2002 Max 255HP, 2004 265HP WHY??
....one of these lazy crap talkers should get to a dyno, and run that hideous lookin yacht ! 
02-19-2004, 06:43 AM
#43
Originally Posted by maximase86
Hell, someone should rent one and take it to the dyno! 
You must be crazy...
Let one of the owners dyno their car. If they are so high and mighty on it's performance, then they need to dyno it to quash all the BS...
02-19-2004, 06:58 AM
#44
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,144
Has anybody ever thought that it might be the torque that is giving them the good times. i mean that would really help with getting them off the line and gaining some momentum. If the torque was big enough then the remaining horsies (around 265) should easily keep it going
02-19-2004, 07:43 AM
#45
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,720
Bottomline: the 5G HP might be overrated but the torque is definitely underrated. I think SteVTEC had a writeup on this a while ago. (correct me if I'm wrong)
Personally, I really think I have 260lb-ft stock. My Cartest program (DOS) couldnt come up with my stock 1/4 time (14.725) until I bumped my torque level up to 260lb-ft.
Personally, I really think I have 260lb-ft stock. My Cartest program (DOS) couldnt come up with my stock 1/4 time (14.725) until I bumped my torque level up to 260lb-ft.
02-20-2004, 04:26 PM
#47
Dyno plot says I have the most area under the Administrator curve
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 7,060
1) Here's ga2000's slip and pic at the track
Note that he's since run a 14.4, still stock.
2) The Injen dyno makes no sense whatsoever. It's overall LOWER in terms of area under the curve than what a 2002 dynos at. The car is 200 lb heavier, has massive 55 lb/corner 18" rims (vs 50lb/corner 17's on the 02's), yet it can still pull the same times as a 2k2 auto or manual. Something does not add up. Yes, the gearing helps, but not by that much. A car cannot have less overall power, weight significantly more, yet still be faster. For all we know, that 04 Max that Injen dynoed could have had 87 octane fuel in the tank. I see more than a few 04 guys have said they don't care and just put 87 in because the manual says it's okay.
3) HERE is some number crunching I did with CarTest software on trying to figure out how much power the 04's really have.
4) STILL waiting to see a friggin independent dyno.
Note that he's since run a 14.4, still stock.
2) The Injen dyno makes no sense whatsoever. It's overall LOWER in terms of area under the curve than what a 2002 dynos at. The car is 200 lb heavier, has massive 55 lb/corner 18" rims (vs 50lb/corner 17's on the 02's), yet it can still pull the same times as a 2k2 auto or manual. Something does not add up. Yes, the gearing helps, but not by that much. A car cannot have less overall power, weight significantly more, yet still be faster. For all we know, that 04 Max that Injen dynoed could have had 87 octane fuel in the tank. I see more than a few 04 guys have said they don't care and just put 87 in because the manual says it's okay.
3) HERE is some number crunching I did with CarTest software on trying to figure out how much power the 04's really have.
4) STILL waiting to see a friggin independent dyno.
02-20-2004, 05:27 PM
#48
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by SteVTEC
1)
4) STILL waiting to see a friggin independent dyno.
4) STILL waiting to see a friggin independent dyno.
02-23-2004, 07:33 AM
#50
Wouldn't just changing gear ratios make the car faster/slower? I mean the TL has less power than the '04 yet it's faster. Maybe nissan changed the gearing? I'm also not doubting the under rating of the engine. They over rated the last 3.5 so they are trying to under rate this one. Seems like a very bad marketing scheme though.
02-23-2004, 07:54 AM
#51
Dyno plot says I have the most area under the Administrator curve
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 7,060
Originally Posted by Big D
Wouldn't just changing gear ratios make the car faster/slower?
http://forums.maxima.org/showthread.php?t=256886
Originally Posted by Big D
I mean the TL has less power than the '04 yet it's faster.
ga2000 ran 14.4-14.6 in his 04SE/auto stock which proves its equally as quick as an 02/03 Max, and the 02 TL-S, and even the 04TL despite being significantly heavier both in curb weight and in unsprung weight than any previous Maxima.
02-23-2004, 08:01 AM
#52
Well I know we aren't supposed to trust magazines with times and stuff but either Road and Track or motor trend had the TL running 14.3 or 14.4 while the max was doing 14.6 14.7. Same day time and everything. Oh well, screw the TL, even though it's the first acura that actually appeals to me.
02-23-2004, 08:35 AM
#53
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Manhattan Beach, Ca / Dallas, Tx
Posts: 3,751
So what the car is 220 pounds heavier, the weight of 1 full size male. If the car had 280 hp with its torque and the 5spd auto it would be doing alot better than it does, that 5spd auto helps it out alot vs the 02/03 and 04 SL auto tranny. We will soon see what the 5spd auto could have done with the 02/03 Maxima in the 05 Altima SE, the car has similiar weight and power as the 02/03 Maxima.
02-23-2004, 09:27 AM
#54
Moderator GT-R
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 19,780
Originally Posted by 92 SE-R 02 SE
so am i and lots of other people. the 04 guys are NOT as PERFORMANCE as the other gens..thats why there are NO DYNOS....I would LOVE TO BE WRONG...come on 6th show us...
02-23-2004, 09:42 AM
#55
Dyno plot says I have the most area under the Administrator curve
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 7,060
Originally Posted by MONTE 01&97 SE
So what the car is 220 pounds heavier, the weight of 1 full size male. If the car had 280 hp with its torque and the 5spd auto it would be doing alot better than it does, that 5spd auto helps it out alot vs the 02/03 and 04 SL auto tranny.
Hence, I believe the Max possibly has about 275-280hp (not 265) and is already performing about where it should.Lets say you're right and it "only" had 265hp/255tq instead of the 280hp/270tq that I "suspect" it really has. That means ga2000 ran his 14.4 @ 95 on that amount of power. If it had 280hp/270tq, does this mean a much heavier and FWD car is now going to be beating up on G35's? Don't think so. This doesn't add up. Given the same power and gearing, a heavier FWD is absolutely going to be slower in the 1/4 mile than a lighter RWD.
Originally Posted by MONTE 01&97 SE
We will soon see what the 5spd auto could have done with the 02/03 Maxima in the 05 Altima SE, the car has similiar weight and power as the 02/03 Maxima.
02-23-2004, 09:49 AM
#56
Dyno plot says I have the most area under the Administrator curve
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 7,060
Originally Posted by Big D
Well I know we aren't supposed to trust magazines with times and stuff but either Road and Track or motor trend had the TL running 14.3 or 14.4 while the max was doing 14.6 14.7. Same day time and everything. Oh well, screw the TL, even though it's the first acura that actually appeals to me.
It just means that at that time, at that track, with those drivers, they were able to get a better time out of the TL. At another time, at another track, with different drivers, the Maxima might come out ahead. They're just "examples" of what the cars ran. They're not the "gold standard" numbers for the cars. Too many people interpret them as that and come to the wrong conclusions.
My favorite example: C&D tests a 2002 Maxima 6spd and only gets a 14.8 which is a crappy time. People here have been able to match or beat that even while missing 3rd!
But they ran a TL-S at 14.7, therefore they conclude that the TL is faster. We all know better here.
02-24-2004, 05:19 AM
#57
Originally Posted by SteVTEC
My favorite example: C&D tests a 2002 Maxima 6spd and only gets a 14.8 which is a crappy time. People here have been able to match or beat that even while missing 3rd! But they ran a TL-S at 14.7, therefore they conclude that the TL is faster. We all know better here.
But they ran a TL-S at 14.7, therefore they conclude that the TL is faster. We all know better here.
02-24-2004, 06:06 AM
#58
Dyno plot says I have the most area under the Administrator curve
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 7,060
The point is, you never know what you get with mag times.
A time in a mag for a particular car may be so ridiculously optimistic that nobody will ever be able to match it in a million years. Magazines are paid to make products look good, and if C&D posts up a 0-60 in 7.2 and a 15.2 1/4 mile for an E39 BMW 530i automatic then they will. They may also conveniently fail to mention that the car had Stage 2 Dinan software. (true)
Likewise, if a mag gets another car and aren't receiving any advertising dollars from the company, or are very obviously biased in favor of other manufacturers, then what incentive do they have to actually try. They'll run that one in the steamy hot mid-afternoon when it'll be nice and heat soaked after a run around their 150 mile test loop, but test the car it competes against early in the crisp cool morning air so that it runs a good couple of tenths faster.
Or maybe they'll average the last 60ft of the 1/4 mile like you're generally supposed to on one car so it's consistent with the drag strips, but then conveniently fail to do that on another car so that it looks like it's 3 mph faster. Did you know a 4400 lb Honda Pilot can trap out the 1/4 mile at 87 mph? 
That's why I take mag times like a grain of salt. You never know what you're getting unless you just go out and test it yourself. And that's why forums like these are so great also.
A time in a mag for a particular car may be so ridiculously optimistic that nobody will ever be able to match it in a million years. Magazines are paid to make products look good, and if C&D posts up a 0-60 in 7.2 and a 15.2 1/4 mile for an E39 BMW 530i automatic then they will. They may also conveniently fail to mention that the car had Stage 2 Dinan software. (true)
Likewise, if a mag gets another car and aren't receiving any advertising dollars from the company, or are very obviously biased in favor of other manufacturers, then what incentive do they have to actually try. They'll run that one in the steamy hot mid-afternoon when it'll be nice and heat soaked after a run around their 150 mile test loop, but test the car it competes against early in the crisp cool morning air so that it runs a good couple of tenths faster.
Or maybe they'll average the last 60ft of the 1/4 mile like you're generally supposed to on one car so it's consistent with the drag strips, but then conveniently fail to do that on another car so that it looks like it's 3 mph faster. Did you know a 4400 lb Honda Pilot can trap out the 1/4 mile at 87 mph? That's why I take mag times like a grain of salt. You never know what you're getting unless you just go out and test it yourself. And that's why forums like these are so great also.
02-24-2004, 06:23 AM
#59
Originally Posted by SteVTEC
The point is, you never know what you get with mag times.
That's why I take mag times like a grain of salt. You never know what you're getting unless you just go out and test it yourself. And that's why forums like these are so great also.
That's why I take mag times like a grain of salt. You never know what you're getting unless you just go out and test it yourself. And that's why forums like these are so great also.
The only problem with this forum is when someone beats an stock tiptronic S4 with their heavily modified 6-speed Max and then decalres that all S4s are slow.
Timeslips from drag strips are the only real way to prove which is faster and chances are that those cars are modified.
I guess my point is that one can't prove that the 6-speed Max is faster than the TL either.
02-24-2004, 07:31 AM
#60
Dyno plot says I have the most area under the Administrator curve
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 7,060
Originally Posted by CoolMax
I understand and agree to a point (although I don't belive that EVERY comparison is biased or paid off).
The only problem with this forum is when someone beats an stock tiptronic S4 with their heavily modified 6-speed Max and then decalres that all S4s are slow.
The only problem with this forum is when someone beats an stock tiptronic S4 with their heavily modified 6-speed Max and then decalres that all S4s are slow.
That was a fun battle.
Originally Posted by CoolMax
Timeslips from drag strips are the only real way to prove which is faster and chances are that those cars are modified.
I guess my point is that one can't prove that the 6-speed Max is faster than the TL either.
I guess my point is that one can't prove that the 6-speed Max is faster than the TL either.
A preview of what's to come...
"enginerding" at its finest
02-24-2004, 08:48 AM
#61
Originally Posted by SteVTEC
Trying to conclude things from random street encounters is equally foolish becuase you have now way of knowing the state of tune of the car, or even if the driver was trying, and if they were, how well they were actually driving their cars. Last night the Accord V6 guys were claiming that freakin EVOs are "a joke" from a roll compared to their Accords for crying out loud. That was a fun battle.
Bring on the SL600!
Originally Posted by SteVTEC
There are more technical ways of analyzing cars than just timeslips, although I do agree that real-world independent timeslips are very important because it's one of the few ways of getting solid performance data on a car. But if they can put a few million pounds of space shuttle in a precise orbit to rendevous with something the size of a car that's orbiting the earth every 90 minutes, then it's definitley possible to figure out which car is "truly" faster than another. You just need the right tools. And if there's nothing out there that will look at something the way you want and analyze it the way you want, sometimes that involves just developing your own tools as well.
A preview of what's to come...
"enginerding" at its finest
A preview of what's to come...
"enginerding" at its finest
02-24-2004, 08:48 AM
#62
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Manhattan Beach, Ca / Dallas, Tx
Posts: 3,751
Originally Posted by SteVTEC
The G35 sedan has about the same power as the coupe (280/270), is lighter than the Maxima, and also has lower inertia 17's and does low-14's @ 96-97 mph stock. ga2000's times are right on the heels of that despite being in a much heavier car with FWD and much higher unsprung weight and having less rated power but the same gearing. Does not compute. Hence, I believe the Max possibly has about 275-280hp (not 265) and is already performing about where it should.
Lets say you're right and it "only" had 265hp/255tq instead of the 280hp/270tq that I "suspect" it really has. That means ga2000 ran his 14.4 @ 95 on that amount of power. If it had 280hp/270tq, does this mean a much heavier and FWD car is now going to be beating up on G35's? Don't think so. This doesn't add up. Given the same power and gearing, a heavier FWD is absolutely going to be slower in the 1/4 mile than a lighter RWD.
I already CarTested some rough numbers. Should be able to get solid mid-14's @ 95-96 or so. It is lighter than the new Max, but is probably still using the "2.5g" VQ35DE with only 240-250hp vs the new 04 Max which I "suspect" to have 280/270. The two cars will probably perform about equally, but in the Maxima's case, any extra power it has will be going to accelerating the extra 220 lb of weight (which is not insignificant, but very easy to take for granted) and also to dump into those big 18's which will require a lot more of the engine's energy to spin up than the lighter 17's on either the old Max or the current Alty.
Hence, I believe the Max possibly has about 275-280hp (not 265) and is already performing about where it should.Lets say you're right and it "only" had 265hp/255tq instead of the 280hp/270tq that I "suspect" it really has. That means ga2000 ran his 14.4 @ 95 on that amount of power. If it had 280hp/270tq, does this mean a much heavier and FWD car is now going to be beating up on G35's? Don't think so. This doesn't add up. Given the same power and gearing, a heavier FWD is absolutely going to be slower in the 1/4 mile than a lighter RWD.
I already CarTested some rough numbers. Should be able to get solid mid-14's @ 95-96 or so. It is lighter than the new Max, but is probably still using the "2.5g" VQ35DE with only 240-250hp vs the new 04 Max which I "suspect" to have 280/270. The two cars will probably perform about equally, but in the Maxima's case, any extra power it has will be going to accelerating the extra 220 lb of weight (which is not insignificant, but very easy to take for granted) and also to dump into those big 18's which will require a lot more of the engine's energy to spin up than the lighter 17's on either the old Max or the current Alty.
02-24-2004, 09:17 AM
#63
Originally Posted by MONTE 01&97 SE
Its the same motor with 250HP but keep this in mind alot of the SE's and the new 3.5 SL's come with 16 inch tires now(less weight) and 17's as an option.
What are you talking about? The 2004 Maxima SL's all come with 17" wheels standard. The 2004 SE models all come with 18" wheels standard. I think you have your wheels and generations mixed up...
02-24-2004, 10:01 AM
#64
Dyno plot says I have the most area under the Administrator curve
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 7,060
nono, he was talking about the 05 Altima from my last paragraph.
http://www.nissannews.com/nissan/200...ma/specs.shtml
And he's right too!
2005 Alty 3.5SL: 215/60/R16's
2005 Alty 3.5SE: 215/55/R17's
I almost think that would have to be a typo on Nissan's part. That's less tire than my 4g with a heavier car with significantly more power. Yep, looks like it is a typo.... Check in the overview section.
Looks like some putz just copied the specs from the 2.5SL over assuming they were the same on the 3.5SL.
http://www.nissannews.com/nissan/200...ma/specs.shtml
And he's right too!
2005 Alty 3.5SL: 215/60/R16's
2005 Alty 3.5SE: 215/55/R17's
I almost think that would have to be a typo on Nissan's part. That's less tire than my 4g with a heavier car with significantly more power. Yep, looks like it is a typo.... Check in the overview section.
All 4-cylinder Altimas come with 215/60R16 tires on either steel or aluminum-alloy wheels and V6 models feature standard 17-inch aluminum-alloy wheels and 215/55R17 tires.
02-24-2004, 10:22 AM
#65
Some of guys go on bashing the 6th gen then compain because nobody has dynoed one. Why are you so worried when its not even your car? Maybe because you dont wanna pull up to one and race it because supposedly its faster?? I dont care who believes that I ran the 14.3, I posted the slip for all the naysayers and they still found a way to whine because of the date. I dont really care because I know my car is quick and that makes me feel that much better about driving it. I did go to a new track on sunday that had its grand opening this weekend. It had asphalt in the launch area and went to concrete on the rest of the track. Anyways I drove around forever looking for it and finally when I did I was almost outa gas. I ran like 3 times, first run I launched low and it gripped like crazy but bogged horribly and first lasted forever, ended up running a 15.2. then ran again and got crazy wheelspin assuming the asphalt would stick, it did but once I hit the concrete the tires felt like they were on a wet road. I let the track after I ran a 14.8 because I was outa gas. Anyways it was much nicer than the track I ran the 14.3 at but I didnt like it near as much. Also found out theres a private dyno in our town but dunno how to get in contact with the guy.
02-24-2004, 12:32 PM
#66
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Manhattan Beach, Ca / Dallas, Tx
Posts: 3,751
Originally Posted by Quicksilver
What are you talking about? The 2004 Maxima SL's all come with 17" wheels standard. The 2004 SE models all come with 18" wheels standard. I think you have your wheels and generations mixed up...
02-24-2004, 12:40 PM
#67
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Manhattan Beach, Ca / Dallas, Tx
Posts: 3,751
Originally Posted by SteVTEC
nono, he was talking about the 05 Altima from my last paragraph.
http://www.nissannews.com/nissan/200...ma/specs.shtml
And he's right too!
2005 Alty 3.5SL: 215/60/R16's
2005 Alty 3.5SE: 215/55/R17's
I almost think that would have to be a typo on Nissan's part. That's less tire than my 4g with a heavier car with significantly more power. Yep, looks like it is a typo.... Check in the overview section.
Looks like some putz just copied the specs from the 2.5SL over assuming they were the same on the 3.5SL.
http://www.nissannews.com/nissan/200...ma/specs.shtml
And he's right too!
2005 Alty 3.5SL: 215/60/R16's
2005 Alty 3.5SE: 215/55/R17's
I almost think that would have to be a typo on Nissan's part. That's less tire than my 4g with a heavier car with significantly more power. Yep, looks like it is a typo.... Check in the overview section.
Looks like some putz just copied the specs from the 2.5SL over assuming they were the same on the 3.5SL.
http://www.nissanusa.com/vehicles/ModelSpecifications/1,,32958||,00.html?displayAll#topOfPage
02-24-2004, 02:18 PM
#68
Moderator GT-R
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 19,780
Originally Posted by bluemaxx
All right all forkin ready! Tell you what I'll do. Find a dyno facility in the Dallas area that everyone will accept as legit, make me an appointment and I'll go. Saturdays are best for me but with sufficient notice I could take a day off to play. I get 5 weeks/year, I guess I could blow one day of vacation for the good of the...whatever. What's this going to cost me?
02-24-2004, 03:22 PM
#69
Dyno plot says I have the most area under the Administrator curve
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 7,060
Originally Posted by MONTE 01&97 SE
Hey Steve check this out the actual Nissan Site specifies 16 inchers for the SL, also look at some of the early photos and look how small the rims look.
http://www.nissanusa.com/vehicles/ModelSpecifications/1,,32958||,00.html?displayAll#topOfPage
http://www.nissanusa.com/vehicles/ModelSpecifications/1,,32958||,00.html?displayAll#topOfPage
If they put 16's on that thing then.
a) it'll probably corner like crap
b) go really fast in the 1/4 mile
02-24-2004, 03:56 PM
#70
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,883
Originally Posted by SteVTEC
If they put 16's on that thing then.
a) it'll probably corner like crap
b) go really fast in the 1/4 mile
I guess people who want performance don't buy used M3's because they can't afford the maintenance, that's all I can figure. The E36 car can be had for as little as 11 up to 18 grand, what, half of a 6th gen and not much more than a 4th gen? Gotta be the maintenance and insurance. 98 mph 1/4 mile at 14.6 sec is no joke even in 2k4.
02-24-2004, 05:59 PM
#71
Dyno plot says I have the most area under the Administrator curve
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 7,060
Originally Posted by Frank Fontaine
Amazing how a Nissan just doesn't do well without unrealistic modifications.
Originally Posted by Frank Fontaine
A 1995 M3 had 17's which were pretty sizable back then, and still did a 98 1/4 mile.
Originally Posted by Frank Fontaine
I don't buy that it could break 100 mph with 15's, which, btw were standard on 5 Series back then. Here we are 9 years later and Maxima owners want their car to do what it wasn't designed to do. It was designed to ride soft, have a floaty steering, have more HP than the competition, and probably carry a wife and 2 teenagers.
Originally Posted by Frank Fontaine
I guess people who want performance don't buy used M3's because they can't afford the maintenance, that's all I can figure. The E36 car can be had for as little as 11 up to 18 grand, what, half of a 6th gen and not much more than a 4th gen? Gotta be the maintenance and insurance. 98 mph 1/4 mile at 14.6 sec is no joke even in 2k4.
- I go on long trips a lot and like something roomier and more comfortable.
- 4-door E36 M3s are rare, and I think only came in automatic.
- I want 4-door practicality and a manual.
- I have a busy life and want something newer/reliable, not something that is more likely to break.
- If I want my Maxima to run 14.6's, I can make it run 14.6's for less than $1000 in mods very easily.
Now where in here did I mention not being able to afford maintenance or insurance?
After my Accord was wrecked, if I wanted an M I would have gone out and bought one. But I didn't. I like my nice innocent and unassuming little 2 generation old Maxima that nobody suspects is capable of anything better than 16's.
02-25-2004, 04:32 PM
#72
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Manhattan Beach, Ca / Dallas, Tx
Posts: 3,751
Originally Posted by SteVTEC
Who said it wasn't already doing well? It has a 5AT now too instead of the wide 4AT gears. It should be able to do mid-14's with even the 17's now. And an automatic. The 5MT models will continue to pull a few ticks faster than Maximas due to the better 1/4 mile gearing and not needing a shift to 4th.
And given that it's a M and costing over $40k new, you can bet that they're light-weight 17's on not the obnoxiously heavy crap that the sub-$30k and even mid-$30k market cars get. Lightweight rims are expensive, and there's no strong business case for them on cheaper cars when it's more cost effective to just crank up the power. Oh and the M is also a good 200 lb lighter and RWD.
So what? If you go over to www.siennaclub.org you'll see guys that put TRD superchargers on their minivans. Why? Because they can, and because it's fun as hell to be blowing away "performance sedans" in their 4000+ lb blown minivans with soccer stickers on it. Ever seen that turbovan video? An old chrysler minivan with a 2.2 turbo engine and a gigantic turbo running 11's and taking out an LS1. Oh and it's daily driven too.
- I'm an introvert so I don't care for showy cars.
- I go on long trips a lot and like something roomier and more comfortable.
- 4-door E36 M3s are rare, and I think only came in automatic.
- I want 4-door practicality and a manual.
- I have a busy life and want something newer/reliable, not something that is more likely to break.
- If I want my Maxima to run 14.6's, I can make it run 14.6's for less than $1000 in mods very easily.
Now where in here did I mention not being able to afford maintenance or insurance?
After my Accord was wrecked, if I wanted an M I would have gone out and bought one. But I didn't. I like my nice innocent and unassuming little 2 generation old Maxima that nobody suspects is capable of anything better than 16's.
And given that it's a M and costing over $40k new, you can bet that they're light-weight 17's on not the obnoxiously heavy crap that the sub-$30k and even mid-$30k market cars get. Lightweight rims are expensive, and there's no strong business case for them on cheaper cars when it's more cost effective to just crank up the power. Oh and the M is also a good 200 lb lighter and RWD.
So what? If you go over to www.siennaclub.org you'll see guys that put TRD superchargers on their minivans. Why? Because they can, and because it's fun as hell to be blowing away "performance sedans" in their 4000+ lb blown minivans with soccer stickers on it. Ever seen that turbovan video? An old chrysler minivan with a 2.2 turbo engine and a gigantic turbo running 11's and taking out an LS1. Oh and it's daily driven too.
- I'm an introvert so I don't care for showy cars.
- I go on long trips a lot and like something roomier and more comfortable.
- 4-door E36 M3s are rare, and I think only came in automatic.
- I want 4-door practicality and a manual.
- I have a busy life and want something newer/reliable, not something that is more likely to break.
- If I want my Maxima to run 14.6's, I can make it run 14.6's for less than $1000 in mods very easily.
Now where in here did I mention not being able to afford maintenance or insurance?
After my Accord was wrecked, if I wanted an M I would have gone out and bought one. But I didn't. I like my nice innocent and unassuming little 2 generation old Maxima that nobody suspects is capable of anything better than 16's.
02-26-2004, 10:03 AM
#73
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,720
Originally Posted by SteVTEC
So what? If you go over to www.siennaclub.org you'll see guys that put TRD superchargers on their minivans. Why? Because they can, and because it's fun as hell to be blowing away "performance sedans" in their 4000+ lb blown minivans with soccer stickers on it. Ever seen that turbovan video? An old chrysler minivan with a 2.2 turbo engine and a gigantic turbo running 11's and taking out an LS1. Oh and it's daily driven too.
02-26-2004, 09:30 PM
#74
Donating Maxima.org Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 77
Isn't all this talk about HP irrelevent? It's torque, and weight, gearing, driver ability, unsprung weight, traction, areodynamics that are what largely determine acceleration, right? So let's compare the manual 5th gen and 6th gen:
manual gearing: same
engine rev limit: same
unsprung weight: similar
traction: similar
areodynamics: similar
weight: 6th gen 200 lbs heavier
So either the manual 6th gen has far more torque (and yes, if top speed is drag limited, also more max HP, but again that's not relevent in 0-to-60 or the quarter mile) or the 5th gen manual is faster, right? And if the 6th gen is faster then it likely gets its extra torque by either putting more fuel through the engine in a given amount of time, or by burning the fuel more efficiently. So do you think the 6th gen torque is at least 15 lb/feet more than the 5th gen???
manual gearing: same
engine rev limit: same
unsprung weight: similar
traction: similar
areodynamics: similar
weight: 6th gen 200 lbs heavier
So either the manual 6th gen has far more torque (and yes, if top speed is drag limited, also more max HP, but again that's not relevent in 0-to-60 or the quarter mile) or the 5th gen manual is faster, right? And if the 6th gen is faster then it likely gets its extra torque by either putting more fuel through the engine in a given amount of time, or by burning the fuel more efficiently. So do you think the 6th gen torque is at least 15 lb/feet more than the 5th gen???
02-26-2004, 11:38 PM
#75
Dyno plot says I have the most area under the Administrator curve
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 7,060
The 04SE has significantly more unsprung weight with those massive 55 pound per corner 18" rims vs the 50 pound per corner 17" rims on the 5th gens. Aerodynamics, the 6g has a more streamlined body with an 0.28 Cd with the lip spoiler. The best a 5g got was 0.31 on an SE. The 6g has slightly more frontal area so that will partially negate the more streamlined body, though.
Top-end peak horsepower is very relevant in the 1/4 mile. Without it you'll be weak in the last 1/8th mile and not running as well as you could. Burning more fuel? Sure, it's at the top-end where I believe that volumetric efficiency has improved significantly. The 5g really had more like 240hp, but for the 6g to be pulling the times that is has so far, it could pull it off without a single extra lb-ft of "peak" torque, but would need significantly more peak horsepower. That's what the model is showing so far...
http://forums.maxima.org/showthread.php?t=256886
Of course, still waiting on an independent dyno to actually confirm this though so that we can just know and stop speculating.
Top-end peak horsepower is very relevant in the 1/4 mile. Without it you'll be weak in the last 1/8th mile and not running as well as you could. Burning more fuel? Sure, it's at the top-end where I believe that volumetric efficiency has improved significantly. The 5g really had more like 240hp, but for the 6g to be pulling the times that is has so far, it could pull it off without a single extra lb-ft of "peak" torque, but would need significantly more peak horsepower. That's what the model is showing so far...
http://forums.maxima.org/showthread.php?t=256886
Of course, still waiting on an independent dyno to actually confirm this though so that we can just know and stop speculating.
02-26-2004, 11:39 PM
#76
Dyno plot says I have the most area under the Administrator curve
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 7,060
Originally Posted by F23A4
Like I posted before, the 4DSC label attached to the Maxima is officially severed. Looks like the Buick Century now has some competition for its intended demographic.
You know you want one.
my bad.
03-01-2004, 08:32 PM
#79
Donating Maxima.org Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 77
Originally Posted by SteVTEC
... it could pull it off without a single extra lb-ft of "peak" torque, but would need significantly more peak horsepower. ...
03-02-2004, 02:13 PM
#80
Originally Posted by spauldingsmails
In other words, a flatter yet lower-peaking torque curve could yield more HP more quickly than a more bell-shaped but higher-peaking torque curve? Sure, but only because you have more total torque, right, or am I missing something? But if engineering to flatten the torque curve (but w/o a higher peak torque) was enough to make up for 200 lbs of added weight in the 6th gen Max, then I'm impressed.
The only way to flatten the curve as much as you are suggesting would be some kind of forced induction (although low level). It's just got the latest generation VQ35 is all (280hp/270tq).