Hi,
Anyone know what the top speed is for the '02 6-speed? I asked my dealer, but he had no idea. My guess is 145.
Thanks, AL
2002 SE 6speed Mystic Silver (coming soon)

 

about 50 ft behind me

 

oh FYI.. lots of people hit 145 with bonestock 190 hp 5 gears 4th Gen Maxima..

so i am guessing the 02 would be 155 - 160.. if anyone is crazy enough

 

The aerodynamic calculations show 155 (based on the fact the 2001 went 143). This of course assumes Nissan didn't limit them to the speed rating of the tires (149).

Stereodude

 

so the 95 - 99 have a higher top speed than 00 - 01? wow

 

5th gen has lower top speed then 4th gens?

Didnt thomas hit 151 or 152 in his 4th gen? I know he has it on MPEG too.

 

yup.. i thought it was 150 ... NO NOS

http://racevideos.faction-zero.net/s.../topspeed.mpeg

 

Not necessarily. The top speed of the 02 that I computed assumes that 143 was the top speed of the 01. If the 01 really went faster than the 143 then the 02 should be higher than 155. The only data I could seem to find was that it went 143 so that's what I used.

Stereodude

 

Motor trend tested the 95 5spd SE max, it went 142 MPH, I have the article.


Road and Track tested a 2000 5spd SE max, it went 143 MPH.


I am sure there are minor variations of topspeed on each car depending on each particular car and climate.

 

Russ in his 2k1 5sp went over 145mph
i think his fastest was like 148mph or 147 not sure
but he said he could go on...it still had some

 

I can't stress this enough, you cannot go by what the speedometer says. ALL speedometers are off the faster you go. The only way to get top speed is to use a radar gun and get the top speeds in both directions on the same rode. This is how the magazines do it. And don't bring up the "magizines don't know how to drive" argument. It takes no skill to top out a car...just *****. It takes a lot of hp/tq to go 155mph. I don't think the 2002 Maxima has this kind of power. For example, the 4th gen F-Body LT1 with a 6 speed can go 152-154mph (drag limited). The F-Body has a slightly better CD than the Maxima, only weighs 120 lbs more than the Maxima, puts down 260rwhp and 300rwtq, and has perfect highway gears. I have a very hard time believing a Maxima with much lower power and a worse CD would surpass a LT1 in the topend. I would bet the 2002 6 speed Maxima is good for about 145-147mph. The 4th gen was good for 140-142 and the 2000-2001 was good for 143-144mph. It takes a lot of power to an extra 2mph in the topend.


Dave

 

so only a radar laser gun could test top speed?
Is there something else?

 

Whats the CD of the F-Body? The max has a pretty good .31 CD. I think the 2002 max is good for atleast 149 MPH, it just feels so much more powerful then my 95 did and it could go 142{STOCK}.

 

GPS. Some handheld GPS units will record your speed. They are very accurate. They will tell you the true speed of the vehicle.

Stereodude

 

Just ignore him. He doesn't know what he's talking about. Later tonight, or sometime tomorrow I'll post the detailed mathematical formulas and all the goodies to compute the top speed to be 155MPH. With 33 extra HP on tap the car have enough HP to gain about 12MPH of top end.

Stereodude

 

 

What kind of instrument is that?

 

153 too, no nos. Only intake and y-pipe.

 

thas not 153 on the speedo.. thats 153 with an accurate instrument.. the speedo is way off..

Greg thats the Rev Speed Meter from apexi http://www.apexi-usa.com

 

Even though that is true that speedo's are off, in most cases it's only off by 1-3 mph. And my 2001 tach was just about at redline in 5th and my speedo read 144. So it's not far off at all. And yes I am crazy.

 

What do you think the speedo would read at a true 153mph?

 

And I'm sure most of us don't want to see a radar gun when we're going 140+

 

Yeah, pay no attention me because I'm clueless. I get in the habit of making stuff up. An F-Body with a .31 CD, more 60hp and 80ft/lbs torque over the Maxima, lower center of gravity, awesome highway gears, and has honestly been tested by numerous magazines to 152-154mph is slightly slower than a 255hp Maxima. Tell me how in the HELL an increase of 33hp and 30ft/lbs of torque is going to add 12 mphs (155mph) in the topend???!!! Do you have any idea how much power it takes to overcome wind drag? Go ahead and punch in some numbers on your computer and bring up your theoretical topspeeds. I would bet every car you bring up will have far higher topspeeds than what have been truely tested in the field. By your rational, if Nissan added another 33hp and 30ft/lbs of torque, the Maxima could go 167mph? If they added another round of power (bringing the Maxima to 321hp/312tq) the Max could go 179mph and outrun a 350hp/350tq 2002 C5 with a far better CD? Does this make sense to you?



Dave

 

Actually, this does make a lot of sense. People don't realize how much power it takes to gain even 1 MPH in the top end. I have spent years as a Mustang/Camaro fan and now have a Maxima because I have a family. These numbers are pretty close to what I have seen for stock F bodies with 300+ horsepower. It's fun to belive the car you own can actually reach these theoretical speeds but there are many other forces a car has to overcome. It's more than a simple gearing/RPM calculation.

 

Yeah 33HP like I said.

Since you just don't seem to get it, here is the proof. And don't try to tell me the numbers are wrong since they are based from real world measurements.

Power (Kw) = rolling resistance + V^3 Cd A / 76716

So the top speed of the vehicle is reached when Power (HP or kW) equals the rolling resistance + the velocity^3 times the CD times the frontal area divided by a unit correction factor.

To derive these numbers we will assume the 2001 Maxima goes 143MPH and has 222HP at the crank and suffers from a 18% loss in the manual tranny (per dyno numbers). We know the 2001 and 2002 Maxima have a Cd of .31. We assume a reasonable rolling resistance of 6kW. We can compute the frontal area of the 2001 and 2002 Maxima now.

222HP x .82 x .7457kW = 135.7472kW to the wheels. Convert 143MPH to KM/hr (230.1366km/hr) and you're ready to go.

135.7472kW = 6kW + ((230.1366^3 * .31 * A) / 76716)

Solve this and find the frontal area (A) of a Maxima to be 2.6343m^2.

Now, the 2002 has a 255HP and we'll guess it has 15% tranny loss. This gives us 161.63kW at the wheels. Plug in and solve.

161.63kW = 6kW + ((V^3 * .31 * 2.6343) / 76716)

Lo and behold V = 247.624771KM/hr or 154MPH.

Check the math if you don't believe me.

Who cares if that's faster than a LT1 powered F-body with more power. We're not talking about a LT1 powered F-body we're talking about a Maxima. A Nissan Maxima is not a f-body. What applies to a F-body does not apply exactly to a Nissan Maxima. Is this making any sense to you? A Honda CRX with way less power than the Max can almost go 145. It has a higher Cd of .32. The Max has more power and a lower Cd. According to you the Max should go alot faster because it has more power and a lower Cd. No, because it's not the same car. (and don't try to tell me it's because the CRX is lighter because that doesn't affect top speed)

Dave B, put up or shut up. You don't have any solid evidence that can suggest the 2002 Max can't do 154 other than your gut feeling. I trust physics a lot more than your gut feelings. If you can come up with something more than your gut feeling get back to me.

Stereodude

 

Oh you mean like the detailed computations I just posted? For what it's worth the redline occurs in 5th at about 156-157 so the gearing shouln't limit the car much if any. Looks like Nissan did a good job matching the engine and the tranny.

Stereodude

 

Although the 2002 maxima only has 33 more HP then the 2001 there is much more to it then that. The 2001 maxima does not reach it's peak HP until redline, so at 143{about 5900 RPM} MPH the 2001 maxima may only be making about 200 HP. At 150 MPH the 6spd max is almost in the heart of it's power range{255 HP}. Know what I mean?


I am going on a limb here but 6th gear may be the best gear for the max to reach 155 MPH. In 6th gear at 155 MPH RPM's would be at 5400{basicly peak power range}. In 5th gear at 155 the RPM's would be at about 6500{out of peak power range}. I don't know which gear would be better? Hmm

 

Another intersting point to bring up is that a 1996 Volvo 850 R wagon has a top speed of 152 MPH. I beleive it's drag CD is .32{I could be wrong}, the point is it only makes 238 HP and has less TQ then a 02 max. It is also a 4spd automatic. So what do you have to say about that Dave? BTW this speed test was done by MT on the same day they clocked the 95 max at 142 MPH.

 

Shh... Don't insert reality into the equation. Dave has his gut feel and it's always right.

Stereodude

 

Yada yada, blah blah....

Real world measurements? Weight has NOTHING to do with topspeed? A CRX can go 145mph? A 4th gen Maxima looses 18% of it's power to the wheels yet the 6 speed (with more internal driveline drag) only looses 15%?

Son, I use to own a 90 CRX Si (also owned a 94 Z28). The CRX COULD NOT DO 145mph like you say. Damn, this just proves how flawed your equation is. A CRX Si (~106hp, 89-91, most powerful US version) was lucky to break 125mph on a good day (most mags got 122-125mph out of the CRX. A 160hp (141fwhp) Civic Si can only do 135mph. BTW, at 80mph in 5th gear in the CRX Si, you're turning 4100rpms. Redline was 6700rpms. Peak power occured at 6300 rpms, SO top speed would have been achieved at ~125mph. Hmmmmm.....the same top speed as the mags got. Redline was set at 6700rpms so even if the motor made power to 6700rpms (it doesn't), it could only go ~137mph. Hmmmmmm..... Now how did you come up with 145mph?

Now let's think about the weight thing here for a second. Are you telling me 255hp 3250lb Maxima is going to top out at the same speed as a 255hp 6000lb Maxima? Are you really gonna tell me this? The rolling resistance of the car goes up as the car gets heavier. This isn't a vacumn and these cars aren't being pushed off a cliff (ie things fall at the same rate regardless of weight...in a vacumn).

You stick to your "equations" and "theroretical data". I'll stick with the true and verified field data. BTW, I'm an engineer (environmental) and believe me, those little equations in your book, rarely apply to how things work in the field. I speak from lots of experience. Remember that.


Dave

 

And for the 850 R?

 

Whoop Tee Doo... I'm an engineer too. Big deal.

How do you know a 6spd tranny has more internal drag than a 5spd 4th gen? Oh, you don't. You're just going on your gut feel with no evidence. I've looked at the Dynos for the 5speed and they seem to lose about 18%. The only stock Dyno for the 6spd we have seems to indicate a loss of even less than 15%.

You apparently don't understand much about bearings and the like either. A 6000lb Max with good bearings would have very little more rolling resistance than a 3250lb Max. It might make a MPH or two difference. That'd be about it. But the 02 and 01 max don't really weigh any different, so that's not a consideration here.

Again you still have yet to produce any shred of evidence that a 02 Max can't go 155. Instead you go into some rambling rant about how a stock CRX can't go 145. You're attempting to undermine my credibility, but you've totally missed the fact I never said a stock CRX could. I only said a CRX could go 145 with a whole lot less power than a 02 Max has. But the F-body can't. My point was that you can't use a f-body for your proof that a max can't go 155mph, or I'm going to start showing you cars with far less HP than the Max to counter your argument.

Of course you glazed over that and the numbers and only started rambling. You're telling me that the formula is wrong and it's only theoretical. Ok smart guy? What's missing? Where's the mistake? What hasn't been factored in? You can't come up with anything because the formula is right. If there were errors/things that weren't accounted for they are factored into the frontal area number because it is numerically computed rather than measured. Because those things are taken into account in the frontal area number that's used nothing has been left out of the formula, so there is nothing wrong with the numbers.

Oh wait... my bad you inferred from my post that a stock CRX could go 145 and since it can't the formula is wrong. There's some quality deductive reasoning. Silly Me.

Stereodude

 

Don't worry, he's going to ignore it by trying to cloud the issue with nonsensical BS. He's to busy inferring things that weren't actually put in posts to respond to the facts with relevant facts.

I've got formulas to show it. Someone was kind enough to post a picture of a Max with only a Y-pipe and Intake going 153. The 02 has power power than a y-pipe'd/intake'd 01 or 00 Max, but that doesn't count either. The only thing that counts is the f-body and his gut feel on everything.

Stereodude

 

enough, guys. no point in arguing about certain theories. im sure at some point we'll get a real life answer.

 

I have hit 150 a few times...145 many.

 

Well at 145 it was still pulling, at 150 it was crawling...

 

I will have to get into this. The LT1 is not the LS1 in highway power. The LT1 has all low end grunt and not much high end. I have seen many races with LT1s on the highway and they can't pull from other cars with much lower hp #'s much at all.

 

Take torque at the wheels, (changes based on RPM and Gearing) We need a dyno graph to figure this one out and I'm too lazy to find one. We also need the final drive and gearing of the 2002. Also wheel diameter.

Most important is the torque curve of the engine as opposed to the relationship of peak power and basic dynamics of air. Note I edited many of my statements regarding wind resistance. I still feel there are many parts missing from the equation in the power to speed relationship that you constructed.

Oh another thing. Using those equations..... the 4th gen couldn't break 135.... we know it can.

And by the way plugging the HP numbers from the 4th gen into your equation. It comes out to right at or just barely above 135 using that equation.

 

I guess we will just have to wait until someone tries it to see where they get.

SuDZ

 

Do you know how large of a factor wind speed is? I guarantee I could hit 155 in my 2000 5 speed with a 20-30 mile an hour tailwind. Does that give me a top speed of 155.... No. I'm not knocking what thomas did, but incline and wind speed have a lot more to do with people hitting 150 in their 5th gens and 153 with bolt ons in their fourth gens.

I'm sorry to say this but for a good comparison of top speed we'll have to wait for the Mags to test.

Gimme a 20 degree incline and a 30 mile an hour tail wind and I'll show you a 2k 5th gen hitting 160.