Which Q, 90-93 or 94-96?

[nuQ]

"""""""Maybe I should go to PA and drive nuQ’s car to be enlightened."""""""""====== I've never driven a 95Q, would be fun to do a side by side and really measure the differences louie!!!! for all those hating the 90-93 look, i can tell you, when i switched to the 99Q rims and the wider, lower profile tires (245/50/16's), it made a WORLD of difference in the look and stance of the car. a MUCH more aggressive look. if i had to replace mine, i would definitly look for another 90-93 first, but would never turn down a well maintained, great looking 94 or 95.

[redmanfx]

The 90 -93 is pure Q. The luxury of it is that it's entirely built around the driver. It holds passengers, but it's all function. Great materials. No wood. No glitz. No Chrome. Few compromises.

I have to agree. My 92Q45a has 253K on it and drives sweet. I have been fixing it up and sinking money into her and plan to keep it up. Chain guides are something that will simply have to be changed and the active suspension will drain your pockets, but the smile on your face will heal all pocket wounds.

So far I've dusted the 04 Q45 going head to head and am waiting for a 95 or 96 to come along and compare the two. Beware, I'm completely amazed by my Q, so I'm a little biased.

red

[maxnix]

So far I've dusted the 04 Q45

I have seen a 2004 Q45 owner's manual, but never a 2004 Q45.

[elwesso]

Another thing to think about.. TCS! its a big deal in the winter, it helps out big time. Greg, this is something you wouldnt know about, its that white stuff we call snow! When trying, i couldnt get the Q sideways with it, it really wont let you spin the tires much at all.....

I think TCS was first offered in like 92, but ultra rare...

I have a 94 base and it has heated seats and TCS..... There was like a winter package (something like that its on my parts CD)

But like everyone has said here, there really isnt that much EVERYDAY difference. They drive 99% the same overall.....

BTW, if you drive my car, dont judge by my interior like Jesda did, for obvious reasons!! All other 94 seats are just fine, although some better than others. The softer the leather the better because my leather is very hard... When i get new seats ill probably ahve them stuff it with some plush pillow-ey stuff... Mmmm, cadillactastic...

[1992Q45A]

I hate the TCS. It's way to sensitive. It is flat out dangerous if you need to get into traffic quickly.

[elwesso]

But as your driving it can be a life saver.....

[1992Q45A]

Only if you don't know how to drive.

[elwesso]

Im telling you, TCS in the winter IN SNOW really helps... Other times it can be annoying, but winter time its pefect IMO

[1992Q45A]

Snow, what's that

[PalmerWMD]

It would be so cool if Ryan had a Q45 as well.

Fred..

[rydwhite]

We'll see. I am looking at several other things as well. I originally wanted a truck, so I am still looking at that and maybe even a used Nissan Pathfinder.

[Aus94Q45]

"Everything in the 94 (grill/wood/seats/engine/transmission) is a compromise. . . . " Please!

No offense but none of them 90-96 have blinding quarter mile times. Quick yes . . . fast no. Many stock runners off the showroom floor sport faster quarters, 0-60's and much more hp.

Mods will make it run better, but it will not ever cut curves like a G.

Beyond gearing, the 94-95's added weight whcih contributes to the .5 sec. slower quarter mile. Changes to the package were made to make the car more dependable, not just to sell more cars. I remember plenty of pissed off early Q buyers who had big and expensive transmission and chain guide failures. These issues lead to a bad perception of the car by non-affectianados. But it alos caused in part the enormus depreciation that made my car such a great used purchase!

As R&T pegged it, the Q is an amazing blend of luxury and performance. I like all the Q's -- grilled or not. However, if I was buying a new one today, I'd go with a 94 or 95 for the overall lux and performance.

[1992Q45A]

"Everything in the 94 (grill/wood/seats/engine/transmission) is a compromise. . . . " Please!

No offense but none of them 90-96 have blinding quarter mile times. Quick yes . . . fast no. Many stock runners off the showroom floor sport faster quarters, 0-60's and much more hp.

Mods will make it run better, but it will not ever cut curves like a G.

Beyond gearing, the 94-95's added weight whcih contributes to the .5 sec. slower quarter mile. Changes to the package were made to make the car more dependable, not just to sell more cars. I remember plenty of pissed off early Q buyers who had big and expensive transmission and chain guide failures. These issues lead to a bad perception of the car by non-affectianados. But it alos caused in part the enormus depreciation that made my car such a great used purchase!

As R&T pegged it, the Q is an amazing blend of luxury and performance. I like all the Q's -- grilled or not. However, if I was buying a new one today, I'd go with a 94 or 95 for the overall lux and performance.

No offense, but you're flat out wrong. I can't remember if it's wes's site or one of them with old archives.. I can tell you the "additions'' in 94 were simply to sell more cars, because the original Q that was envisioned and created by the engineers wasn't the success they thought it would. They still sold more 90-93 Qs then 94-96.

As for performance, .5 may not seem like alot, but in real world applications it is. I've owned a 91, and a 94. I've raced many cars in my 91, and a few in my 94.

The first gen had a 15.0 1/4 mile, but on the high end 70+ it performed as well if not slighty better then low 14 second cars. I raced countless e36 m3s cobras etc etc. never lost an inch.

I've raced a few low 14 second cars in my stock 94, and the results were dramatically different.

I know you love your car, we all do. I loved my 94 and my 91. I can tell you they are different cars. Infiniti gave us two different versions of a great car, but they serve different purposes. The 90-93 is the clear performance champ. The two HP peaks, the better gearing, and a few other minor factors, make it the performance champ of the G50s.. The 94 has more common luxury items, a nier ride, and is the luxury champ.

Saying the engineers originally envionsed the changes in 94, is incorrect. They never wanted a grill, wood trim, and some of the other features added. Doesn't mean they arn't nice, but they wern't intended in the first gen G50.

[qship96]

ah,the endless debate! my 2cents,the 94-96q makes a better luxury car than the 90-93 makes a performance car,90-93 may be faster{actually-quicker},but if performance is the main goal,why not just buy a 300zx turbo in the first place?no 90-96q can keep up with a true performance car of it`s day,be it the z,twinturbo supra,or rx7-so whats the point? the q is meant to be a luxury car with good handling-not a race car-there are much,much better cars for that purpose-so i`d say,all in all, the 94-96 is the overall better blend of the series.

[1992Q45A]

Not true. You don't consider an SVT cobra or a e36 m3 a peformance car of it's time? I can run through coutnless other performance cars that met defat by my 91 hands.. an RX7 will have problems with a Q45 at high speeds. they arnt that fast on the high end.. Fred ran a 99 trap in his early Q.. that rivals just about every sporty car in it's day, except the supra and z and a few others..

I'm not being arrogant or bragging, but I raced my 91q repeatedly, against many many vehicles. On the freeway the VH screams.

This is all mute. Let's just end this dicussion. The Q for most peolpe isn't a drag racer.. it was for me, so im more demanding when people discuss its performance.

G50s kick A$$. Bottom line is this: you will enjoy either one. I encourage you to drive both, and make your up your own opionions.

[Q45tech]

TCS is only a Summer problem if your car is not equipt with soft oem compatable tires.The oem were either 170 or 200 tread wear index so the system assumed you were spinning because you were! Just turn it off when there are no winter conditions better yet run compatable tires to the oem calibration.........have to have custom tires made as nothing exists today that soft in 15 or any size.300 treadwear is way way to hard for calibration!

[elwesso]

I still like to have it in the rain and stuff like that, but when I need fast take offs i turn it off.....

[rsiwicki]

I never drive with the TCS on as it works too damn good and drives me nuts every time I am accelerating out of a turn. I actually turn it off as a matter of habit every time I get in the car as I put on my seat belt and don't even realize that I have turned it off as all my friends ask me....what's that button you always hit everytime you get in your car and what is the yellow light on the dash.

I bought my car when I lived in NJ and for the 5 pathetic times it did snow in three years living there the TCS is a definite must. I tried and tried to drive the car with TCS off in the snow and just no way possible. IMHO the TCS is very excellent as I have experienced TCS in a Bimmer in snow and it did not work with a damn as the wheels were slipping very bad.

[elwesso]

Another vote for 94!

In dry weather its annoying, but in the rain and snow its really nice...

[Aus94Q45]

"No offense, but you're flat out wrong . . . . "

(my last comments on this topic) Sorry but the G coupe will out run them all to 60 mph and in the 1/4. I agree with you on the 70+ mph performance, but that is consistent with its cruising characteristics. Finally as to styling, by '94 it was time to update the late 80's design plain and simple. It was (and is) a classic design and unique, but it was time to move on by 94.

As Forest Gump says, "And thats all I have to say about that."

[kimrober]

I agree.. I thought only my 96 model was somewhat different due to dropped VVT but hey common! its all same VH... did we buy our Q for the street racing?Does JDM Presidents during 90-93 got grills and wood trims? (Of course they did!). Why almost all of Q45s at Japanese Yahoo auctions got fake after market grills? I think it all comes down to simple answer, styling...

[96QQ45]

Give me a break already. The G50 is awesome either way. Just get the best you can find for the money. Well maintained and low miles is the key same as any other car. Trust me, you will want to keep it a long time.

[1992Q45A]

I agree.. I thought only my 96 model was somewhat different due to dropped VVT but hey common! its all same VH... did we buy our Q for the street racing?Does JDM Presidents during 90-93 got grills and wood trims? (Of course they did!). Why almost all of Q45s at Japanese Yahoo auctions got fake after market grills? I think it all comes down to simple answer, styling...

uhm JDM Presidents? All presidents had grills. Of course PRESIDENTS had wood trim. They were a stretched version of the Q45 designed for salarymen exec lux transport...

Don't confuse the Q45 and president. Same chasis/engine, two different vehicles.

[elwesso]

Just a little tangent here.....

I was just driving my Q home, and in terms of the driveability on the road, it still feels like a 50,000 car... TOP OF THE LINE.

I can say easily the G doesnt feel this good on the interstate...

The 94 IMHO has the best blend of performance and luxury..... When cruising on the interstate, its passive when you want it to be like a luxury car, then you hit it, and it takes off like a rocket, but still perfectly smooth and controlled...

I love the G50 no matter what year, i just happen to prefer the 94-95

[Altiman94]

everyone is gonna be biased towards their models. I love my 89 240sx even tho its a sohc, dohc guys love their dohc's. Buy what YOU like.

[msscomm]

Which Q do you recommend? The 90-93 or the 94-96?

It will mostly be used as my daily driver to and from work, mostly highway miles. So, have at it guys. Give me some opinions here. Which car would you get?

For a daily driver - are you ever going to take it up from 8/10 ? If not - the pure engineering in the earlier Q's is a tradeoff for the extra years accumulating on an older car - it sounds like you don't intend to go wrenching on her - just think - all that gorgeous styling and the finest 4 dr GT you could love is available in a muuuuch newer car. Your listed St. Louis car looks like a hell of a starting point if you can get it for decent money!

BTW - for a cheap $100, you can do a hell of a lot of diagnostics very very easily w/a OBDII diagnostic reader and a 96Q ! Not a Consult, but a damn site cheaper than $20,000 in diagnostic equipment. If you really don't plan on scrubbing the fingernails of grease, a 94-96 really doesn't lose much except if you continue to try for those final 2/10 - I love Zipping up and down Cali in the newer seats - if I want seat support-5 points - go Recaro/Porsche.

Come on, this is a 2 ton GT - GET AN NSX if you want reliable Handling - and just think of all the parts available for a 5 or 8 series if you’re dead serious - and love dumping $$ !

You can't lose w/a remanned Q ! - the question really is how much you insist/demand on wringing out of her? Get either one of our 1st gen “Big Boys” and just try to wipe the smile off your face every time you turn the key -

[rydwhite]

Well I am back from checking out the 91. I must say that the Q is a nice car, but in my opinion, it is not near the car that the G coupe is. This is of course my biased opinion since I have a G coupe. But, the handling of the Q is not as good, the power seems to be lacking a little below 60 and the car just is not as comfortable to sit in than my G coupe. The Q would be a nice highway car, it is smooth and seems to float down the road. However, I was glad to get back in my G. The G handled great on the 4 hour drive out to Floristell, MO. It was comfortable, powerful through traffic and has complete style that is virtually unrivaled in a car under $50,000. The Q is nice, but give me a G35 coupe anyday over Q45. Since the cars are completely different there really isn't any reason to compare them, but I have as Wes has several times. We have the complete opposite opinion on the G and Q. Just like many here seem to have the complete opposite opinion between the 90/93 and 94/96. It is all strictly opinion. Let's keep the love flowing guys.

[downtempo]

Apples and oranges, imo. If you love your G35 coupe, is going to be a difficult comparison with a 13 year old heavier, longer wheelbase vehicle. I love my '91. I'm sure I would love an '03 G35 coupe. Both=best of both worlds, if $ is no prob. I just dusted an Escalade and a Volvo s70 turbo tonight and am feeling partial to my Q. Bang and Luxury for the $, really cannot be beat. From what has been said here. A well maintained Q45A might be what you are looking for, handling wise. Just a thought

[maxnix]

Rydwhite, take that 400 mile trip with three friends in each car, then ask them their opinons.

I love my friend's G35c 6MT, but it is a little busy for me on the highway. Just my taste. I would take it on a back road anytime provided I had no rear seat passengers and didn't need to haul anything of significance.

Hope you had a good example of a Q45 to drive as many are clapped out but have nice bling bling rims or pop chargers, etc. but old fluids, worn out suspension, poor maintenance, etc. Makes all the difference. Few are Q45tech pluperfect.

[Jesda]

The Q and G were engineered to do two completely different things. To me, it seems odd to cross shop the Q and G -- one is a premium lux-cruiser and one is a premium lux-racer.

Sometimes, with the crap-*** roads here, I long for a 95 Caprice to float down the interstate.

-Jesda