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.

gmc74

I am not denying that 40' is big, this is the single greatest annoyance for me in this car. That being said, front wheel drive + big engine + big tires = big turning radius, there really isn't a way around it.

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

soundmike

iTrader: (24)

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.

Newman

iTrader: (3)

that was just a theory. only 1 guy that i know of actually tried it and i dont think it helped all that much.

gmc74

I doubt it would do too much. The inches or foot you may gain would be offset by the tires rubbing when you turn.

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.

bluemaxx

So how many degrees of steering rotation can a CV joint take before it craters? Might this be a/the limiting factor?

gmc74

That is an interesting question, I don't even know where to begin researching that one. I would have to venture a guess that the CV joint could be engineered to give more if necessary. Where the space is limited by the space, not engineering.

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.

TDoyle

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?

soundmike

iTrader: (24)

I haven't checked on specs, but it could be possible.

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.

gmc74

It probably has a lot to do with space in general. Be it from the smaller engine, the smaller tires, or both.

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.

gmc74

The difference between the 37ft and 40ft is probably the tires, I also doubt there is any other difference in the front end between the two. Although, I don't know if there are suspension differences that may factor in to that as well. The reason it is 37 feet to begin with has a lot to do with the transverse engine.

TDoyle

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.