Xtronic CVT cutaway
05-18-2009, 12:14 AM
#3
05-18-2009, 01:41 AM
#4
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: a meadow south of Atlanta
Posts: 8,143
Amazing that something that compact could handle the output of a 290 HP engine and propel a 3600 pound vehicle along as well as this thing does. Looks to be only a fraction the size of an automatic tranny.
05-18-2009, 09:33 AM
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: CT
Posts: 1,192
05-18-2009, 07:02 PM
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Washington D.C.
Posts: 372
05-19-2009, 01:45 AM
#9
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: a meadow south of Atlanta
Posts: 8,143
We'd better get used to these CVTs. The fuel requirements the government is going to impose later this morning (Tuesday) will mean more hybrids, electric cars, and vehicles using the efficient CVT.
05-19-2009, 03:36 PM
#10
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Washington D.C.
Posts: 372
05-19-2009, 06:01 PM
#11
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: a meadow south of Atlanta
Posts: 8,143
Yup! Walking in the door from school I could hear CNN's Wolf Blitzer saying that by 2016, cars are required to average mileage standard of 39 miles per gallon for cars and 30 mpg for trucks. This is also supposed to add about $600 to the cost of a new car. I did the calculations and that is equivalent to taking about 177 million cars off the road. And with our new Maximas getting up to 32+ mpg, that requirement shouldn't be hard for nissan to reach.
Yep; Nissan will reach this astronomical figure easily. And we will all love our 139 HP 2016 Maxima Sport Supremes.
05-19-2009, 08:56 PM
#13
Yup! Walking in the door from school I could hear CNN's Wolf Blitzer saying that by 2016, cars are required to average mileage standard of 39 miles per gallon for cars and 30 mpg for trucks. This is also supposed to add about $600 to the cost of a new car. I did the calculations and that is equivalent to taking about 177 million cars off the road. And with our new Maximas getting up to 32+ mpg, that requirement shouldn't be hard for nissan to reach.
05-20-2009, 01:08 AM
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: a meadow south of Atlanta
Posts: 8,143
IMHO this is all crap, were not going to save one dime because as fuel consumption drops, gasoline consumption will drop and guess what? Federal Taxes will go up to make up the difference so we'll all end up with smaller cars but with more of a financial burden. Wow what great progress!
This had to come, and we might as well get it over with. Petroleum supplies are not endless, and we have practically been held hostage by mideastern countries because we absolutely have to have their crude, at whatever price they choose to charge us.
Even should taxes go up far enough to offset the fuel savings these new efficient cars will give us, we at least gain the benefits of putting more money in the roadbuilding kitty, lowering our petroleum needs, and reducing our air pollution. With a population that never ceases its obscene growth, those three gains are much-needed.
Even the Big Three are now on board with these changes, because they know these new MPG and emission goals can be met. I was kidding about the Maxima dropping to 139 HP; the Maxima will remain very performance and comfort oriented, and will still be a cut above the masses of cars out there.
A very important thing these new rules will accomplish is to stop the building of millions of monstrous three and four ton SUVs that suck gas, crush any reasonably sized vehicle they hit, and are invariably driven by a sole occupant who is busy texting or twittering on a cell phone.
Yes, there are positives and negatives, but we all knew this time would come. At my very advanced age, I have long-since learned that complaining changes nothing, so I just play the cards I am dealt.
05-20-2009, 07:36 AM
#15
This had to come, and we might as well get it over with. Petroleum supplies are not endless, and we have practically been held hostage by mideastern countries because we absolutely have to have their crude, at whatever price they choose to charge us.
Even should taxes go up far enough to offset the fuel savings these new efficient cars will give us, we at least gain the benefits of putting more money in the roadbuilding kitty, lowering our petroleum needs, and reducing our air pollution. With a population that never ceases its obscene growth, those three gains are much-needed.
Even the Big Three are now on board with these changes, because they know these new MPG and emission goals can be met. I was kidding about the Maxima dropping to 139 HP; the Maxima will remain very performance and comfort oriented, and will still be a cut above the masses of cars out there.
A very important thing these new rules will accomplish is to stop the building of millions of monstrous three and four ton SUVs that suck gas, crush any reasonably sized vehicle they hit, and are invariably driven by a sole occupant who is busy texting or twittering on a cell phone.
Yes, there are positives and negatives, but we all knew this time would come. At my very advanced age, I have long-since learned that complaining changes nothing, so I just play the cards I am dealt.
Even should taxes go up far enough to offset the fuel savings these new efficient cars will give us, we at least gain the benefits of putting more money in the roadbuilding kitty, lowering our petroleum needs, and reducing our air pollution. With a population that never ceases its obscene growth, those three gains are much-needed.
Even the Big Three are now on board with these changes, because they know these new MPG and emission goals can be met. I was kidding about the Maxima dropping to 139 HP; the Maxima will remain very performance and comfort oriented, and will still be a cut above the masses of cars out there.
A very important thing these new rules will accomplish is to stop the building of millions of monstrous three and four ton SUVs that suck gas, crush any reasonably sized vehicle they hit, and are invariably driven by a sole occupant who is busy texting or twittering on a cell phone.
Yes, there are positives and negatives, but we all knew this time would come. At my very advanced age, I have long-since learned that complaining changes nothing, so I just play the cards I am dealt.
05-20-2009, 01:15 PM
#16
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: a meadow south of Atlanta
Posts: 8,143
I'm not complaining just voicing my opinion, I was reading more last evening and the cost of an auto could go over 3k, 4k it's all dependent on the manufacturer. I think the Government should start investing in a new alternative infrastructure i.e. like what Brazil did for the last 30 years. Forcing us to pay more in every direction for the existing infrastructure is foolish. Obama really needs to focus on future technologies, invest in it, provide incentives to the industry for R&D, etc. Raising CAFE standards won't do it and frankly will hurt the auto industry and every citizen.
Ten years ago, I would have agreed with everything you said. But with the level of wages and the cost of building anything in the U.S., it is far too late to attempt to replace our entire infrastructure.
I grew up when we were a nation of less than 100 million folks, land in most places was cheap, and reasonably priced labor was plentiful. Now we have over 300 million folks, land in most places is exhorbitant, and wages for heavy construction workers (except for Hispanic immigrants) are high. The least expensive replacement for our nation's transportation system would be a comprehensive network of passenger trains, and even that is not affordable, and our braindead populace would not make full use of it if it existed.
As to incentives for the Big Three auto companies to do better, incentives did not work in the past, and would not work in the future. You ask what those incentives were in the past? The biggest ones imaginable: either they improved their vehicles to be as efficient, reliable and environmentally clean as the burgeoning imports, or they would fall by the wayside. They fell by the wayside.
Instead of accepting those incentives, grabbing the bull by the horns and moving into the future with very efficient vehicles, Detroit continued to simply move very slowly in that direction. Evidently, Detroit was blissfully unaware the foreign companies had already developed the technology to make much more efficient autos, but were simply staying one step ahead of Detroit, as that was all they needed to do to beat the Big Three in sales.
As for cleaner vehicles, had the government not stepped in and required emission controls, they would not have happened. Vehicles would still be spewing the noxious fumes of sixty years ago.
I am not (and could never be) a Democrat, but I must say that Obama is our FIRST president to INSIST on, and actually FUND research for alternative energy sources. I loved President Bush, but being a man from a 'big oil' state, he paid only lip service to environmental concerns, and had no real interest in alternative energy sources. As he received his 'marching orders' from another 'big oil' man (Cheney, whom I did NOT care for), we were assured nothing constructive would happen in alternative energy while they were in charge.
Raising CAFE standards should have been done gradually over the past thirty years, but Detroit dug in their heels, brought political pressure to bear, and delayed almost every attempt to raise these lowly standards. Now they are very near to having the technology in place to meet these new high standards, and are 'on board' with their implementation.
There are those who complain that autos with this new technology will cost three or four thousand more, but that is not true. If the auto companies try to recoup the entire cost of the reseaech involved in one year, then that might be the case. Except that then everyone would simply switch back to foreign makes, where the wise foreign companies knew it would be foolish to try and recover all research costs in one year.
These new standards are LONG overdue. Had the auto companies been diligent in their progress with efficient autos, and kept the environment in mind over the years, these new standards would never had been necessary. There are those who say that, given time and incentives, this progress would have happened anyway. Those folks must not be aware that our current vehicles would be much less efficient had not standards already been imposed by the government for decades.
It still is not understood by many Americans that using oil like we have always done has brought our nation to the brink of disaster. Billions of dollars worth of property in the U.S. is already owned by foreign citizens and foreign governments. We owe China alone more money than existed in this country when I was a child. Either we change what we are doing, or we fall further than the Roman Empire.
Most of us greedy Americans would never have insisted that autos put out less toxins and do less damage to the environment. Because of our greed, our desire for more and more, no matter the consequences, it was left to our government to require we do better. As our government has now done the right thing, our auto companies will be required to do the right thing.
Of course there are compromises, and even downsides to everything, but these latest CAFE requirements should have aklready been met a decade ago without any government insistence. But they weren't, and the piper must be paid.
05-20-2009, 01:32 PM
#17
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 910
Ten years ago, I would have agreed with everything you said. But with the level of wages and the cost of building anything in the U.S., it is far too late to attempt to replace our entire infrastructure.
I grew up when we were a nation of less than 100 million folks, land in most places was cheap, and reasonably priced labor was plentiful. Now we have over 300 million folks, land in most places is exhorbitant, and wages for heavy construction workers (except for Hispanic immigrants) are high. The least expensive replacement for our nation's transportation system would be a comprehensive network of passenger trains, and even that is not affordable, and our braindead populace would not make full use of it if it existed.
As to incentives for the Big Three auto companies to do better, incentives did not work in the past, and would not work in the future. You ask what those incentives were in the past? The biggest ones imaginable: either they improved their vehicles to be as efficient, reliable and environmentally clean as the burgeoning imports, or they would fall by the wayside. They fell by the wayside.
Instead of accepting those incentives, grabbing the bull by the horns and moving into the future with very efficient vehicles, Detroit continued to simply move very slowly in that direction. Evidently, Detroit was blissfully unaware the foreign companies had already developed the technology to make much more efficient autos, but were simply staying one step ahead of Detroit, as that was all they needed to do to beat the Big Three in sales.
As for cleaner vehicles, had the government not stepped in and required emission controls, they would not have happened. Vehicles would still be spewing the noxious fumes of sixty years ago.
I am not (and could never be) a Democrat, but I must say that Obama is our FIRST president to INSIST on, and actually FUND research for alternative energy sources. I loved President Bush, but being a man from a 'big oil' state, he paid only lip service to environmental concerns, and had no real interest in alternative energy sources. As he received his 'marching orders' from another 'big oil' man (Cheney, whom I did NOT care for), we were assured nothing constructive would happen in alternative energy while they were in charge.
Raising CAFE standards should have been done gradually over the past thirty years, but Detroit dug in their heels, brought political pressure to bear, and delayed almost every attempt to raise these lowly standards. Now they are very near to having the technology in place to meet these new high standards, and are 'on board' with their implementation.
There are those who complain that autos with this new technology will cost three or four thousand more, but that is not true. If the auto companies try to recoup the entire cost of the reseaech involved in one year, then that might be the case. Except that then everyone would simply switch back to foreign makes, where the wise foreign companies knew it would be foolish to try and recover all research costs in one year.
These new standards are LONG overdue. Had the auto companies been diligent in their progress with efficient autos, and kept the environment in mind over the years, these new standards would never had been necessary. There are those who say that, given time and incentives, this progress would have happened anyway. Those folks must not be aware that our current vehicles would be much less efficient had not standards already been imposed by the government for decades.
It still is not understood by many Americans that using oil like we have always done has brought our nation to the brink of disaster. Billions of dollars worth of property in the U.S. is already owned by foreign citizens and foreign governments. We owe China alone more money than existed in this country when I was a child. Either we change what we are doing, or we fall further than the Roman Empire.
Most of us greedy Americans would never have insisted that autos put out less toxins and do less damage to the environment. Because of our greed, our desire for more and more, no matter the consequences, it was left to our government to require we do better. As our government has now done the right thing, our auto companies will be required to do the right thing.
Of course there are compromises, and even downsides to everything, but these latest CAFE requirements should have aklready been met a decade ago without any government insistence. But they weren't, and the piper must be paid.
I grew up when we were a nation of less than 100 million folks, land in most places was cheap, and reasonably priced labor was plentiful. Now we have over 300 million folks, land in most places is exhorbitant, and wages for heavy construction workers (except for Hispanic immigrants) are high. The least expensive replacement for our nation's transportation system would be a comprehensive network of passenger trains, and even that is not affordable, and our braindead populace would not make full use of it if it existed.
As to incentives for the Big Three auto companies to do better, incentives did not work in the past, and would not work in the future. You ask what those incentives were in the past? The biggest ones imaginable: either they improved their vehicles to be as efficient, reliable and environmentally clean as the burgeoning imports, or they would fall by the wayside. They fell by the wayside.
Instead of accepting those incentives, grabbing the bull by the horns and moving into the future with very efficient vehicles, Detroit continued to simply move very slowly in that direction. Evidently, Detroit was blissfully unaware the foreign companies had already developed the technology to make much more efficient autos, but were simply staying one step ahead of Detroit, as that was all they needed to do to beat the Big Three in sales.
As for cleaner vehicles, had the government not stepped in and required emission controls, they would not have happened. Vehicles would still be spewing the noxious fumes of sixty years ago.
I am not (and could never be) a Democrat, but I must say that Obama is our FIRST president to INSIST on, and actually FUND research for alternative energy sources. I loved President Bush, but being a man from a 'big oil' state, he paid only lip service to environmental concerns, and had no real interest in alternative energy sources. As he received his 'marching orders' from another 'big oil' man (Cheney, whom I did NOT care for), we were assured nothing constructive would happen in alternative energy while they were in charge.
Raising CAFE standards should have been done gradually over the past thirty years, but Detroit dug in their heels, brought political pressure to bear, and delayed almost every attempt to raise these lowly standards. Now they are very near to having the technology in place to meet these new high standards, and are 'on board' with their implementation.
There are those who complain that autos with this new technology will cost three or four thousand more, but that is not true. If the auto companies try to recoup the entire cost of the reseaech involved in one year, then that might be the case. Except that then everyone would simply switch back to foreign makes, where the wise foreign companies knew it would be foolish to try and recover all research costs in one year.
These new standards are LONG overdue. Had the auto companies been diligent in their progress with efficient autos, and kept the environment in mind over the years, these new standards would never had been necessary. There are those who say that, given time and incentives, this progress would have happened anyway. Those folks must not be aware that our current vehicles would be much less efficient had not standards already been imposed by the government for decades.
It still is not understood by many Americans that using oil like we have always done has brought our nation to the brink of disaster. Billions of dollars worth of property in the U.S. is already owned by foreign citizens and foreign governments. We owe China alone more money than existed in this country when I was a child. Either we change what we are doing, or we fall further than the Roman Empire.
Most of us greedy Americans would never have insisted that autos put out less toxins and do less damage to the environment. Because of our greed, our desire for more and more, no matter the consequences, it was left to our government to require we do better. As our government has now done the right thing, our auto companies will be required to do the right thing.
Of course there are compromises, and even downsides to everything, but these latest CAFE requirements should have aklready been met a decade ago without any government insistence. But they weren't, and the piper must be paid.
05-21-2009, 01:11 AM
#18
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: a meadow south of Atlanta
Posts: 8,143
Yes, smaller than I imagined, also, and I have been a strong CVT proponent since driving this redesigned '09 version. I expect smaller Nissan vehicles equipped with CVTs to meet the new efficiency standards well before 2016 deadline.
05-24-2009, 12:19 AM
#19
Ten years ago, I would have agreed with everything you said. But with the level of wages and the cost of building anything in the U.S., it is far too late to attempt to replace our entire infrastructure.
I grew up when we were a nation of less than 100 million folks, land in most places was cheap, and reasonably priced labor was plentiful. Now we have over 300 million folks, land in most places is exhorbitant, and wages for heavy construction workers (except for Hispanic immigrants) are high. The least expensive replacement for our nation's transportation system would be a comprehensive network of passenger trains, and even that is not affordable, and our braindead populace would not make full use of it if it existed.
As to incentives for the Big Three auto companies to do better, incentives did not work in the past, and would not work in the future. You ask what those incentives were in the past? The biggest ones imaginable: either they improved their vehicles to be as efficient, reliable and environmentally clean as the burgeoning imports, or they would fall by the wayside. They fell by the wayside.
Instead of accepting those incentives, grabbing the bull by the horns and moving into the future with very efficient vehicles, Detroit continued to simply move very slowly in that direction. Evidently, Detroit was blissfully unaware the foreign companies had already developed the technology to make much more efficient autos, but were simply staying one step ahead of Detroit, as that was all they needed to do to beat the Big Three in sales.
As for cleaner vehicles, had the government not stepped in and required emission controls, they would not have happened. Vehicles would still be spewing the noxious fumes of sixty years ago.
I am not (and could never be) a Democrat, but I must say that Obama is our FIRST president to INSIST on, and actually FUND research for alternative energy sources. I loved President Bush, but being a man from a 'big oil' state, he paid only lip service to environmental concerns, and had no real interest in alternative energy sources. As he received his 'marching orders' from another 'big oil' man (Cheney, whom I did NOT care for), we were assured nothing constructive would happen in alternative energy while they were in charge.
Raising CAFE standards should have been done gradually over the past thirty years, but Detroit dug in their heels, brought political pressure to bear, and delayed almost every attempt to raise these lowly standards. Now they are very near to having the technology in place to meet these new high standards, and are 'on board' with their implementation.
There are those who complain that autos with this new technology will cost three or four thousand more, but that is not true. If the auto companies try to recoup the entire cost of the reseaech involved in one year, then that might be the case. Except that then everyone would simply switch back to foreign makes, where the wise foreign companies knew it would be foolish to try and recover all research costs in one year.
These new standards are LONG overdue. Had the auto companies been diligent in their progress with efficient autos, and kept the environment in mind over the years, these new standards would never had been necessary. There are those who say that, given time and incentives, this progress would have happened anyway. Those folks must not be aware that our current vehicles would be much less efficient had not standards already been imposed by the government for decades.
It still is not understood by many Americans that using oil like we have always done has brought our nation to the brink of disaster. Billions of dollars worth of property in the U.S. is already owned by foreign citizens and foreign governments. We owe China alone more money than existed in this country when I was a child. Either we change what we are doing, or we fall further than the Roman Empire.
Most of us greedy Americans would never have insisted that autos put out less toxins and do less damage to the environment. Because of our greed, our desire for more and more, no matter the consequences, it was left to our government to require we do better. As our government has now done the right thing, our auto companies will be required to do the right thing.
Of course there are compromises, and even downsides to everything, but these latest CAFE requirements should have aklready been met a decade ago without any government insistence. But they weren't, and the piper must be paid.
I grew up when we were a nation of less than 100 million folks, land in most places was cheap, and reasonably priced labor was plentiful. Now we have over 300 million folks, land in most places is exhorbitant, and wages for heavy construction workers (except for Hispanic immigrants) are high. The least expensive replacement for our nation's transportation system would be a comprehensive network of passenger trains, and even that is not affordable, and our braindead populace would not make full use of it if it existed.
As to incentives for the Big Three auto companies to do better, incentives did not work in the past, and would not work in the future. You ask what those incentives were in the past? The biggest ones imaginable: either they improved their vehicles to be as efficient, reliable and environmentally clean as the burgeoning imports, or they would fall by the wayside. They fell by the wayside.
Instead of accepting those incentives, grabbing the bull by the horns and moving into the future with very efficient vehicles, Detroit continued to simply move very slowly in that direction. Evidently, Detroit was blissfully unaware the foreign companies had already developed the technology to make much more efficient autos, but were simply staying one step ahead of Detroit, as that was all they needed to do to beat the Big Three in sales.
As for cleaner vehicles, had the government not stepped in and required emission controls, they would not have happened. Vehicles would still be spewing the noxious fumes of sixty years ago.
I am not (and could never be) a Democrat, but I must say that Obama is our FIRST president to INSIST on, and actually FUND research for alternative energy sources. I loved President Bush, but being a man from a 'big oil' state, he paid only lip service to environmental concerns, and had no real interest in alternative energy sources. As he received his 'marching orders' from another 'big oil' man (Cheney, whom I did NOT care for), we were assured nothing constructive would happen in alternative energy while they were in charge.
Raising CAFE standards should have been done gradually over the past thirty years, but Detroit dug in their heels, brought political pressure to bear, and delayed almost every attempt to raise these lowly standards. Now they are very near to having the technology in place to meet these new high standards, and are 'on board' with their implementation.
There are those who complain that autos with this new technology will cost three or four thousand more, but that is not true. If the auto companies try to recoup the entire cost of the reseaech involved in one year, then that might be the case. Except that then everyone would simply switch back to foreign makes, where the wise foreign companies knew it would be foolish to try and recover all research costs in one year.
These new standards are LONG overdue. Had the auto companies been diligent in their progress with efficient autos, and kept the environment in mind over the years, these new standards would never had been necessary. There are those who say that, given time and incentives, this progress would have happened anyway. Those folks must not be aware that our current vehicles would be much less efficient had not standards already been imposed by the government for decades.
It still is not understood by many Americans that using oil like we have always done has brought our nation to the brink of disaster. Billions of dollars worth of property in the U.S. is already owned by foreign citizens and foreign governments. We owe China alone more money than existed in this country when I was a child. Either we change what we are doing, or we fall further than the Roman Empire.
Most of us greedy Americans would never have insisted that autos put out less toxins and do less damage to the environment. Because of our greed, our desire for more and more, no matter the consequences, it was left to our government to require we do better. As our government has now done the right thing, our auto companies will be required to do the right thing.
Of course there are compromises, and even downsides to everything, but these latest CAFE requirements should have aklready been met a decade ago without any government insistence. But they weren't, and the piper must be paid.
05-24-2009, 12:46 AM
#20
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: a meadow south of Atlanta
Posts: 8,143
Thanks, bronzelite. I seldom bring politics to the ORG, but felt politics (and ostentatious greed) were the primary reasons we have gotten ourselves into this mess. Also, being a very strict centrist, I try to never favor either political party.
Cars are going to be changing fairly quickly during the next half-dozen or so years, and many folks will not be pleased with some of the compromises we will see. Smaller vehicles that already get decent MPG will not change as noticably as vehicles that have always been associated with power and performance. It will be very interesting to see the evolvement of the Maxima. The 8th generation, which should arrive in spring or summer of 2013 as a 2014 model, will tell us a great deal about the future of our baby.
Some of these changes will hurt, but I try to tell myself they will be for the common good.
05-24-2009, 10:18 AM
#21
Thanks, bronzelite. I seldom bring politics to the ORG, but felt politics (and ostentatious greed) were the primary reasons we have gotten ourselves into this mess. Also, being a very strict centrist, I try to never favor either political party.
Cars are going to be changing fairly quickly during the next half-dozen or so years, and many folks will not be pleased with some of the compromises we will see. Smaller vehicles that already get decent MPG will not change as noticably as vehicles that have always been associated with power and performance. It will be very interesting to see the evolvement of the Maxima. The 8th generation, which should arrive in spring or summer of 2013 as a 2014 model, will tell us a great deal about the future of our baby.
Some of these changes will hurt, but I try to tell myself they will be for the common good.
Cars are going to be changing fairly quickly during the next half-dozen or so years, and many folks will not be pleased with some of the compromises we will see. Smaller vehicles that already get decent MPG will not change as noticably as vehicles that have always been associated with power and performance. It will be very interesting to see the evolvement of the Maxima. The 8th generation, which should arrive in spring or summer of 2013 as a 2014 model, will tell us a great deal about the future of our baby.
Some of these changes will hurt, but I try to tell myself they will be for the common good.
Before long, in order to hear loud performance cars, with 3 pedals and a stick shift, you will have to go to a track day event. They won't be on the public roads anymore it seems.
And even at that, there are already plans to create electric racing cars. So it will be at vintage events where you will see gasoline powered cars.
Part of the thrill of having a performance car is to be able to feel it, smell it, hear it. It seems like all of that is being edited out of the driving experience bit by bit.
05-25-2009, 07:04 AM
#23
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 28
You know what would be really cool? "Regenerative gearing", just like regenerative braking. The CVT creates so much heat energy that it is a dire shame it cannot be harnessed and used. It could recharge a battery pack or be used to supply heat to the equipped vehicle's cabin in the winter time. It could be as simple as the geothermal technology for homes.
I tell you though, this is a fine time for Nissan to axe or postpone their clean diesel plans for the Maxima. With a clean diesel, Nissan could meet those 2016 new standards sooner. They should bring over two variants. One 2.0L 190HP & 240 lb-ft of torque diesel and the 3.0L 235HP diesel we heard about before. I am sure both cars with either engine would be very fun to drive. The 3.0L diesel being for the more performance oriented customer and the 2.0L going to the more fuel efficient minded customer.
I believe Nissan has a hybrid-clean diesel commercial truck being tested in Japan. I think it is called the Nissan Atlas. I think it is a joint venture with Isuzu but I remember it from an article I read a while ago. Who knows, Nissan probably axed that project too.
Sorry for the off topic but I just couldn't resist. I found the old site where I read the article.
http://www.greencarsite.co.uk/GREENN...-cng-atlas.htm
I wonder what specific metal the pulleys are made from. Titanium pulleys & chain would surely allow these trannies to handle more heat and stress. Only in a dream could I imagine this tranny having iridium or tungsten pulleys and chain to make it crazy durable. I wouldn't sacrifice such precious metals on a transmission unless I was an astronaut about to use it for space vehicles though.
I tell you though, this is a fine time for Nissan to axe or postpone their clean diesel plans for the Maxima. With a clean diesel, Nissan could meet those 2016 new standards sooner. They should bring over two variants. One 2.0L 190HP & 240 lb-ft of torque diesel and the 3.0L 235HP diesel we heard about before. I am sure both cars with either engine would be very fun to drive. The 3.0L diesel being for the more performance oriented customer and the 2.0L going to the more fuel efficient minded customer.
I believe Nissan has a hybrid-clean diesel commercial truck being tested in Japan. I think it is called the Nissan Atlas. I think it is a joint venture with Isuzu but I remember it from an article I read a while ago. Who knows, Nissan probably axed that project too.
Sorry for the off topic but I just couldn't resist. I found the old site where I read the article.
http://www.greencarsite.co.uk/GREENN...-cng-atlas.htm
I wonder what specific metal the pulleys are made from. Titanium pulleys & chain would surely allow these trannies to handle more heat and stress. Only in a dream could I imagine this tranny having iridium or tungsten pulleys and chain to make it crazy durable. I wouldn't sacrifice such precious metals on a transmission unless I was an astronaut about to use it for space vehicles though.
Last edited by InfiNissanLover; 05-25-2009 at 07:30 AM.
05-25-2009, 01:15 PM
#24
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: a meadow south of Atlanta
Posts: 8,143
Good insight from both bronzelite and InfiNissanLover.
I was also one who was disappointed the recession deferred the diesel Maxima. Diesels inherently give better fuel efficiency, and the clean and efficient Renault-Nissan versions being used in Europe are promising. We may still eventually see a diesel Maxima, both because of fuel efficiency and outstanding torque.
Back to the thread. I expect to see more and more use of CVTs in the effort to attain higher fuel efficiency, and would feel the CVT would be the tranny of choice in coming hybrids, also. I am not familiar with the gearing in electric vehicles, but if they are to be developed for high-speed highway use, I feel gearing could improve their range, and the CVT would be the perfect tranny for that use.
One possibility of the CVT I haven't seen discussed is the fact it should theoretically be possible to build a CVT with almost unlimited top end speed. Not having the set notches of normal gearing opens many doors. The CVT could be holding the engine RPMs to down around the 3K area, where torque and fuel efficiency are decent, while the car rockets along at 200 MPH. This might even be the future of NASCAR.
I was also one who was disappointed the recession deferred the diesel Maxima. Diesels inherently give better fuel efficiency, and the clean and efficient Renault-Nissan versions being used in Europe are promising. We may still eventually see a diesel Maxima, both because of fuel efficiency and outstanding torque.
Back to the thread. I expect to see more and more use of CVTs in the effort to attain higher fuel efficiency, and would feel the CVT would be the tranny of choice in coming hybrids, also. I am not familiar with the gearing in electric vehicles, but if they are to be developed for high-speed highway use, I feel gearing could improve their range, and the CVT would be the perfect tranny for that use.
One possibility of the CVT I haven't seen discussed is the fact it should theoretically be possible to build a CVT with almost unlimited top end speed. Not having the set notches of normal gearing opens many doors. The CVT could be holding the engine RPMs to down around the 3K area, where torque and fuel efficiency are decent, while the car rockets along at 200 MPH. This might even be the future of NASCAR.
05-25-2009, 01:27 PM
#25
Good insight from both bronzelite and InfiNissanLover.
I was also one who was disappointed the recession deferred the diesel Maxima. Diesels inherently give better fuel efficiency, and the clean and efficient Renault-Nissan versions being used in Europe are promising. We may still eventually see a diesel Maxima, both because of fuel efficiency and outstanding torque.
Back to the thread. I expect to see more and more use of CVTs in the effort to attain higher fuel efficiency, and would feel the CVT would be the tranny of choice in coming hybrids, also. I am not familiar with the gearing in electric vehicles, but if they are to be developed for high-speed highway use, I feel gearing could improve their range, and the CVT would be the perfect tranny for that use.
One possibility of the CVT I haven't seen discussed is the fact it should theoretically be possible to build a CVT with almost unlimited top end speed. Not having the set notches of normal gearing opens many doors. The CVT could be holding the engine RPMs to down around the 3K area, where torque and fuel efficiency are decent, while the car rockets along at 200 MPH. This might even be the future of NASCAR.
I was also one who was disappointed the recession deferred the diesel Maxima. Diesels inherently give better fuel efficiency, and the clean and efficient Renault-Nissan versions being used in Europe are promising. We may still eventually see a diesel Maxima, both because of fuel efficiency and outstanding torque.
Back to the thread. I expect to see more and more use of CVTs in the effort to attain higher fuel efficiency, and would feel the CVT would be the tranny of choice in coming hybrids, also. I am not familiar with the gearing in electric vehicles, but if they are to be developed for high-speed highway use, I feel gearing could improve their range, and the CVT would be the perfect tranny for that use.
One possibility of the CVT I haven't seen discussed is the fact it should theoretically be possible to build a CVT with almost unlimited top end speed. Not having the set notches of normal gearing opens many doors. The CVT could be holding the engine RPMs to down around the 3K area, where torque and fuel efficiency are decent, while the car rockets along at 200 MPH. This might even be the future of NASCAR.
05-25-2009, 02:05 PM
#26
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: a meadow south of Atlanta
Posts: 8,143
Maxima is going nowhere. The Altima is Nissan's high-volume affordable Camry and Accord killer, while the Maxima is Nissan's near-luxury flagship sedan.
The Altima and Maxima came uncomfortable close in price, performance and size when the redesigned Altima arrived back in 2002, but the 7th gen Maxima widened that gap considerably. Atlanta area Nissan dealers are selling new Altimas as cheaply as $16,990. The very cheapest entry-level Maxima is $8,000 more. There is also a similarly large price gap between the top end Altima and the top end Maxima.
I am proud of you for using good judgement in getting your 7th gen baby instead of falling for a VW. Just one glance at the reliability ratings tables of the '09 Consumer Reports auto issue will tell you why most of your neighbors with VWs are very familiar with their service manager. Black ***** everywhere.
Also, Big Oil has messed things up by charging exhorbitant prices for diesel fuel. For most of my life, diesel was the cheapest fuel. Now is is often the most expensive. That really hurts what should have been a big savings for customers using diesels. I'm not a fan of big government, but it may be time for the government to consider action that will bring diesel prices in line with the cost of producing the fuel (as Big Oil already does with gasoline). That would encourage the development of better diesel engines, which would be good for the consumer and for the country.
06-06-2009, 07:50 PM
#28
I am proud of you for using good judgement in getting your 7th gen baby instead of falling for a VW. Just one glance at the reliability ratings tables of the '09 Consumer Reports auto issue will tell you why most of your neighbors with VWs are very familiar with their service manager. Black ***** everywhere.
06-07-2009, 02:20 AM
#29
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: a meadow south of Atlanta
Posts: 8,143
Looking at CR one would come to the same conclusion with Nissan regarding reliability ratings. I've also been a subscriber to CR for 15 years and I like 85% of the publication but the auto reviews and feedback are very subjective. I have an employee who purchased a Diesel Jetta several years ago and it's been fine. I think Diesel is a fine alternative today and actually the most realistic alt fuel at this time since E85 provides such poor fuel economy.
As a CU subscriber continuously since 1961, I have come to the same conclusion as you in that CU testers can be quite subjective. I was not at all impressed with their review of the '09 Maxima, finding factual errors, as well as questionable statements in their treatise. In some cases, their remarks seem to have been carried over from the previous gen, and didn't really apply to the '09. I felt they gave too much negative emphasis to knit-picking details in the TL review, also.
Having said that, their reliability tables are simply a graphical representation of what their subscribers are reporting. I will grant you Nissan has some work to do reliability-wise, especially with the Armada (is this being dropped?), Quest (Nissan should be ashamed) and Titan (I think the Titan is being dropped). HOWEVER, Nissan products had an average of 6 3/4 black ***** for each vehicle, while VW products had an average of 13 1/2 black ***** for each vehicle. We can somewhat generalize here and, using that data, say that Nissan products average being TWICE AS RELIABLE as VW products. But that IS a generalization.
The Jetta has just made a diesel option available again in '09, and we have no way to know if it will be reliable. But comparing the overall reliability ratings (counting all the colored *****) of the Jetta and the Maxima over the 2003 to 2008 period, the Maxima always seems to be just a tad more reliable. But the difference is not such that I would be hesitant to buy the diesel Jetta, simply for the better fuel economy. Assuming I had the tint dark enough that nobody would recognize me.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
