last night in the pouring rain here in socal i was involved in a car accident with the maxima. driving about 55mph on the freeway, my car suddenly began hydroplaning and abruptly swerved to the left and across the freeway when an oncoming pickup truck hit us from behind. it was a pretty big impact, the entire rear of the maxima is smashed and it's likely it will be totaled. my passengers and i and the driver of the truck are all okay, just a few bumps and bruises. obviously, we all feel we are lucky to be alive.
a few observations of my 2001 maxima in the accident... i was disappointed that the maxima would so easily hydroplane on the wet roads in relatively low speeds and that the airbags did not deploy, given the high level of impact. i've previously driven in a snow storm with an old '88 camry. on the positive side, the tinted windows prevented the glass from shattering all over the place and the solid structure and frame of the maxima most likely helped saved our lives.

well, thanks for reading.. the org has been great in educating me about mods, although i didn't have much. i'm not sure if my next car will be a maxima, i will have to explore my options.

peace... dru

 

woah.. glad everyone is ok...

What kind of tires? Stock Potenza RE-92? If so, it's understandable....

 

Sorry to hear of the accident, I'm glad that everyone is ok. When I first took delivery of my 99SE, I also noticed that the car was very skittish in the wet even at low speed. The Goodyear RS-A tires were just terrible for grip. Even in the dry, ~45 mph panic stops felt like you were braking on ice. After I made the switch to Potenza SO-3s, the handling was much improved and 60 mph on the highway in the wet resulted in no hydroplaning whatsoever.

The Maxima's rear suspension does leave a lot to be desired, around turns with lots of bumps, the car can easily change an entire lane by itself as the front tries to keep up with the rear tracking. Due to it being a beam design. I've seen this happen numerous times, and the speeds were around 35 mph. Around here in Queens/Brooklyn, with lots of turns with bumps/undulations/holes it can be terrifying, as the car does not instill driver confidence in those situations.

 

I don't know...........maybe its just me, but doing 55 sounds to be alil too fast to be going in the pouring rain. I'm glad to hear that everyone's alrite. Hyroplaning is one of the scariest things that can happen to any driver because it can be sudden and all it takes is one wrong turn or brake step to get into a serious accident, especially on a busy hwy.

And if you still have the crappy stock potenza's, its almost a given at those speeds.

 

yeah i know... now that i think more about it i should've driven slower. what would've been the ideal speed? 30mph? 40mph? funny thing was, people were going by driving a lot faster. it's tough man... all i can do now is think "what if" this and that. what's done is done.

 

Blame those crappy Bridgestones...Nissan should wisen up and put some Michelins or something on there. Glad to hear everyone's safe.

 

I dont think u were driving too fast dawg. When I'm on the freeway most cars in the rain are going around 55. Yes there are those going like 50 and some going like 60s, but I think its just your tires.

 

I was involved in an auto accident this past February with my 2000 Max.A person driving an S-10 lost conrtol on an icy bridge. I t-boned him on the passenger side.I was doing i would say 35 to 40 I think.The impact of the accident caused his bed to break off and hit the side of my car.I walked away.I was bruised bad from the seatbelt but hitting the air bag was nothing.That was my second Max now I am on my third.Because I was able to walk away from the accident is the reason I bought another one. Go to my home page and take a look at the car.

 

I second that. Every pair of Michelins that I've ever owned were the best tires in snow rain and dry pavement. Bridgestones have always been the worst for me.

 

i saw the pics of your 2000 maxima, glad to hear you are okay. so was your car ruled totaled? and if so, what were the estimated financial damages u received?

 

Yes they totaled my car. My insurance did me pretty good I guess. I only owed $8000 on it when I wrecked it. They gave me something like $21,500 and they paid taxes on my new car which was about $1,400.

 

The RE-92's suck in the rain. I'd say they're really not safe to be driven in the rain. When I had them on my Max I would be driving white knuckled, barely in control, in pouring rain at 50MPH while people in vans, pickup, and other crappy cars flew by me seemingly unaffected.

I've owned a 91 S-10, a 89 Dodge Omni, and a 95 Lumina LS before the Max and I've never had that experience on the freeway in the pouring with any of them regarless of how fast I went.

I put Toyo Proxes T1s on my car now 245/40/18 and they grip in the rain like no tomorrow. I took the car to over 90MPH (they still hadn't lost traction) in the same intensity rain (same road) that the RE-92's couldn't go 55MPH in.

Sorry to hear about your crash, but it should serve as a warning to others not to keep those tires on the car because they aren't safe.

Stereodude

 

I'm pretty sure that airbags only deploy if you hit something head-on, not if you are hit in the rear. If the airbags did deploy, I'm sure the injuries to the drive and passenger would have been much more severe.

 

Well said. Sorry about your accident, but you can't blame the Max at all. In a rear end impact, the air bags shouldn't, and didn't deploy.

 

My airbags went off and I didn't get hurt from the bags at all. No burns or bruises from the bags. The seatbelt did more damage to me.

 

yeah that's what i had figured also. the thing is, even though the brunt of the impact was from the rear, the front of the car hit the side of the freeway wall as a result (if that makes sense). the hood of the maxima sustained a fair amount of damage, that's why i thought it was a bit odd that the airbags did not deploy.

responding to the other post... no, i'm not blaming the maxima for the accident. it was just one of those unfortunate events where no one is to blame. except of course, stupid *** RAIN.

 

seriously, I suspect your tires almost killed you. I have NEVER driven on tires worse then the RE-92s IMO. Never. I'm actually disappointed that I have not replaced them yet. I should just suck up whatever the cost to get Pilots or the new Kumhos before I kill myself and my family.

The other day we had a decent rain (by no means a down pour). I could only safely manage 45-50. Everytime I hit 55, the car started drifting. That left me in a pretty dangerous 'zone'. I was going too slow for the interstate. Everything was passing me..EVERYTHING. A Geo Metro passed me like I was standing still. Total hoopties were blazing passed me. Now, I've been known to drive pretty ***** out in the rain, but those tires just freak me out. Even with good tread, I think they are totally unsafe

 

Dump those CRAPPY POTENZAs RE92's.....get S-03's or anything else is much safer than RE92's.

I am going to Sell my soon, and get something else. My life is worth more than a couple hundred dollars..

 

That's exactly what I did. I got rid of my Goodyear RS-As and replaced them with SO3s. Massive grip in the dry and wet. No hydroplaning, even at 65+ mph. I can panic stop from 45 mph without the ABS even kicking in much, on the old tires, forget about it, car would slide all over the place.

 

Pilots are not imune to hydroplaning.. They will likely be able to avoid hydroplaning at a higher speed then our bridgestones. The best thing to do in the rain is to just keep it under 50 MPH.

 

OK.... LISTEN TO FACTS, NOT OPINION:

Hydroplaning is only a characteristic of SPEED and TIRE PRESSURE, not the tire design.

Take it from a former highway patrolman. I spent 2.5 hrs of class time learning the charteristics of hydroplaning alone, then another 4 on tires. It comes down to a formula. In plain terms: 9 x the square root of the tire pressure = speed you will hydroplane.

I just got my 2003 about two months ago. The tires came from the dealer inflated to max psi (44 psi), which is good because the #1 cause for tire failure is under-inflation. So using the formula for hydroplaning, it looks like this:

9 x 6.633 (Sq. Rt. of Tire Pressure) = 59.7 MPH (Hydroplane Speed)

Even on under-inflated (32 psi) OEM tires, it looks much worse:

9 x 5.657 (Sq. Rt. of Tire Pressure) = 50.91 MPH (Hydroplane Speed)

Now that you have FACTS, I have a question for you drudawg888, did you receive a traffic citation for failure to yield to conditions?

-Olin

Spread truth, not opinions.

 

When it rains like that I just don't drive the Max, it's too unstable with the stock tires and probably not great with other brands. IMHO, no tires can save (un)common sense! It is in such inclement weather that my 4x4 Trooper with torque-on-demand shines. Just for kicks, check what a real truck can do in serious water!

 

There is something very wrong with your calcuations or you're using a variable that you didn't state in your answer. Or I forgot how to do math. Which one is it?


sq root of 44 = 6.63
sq root of 32 = 5.65

9 x 6.63 (Sq. root of tire pressure) = 59.67 mph

9 x 5.65 (Sq. root of tire pressure) = 50.85 mph

---

Your original squares were based on:

3.53sqaured = 12.46 psi
3.175sqaured = 10.08 psi.

If my calculations are correct.

 

Oops... I think I squared twice, or squared a square. I edited my post with the fix.

 

Its ok, I knew something was very wrong when I saw the hydroplaning speeds in your calculation were so low.

 

umm yeah... i guess i didn't have the time to pull over to check the PSI of all 4 tires and pull out my trusty calculator i have CONVENIENTLY stored in the glove compartment at all times. common sense told me to drive at the most appropriate speed at the time and even if i had driven at 50.91 MPH (9.09 less than the approximate speed) i most likely would've still hydroplaned.

also considering i was already going SLOWER than everyone else on the freeway, i think that the cop was most helpful and understood the situation after speaking with the other truck driver who hit us from the rear. surprisingly, the CURRENT highway patrolman also seemed genuinely concerned for our safety and asked if we were all okay.

and to answer your question, NO i did not receive a traffic citation.

 

I don't think this is true, sorry.. If your calculations where true then the speed of hydroplaning would be the same between a drag radial tire and a all season tire? This is a drastic compaison but I'm willing to bet the drag radial tire would hydroplane long before the all season tire would. I know tire manufactures go through great lengths to enhance the ability of a tire to avoid hydroplaning. I recall reading a article on tirerack.com where the yokohama A520's where tested for it's max speed before hydropalning occured. It was able to go approx. 66 MPH with out hydro. I read reviews of many other tires and the results wehre drasticly differnt. I actually bought A520's and they where incredible in the rain(only lasted 16K though).


You might want to check your facts

 

Heres the "facts"

Taken directly from a tire manufacturer web site.

 

Yeap...With all factors....rain...tire pressure..tread design...the RE-92's still SUCK. I purchased my maxima in november, right in time for rainy season. Holy Sh*t 255hp was not fun. The car was prone to shaking and drifting on the freeway. I did play with the tire pressure. But anyway the rainy season is soon to start, and im rolling on bridgestone So-3. Lets see how these do.

 

True, your right. But at the sametime, if everyone else were flying by going at that same speed and faster in the rain, what's to say that it couldn't have happened to any of them? I was pretty guilty of it 2 weeks ago when it was raining and I flew by one of my co-workers going down a service road. I realized what I did and got a rush out of it, but was later reminded to me by my co-worker in a sarcastic way if he doing 40 was too slow for me to have to fly by him. And mann, it was wet enough on the road to be hydroplaning material. I lucked out this time, but it also got me thinking "what if?" and realized "yes, it was pretty stupid to do"

Anyways, good luck with everthing, and be safe.

 

you certainly have to take water depth and tread into consideration. Usually, water depth is proportional to the condition of the road (dips that will pool water) or areas prone to flood or have standing water.

You do realize if you try to do 30-40 on a Dallas interstate, its likely someone will rear end you. Not keeping pace with traffic is dangerous.. And I think trying to pace traffic with RE92s is just as dangerous. A no-season tire if you will.

One tire that people really rag is the Goodyear HP. However they can pump a ton of water out from under them. For what that tire lacked in dry, it made up for in wet. I loved them just for that piece of mind. The Pilots look like they also can channel out the water.

 

You are correct, there are other major factors in hydroplaning, not just those calculations that he threw out.

This statement is a lot more factual:

"The hydroplane speed is based on a smooth tire riding on a smooth surface ... so tire tread and the road surface will all affect the hydroplane speed. For example, a grooved highway will increase the hydroplane speed because the grooves channel water away from the road. "

He didn't mention that the calculation usually applies only to a smooth tire, not a highly/deeply treaded one which changes the threshold of adhesion.

 

Question drudagw888:

Were you driving on cruise control?

 

First of all I as well as the rest of the members of the org are glad to hear that the both of you are ok minus a few bumps and bruises. This thread about "Thank Maxima" gives me even more incentive and confidence in purchasing another Nissan product (Max, Alti, 350Z, etc.), mainly because you survived such an extreme accident (oncoming pickup @55mph) and because the value of Nissan vehicles (21.5k for a 2001). I cannot think to imagine the same results if it were a Toyota product (particularly 88 camry). If I were you, I would sue the tire manufacture for overstating the performance of that particular tire and the manufacture of that airbag for not deploying. Although the tire manu may point out that due to the rainy conditions (in Socal) and the amount of speed (55mph) you may have been to blame. I used to live in Socal; you rarely see rain there and when it does rain you better be very careful be cause the roads are very slick and people forget how to drive. Again it sure is nice to see that Nissan got you out of this accident alive. I thank Nissan everyday for the fact that they engineer some very safe vehicles; my Nissan sentra was in a head on collision at around 35mph, where everyone involved survived.

What do you have in mind for your next vehicle, Volvo, Toyota, BMW?

 

thanks for all the well wishes, guys. it makes it easier to dismiss idiotic comments like "were you driving in cruise control."

the best thing now is i have learned from this and whatever my next car may be, i will extra careful especially in harsh weather conditions. if one of my buddies in the car were seriously hurt or even killed, i would obviously feel a lot worse.

for my next car... i want something a lot smaller and with better handling, perhaps with better mileage. any suggestions? a car where i don't feel like i'm driving a "boat." lol.

 

Check out the WRX if you’re looking for smaller, better handling, better gas mileage (AWD). The new 6 (Mazda) is out as well (drop dead gorgeous from the front), that might be worth a try (cheaper than alti, accord, camry and probably better handling that the accord or camry). If price isn't a problem BMW 330 might be your fix or Volvo S60 in terms of safety. Although I have never driven the 330, there are drivers that literally swear by it. In terms of handling I came from a 5 series, dropped, and nothing else. It handled ??x better than the Max but the Max has it beat in off the line acceleration, BMW seem to have a better high end as well but lets not go there. If you want style, price and the hoes get the G35c. If you’re a family man get the G35 Sedan; it beat out the 330 in everything except prestige and resale value (various mags)however, resale value for the G35 is still out to lunch.

Bottom line: Get what keeps you safe and looks/performs as well, there that will make it easy for you !

 

and whatever you get, upgrade the stock tires!

if you think the re92s suck in the rain, you shoulda driven with me the first year i had my max living thru a winter in montana... where they don't plow roads except highways. not exactly a snow tire!

good luck shopping! are you sure you need 4 doors.... the 350z has a much better rear suspension...

 

live long...and prosper

 

From protege, wrx to any bimmer.
Good luck shopping!!

 

got a question hopefully u guys who have been in accidents before can answer: if my car ends up being totaled by the insurance company, how much can i expect to get? is it based on the estimated market value (mods and accessories included?) of the car or is it all subjective from the insurance's perspective?

i have (or should i say HAD) a 2K1 maxima GXE with about 24K miles, plus a few mods/accessories such as FSTB, chrome wheels, CD changer, etc etc.

thanks... dru.