Which Q, 90-93 or 94-96?

[rydwhite]

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

I've read alot on here lately about the differences between the two. But, which car do you think is a better car? Which is built better, has a better eninge? I know alot depends on whether I want all the extra things that the 94-96 has such as cd, heated seats, etc... Also assume that the car has had all the necessary maintenance already done to it.

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?

[elwesso]

For what your going for, the 94 IMHO is a better choice.. heres why!

1. the 90-93 Q started in 2nd gear (to give you really smooth starts(, and consquently had a higher 1st gear, mostly the reason why they are a touch faster than the 94s. Same basic engine with a few minor changes.

Something must be done, as it cant start in 2nd gear or it will wear out real fast, so you probably need a JWT or some other TCU for it to start in 1st..... The 94 already starts in 1st but has a lower 1st/2nd gear so that makes it a little slower...

2, The seats are somewhat softer, but IMO they dont seem much more/less comfortable. All i know is on long roadtrips Im always very comfy

3. The list of improvements they made. Timing guides, transmission cooler, injector design, the cheaper R134a AC system... and a myriad of other things that just make the 94 more reliable. I wouldnt say that its more/less BETTER BUILT than the 90-93, but its certainly more reliable.

4. The styling. While the 90-93 really grows on you, i think everyone can agree they like the grilled design better..... THe lines are more clean IMO... There is a bit more luxury in the interior, with the wood trim and different seats. Its also noticeably quieter due to thicker windows..

Heres what it comes down to:

90-93 is the ultimate in PERFORMANCE-LUXURY and are reliable compared to most other makes. Everything is designed for form and function, why there is no wood trim etc..... The suspension is firmer, but when I drove a 90 i didnt notice much if any difference...

94+ gives you the same thing, with better styling, reliability, and more comfort...

[rydwhite]

Hey Wes, can you hook me up with the link to the Black 94 that you showed me last night. Thanks.

[PalmerWMD]

I recoimmend the 90-93.With transmission cooler (which 94+ also needs) and guides done. a high level of reliability can be achieved for such an old car.It is lighter than the 94+ and out-of-the-box faster.The 94 has a bit more features sound deadening and looks more modern.Its easier to find a reliable 94+ than a 90/93 but if you do I would take the 90/93 for its Infinititiness purity.

Fred..

[Aus94Q45]

I would go with the newest 95 I could find with low miles. IMO its very difficult to find a 90-93 anymore that has all of the maintence (the best ones are on this board and not for sale!). For that matter its hard to find a good 94 or 95. I am just thinking that newer and lower miles -- the tide of things that wear out, crack, and break with age and miles is exponential.

[1992Q45A]

The 90-93 is how the engineers envisioned the Q45. The seats are more comfortable (the 94 seats are nice, but a compromise) The car is much quicker.. the 94 has the granny gears.

If you want performance you go for 90-93, if you want more luxury you go for the 94+

[1992Q45A]

The 90-93 are more then a touch faster.

They had two HP peaks instead of 94s one. They had much better gearing.

.5 is much faster

The 90-93 is a monster after 4,000 rpm.. it just keeps pulling.. the 94 is quick and pulls nicely to the redline, but it's no monster.

[1992Q45A]

One more thing.

RYD: imagine if the G35 wasn't a hit. Imagine if people complained about it's nicest features. Then imagine if the engineers compromised everything they did with it, to sell more cars. That is the 94.

I have owned both. I'm a Q fanatic.. I bought a 94, just because I had to know the differences.

Everything on the 90-93 (more specifically the 90-92) is envisioned.

No wood Trim. Every luxury car has this. The engineers didn't put it on there for a reason. The 94+ wood trim is fake, put on to add more luxury.

No Grill. The 90-93 has better aerodynamics. More high speed stability. The Engineers specifically didn't put a grill on the Q, because it was just another default luxury car item.

94s have more turn to lock. Slower Rack

Softer suspension

I drive a 94 currently, awaiting my 92. It's a nice luxury car. The 90-93 is a beast at high rpms.. If you mod it, you will have G35 performance in a two ton sedan.. You will have an absolutele MONSTER of an engine at high rpms.. Very few engines have the first gen VH characteristics.. Loves to rev all the way and past (with jwt) the redline..

Why not buy the car how the engineers and Nissan originally wanted the car to be. Everything in the 94 (grill/wood/seats/engine/transmission) is a compromise.

Doesn't mean it isn't an awesome car.. The G50 was awesome anyway you slice it.. If you arn't partial to the grill, get a 90-93.. That's one of the main reasons people don't like the 90-93, because of the Infinit logo slapped on the front (mt fuji, and an ancient japanese plant on the background) I think it's cool as hell.

Ok major rambling.. Not hating on the 94, but owned one and going back to the 90-93

[louiegz]

I just don’t like the grill-less Qs look. I saw one in a parking lot the other day and as I was thinking of leaving a note on the guy’s car that said, "Don't forget to change your chain guides!" I was saying to myself, "Man, this front end is ugly." They would have done better in initial sales it they would have came out with the 94-96 style first. That's why they changed it. I've never driven a 90-93, but I can't imagine it's a BIG difference. Maybe I should go to PA and drive nuQ’s car to be enlightened.

[elwesso]

Louie is correct.. While there is a noticeable difference, its not that big of a deal at all.....

I know the 91 i drove was in perfect condition, it was the one that had Freds old engine (may your old car RIP fred, that was very depressing seeing it, it was in such perfect condition)...

I think the only difference IMHO is the gearing. The engine felt about equal (more biased towards the 90-93) but its hardly something to really take note of... I didnt time it or anything, but while it does feel strong, its not that much more than a 94...

I think we'd be about equal with a 90-93 transmission in a 94.. When it comes time for me to get a new transmission thats what Ill be doing...

However, Fred is correct. The 90-93 are the purest of all the Q, exactly what the engineers wanted. If the 90-93 had been more of a hit, the new Qs wouldnt look anything like they do IMO.

Ok, now Im probably going to get flamed for this, but when I drove a 91 it just for some reason felt inferior. It was in good condition, and its obvious that everything is top notch quality (the leather door panels), but it still didnt feel quite the same as my 94. The 94 seems to sorta suck you in, and surround you. The 90-93 seems more of a "Machine".....

[AZhitman]

Ryan, just buy that black 92 with the chain guides done... You know it's a sweet car.

p.s. Ryan (92Q) - The 90-93 had wood trim, but it was ugly, orange and had screw holes in it.

The 94-96 wood trim is real on the console, fake on the doors.

[maxnix]

The 94-96 wood trim is real on the console, fake on the doors.

Really? That would explain why they don't match.

I am in the 1994-1995 crowd. The comfort and convenience improvements along with the refined engineering make it a better everyday car. You have a G35 coupe for carving corners and acceleration, why try to get the same performance from a 2 ton luxury sedan? Better to enjoy it for what it is than trying to make it into something at which it can't be as good as the coupe.

[rsiwicki]

Or you can do like me and mix the two different years up to get the best combo....

I put a 92 transmission and a 90-93 steering rack into my 95 car and now I have some of the best of both models

[qship96]

I vote for the 96! I bought mine specifically because it was a 96-even though some feel it is slightly down on power,if you want a fast car to keep up with todays new offering,all 90-96q are slow! the advantages the 96 hold over all the 90-95 include getting the NEWEST and last of the g50 series,and more importantly,because it is the only one with OBD2,diagnoses and repair of faults are easier{ important as time passes,and the number of early q technicians dwindles} and less guessing if all the sensors are functioning correctly!

[Jesda]

I'm a big fan of both, but I adore my 92 for its better performance and tighter handling and steering. 1990 is a little too tight for me, and 92 seems just about right.

I drove Wes's 94 briefly, and loved it as well. You said this would be your daily -- a 94-96 would have fewer miles, a more modern look, thicker windows (quieter), heated seats, and a much nicer sound system.

All of the luxury amenities were enhanced in 1994. I dont know how traffic is in Indy, but all those things can make a difference in a long commute.

One big 94-96 downside, however, is less comfortable seats.

My choice across the country is 1990-1993 -- the seats are the main reason. My choice around town is 1994-1996.And I go across the country in the car every year.

-Jesda

[downtempo]

Didn't some late '93's have the guides done from the factory. If you could find one, would be my vote. Almost forgot, I love that over 4000rpm surge in my '91. Can be pretty hairy in second gear under WOT coming around a bend.

[rydwhite]

Thanks everyone. Keep the info coming. All good info to have. I am going friday to take a look at a 1991. Here is a link http://home.centurytel.net/ttabor/q45/ I am also going take Wes' 94 for a spin to compare the two and decide from that what I ultimately like more. The guy selling the 91 mentioned that there may be an injector or two that are going bad. So that is of some concern to me right now, but everything else that he has done to the car sounds really good. Chain guides recently done at T3 is huge in my book.

[ddrumman]

While I own the 94 and love it, the way it is NOW, I must admit that the 92A is why I fell in love with this car.I guess the issue everyone is debating is luxury vs. performance.I believe that you can get either car and add what’s missing thru doing mods.There’s only one difference and that’s the grill. They don’t really compare when it comes to exterior looks. The 94/96 line being the better looking of the two. Much classier and with more style.

D.

[Rex]

Thanks everyone. Keep the info coming. All good info to have. I am going friday to take a look at a 1991. Here is a link http://home.centurytel.net/ttabor/q45/ I am also going take Wes' 94 for a spin to compare the two and decide from that what I ultimately like more. The guy selling the 91 mentioned that there may be an injector or two that are going bad. So that is of some concern to me right now, but everything else that he has done to the car sounds really good. Chain guides recently done at T3 is huge in my book.

I'd be pretty sure T3 gave him a list of immediate needs, interim need & long term needs, see if you can geta copy of that?

[rydwhite]

I'd be pretty sure T3 gave him a list of immediate needs, interim need & long term needs, see if you can geta copy of that?

Yeah he says he has all the paperwork. I also thought of calling T3 to see if they had anything else in their records such as recomended work that maybe was just noted in the computer and not actually given to him except verbally. I deffinetly want to cover my back. I don't mind and actually would like to a little work myself to it, since it is kind of not available yet with the G since it is under warranty and fairly new. It would be nice to get my hands a little greasy again. If I were to get this one I would be putting in a transmission cooler, since I don't see any mention of it.

[AZhitman]

Ryan, keep in mind that the "luxury vs performance" thing gets overdramatized.

Bottom line is, the 90-93 and 94-96 have the same engine, drivetrain, and body, with very few REAL differences.

I have driven 90-93 models that were slower (and faster) than my 95, and I have driven 94-95 models that were slower (and faster).

Fact is, it really comes down to the "gingerbread". Whether you prefer the grille, seats, and other minor aesthetic differences between the 2 cars.

That black one you're looking at is stellar, and would be near the top of my list, especially if you can get it for under asking price.

[rydwhite]

Yeah, I'm not too picky about the luxury amenities in the car. As long as the seats are comfortable and it goes fast in style then that is what is really important to me. But heated seats would be nice. The stereo doesn't bother me too much. I would eventually change that out to a nice aftermarket system. I don't care about wood trim. Just reliable, fast and clean.

[AZhitman]

Well, you won't get heated seats unless you find a "t" model.

The stereo should be quite a bit better than anything aftermarket you can install under $1000.

They're all fast.

[1992Q45A]

Ryan, just buy that black 92 with the chain guides done... You know it's a sweet car.

p.s. Ryan (92Q) - The 90-93 had wood trim, but it was ugly, orange and had screw holes in it.

The 94-96 wood trim is real on the console, fake on the doors.

Not from the factory.. that was dealer aftermark. the original q had no wood trim

[rydwhite]

I know that 91 that I mentioned has a wood dash. It must be dealer installed then. The pictures are in the link that I placed a few posts back.

[1992Q45A]

Greg,

Let's be fair. If the 90-93 is maintained properly, it's going to be quite a bit quicker then a 94+.. .5 in the 1/4 with 2+ mph in the trap.. I've owned both.. The better gearing and the two hp peaks make quite a bit of difference..

There is no need to start a battle.. You may prefer the 94.. but saying the performance is barely noticeable is a disservice to someone who is looking at both with an open mind...

My 91 had 0 wood trim, I've never seen any 90-93s with factory wood trim. I can get a quote from the engineers speaking on the wood issue.

[1992Q45A]

Let's just settle this.

Both Are Great. Drive both.. Asking people here is just asking for bias

Drive both..

[szh]

When used as a "daily driver" and not being pushed, there is essentially no difference between a 90-93 and a 94-96. For example, in Bay Area rush hour traffic, I do not need a fast car at all!:(

So, IMHO, the question boils down to comfort (sitting in the car for longer periods in traffic) and low maintenance (don't want a daily drive car to need lots of work or downtime).

Since Ryan already has the G35 for the fun times, I think that a lower maintenance Q would be better. Hence, my recommendation would be for a 94-96 in good condition.

Z

[fxjackso]

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.

My 90 can't be duplicated. There is nothing like winding it up to 7200 in first, then finding yourself at 7200 in second almost before you know it.

[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.