True, but you didn't say anything about that in your post, just what fwd cars were 300+

I had almost triple that mileage on mine. They must have had lemons or just didn't maintenance them properly?

 

I did drive a new Altima yesterday, but a 4 cyl model. Overall I do like the car, and it drove very nicely. Nissan did away with the little slot to place the fob on the left side of the dash. Strange...

I'm not sure what improvements (if any) was made to the engine, but the CVT seemed much more refined than the previous model and had quite a bit more zip when floored. It was much more responsive and there was a more noticeable aggressiveness when accelerating.

 

lol you beat me to it STARR

 

Set cruise at 60 mph tonight on my 2012 Maxima SV and it also shows 1750 rpm at that speed (exactly 1/4 below the 2 mark between the 1 and 2 on the tach). Shows 2050 rpm at 70 mph. It takes about 66-67 mph to show 1950 rpm.

 

someone should do a CVT tranny swap from the old to the new. you think its a different TCM too?

 

Think so, fyi the 4 Cyl Alti and the 3.5 are using 2 different versions of the new CVT.

 

I suppose 60 is the max for good mileage.

 

I rechecked mine last night, and mine is exactly the same as yours - 1750 RPM at 60 MPH, but I didn't feel it was worth my time arguing with Road&Track.

 

I agree with you that the front end of the '13 Altima is not at all smooth and clean. The first thing I thought of when I saw it was that Nissan is making the same mistake Lexus is making in changing to a strange looking front on their line of cars just to be different from everyone else.

 

Probably because this new Alt mag times are quicker than 3.0 Maxis. Pretty nice what na 4cyl family sedan are down to these days.

 

You are a lucky dude to live where the different grades are priced so closely. The differences where I live have been around 20 cents per gallon between 87 and 89 and 20 cents more between 89 and 91. That has pretty much been the case for several years at all my nearby stations.

During the recent spike, that difference jumped to 25 cents per gallon for each step up, but that went back to 20 cents within a week.

At 20 cents, that means the difference in cost for a fillup is only $3 to $4. I do not use 89 just to save $3 or $4; I would not have bought the car if gas prices were a factor. I use 89 because the car performs every bit as well for me with 89. Using 89 will not change the MPG, as MPG is not tied to octane as long as the fuel system is able to handle it efficiently, and most articles I have seen over the years say that using a higher octane that your car really needs accomplishes nothing.

But we have to be smart, too. 89 is very close to the 91 Nissan specifies for this car. But 87 is not. 87 is the lowest octane normally available in most places. Many 7th gen Maximas do not run well on 87, and the fuel systems of ones that do run on 87 are having to make such a large adjustment to handle 87 that the efficiency drops off to where MPG can be affected.

You are absolutely correct that everyone sees this in their own way, and even those using 87 in this beautiful vehicle are convinced they are doing fine.

 

double post

 

I was not the one who was concerned with 300hp fwd cars, you confused me with someone else

I saw a different side of these cars as a mechanic, GM definitely slacked with such a nice car

 

Whoops...

Well GM went bankrupt for a reason. At least they got to keep the GM acronym when they went from General Motors to Government Motors.

 

You seem to be an intelligent person, however, the video of a person punching himself repeatedly in the head does not convey this message. In IMHO you need to change it to something more appropriate for this forum of grown-up adults.

 

its not just some person, its tyler durden. and the first rule about fight club is you dont talk about fight club