SilverMax_04

Steve, you did not quite understand my complaint about the close-ratio 6-speed manual trannie. If I'm racing this car, this is an ideal trannie. You can more easily keep the engine's RPMs in the ideal range by shifting gears as needed. This will maximize the car's performance on the track. But if you are not racing, the gears in this trannie need to be further apart for better economy. I would like a lower first gear for somewhat better starting ability. (I have a tendency to stall the engine if I'm not careful because of the taller than necessary first gear.) Third gear is ideal. The gears above 3rd should be taller, such that 6th gear gives you about 62 mph at 2 K RPM (not 55 mph).

The existing 6-speed at 80 mph is almost turning 3 K RPM (which is actually 82 mph). I certainly agree that there is now (with high gasoline prices) a greater priority for Nissan to shift priorities with their engine-trannie combos. I'm recommending taller gearing in the upper gears of the 6-speed to improve fuel economy. A higher "differential" gear would also help both manual and auto trannies improve fuel economy, but would also require some gear ratio changes in the trannies.

Mike_TX

Yep, and there's a LOT of monkey-business in the EPA ratings game, too. A mfr can set up an engine/drivetrain specifically to score well in these fuel economy tests, and with the current attention to gas prices, I'm sure a lot of thought goes into doing just that. And keep in mind a V8 actually has some advantage at certain loads, since it's stressed less than a smaller V6 doing the same work.

The Toyota 3.5 apparently does benefit from some later engineering, although I hear in the real world, people aren't getting the EPA numbers (whereas many, many Maxima owners EXCEED them!). The TL runs on less displacement (3.2l v. 3.5l in the Maxima), so I'm not surprised to see a little better mileage. Less torque and lower pumping losses are going to yield better economy. Ditto for the even less-powerful Honda 3.0l.

I don't know, Steve ... automotive engineers say front-drive is good for about a 10% increase in fuel economy all by itself. It's just a more-direct, more efficient driveline and it pays dividends in frictional and parasitic losses. That, combined with the more-relaxed final gearing, as you point out, can make a significant difference!

SteVTEC

no I gotcha

The V8s I mentioned (the Hemi and GM's LS4) all have variable displacement setups, so technically to produce the same amount of power as a V6, they can switch to V4 mode which then has the same load spread across only 4-cylinders instead of 6, or the full 8. Relatively higher load on a smaller displacement is generally more efficient than a lighter load spread across more, although there's a lot of other factors too.

The Honda vehicles definitely get a bit better economy but I think there's more to it than just the lower displacement in this case. They have a SOHC setup with roller rockers (lower overall friction), a belt cam drive instead of a chain (lower friction), a smaller bore than Nissan's VQ30 (favors better combustion efficiency), and a simplified VVT setup (2-step cam-switching, no cam-phasing, minimal overhead, simple, elegant, and effective). There is much to be said about pushrods when it comes to efficiency also. Take GM's LX9 3.5L V6 (Malibu). Single cam, small chain drive, only 2v/cyl, and 32 mpg hwy, and Consumer Reports testing it out at 36 mpg hwy. I've rented these and I can vouch for the oustanding efficiency. Of course, they'll get slaughtered by a Maxima but they're still more efficient.


I really don't think you're going to go from 18/25 mpg to 20/28 mpg just because of FWD. Would be curious to know who/where you heard this from, and if you have a link, because it sounds like marketing fluff/BS to me and not "automotive engineer" speak. That's about the G35's mileage vs the Maxima and we know that the G has shorter more performance tuned gearing, probably more performance tuned shift mapping, and the more performance tuned engine which most likely has poorer part-load efficiency than the Maximas. That's easily 2-3 mpg right there and we haven't even started talking about aerodynamics or drivetrain config yet. You can look at the Camry/Avalon vs the IS350 and you'll probably find about the same thing. 22/31 mpg on the FWD vs 21/28 mpg on the IS350 but there are a lot of differences. A n00b could look at that and say "hey, FWD = 10% better" when that really doesn't have anything to do with it.

It's really hard to make direct comparisons like this, but if RWD was really significantly less efficient than FWD to the tune of 10% then you would probably see some pretty big differences on the dyno but you don't. 10% is a lot. An SAE paper I have on the topic that looks at that sorta indirectly implies that a RWD live-axle setup is the most efficient because it's the simplest. It states that FWD or independent suspension RWD is 2-7% worse due to much more complex final drives.

With FWD, engineers know it isn't really for performance anyways so they put in the more economy tuned engine, they put in the more economy oriented shift mapping that'll hold higher gears longer, and they put in the taller gearing that has it revving lower during cruise. And then they do the exact opposite on RWD and tune everything up (at the expense of economy) because it's a "premium" RWD product. Watered down to basics for the masses, some engineer could say that "FWD = 10%" just for the purposes of explaining something, but it's not because of FWD but rather because of all of that other stuff.

2006 BMW 530iA: 21/29 mpg EPA
2006 Accord V6: 20/29 mpg EPA

Same displacement (3.0), similar internal config (accord: 86 x 86 mm, bmw: 85 x 88 mm), similar overall size, similar power (244/254 vs 255), similar weight (both 34xx lbs), similar aero. The 1 mpg better on the BMW in the city I would attribute mostly to Valvetronic which cuts way down on throttling losses especially at idle, and not to the drivetrain config (FWD or RWD).

Looks about the same to me.

Mike_TX

We're in agreement on one point for sure ... there are lots of factors that go into the fuel economy equation! And while I can't readily pull up sources for the 10% economy advantage, I have read it several times over the years.

We all know, of course, that increased fuel economy is the *only* reason GM, Ford and Chrysler spent tons of dough to convert to FWD in the 70's, though. The Arab oil embargo forced them to find some quick way to cut gas consumption, and they saw the Japanese front-drive cars getting lots better mileage than their rear drivers. True, the Jap cars were smaller and lighter as well, but they wouldn't have spent the money to go to front drive unless they saw that as a quick way to meet the EPA and CAFE standards. We all know Detroit makes big changes only when forced.

I'll do some research when I get the time and try to substantiate the 10% story ... or correct it!

belal242

Man i feel like I'm in automotive shop after reading the last 2 pages. And Steve nice too meet you, i find your info very accurate. Now I'm even more excited than ever for the 7Th gen. I just dont expect any of the changes that you mentioned to take place in the 6.5gen, i have a feeling they really want to just skip over this model and get the the 7th gen in early to mid 2008, as the 2009 model, but in those models i do expect the 3.7 with the 6AT and RWD or upgraded AWD.

95Max

Actually the SL comes with V rated tires. Mine came with Continental Touring Contact CV95 which is a V rated Grand Touring Tire. Not sure but I think they changed the H to V tires with the trans change

lightonthehill

95Max is correct. My '04 SL (with 5 speed tiptronic auto tranny, assembled the last week of May, 2004) also came with the same 'V' rated Continental Touring Contact tires as his.

This now brings up another question: Why do all the glossy Nissan Maxima phamplets/brochures for the '04, '05 and '06 list 'H' rated all-weather tires as standard on the SL?

I checked the tire specs in my '04 Owner's Manual, and it listed 'V' rated tires as standard on both the SE and SL. The SL tires are specifically designated as 225/55R17 95V. Then, immediately and inexplicably, the manual says the 18" tires (SE) are 'V' rated and the 17" tires (SL) are 'H' rated. That is sort of a conundrum or non sequitur.

I then proceeded to examine every square centimeter of the sidewall of my SL Contis, and they are 'V' rated with no disclaimers.

So SLs do indeed have 'V' rated tires, and Nissan has a mess in its documentation.

I suspect there was some indecision early on as to exactly what rating tire would be standard on the SL, and once the decision was made (or changed) some documentation was never corrected.

But who knows?

dallasmax

Some might argue, but this is a much better design on the gauges! just my opinion!

Mike_TX

Shooey! Whatever that is, I sure don't like the dash! Looks too Buick-y to me. Closed-in and claustrophobic.

The whole car (exterior) looks too much like a Camry design to me ... too conservative to be called a Maxima. Our 6th Gen design looks way more sporty.

04BlackMaxx

e you nuts, you like that dash? It screams old-fogey

RHMax

The interior is similar to the M35-45 w/o the wood/graphite trim. That steering wheel looks like it belongs in a truck.

Mike_TX

I resent that! I have an '06 M45 and that doesn't look remotely like mine!

RHMax

Oops! I said similar, as in simile is the highest form of compliment!

SteVTEC

oh my lord :vomit:

I hope that isn't what the 07 interior will look like. If so, forget it. I'll either get an 05/06, used, or hello Infiniti M.

idnumber1

iTrader: (1)

Rest assured that is not the interior of the new '07 Max. I can guarantee it 110%. The Max will be shown in April along with the all new Altima next month at the New York Auto Show.

Sexyass Maxima

I hope the new max is everything we want. If not im going to get an 06

Monotaur

I'm pretty sure that this hasn't been posted before:

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...ticleId=107415

Quoted (for the lazy ):

So basically, a redesigned interior for 2007 and then a complete redesign? Interesting.

lightonthehill

Monotaur - That blurb was Edmund's interpretation of Nissan's plans. I would bet you money Nissan has not announced that the 7th generation Maxima will be released as an '08. I have found Edmund's 'guesses' to be off the mark quite frequently.

Think about it. The cabin interior of the '07 redesigned and upgraded, the front facia of the '07 redesigned (sneak peeks have appeared on this board for several months), and the whole thing becomes obsolete in one model year? I don't think so. That almost never happens with any model from any manufacturer.

I stick by my opinion of last summer: For '07, Nissan will make much needed improvements such as upgrade the interior, add a few features like tire low-pressure indicator, correct design mistakes made in the front of the 6th gen, release this '07 early - say May or June of '06, then let this upgrade ride for model years '07 and '08.

Then, in spring of '08, with much hoopla, the 7th gen Maxima will make its appearance as the '09 model year.

I have seen nothing concrete in the last eight months that would lead me to change my feelings about that being the schedule for the Maxima these next few years.

Monotaur

Ah, OK, I was unaware of the track record of Edmund's guesses. Anyway, I think what you laid out makes more sense (especially in light of the spy shots). Good analysis, as always.

Mike_TX

So we've decided the intro of the '07 has slipped from April to May or June?

Mike_TX

Are you guys actually telling me Nissan's security is so tight that no one really knows anything more about the '07???

I mean, I thought we had some Nissan employees on this board, and surely someone knows something! For example, if the '07 is maybe possibly going to be released in 30 days or so, surely that's too big a secret to hide ... isn't it? And it's been widely reported they are going to redo the interior ... but noone knows what the changes are?

This stuff has to be in production right now, even for a Fall introduction. Do they just have you guys sworn to secrecy or something?

RHMax

These type of info is usually known to the marketing and distribution. The rest don't really get shared until before launch. I never worked for Nissan, but I've worked in marketing for another car company.

chernmax

iTrader: (15)

I'm an old-fogey and I can't stand it...

NYPD-Arnold

iTrader: (8)

We'll see the 07 Maxima very soon. They are in production already, and spy shots exist. The Altima will be debuting in the NY Auto Show, and apparently so will the upgraded Maxima.

logik05se

I dont know if im late on this...but today at my dealership i ran a locate through the nissan dealers network on the 07 maxima just for kicks and i'm not sure if this is really an option ( or the only choice if that) but when you select the options on the site, under transmission the only availble choice was CVT. Now like i said i dont know how true this is, maybe because the car isnt out yet the locate page isnt updated correctly....but i really hope CVT isnt the only choice of availble transmissions for the maxima.

and btw the launch date which was originally set for april has been pushed to july.

Mike_TX

All I can say is I hope that isn't the case. My plans to get an '07 will go right directly in the crapper if CVT is my only choice.

3.5 Lover

I just came from my Nissan Dealer and he told me the 07 Altima will definitely be on display but no word on the Maxima. That doesn't mean it won't be shown because we all know surprise is the name of the marketing game when your competing with others. If CVT is the only way to get a 07 Max, they will loose so many loyal customers. You can forget mods with a CVT, mono tone exhaust and no shifting for us that love manuals. I really hope this is not the case.

Monotaur

I'm sure it won't be the only option for the Maxima. I have read though, that Nissan wants to sell 10% of it's cars and trucks with CVTs within 2 years (I believe it was stated 1 year ago that in 3 years, 10% of their product will ship with a CVT). They are also going to be selling CVT's to Chrysler, so I'm guessing that they are going to start pushing the CVT pretty hard.

lightonthehill

CVTs are (fortunately or unfortunately, depending on ones point of view) the wave of the future.

As the CVT is gradually and continually improved, I feel it will beat the 'shifting' tranny in fuel economy and last longer without major repairs.

This next statement will be denied to the death by many, but here goes: at some point, a CVT equipped vehicle will be faster off the line and will out-accellerate its 'shifting' equivalent. That may not happen right away, but rest assured it will happen. The laws of physics say so.

Nissan can get away with using CVTs in every vehicle they produce except the two that have long held an image as 'sports-minded driver's' cars. The 350Z demands either a six or seven speed manual with either a five or six speed auto tranny optional. I would not expect to see the CVT, even as an option, in the 350Z for many many years, if ever. And the Maxima demands that tranny options other than CVT at least be available.

Nissan may initially make the CVT an option on the SL (or standard on the SL with a five or six speed auto optional). I hope the CVT is not even an option on the SE in the forseeable future. There is heritage, history and a faithful fan base for the Maxima as a '4 door sports car'. That fan base is not interested in a CVT in their Maxima.

Rest assured we will be able to obtain 350Zs and Maximas without a CVT tranny for at least a half dozen or more years. Otherwise, the assembly lines for both vehicles might as well shut down. And Nissan knows this.

SilverMax_04

Well said, and right-on, light. You got it all correct.

logik05se

light on, what you said makes plenty of sense and I 100% feel the same way....I'm going to check that locate page again today and see if that was an SL model out of curiosity because being in the SL only would halfway make sense. Other then that when I seen this I was pretty disgusted I have to say, because cvt's only in a maxima is a disgrace.

unfortunatly though I can pretty much see the marketing strategy behind this being the growing demographic for maximas is becoming an older crowd.

crap.

Monotaur

Yeah, what lightonthehill said makes a lot of sense. I remember reading about 6 months ago how Nissan improved their CVT design greatly, in that they were able to double the gear ratio. Also, I'm not sure if the Murano uses the "disc and wheel" design (I think it actually uses the steel belt design), but the "disc and wheel" design should be able to take a considerable amount of torque (much more than the traditional design I think).

Mike_TX

I mostly agree with lightonthehill, too, except that I don't see CVT's as the panacea for future AT's. The reason is that with a CVT, engine speed is not synchronised to forward speed - or even acceleration - so it is most efficient only at or near full-throttle operation.

Yes, I know that in a "regular" automatic, engine speed isn't directly proportional to forward speed, either ... except that in any given gear it is. And unlike a CVT (where the engine "motorboats", or spins out of proportion to forward motion), a regular AT can be driven gently and made to upshift early. A CVT simulates this behavior, but at lower speeds is actually less effcient than a conventional AT.

You need only look at EPA mileage ratings of cars offered both ways to see that CVT's rate only an average of 1mpg better than conventional AT's in City driving and the same as the AT in hwy. driving. The 1mpg edge in the City cycle is largely because of the way the EPA mileage is calculated, and most people never see that benefit in real life driving.

I see CVT's as a gimmick right now ... one that buys some time for the carmakers in metting EPA and CAFE standards. But I think they'll fall by the wayside in favor of better AT's as time goes on. Just my opinion, of course.

greg hazlett

iTrader: (2)

Spoke with the sales manager and he told me that not a lot of changes are upcoming for the 07 models but a V8 is in the plans for 08 models with RWD to
diversify it substantially from the Altima that is getting longer.

Fr33way™

iTrader: (23)

I'm sorry did you say V8 RWD Maxima?

greg hazlett

iTrader: (2)

That is what the sales manager said, not sure if anyone else has heard that..

3.5 Lover

Lightonthehill; what you say makes a lot of sense. Hopefully Nissan will listen. CVT's aren't bad, just not my preference and many others who love manual shifting. Autos are fine but the fun factor of having a stick cannot be equaled in a auto.

NYPD-Arnold

iTrader: (8)

Every sales manager that works for Nissan is apparently a moron and a liar.

Mike_TX

People who hold their breath waiting for a V8 RWD Maxima will be black in the face before they see one.

And I believe you won't see either of those until a V8 has shown up in a G35 and has been there for a couple of years. It's just the nature of automobile marketing that the premium brand/model gets the goodies first, then they trickle down to the lesser models.

And as long as Nissan can maintain the V6 FWD platform for the Maxima, it will continue to do so - the current platform is solid and has a lot of life left in it. Engineering a whole new platform is an expensive and time-consuming operation and will require an total redesign (not due until the '09 model, I believe).

RHMax

No, sales people are taught to emphasize the latest and sometimes greatest in technology. And often they have no clue what it is they are selling, nor do they care. All they want is to put something on the board.

Most of us here know more about cars in general, not just Nissans or Maximas, than the great majority of car sales people. How many of us had a moron as sales person when we bought our cars.