And there is your stock,super slow results of your car.,as reported by you...0-60 low to mid 8 seconds.....leads to a 1/4 mile time in the mid 16 second bracket. Hardly a 15.1 second machine in stock form- but then again,when you are a young kid buying an old,multiple owner clapped out 50K car for pennies on the dollar, did you really expect any better?

[N/A Q45]

That sure is quite a difference in the numbers. The earlier Qs should be a little quicker off the line because of the 1st and 2nd gear ratios but I doubt they would make as much power on top as the 94+ with the better flowing heads.
I know when this 94 was stock it would run 0-60s low to mid 8sec and that was the same times I was getting before I took it to the 1/4mile with the s*** intake I through on.

I do think there would be some time to be had if it was stock based on tires and rims alone as the BBS rims are light as hell and I'd guess the other rims that came on the Q were heavier.

Mine had the BBS' s when it was at the track. So probably good for .1 maybe.. maybe .2tenths. Idk how heavy the other styles of rims are though.

[N/A Q45]

You could run a quick vid of a 0-60. I wonder what it would do. I know when I did 0-60s on the stock 94 (vvt) it was low to mid 8s.. just be interesting to see what the no vvt does it in stock.

And there is your stock,super slow results of your car.,as reported by you...0-60 low to mid 8 seconds.....leads to a 1/4 mile time in the mid 16 second bracket. Hardly a 15.1 second machine in stock form- but then again,when you are a young kid buying an old,multiple owner clapped out 50K car for pennies on the dollar, did you really expect any better?

Lol sounds like qship really only has a lil'canoe.
I'm not a "kid" idk why you think the 96 is soooo fast. And I know what the car ran. Like I said it wasn't stock but the intake would have held it back alot. It was slowww as hell off the line but the mid was pretty good with the topend running out of breath.
The slowest time it ran was

Reaction---1.2450
60ft ---2.5860
1/4 ET ---15.2828
MPH ---96.60

The mph was ok but off the line.. lol well it barley got off the line.
Glad it hauls now as it was just to dam slow.

[IThaJ0kaI]

Having owned 1 96, 2 94's, 1 95 and 1 93 G50... They were all faster than my daily (96 with coilovers and rear muffler removed.) From a dig(obviously, g50s get terrible camber when slammed) but even from a 45 or 60 roll, the pre 96 cars would put atleast a car on me....

[N/A Q45]

^ that makes sense. Lol but this is pretty funny how someone thinks the non vvt 96 is faster then the vvt models

[qship96]

^ that makes sense. Lol but this is pretty funny how someone thinks the non vvt 96 is faster then the vvt models

You failed at grasping my point,yet again {becoming a condition for you}......i never said the 96 was "faster" than the other years,but that they all {1990-1996} were pretty equally mid 15 second quarter mile cars,stock,AND provided you with actual links to the numbers generated by the auto rags {and you have failed to provide any data taken by professional testers to refute that or even remotely make your claim}......if you take the time to look at and hopefully understand what you are looking at,you will see that.NONE of them are even competitive with a modern 6 cylinder Accord/Camry/Altima/g37 etc,so kind of silly to say one q is "faster" than the other.....they are ALL slugs compared to a modern car with a v6 engine.....not to mention todays V8s.

PS your car posting 15.28 in the quarter,with mods, is really "hauling" ??????? compared to the nico members STOCK 96 posting 15.4 hardly seems worth spending the time/$$$ that you did?

Wait a minute....Arnt you the same kid who was blabbering a few months ago about putting smaller injectors on your car,testing them in a cardboard box for "flow patterns bragging how much faster your car was"and got laughed right off the boards?

[N/A Q45]

Lol lil'noship. It was slow as hell running 15.2s, even a 14s arent really anything crazy now with like you said alot of v6 cars do pretty good. I know it's quite a bit quicker then that now. And since it just walked a 2013 300c with the 5.7 I'd say that's hauling pretty good!
And that was without the vvt turning off (on all the time). I ended up maxxing out the smaller injectors they were good for the 14.9 and mpg but I put the stock ones back in. And now just instaled a 102mm TB should be a good improvement over the 83mm ID stock one. 1/4miles coming up on the 27th of april so I'm most definitely going to be posting what it does. Pretty sure sould be high 13s-low 14s (that's what the new 300c's run so who knows

Ohh ya I didn't get laughed off anywhere someone on here was being a girl and band me for a bit- soild

[qship96]

No,you made quite the fool of yourself right from the getgo.Based off that total BS thread you created,I {and any one else who happened to read it} wouldnt believe a word you say .....you lost all credibility in just that thread,permanently.Good day.

[N/A Q45]

Well I could really care less who believes me or not but the 1/4 on the 24th will tell how quick the Q is or isn't. -

[asoomal]

There's a reason why Racing Greed's dyno is called the heart breaker.

They read LOW.