2009 Infiniti FX50 AWD: The New "Five-Oh" V8

Ahh... the Mustang 5.0, I grew up in that car. My dad was not much of a sedan guy, and we had a 1987 Mustang LX 5.0, it was a fun car to grow up in, Mom was a little crazy behind the wheel of that thing though.

It is amazing how much power they are able to coax out of modern engines, although if they spend as much time worrying about vehicle bloat all that extra power would feel even better.

That's really sad that you had to grow up in a car, man.

Personally, I really think that there should be more power coming out of the V8 engines these days. Porsche can engineer a 3.8L flat-6 engine that produces 385 hp & 310 lb-ft of torque. However, their 4.8L V8 in the Cayenne only produces 385 hp & 369 lb-ft of torque. Does a V8 tend towards more torque rather than hp or is the design not as efficient?

It's not sad... it was better than growing up in a high ranch.

Considering it's about 4 times the price and 1500 lbs heavier, it's not that impressive really.

It sure is a lot cleaner though.

The 5.0 always makes me think of Vanilla Ice. It's funny, I was so clueless when I was kid; since Vanilla Ice was such a big star, when he talked about ridin in his 5.0, drop top down etc. I assumed it was the 5.0 from a 500SL. Then I saw the video and it all came together for me, who Vanilla Ice really was and what a 5.0 was. I grew up a little that day.

@Firstwagon

...then adjust for inflation, electronic knicknackery, and safety and yeah, it's pretty impressive.

"@Firstwagon

...then adjust for inflation, electronic knicknackery, and safety and yeah, it's pretty impressive."

OK, let me put in a different perspective....

I remember in the late 80's my brother almost bought a new Mustang LX 5.0 sedan. What amazed me most was this was a serious performance car (that could blow anyway anything GM or Dodge had then) for the same price as the well equipped Escort parked next to it.

When Nissan offers something the price of a Versa or Sentra with a 390 hp 5.0 V8 in it, then I'll be impressed.

@ firstwagon

Blow away anything GM? Not quite.

1990 IROC ran a 14.8 1/4
1990 5.0 did it in 14.9. So not quite blown away.

5.0 was a great car for what it was though.

I don't understand this fascination with comparing how much power you can get out of each cubic inch. That was never the plan with cars like the Mustang. Mid-power V8's are reliable, inexpensive, ways to put the power under the hood. There's nothing wrong with that.

"1990 IROC ran a 14.8 1/4
1990 5.0 did it in 14.9"

That's amazing - I remember back then, those cars felt so fast! And they were fast, relative to what was available at the time. But those 1/4 mile times by today's standards are downright slow!

Kids these days have no idea how lucky they have it with relatively easy access to cars that can dip into the 12's for not a lot of money.

I remember when those 225hp Ford V8s had their output 'corrected' to a more accurate 205hp.
Ooops....

@ Firstwagon "I remember in the late 80's my brother almost bought a new Mustang LX 5.0 sedan."

I think you mean notchback, not sedan. The notchbacks were used by the CHP and have a regular trunk, vs. the much more common fastback/hatchback body style of the Mustang GT.

"I remember in the late 80's my brother almost bought a new Mustang LX 5.0 sedan."

They made a 4-doors Mustang?!

"The 5.0 always makes me think of Vanilla Ice. It's funny, I was so clueless when I was kid; since Vanilla Ice was such a big star, when he talked about ridin in his 5.0, drop top down etc. I assumed it was the 5.0 from a 500SL. Then I saw the video and it all came together for me, who Vanilla Ice really was and what a 5.0 was. I grew up a little that day."

How do you remotely associate "five point O" to a 500SL? "five point O" always meant 5.0 Mustang.

For all the hooplah over the Ford 5.0 it wasnt all that great. Did anyone here ever see the rod bolts that Ford used in those 5.0 V8s? They were like toothpicks.

"Personally, I really think that there should be more power coming out of the V8 engines these days. Porsche can engineer a 3.8L flat-6 engine that produces 385 hp & 310 lb-ft of torque. However, their 4.8L V8 in the Cayenne only produces 385 hp & 369 lb-ft of torque. Does a V8 tend towards more torque rather than hp or is the design not as efficient?"

I think it depends more on vehicle application. In a heavy vehicle like a Cayenne one would want more than sufficient torque with some emphasis on hp. In a 911 which is much lighter one would probably go for more specific output. Of course you have to consider emissions, costs and fuel economy of the V8s in question.

Usually there is a compromise or sacrifice to be made with high out put engines especially dealing with low RPM torque production. A high specific output engine has to rev to make its power where as a V8 like the one found in the Cayenne does not. The powerbands would drastically different between a high output 6 and a larger displacement V8 making similar hp.

"I remember when those 225hp Ford V8s had their output 'corrected' to a more accurate 205hp.
Ooops...."

Those were the good old days of us import guys making fun of American V8 when American didn't know what a turbo was.

87' 5.0 Mustange make a corrected 205hp, a 88'Galant VR4 made 200 hp with a 2.0L Turbo 4., then evolve to make 240 hp at the end of 92. The 89' NSX make 270 hp from a NA 3.0L V6.

No more making fun though now that American engine have catch up with the import efficency!

"For all the hooplah over the Ford 5.0 it wasnt all that great. Did anyone here ever see the rod bolts that Ford used in those 5.0 V8s? They were like toothpicks."

Well each of those bolt only have to support 25hp, so toothpick size was probably overkill already.

The Infiniti V8 seems to be a great V8 but I cant help but to be even more impressed with the Lexus 4.6L V8 that resides in the LS460 as its almost just as powerful (yet smaller) as the Infiniti V8 and probably more efficient.

Infiniti 5.0 V8 - 390HP @ 6500 / 369FT @ 4400
Lexus 4.6 V8 - 380HP @ 6400 / 367FT @ 4100

Other luxury V8s offered with similar displacement.

BMW 4.8 V8 - 360HP @ 6300 / 360FT @ 3400
Cadillac 4.6 V8 - 320HP @ 6300 / 315FT @ 4400
Audi 4.2 V8 - 350HP @ 6800 / 325FT @ 3500
Mercedes 4.5 V8 - 335HP @ 6000 / 339FT @ 2700-5000
Acura Loading...please wait.

^^^

Infiniti SUV's always have less horsepower than their sedan's. I wouldn't be surprised if the M50 has 400 or more horsepower.

I doubt this new 5.0 is at its max potential.

It all comes down OEM preference. Some emphasize torque, others HP. In a bigger car it makes sense to emphasize torque over HP as it makes the initial scoot off the line quicker, easier and smoother. Also reduces wear and tear on big enignes. My 6.0 is estimated 22k kms(16k miles) by gm's on-star, based on driving habits, between oil changes on regular oil. I have ered on the safe side but none-the-less. That being said displacement inherently emphasizes torque.

Sure there were cars with similar HP in the late 80's, but did any of those smaller displacement engines produce 300 lb.ft anywhere on their powerbands? Somehow I doubt it. It's all part of the mystique right.

I love that the Merc`s V8 doesn`t make as much HP as some of the others, but has all that torque from 2700. Wow!! Bet that thing has get up and go everywhere, and you'd never need to downshift on highways.

"I think you mean notchback, not sedan. The notchbacks were used by the CHP and have a regular trunk, vs. the much more common fastback/hatchback body style of the Mustang GT."

"They made a 4-doors Mustang?!"

Sedans come in 2 door and 4 doors. I still remember the window sticker listed it as a Mustang sedan (as opposed to the Mustang hatchback).

Yeah I know no one refers to 2 doors as sedans anymore but I guess I'm showing my age.

arm51, a modern Otto-cycle gasoline engine will produce 70 or so ftlb of torque per liter of displacement, regardless of horsepower. Engines from 20 years ago were around 60. A high end modern engine will have more than 80. So 310 ftlb out of a 3.8L is great, and 369 out of a 4.8L is still good.

The two engines happen to have similar power outputs because of how high they rev, since horsepower is a function of rpm (meaning the higher the rpm, the more the power for a given torque). The smaller engine most certainly revs higher.

As for why they choose one engine for one application and another engine in a different application, I don't know. Really, with proper gearing, 385 hp is 385 hp, no matter how much torque you have.

By the way, 302 ci, while mathematically 4.9L at first glance, can also be 5.0L if you take into account rounding. A displacement between about 302.1 and 302.49999 ci will yield 5.0L.

"an aftermarket exhaust on his clapped-out Tahoe, so why not put it on something that could actually benefit from it?"

What, only yuppie cars should sound good?

greenpony, 4948 cc rounds to 4.9L in my neck of the woods. :o)

"4948 cc rounds to 4.9L in my neck of the woods. :o)"

Reason I remember hearing for calling it a 5.0 is to prevent confusion with the 4.9L straight six they also offered in their pickups.

"Infiniti 5.0 V8 - 390HP @ 6500 / 369FT @ 4400
Lexus 4.6 V8 - 380HP @ 6400 / 367FT @ 4100

Other luxury V8s offered with similar displacement.

BMW 4.8 V8 - 360HP @ 6300 / 360FT @ 3400
Cadillac 4.6 V8 - 320HP @ 6300 / 315FT @ 4400
Audi 4.2 V8 - 350HP @ 6800 / 325FT @ 3500
Mercedes 4.5 V8 - 335HP @ 6000 / 339FT @ 2700-5000
Acura Loading...please wait."

Don't forget Hyundai's *first* V8- 4.6l with Horsepower 375 hp @ 6500 rpm
Torque 333 lb.-ft @ 3500 rpm

The Audi, Lexus, and Hyundai are the most impressive numbers to me- although all these numbers seem incredibly low when there are 3.7l V6s making 320hp!

"an aftermarket exhaust on his clapped-out Tahoe, so why not put it on something that could actually benefit from it?"

... I don't believe that any aftermarket companies make systems for the FX50 yet... be prepared to see them out on the market in due time soon though.

I think it sounds pretty darn sweet stock too... an aftermarket system would only improve its V8 grumblyness-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlaVRSUnDg0

"1990 IROC ran a 14.8 1/4
1990 5.0 did it in 14.9"

GM had something even badder. The 1986 - 1987 Buick Regal T-Type and Grand National had a quarter mile time of 13.85 - 14 seconds...

hondacura4, I'd agree that you would want more torque in a vehicle like the Cayenne. However, the difference in displacement, fuel economy and power output are what surprised me. I'm more wondering aloud if large displacement V8s aren't capable of high-peak power and instead provide a more even power band. Regardless, interesting points!

The 5.0 was in my 91 Lincoln Mark VII LSC. That car was a nice highway cruiser, the chicks loved it, plus it had driver AND passenger front airbags!

arm51- if a V8 revs high enough, it can make as much power per liter as some high performances sixes. Please remember that the current Porsche flat 6 has engine technologies the Cayenne V8 lacks such as direct injection and variable lift intake valves (VarioCam Plus). Those two advantages are enough to bump the power per liter figure towards the flat-6's favor.

You rarely see all of these technologies on mainstream V8s because frankly, they don't need them. They put out plenty of power and more torque so why spend money on items that are not needed.

Above ^

Well put chavis10, well put.

" Audi 4.2 V8 - 350HP @ 6800 / 325FT @ 3500

The Audi, Lexus, and Hyundai are the most impressive numbers to me- although all these numbers seem incredibly low when there are 3.7l V6s making 320hp!"

Audi's 350/4.2 = 83.33 hp/L

320/3.7 = 86.48 hp /L

They are about the same buddy!

"arm51- if a V8 revs high enough, it can make as much power per liter as some high performances sixes. Please remember that the current Porsche flat 6 has engine technologies the Cayenne V8 lacks such as direct injection and variable lift intake valves (VarioCam Plus). Those two advantages are enough to bump the power per liter figure towards the flat-6's favor.

You rarely see all of these technologies on mainstream V8s because frankly, they don't need them. They put out plenty of power and more torque so why spend money on items that are not needed."

You are exactly right chavis10. The Cayenne V8 is just not as highly tune as the 911 S' flat 6. V8 with direct injection and variable timing, AKA Audi RS4's 4.2L V8 and M3's 4.0L V8 or M5's 5.0L V10....make the same hp per L as the 911's flat 6. So # of cylinders don't have anything to do with the specific output.

I bought a used '87 LX 5.0/5-speed hatch in 1988 a year after getting out of college.

At the time I was also considering an '87 Acura Integra. I got the Mustang for about $3 grand less and never looked back.

I loved that car. Sure, it had a ride like a super duty pickup, but the sound and the accelleration were fabulous. It's strange to think that by modern standards that car isn't particularly fast any more, but at the time it felt like a rocket and there weren't many cars that could keep up.