watch out 95's! apparently your cars are dangerous!
watch out 95's! apparently your cars are dangerous!
man I found this article on canadiandriver.com....what a ****ty thing to have happen! Stupid nissan!
"Man awarded U.S.14.4 million for injuries in Nissan Maxima crash
Short Hills, New Jersey - A man who suffered paralyzing injuries after a head-on collision in his 1995 Nissan Maxima was awarded U.S.14.4 million dollars by a New Jersey jury on Friday.
On October 31, 1997, William Ziemer, a 45-year old husband and father of three small children, was driving his 1995 Nissan Maxima GXE when a car coming the other way crossed the centre line. The front driver's side of each car impacted.
Mr. Ziemer sustained permanent brain damage as well as extensive and severe lower extremity injury. He will never walk again and has the mentality of a child.
Product liability attorney Cynthia A. Walters of Short Hills, NJ, argued that the car was defective due to its lack of crashworthiness due to design elements that permitted unreasonable intrusion into the driver compartment causing the catastrophic injuries.
It was shown at trial that the identical car was sold in Europe with the reinforcements that would have protected Mr. Ziemer and that they were not added to US models until 1996.
"This verdict shows that automobile manufacturers who have the technology must use it to protect occupants of their cars," stated Ms. Walters.
The jury award consisted of U.S.$3.5 million for Mr. Ziemer's loss of enjoyment of life and pain and suffering; U.S.$4.2 million for future care and medical costs; U.S.$1.2 million in lost wages; U.S.$2.5 million for his wife and U.S.$1 million for each of the children. "
http://www.canadiandriver.com/news/020729-1.htm
"Man awarded U.S.14.4 million for injuries in Nissan Maxima crash
Short Hills, New Jersey - A man who suffered paralyzing injuries after a head-on collision in his 1995 Nissan Maxima was awarded U.S.14.4 million dollars by a New Jersey jury on Friday.
On October 31, 1997, William Ziemer, a 45-year old husband and father of three small children, was driving his 1995 Nissan Maxima GXE when a car coming the other way crossed the centre line. The front driver's side of each car impacted.
Mr. Ziemer sustained permanent brain damage as well as extensive and severe lower extremity injury. He will never walk again and has the mentality of a child.
Product liability attorney Cynthia A. Walters of Short Hills, NJ, argued that the car was defective due to its lack of crashworthiness due to design elements that permitted unreasonable intrusion into the driver compartment causing the catastrophic injuries.
It was shown at trial that the identical car was sold in Europe with the reinforcements that would have protected Mr. Ziemer and that they were not added to US models until 1996.
"This verdict shows that automobile manufacturers who have the technology must use it to protect occupants of their cars," stated Ms. Walters.
The jury award consisted of U.S.$3.5 million for Mr. Ziemer's loss of enjoyment of life and pain and suffering; U.S.$4.2 million for future care and medical costs; U.S.$1.2 million in lost wages; U.S.$2.5 million for his wife and U.S.$1 million for each of the children. "
http://www.canadiandriver.com/news/020729-1.htm
Originally Posted by nupe500
well I'm sure glad that I swapped my entire 97 front end unto my 95, good heads up 
Originally Posted by tynant
It was shown at trial that the identical car was sold in Europe with the reinforcements that would have protected Mr. Ziemer and that they were not added to US models until 1996.
Rear bumpers on 1995-96 models allowed more than $2,000 damage in a 5 mph pole impact (left). Bumpers on 1997-99s are much improved. They allowed little damage in the same test (right).
http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle%5Fr...ml/97024.htm#4
http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle%5Fr...html/95012.htm
The only difference between 95-96 models and 97-99 is front and rear reinforcements.
In 95-96 models front and rear reinforcements made of aluminum, in 97-99 made of steel.
That is all, nothing else changed. We don’t know what kind of car was involved in the accident with that Maxima. Maybe it was an eighteen-wheeler.......jk
In 95-96 models front and rear reinforcements made of aluminum, in 97-99 made of steel.
That is all, nothing else changed. We don’t know what kind of car was involved in the accident with that Maxima. Maybe it was an eighteen-wheeler.......jk
Originally Posted by MAX95RUS
The only difference between 95-96 models and 97-99 is front and rear reinforcements.
In 95-96 models front and rear reinforcements made of aluminum, in 97-99 made of steel.
That is all, nothing else changed. We don’t know what kind of car was involved in the accident with that Maxima. Maybe it was an eighteen-wheeler.......jk
In 95-96 models front and rear reinforcements made of aluminum, in 97-99 made of steel.
That is all, nothing else changed. We don’t know what kind of car was involved in the accident with that Maxima. Maybe it was an eighteen-wheeler.......jk
well, the wheels were different, so was the radio, centerconsole, digital odometer, steeringwheel... etc... I think there were a few more changes. FAQ lists them all.
Also, its not that the 95s are more dangerous but rather they arent as safe.
Originally Posted by kevlo911
Rear bumpers on 1995-96 models allowed more than $2,000 damage in a 5 mph pole impact (left). Bumpers on 1997-99s are much improved. They allowed little damage in the same test (right).
I think some people need to understand that the even though the 95-96 is more suspetible to damage in low speed crashes, the 97-99 are no more safe in a REAL speed crash. Bumpers do pretty much what their name implies, they bump things. The only thing Nissan changed in the 97 was that they added stronger bumper reinforcements so that bumping into an object at low speeds wouldn't cause such big damage. Don't kid yourself into thinking that your 97+ is going to save you any better when the speeds go above 10mph.
With that said, I guess I could care less if my 96 gets more damage hitting a pole because:
1) I have full coverage
2) I pay attention when I drive and I don't bump into things

Dave
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Dave B
I think some people need to understand that the even though the 95-96 is more suspetible to damage in low speed crashes, the 97-99 are no more safe in a REAL speed crash. Bumpers do pretty much what their name implies, they bump things. The only thing Nissan changed in the 97 was that they added stronger bumper reinforcements so that bumping into an object at low speeds wouldn't cause such big damage. Don't kid yourself into thinking that your 97+ is going to save you any better when the speeds go above 10mph.
With that said, I guess I could care less if my 96 gets more damage hitting a pole because:
1) I have full coverage
2) I pay attention when I drive and I don't bump into things
Dave
With that said, I guess I could care less if my 96 gets more damage hitting a pole because:
1) I have full coverage
2) I pay attention when I drive and I don't bump into things

Dave
Very well said!
If I'm not mistaken, there were footwell intrusion problems with the early 4th gens, especially driver side. I don't know what Nissan did, if anything, to fix the problem.
In the accident involving the lawsuit, what was the closing speed of the 2 vehicles? If the closing speed was high enough, it doesn't matter too much what kind of car you're in. I've worked some horrendous ones, and I never saw any one walk away from an accident with closing speeds in the triple digits (some were carried out on stretchers, but they sure didn't walk). Even saw an early 90's model Escort (can we say a Ford name here?) with its engine literally on and around the front seat occupants from a collision with a pole. Estimated speed at point of impact was only 75 mph. 4 died in that one.
Before I bought my first Maxima, I worked a 3 car accident involving a 4th gen. I was honestly impressed with the hit it took, and drove it on to the flat bed. The other 2 were not movable.
What it can really boil down to is speed and angle of impact. Cars generally don't do so well in straight on, high speed impacts.
Dave
In the accident involving the lawsuit, what was the closing speed of the 2 vehicles? If the closing speed was high enough, it doesn't matter too much what kind of car you're in. I've worked some horrendous ones, and I never saw any one walk away from an accident with closing speeds in the triple digits (some were carried out on stretchers, but they sure didn't walk). Even saw an early 90's model Escort (can we say a Ford name here?) with its engine literally on and around the front seat occupants from a collision with a pole. Estimated speed at point of impact was only 75 mph. 4 died in that one.
Before I bought my first Maxima, I worked a 3 car accident involving a 4th gen. I was honestly impressed with the hit it took, and drove it on to the flat bed. The other 2 were not movable.
What it can really boil down to is speed and angle of impact. Cars generally don't do so well in straight on, high speed impacts.
Dave
I was in an accident with a parked car about 2 years ago with the max.... Yeah the cell phone was ringin, it was dark, and yes I was that guy that HAD to answer it RIGHT NOW. Looked down and BOOM!!! Totaled out a 1997 Cutlass Supreme, and the max only had $2900 damage. And most was paint (tri-coat pearl). I hit the car doing like 30-35 mph. So I am not scared. Yes if I was going 70-80 and hit the parked car, It would be different, but tell me a car in the price range of the maxima that wouldn't be in the hurt bag? Don't be scurred 95 owners. And everyone, stay off the phone while driving....It sucks.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Lakersallday24
6th Generation Maxima (2004-2008)
10
Jun 16, 2019 01:35 AM
Slamrod
4th Generation Maxima (1995-1999)
5
Apr 10, 2016 05:24 PM





.
