I have raced this freind of mine many times before. Always the same results. I am auto, he is stick. 0-60 he has me by half a car, after 60, he's already in third and i am shifting from 2nd to 3rd, he pulls hard. we shut it down at 90ish. I want an M sooo bad.

 

My friend's IS300 gets pulled on by me all day and im auto. Hey looks like you are in my area too man.

 

Remove the water bottle from under your accelerator.

 

You need a 3.5!

 

good one man!

 

ya I was gonna say with the 3.5 you shoulda walked all over him... but I guess thats not too likely with the ol 3.0 Still though, I love those Lexi. Very sharp looking car and its a Lexus so you know its built real good.

 

By M you mean Manual, right?

 

what mods are you running??

 

man you 5th Gen's get whooped by even 4th Gen's all damn day.. probably get whooped by 3rd Gen VE's too.. you guys are like the ugly step children of the maxima world .. fat and slow

 

trying to stir up things here?

 

LOL go back and play with the little boys sprint this is grown man business....

 

 

I just think he likes to post *****...
Look at how many post he has...
Get a life man...
haha

 

any day you want to run for some real money.. come talk to me.. otherwise shut the fck up

 

it would be funny if i was lying or starting **** .. but lets face it.. the 00 - 01 Maxima's are the slowest maxima's since 95 .. and even 93 - 94 VE's can beat them..

facts are facts are facts

 

agreed again but us 5.5 gen guys aren't slow

 

does a big mac have special sauce?

i already knew that

but the car in question was a 00 - 01.. so my comments were to that

 

I will admit that my car is the red headed step child in the VQ series. I used to own an 89' SE 5SPD. I think it was faster. It definitly handled better. This will be my last Nissan purchase. I really wish my 89' was still in the running. BTW, both cars have only drop in K&N's. I took off my PR CAI due to a failed MAF. Other than that both cars are stock. This guys dad has a 95' SE Auto w/ a pop charger and even he can beat me. Not quite as bad though. I hat getting beat. I should trade my wife for her 2000 Civic SI. With a few Jackson racing hop-ups I could hang with my buddys IS. HMMMM?...

 

Drag Turbo Kit on a Civic SI ... wooah.. 240 fwhp @ 8 PSI

don't go SC when you have an Turbo Option

 

especially not jackson racing weak sauce...

 

My only obstacle is getting her convinced, as this will only benefit me. Sounds like a GREAT! plan to me though.

 

 

.....

 

...

 

I just can't believe 1" in wheel diameter hurts the power that much. If so pass me some 16's

 

.......

 

The 1" is not what hurts. It's the extra weight also. 42lb 16" combo vs 50lb 17" combo. The 00-01 guys with 16" alloys or 15" steelies have all been able to put down very respectable times. It's a helluva lot harder with the 17's though because they bog so much at lower speeds. Tougher to get those suckers moving and the 3.0 doesn't have the torque. You 3.5 guys don't need to worry about that, though.

That's why a lighter wheel/tire combo is a great upgrade for the 00-01 guys. Replace heavy OEM 17" package with lightweight aftermarket 17" package.

 

tell her its an intake i don't see why it wouldn't work.. most Civic owners think their intakes are turbo's you are only going the other direction..

tell her its an intake that increases gas mileage just buy a Boost Controller and turn the boost down as much as possible when she drives it

 

ahhh torque is nice

 

Nauman -> <- Steve

 

actually, if you think about it... the rotational inertia, I, of a wheel is proportional to the mass multiplied by the radius squared... the radius has more effect on increasing the rotational inertia than the mass does. The more mass further away from the axis of rotation, the greater the rotational inertia... the harder it is to spin up the wheel

 

i want that comparision revamped with MEVI's because about 10% of our 4th Gen Population has them

 

ok i am out of this thread.. the engineers are going at it

 

Yes...

I = mr^2

I = inertia
m = mass
r = radius

Mass is the total weight of your wheel/tire combo. Radius is the center of mass of the weight from the axis of the wheel. You can roughly approximate that as your rim radius.

For 16" OEM: I = (42)x(16/2)^2 = 2688
For 17" OEM: I = (50)x(17/2)^2 = 3612

To get the inertial resistance of a 17" wheel/tire package as low as the 16" OEMs, you can solve backwards and come out to....

17" aftermarket: m = I/(r^2) = 2688/ [(17/2)^2]
m = 37.2 lb

So if you have the OEM 17's, you need to drop 12-13 lb per corner to be on the same playing field as guys with the OEM 16" combo while still keeping a 17" package.

 

GEEKS

 

I reality tho, it is more complicated... you need to take the surface integral of the wheel along the radius and integrate all the mass... it really depends on how the mass is distributed on the wheel and how much there is in certain places... if you have two wheels with equal mass, one with fat spokes in the middle near the axis of rotation versus a wheel with almost all mass on the outside, the fat spoked wheel is easier to spin since it has smaller I... but for approximation, the MR^2 should be ok

 

 

Funny since the 5 (and 1/2) generation 02/03 Max is the fastest Maxima's Nissan has ever had. Autos can take 4th gen manuals.
Nice try though.
Here's something you can moderate...your postings. Or maybe it's time for another recall election!!

 

please try to read the whole thread before you make an as$ of yourself..

i already stated that

 

So you did? Maybe you should of stated that in the original post, before you made an a$$ of yourself!!