Infiniti Q50 Forum banner

21 - 40 of 41 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
365 Posts
That is the max torque rating of Infiniti's top 7AT transmission, unfortunately. The engine assuredly has more in it. Infiniti desperately needs a new performance transmission.
That would pull me in. The 7AT is 'just ok' - if they build a proper performance trans, I would get in line. My lease has another 2 years...we will see...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
Same. Give me a real, sporty DCT and lose that lame default programming. I just want quick, snappy shifts.
Lets hope its not like Audi's B8/B8.5 DCT; Many have had problems at 50k+ miles, Plus transmission replacement will be around $9k :eek: (that's for Audi's DCT)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,551 Posts
Seriously though... Q50 might be the last Infiniti I will buy. Since G35, they are not even playing catch up. The catch up is so behind!
If they want to be taken seriously, they need to stay one step ahead. The competition is pierce.
They think they can keep milking the same stuff over and over.... cut the deal with JATCO and put the freaking Dual Clutch already!
Come on! Even Caddie is changing fast and been quite leader on the front.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,409 Posts
Seriously though... Q50 might be the last Infiniti I will buy. Since G35, they are not even playing catch up. The catch up is so behind!
If they want to be taken seriously, they need to stay one step ahead. The competition is pierce.
They think they can keep milking the same stuff over and over.... cut the deal with JATCO and put the freaking Dual Clutch already!
Come on! Even Caddie is changing fast and been quite leader on the front.

What was the issue with the Eau Rouge? Why couldn't they build that off the GT-R platform? They made it seem like a few more minor tweaks to the suspension and transmission and it was good to go. Why is that all of a sudden something out of reach. Even a downgraded version putting out 450 HP and 400 Pounds of Torque would be just as good IMO. Then do an IPL version with the GT-R Specs.

I'm currently looking at Used 2012-2014 Lexus IS-F's for when my lease is up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,551 Posts
What was the issue with the Eau Rouge? Why couldn't they build that off the GT-R platform? They made it seem like a few more minor tweaks to the suspension and transmission and it was good to go. Why is that all of a sudden something out of reach. Even a downgraded version putting out 450 HP and 400 Pounds of Torque would be just as good IMO. Then do an IPL version with the GT-R Specs.

I'm currently looking at Used 2012-2014 Lexus IS-F's for when my lease is up.
I think ER was overkill. I agree they had to scrap the plan. They can't sell 100K Q50 just because it has GTR engine. I think Q80 should be the Halo car, not the ER. infiniti should not be behind Nissan shadow.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
260 Posts
That is the max torque rating of Infiniti's top 7AT transmission, unfortunately. The engine assuredly has more in it. Infiniti desperately needs a new performance transmission.
That's why the hybrid can pull out 402 lb.ft combined, because of the dual transmissions, right?
If so, then the hybrid with 360hp/402 lb.ft still seems like the most performant option, or am I wrong?
(I have one)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
That is the max torque rating of Infiniti's top 7AT transmission, unfortunately. The engine assuredly has more in it. Infiniti desperately needs a new performance transmission.
I didn't know this. That is a real bummer knowing they are already at the transmission limit and that caused them to neuter the car.
Gonna take another long think about getting a used IS-F and maybe cross my fingers that I can manage driving it through Canadian winters with some good winter tires.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
276 Posts
That is the max torque rating of Infiniti's top 7AT transmission, unfortunately. The engine assuredly has more in it. Infiniti desperately needs a new performance transmission.
Did you forget that the Q70's 5.6 makes 417 lb-ft of torque with the same transmission? They're probably saving that torque figure for a model higher than the Red Sport; maybe the Black Sport ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,345 Posts
I didn't know this. That is a real bummer knowing they are already at the transmission limit and that caused them to neuter the car.
Gonna take another long think about getting a used IS-F and maybe cross my fingers that I can manage driving it through Canadian winters with some good winter tires.
The engine has a "lower" torque value for the hp because of the cylinders' square design (bore is equal to stroke) that is favored by the Japanese. I believe the GT-R also features this design. European manufacturers tend to favor under square engines that have longer strokes. This makes for torquier engines for a given power while the Infiniti designs produce more power for a given torque.

One is not better than the other. No matter how much you blow in this engine it will probably always have a torque number under the hp number while the engine you see on a car like the C43 will probably always have an hp number under the torque.

This is my understanding of it at least.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,345 Posts
Did you forget that the Q70's 5.6 makes 417 lb-ft of torque with the same transmission? They're probably saving that torque figure for a model higher than the Red Sport; maybe the Black Sport ;)
I dyno'd my hybrid and while I was cautioned against converting wheel torque and whp to crank, I still feel fairly confident the car makes a little over 403 lb.-ft. The transmission most definitely can handle a good torque load.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
The engine has a "lower" torque value for the hp because of the cylinders' square design (bore is equal to stroke) that is favored by the Japanese. I believe the GT-R also features this design. European manufacturers tend to favor under square engines that have longer strokes. This makes for torquier engines for a given power while the Infiniti designs produce more power for a given torque.

One is not better than the other. No matter how much you blow in this engine it will probably always have a torque number under the hp number while the engine you see on a car like the C43 will probably always have an hp number under the torque.

This is my understanding of it at least.
The problem is, as stated previously, the Lincoln and Cadillac 3.0 turbo V6 engines have BOTH 400hp AND 400 lb ft of torque. So, shall we say, 800 units of power total compared to the Infiniti's 400hp+350lbft=750 units of power.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,345 Posts
The problem is, as stated previously, the Lincoln and Cadillac 3.0 turbo V6 engines have BOTH 400hp AND 400 lb ft of torque. So, shall we say, 800 units of power total compared to the Infiniti's 400hp+350lbft=750 units of power.
Well, those are obviously going to be more powerful engines. If someone wants a Cadillac or a Lincoln, I say go for it. I have not heard any news yet about putting the new 400 hp engine in the ATS, however. As far as I know this new engine is going in the CT6.

My point is that it's by our own psychology that we to compare torque and hp numbers to each other in this way when torque is measured in lb.-ft due to the tendency for the numerical values to fall around each other. If we measured it in Nm that relationship would be lost some since Nm tends to always produce a number higher than what the hp is for an engine.

To me it's wrong to fault an engine for having torque that is lower than it's hp number because that apparently all gets back to the squaring of the bore and stroke.

If these new engines from Cadillac and Lincoln are the benchmark for you, then everything short of an M3 from Germany I guess would be out of the question for you including the new S4, the 340i, and the C450 AMG.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
122 Posts
Well, those are obviously going to be more powerful engines. If someone wants a Cadillac or a Lincoln, I say go for it. I have not heard any news yet about putting the new 400 hp engine in the ATS, however. As far as I know this new engine is going in the CT6.

My point is that it's by our own psychology that we to compare torque and hp numbers to each other in this way when torque is measured in lb.-ft due to the tendency for the numerical values to fall around each other. If we measured it in Nm that relationship would be lost some since Nm tends to always produce a number higher than what the hp is for an engine.

To me it's wrong to fault an engine for having torque that is lower than it's hp number because that apparently all gets back to the squaring of the bore and stroke.

If these new engines from Cadillac and Lincoln are the benchmark for you, then everything short of an M3 from Germany I guess would be out of the question for you including the new S4, the 340i, and the C450 AMG.
One should also remember the Caddy's engine torque curve is not nearly so "flat" as that of the Q50 Red S...the Caddy doesn't hit max torque until 2500 RPM vs. 1600 for the Q, and drops off at 5K vs 5200. In fact it may be the Caddy's torque is actually lower at 1600 than that of the Q.

Every manufacturer has their reasons for their designs. One is not necessarily "better" than the other. They all have engineering tradeoffs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
430 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,345 Posts
One should also remember the Caddy's engine torque curve is not nearly so "flat" as that of the Q50 Red S...the Caddy doesn't hit max torque until 2500 RPM vs. 1600 for the Q, and drops off at 5K vs 5200. In fact it may be the Caddy's torque is actually lower at 1600 than that of the Q.

Every manufacturer has their reasons for their designs. One is not necessarily "better" than the other. They all have engineering tradeoffs.
I remember reading that now. Yeah, I want to read up a little more on the Caddy and Lincoln engines. Like I said before, as far as I know, Cadillac doesn't have any immediate plans to replace the 3.6 in the ATS, which I thought was a little weird. The 3.7 in our cars was obviously ready for replacement, but I still got the impression it's a little better mill than the 3.6 that's in the Cadillac and shared with the twenty inch blades on the Impala. ;)

Did you find an actual torque curve for the Cadillac engine somewhere?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
122 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
I remember reading that now. Yeah, I want to read up a little more on the Caddy and Lincoln engines. Like I said before, as far as I know, Cadillac doesn't have any immediate plans to replace the 3.6 in the ATS, which I thought was a little weird. The 3.7 in our cars was obviously ready for replacement, but I still got the impression it's a little better mill than the 3.6 that's in the Cadillac and shared with the twenty inch blades on the Impala. ;)

Did you find an actual torque curve for the Cadillac engine somewhere?
The ATS does need to update the engine to remain relevant. With all competitors going to forced induction, getting left behind would be a mistake for Cadillac. The 3.6 is a decent engine, but can't compete with the torque of, say the CT6 Engine, which produces 400lb-ft at 2500-5100 rpm. Put that engine in the ATS and it would be a monster.
Glad Infiniti has seen the writing on the wall and has a new engine now.
 
21 - 40 of 41 Posts
Top