Infiniti Q50 Forum banner

Q50 3.0t Premium Acceleration Thread

61K views 50 replies 19 participants last post by  hunter81 
#1 · (Edited)
I got my first 3.0t loaner today so of coarse I ran home to get the VBOX. The car looks to be pretty equal to the 3.7, maybe a hair slower. The car also only has a little over 40 miles on it so perhaps the time might improve after the engine is broken in. I will continue to test other 3.0t loaners as I get the opportunity. Brake torque launching resulted in faster runs over all, but because it reduced the 1' rollout time it actually resulted in a slightly slower 0-60 time as you would see published in a magazine like Car and Driver. I did a total of one non-brake torqued run and two brake torqued runs.

0-60 Acceleration, Sport Auto, TC On, No Brake Torque
1' rollout - 0.38 sec.
10 mph - 0.46 sec.
20 mph - 1.25 sec.
30 mph - 2.06 sec.
40 mph - 2.94 sec.
50 mph - 3.89 sec.
60 mph - 5.35 sec.

0-60 Acceleration, Sport Auto, TC On, 2,000 RPM Brake Torque Launch
1' rollout - 0.29 sec.
10 mph - 0.52 sec.
20 mph - 1.26 sec.
30 mph - 2.02 sec.
40 mph - 2.92 sec.
50 mph - 4.00 sec.
60 mph - 5.38 sec.
 
See less See more
#2 ·
I'm trying to find the thread I posted where I did a VBOX run with a Q50 3.7 in order to compare, but I can't seem to find it. It seems I remember that car ran a 0-60 run in a flat 5.30 seconds and that was not a brake torqued launch I did.
 
#3 ·
  • Like
Reactions: BigHeadClan
#5 ·

It does, but there are so many other factors that come into play. Perhaps the 3.7 does a little better on torque higher up. The car does seem to peter out a little towards redline and the 3.7 also has a 500 redline advantage.

One other thing is this 3.0t is brand new. It had 40 or so miles on it when I got around to testing it. Perhaps once broken in the car will perform a little better. I wouldn't expect a huge change. I don't see this car ever running in the 4's without a tune, but maybe 0.1 or 0.2 could come off with more miles.

I could be wrong, but I think all our cars are run on a dyno before they leave the factory which makes me think performance doesn't change too much from brand new to broken in, but again, I'm just theorizing.
 
#7 ·
That makes me feel better about opting for the 3.7. I did it for long term durability, that and the huge $12,000 discount.

Even if it gets a bit faster once broken in, it seems as though it won't be a huge difference.
 
#8 · (Edited)
That's my thinking as well. I think Infiniti was aiming to replace the 3.7's same performance with better efficiency with a slightly higher torque, but slightly lower hp turbo engine. I really wanted to get a 60-100 run, but I would need to do that at night. Incidentally I have the loaner over night, but we have had wine and are in for the night. Maybe I'll get lucky tomorrow.

I will say the 3.0t's fuel economy is pretty phenomenal at least according to the gauge in the car. I think Infiniti was conservative on the highway economy. They rated it lower than the 3.7, but I can tell you this car almost matches my Hybrid on the highway. That was really impressive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vector7
#11 ·
I have to take the car back this morning. I'll try another run since it's on half a tank now. I don't remember what the fuel level was on the 3.7 I tested, but I'm sure it didn't have a full tank like this car. Hopefully it will be a more fair comparison.

I am glad I got the opportunity to test one with an (almost) full tank since that's how cars in the magazines are properly tested.
 
#14 ·
Well, I done f**ked up. I did a run after lunch and the car had just over half a tank of gas. I figured this would probably more fairly compare with the 3.7 loaner. Did the run and the VBOX app on the phone showed 5.5 seconds compared to the 5.7-5.8 shown on the app for the runs I did yesterday. I got back to the office all happy as can be and I realized I had not stuck the SD card back in the VBOX itself so the run was not recorded where I could analyze it in detail on the computer. If I had to guess, I'd say the car pulled off a 5.2 second or maybe even a 5.1 second 0-60 run. There is no way to be sure because I do not have the 1' rollout time and also the app can do some pretty weird rounding sometimes like rounding 5.73 to 5.8. So, I'll never know at least for that run.

Not to be discouraged, I backed out of the office parking lot and hightailed it back to my "special street" to make another attempt only to end up with another 5.3 (5.32) second run. Sucks.

I'd say this car is pretty much on par with the 3.7. Maybe it's a little faster, maybe a little slower, but not probably by much in either direction, and, again, it wouldn't surprise me if that were intentional on Infiniti's part. A lower hp, higher torque turbo is probably going to be pretty close to the neighborhood of a higher hp, lower torque N/A engine unless something with the band is really off for one or the other.

Maybe I'll get one more shot on the way to return. I'm still having fun though. I wonder if the dealer would let me borrow a Red Sport for an hour. ;)
 
#18 ·
I'd say long term durability favors the 3.7, no?
 
#15 ·
I'm sure with this car being a "loaner" it has the shittiest of the shittiest of gas in it. Yes... I'm talking 87 octane, which will cause this motor to pull at least 12-15 degrees of timing.

This car should spank at stock 3.7.. especially from a dig. It puts more horsepower and torque to the ground and reaches peak effiency at only 1600 rpm.

Turbo motors are much more effected by low octane fuel then n/a motors.
 
#20 ·
I had a 2014 Q50S AWD before I picked up my new 2016 Q50 SS 3.0 TT AWD
and the 2016 Q50 SS AWD does in fact feel quicker, more refined, quieter and
seems to shift quicker as well when compared to the 3.7 Liter NA VQ engine...


Just my observations...time will tell though.
 
#21 ·
That was my impression as well. The 3.0t felt faster and I noticed the transmission seeming more responsive as well. I'm guessing the acceleration feeling probably has to do with the pretty level torque band. It definitely does not have the sound of the 3.7. For better or worse it is much quieter and definitely (for better) more refined.
 
#22 ·
Hey Hunter,

Thanks for posting all of this info. This isnt the first time ive read that the 3.0t Premium clocked in at around 5.3 seconds...I wonder where some of the 0-60 websites get their info from. They document the 2016 3.0T (premium & sport ) clocking in at around 5.6 seconds.
 
#23 ·
No prob! I love doing this kind of stuff.

Someone else posted a link to a website showing 5.6 seconds as well so I imagine it's the same site. I can tell you the car very consistently ran in the mid to high 5.3's (what would probably show up as 5.4 in a magazine) for me. I'll test more 3.0t loaners as I get them, but I think they are definitely faster than 5.6. I think they were looking to replace the 3.7 with the same performance and more efficiency.
 
  • Like
Reactions: darius
#27 ·
I know. They started to put it with the Q50, but they took it down once the 2016 models were posted. I really wish they would put those figures back up. All the other luxury brands do as far as I know. Well, not sure about Cadillac and Lincoln, but, you know, it's Lincoln.
 
#29 ·
Wow is the Red Sport 400 AWD really that quick?

Trim, HP, Engine, Transmission 0-60 times 1/4 mile times
3.0t Red Sport 400 4dr All-wheel Drive Sedan,400 hp 4.2 sec 12.8 @ 112 mph

I thought it felt fast but didn't think it was 4.2 sec 0-60 times. Now I need to try it!
 
#32 ·
These numbers are what I got with a broken in vehicle with 6,780 miles. 3.0t Premium loaner.

1' Rollout - 0.37 sec.
10 mph - 0.45 sec.
20 mph - 1.19 sec.
30 mph - 1.91 sec.
40 mph - 2.72 sec.
50 mph - 3.70 sec.
60 mph - 4.87 sec.
60-80 mph - 2.98 sec.
 
#40 ·
You also have to factor whether its an AWD model or RWD. The gearing is different on the AWD model which adds 40-50hp and pretty much eliminates parasitic loss for the entire system - not to mention traction advantage.
 
#43 ·
@q50adix, plus we can put the VBOX on your car. I've been wanting to get some Red Sport data!
 
#50 · (Edited)
I did Hunter. Good runs. The hybrid is no slouch, but it does lose out as the cars hit higher speeds...very close from a dig tho.

On another note, how did you (your Fam, friends, and significant other) fair during/after Harvey?

My family (West Houston and just north of Friendswood) made out pretty good. They want me and my family down there for Christmas...will hit you up if I make it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hunter81
#51 ·
We all did well. No flooding or damage. I do know some people though who were affected very badly. It's very sad.

I'm glad you got to see the runs! Yeah, the Hybrid can't keep up in 3rd gear, but I am very happy with how it performed up until then.

I hope you make it down! It would be awesome to meet up!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Q60 I²
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top