6th Generation Maxima (2004-2008) Discussion of the 6th generation Maxima. Come see what others are saying.

Back ends look low???

Old Sep 8, 2004 | 08:54 PM
  #1  
BORQUA79's Avatar
Thread Starter
nycmaximas member
 
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644
From: Brooklyn, NY
Back ends look low???

I was in the market for a 6th Gen but i had a question... It seems that the back end of the 6th Gens look to sag alot, especially with people sitting back there... Is this right for all models or does the SE have stiffer springs to combat this??? Does anyone else notice this sag???

Thanks
Old Sep 8, 2004 | 09:31 PM
  #2  
Monotaur's Avatar
Supporting Maxima.org Member
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 943
From: Denver, CO
Yes, I notice it too...

I have an SE (which does have pretty stiff springs) and this weekend I hauled 3 others (two of them being quite large) around on a 600 mile trip... I noticed that the back end seemed pretty low and at one point (I checked) I could barely (and I mean BARELY) fit my finger between the tire and the edge of the body.... I know that the body and tire don't exactly line up, but that was a little too close for me.

Another thing I noticed was that the rear deck rattle was far more present with the added weight in the back (and almost non-existant with no one riding in the back). Interesting.

On a related note, has anyone else noticed that the leather "stretches" after larger people ride in the car? My passenger seat is terrible (it won't go back - permanent creases) and one side of the back seat is starting to crease...
Old Sep 9, 2004 | 08:09 PM
  #3  
lightonthehill's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 8,143
From: a meadow south of Atlanta
If the front of the Max sagged like this, we would have a major problem, as the turning wheels would cause great damage to the fenders. But the rear wheels do not turn, and are (barely) within the plane of the fenders on the SL.

As the tires on the SE are wider than the tires on the SL, one would think they would scrape. But Nissan (doing something right) designed the SE wheel so that the wider tire is also (barely) within the plane of the rear fender.

I would not worry about the rear sagging when there are several folks sitting in the rear seat. The sagging is much more noticable on the '04 Maxima because of the big, low-slung rear. It doesn't look to be far off the ground when NOBODY is sitting in the car.

Several big drivers here have complained about the leather creasing. That is, of course, only a cosmetic annoyance. But I feel it may have had something to do with Nissan changing to a different leather on the '05.
Old Sep 10, 2004 | 10:32 AM
  #4  
Mr.Sparkle's Avatar
Member
 
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 57
I have about 150 pounds worth of audio stuff in the trunk and one day I had 3 other people with me on a vegas trip. When I stopped to gas up I noticed that my back was so low I couldnt even see the top of my tires. The funny thing is that I was doing 100-120+ and not once did it bottom out even when I hit some big bumps. Oh and its a SE model.
Old Sep 10, 2004 | 02:28 PM
  #5  
BORQUA79's Avatar
Thread Starter
nycmaximas member
 
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644
From: Brooklyn, NY
Its really not too attractive to have the back sag. Ive also seen this on the 04 Altima as well...
Old Sep 10, 2004 | 03:43 PM
  #6  
hofb99's Avatar
Banned
 
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 376
You guys have to realize that the body trim deceives the eye... The body is made such that the front fender is cut a little higher to allow for front steering/suspension issues... But in all reality, the rear frame/wheel well is not sagging @ all. It only appears to sag, because the lines from the body are cut a little differently from front to back. Nissan chose to cut the rear close and leave the front kinda high for steering purposes. IMO, they should have just made everything look even...like the BMW...but that would require "THE BEST" in front suspension = $$$... I absolutely LOVE the way the Beemer sits w/ it's less than 1 inch clearance from the fender in the front AND back! But we're not talking about a $35-40K Beemer here. We're talking an affordable Nissan sports sedan...

Remember, it's clearance from the fender...not the actual "wheel well" we're addressing here. The wheel well is cut deep...the fender is the outer cover that illudes that the car is sagging in the rear. Think about it... Albeit, it's not attractive...and as soon as someone puts out shocks/struts to support the EIBACH lowering springs, I'm on top of it! But, if you think about it, if Nissan didn't "cut some corners" in its design, we would be paying $40-45K for this car... For the money, you have to concede that the MAX is awesome (AS IS...)!!!
Old Sep 10, 2004 | 07:23 PM
  #7  
BORQUA79's Avatar
Thread Starter
nycmaximas member
 
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644
From: Brooklyn, NY
Hofb99, I love the 6th Gens but its that Illusion that makes it non-attractive... I can see how the cut and lines of the vehicle from front to back makes the back quarter panel look larger, thus as if its saggin... But technicalities aside its the look of the car that attracts attention, and in this case its bad attention. A solution without taking away from performance would be stiffer springs so as to not compress asmuch as the stock ones. For the front it has to be lowered to compensate for the rear... So lowering and stiffer performance springs for the front and maybe keeping the same height in the front but making them stiffer as to not sag as much??? My .02 cents

-Alex
Old Sep 12, 2004 | 03:55 PM
  #8  
hofb99's Avatar
Banned
 
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 376
Originally Posted by BORQUA79
Hofb99, I love the 6th Gens but its that Illusion that makes it non-attractive... I can see how the cut and lines of the vehicle from front to back makes the back quarter panel look larger, thus as if its saggin... But technicalities aside its the look of the car that attracts attention, and in this case its bad attention. A solution without taking away from performance would be stiffer springs so as to not compress asmuch as the stock ones. For the front it has to be lowered to compensate for the rear... So lowering and stiffer performance springs for the front and maybe keeping the same height in the front but making them stiffer as to not sag as much??? My .02 cents

-Alex
Couldn't agree w/ you more, BORQUA79. I can't stand the way the front fenderwell is an inch or two higher than the back either! ****es me off!!! lol I'm just trying to vie for a reasonable explanation why Nissan chose to design the MAX the way they did. Now, stiffer, lower, more high performance springs (along w/ struts to match) would add to the total cost of the vehicle... I'm just thinking that Nissan did what they could ("cut corners") where they could in order to market their quality, but affordable, sports sedan best. I too wish they made it a more even look. Like I said, I prefer the BMW's low profile stance anyday over (what appears to be) a "sagging" back...
Old Sep 13, 2004 | 10:10 AM
  #9  
BORQUA79's Avatar
Thread Starter
nycmaximas member
 
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644
From: Brooklyn, NY
Originally Posted by hofb99
Like I said, I prefer the BMW's low profile stance anyday over (what appears to be) a "sagging" back...
I'd drink to that...
Old Sep 13, 2004 | 03:29 PM
  #10  
carcus's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 951
Originally Posted by BORQUA79
I'd drink to that...
Well, my BMW was not any better with the stance, was low as hell in the rear and like a truck in front just like the Maxima.....judge for yourself. I traded in this for the Maxima. Had to get a family car. Really starting to miss the convert also....and the Bimmer held its value kinda good compared to the Max. Again, look at the stance though, big front wheel gap...



Even BMW is not perfect and they have the same problem.
Old Jan 26, 2010 | 10:27 AM
  #11  
8675309v2's Avatar
Member
 
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 49
They are low. When I built my USAC car I added about 400lbs in the rear. I looked for months before I found a company that would custom build me some springs. I was able to get coils with a +500 lb load and the correct factory ride height with a -.8 drop to match the Eibach spring. Although it did cost me $400 to have them built.
Old Jan 26, 2010 | 11:32 AM
  #12  
cacicgt7's Avatar
Junior Member
 
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 25
From: Dayton, Ohio
Holy thread resurection.... 6 years???? WTF
Old Jan 29, 2010 | 07:37 PM
  #13  
AtlsKingofBk's Avatar
Member
 
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 40
Originally Posted by BORQUA79
I was in the market for a 6th Gen but i had a question... It seems that the back end of the 6th Gens look to sag alot, especially with people sitting back there... Is this right for all models or does the SE have stiffer springs to combat this??? Does anyone else notice this sag???

Thanks
the off set on my 20s have caused me to put spacers on mine so the rears sits even with the front i like it better that way....

Old Jan 29, 2010 | 07:38 PM
  #14  
AtlsKingofBk's Avatar
Member
 
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 40
Originally Posted by cacicgt7
Holy thread resurection.... 6 years???? WTF
oh wow just notice close this s........
Old Jan 30, 2010 | 09:08 AM
  #15  
I3LAZEN's Avatar
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 618
LMFAOOO 6 YEARSSS!!! CLOSEE THREAD
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
JRod28
7th Generation Maxima (2009-2015)
16
Dec 29, 2023 09:56 PM
kingw323
4th Generation Maxima (1995-1999)
20
Oct 21, 2015 08:36 AM
schmellyfart
All Motor
7
Sep 25, 2015 04:47 PM
MaximaDrvr
7th Generation Maxima (2009-2015)
16
Aug 19, 2015 08:20 PM
egali045
5th Generation Maxima (2000-2003)
7
Aug 16, 2015 01:19 PM


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:55 AM.