I stumbled across this while searching for some numbers. Just thought I'd share it with the org. Some of you might find it useful.

http://www.eurotuned.com/0-60.htm

 

"1995 Nissan Maxima SE 7.4 15.7"

those HAVE to be auto #s. If I remember correctly, the 1995 SE MT was tested by carndriver and road&track to run 6.7sec 0-60mph, and 15.2 1/4 mile

 

5 different magazines tested the 95 5-speed at a 0-60 of 6.6s and 15.2s in the quarter mile. In fact, a single magazine (cant remember which) even got 6.5s and 14.9s out of the car.

 

Again this is just a rough estimate.

 

yeah that number seemed off to me too, because i was remembering that the 95 was faster then the other years for some reason, anyone know what the deal was there?

 

Less weight, period. '95 and '96 both have less impact resistance stuff up front and in the back (among other small things) and early '95's specifically had aluminum bumper supports that reduced the weight even more.

 

And some didn't have power passenger seats....

 

Like mine Mine are heated though

 

Both my GXEs had no power seats whatsoever. My SE only has power driver's seat.

 

This is another reason why not to take magazine times with 100% truth. Even though they tested the car at 15.2 in the 1/4 mile its been proven that stock 4th gens can run 14's stock. i think the reason why we dont see more 4th gens in the 14's stock is people are afraid to push the car to its limits and driver skill plays a big role.

 

I agree an e.t for a certain car is just a ballpark figure, since there are so many factors that play a role in the outcome. Lets think of some for fun, all with same stock car.

1. Test was done by 350 lb "fast food eating" driver, while another guy at some track weighs 150 lbs, and gets better time from same make/model.

2. Some dude test his stock car during hot months, complains about et, while slick joe takes his out in cool weather and brings home better results and a smile.

3. some dude hits 14.9 in stock maxima at some track with extremely low elevation, while another owner runs 15.6-15.7 all night long in denver, colorado. elevation factor

4. another maxima fanatic takes his ride to local track that has been prepped, tires stick/hook which aids in sweet 60 foot and overall better et. Then over in some other state guy goes to track thats crap, gets lame 60 foots and complains about lame e.t. why am i slow sorta thing?

5. This maxima owner has a history of racing, family tree traces his great great grandmaw, back to the bootlegging days running from the local sheriff.

this guy is also a redbull addict and can drive the wheels off a tricycle. so he slames through the gears, reving and redlining and pulls of a very nice time.

Then shyboy with same car worries about going to track but gets persuaded to do so by the local peer pressure gang. scared he may break something tries his best but casually goes through the motions with below average results.

6. two guys have the same model stock maxima. (billy and bobby) Billys car always beats Bobbys. Why ? Who knows, Billys Maxima is just faster and they dont know why.

7. One dude from the idaho maxima club uses 93 premium unleaded and another member swears by 89 octane, but neither really think about which fuel will give optimum performance ?

 

thats true, i think i may have the advantage of running better times then most people. I have elevation on my side (mission race way elevation = 24ft), im 107lbs and drag race a lot, im not scared to push my car to its limits and i think temperate is on my side too (canada eh)

 

Like i said this is a reference site, just to see a ball park figure. I agree with you ceaser 100%.

 

yeah i was always a bit sore to see the what was it 15.7 for a stock 4th gen, boo !!! hiss !!!