Wow...a new car that captures the spirit of the 3rd generation Maximas....
04-09-2003, 05:03 PM
#122
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,151
The only car that is made by Nissan that can truely carry the 4DSC sticker is the G35. Nissan should have converted the 6th gen to RWD and made it sportier, but that market is already filled by the G35. The current Altima filled the "spot" of the Maxima and the 6th gen went upmarket to take on the Avalon 
As for the 3rd vs 4th vs 5th gens, I think they all have their good and bad points. The VQ is clearly a superior engine, but the 3rd gen does have IRS. I would rather have the engine instead of a IRS because you really don't notice any drawbacks of the beam. Nissan's beam is a pretty decent design, for what it is. From a performance standpoint, the 4th and 5th Gens have a advantage over the 3rd gens. A lot of this arguement is subjective.......
As for the 3rd vs 4th vs 5th gens, I think they all have their good and bad points. The VQ is clearly a superior engine, but the 3rd gen does have IRS. I would rather have the engine instead of a IRS because you really don't notice any drawbacks of the beam. Nissan's beam is a pretty decent design, for what it is. From a performance standpoint, the 4th and 5th Gens have a advantage over the 3rd gens. A lot of this arguement is subjective.......
04-09-2003, 05:10 PM
#123
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally posted by MAX2000JP
The only car that is made by Nissan that can truely carry the 4DSC sticker is the G35. Nissan should have converted the 6th gen to RWD and made it sportier, but that market is already filled by the G35. The current Altima filled the "spot" of the Maxima and the 6th gen went upmarket to take on the Avalon
As for the 3rd vs 4th vs 5th gens, I think they all have their good and bad points. The VQ is clearly a superior engine, but the 3rd gen does have IRS. I would rather have the engine instead of a IRS because you really don't notice any drawbacks of the beam. Nissan's beam is a pretty decent design, for what it is. From a performance standpoint, the 4th and 5th Gens have a advantage over the 3rd gens. A lot of this arguement is subjective.......
The only car that is made by Nissan that can truely carry the 4DSC sticker is the G35. Nissan should have converted the 6th gen to RWD and made it sportier, but that market is already filled by the G35. The current Altima filled the "spot" of the Maxima and the 6th gen went upmarket to take on the Avalon
As for the 3rd vs 4th vs 5th gens, I think they all have their good and bad points. The VQ is clearly a superior engine, but the 3rd gen does have IRS. I would rather have the engine instead of a IRS because you really don't notice any drawbacks of the beam. Nissan's beam is a pretty decent design, for what it is. From a performance standpoint, the 4th and 5th Gens have a advantage over the 3rd gens. A lot of this arguement is subjective.......
04-09-2003, 05:16 PM
#124
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,151
Originally posted by dmontzsta
That makes no sense. The VE engine is just as powerful as the VQ, then what? you have a good engine and IRS. No drawbacks with the beam? try getting into a down and dirty bumpy twisty high speed turn, then you will see the drawbacks...
That makes no sense. The VE engine is just as powerful as the VQ, then what? you have a good engine and IRS. No drawbacks with the beam? try getting into a down and dirty bumpy twisty high speed turn, then you will see the drawbacks...
04-09-2003, 05:22 PM
#125
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally posted by MAX2000JP
Makes perfect sense, the VQ is a better engine and my buddy Ward's says the same thing. As for IRS, its not as great as people make it out to be. The beam axle on the 4th and 5th gen puts up good numbers in the slalom. I could care less about how it handles on the streets because I don't push my car on subpar roads.
Makes perfect sense, the VQ is a better engine and my buddy Ward's says the same thing. As for IRS, its not as great as people make it out to be. The beam axle on the 4th and 5th gen puts up good numbers in the slalom. I could care less about how it handles on the streets because I don't push my car on subpar roads.
...VQ has just been out longer. So slalom is everything eh? Geez, we all know there are lots of 4th gen guys that trailer their cars to the slalom coarse for the still competition
04-09-2003, 05:26 PM
#126
Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 50
Originally posted by MAX2000JP
Makes perfect sense, the VQ is a better engine and my buddy Ward's says the same thing. As for IRS, its not as great as people make it out to be. The beam axle on the 4th and 5th gen puts up good numbers in the slalom. I could care less about how it handles on the streets because I don't push my car on subpar roads.
Makes perfect sense, the VQ is a better engine and my buddy Ward's says the same thing. As for IRS, its not as great as people make it out to be. The beam axle on the 4th and 5th gen puts up good numbers in the slalom. I could care less about how it handles on the streets because I don't push my car on subpar roads.
04-09-2003, 05:28 PM
#127
Dyno plot says I have the most area under the Administrator curve
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 7,060
Originally posted by dmontzsta
That makes no sense. The VE engine is just as powerful as the VQ
That makes no sense. The VE engine is just as powerful as the VQ
So which engine has more area under the curve?
Where did all the low/mid-range in the VE go?
Which engine is 100lb lighter due to aluminum?
04-09-2003, 05:36 PM
#128
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,151
Originally posted by dmontzsta
When the VE came out, it was raved about also... ...VQ has just been out longer.
So slalom is everything eh? Geez, we all know there are lots of 4th gen guys that trailer their cars to the slalom coarse for the still competition
When the VE came out, it was raved about also...
...VQ has just been out longer. So slalom is everything eh? Geez, we all know there are lots of 4th gen guys that trailer their cars to the slalom coarse for the still competition
As for slalom, this measures how well a suspension works in transitions. This is the true measure of handling, besides actually testing at a road course. IMO if the beam was so inferior, it would show up in testing.
04-09-2003, 06:04 PM
#129
Donald, you gotta learn how to present your case better.
No one said the VQ wasn't more powerfull. It's one damned nice engine hands down. The VE is good too.
But saying the irs doesn't make that much difference while bashing the VE engine at the same time makes no sense. Why? Because IRS will benefit the user all the time. Not just at the track. Almost any bumpy curve regardless of speed will show the shortcomings of the beam axle. I could just as well say, the differences in engines don't matter because you shouldn't street race and that the only time the differences show up is at the track. The VE and VQ are pretty close in performance. So close that I say what the VE lacks in the low end is made up in the high end.
Put is this way, you can tweak the VE's engine to go as fast as a VQ. But I challenge someone to tweak a 4-gen beam suspension to be able to handle less than perfect curves(ie.. real life) as well as the 3-gen IRS. You probably can't due to the limitations of the simple design.
Also you can't tweak the 4-gen's build quality or paint w/o MAJOR expense. That's another benefit that's noticable every day/all day/7 days a week.
edit: results of a salom on a smooth surface is not the same test on a bumpy surface. On a smooth surface, even a car w/ absolutely no suspension at all will work well.
Both are nice cars.
No one said the VQ wasn't more powerfull. It's one damned nice engine hands down. The VE is good too.
But saying the irs doesn't make that much difference while bashing the VE engine at the same time makes no sense. Why? Because IRS will benefit the user all the time. Not just at the track. Almost any bumpy curve regardless of speed will show the shortcomings of the beam axle. I could just as well say, the differences in engines don't matter because you shouldn't street race and that the only time the differences show up is at the track. The VE and VQ are pretty close in performance. So close that I say what the VE lacks in the low end is made up in the high end.
Put is this way, you can tweak the VE's engine to go as fast as a VQ. But I challenge someone to tweak a 4-gen beam suspension to be able to handle less than perfect curves(ie.. real life) as well as the 3-gen IRS. You probably can't due to the limitations of the simple design.
Also you can't tweak the 4-gen's build quality or paint w/o MAJOR expense. That's another benefit that's noticable every day/all day/7 days a week.
edit: results of a salom on a smooth surface is not the same test on a bumpy surface. On a smooth surface, even a car w/ absolutely no suspension at all will work well.
Both are nice cars.
04-09-2003, 06:26 PM
#130
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,151
Originally posted by Jeff92se
\
But saying the irs doesn't make that much difference while bashing the VE engine at the same time makes no sense. Why? Because IRS will benefit the user all the time. Not just at the track. Almost any bumpy curve regardless of speed will show the shortcomings of the beam axle. I could just as well say, the differences in engines don't matter because you shouldn't street race and that the only time the differences show up is at the track. The VE and VQ are pretty close in performance. So close that I say what the VE lacks in the low end is made up in the high end.
Put is this way, you can tweak the VE's engine to go as fast as a VQ. But I challenge someone to tweak a 4-gen beam suspension to be able to handle less than perfect curves(ie.. real life) as well as the 3-gen IRS. You probably can't due to the limitations of the simple design.
edit: results of a salom on a smooth surface is not the same test on a bumpy surface. On a smooth surface, even a car w/ absolutely no suspension at all will work well.
Both are nice cars.
\
But saying the irs doesn't make that much difference while bashing the VE engine at the same time makes no sense. Why? Because IRS will benefit the user all the time. Not just at the track. Almost any bumpy curve regardless of speed will show the shortcomings of the beam axle. I could just as well say, the differences in engines don't matter because you shouldn't street race and that the only time the differences show up is at the track. The VE and VQ are pretty close in performance. So close that I say what the VE lacks in the low end is made up in the high end.
Put is this way, you can tweak the VE's engine to go as fast as a VQ. But I challenge someone to tweak a 4-gen beam suspension to be able to handle less than perfect curves(ie.. real life) as well as the 3-gen IRS. You probably can't due to the limitations of the simple design.
edit: results of a salom on a smooth surface is not the same test on a bumpy surface. On a smooth surface, even a car w/ absolutely no suspension at all will work well.
Both are nice cars.
04-09-2003, 08:13 PM
#132
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 2,461
wow took me a good 30-40 minutes to read this thread. I love it actually. I know so much more about the 3rd and 4th gens now.
Have you noticed no one really bashed the 5th gen....yet
My personal opinion is that the 02/03 Maxima looks the best, not the 97-99
Have you noticed no one really bashed the 5th gen....yet
My personal opinion is that the 02/03 Maxima looks the best, not the 97-99
04-09-2003, 08:51 PM
#133
Guest
Posts: n/a
Once again, slalom isnt the "real world". If ANY 4th or 5th gen owner thinks the beam is better, you are just trying to make it seem better, cause that is what you are stuck with. You are pretty delusional to think that. Slalom is FLAT, and it also has alot to do with tires/rim size, the 3rd gen comes stock with 15" rims and crummy tires and most of the new Maximas have 16s and 17s, this helps. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think both 3rd and 4th gen had very similar test times, but take it to the street, and it is a different story.
Jeff, you have a very good point here...
"you can tweak the VE's engine to go as fast as a VQ. But I challenge someone to tweak a 4-gen beam suspension to be able to handle less than perfect curves(ie.. real life) as well as the 3-gen IRS. You probably can't due to the limitations of the simple design."
If you look at Steves graph, you will notice, there isnt too much difference, the VQ has the low end advantage, but the VE has the high end, the race would come down to driver. If you are in the VQ (no-lsd
) and you dont know how to launch, you might as well give it up.
Dont get me wrong, ALOT of people here try and judge me, I do not hate ANY Maxima, people that really know me, know this. In fact, I have talked 2 people into getting Maximas, 4th gens BTW.
Jeff, you have a very good point here...
"you can tweak the VE's engine to go as fast as a VQ. But I challenge someone to tweak a 4-gen beam suspension to be able to handle less than perfect curves(ie.. real life) as well as the 3-gen IRS. You probably can't due to the limitations of the simple design."
If you look at Steves graph, you will notice, there isnt too much difference, the VQ has the low end advantage, but the VE has the high end, the race would come down to driver. If you are in the VQ (no-lsd
) and you dont know how to launch, you might as well give it up.Dont get me wrong, ALOT of people here try and judge me, I do not hate ANY Maxima, people that really know me, know this. In fact, I have talked 2 people into getting Maximas, 4th gens BTW.
04-09-2003, 09:32 PM
#134
Not DAVEB the parts guy
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 8,555
3rd geners can ramble on about the IRS, but over most surfaces and handling situations, the beam does just fine. Only when you encounter VERY bumpy turns does the beam axle become unsettled. Nearly all the 3rd geners DO NOT own 4th gens so how do you really know the real characteristics of the beam? I swear most of the 3rd geners are clueless about the true setup of the beam in the 4th/5th gen. It's not lowtech by any means. I'd rather have an IRS, but in most driving situations, the beam does just fine.
As for the VE vs 3.0 VQ. You guys don't stand a chance when it comes to NA modifications, so don't go there. I remember only one VE 3rd gen that pulled off lower 14s@97mph. All the other NA 3rd gens are left way back in the upper 14s and 15s. 3.0 VQs on the otherhand are quite capable of lower 14s@100mph on street tires and mid 13s@101 on slicks. Where are the VEs? Even without the MEVI/JWT ECU, the VQs are quicker and faster on average.
Dave
As for the VE vs 3.0 VQ. You guys don't stand a chance when it comes to NA modifications, so don't go there. I remember only one VE 3rd gen that pulled off lower 14s@97mph. All the other NA 3rd gens are left way back in the upper 14s and 15s. 3.0 VQs on the otherhand are quite capable of lower 14s@100mph on street tires and mid 13s@101 on slicks. Where are the VEs? Even without the MEVI/JWT ECU, the VQs are quicker and faster on average.
Dave
04-09-2003, 09:50 PM
#135
Originally posted by Dave B
3rd geners can ramble on about the IRS, but over most surfaces and handling situations, the beam does just fine. Only when you encounter VERY bumpy turns does the beam axle become unsettled. Nearly all the 3rd geners DO NOT own 4th gens so how do you really know the real characteristics of the beam? I swear most of the 3rd geners are clueless about the true setup of the beam in the 4th/5th gen. It's not lowtech by any means. I'd rather have an IRS, but in most driving situations, the beam does just fine.
3rd geners can ramble on about the IRS, but over most surfaces and handling situations, the beam does just fine. Only when you encounter VERY bumpy turns does the beam axle become unsettled. Nearly all the 3rd geners DO NOT own 4th gens so how do you really know the real characteristics of the beam? I swear most of the 3rd geners are clueless about the true setup of the beam in the 4th/5th gen. It's not lowtech by any means. I'd rather have an IRS, but in most driving situations, the beam does just fine.
04-09-2003, 10:08 PM
#136
2 comments, about the 2 arguments being presented here:
IRS
One of the very 1st things I noticed when I went from the VE -> VQ was the handling. I "felt" the car more in my 93 on turns.. It just seemed to hold the road better, however, I did have some sticky 225/50/16 Sumitomo HTR+s on some lightweight 16s.. and tires really do make that much of a difference. But, my front struts were shot on the 93. The steering was tighter on the 93. on turns, going over bumps, especially on these great NYC roads, I did feel like i had more control of the car. My 98s rear end would kick out sideways a bit more, and the lighter steering of the GXE made it feel weird too... However, on a nice smooth road, it felt great. I was able to push my VE harder around sweeping turns because of the better tires..
Al in all, I noticed the VE acted better in turns over a messed up road. But I, and hopefully no one else with some sense ever tried to take turns with uneven pavement aggressively because IRS or not, it is dangerous. So the trade off wasn't so bad.
Another problem. The back feels way too stiff. going over bumps, evne on straight roads.. it just comes down hard, feels like there is zero suspension travel..
2. VQ vs. VE technology..
I'm guessing the VE paved the way for the VQ. It's glitches were worked out and the VQ came out. The VE is also a noisy engine, it's not as smooth, it has some issues, be it the VTCs or whatever else. The VQ seems to be far more quiet, way more smooth.. and problem free. Not to say one will outlast the other. They just behave differently.. These are just things i drew from my personal experience and comments i've read from others.
These little things really make a world of a difference in the way the engine feels. The VQ feels so strong at all times.. The VE just felt weaker to me..
I don't know who to blame for the suspension. Nissan, or the roads of New York City Because when I visit other places with smooth roads, I don't mind my beam one bit.
Engine wise, I like the feel of the VQ. It's so smooth and quiet
IRS
One of the very 1st things I noticed when I went from the VE -> VQ was the handling. I "felt" the car more in my 93 on turns.. It just seemed to hold the road better, however, I did have some sticky 225/50/16 Sumitomo HTR+s on some lightweight 16s.. and tires really do make that much of a difference. But, my front struts were shot on the 93. The steering was tighter on the 93. on turns, going over bumps, especially on these great NYC roads, I did feel like i had more control of the car. My 98s rear end would kick out sideways a bit more, and the lighter steering of the GXE made it feel weird too... However, on a nice smooth road, it felt great. I was able to push my VE harder around sweeping turns because of the better tires..
Al in all, I noticed the VE acted better in turns over a messed up road. But I, and hopefully no one else with some sense ever tried to take turns with uneven pavement aggressively because IRS or not, it is dangerous. So the trade off wasn't so bad.
Another problem. The back feels way too stiff. going over bumps, evne on straight roads.. it just comes down hard, feels like there is zero suspension travel..
2. VQ vs. VE technology..
I'm guessing the VE paved the way for the VQ. It's glitches were worked out and the VQ came out. The VE is also a noisy engine, it's not as smooth, it has some issues, be it the VTCs or whatever else. The VQ seems to be far more quiet, way more smooth.. and problem free. Not to say one will outlast the other. They just behave differently.. These are just things i drew from my personal experience and comments i've read from others.
These little things really make a world of a difference in the way the engine feels. The VQ feels so strong at all times.. The VE just felt weaker to me..
I don't know who to blame for the suspension. Nissan, or the roads of New York City
Because when I visit other places with smooth roads, I don't mind my beam one bit. Engine wise, I like the feel of the VQ. It's so smooth and quiet
04-09-2003, 10:26 PM
#137
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally posted by Dave B
3rd geners can ramble on about the IRS, but over most surfaces and handling situations, the beam does just fine. Only when you encounter VERY bumpy turns does the beam axle become unsettled. Nearly all the 3rd geners DO NOT own 4th gens so how do you really know the real characteristics of the beam? I swear most of the 3rd geners are clueless about the true setup of the beam in the 4th/5th gen. It's not lowtech by any means. I'd rather have an IRS, but in most driving situations, the beam does just fine.
As for the VE vs 3.0 VQ. You guys don't stand a chance when it comes to NA modifications, so don't go there. I remember only one VE 3rd gen that pulled off lower 14s@97mph. All the other NA 3rd gens are left way back in the upper 14s and 15s. 3.0 VQs on the otherhand are quite capable of lower 14s@100mph on street tires and mid 13s@101 on slicks. Where are the VEs? Even without the MEVI/JWT ECU, the VQs are quicker and faster on average.
Dave
3rd geners can ramble on about the IRS, but over most surfaces and handling situations, the beam does just fine. Only when you encounter VERY bumpy turns does the beam axle become unsettled. Nearly all the 3rd geners DO NOT own 4th gens so how do you really know the real characteristics of the beam? I swear most of the 3rd geners are clueless about the true setup of the beam in the 4th/5th gen. It's not lowtech by any means. I'd rather have an IRS, but in most driving situations, the beam does just fine.
As for the VE vs 3.0 VQ. You guys don't stand a chance when it comes to NA modifications, so don't go there. I remember only one VE 3rd gen that pulled off lower 14s@97mph. All the other NA 3rd gens are left way back in the upper 14s and 15s. 3.0 VQs on the otherhand are quite capable of lower 14s@100mph on street tires and mid 13s@101 on slicks. Where are the VEs? Even without the MEVI/JWT ECU, the VQs are quicker and faster on average.
Dave
Dave, Dave, Dave. Once again, the reason you dont see all the VE numbers, is cause the 4th gens outnumber the VE by about 85%. The VE members here that mod their cars, I can count on both hands. The 4th genners, I would need a calculator and alot of time.
04-09-2003, 10:32 PM
#138
Not DAVEB the parts guy
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 8,555
Originally posted by dmontzsta
Dave, Dave, Dave. Once again, the reason you dont see all the VE numbers, is cause the 4th gens outnumber the VE by about 85%. The VE members here that mod their cars, I can count on both hands. The 4th genners, I would need a calculator and alot of time.
Dave, Dave, Dave. Once again, the reason you dont see all the VE numbers, is cause the 4th gens outnumber the VE by about 85%. The VE members here that mod their cars, I can count on both hands. The 4th genners, I would need a calculator and alot of time.
Dave
04-09-2003, 10:34 PM
#139
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally posted by Dave B
Really shouldn't matter if it's so easy to make as much power with the VE.
Dave
Really shouldn't matter if it's so easy to make as much power with the VE.
Dave
Are you doubting the VEs power?
It seems alot of 4th genners think the VE is lacking the power of the VQ, by a landslide, it is still right there, and isnt going anywhere
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Lakersallday24
6th Generation Maxima (2004-2008)
10
06-16-2019 01:35 AM
Greenmaxspeed
4th Generation Classifieds (1995-1999)
6
08-31-2015 09:06 PM
Greenmaxspeed
4th Generation Classifieds (1995-1999)
0
08-08-2015 12:39 PM
laparka66
7th Generation Maxima (2009-2015)
16
08-06-2015 09:36 AM
ViciousVQ30
4th Generation Classifieds (1995-1999)
0
08-05-2015 05:40 PM