what caused the 6th gen turning
#41
Originally posted by gmc74
You are right, 44' is outrageous... luckily it is only 40'.
Check the engine on the 4Runner, it is not transverse mounted(sideways), which is the cause of the problem. Engines are longer than they are wide, if you turn it sideways it takes up the space that the tires need when turning.
Here are the specs (in feet) of some comparable cars that are all FWD-
G35 Coupe - 37.4
G35 Sedan - 36.0
Camry (V6) - 36.7
Accord (V6) - 36.1
Impala - 38.0
Mazda 6 - 38.7
Altima (V6) - 38.7
03 TL Type S - 40.0
03 Max - 40.0
04 Max - 40.0
No offense to anyone, but I am guessing the engineers at some of the best car companies in the world are going to do a bit better at this than we are. If they can't seem to solve this issue, then maybe it is a bit more than a design problem.
You are right, 44' is outrageous... luckily it is only 40'.
Check the engine on the 4Runner, it is not transverse mounted(sideways), which is the cause of the problem. Engines are longer than they are wide, if you turn it sideways it takes up the space that the tires need when turning.
Here are the specs (in feet) of some comparable cars that are all FWD-
G35 Coupe - 37.4
G35 Sedan - 36.0
Camry (V6) - 36.7
Accord (V6) - 36.1
Impala - 38.0
Mazda 6 - 38.7
Altima (V6) - 38.7
03 TL Type S - 40.0
03 Max - 40.0
04 Max - 40.0
No offense to anyone, but I am guessing the engineers at some of the best car companies in the world are going to do a bit better at this than we are. If they can't seem to solve this issue, then maybe it is a bit more than a design problem.
#42
Originally posted by Frank Fontaine
hmmm...4 sources on the web do say the turning circle is 40'. A review by ********* ******** says the turning circle is a CON, and stated it was 44'. Could very well be that 44 was a typo. 40 is big for a car this size, but it's not as bad as 44. It's certainly not as bad as making xenons optional again on the SE.
hmmm...4 sources on the web do say the turning circle is 40'. A review by ********* ******** says the turning circle is a CON, and stated it was 44'. Could very well be that 44 was a typo. 40 is big for a car this size, but it's not as bad as 44. It's certainly not as bad as making xenons optional again on the SE.
BTW, I have no idea why I tossed the G35 in there... brain fart, I have been painting my office all day, must have been the fumes
#43
How about on the 5th gen's? IIRC, there was a bump stop that one could take out (e.g. present in 2k2+, absent in 2k/1) to improve the turning radius. Granted, the 6th gen has a different platform - the above mod may or may not apply.
#44
Originally posted by soundmike
How about on the 5th gen's? IIRC, there was a bump stop that one could take out (e.g. present in 2k2+, absent in 2k/1) to improve the turning radius. Granted, the 6th gen has a different platform - the above mod may or may not apply.
How about on the 5th gen's? IIRC, there was a bump stop that one could take out (e.g. present in 2k2+, absent in 2k/1) to improve the turning radius. Granted, the 6th gen has a different platform - the above mod may or may not apply.
that was just a theory. only 1 guy that i know of actually tried it and i dont think it helped all that much.
#45
Originally posted by Newman
that was just a theory. only 1 guy that i know of actually tried it and i dont think it helped all that much.
that was just a theory. only 1 guy that i know of actually tried it and i dont think it helped all that much.
#46
gmc74 is correct that SUVs sit higher on their suspensions, and have much more clearance underneath so they can be taken off-road. He is also correct about the transverse engine requiring a wider frame/housing on the front of the car.
I remember when Nissan went to the transverse engine (1985; I owned two of those). The oil filter ended up in a small niche between the engine and the firewall. The only way the mechanic could remove/install the oil filter was from underneath with heat-resistant gloves.
Another factor is the wheelbase. Nissan is 'inching up' the wheelbase, a trend that has been going on with several manufacturers for several years. The theory (correct) is that wheels located more toward the corners of the car makes for a more stable driving situation.
All else being equal, every inch added to the wheelbase results in a slight increase in turning radius.
I remember when Nissan went to the transverse engine (1985; I owned two of those). The oil filter ended up in a small niche between the engine and the firewall. The only way the mechanic could remove/install the oil filter was from underneath with heat-resistant gloves.
Another factor is the wheelbase. Nissan is 'inching up' the wheelbase, a trend that has been going on with several manufacturers for several years. The theory (correct) is that wheels located more toward the corners of the car makes for a more stable driving situation.
All else being equal, every inch added to the wheelbase results in a slight increase in turning radius.
#47
Originally posted by lightonthehill
gmc74 is correct that SUVs sit higher on their suspensions, and have much more clearance underneath so they can be taken off-road. He is also correct about the transverse engine requiring a wider frame/housing on the front of the car.
I remember when Nissan went to the transverse engine (1985; I owned two of those). The oil filter ended up in a small niche between the engine and the firewall. The only way the mechanic could remove/install the oil filter was from underneath with heat-resistant gloves.
Another factor is the wheelbase. Nissan is 'inching up' the wheelbase, a trend that has been going on with several manufacturers for several years. The theory (correct) is that wheels located more toward the corners of the car makes for a more stable driving situation.
All else being equal, every inch added to the wheelbase results in a slight increase in turning radius.
gmc74 is correct that SUVs sit higher on their suspensions, and have much more clearance underneath so they can be taken off-road. He is also correct about the transverse engine requiring a wider frame/housing on the front of the car.
I remember when Nissan went to the transverse engine (1985; I owned two of those). The oil filter ended up in a small niche between the engine and the firewall. The only way the mechanic could remove/install the oil filter was from underneath with heat-resistant gloves.
Another factor is the wheelbase. Nissan is 'inching up' the wheelbase, a trend that has been going on with several manufacturers for several years. The theory (correct) is that wheels located more toward the corners of the car makes for a more stable driving situation.
All else being equal, every inch added to the wheelbase results in a slight increase in turning radius.
#48
Originally posted by bluemaxx
So how many degrees of steering rotation can a CV joint take before it craters? Might this be a/the limiting factor?
So how many degrees of steering rotation can a CV joint take before it craters? Might this be a/the limiting factor?
It would be interesting to know the answer to this. I am guessing that it is a factor at some point, but not to the same extent since cars with smaller wheels/tires can gain a better turning radius.
#49
Interesting discussion. So if I understand correctly the limiting factor is due to the larger width tires not being able to turn to a harder angle for fear of rubbing the inside shoulder against the interior fenderwell...is that right? I wonder what the effects would be of widening the front track by an inch? It would allow for a greater steering angle (though an extra half inch of room might not get you more than a 4-6 inch reduction in turning circle), but would it compromise handling? Of course it wouldn't be as simple as putting spacers in yourself...it would have to be engineered into the front end to move the CV joints outward.
The 2.5 Altima turns dramatically tighter than the V-6 Altima...is this due to the front tires being skinnier you think?
The 2.5 Altima turns dramatically tighter than the V-6 Altima...is this due to the front tires being skinnier you think?
#50
Originally posted by TDoyle
The 2.5 Altima turns dramatically tighter than the V-6 Altima...is this due to the front tires being skinnier you think?
The 2.5 Altima turns dramatically tighter than the V-6 Altima...is this due to the front tires being skinnier you think?
Pre-2k2 5th Gen's had a smaller turning radius, which could very well be attributed to the 15-16" wheels that came standard on them.
Aside from that, it's that bump stop i mentioned earlier that's the main difference between 2k/1 and 2k2/3 Maxima's.
#52
Both the 2001 and 2002 2.5 Altima have a 37.4 foot turning circle...pretty remarkable considering the G3 is about 7" longer between the axles.
I can't see how it could be the size of the engine in the G3's though...if naything I'd think the 2.5 would be a bit longer than the V-6...its 4 pistons long instead of 3, though I'm sure the difference is very small. Plus Nissan is not going to bother engineering two different engine bays to accomodate one motor and not the other so the space between the fenders must be the same on all Altimas. The only thing I've got left is the fatter tires on the V-6's must have prompted Nissan to alter the stop point on the steering rack to be more restrictive. The fact that the Maxima has a nearly identical wheelbase as the Altima yet has a slightly tighter turning radius than the Max...and the Max has fatter tires on the front end. Its gotta be the tires.
I can't see how it could be the size of the engine in the G3's though...if naything I'd think the 2.5 would be a bit longer than the V-6...its 4 pistons long instead of 3, though I'm sure the difference is very small. Plus Nissan is not going to bother engineering two different engine bays to accomodate one motor and not the other so the space between the fenders must be the same on all Altimas. The only thing I've got left is the fatter tires on the V-6's must have prompted Nissan to alter the stop point on the steering rack to be more restrictive. The fact that the Maxima has a nearly identical wheelbase as the Altima yet has a slightly tighter turning radius than the Max...and the Max has fatter tires on the front end. Its gotta be the tires.
#53
Originally posted by TDoyle
Both the 2001 and 2002 2.5 Altima have a 37.4 foot turning circle...pretty remarkable considering the G3 is about 7" longer between the axles.
I can't see how it could be the size of the engine in the G3's though...if naything I'd think the 2.5 would be a bit longer than the V-6...its 4 pistons long instead of 3, though I'm sure the difference is very small. Plus Nissan is not going to bother engineering two different engine bays to accomodate one motor and not the other so the space between the fenders must be the same on all Altimas. The only thing I've got left is the fatter tires on the V-6's must have prompted Nissan to alter the stop point on the steering rack to be more restrictive. The fact that the Maxima has a nearly identical wheelbase as the Altima yet has a slightly tighter turning radius than the Max...and the Max has fatter tires on the front end. Its gotta be the tires.
Both the 2001 and 2002 2.5 Altima have a 37.4 foot turning circle...pretty remarkable considering the G3 is about 7" longer between the axles.
I can't see how it could be the size of the engine in the G3's though...if naything I'd think the 2.5 would be a bit longer than the V-6...its 4 pistons long instead of 3, though I'm sure the difference is very small. Plus Nissan is not going to bother engineering two different engine bays to accomodate one motor and not the other so the space between the fenders must be the same on all Altimas. The only thing I've got left is the fatter tires on the V-6's must have prompted Nissan to alter the stop point on the steering rack to be more restrictive. The fact that the Maxima has a nearly identical wheelbase as the Altima yet has a slightly tighter turning radius than the Max...and the Max has fatter tires on the front end. Its gotta be the tires.
#54
So are you suggesting its not the width of the tires, but the diameter? Or am I reading that wrong? I don't understand how tire diameter could affect steering angle. Its got to be the width of the tire and the calibration of the steering box.
Now I have to go find out how many turns it is lock to lock in the 3.5 and 2.5 Altimas...I bet the 2.5 has like a half turn more total.
Now I have to go find out how many turns it is lock to lock in the 3.5 and 2.5 Altimas...I bet the 2.5 has like a half turn more total.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Lakersallday24
6th Generation Maxima (2004-2008)
13
03-20-2024 11:22 AM
Cant_Get_Ryte
5th Generation Classifieds (2000-2003)
3
08-28-2015 06:41 AM
bc992164
4th Generation Maxima (1995-1999)
9
08-26-2015 12:19 PM
JMag90
5th Generation Maxima (2000-2003)
2
08-25-2015 09:17 AM