Hey everyone,
I know that the performance numbers for the Maxima are out there, but they are usually a new car, etc. So what I am asking is does anyone the actual specs of their car today, after twelve or so years and usually 100,000 or more miles. I guess I mean 0-60 time, 1/4 mile time and speed, and top speed. Any feedback?

Thanks,
Zack

 

Theres a lot of different factors, depends on the application really.

 

Take it to a drag strip and find out? It REALLY depends on how well the car has been maintained all those years.

 

I should have added that I was thinking of a bone stock car. Mine will soon have a budget Y pipe, but that's it.


Zack

 

totaly stock our cars put out 190 BHP, I'm sure that millage, breaking in of bearings (some pre-ware (due to poor factory shimming) on some (trans - especially the 5spd), crank, cam) .... gotta take all that into consideration, plus exahust (i.e. cat) too. Depends on how the car was driven for the 100k miles.

In a word ... only way to really tell is to Dyno it. I understand why you're asking, but this shoulda been posted in the "all motor" forum IMO.

 

JTZMAX so takng all those things into consideration what happens ? finish the sentence plzz

 

Taking all those things into consideration, you just plain can't put a number on it.

 

Right! .... that's what I meant (can't really finish the sentence)


pmohr for President 08' .....

 

Well when I get my 96 back on the road, I will see about a dyno? At the moment it is down for the count. It needs a new exhaust, struts, radiator, and rear brakes. I have only driven it to attempt to get the CEL to reset. I figure that the rear rotors are done anyway, so who cares if they grind a bit. And it will need new calipers as well back there.



Zack

 

 

This is actually a good point. And as commented before by others its not a simple question to answer. They're many variables that go into place.
How the person treated it, did they keep up with the car through the years. What type of driving the car did through out its life even the region where the car was driven can be a factor.
While these factors can seem endless I think EVERYONE should consider the condition of the car BEFORE they begin modifications. Or perhaps give the car a good tune up and asses the cars abilities at that point.

 

 

 

you'd have to really beat on a VQ or any other modern engine to appreciably weaken it's power output. my beater holds the record for stock 1/4 mile time and speed for 4th gens and it's got somewhere in the neighborhood of 215k miles on it (estimation, the odometer only works sometimes, and it currently reads 208k).

 

Your stock 95 GXE ran a 14.2@95? How big was the hill?

 

The VQ is like a fine scotch aging in a barrel. The longer the age, the better it gets.

S

 

wtf 14.2? it was maybe 1/8 mile haha kidding sry..

 

Well put!

 

Yep Neal has the record, hes also one hell of a driver too!! I think the reason why we dont see many 14 second 4th gen 5spds stock is a lot of the drivers here suck and are scared to push the car to its limits. Thats my guess.

 

Yeah but a 14.2?

 

I've heard of a factory freak, but this sounds like a factory SWAP LOL

 

pretty huge, like at least mt. McKinley sized.

I may have jinxed myself - I got out of my running car this morning to scrape the frost off my windows, got back in and the oil pressure light is on. Immediately shut it off and check underneath and there's a little puddle of oil underneath it. ****... it's 15* out right now so I haven't tried to diagnose the problem yet.

 

ahhh mate, I'm sorry for ya. That sucks hard. Have you checked the coolant, all there? Did you do a temp test on the cooling system (prior to winter)? I hope it's something simple like oil pan gasket, or a loose oil filter - but do let us know.

Hey, it's not from running a 14.2 quarter now is it? lol

 

i don't know what was going on with it, but it appears to be fine now. i have no explanation for what was going on and i think that puddle I was seeing was water dripping. oil level is fine and the oil light is not coming on anymore. I drove the car around and all appears good, knock on wood. strange indeed.

 

I have a 98 SE with 190k miles. It has only a wspd y pipe. No other power-affecting mods.

It dynoed at 159hp 169tq at the wheels this past summer in 90 degree heat on 87 pump gas. Which at about 20% frictional loss puts you right on the 190hp factory spec for flywheel HP numbers. IMHO, respectable for a car with this many miles running 87.

I have an image of the dyno graph but IDK how to post it...

 

And why are you running 87?

 

...I'm running 87 'cause 87 is about 30c a gallon cheaper than 93 and my butt dyno says "no diff".

I wasn't sure how much the octane mattered (because the ECU should adjust engine timing and fuel to accommodate the lower octane -- within reason), so to check it out, I gathered a bunch of mpg data for my car over about 10,000 miles on roughly the same driving loop (back and forth to work) with the first half of the miles on 93 and the second half on 87 -- all Sunoco fuel. Then I did a student's t-test on the mpg data to see whether the mpg averages were statistically different with a change in the octane. Oh BTW, I F-L-O-G the car. No mercy here.

After all that measuring, I found no statistically significant difference in the average mpg over that time -- I ran right about 20mpg +/-1mpg no matter what the octane. You get some differences from weather, traffic, etc., but the numbers say any differences are not attributable to the octane.

I didn't do a linear regression to find all the variability (t-test is kind of primitive) but I could have I guess. I also didn't check actual differences in performance (like 0-60 or dyno hp or stuff like that), but my butt dyno didn't detect much and the car's not pinging or anything.

BTW, it is only a single data point, but the car did dyno at 159rwhp and 169tq on a 90 degree day last summer. So it ain't far off the 190hp factory spec when one considers a 20% frictional loss typical between the flywheel and the wheels. I'd bet it would be a little better on 93, but I'm not willing to pay for that difference. That's just me.

It is my personal experience, but I've noticed no discernable reduction in drivability with the lower octane in more than 150k miles. As for the savings, Over those miles, the difference in cost translates to about $2200 in savings at roughly .30c diff/gal.

For $2200, I can live with a small reduction in performance.

YMMV of course

 

Weird... I keep hearing (and reading here on the org) that 87 is bad for our cars...

 

An interesting observation but I'm not taking a position on whether octane is good or bad for the car. I'm just saying that according to what I've actually observed, octane doesn't cause a statistical difference in my MPG.

Whether lower octane has any adverse affect on the engine, I can't say. I haven't tested for that. You'd need a fleet of cars running over several years, with a control group running 93, and then a variable group with 87, to even begin to test the influence of octane on engine longevity, and even then there are all kinds of other factors that would influence the outcome so I'm not sure that even then you'd be able to say for sure.

I think that anyone asserting a definitive connection between octane and engine longevity is speculating at best, recounting tenuously attributed anecdotal events at worst, and should be taken with a grain of salt. It may all be true, but I'd love to see the data supporting any such assertion and understand how that translates to the rest of the population.

I think there are more important factors influencing engine longevity; like how often you change your oil or under what conditions do you drive the car. Octane might be part of it, but I don't think it is a large influence in a properly running and maintained engine...

 

Real world performance is that it will outlast most other cars. I would put it against any other car in the world.

Talk about low maintenance. It may not beat many of the newer cars but they don't get our gas mileage.

 

I haven't put anything other than 87 in my beater 95 max in over 2 years. I ran my best 1/4 mile times with it. there's no difference in my experience in either power production or gas mileage.

 

I wonder WTF kind of Maxima you have that dynoed 159hp at the rear wheels, and also if I may buy it off you.

Also, drivetrain loss is generally in the 15% range for manuals, closer to 20% for automatics.

 

ive always ran 93, hmmm maybe ill try 87 :X

 

See the thing I don't get though is 1/2 the times I've driven a 4th gen on a 90* day with 87 I've gotten a KS ghost code, which causes alot of ignition retard under light load conditions. In fact (especially in the a/t's) after resetting that ghost code and driving, upon first "pulling out" I could hear it ping very breifly and than immediatly notice a loss of driveability. In fact honest to god I can hop in a a/t 4th gen in the summer time and instantly tell if the person runs 87 or has a bad knocksensor.

IIRC when nealoc ran those et's he wasn't sure if he had a bad knock sensor or not, and it has since been changed out I beleive. But regardless, 1/4 mile and dyno results do NOT translate to performance in everyday driving conditions under partial throttle. This is where most of the timing is lost when you have a KS ghost code pop up.

Funny thing is a weak ago I had a huge argument with this mechanic at a gas station, while he was pumping my buddies gas I somehow managed to get into a conversation with him regarding octane vs performance, and I couldn't manage to convince him that Higher octane = less prone to detonation, as well as LESS BTU's of energy available. Meaning, assuming the same conditions 87 > 93 in the performance department, Except in a maxima under certain conditions, this isn't always the case with the maxima. In order to make more power on higher octane, you have to take advantage of that higher octane, nissan sorta did this through the ignition timing on your car in a way. If you run 87 aren't getting a ks ghost code, keep doing it, you'll see more "performance" (whatever that is, see above), it's minimul, but nonetheless......

Now that the 87 performance discusion is over, end of damn thread, there's enough about the 87 octane and knock sensor threads, and 1/2 of it spreads misunderstanding and confusion that I see way to much of, people with friggin 1k posts still thinking it comes on from there evap leak etc, lol.


Performance @ 100K : assuming it's up to par, and with the reliability of the VQ, it's usually = or > new.

 

Oh noes this is turning into a what kind of gas is better thread.

I ran a 14.9 in my auto max with about 120xxx miles(rough estimate I'm pretty sure it was more) on my car and dynoed at 170hp. So I believe it depends on how well the maintenance is kept up with on the car.

 

Heh heh *F*whp, of course.

 

 

were you being pushed by a bugatti? 14.2 stock? did you remove everything except the engine and wheels?

 

Wait until you guys hear about the 11 second maxima.

 

How funny Morpheus .... weren't the older Max's RWD? Like 1st / 2nd gen????