Quote:
The rims, the bumpers are probably a little lighter, and less emission crap...Originally Posted by sk24iam
ok. So what is it on the 95/96 that is lighter?
Newbie - Just Registered
Quote:
definitely the leather pkg., wheels, and possiblly the wood trim is adding weight as well. my 97 GXE weighs in right at 3,000 lbs stock and is the lightest stock trim.Originally Posted by sk24iam
What makes my gle so much heavier than the other trims?
Quote:
The "wood" trim is just plastic, it weighs the same as the others.Originally Posted by Maxima97_MD
definitely the leather pkg., wheels, and possiblly the wood trim is adding weight as well. my 97 GXE weighs in right at 3,000 lbs stock and is the lightest stock trim.
Also, the 95/96 cars do not weigh significantly less than the later cars. The difference is less than 100lbs.
Quote:
Yep. My 96 SE with a moonroof, power seat, 35lbs of SFCs, 30lbs of tools and work related gear, spare/jack, 1/2 tank of gas, and my 190lb weighed in a 3220lbs on a truck scale. Originally Posted by Big D
It's actually only a 5-10lb difference if that.
Dave
The only difference is the bumpers and the reinforcements behind the bumpers. 95-96 Maximas are about as safe as a shopping cart going 60mph down the highway.
Quote:
That's a good thing to know Originally Posted by Big D
The only difference is the bumpers and the reinforcements behind the bumpers. 95-96 Maximas are about as safe as a shopping cart going 60mph down the highway.
Quote:
http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle%5Fr...html/95012.htmOriginally Posted by JaTaN
That's a good thing to know
Quote:
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has evaluated the crashworthiness of the Maxima in a 40 mph frontal offset crash test into a deformable barrier. Head restraint and bumper designs are evaluated separately.
OVERALL EVALUATION: POOR Despite acceptable structural performance in the frontal offset crash test, there were major problems including footwell intrusion and significant forward movement of the seat because of track failure. In addition, this is one of the few cars the Institute tested with poor injury measures on both lower legs.
STRUCTURE/SAFETY CAGE: ACCEPTABLE The occupant compartment sustained moderate deformation in the offset test. The width of the driver door opening was shortened about 3 inches. All doors remained closed during the crash. The driver door required tools to open afterward, but other doors opened normally. Measured intrusion in the driver footwell area: 8.5 to 11 inches. Rearward movement of the instrument panel: 1 to 3 inches.
RESTRAINTS/DUMMY KINEMATICS: POOR In the offset test, the driver airbag deployed and was fully inflated before the dummy's face contacted it. About 4 inches of shoulder belt webbing were pulled through the D-ring near the upper anchorage. The driver seat came loose on its tracks and moved forward 8.5 inches on the right side, where the safety belt is anchored, and 3 inches on the left side. Both legs jammed against the instrument panel. The right knee hit the ignition key, producing a gash in the vinyl "skin" of the dummy at its knee.
INJURY MEASURES: POOR FOR BOTH LEGS/FEET AND MARGINAL FOR THE HEAD Neck and chest injury measures in the offset test were lower than published thresholds indicating that, in this test, likelihood of significant injury to these body regions was low. However, about 100 milliseconds into the crash the dummy's head experienced about 80 gs for 3 milliseconds -- indicative of possible head injury. The dummy's head appeared to "bottom out" the airbag when this occurred. Tibia indices and lower tibia bending moments indicated high risk of injury not only to the weaker ankles/feet but also to the large bones in both lower legs. Peak bending moments on both lower tibias were about 3 times the forces that have been related to ankle injury.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has evaluated the crashworthiness of the Maxima in a 40 mph frontal offset crash test into a deformable barrier. Head restraint and bumper designs are evaluated separately.
OVERALL EVALUATION: POOR Despite acceptable structural performance in the frontal offset crash test, there were major problems including footwell intrusion and significant forward movement of the seat because of track failure. In addition, this is one of the few cars the Institute tested with poor injury measures on both lower legs.
STRUCTURE/SAFETY CAGE: ACCEPTABLE The occupant compartment sustained moderate deformation in the offset test. The width of the driver door opening was shortened about 3 inches. All doors remained closed during the crash. The driver door required tools to open afterward, but other doors opened normally. Measured intrusion in the driver footwell area: 8.5 to 11 inches. Rearward movement of the instrument panel: 1 to 3 inches.
RESTRAINTS/DUMMY KINEMATICS: POOR In the offset test, the driver airbag deployed and was fully inflated before the dummy's face contacted it. About 4 inches of shoulder belt webbing were pulled through the D-ring near the upper anchorage. The driver seat came loose on its tracks and moved forward 8.5 inches on the right side, where the safety belt is anchored, and 3 inches on the left side. Both legs jammed against the instrument panel. The right knee hit the ignition key, producing a gash in the vinyl "skin" of the dummy at its knee.
INJURY MEASURES: POOR FOR BOTH LEGS/FEET AND MARGINAL FOR THE HEAD Neck and chest injury measures in the offset test were lower than published thresholds indicating that, in this test, likelihood of significant injury to these body regions was low. However, about 100 milliseconds into the crash the dummy's head experienced about 80 gs for 3 milliseconds -- indicative of possible head injury. The dummy's head appeared to "bottom out" the airbag when this occurred. Tibia indices and lower tibia bending moments indicated high risk of injury not only to the weaker ankles/feet but also to the large bones in both lower legs. Peak bending moments on both lower tibias were about 3 times the forces that have been related to ankle injury.
Just my luck that MY car sucks for a tall guy like me. Well no biggie, doing a full front 97+ conversion in the spring so that SHOULD help a bit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big D
Just my luck that MY car sucks for a tall guy like me. Well no biggie, doing a full front 97+ conversion in the spring so that SHOULD help a bit.
Changing the outer bumper cover and grill wont help at all. The 97-99 cars have reinforced seat mounts and bumper mounting areas.
Quote:
It's also the metal reinforcement, the metal beam, behind the bumper that was changed.Originally Posted by mzmtg
Changing the outer bumper cover and grill wont help at all. The 97-99 cars have reinforced seat mounts and bumper mounting areas.
I have a 1995 SE - bone stock (last year) with stock rims and tires (options: leather, BOSE, sunroof)... the ONLY option it does not have is the leather package which means I don't have heated seats, heated mirrors, mudguards.
In that form, my car weighed in at 3040 lbs (with an almost empty gas tank and no passengers or heavy goods in the car).
In that form, my car weighed in at 3040 lbs (with an almost empty gas tank and no passengers or heavy goods in the car).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big D
95-96 Maximas are about as safe as a shopping cart going 60mph down the highway.
thats the funniest thing I read all day.
Quote:
I think that has the gross weight... not sure about net weight.Originally Posted by sk24iam
Id the white nissan sticker than on the inside of the driver door opening have the weight of the car on it?
Quote:
It would probably be funnier if it wasn't true. Maybe not.Originally Posted by Wisky97SE
thats the funniest thing I read all day.