I saw an older one yesterday driving to work. From looking at the Wiki it would have been an 97 or so. I had forgotten about these cars (like I had forgotten about the 3.5RL.)
Form the Wiki the 1990-95 seems to be the car to get performance wise. It was an honest 300HP RWD V8 Japanese goodness car with quicker steering. However I much prefer the body style of the 96-2000 cars and these were supposed to have 260 hp or so. From reading things the 95/96 seems to be the sweet spot for reliability and performance.
I was looking at prices and found several very cheap (we are talking challenge money with room to spare). I found a 97 with 60K on it for $4K (I think this is a bargain)
Is there any way to hop up the performance in the late 90's cars? They got a small 4.1l v8 that is about 40HP less than the early 90's cars.
Anyone else know anything more about these cars?
From a looks standpoint the late 90's cars to me are proportionally correct. The trunk to roof line to hood proportions are as a car should be. They are the "pre egg" design that the later cars all have gone to that I am not a huge fan of.
Anyway I was just thinking again and although I still want a mid / late 2000's MB s500 this seems like it could be a good alternative that has reasonable performance with Japanese reliability.
Avoid active suspension and 4 wheel steering. Big, big money to repair / maintain.
Gearheadotaku wrote:
Avoid active suspension and 4 wheel steering. Big, big money to repair / maintain.
I think that was in the early cars yes? ending in 96?
dean1484 wrote:
Gearheadotaku wrote:
Avoid active suspension and 4 wheel steering. Big, big money to repair / maintain.
I think that was in the early cars yes? ending in 96?
Sounds right. They were optional though.
i love the early grille-less look because i don't know why...
i like the later ones specifically because they're so bland looking. take the emblems off and 99.9% of the public wouldn't notice the car, and if you made them look at it they wouldn't know what it was.
i've tried buying low mileage examples before, but they always reeked of odometer swap.
many years ago i owned a '94, it was a great car. at the time it would smoke all the slammed hondas without even trying. it was totalled after a kid ran into it at a high rate of speed...sad days....
anyway, i highly recommend them, but as stated, the active cars can be a pain. i suspect there are very few left though.
I always liked them. I can not prove it but seem to remember that the early models had some engine failure issues. By 1994, that was corrected which also was the year they got a grill. Therefore, I have always noted to avoid a model w/o a grill.
I too like the looks and proportions of the '97.
Agreed, active suspension should avoided which was an option and came standard with the Anniversary model.
I have always lusted after one but my need for MPG has kept me from owning.
Hint: when CL searching, use both keywords Infiniti and Infinity. I find the majority of listings are spelled wrong.
I was just searching "Q45". I also noticed that dealers seem to be overloaded with early 2000 cars that they are trying to dump.
dean1484 wrote:
I was just searching "Q45". I also noticed that dealers seem to be overloaded with early 2000 cars that they are trying to dump.
Then also try Q-45 to catch those too.
I just ran a quick check, locally, searching "i" and "y" for all Infininiti models...
Cleveland CL: 52 cars, 7 listed as "y" = 13%
Columbus CL 54 cars 13 listed as "y" = 24%
