DYNO COMPARISON: Battle of the Maxima 3.0's: 3rd Gen vs 4th Gen vs 5th Gen
03-12-2003, 11:37 AM
#81
Not DAVEB the parts guy
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 8,555
Originally posted by Jeff92se
IRS vs solid rear axle.
1) If it cost exactly the same to produce either, which would almost every maker of passenger/sports car have?
2) Even though we know irs is more $ to produce, Nissan still went back to it in their newer cars. And we was previously mentioned, Ford spent some $ to have it available on their Cobra machines.
IRS vs solid rear axle.
1) If it cost exactly the same to produce either, which would almost every maker of passenger/sports car have?
2) Even though we know irs is more $ to produce, Nissan still went back to it in their newer cars. And we was previously mentioned, Ford spent some $ to have it available on their Cobra machines.
Ford did spend some bank on the 99+ Cobra IRS, but the funny thing is it doesn't handle that much better than the 96-98 live-axle it replaced. The IRS added a whopping 120lbs in weight, dramatically increased the Cobras tendency to wheelhop, the wheelhop then caused lots-o-half shafts to snap, 20+ hp and the Cobra was slower..........
I'd still take a 99+ Cobra
Dave
03-12-2003, 11:42 AM
#82
Dyno plot says I have the most area under the Administrator curve
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 7,060
Originally posted by Dave B
Ford did spend some bank on the 99+ Cobra IRS, but the funny thing is it doesn't handle that much better than the 96-98 live-axle it replaced. The IRS added a whopping 120lbs in weight
Ford did spend some bank on the 99+ Cobra IRS, but the funny thing is it doesn't handle that much better than the 96-98 live-axle it replaced. The IRS added a whopping 120lbs in weight
I know that IRS is more complex, but I didn't realize that it was that much heavier. Was the 120lb delta due solely to the IRS, or were there other things as well?
03-12-2003, 11:43 AM
#83
Ford's IRS decision was a handling and confort decision. From what I read, it wasn't the best for strip use(which basicly describes the problems you mention). I think Ford wanted to step the Mustang up a notch in the handling dept w/o having to suffer the bone jarring ride penalty for good handling.
Originally posted by Dave B
Give me IRS if I had the choice
Ford did spend some bank on the 99+ Cobra IRS, but the funny thing is it doesn't handle that much better than the 96-98 live-axle it replaced. The IRS added a whopping 120lbs in weight, dramatically increased the Cobras tendency to wheelhop, the wheelhop then caused lots-o-half shafts to snap, 20+ hp and the Cobra was slower..........
I'd still take a 99+ Cobra
Dave
Give me IRS if I had the choice
Ford did spend some bank on the 99+ Cobra IRS, but the funny thing is it doesn't handle that much better than the 96-98 live-axle it replaced. The IRS added a whopping 120lbs in weight, dramatically increased the Cobras tendency to wheelhop, the wheelhop then caused lots-o-half shafts to snap, 20+ hp and the Cobra was slower..........
I'd still take a 99+ Cobra
Dave
03-12-2003, 11:51 AM
#86
Dyno plot says I have the most area under the Administrator curve
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 7,060
Originally posted by Lordrandall
Do we need a suspension thread now?
Do we need a suspension thread now?
Wait, that's this thread!
03-12-2003, 01:13 PM
#87
Originally posted by dmontzmax
At the track, it seems the VE is faster, over the weekend all the VQ's had horrible times and the VE auto (aaron92se) had no problems being consistant and beating every VQ, even 5 speeds, only slower than jdmmax who is s/c'd with 9psi. Every VE owner I talk to has friends in their area and say they take them out and you are all on this board.
At the track, it seems the VE is faster, over the weekend all the VQ's had horrible times and the VE auto (aaron92se) had no problems being consistant and beating every VQ, even 5 speeds, only slower than jdmmax who is s/c'd with 9psi. Every VE owner I talk to has friends in their area and say they take them out and you are all on this board.
you're doing it again
Do you realize how weak your argument sounds?
you're comparing one case, one proven case of a quick VE that did better at the track than VQs.
Everyone knows that there is more to it than the car. If someone can't drive worth ****, they won't be able to run a fast time in a Viper. Now is that enough to say that stock DX Civics are faster than Vipers? Because at the track, I might have once seen a Viper run a 20 second pass, then a Civic DX ran in the 18s.. incorrect. It's like people saying "I beat a Corvette in my stock GLE Maxima! My car is faster than a Corvette!"
We all know that VQs are easily capable of running quicker times and it has been proven. I don't blame you for holding on to one or two cases of VEs running quicker times than VQs.. you do need some ground to argue as a VE ****, but it's just not strong enough of an argument
Looking at all the reported VE times on the 3rd gen board, you'll find 5 speeds doing mid 15s on average.. There are far more reported VQs with less mods with much faster times. Yes, I know.. there are more VQs on the board than VEs.. but how many VEs do you have running consistent 14s ? never mind, mid or high 14s.. how many? I bet less than 10.. maybe even less than 5even with the bigger ratio of VQs to VEs..
you still have no ground to say what you are saying
you can't use one example to prove your whole argument my friend
03-12-2003, 01:30 PM
#89
Not DAVEB the parts guy
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 8,555
Originally posted by SteVTEC
I know that IRS is more complex, but I didn't realize that it was that much heavier. Was the 120lb delta due solely to the IRS, or were there other things as well?
I know that IRS is more complex, but I didn't realize that it was that much heavier. Was the 120lb delta due solely to the IRS, or were there other things as well?
The SC and iron block added ~90lbs to the frontend.Dave
03-12-2003, 01:44 PM
#90
Not DAVEB the parts guy
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 8,555
Originally posted by Nealoc187
Dave what's up with your trap speeds on that run. Even back when I was trapping similar 94-95 mph I still was running 75-76mph in the 1/8th. Was that an atypical run for you?
Dave what's up with your trap speeds on that run. Even back when I was trapping similar 94-95 mph I still was running 75-76mph in the 1/8th. Was that an atypical run for you?
Temps have to be in the 50-60 range for me to get these kinds of traps. I have run at another track 2 hours south of Kansas City and my best there was a lower 14.8@94.5mph with higher 2.2 60', stock b-pipe, modified stock airbox, running on 17s, 1/2 tank of gas, and 70 degree weather.
From what I've gathered on this Org, 95mph traps usually gets most people mid 14s assuming they get a lower 2.2 60'. Here I am running over 97mph and I'm stuck in the 14.6s due to a slick track and a 1100' altitude. It frustrates the hell out of me.
I'm hoping to come close to 99mph traps once I get my ECU.
Dave
03-12-2003, 02:08 PM
#91
Dyno plot says I have the most area under the Administrator curve
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 7,060
Originally posted by Dave B
Yes, the IRS alone weighs 120lbs over the live axle.
Yes, the IRS alone weighs 120lbs over the live axle.
This allows me appreciate the beam a little bit more for being lighter - one of the big strengths of the 4th Gen's. Thanks for the info!
03-12-2003, 02:15 PM
#92
We don't know how much the 3-gen irs weighs vs the 4-gen beam though. I suspect the mustang irs weighs that much because it was a retrofit onto an existing chassis vs being designed for irs from the get go.
Originally posted by SteVTEC
Good God!
This allows me appreciate the beam a little bit more for being lighter - one of the big strengths of the 4th Gen's. Thanks for the info!
Good God!
This allows me appreciate the beam a little bit more for being lighter - one of the big strengths of the 4th Gen's. Thanks for the info!
03-12-2003, 02:33 PM
#93
Not DAVEB the parts guy
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 8,555
Here's a pic of the Cobra's IRS: http://www.stangnet.com/specs/cobra2000photos.html
The tubular bar framing and control arms are what increased the weight because on the liveaxle Mustang, none of that stuff is there. It's really an ingenious setup because it literally bolts up in-place of the liveaxle setup.
I always crack up when people talk about the "heavy" beam axle of the 4th/5th gen and how it rides terribly. If you think the beam is bad, try a liveaxle that have two axles, differential, LSD, fluids, plus a heavy cast housing. The beam on the Maxima is made out of stamped steel with a 3/4" sway bar going thru it. I doubt the beam and bar weigh more than 60lbs together. The liveaxles on Stang/F-Body are pushing 150lbs.
For the 3rd gen IRS vs the beam's weight. I'd imagine the 3rd gens IRS might weigh fractionally more. However, the big weight decrease in the 4th gen was because of an 80lb lighter engine block. The difference in weight between the 3rd gen and 4th gen is around 100lbs, correct?
Dave
The tubular bar framing and control arms are what increased the weight because on the liveaxle Mustang, none of that stuff is there. It's really an ingenious setup because it literally bolts up in-place of the liveaxle setup.
I always crack up when people talk about the "heavy" beam axle of the 4th/5th gen and how it rides terribly. If you think the beam is bad, try a liveaxle that have two axles, differential, LSD, fluids, plus a heavy cast housing. The beam on the Maxima is made out of stamped steel with a 3/4" sway bar going thru it. I doubt the beam and bar weigh more than 60lbs together. The liveaxles on Stang/F-Body are pushing 150lbs.
For the 3rd gen IRS vs the beam's weight. I'd imagine the 3rd gens IRS might weigh fractionally more. However, the big weight decrease in the 4th gen was because of an 80lb lighter engine block. The difference in weight between the 3rd gen and 4th gen is around 100lbs, correct?
Dave
03-12-2003, 02:43 PM
#94
I agreee. I would think the 4-gen beam would be ligher than the 3-gen irs. And yes, I remember reading that the aluminum VQ is 100lbs lighter than the iron block VG or VE. I bet it might be more than a 100lb difference in the VE vs VQ. My VE motor weighs a ton! After messing with it TWICE I should know! hehe
Originally posted by Dave B
For the 3rd gen IRS vs the beam's weight. I'd imagine the 3rd gens IRS might weigh fractionally more. However, the big weight decrease in the 4th gen was because of an 80lb lighter engine block. The difference in weight between the 3rd gen and 4th gen is around 100lbs, correct?
Dave
For the 3rd gen IRS vs the beam's weight. I'd imagine the 3rd gens IRS might weigh fractionally more. However, the big weight decrease in the 4th gen was because of an 80lb lighter engine block. The difference in weight between the 3rd gen and 4th gen is around 100lbs, correct?
Dave
03-12-2003, 06:58 PM
#96
Well, you could attribute some of that to the Accord having 15s whereas the Maxima has 16s. The higher compliance setup with 15" rims helps the car hug the uneven road better.
DW
DW
Originally posted by SteVTEC
Driving at high speeds over the bumpy, twisty, and tight sections of the DC Beltway, my 2001 Accord V6 with IRS was *MUCH* more stable than my 1999 Maxima is with the beam.
Yes, any car will be upset by bumps. A car with IRS will just be much less upset.
Driving at high speeds over the bumpy, twisty, and tight sections of the DC Beltway, my 2001 Accord V6 with IRS was *MUCH* more stable than my 1999 Maxima is with the beam.
Yes, any car will be upset by bumps. A car with IRS will just be much less upset.
03-13-2003, 04:59 AM
#97
Dyno plot says I have the most area under the Administrator curve
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 7,060
Originally posted by dwapenyi
Well, you could attribute some of that to the Accord having 15s whereas the Maxima has 16s. The higher compliance setup with 15" rims helps the car hug the uneven road better.
DW
Well, you could attribute some of that to the Accord having 15s whereas the Maxima has 16s. The higher compliance setup with 15" rims helps the car hug the uneven road better.
DW
03-13-2003, 07:04 AM
#98
Originally posted by Dave B
My trap speed on my personnel best was a slightly atypical. My PB was a 14.68@97.79mph with a 2.30 60'. I've run a ton a 14.6s and 14.7s, but usually my trap speeds are in the mid 96s with a couple low low 97s. My 1/8 mile traps are usually higher 76s and sometime low 77s. So yes, the 97.79mph is about 1mph better than average for me. I ran a 99 Mustang GT on that run too. He got a 14.4@99mph.
Temps have to be in the 50-60 range for me to get these kinds of traps. I have run at another track 2 hours south of Kansas City and my best there was a lower 14.8@94.5mph with higher 2.2 60', stock b-pipe, modified stock airbox, running on 17s, 1/2 tank of gas, and 70 degree weather.
From what I've gathered on this Org, 95mph traps usually gets most people mid 14s assuming they get a lower 2.2 60'. Here I am running over 97mph and I'm stuck in the 14.6s due to a slick track and a 1100' altitude. It frustrates the hell out of me.
I'm hoping to come close to 99mph traps once I get my ECU.
Dave
My trap speed on my personnel best was a slightly atypical. My PB was a 14.68@97.79mph with a 2.30 60'. I've run a ton a 14.6s and 14.7s, but usually my trap speeds are in the mid 96s with a couple low low 97s. My 1/8 mile traps are usually higher 76s and sometime low 77s. So yes, the 97.79mph is about 1mph better than average for me. I ran a 99 Mustang GT on that run too. He got a 14.4@99mph.
Temps have to be in the 50-60 range for me to get these kinds of traps. I have run at another track 2 hours south of Kansas City and my best there was a lower 14.8@94.5mph with higher 2.2 60', stock b-pipe, modified stock airbox, running on 17s, 1/2 tank of gas, and 70 degree weather.
From what I've gathered on this Org, 95mph traps usually gets most people mid 14s assuming they get a lower 2.2 60'. Here I am running over 97mph and I'm stuck in the 14.6s due to a slick track and a 1100' altitude. It frustrates the hell out of me.
I'm hoping to come close to 99mph traps once I get my ECU.
Dave
03-13-2003, 07:25 AM
#99
Not DAVEB the parts guy
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 8,555
Originally posted by Nealoc187
I wasn't so much talking about the trap speed at the end of the 1/4 mile, but rather the differential between your 1/4 and 1/8 mile traps. For instance when I was just running Intake and Ypipe (pre-MEVI) on a normal day I gained 19mph in the final 1/8, on a good day I gained 20mph, and on a bad day I gained 18mph. Its very consistant from day to day. But the run in your timeslip posted earlier you gaind a huge 21mph, I just found that strange. Your car is (was) making big topend power it seems from that run at least.
I wasn't so much talking about the trap speed at the end of the 1/4 mile, but rather the differential between your 1/4 and 1/8 mile traps. For instance when I was just running Intake and Ypipe (pre-MEVI) on a normal day I gained 19mph in the final 1/8, on a good day I gained 20mph, and on a bad day I gained 18mph. Its very consistant from day to day. But the run in your timeslip posted earlier you gaind a huge 21mph, I just found that strange. Your car is (was) making big topend power it seems from that run at least.
According to most of my timeslips, it's very typical for my car to gain 20-21mph in the final 1/8th. The link I posted of my run against Matt93SE was at a track I rarely run at and like you pointed out, I gained 20.4mph in the final 1/8th and Matt got ~19mph. I ran against some late model Lightnings late last year and the guys were amazed that I was getting nearly 21mph in the final 1/8th whereas they were lucky to get 19mph.
I looked over the timeslips forum and it looks like most modded 4th gen 5 speeds get 18-19mph in the final 1/8th whereas a few 02+ 6 speeds are getting 20-21mph. I guess 4th gen is a bit different from most in that it likes to labor along in the 1st 1/8th and then scream up top.
Dave
03-21-2003, 03:34 PM
#103
Supporting Maxima.org Member
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,362
Since this is on the front page again, great writup steve (as usual).
To think I looked ata 2000 Max before I got my 4th gen and one of the reasons I didn't get it was it had the 16" rims. I am definatly willingto give up a little speed for my 5 spoke SE rims but not what the 17" SE rims take away.
I also remember reading that part of the reason the 5th gen makes more power accross the board is their factory exhaust is better than the 4th gens. This would mean a forth gen should see bigger gains from an aftermarket exhaust. Has anyone noticed this?
To think I looked ata 2000 Max before I got my 4th gen and one of the reasons I didn't get it was it had the 16" rims
. I am definatly willingto give up a little speed for my 5 spoke SE rims but not what the 17" SE rims take away.I also remember reading that part of the reason the 5th gen makes more power accross the board is their factory exhaust is better than the 4th gens. This would mean a forth gen should see bigger gains from an aftermarket exhaust. Has anyone noticed this?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Finkle
4th Generation Maxima (1995-1999)
13
09-27-2015 09:53 PM
ViciousVQ30
4th Generation Classifieds (1995-1999)
0
08-05-2015 05:40 PM