Why are the new Q/M slow?

[AZ94Q]

Here is my question. I know the 2k2 Q had some gearing issues, which were cleared up in 2k3. Here is my problem. I was reading a road test of the new m45, it mustered a 0-60 in 6.1 and a 1/4 mile in [email protected]. This seems very slow, espically since the competition (gs430/540i) can muster mid to low 14s at near triple digit speeds. I just heard a new M45 add, and it talks about how much more power this car has, compared to the competiton. Who cares, it's still SLOWER. A 90, with an ECU/TCU can equal that 1/4 mile time, even though it would be still about .5 slower to 60. With 5 speeds, 340 hp, why are the new v8 cars taking so long to get through the 1/4. I don't get it, can someone shed som elight on this? Another thing I don't understand is why nissan claimed 0-60 in 5.9 with the 2k2 Q. Even with the fixed gears, it won't be able to match that, if the 150 pound lighter m45, can't get to 60 in under 6 (Infiniti claims 6.1, and tested by mags) I think it's great infiniti is all about horse power, but it should AT LEAST equal the competitons numbers, not be slower, with more power. Someone help me understand, I am very disappointed

[PalmerWMD]

I dont think they are all that slow it depends on lot on teh conditions under which a magzine teste their cars and if they adjust for altitude+temp or not.

Sept editon of one of the big 3 mags tested teh 2k2 Q at 6.0 0-60 and 14.4 (or .5 dont remenber) in teh quarter mile.

Those results are nearly indentical to the Infinti claimed results.

One magazine test was against some sports sedans (even tho the Q is a bigger sports luxury sedan) were and yes the 2k2 q needed 6.5sec 0-60 but if memory serves, that was at 2000+ feet and a higher ambient temp.

Fred...

[911/Q45]

I think the factory disabled the TCS to get 5.9 0-60. You need some wheelspin to get into the power range quickly, especially with a heavy car. I think Dennis has mentioned that the new Q has given up some low end torque to get big hp numbers and that would hurt 0-60 also.

[greg_atlanta]

Both cars are heavy.

The 5.9 0-60 time was controversial but they probably got it after repeated runs with well-broken in tester model that may have been stripped down and carrying a 100 lb Japanese driver.

But don't get hung up on numbers... you'll just be disappointed. It's a fruitless argument.

[911/Q45]

Aren't the numbers the only way to compare a car with the competition? I was pretty cranked that the 290hp LS430 was better 0-60 than the 340hp Q.

[maxnix]

Quote »I was pretty cranked that the 290hp LS430 was better 0-60 than the 340hp Q.[/quote] As discussed by Dennis before in an excellent post, the LS430 is geared exactly to meet these specific speeds and distances (1/4 mile).

It has no reflection on real world highway passing performance. Indeed, if you clould run the two cars simutaneously, side by side (preferably computer controlled), and superimposed the graphs, you would probably see one car is quicker to some particular speed (just before its shift) than the other car.

What you should see, if you back away, is not that much difference, overall. The state of tune, gas in the tank, and other neglected items (intake path cleanliness) may be the real difference. Why do you think Dennis spends so much time and effort in optimizing his car to stock specifications and is very judicious in his "mods"?

We are not out there racing for pole positions every day.

[Jason B]

I think the factory disabled the TCS to get 5.9 0-60. You need some wheelspin to get into the power range quickly, especially with a heavy car.

Car and driver is the one that got 6.0 0-60 and road and track had slower numbers.

Some of the early made '02's had a gas pedal fix (tsb) that removed a spring from the pedal that caused delay before the car would go. When I had my car in for the 3,750 service, they updated my pedal to the newer version, and it's more comfortable than before. Now when you press the gas, the pedal moves the bar behind it instantly. Before, there was about a 2 inch gap before it would actually move the pedal. I can't really tell if it's any quicker.

I was also imformed about a new TSB that came out about 3 mo nths ago. It invloves adding a new TCM transmission control module for quicker acceleration. He said it made a big difference and the car reponds instantly to the gas. I'm having this done on my next service.

The 03's model gears have been changed which will give .3 seconds faster 0-60, but that will lead to worse highway gas mileage. The reason the gears are where for 2002, was to achieve better fuel economy.

Another thing that most testers of the Q havn't done, is to TURN off the VDC BEFORE TESTING! VDC limits wheel spin and also hampers launch when mashing the pedal from a start. If you keep VDC off, it does leave the line quicker. The car does MOVE.

This is 0-70mph with VDC off.

nyes road mpg

Pay close attention, right after it shifts into second, it's almost at 60 mph. 60 mph is the third mark up from 0.

After you hear it shift into third, that's 70 mph.

[Q45tech]

"The 03's model gears have been changed which will give .3 seconds faster 0-60, but that will lead to worse highway gas mileage. The reason the gears are where for 2002, was to achieve better fuel economy. "

Remember the AT was designed for the 3.5 V6 it just got installed earlier in the Q/M...........the gears are still wrong for a V8 overdrive was optimized for a V6 which needs to turn 300 rpm more to cruise!

[BadQ45t]

So if someone were looking to buy a 2002 or 2003, is the 2003 a better transmission setup even though you suffer worse gas mileage?

[PalmerWMD]

So if someone were looking to buy a 2002 or 2003, is the 2003 a better transmission setup even though you suffer worse gas mileage?

The 2k3 is a quicker set-up, and yes mpg would suffer a bit.

Fred...

[Jason B]

Same transmission just different gear ratio for quicker 0-60.