JLauric

I've been a collector of Road and Track magazines for the past three years of which I have kept every issue. If you were to pick up a Road and Track magazine now, and look at the back pages of any given issue, you would find a Track summary of which every manufacturers car is listed with their performance numbers. I am a bit disappointed, because if you were to look up 2000 Maxima SE, you will find a 0-60 time of 7.8 seconds. This disappoints me because it is the auto tranny's time, and not the 5spd. They tested the car on two occasions, in the May 2000 issue for the auto, and in the June 1999 issue for the 5spd, and yet the only time they display in the road summaries is the one for the auto. The test results for the 5spd were 7.0 sec. Why does this bother me so much?? Because for anybody looking at these numbers who really does not know what the maxima can dish up, these numbers are very misleading considering that most of the other car's best times tend to reflect manual transmissions. I feel that the manual times should also be posted as Road and Track is not giving the car the justification that it has earned in the June 1999 road test and ultimately is misrepresenting the car's potential performance. When one is looking at these numbers, they might look at a subaru wrx, see 5.7 for the manual, and then look at the maxima, see 7.8 (not knowing it was for the auto unless they read that article), and say damn, that car is slow. The bottom line is I think they should show both numbers for the car, as for all of the other cars they tend to display the numbers for the performance model of the model name(ex. no gxe maxima is listed only the SE, integra gsr with 5spd, no normal integras, and the same applies to other manuf.). I just think credit should be given where credit is deserved. What does everyone else think??

Maximam

That is ok that the numbers show auto cause then you can beat the unsuspecting challenger. That GSR will think he has you till you walk his a*s. He will be left there thinking "I thought those Maximas where slow???" you will be laughing your a*s off.

Mark

Max_Gator

I thought MT had tested the 2k 5spd at 6.7? Isn't that what Nissan quotes as the source for that claim?

annimax

Great Point!

Amazing2

Well if you look closely you will see that besides the SE, there is the number 1. If you go to the bottom of the page, it states that 1 is for the auto transmission. BUT I agree with you, they should have the two reviews.

2Maxed-out4u

i'd like to add something about auto.

With the TCM/solenoid fix, plus torque breaking, plus manually shifting it at 6600 rpms will produce a better time than 7.8 I'm confident the aut can get a 7.3 applying the methods used above. The lag alone with that engine slip can kill you time as it did on my to a 1/2 second slower.

jbgoodmax

I have seen tests of the Max 5th gen, auto with 0-60 ranging from 7.11 7.3 ... and the 5sp was closer to 6.3 don't hold me to that one.

But I can dig up the article/link.

The 0-60 times on the Max have a wide range from mags, but it seems that people who drive them are "racing"/flexing against cars with much better mag test times. I had spent a lot of time investigating this issue, well long story.

Later,

john

jbgoodmax

I found the link:

www.theautochannel.com
(Search for article: The 2000 Nissan Maxima, An all new Maximum Effort.
by Larry Weitzman)

But here's a piece of the article that was pretty interesting.

As before, shift points are right at the redline in first and second gear. The 5 speed is definitely faster than the four speed auto. Both transmissions are silky smooth to use, but I thought the clutch on the 5 speed engaged a little to quickly and had too much dead pedal.

Full throttle acceleration turns the sedate sedan into a rocket sled without rails (unless your in a corner and then it feels as if it is on rails). The engine acts like its on full AB (afterburner or "reheat" if your English). The SE manual just plain scats from 0-60 in less than seven seconds with an average of 6.84 with two runs at 6.63 and 6.68 seconds and all but one of the eight runs were over seven seconds (7.11). The Millennium Falcon beware. This is an improvement of .66 seconds over the previous generation with a 5 speed manual. There is no substitute for horsepower.

Even the automatic, top of the line, GLE with a standard automatic averaged 7.54 seconds with two runs at 7.15 and 7.17 seconds. Were not done yet. In passing tests from 50-70 mph, the SE 5 speed averaged 3.97 seconds using second and third gears. Using third gear only lengthened that time to only 4.6 seconds. Up hill will slow that time to 5.15 seconds using gears two and three and 7.3 seconds using third gear only. Both these times are an improvement of about one second over the previous model test (a 1999 5 speed SE).

Even the automatic was slightly quicker passing that the previous 5 speed. 50-70 averaged 4.5 seconds and up hill slowed that time to an average of 6.26. Both times were marginally quicker than the previous generation.

later,

jbgoodmax

nc00max

I'd have to agree that some of the times reported are kinda high, for the autos in particular. 7.7, 7.8, maybe, but judging from some of the cars myself and other autos have raced, I think mid-7's and some low-7's are highly possible. An Accord V6 for example, has most of it's 0-60's at around 7.7, same as they're supposed to be for a Maxima. But the two I've raced from a dead start, I've pulled at least 1-2 carlengths on them up to about 70 or 80 (same road, actually). That would kind of lead me to believe that my car is definitely faster than a 7.7 0-60. In any case, with a few mods, an auto can easily get into the low 7's (my goal-7.0) and be beating a lot of 5spds. just from lack of driver skill. Don't get me wrong, I wish I had a 5spd, but my automagic is by no means slow...