P Casey

iTrader: (13)

Nope. .

eljoker

Evos have taller gearing. Well atleast taller than the Infinitis.

2008G-Man

Well some here say the AWD is faster than the RWD 0-60 so the RWD would be around 4.8-5.0, barely faster than the current Q60 if that logic holds up.

tag824

If that's true (hope it's not) then that's disappointing. Having that much power and AWD it should be around 4.3s~4.4s. Could mean a lot of things including it being heavy, the AT being slow, etc. I'd expect a RWD MT to be 4.5, not an AT with AWD. Typically you get 0.1 to 0.2 faster when you have a good AWD system.

TheoQ60

Well I dunno what to tell ya, if you check Infin's website for the 2015 Q50:

"328-hp 3.7-liter V6
2WD 0-60 mph in 5.3 seconds
AWD 0-60 mph in 5.6 seconds"

P Casey

iTrader: (13)

That's because those aren't very fast at all. The faster the car the more traction you need, that's why people buy LSD, limited slip so they can hook up or buy Mich PSS or make sure the transmission is very good like PDK/Porsche or DCT /BMW, suspension and internals, flywheel, etc.
The car needs to be balanced and a good driver using RWD with a well set up car might do better in the 0-60, but for your average driver using Auto and AWD esspecially with 400TT you should typically see better results.

5.3 is slow af and so is 5.6, no need for traction there. So AWD won't matter and will just make car heavier, that's more for snow and not speed.

The dude in the video going 0-60 was slow as hell, regardless of the other 3 in the car. It was bad, hopefully he wasn't punching it. The Lexus RC-F 467 HP natural aspirated does 4.2 seconds and its RWD 0-60.

TheoQ60

I'm not sure what they need to work on, the 7 speed transmission is slow in my Q60 AWD that's for sure. That Lex isn't really a fair comparison V8 w/ 389ft lbs tq and a much better tranny. I've driven a new GS350 AWD and even that shifts very fast.

For comparisons sake, BMW says:

"435i Coupe 0-60 5.0 sec
435i xDrive Coupe 0-60 4.7 sec"

Those engines are underrated a lot, and these real world numbers should be faster but that's what BMW states.

I'll take the 4.5s 0-60 for the 3.0 Red Sport Q50 AWD as a big improvement over the 5.6s 0-60 for the 3.7l ones.

tag824

First off don't confuse your everyday AWD with a sport oriented AWD system. Two completely different things. One is optimized for everyday all around driving and bad weather while the other is optimized to pin your back in the seat while scaring the **** out of you. As P Casey mentioned, it's all about the launch when it comes to 0-60 times. BMW claims an M3/4 0-60 time of 3.9s w/DCT. Now go watch some videos of the M3/4 doing 0-60 runs. Almost all of them get 0-60 times in the low 4s range, because the car has so much torque it spins it's wheels upon launch, and then some. The reviewers that do manage to get 3.9s and a couple have even pulled off a blistering 3.7s 0-60 run did so in ideal conditions, i.e. on a track with loads of sticky rubber on the ground to help with traction.

There's no way a GT-R can be as fast as it is without AWD. It's the major reason it's as fast as it is and why it outperforms cars with way more power than it.

2008G-Man

Agreed but Infiniti has never said it's AWD system is a "sport" type you speak of. There was great discussion some time ago here about the Infiniti system and the concensus was it was RWD unless your car was slipping. There was debate that it was a 60/40 system starting off up until 20-25mph but that has never been proven. My contention is you can do an aggresive start from 0 without spinning the wheels. So is the extra weight and mechanic transfer of power in the Infiniti really going to aid in 0-60 times? Guess time will tell.

tag824

That's right, we don't know but I'd like to think if they are putting a little s at the end of Q60 it better be sport oriented. The GT-R for instance starts off with a 2% front, 98% rear AWD power delivery and can juggle that around any way it wants up to a 50:50 split. I don't think the Q60 will have an advanced system like that, but would be surprised if it's slower than the RWD version. For example look at the BMW M235i. The RWD 0-60 is 4.6s while the AWD is 4.4s. It's not anything as advanced as what's in the GT-R and yet knocks off 0.2s even though AWD adds more weight to the car. That's HUGE.

2008G-Man

Do you think anyone will REALLY notice a .2 or .4 sec difference in 0-60 without a stopwatch? I think if it hops off the line better the the current anemic G37/Q60 (torque related, not AWD vs RWD) we will all be happy.

Soon we will know, I hope. This next gen Q60 is very much on my radar to replace our current G37 when the time comes.

Is the current Q60Xs faster 0-60 than the current Q60s?

User 122320

iTrader: (2)

Even .05 of a difference is HUGE difference. Everyone saying autos are faster than manuals or vice versa usually use the .000005 sec of a difference to prove their point.

Doesn't matter if you win by an inch or a mile. A win is a win.

P Casey

iTrader: (13)

Lol . That's a big difference.

2008G-Man

Are you saying 2/10 or 4/10 of a second is a big difference in real life (aka non-track) daily driving?

P Casey

iTrader: (13)

If I'm at a stoplight in Mexico and my car is two tenth of a second faster to 0-60 mph, yes it's a big difference. Been on a track and on roads, seen first hand.