2002 Max 255HP, 2004 265HP WHY??
#4
Originally Posted by Quicksilver
Here's the real breakdown on the engine differences (number wise)...
2002-2003 Maxima = 245hp/265tq
2004- up Maxima = 280hp/270tq
They overrated the '02-'03 models, and underrated the 2004+ models.
2002-2003 Maxima = 245hp/265tq
2004- up Maxima = 280hp/270tq
They overrated the '02-'03 models, and underrated the 2004+ models.
2002 Altima =240ph
2003 Altima =245hp
2005 Altima =250hp
2002 Maxima= 255hp
2004 Maxima= 265hp
2003 Z= 287hp
2003 G35C= 280hp
Its interesting how 4 kinda similar cars can have the same engine with such different horsepower. I know the Z is different and im sure the 04 Max is, however I dont know how much I belive the Altima #s. My personal Opinion, VQ 3.5 in Altima and 02 Maxima has 245hp
#7
I should search for the thread, but the explanation is the Altima 3.5SE and Maxima 02-03 have a "2nd gen" VQ engine bored or stroked (or both) to 3.5L with VTCs added, while the Z, G35 and 04+ Maxima all have "3rd gen" VQ engines in a 3.5L configuration. I guess the differences are engine differences which allow higher flow or higher RPM operation for the 3rd gens, thus giving them more HP?
(kinda like the 4th gen "1st gen VQ" vs. the 2000-2001 VQ30DE-K, which was the first incarnation of the "2nd gen VQ", at least in the Maxima)
(kinda like the 4th gen "1st gen VQ" vs. the 2000-2001 VQ30DE-K, which was the first incarnation of the "2nd gen VQ", at least in the Maxima)
#8
Quicksilver: r u for reals about the the 04+ having 280??? isnt the same engine also if this is true. why is the 03 faster then the 04??? by a little or thats what i read??? correct me if im wrong
thanks
thanks
#10
Originally Posted by DrVolkl
From the 1/4 mile times I've seen, I'm not so sure the 04 is underrated at all. I also thought they were posting 211hp on the dyno...
#11
The horsepower has to have been bumped up on the 6th gen because even though it has gained a considerable amount of weight, it can still hold its own agains other stock 5.5 gens. Please correct me if I am wrong though.
For the engine to have different hp ratings... wouldn't that mean different ECU tuning, different internals (or modified), and exhaust design and exhaust intake plus drive train, gear ratios, and whatever other factors there are? I'm lost and confuse...
For the engine to have different hp ratings... wouldn't that mean different ECU tuning, different internals (or modified), and exhaust design and exhaust intake plus drive train, gear ratios, and whatever other factors there are? I'm lost and confuse...
#12
Originally Posted by CCS2k1Max
208 whp/211 tq http://www.injen.com/webpages/testin...nal/RD1945.jpg
#13
If you don't understand why the 04 maxima should really be rated at around 275-280hp at the crank then check some track times(not magazines) and do a little research on car test. The 04's are running almost the same exact times as the 02-03's and they a quite a bit heavier. If you can't figure it out...give up.
#14
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Manhattan Beach, Ca / Dallas, Tx
Posts: 3,751
Remember the ones running 02/03 times are the 5spd auto SE not the 4spd auto SL, it is a tad slower than both. 04 doesnot have 280 hp and 270torque if it did it would be putting down slightly better times than I have seen. Has anyone proved this 1st gen 3.5 vs 2nd gen 3.5 or is it just speculation?
#15
Originally Posted by blubyu2k2
injunk's dynos are always way off and always seems there intakes make 12-15whp which is BS.
#16
Originally Posted by MONTE 01&97 SE
Remember the ones running 02/03 times are the 5spd auto SE not the 4spd auto SL, it is a tad slower than both. 04 doesnot have 280 hp and 270torque if it did it would be putting down slightly better times than I have seen. Has anyone proved this 1st gen 3.5 vs 2nd gen 3.5 or is it just speculation?
#18
18" super heavy wheels + more curb weight and yet the 5 speed auto '04 SE still runs 14.6's...
The only explanation is that the engine is underrated. Some of us are pretty good at getting Cartest to simulate down to within .1-.2 seconds of real life cars, and in order for the '04 automatic SE to get 14.6's, it has to have 280 HP. The other key to remember is that you need to bias the extra weight from the wheels into the actual vehicle weight (since for some reason Cartest doesn't make much of a differennce on wheel size/weight and such). The extra weight on the corners should make the '04 Significantly slower than the 2002-2003 models, but in fact they run the same times.
The only explanation is that the engine is underrated. Some of us are pretty good at getting Cartest to simulate down to within .1-.2 seconds of real life cars, and in order for the '04 automatic SE to get 14.6's, it has to have 280 HP. The other key to remember is that you need to bias the extra weight from the wheels into the actual vehicle weight (since for some reason Cartest doesn't make much of a differennce on wheel size/weight and such). The extra weight on the corners should make the '04 Significantly slower than the 2002-2003 models, but in fact they run the same times.
#20
Originally Posted by krmaxima
i dont understand but i dont think they have 280 hp it doesnt make sense. let me see some dyno numbers.
#22
Originally Posted by MannyNJ2k2max
If this dyno is correct....THERE IS NO WAY the 6th
Gen has 280 @ the crank....or 265 for that matter....
Gen has 280 @ the crank....or 265 for that matter....
#26
Originally Posted by MannyNJ2k2max
Now... its funny a computer be off for 3+ years on a track that has plenty of business....
#27
oh...of course Injens chart is ridiculous....but i just dont believe it.....until i see an independent dyno showing at least ~ 225+whp stock.....then one can
assume the 6th gen is putting out 265-280hp
I believe these cars are capable of same times as 2k2-2k3's
but I still have't seen any solid proof.....
as far as ga2000....times of 14.6.....14.4....he has never posted a slip....ever....and its not even his cars its daddy's car.....and he posts 24/7 like its his daily driver...
[qoute -ga2000 ]"ok here it is, weather was 88 degrees and 70% humidity, this is no excuse at all car ran what it ran. this 1st of all this is my fathers car i dont drive it all the time."
Believe me....I want these cars to pull those times...I'm just a skeptic and i need hard evidence... some of these magazines would've pulled some numbers close to these by now......if it was the case
assume the 6th gen is putting out 265-280hp
I believe these cars are capable of same times as 2k2-2k3's
but I still have't seen any solid proof.....
as far as ga2000....times of 14.6.....14.4....he has never posted a slip....ever....and its not even his cars its daddy's car.....and he posts 24/7 like its his daily driver...
[qoute -ga2000 ]"ok here it is, weather was 88 degrees and 70% humidity, this is no excuse at all car ran what it ran. this 1st of all this is my fathers car i dont drive it all the time."
Believe me....I want these cars to pull those times...I'm just a skeptic and i need hard evidence... some of these magazines would've pulled some numbers close to these by now......if it was the case
#28
Originally Posted by MannyNJ2k2max
oh...of course Injens chart is ridiculous....but i just dont believe it.....until i see an independent dyno showing at least ~ 225+whp stock.....then one can
assume the 6th gen is putting out 265-280hp
I believe these cars are capable of same times as 2k2-2k3's
but I still have't seen any solid proof.....
as far as ga2000....times of 14.6.....14.4....he has never posted a slip....ever....and its not even his cars its daddy's car.....and he posts 24/7 like its his daily driver...
[qoute -ga2000 ]"ok here it is, weather was 88 degrees and 70% humidity, this is no excuse at all car ran what it ran. this 1st of all this is my fathers car i dont drive it all the time."
Believe me....I want these cars to pull those times...I'm just a skeptic and i need hard evidence... some of these magazines would've pulled some numbers close to these by now......if it was the case
assume the 6th gen is putting out 265-280hp
I believe these cars are capable of same times as 2k2-2k3's
but I still have't seen any solid proof.....
as far as ga2000....times of 14.6.....14.4....he has never posted a slip....ever....and its not even his cars its daddy's car.....and he posts 24/7 like its his daily driver...
[qoute -ga2000 ]"ok here it is, weather was 88 degrees and 70% humidity, this is no excuse at all car ran what it ran. this 1st of all this is my fathers car i dont drive it all the time."
Believe me....I want these cars to pull those times...I'm just a skeptic and i need hard evidence... some of these magazines would've pulled some numbers close to these by now......if it was the case
What? ga2000 has posted a slip. It was posted in the 1/4 forum.
#30
Originally Posted by 92 SE-R 02 SE
04+ D Y N O
No sheet! Someone needs to dyno their '04. I mean, come on...$75 or so for 3 runs can easily be afforded by someone that actually wants to help out the .orgy...
#35
I have to agree with Quicksilver though. Based on the times the 6th gen putting out, it has to be putting out more than stated, or at least quite a bit more than what the 2k2, 2k3's are putting out. How can you get a car that is much heavier than the previous version to run almost identical times? 280hp at the crank is not out of the question at all. It's simple physics. However, though only way to prove this is with a dyno, which sucks cuz now what everyone is saying is just pure speculation and nothing more. And don't trust the Injen dyno's, they are just thier to sell a product, and most the people that dyno them probably won't dyno thier car's just to find out.
S
S
#36
Originally Posted by F23A4
I must have missed it also. (and still cant find it) Would you mind posting a link?
Here's the link
ga2000 1/4 slip
EDIT-- Well **** on me...the link for the slip is now broken...
ga2000, if you're reading this, send me the picture and I'll host it for you...
#37
I think you guys are wasting your breath. We are 5th Generation guys. Who cares what those newbies are doing. 265hp or 500, who cares. It all comes down to the track times. If I was told that if Id give up 50hp from my Max, but it would be faster in the 1/4 or whatever, Id say you have a deal. My point is, the # of horses you got under the hood means nothing. The bragging rights come from the performance of the car. Lets help each other find ways to make our Max's quicker and faster, rather than argue over who has more hp. Am I right?
#38
Originally Posted by greenguy
I think you guys are wasting your breath. We are 5th Generation guys. Who cares what those newbies are doing. 265hp or 500, who cares. It all comes down to the track times. If I was told that if Id give up 50hp from my Max, but it would be faster in the 1/4 or whatever, Id say you have a deal. My point is, the # of horses you got under the hood means nothing. The bragging rights come from the performance of the car. Lets help each other find ways to make our Max's quicker and faster, rather than argue over who has more hp. Am I right?
Not really...
#40
Originally Posted by DoGGy
man you guys are all WAAAAAAAY off.
the 6th gen max pumps out 750 hp. its got 6.5L v8 engine and it weights 2800 lbs. it also ran 10.8 seconds 1/4 mile and 3.5 sec 0-60.
now thats what i call FAST. good job nissan
feel free to correct me if im wrong
the 6th gen max pumps out 750 hp. its got 6.5L v8 engine and it weights 2800 lbs. it also ran 10.8 seconds 1/4 mile and 3.5 sec 0-60.
now thats what i call FAST. good job nissan
feel free to correct me if im wrong
But seriously, maybe instead of the HP rating being at 280, maybe nissan is just catching up to its claimed horsepower (unlike the 5.5 gens which should be more like 245 at the crank). Just a thought.