[hunter81]

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.

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.

 

[darius]

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.

 

[hunter81]

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.

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.

 

[darius]

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.

Looks like the following site updated its 0-60 times for the 2016 and 2017 models.

Infiniti Q50 0-60 Times, Quarter Mile Acceleration Stats

They list the 16 & 17 AWD silver sport as 5.2 seconds.

By comparison they list the 2015 3.7 AWD @ 5.6 seconds.

Who knows where they get these times though...

 

[andrew]

Nice thread.
To bad Infiniti doesn't post the 0-60 times on their web site like they used to.

 

[Truth]

Looks like the following site updated its 0-60 times for the 2016 and 2017 models.

Infiniti Q50 0-60 Times, Quarter Mile Acceleration Stats

They list the 16 & 17 AWD silver sport as 5.2 seconds.

By comparison they list the 2015 3.7 AWD @ 5.6 seconds.

Who knows where they get these times though...

Why do they say "All Trims" but there are no Hybrid Numbers. Also how are they going to have the AWD RS and RWD RS having the same times? The AWD is faster 0-60 for obvious reasons.

 

[hunter81]

Nice thread.
To bad Infiniti doesn't post the 0-60 times on their web site like they used to.

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.

 

[Bo Darville]

I'd say long term durability favors the 3.7, no?

I don't really know. It seems like turbo engines in the past maybe had a worse reputation for reliability and in a way I guess it's hard to avoid because more parts is more parts that can break. These days though I think a turbo engine should be able to last as long, but honestly, I'm not really qualified to say.

i think he was referring more to the switch from port fuel injection to direct injection

 

[JC-Q50]

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!

 

[Solarflare]

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!

I planning to find out after putting a couple hundred miles on it.

 

[Solarflare]

Did some easy test hits yesterday and I think this car might be faster than when my mustang GT was stock. I really want to take it to the track.

 

[hunter81]

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.

 

[JimmyZ]

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.

Wow, those almost look like red sport numbers. Im I reading those right? The 300HP version doing 0-60 in sub 5 seconds?

 

[hunter81]

Wow, those almost look like red sport numbers. Im I reading those right? The 300HP version doing 0-60 in sub 5 seconds?

Yeah, basically it went 0-60 in 4.9.

 

[JimmyZ]

Yeah, basically it went 0-60 in 4.9.

Wow...the stock 300hp version must be pushing more than 300 horse...taking into consideration that its a relatively heavy vehicle...its prob underrated by 30-50hp....

 

[azcatz11]

The RS is substantially faster than the 300hp version.

 

[hunter81]

Wow...the stock 300hp version must be pushing more than 300 horse...taking into consideration that its a relatively heavy vehicle...its prob underrated by 30-50hp....

Both this and the RS appear to be pretty underrated.

 

[q50adix]

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.

You should have PM'd me, we could have compared it with my RS head-to-head I already know the result, only curious about the gap between the two.

 

[hunter81]

You should have PM'd me, we could have compared it with my RS head-to-head I already know the result, only curious about the gap between the two.

Same here! I'd still be down to meet up with my Hybrid just to see how I compare. I know I'll be slower, but I'd like to see by how much. Honestly, it'd be awesome to get a Red Sport, a Hybrid, and a 3.0t all together to go at once and film it. People would get a kick out of seeing that.

 

[G37S]

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.