MPScan

When I had my 1997 SE, there was a thread in the 4th Gen forum detailing every single little change between the 1995-1999 years. It got down to the nitty gritty details from year-to-year.

I don't think I have found one here in the 6th Gen forum yet.

That being said, can we start a thread to detail every single change, no matter how small, between the years of the 6th Gen? I'm no matter expert in this area, I am just curious exactly what is the difference between my '06 and the '05 and '04 model years.

Tek-Niq

iTrader: (3)

not much between the 04-05.

04- early 04's have the 4sp tranny

center colsole has a brushed aluminum look on the 05, 04 is plain silver.

05+- have dimming side mirrors
05- air bag light on dash

06- came out with blue tooth
06- has a mesh like pillar and headliner covering.
06- the steering controls light up

07- new front rear bumpers, headlights, hood.
07- intelligent key
07- new spoiler
07- new console, new gauge cluster
07- new rims
07- CVT tranny, no 6sp.

they all have the elite option.
heated rear bucket seats, rear sun shade.

thats what i could think of right quick.

Blaxima95

The heated seat switches and power port changed in 06 as well didnt it?? The 18"SE wheels changed to a chrome 5 spoke as well in 06

2LEET4U

iTrader: (4)

Horsepower:

2004 - 2006 Nissan Maxima has 265HP

2007 Nissan Maxima has 255HP

Monotaur

The turn signal/brake light positions were swapped between the 2005 and 2006 MYs (I believe).

The leather for the 2006 MY is also a bit different - it's a bit more gathered and less likely to 'stretch'.

I may be wrong on some of these changes - I know we've talked about these before, so someone correct me if I'm wrong (ie, these really happened on the 2005 MY and not the 2006...)

jman7777

To be more specific, all the 6th gens have the same horsepower. SAE changed their rating, so on paper there is less hp.

SilverMax_04

Correct. The road HP of these engines did not change, only the way SAE said it should be measured.

lightonthehill

All '04 SEs got the same 5 speed tiptronic auto as the '05s and '06s.

'04 SLs built before 2/6/04 got the 4 speed auto, while '04 SLs built after that date got the same 5 speed tiptronic auto tranny as the SE.

SmokinMaxSE

iTrader: (1)

On the 07 models the rearview mirrors tilt down in reverse, either one or the other depending on the position of the switch.

KCMAXX

iTrader: (22)

04-05 also has the shift bezel power outlet

Nightscape

it does too on my 06

Tek-Niq

iTrader: (3)

not mines. my power outlet is by right under the glove box, right side of the radio.

Blaxima95

I think he got it backwards. Thats how my 04 is as well.

Nietzsche

iTrader: (7)

Chrome 5 spoke is an option, standard is 6 spoke on SE.

xoomer.com

iTrader: (19)

Incorrect.

Its not the way its measured. Its quoted at different RPMs. That's all.

SilverMax_04

I have copies of the SAE paper that discuss the differences in measuring the old SAE HP and the new SAE HP. It certainly is more than a difference in RPM. There was a long thread on this topic when if first came up in the 6th Gen. Also, there is now a stickie on this topic in the Other Cars section of this site.

Albert

I read a car magazine today claiming that the torque steer problem
has been fixed for the 07.

tubells

04 - car was super hot!
05 - car was hot!
06 - still good!
07 - ???

jcalabria

Virtually unnoticeable! Some may attribute this to a lower performance level, but I believe that the packaging of the CVT allowed the driveshaft geometry to be tweaked.

jcalabria

Really ain't that much difference between years, even on the '07. Mostly minor trim differences. They are more similar than they are different. Whether we like a particular year better than another really comes down to personal taste and we will all have our favorites. Doesn't mean that one or the other is universally better or hotter than another.

I will concede that the loss of a manual tranny is a blow to a small but significant portion of the Max clientele. I used to be one of them and feel the loss. However, I will not concede that the CVT is a backward step from the conventional auto. It works better than any geared automatic (or other CVT) I have ever driven (and I've driven a bunch of them). Reliabilty has been excellent in the Murano. Reliability with a heavily breathed-on motor remains to be seen, but most negative comments I've seen written here are from people with little or no direct experience with the Max CVT. Many, if not most, have really been complaints about the loss of the 6-speed rather than the merits of the CVT itself. I haven't seen a single negative write-up on the CVT from someone who has actually owned one and spent some time with it.

SilverMax_04

Those of us (like me) who would be critical of a CVT will not bother to own one, just so we can meet your criteria.

My criticism is about the fact that a CVT is supposed be be more efficient than other trannies and yet needs two (count them) 2 trannie coolers to handle all of the heat that this trannie procuces.

It is a simple fact of physics -- extra heat is energy that is not being converted into motion, but into heat. The 6 speed MT does not need any trannie cooler. The regular auto trannie needs one trannie cooler. And the CVT needs 2. It is not rocket science to see that this trannie produces heat up the wazu = energy that is not being turned into motion.

jcalabria

I have done quite a bit of research on these issues. As an engineer and an enthusiast, I was initially quite skeptical of the CVT. While I agree with you that the heat (and clamping pump) loss is real and significant in a CVT, your narrow focus on this one aspect of the CVT's operation is obscuring the larger picture.

If you ignore the parasitic losses of the CVT for just a moment, the theoretical efficiency advantage of a magical "lossless" CVT over an MT approaches 35%. This is almost entirely due to the CVTs ability to keep the engine at its most efficient operating point (vs the stepped ratios requiring the engine to operate outside of the optimum rpm nearly all of the time).

Now, factor back in the real world parasitic CVT losses (mainly thermal and clamping pump losses). They will, in general, just about cancel out the theoretical efficiency advantage of the CVT. Depending on whose literature you read, the net real world efficiency differential between the MT and the CVT runs from just about a wash to about 10% in favor of the CVT. Let's just say they are equal.

Now, look at a conventional AT's efficiency... it has to suffer through the stepped gearing like the MT, PLUS thermal/pumping losses that are close to, if not quite as high as, the CVT's.

From a broad perspective, the CVT essentially matches the MT's overall efficiency, but with the operating convenience of the certainly less efficient AT that the vast majority of consumers' desire. Fun factor of the MT aside, its not a bad deal.

With the current emphasis on improving vehicle efficency, Nissan, Toyota, Honda, Audi, Mercedes, Ford, GM et. al. would not be spending so much time and money on the CVT if it was such a detriment to real world efficency.

------------------------------

Added 10/31 9:30PM EST

The '07 CVT has a higher EPA city rating than the '06 MT (21 vs. 20). The city cycle keeps the MT shifting and out of its best efficiency range. Conversely, the MT is rated 1 MPG higher than the CVT on the highway cycle (29 vs 28), where the CVTs shifting strategies are of less use.

A similar MT/CVT fuel economy scenario exists in the Audi A4 line.

Either way, the overall efficiency of the CVT and MT are VERY close.

maxhead

Depending on what you read (especially when it was written), the CVT and MT have about the same drivetrain loss. I was a skeptic about the CVT before I test drove it. Then I bought an 07 a few weeks ago and I'm almost turning into a fan of the CVT now. I love the 6 sp, but the power is always there in the CVT. To all those, like me, who are/were hooked on the 6 sp, test drive the CVT...especially on twisty roads. True, nothing is a 6 speed, but the CVT is waaaaayyyyyyy closer than the conventional autotragic. I had an auto 99 so the CVT is a huge jump to me (most of my cars were manual transmissions before that).

lightonthehill

I'm sitting here in the middle, understanding both sides of this issue. I certainly was disappointed that a 6 (or even 7) speed manny was not an option on the '07, if only to keep the long-time Maxima manual tranny fans on board. It is sort of like the rug is being pulled out from under them.

I am not too concerned with whether the CVT currently offers more efficient handling of the engine's power, because I understand the inherent advantages of a CVT over any tranny that shifts, whether manually or automatically.

It may take a year or two, perhaps longer, but the CVT will evolve, will probably only need one cooler within a few years, and will gradually move clearly ahead of all other current tranny types in efficiency. I am convinced of that.

But even then, I will wish there was still a manual available for those who strongly prefer them. Shifting through the gears puts the driver back 'into the picture' with a smile on their face. Like a CVT or auto never could.

SilverMax_04

Guess I have never found the most efficient operating point for my VQ engine. I suspect it is somewhere between 2,200 and 2,600 RPMs -- but I have no way to prove that. I know that with my MT cruising the interstates at 82 MPH, my VQ is (relatively) screaming at 3,000 RPM. Would be curious what RPM the CVT gives cruising at 82 MPH?

My point being, if we don't know the optimum operating point of the VQ, how do we know that the CVT is giving us that operating point at all times?
There are numerous threads on this site complaining about gas mileage and not meeting the EPA ratings for the Max. As an engineer, you know that there are so many factors that can effect the gas mileage that one gets at any given time. A 1 mpg difference in EPA estimated mileage is probably not statistically significant.

I do have to agree that the overall efficiency of Max's with both trannies is probably quite similar.

There is one thing that I like to do with my 6-speed MT (that I would hesitate doing every day with a CVT). I live in the foothills west of Colorado Springs at 7,200 feet elevation. The city is at about 6,000 feet elevation. Every time I leave home I must drop about 1,200 feet in elevation in about 2 miles or so. I use both 2nd and 3rd gears to get engine breaking going down this hill. I would hesitate using a CVT to get this engine breaking -- due to the likely build-up of heat from doing so. Not many Max owners have this need for engine breaking for 2 miles every time they leave home, so this likely will not be a factor for anyone else reading this. But it is one of the reasons I bought a MT Max -- after burning up an AT in the previous Olds that we owned.

9Nails

I read it somewhere (Popular Mechanics / Popular Science) that less than 10% of the USA drivers stir the tranny. A majority purchased an automatic. In the UK, the numbers were higher for a manual, but still the let-the-car-shift-itself crowd wins the popularity contest.

This just establishes the trend for the overall picture. And doesn't factor Nissan's or Maxima's exclusively. But it is no-doubt a trend that manufacturer's would be keen to.

dizdoodrockie

The 2007 is 6spd auto/sportshifter. Still as fun as a manual, without the hassle of the clutch and stalling the car. They took out the up shifting cap for the sports shifter as well. Which is nice as opposed to the 05 I use to drive. Where I could only shift up at intervels of 10 mph. If I remember correctly it's 15(2), 25(3), 35(4), and 45(5). Haven't driven the 05 since I got the 07.

maxhead

I think he's referring to the the range of the motor that produces the most HP. If you look at the HP and torque curves, there is a range of RPMs where the engine puts out the most power. Before and after that range, the engine produces significantly less HP.

In Maxima's, the car puts out the most HP somewhere between about 5000 to 6500 RPMs (depending on the generation) and max torque between about 3500 to about 5000 RPMs. (There are more variables like mods, wheel size, etc. but that give you the basic idea). SteVTEC is our resident dyno expert here and does a great job of posting graphs and explaining. Click here for more

With a shifting car, you go in and out of those ranges with each shift because of limits of mechanical gear ratios working with the engine where the CVT can hold the RPMs right at the peak HP during the entire acceleration process. People with 5 or 6 speeds who post the quickest times know exactly where their car peaks and exactly when to shift to keep the car at the most efficient but with a CVT, the car does it for you and keeps it at the peak. Check out the 1/4 mile forum for specifics for 6 sp shifting points.

maxhead

I'm not sure on this one but I think the 06 extra power outlet is on the passenger side while it's in the bottom of the center console for the 07. Is that right?

dizdoodrockie

By the shift **** or where the passangers leg would sit? If it's by the legs then they took it out. My sister and I compared cars one day. Well 05 vs 07. Pictures below as you can see that door for that extra outlet isn't there anymore. But the one in the center console is still there just changed positions a bit. Got confused about which one you were talking about for a minute there.
2005

2007

jcalabria

A few months ago I cruised back & forth to FL at 80 pretty much all the way. As I remember, the engine was turning about 2600 at that speed. That's pretty much what you'd expect if yours runs at 3000, as the overall top gear ratio (TG x FD) of the CVT is 2.27:1 vs. 2.60 for the 6MT. Interestingly, the '06 5AT overall top gear ratio was 2.68, even shorter than the 6MT.

When calling for any type of acceleration, the most efficient point is generally right at the torque peak. The CVT is great at maintaining this. For light load cruising, however, lower RPM is generally better. While the CVT has a taller overall top gear ratio, it is fighting those parasitic losses while the MT is not (hence the better highway rating for the MT). I have read in several places that with a manual tranny, WOT accleration with short shifts (~2500rpm, certainly <3000rpm) is a fairly efficient strategy (WOT reduces pumping losses created by the throttle plate... mimics diesel operation).

Keeping a large number of variables in their "sweet spot" is what modern engine management systems do. Allowing the flexibility of the CVT to be placed into that same management scheme is really what this discussion about CVT efficiency is all about. I'm sure most of us know this already (but maybe don't think about it too much), but when we press the go pedal, all we are doing is indicating to the computer our desire for a particular level of acceleration. The computer combines your pedal position with other operating conditions (such as air and coolant temp, load, etc), then decides the correct settings for a bunch of engine parameters (throttle opening, spark timing, fuel injection timing, etc) that will produce the desired outcome in the most efficient manner. With an MT, the computer has no control of gear ratios. An AT allows some control, but the CVT is fully under the control of the same system that is managing all of the other parameters. Picking the best gear ratio for a particular situation is absolutely no different than picking the right spark advance, throttle opening or injection pulse width. Computers are very good at these types of functions. (Once somebody smart enough works out all the possibilities, CVT vehicles just may be the ultimate "chip" tuning cars).

EPA fuel ratings are notoriusly innaccurate when compared to the real world, but they are very precise and repeatable as they place every vehicle tested under the same conditions. (Accuracy and precision are not the same thing). The EPA ratings are not good at predicting what you will get in the real world, but they are valid and useful for relative comparisons between vehicles.

There are many reasons someone might favor driving an MT. I always did (until recently) purely based on the satisfaction of being able to do it well. Your driving conditions sound like a pretty good one, too. I'm not trying to "sell" the CVT to anybody, just making sure folks who might be interested (one way or the other) understand the whole picture.

jcalabria

'07 definitely does not have the outlet in the passenger footwell.

Also, somebody made a very bad decision about the one in the console well... it is unswitched.

SilverMax_04

He referred in the previous post to "the most efficient operating point." This is the engine operating condition that produces the best mileage -- not the most HP. Producing the most HP eats fuel and the previous discussion is on efficiency and not power.

In looking for an good graph of HP output for the VQ engine, I came across a SAE paper by Nissan (2000-01-0668) that has a graph on engine volumetric efficiency vs RPM. The graph for this VQ's volumetric efficiency peaks at 3,200 RPM, but is reasonably high between about 2,900 and 3,800 RPM. This efficiency falls off substantially above 3,800. This is not the 6-Gen engine because it's compression ratio is only 10.1 and the 6-Gen has a 10.3 to 1 compression ratio.

The reason the 6-speed MT is a close ratio transmission is to allow the driver to keep the VQ engine in the Max HP range. I also found another SAE paper by Nissan (2002-01-0450) that shows a graph of HP and Torque in the 10.3 compression ratio 3.5 VQ. In this engine the HP peaks at 6,000 RPM and falls off on either side of that. The peak torque is at 4,800 RPM, but is reasonably close to that peak between about 4 K and 5,800 RPM. Theoretically with a CVT, it will keep the engine RPMs at 6 K at all speeds to get max power. With a close-ratio 6-speed MT, a good driver can keep the VQ engine operating between 4.5 K and 6 K RPMs. Not at peak HP but still operating in the range of peak torque and peak HP.

Since I don't race my Max, I'm generally more interested in getting the best possible mpg from her, not the most power (unless I'm passing on a 2-lane road). While the first graph above says I should get the best engine volumetric efficiency at about 3,200 RPM, I still believe that I will get the best mpg at between about 2K and 2.5K RPM. The problems with proving this -- there are so many other factors that can not be ignored when looking for the best mpg (including, but not limited to: temp, wind speed, wind direction, elevation, changes in elevation, fuel octane, spark advance, etc.)

The argument goes on. But I certainly agree with (or at least understand) all of the points that jacalabria made in his post. Well argued and certainly worth considering. Do I pop for a CVT because I will get a lower engine RPM while cruising the interstates, or a MT to get better engine braking when I leave home every day. I would prefer a third option: a MT that allows an engine RPM around 2.6K when going 80 mph. That would either be a wide-ratio 6-speed or even a 7- or 8-speed close-ratio.

xoomer.com

iTrader: (19)

Sounds like advanced calculus. Thank god I'm done with college.

jcalabria

Calculus was easy.

Differential equations... now that's another story.

SilverMax_04

This has less to do with math and more to do with engineering. When you get into engineering concepts, it is almost impossible to make it "easy." When you try to, it usually becomes "junk science."

Blaxima95

all that sounds more like a CVT/physics discussion rather than model year differences

NmexMAX

iTrader: (22)

5 wire wideband (vs 3 wire narrow band) oxygen sensors came in 2006+ model years.

dizdoodrockie

There's also a little orange l.e.d light in the middle of the dome lights. Comes on when you turn on the headlights. It's some what dim. But bright enough to see buttons, shift ****, and things in the cup holder. It's pretty cool. I'll post a picture later.

Blaxima95

04 has that