Car and Driver posted 0-60 of 7.1 seconds on the 97 SE and 8.2 on the 98 SE. Was there a substantial difference in these two years? Both of them were automatics, so I know that is not the problem. 1.1 seconds just seems like an awful lot of time for two cars that are supposed to be the same generation...


Erik

 

good reason NOT to listen to what car and driver says.

 

 

Hey ABstract

I was just looking on your homepage at CarDomain and i was wondering what do you have your side markers connected to? My friend tried to connect his to the blinker and they blew for some reason, so he connected his to the DayTime Running Lights. I would prefre to connect mine to the blinker, but i dont want the same problem to happen.
Thx

 

Yep don't get caught up with mag-racing. Magazines will run tests just to compete with one another. I heard that some magazines will even do a 0-60 test on a 5 degree decline... to boost mag sales.

95-99 are all at about the same performance with the slight edge going to 95, from the general consensus. But I think the fastest so far has been a 97. But each car is independent of any other car. There's the lemons and there's the gifted ones. When it comes to 5-spd there's also driver skill.

 

Stupid Car and Driver, You know what they said the 1/4 mile time for the 2k3 Maxima was, they said it was 17.5 And they also claimed that the new AHCORD runs 15.6 That made me never want to read that MAGAZINE EVEER AGAIN
Maxima.ORG Car & Driver

 

I actually pulled the information off www.car-stats.com, which pulls the data from multiple sources. I know one of them was C&D but I am unsure what the other one was. I jsut thought it was odd there was such a discrepancy.

Thanks,

Erik

 

Our 1/4 and 1/8 mi racing forum is your best bet for these time measurements. Forget what's on paper. Those forum results are actual measured times.

 

Yeah motor tread listed the 95 SE maxima 5 sp as having a 15.2 1/4 mile times. which is about average. But for the 97 SE 5 sp they had a time of 15.5. And here i know that Nealoc has run a 14.8 stock in his 96 and i know that some one else has also ran a 14.8 in their 97. Which is the fastest time i have heard of for a stock 4th gen 5sp. So i dont really listen to maqs any more all that much. They give you a decent figure but with good drving skills it can always be better.

 

keep in mind that they only try it a couple of times. all of us go to the track much more and practice to get better.

but its not all that, mags definitely suck sometimes. i ran 15.0 in my '98 SE 5spd on my 4th run ever. I think they definitely need to work on the accuracy of their times. 15.0-15.1 is a better avg ET for my car than 15.2 or whatever you guys said you saw. I actually have never seen below 15.4 for my car in a publication that I can recall.

 

Your numbers are in error. I only use www.car-stats.com just as a reference point for older cars that aren't being made any more. www.autosite.com is MUCH better, but only lists mag performance histories for cars that are still being produced. (i.e., won't list a Honda Prelude anymore since it was discontinued in 2001)


http://www.autosite.com/new/grabbag/perform/3108.asp

The C&D time for 98 was an automatic. And your 97SE time was a manual, but not C&D. It was Motor Trend.