Fuel Economy Frustrations
03-21-2005, 04:17 PM
#1
Donating Maxima.org Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 75
Fuel Economy Frustrations
All right. Maybe this stands out to someone, and you can give me advice.
The car is running great. I drive 40 miles to work, and 40 miles home from work. I fill up every 4 days or so. Maybe more if I'm interested in the MPG. I always use the same pump. Shell V-Power.
I changed the plugs and O2 Sensor yesterday. Gapped .040".
Here is the strangeness, I'm getting 21.4-21.8 MPG everytime I fill up. I tend to do a lot more city driving on the weekends. I still get the same. WTF? I should be getting way better milage on the freeway. I'm just a little frustrated because I'm driving to Texas on Thursday and I'd sure as hell love to get more the 21MPG on the way down there.
I'm changing the oil on weds w/ 5w-30 Castrol GTX and the Toyota filter. I'm also going to do the fuel filter then. Any other thoughts on why my milage isn't changing?
Thanks in advance.
The car is running great. I drive 40 miles to work, and 40 miles home from work. I fill up every 4 days or so. Maybe more if I'm interested in the MPG. I always use the same pump. Shell V-Power.
I changed the plugs and O2 Sensor yesterday. Gapped .040".
Here is the strangeness, I'm getting 21.4-21.8 MPG everytime I fill up. I tend to do a lot more city driving on the weekends. I still get the same. WTF? I should be getting way better milage on the freeway. I'm just a little frustrated because I'm driving to Texas on Thursday and I'd sure as hell love to get more the 21MPG on the way down there.
I'm changing the oil on weds w/ 5w-30 Castrol GTX and the Toyota filter. I'm also going to do the fuel filter then. Any other thoughts on why my milage isn't changing?
Thanks in advance.
03-21-2005, 04:59 PM
#3
Donating Maxima.org Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 75
80 tops. Average about 75mph. Speed limit is 70mph.
03-21-2005, 05:09 PM
#4
Yea you should but... This is a 15 yr. old car your driving. Most of the sensors,emission control parts have got a lot of years on them.I found lot of green crap[corrosion}on almost all of the sensor plug ends.{i.e tps,vtc's,egr,etc...}So i cleaned all the connectors with a soft brass bristle brush and that help a lot with
running of the car. Maybe that will help your mileage problem
running of the car. Maybe that will help your mileage problem
03-21-2005, 05:40 PM
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 378
it could be the type of gas you are using.
03-21-2005, 07:53 PM
#7
Donating Maxima.org Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 75
Thanks for the advice on corrosion. I'll keep an eye out, but most everything has looked okay that I've checked.
It could be the gas.
It could be the gas.
03-21-2005, 08:09 PM
#8
Guest
Posts: n/a
Try Mobil if you've got it. Should give a little more power and maybe a little better mpg.
~Alex
~Alex
03-21-2005, 08:45 PM
#9
Only two things for me to note... both by someone else. Here are a couple of links that you may find interesting. The first, Your Car's Fuel Economy , lets you know what the fuel economy "specs" are for your car. The second, The Justification of These Numbers , lets you know how they come up with these seemingly arbitrary numbers. Note the average test speed. Obviously, you are going almost twice this speed in overdrive which should equate to about twice the rpm's. Give or take some. Think about that.
FYI. I have a 93 Maxima SE which runs superb. I feed it Chevron Premium 93 and maintain it better than Nissan's scheduling. I, like you I'm sure, drive with an extremely heavy right foot. I get 21-23 mpg.... always. Highway or city. I was a little upset at not getting any higher until I found how they obtained fuel economy. Now, I'm just fine with my mileage. If I wanted better, I'd buy a stupid Honda.
FYI. I have a 93 Maxima SE which runs superb. I feed it Chevron Premium 93 and maintain it better than Nissan's scheduling. I, like you I'm sure, drive with an extremely heavy right foot. I get 21-23 mpg.... always. Highway or city. I was a little upset at not getting any higher until I found how they obtained fuel economy. Now, I'm just fine with my mileage. If I wanted better, I'd buy a stupid Honda.
03-21-2005, 09:03 PM
#10
Donating Maxima.org Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 75
We'll I'm in "sticker" shock over how much this is costing me. I just got rid of my ol' "stupid honda" 
for my Max has been awesome. I love this car. It's just expensive. I was at one tank a week, now I'm at two tanks a week. So I'm just hoping to squeez what I can out of my Max. I love it. I'm sure if this is all that I get, I'll get used to it. But at least for now, I'm going to do what I can. If it takes driving 60 MPH than I'll take a slower way to work maybe. But those stats do make me feel somewhat better.
Thanks for the info.
for my Max has been awesome. I love this car. It's just expensive. I was at one tank a week, now I'm at two tanks a week. So I'm just hoping to squeez what I can out of my Max. I love it. I'm sure if this is all that I get, I'll get used to it. But at least for now, I'm going to do what I can. If it takes driving 60 MPH than I'll take a slower way to work maybe. But those stats do make me feel somewhat better.Thanks for the info.
03-21-2005, 09:12 PM
#11
Originally Posted by fuzzyuu
We'll I'm in "sticker" shock over how much this is costing me. I just got rid of my ol' "stupid honda" for my Max has been awesome. I love this car. It's just expensive. I was at one tank a week, now I'm at two tanks a week. So I'm just hoping to squeez what I can out of my Max. I love it. I'm sure if this is all that I get, I'll get used to it. But at least for now, I'm going to do what I can. If it takes driving 60 MPH than I'll take a slower way to work maybe. But those stats do make me feel somewhat better.
Thanks for the info.
for my Max has been awesome. I love this car. It's just expensive. I was at one tank a week, now I'm at two tanks a week. So I'm just hoping to squeez what I can out of my Max. I love it. I'm sure if this is all that I get, I'll get used to it. But at least for now, I'm going to do what I can. If it takes driving 60 MPH than I'll take a slower way to work maybe. But those stats do make me feel somewhat better.Thanks for the info.
03-21-2005, 10:10 PM
#12
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 29
Gas & Go
I have both a 1990 Maxima and a 1999 I30. I run synthetic and 92-93 octane in both. The Infiniti gets better mileage, but not by much. Running 75-80 mph I expect between 24-28 mpg. The absolute most important thing you can do is keep the air preasure in the tires up. Changing from dyno to synthetic gave me 2.5 mpg in both cars, the air preasure never has been an issue.
At 2.5 mpg that translates to 25 additional miles per 10 gallons of gas. The Infiniti consistently gets 27.5 mpg, so that is $2.45 at current prices every 275 miles. Divide 275 miles into 3000, and the results is a little better than 10. Ten times $2.45 (self serve super unleaded) is $24.50, so you have paid for the oil change in fuel savings over the life of the oil. Now take it to 5000 miles...how much did you save running synthetic instead of conventional oil?
(Quick math-275 into 5000 is $44.55 <rounded up> bassed on averages)
Oh, one other thing...
Running lower octane fuel in the Infiniti, mileage was about 18-19. My wife decided last summer, she was absolutely not going to pay for the "good stuff". She drove the car from Waco to Tulsa and had to refuel on I44 just north of Okalhoma CIty. She called me and told me my car was a gas hog...I asked her if she had run premium in it, she said she had not and would not...I asked her to just try one tank...I convinced her to "filler up" with some 93 octane Shell V-Power. She went from Tulsa to Omaha on just one tank (426 miles...@27.9 mpg). That is just slighly farther than Waco to Tulsa...
The relatively small difference in fuel costs at the pump is measurable in the long run by calculating how much your differential in mileage is between 87 and 92 octane gas. A friend of mine was getting ready to get rid of a 2002 Frontier because it was only getting 14mpg. I asked if he were burning premium (he wasn't) and I told him it would make a noticable improvement. Two weeks later, he and his schoolteacher tighwad wife had figured out spending the extra 18 to 30 cents per gallon was really paying off...big. Instead of fueling every four days, he is now fueling every six, an using less then he was over the same "tank range".
Said he had no idea it could mean 5 mpg ON A TRUCK.
It even helped the 1990 Maxima to burn at least 89 octane...
At 2.5 mpg that translates to 25 additional miles per 10 gallons of gas. The Infiniti consistently gets 27.5 mpg, so that is $2.45 at current prices every 275 miles. Divide 275 miles into 3000, and the results is a little better than 10. Ten times $2.45 (self serve super unleaded) is $24.50, so you have paid for the oil change in fuel savings over the life of the oil. Now take it to 5000 miles...how much did you save running synthetic instead of conventional oil?
(Quick math-275 into 5000 is $44.55 <rounded up> bassed on averages)
Oh, one other thing...
Running lower octane fuel in the Infiniti, mileage was about 18-19. My wife decided last summer, she was absolutely not going to pay for the "good stuff". She drove the car from Waco to Tulsa and had to refuel on I44 just north of Okalhoma CIty. She called me and told me my car was a gas hog...I asked her if she had run premium in it, she said she had not and would not...I asked her to just try one tank...I convinced her to "filler up" with some 93 octane Shell V-Power. She went from Tulsa to Omaha on just one tank (426 miles...@27.9 mpg). That is just slighly farther than Waco to Tulsa...
The relatively small difference in fuel costs at the pump is measurable in the long run by calculating how much your differential in mileage is between 87 and 92 octane gas. A friend of mine was getting ready to get rid of a 2002 Frontier because it was only getting 14mpg. I asked if he were burning premium (he wasn't) and I told him it would make a noticable improvement. Two weeks later, he and his schoolteacher tighwad wife had figured out spending the extra 18 to 30 cents per gallon was really paying off...big. Instead of fueling every four days, he is now fueling every six, an using less then he was over the same "tank range".
Said he had no idea it could mean 5 mpg ON A TRUCK.
It even helped the 1990 Maxima to burn at least 89 octane...
03-21-2005, 10:25 PM
#13
The biggest factor with these cars for getting good mpg is keeping your foot out of it.
I can get 30 mpg on the freeway in mine. I have been between 28-30 on several trips 2 hours or more, but I set the cruise and leave it. Around town, it's quite a bit lower.
I always use Chevron or Shell premium, my tires are inflated properly and I have synthetic oil and synthetic gear oil.
I can get 30 mpg on the freeway in mine. I have been between 28-30 on several trips 2 hours or more, but I set the cruise and leave it. Around town, it's quite a bit lower.
I always use Chevron or Shell premium, my tires are inflated properly and I have synthetic oil and synthetic gear oil.
03-21-2005, 10:28 PM
#14
Donating Maxima.org Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 75
Originally Posted by nelledge
Your welcome. And for the record... my last car was a stupid Honda I "squeezed" 38-40 mpg from. It was while I was in Boston, driving in traffic for three to four hours a day. You need a Civic in that kind of commute. Especially with the inflated fuel prices. Maximas still win, though.
Originally Posted by kblast523
I have both a 1990 Maxima and a 1999 I30. I run synthetic and 92-93 octane in both. The Infiniti gets better mileage, but not by much. Running 75-80 mph I expect between 24-28 mpg. The absolute most important thing you can do is keep the air preasure in the tires up. Changing from dyno to synthetic gave me 2.5 mpg in both cars, the air preasure never has been an issue.
At 2.5 mpg that translates to 25 additional miles per 10 gallons of gas. The Infiniti consistently gets 27.5 mpg, so that is $2.45 at current prices every 275 miles. Divide 275 miles into 3000, and the results is a little better than 10. Ten times $2.45 (self serve super unleaded) is $24.50, so you have paid for the oil change in fuel savings over the life of the oil. Now take it to 5000 miles...how much did you save running synthetic instead of conventional oil?
(Quick math-275 into 5000 is $44.55 <rounded up> bassed on averages)
Oh, one other thing...
Running lower octane fuel in the Infiniti, mileage was about 18-19. My wife decided last summer, she was absolutely not going to pay for the "good stuff". She drove the car from Waco to Tulsa and had to refuel on I44 just north of Okalhoma CIty. She called me and told me my car was a gas hog...I asked her if she had run premium in it, she said she had not and would not...I asked her to just try one tank...I convinced her to "filler up" with some 93 octane Shell V-Power. She went from Tulsa to Omaha on just one tank (426 miles...@27.9 mpg). That is just slighly farther than Waco to Tulsa...
The relatively small difference in fuel costs at the pump is measurable in the long run by calculating how much your differential in mileage is between 87 and 92 octane gas. A friend of mine was getting ready to get rid of a 2002 Frontier because it was only getting 14mpg. I asked if he were burning premium (he wasn't) and I told him it would make a noticable improvement. Two weeks later, he and his schoolteacher tighwad wife had figured out spending the extra 18 to 30 cents per gallon was really paying off...big. Instead of fueling every four days, he is now fueling every six, an using less then he was over the same "tank range".
Said he had no idea it could mean 5 mpg ON A TRUCK.
It even helped the 1990 Maxima to burn at least 89 octane...
At 2.5 mpg that translates to 25 additional miles per 10 gallons of gas. The Infiniti consistently gets 27.5 mpg, so that is $2.45 at current prices every 275 miles. Divide 275 miles into 3000, and the results is a little better than 10. Ten times $2.45 (self serve super unleaded) is $24.50, so you have paid for the oil change in fuel savings over the life of the oil. Now take it to 5000 miles...how much did you save running synthetic instead of conventional oil?
(Quick math-275 into 5000 is $44.55 <rounded up> bassed on averages)
Oh, one other thing...
Running lower octane fuel in the Infiniti, mileage was about 18-19. My wife decided last summer, she was absolutely not going to pay for the "good stuff". She drove the car from Waco to Tulsa and had to refuel on I44 just north of Okalhoma CIty. She called me and told me my car was a gas hog...I asked her if she had run premium in it, she said she had not and would not...I asked her to just try one tank...I convinced her to "filler up" with some 93 octane Shell V-Power. She went from Tulsa to Omaha on just one tank (426 miles...@27.9 mpg). That is just slighly farther than Waco to Tulsa...
The relatively small difference in fuel costs at the pump is measurable in the long run by calculating how much your differential in mileage is between 87 and 92 octane gas. A friend of mine was getting ready to get rid of a 2002 Frontier because it was only getting 14mpg. I asked if he were burning premium (he wasn't) and I told him it would make a noticable improvement. Two weeks later, he and his schoolteacher tighwad wife had figured out spending the extra 18 to 30 cents per gallon was really paying off...big. Instead of fueling every four days, he is now fueling every six, an using less then he was over the same "tank range".
Said he had no idea it could mean 5 mpg ON A TRUCK.
It even helped the 1990 Maxima to burn at least 89 octane...
Just trying to get better milage and picking EVERYONE's brain. When I head down to TX on thurs I'm looking forward to pouring over this beast with my best bud from college. (One of those physics/eng./mechanic types. Good with this kinda stuff.) BTW, I drove a '98 I30 while I was waiting to purchase my Max and I know what my next "low milage budget car" will be in a couple of years! 
03-21-2005, 10:31 PM
#15
Donating Maxima.org Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 75
Originally Posted by Red92MaxSE
The biggest factor with these cars for getting good mpg is keeping your foot out of it.
I can get 30 mpg on the freeway in mine. I have been between 28-30 on several trips 2 hours or more, but I set the cruise and leave it. Around town, it's quite a bit lower.
I always use Chevron or Shell premium, my tires are inflated properly and I have synthetic oil and synthetic gear oil.
I can get 30 mpg on the freeway in mine. I have been between 28-30 on several trips 2 hours or more, but I set the cruise and leave it. Around town, it's quite a bit lower.
I always use Chevron or Shell premium, my tires are inflated properly and I have synthetic oil and synthetic gear oil.
But once again, the wierdest part. It doesn't matter, freeway or not, 21mpg. I use cruise. I can't afford to stomp on this thing. Otherwise I wouldn't be....
03-22-2005, 06:06 AM
#16
Donating Maxima.org Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 75
checked them cold this morning. 35psi on all four. FYI, standard size Goodyear Eagle GT's.
03-22-2005, 06:46 AM
#17
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: EU Scandinavia
Posts: 4,323
Originally Posted by fuzzyuu
checked them cold this morning. 35psi on all four. FYI, standard size Goodyear Eagle GT's.
Many things follow tire pressure, heres some:
- high press, tire diameter grows, collect less miles to the gauge per gallon (1-3% ?)
- Overall tire height (1-10% collected mileage error)
- higher press, less rolling resistance (1% ? better)
Filling tank:
- gas station: car tilt might mean 1-2gal difference between fillups
- who/how is filling (same error)
- gasstation criminally tuned chips... u dont get what u pay.
Then theres the Rust factor: LeaKing...
Whatever is mpg, I fear that the first five miles are terriblese 5mpg.
03-22-2005, 07:21 AM
#18
Guest
Posts: n/a
Now that I think about it some times I can fill it up, and just stomp on it almost every light, and generaly drive a little fast (or at least accel hard) and I still get 250+ per tank, and some times I do the same and I get like 200 per tank. And when I let off and go easy I get 300 easy. Think I need to replace some sensors or just try 93? I really dont mind gas prices (though they are 50 cents above when i was driving just a few weeks ago) I just dont enjoy 15mpg. 20+ is fine.
~Alex
~Alex
03-22-2005, 08:22 AM
#20
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: EU Scandinavia
Posts: 4,323
Originally Posted by internetautomar
to those with automatics, we don't get overdrive till we're doing roughly 60mph.
so if you're doing 55 on the expressway you'll get worse mileage than if you're doing 65.
so if you're doing 55 on the expressway you'll get worse mileage than if you're doing 65.
03-22-2005, 01:06 PM
#22
Originally Posted by internetautomar
to those with automatics, we don't get overdrive till we're doing roughly 60mph.
so if you're doing 55 on the expressway you'll get worse mileage than if you're doing 65.
so if you're doing 55 on the expressway you'll get worse mileage than if you're doing 65.
well my automatic doesnt work like that. if im cruisin at 55 then go to 65 i wont shift, because im already in O/D.
if my car is warmed up I will get od to kick in around 35-40 roughly not 60. im not saying yours doesnt kick in at 60, but MINE will kick in at 35-40.....depending on my driving.
03-22-2005, 10:53 PM
#23
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: EU Scandinavia
Posts: 4,323
Originally Posted by tripleGmax
well my automatic doesnt work like that. if im cruisin at 55 then go to 65 i wont shift, because im already in O/D.
if my car is warmed up I will get od to kick in around 35-40 roughly not 60. im not saying yours doesnt kick in at 60, but MINE will kick in at 35-40.....depending on my driving.
if my car is warmed up I will get od to kick in around 35-40 roughly not 60. im not saying yours doesnt kick in at 60, but MINE will kick in at 35-40.....depending on my driving.
...And playing with O/D switch will change gear.
Starting/cruising from flat road, changes gear four times as speed is aroun 20mph. And playing with O/D at 20mph switch will change gear up/down. This is how 'life goes' in my max.
The TCU makes those gear change decisions based on few inputs; if they're giving input signal above trigger level, TCU output changes accordingly. As all inputs vary, cars do behave differently. Completely other issue is what should be considered normal.
03-23-2005, 06:40 AM
#25
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: EU Scandinavia
Posts: 4,323
Originally Posted by internetautomar
Don't forget that the lockup system feels like you are shifting gears sometimes even when you are not.
My oldie: Just verified steady drive: maybe its 25mph but not 30: playing OD on/off, switches gear and the OD dash light accordingly... Lock comes on at higway speeds, after loooonG warmup.
03-23-2005, 09:48 AM
#26
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 136
Originally Posted by internetautomar
to those with automatics, we don't get overdrive till we're doing roughly 60mph.
so if you're doing 55 on the expressway you'll get worse mileage than if you're doing 65.
so if you're doing 55 on the expressway you'll get worse mileage than if you're doing 65.
03-23-2005, 10:29 AM
#27
Let me make one thing absofreakinglutely clear
you do not know what the f\/ck you are talking about
You are diseminating false information and
damaging the reputation of this board!
At shift speeds
is the list of when the transmission shifts
AT Lock up speeds
is the list of when lock up can occur
now sit down close your mouth and learn something.
you do not know what the f\/ck you are talking about
You are diseminating false information and
damaging the reputation of this board!
At shift speeds
is the list of when the transmission shifts
AT Lock up speeds
is the list of when lock up can occur
now sit down close your mouth and learn something.
03-23-2005, 11:29 AM
#28
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: EU Scandinavia
Posts: 4,323
Tell that to my max. It will start crying...
Still thist is the way wiking line works... http://www.vikingline.se/
Still thist is the way wiking line works... http://www.vikingline.se/
03-23-2005, 12:45 PM
#29
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 136
Originally Posted by internetautomar
Let me make one thing absofreakinglutely clear
you do not know what the f\/ck you are talking about
You are diseminating false information and
damaging the reputation of this board!
At shift speeds
is the list of when the transmission shifts
AT Lock up speeds
is the list of when lock up can occur
now sit down close your mouth and learn something.
you do not know what the f\/ck you are talking about
You are diseminating false information and
damaging the reputation of this board!
At shift speeds
is the list of when the transmission shifts
AT Lock up speeds
is the list of when lock up can occur
now sit down close your mouth and learn something.
Read your own crap that you post... and take a look at your stats before trying to back up a pointless argument... notice 'full throttle' and 'half throttle' take a wild guess what happens when you are at 'low throttle' ???? ----> shift to OD... duh!!
03-23-2005, 12:47 PM
#30
He has no ability to lock threads. Nor was his argument weak. Only the hp of the stock 5.0 at the time was weak 
Originally Posted by 92SE_Dave
Dude you got issues.. insisting that you are always correct and getting livid when people prove you wrong.. then locking up threads because your argument is WEAK....
Read your own crap that you post... and take a look at your stats before trying to back up a pointless argument... notice 'full throttle' and 'half throttle' take a wild guess what happens when you are at 'low throttle' ???? ----> shift to OD... duh!!
Read your own crap that you post... and take a look at your stats before trying to back up a pointless argument... notice 'full throttle' and 'half throttle' take a wild guess what happens when you are at 'low throttle' ???? ----> shift to OD... duh!!
03-23-2005, 12:50 PM
#31
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 136
Originally Posted by Jeff92se
He has no ability to lock threads. Nor was his argument weak. Only the hp of the stock 5.0 at the time was weak
Ok let me ask you.. exactly which year was it that the Maxima was faster than the Mustang ???
And btw a 1-2 second difference we see between Maxima and 5.0's 1/4 mile times is not 'close' as you said in another thread.. that is a HUUGE difference.
I'll post my stock 5.0 14.32 s quarter timeslip once I have a chance... I didn't see any Maximas on the other thread even approach this.. yet they are faster ??
03-23-2005, 01:02 PM
#32
Not all diff are 1-2 sec for the 1/4 mile. Only the fastest LX version. The fact that's even close is a shame. BTW it's hard to find exact years as all the sites for Ford seem to conveniently not include some times.
But let's take a 1995 maxima and a 1994 mustang gt. 6.6 / 15.2 vs 6.9 / 15.1 I mean really
Don't bother posting your times. If I'm interested, there are 15,000 mustang sites I can refer to.
It's just an interesting comparison.
But let's take a 1995 maxima and a 1994 mustang gt. 6.6 / 15.2 vs 6.9 / 15.1 I mean really
Don't bother posting your times. If I'm interested, there are 15,000 mustang sites I can refer to.
It's just an interesting comparison.
03-23-2005, 01:18 PM
#33
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 136
Originally Posted by Jeff92se
Not all diff are 1-2 sec for the 1/4 mile. Only the fastest LX version. The fact that's even close is a shame. BTW it's hard to find exact years as all the sites for Ford seem to conveniently not include some times.
But let's take a 1995 maxima and a 1994 mustang gt. 6.6 / 15.2 vs 6.9 / 15.1 I mean really
Don't bother posting your times. If I'm interested, there are 15,000 mustang sites I can refer to.
It's just an interesting comparison.
But let's take a 1995 maxima and a 1994 mustang gt. 6.6 / 15.2 vs 6.9 / 15.1 I mean really
Don't bother posting your times. If I'm interested, there are 15,000 mustang sites I can refer to.
It's just an interesting comparison.
03-23-2005, 01:21 PM
#34
Because Ford could only coax about 220hp out of a 5.0 liter V8 in the early 90s. Nissan was getting 190hp and nearly the same 1/4 time with their 3.0 V6 in a heavy 4-door sedan. And Nissan was getting 280 hp in 1989 out of their V8 in 4.1 liter form.
03-23-2005, 01:29 PM
#35
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 136
Originally Posted by Jeff92se
Because Ford could only coax about 220hp out of a 5.0 liter V8 in the early 90s. Nissan was getting 190hp and nearly the same 1/4 time with their 3.0 V6 in a heavy 4-door sedan. And Nissan was getting 280 hp in 1989 out of their V8 in 4.1 liter form.
That's just it... 14.5s 1/4 times on stock 87-93 (5.0L) mustangs is NOT AT ALL CLOSE to the 15.5 - 17 second times we see on stock Maximas for the same year. There is no comparison here.
Again... you're trying to win your argument by completely diverting the topic to hp/L ratio etc.... this was all started by someone saying Maximas are faster, which they are not. There is nothing to argue about.
03-23-2005, 01:33 PM
#36
Originally Posted by 92SE_Dave
That's just it... 14.5s 1/4 times on stock 87-93 (5.0L) mustangs is NOT AT ALL CLOSE to the 15.5 - 17 second times we see on stock Maximas for the same year. There is no comparison here.
Again... you're trying to win your argument by completely diverting the topic to hp/L ratio etc.... this was all started by someone saying Maximas are faster, which they are not. There is nothing to argue about.
Okay let's take the liter out of it and compare a 1989 Nissan V8 and a 1989 Ford 5.0 mustang V8. Even though there's almost a liter difference, I'll give it to you. The Nissan put out ~280hp The Ford put out 220hp?
03-23-2005, 01:53 PM
#37
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 136
Originally Posted by Jeff92se
The VE 5-sp is more like a 6.7 0-60 15.0 flat 1/4 mile. As one mag as tested. And you are choosing ONLY the fastest ones. Use all the convertible 5.0 mustangs and gets worse.
On the whole, the mustangs are quicker by a small margin. Are we supposed to be impressed? The convertible 5.0 mustangs were worse yet. Is that when I'm supposed to be impressed?
Okay let's take the liter out of it and compare a 1989 Nissan V8 and a 1989 Ford 5.0 mustang V8. Even though there's almost a liter difference, I'll give it to you. The Nissan put out ~280hp The Ford put out 220hp?
On the whole, the mustangs are quicker by a small margin. Are we supposed to be impressed? The convertible 5.0 mustangs were worse yet. Is that when I'm supposed to be impressed?
Okay let's take the liter out of it and compare a 1989 Nissan V8 and a 1989 Ford 5.0 mustang V8. Even though there's almost a liter difference, I'll give it to you. The Nissan put out ~280hp The Ford put out 220hp?
Thanks.. you can stop now.
03-23-2005, 01:57 PM
#38
Originally Posted by 92SE_Dave
Look I'm not trying to impress you or don't want to even bother arguing with you.. FINALLY you've grudginly admitted that Mustangs are faster
(you've obvisouly never dirven a nice Fox5.0 if you have you'd probably **** your pants if you think a Maxima is fast...).
This is all I was arguing... no hp/L ratio.. no Nissan V8's (which most are broken by now..).
03-23-2005, 02:12 PM
#39
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 136
Originally Posted by Jeff92se
SOME are faster. That's about it.
Nope. But I've driven my two bro's 1965 stock 289 and my other bro's modded 1967 fastback. I don't think I'd be shatting my pants driving a stock 5.0. Especially when my friend gave me a ride in his 429 AC Cobra kit car.
I guess after realizing that the Nissan V8 made more hp, that's the only thing you can say (however uneducated it was) (and however IRONIC it is)
Nope. But I've driven my two bro's 1965 stock 289 and my other bro's modded 1967 fastback. I don't think I'd be shatting my pants driving a stock 5.0. Especially when my friend gave me a ride in his 429 AC Cobra kit car.
I guess after realizing that the Nissan V8 made more hp, that's the only thing you can say (however uneducated it was) (and however IRONIC it is)
Yay your brother had an old slow mustang... hope he didn't drop too many G's into them.
We aren't talking about the Nissan V8... what does this have to do with anything...?? After realizing it made more Hp ?? what are you talking about.. you brought a completely different car/engine into the argument.. for .. ?? there tonnes of motors that make more horsepower than either one... You really are out to lunch buddy...
03-23-2005, 02:15 PM
#40
Buhaha. I'd take either one of those classics than what ford came up with during the late 80s/early 90s.
If you mean some of the V8s and 95% of the V6 mustangs... I agree.
I just stated the power of the 5.0 of that time is unimpressive and I stated exactly why I felt that way. Sorry if it offends.
If you mean some of the V8s and 95% of the V6 mustangs... I agree.
I just stated the power of the 5.0 of that time is unimpressive and I stated exactly why I felt that way. Sorry if it offends.
Originally Posted by 92SE_Dave
If some means 95% then yes you are correct.
Yay your brother had an old slow mustang... hope he didn't drop too many G's into them.
We aren't talking about the Nissan V8... what does this have to do with anything...?? After realizing it made more Hp ?? what are you talking about.. you brought a completely different car/engine into the argument.. for .. ?? there tonnes of motors that make more horsepower than either one... You really are out to lunch buddy...
Yay your brother had an old slow mustang... hope he didn't drop too many G's into them.
We aren't talking about the Nissan V8... what does this have to do with anything...?? After realizing it made more Hp ?? what are you talking about.. you brought a completely different car/engine into the argument.. for .. ?? there tonnes of motors that make more horsepower than either one... You really are out to lunch buddy...