it really sucks that it's true. I'm kind of disappointed with our 5th gen, oh well, it could be worse.

 

I know you keekle at some of my posts

thats a shame, oh well, your loss

if by looks cooler you mean more appealing to soccermoms, then yes, you have us beat by a land slide

 

i'll sum this thread up aka "cliffs" if you will...

3rd gen =

4th gen =

/thread

 

I have nothing to add to this thread except to say that I am surprised that it has lasted five pages. Usually these types of threads degenerate into insults and then a quick lock. Is the .orgy growing up?

 

no check out the newbie questions in 5th gen and also in 4th gen FAQ

 

Since you can get a good look at my taillights, let me know if one of my bulbs are burned out

 

should we watch for parts falling off it too?

 

hey 1989MaxMax would you mind letting me take your max for a ride sometime. lets see what all this "topend" talk is about. i will let you drive my maxima so you know what its supposed to feel like ( nice low and midrage)

 

I agree with you that 4th gens are the best looking, Zack, but explain to me how a Nismo Radiator Cap makes your car go faster and counts as a "Go" mod...

 

i think its like a couple grams lighter than the stock one lol plus it cost me $35 so my wallet is lighter too

 

oh my, so original

sounds like someone thinks the 3rd gens look better too, but cant say it in this thread.

 

Hardly, my 4th gen in like a vault and has only required normal maintenance over the past 8+ years and 112K miles. Stock clutch with 150+ 1/4 mile passes too

 

It's hard to tell when they're so far behind IMO, the stock 3rd gen exterior looks better than the stock 95-96 4th gen. Once you lower the 4th gen and add some decent wheels, there's no comparison. The 4th gen owns. The stock 4th gen interior also owns. Opinions are like....

 

Um Bill was pretty clear in his statements that the 4-gen is in NO WAY superior in the area of interiors. Nissan went on a cost cutting crack binge when they built the 95 VQ maxima.

 

I agree to a point. I see cost cutting with the multi-link beam, lack of rear passenger lights, and a reduction in gauges and warning lamps, and that's where I see it ending. The 3rd gen has a great reliability record, but the 4th gen is actually rated the most reliable car in it's class by JD Power, being more reliable than the Accord and Camry. The VE is a great motor, but it does have it's expensive problems, specifically the VTCs. You never hear about failures like this on a VQ.

My orginal point about the 4th gen interior was that is was better looking. The 3rd gen interior looks really old and dated, the center stack is straght up and has choppy lines around the dash components, and the shifter is really low to the floor. The 4th gens interior is a good copy of the mid to late 90s Benz interiors with a slightly low dash with really clean and flowing lines, a relatively wide and clean center stack, and a relatively high shifter for FWD car. My biggest gripe about my interior is the steering wheel used in the 95-96s.

 

Ask Bill, he used to own both a 3-gen and 4-gen. He went to great detail on how the 4-gen interiors are vastly inferior to the 3-gen. Your comments are opinion and that is about it. Bill's comments are fit, finish and the quality of the materials themselves.

You won't see the following problems list for a 4-gen:
1) VTC problems. Because a 4-gen doesn't have them. But Nissan likes them because they came back in the new 3.5VQ
2) Varible Intake manifold. Because 4-gens don't have them unless you buy the MEVI that eveyone seems to want. Nissan also brought this feature back in 2000 and in the 3.5 VQs.
3) IRS problems because the 4-gen doesn't have it. But again. Nissan brought this feature back.

To illustrate how Nissan cheaped out on the 4-gen, look at the multiple 4-gen manual tranny failures with their main/diff bearings. Much more common in the 4-gen because Nissan probably just used the same shim for every tranny instead properly shimming it from the factory.

 

http://forums.maxima.org/showthread....ghlight=minima

Note Stev's first post.

 

I think this sums it up quite nicely....

edit: and to anyone who has that back issue of Car and Driver (for the 3rd gen Maxima), i'll pay 10 bucks + shipping for that mag.

 

oh man great thread, i cant believe i *****ed about a 5sp swap when here i am with a 5sp swap, a motor rebuild and 3 clutches later..

in conclusion, this is my 1st and last maxima

 

I trust Bill's opinions on Maximas as much as I trust his opinions on the Bush adminstration As for my comments being opinions, you're right hence the reason I previously said "opinions are like.....". You know the rest.

Well they had to add power and improve emissions in the upcoming models so they fixed they're design (we hope) and added them to the 3.5 VQ. I can't argue with that. The point was the VE VTCs are problematic and finding a VE with working VTCs is a rarity.

Agreed. Again, Nissan needed to find power so they brought back the VIs. Unforunately the 00-01 fails quite often and the 3.5s are ingesting butterfly screws.

Agreed. The multi-link beam was mostly for cost cutting purposes. Too many mags and owners (we hope) complained about the beam and got it replaced with IRS. The beam isn't as bad as everyone says, but when people see "beam" and don't understand all the other equipment attached to it, they automatically assume it's crap. VWs have been running multilink beams for years and you don't hear about people complaining about the handling of a properly setup Golf or Jetta.

The 4th gen tranny issue isn't a cost cutting measure. It was a production problem. I really don't think Nissan would go out of their way to incorrectly set the differential bearing preload in hopes of causing tranny problems. I must be one of the lucky ones because I haven't had any problems, but mine is an early 96 so maybe I dodged that bullet.....or maybe not.

 

Your forgetting the biggest cost cutting measure of all, the VQ30DE itself.
VTC's are about $80 in parts and a few hours of work. And the benefits are worth the risks.

que up pictures of cars from 1989 then pics of the 3rd gen's interior
Nissan created alot of standards with the 3rd gen that have been carried over and most people take for granted. IMHO the 3rd gens interior is not only of a higher quality, but also looks better. You feel otherwise but oh well.

 

I'll dig up the post later. What he states is fact.

Mine work fine.

I don't think Nissan would impliment a multi-million dollar change just because magazines complained about it. It's more like Nissan realized you can't polish a beam to perform like IRS.

Probably because VWs have always been beams. We wouldn't know either if we never had IRS. I guess VWs running on 3 wheels through turns is a good thing.

Not on purpose. But because they got Lazy. Instead of measuring the proper preload, they put the same shim on all the trannies. Same when Nissan rebuilds the 4-gen tranny. They don't bother to measure the proper preload and just slaps some bearings in there. Ask motovaeate about that one.

 

no its not
a sign of poor quality?
I dont think Jeff was saying the tranny itself was cost cutting measure, they just didn't put as much time into shimming them as they did with the 3rd gens (ie. wider acceptable range, instead of having 10 different shims have 3, etc just for example). LSD is also another cost cutting measure. As much as you guys its a waste or unneccessary, once you have had a car with one, you wont go back. It's extremely nice (not just from a performance aspect either, winter is sneaking up )

 

Do a 97-99 SE steering wheel swap, Dave! IMO the 97-99 SE steering wheel is the best-looking steering wheel ever made (that I've seen). Take a look at steering wheels on new Bimmers, Hondas, anything—butt-fxcking ugly IMO.

The 3rd gen build quality all around is better, that's a fact. The interior is of higher quality. No one is disputing that here. However, it is the opinion of many that the 4th gen interior is sleeker and more stylish. I can't vouch for it being any more functional or comfortable than the 3rd gen since I've never driven a 3rd gen, but I have very few complaints about my interior looks and ergonomics. I do know that the 3rd gen steering wheel, like the 4th gen non-97-99 SE steering wheels, is FAMILY-SEDAN SOCCER-MOM LOOKING, period, and in my mind, the steering wheel makes the interior look just as rims make the exterior look.

 

Oh yeah, and the MLB is not inferior to the IRS, which statement I've already made in this thread. Read this article: http://www.se-r.net/about/g20/scc/oct98/tb.html . IRS has its advantages and so does the MLB.

Regarding the diffy bearing probs in 4th gen 5-speeds, I suspect that Nissan fixed the factory shimming problem in the later models. I haven't heard of any later 4th gens with this problem, and many 4.5 gens are over 100K or 150K miles at this point. The tranny was further improved in 2K, of course.

 

Car and Driver, June 1994:

The other new ingredient in the Maxima recipe is the engine. It's still a 24- valve, 3.0 liter 60-degree V-6, but virtually no parts interchange with the previous powerplant. Aluminum alloy cuts the weight of the block casting nearly in half, repackaging of the cam drive and accessories shrinks its external dimensions, and the usual refinement of electronic controls manages gains in both performance and efficiency.

But for the enthusiast driver, the engine's running character is perhaps more notable even than its on paper features and benefits. A short-stroke design (3.66 inch bore by 2.89 inch stroke, versus the previous engine's 3.43 by 3.27) and a concerted effort to lighten the weight of all rotating and reciprocating parts have given the new V-6 a lively, free-revving feel. It responds instantly to throttle, spins up with a nicely subdued growl, and makes a perfect match with the five-speed manual gearbox that is the natural enthusiast's alternative to the four-speed autobox.

Output figures for the new engine are the same 190 horsepower at 5600 rpm of the former SE engine, and 205 pound-feet of torque at 4000 rpm, up from 190 at the same engine speed. So this engine is at least is strong as the old SE unit, and it's pulling around a car a good deal lighter: 3100 pounds, compared with the 3238 of our August 1992 comparo car. Acceleration is sparkling. Our '95 Maxima SE scampers to 60 mph in 6.7 seconds and covers the quarter-mile in 15.3 seconds, reaching 91 mph. (The '92 ran 0 to 60 in 7.0 seconds, the quarter-mile in 15.5 seconds at 91 mph.) Top speed is 135 mph, within production tolerances of the 137 mph we saw in the '92 car.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor Trend, June 1994

Most of the SE's performance leap comes from the new engine used in all Maximas. Yet, without close inspection, it's easy to dismiss it as a warmed-over version of the old: It has the same configuration (60-degree V-6 DOHC, four valves per cylinder), the same peak horsepower (190) occurring at the same rpm (5600), and its displacement still rounds to 3.0 liters. Nevertheless, the new engine, code named "VQ" is about "all-new" as it gets without going to proton drives.

The engine is 1.2 inches shorter, 3.9 inches narrower, and 108 pounds lighter, which helps the new Maxima weigh about 100 pounds less than its predecessor despite additional features like dual airbags. To help reduce height, stroke is shorter and bore is larger with a resulting 28-cubic-centimeter displacement increase. Larger valves are set in a narrower included angle to further reduce size and improve combustion- chamber efficiency. Also contributing to compactness: A three-chain cam-drive system- one chain turns the intake cams, while shorter chains use the intake cams to spin the exhausts- replaces the single-toothed belt.

The new engine's peak torque jumps 15 pound-feet (to 205 at 4000 rpm) and, from the test results, it's clear the area under the torque curve is substantially increased. Another factor accounting for the improvement in acceleration: Because the main moving parts are 17 percent lighter, the engine revs markedly quicker. Also assisting: reduced friction through microfinishing- ultra fine-polishing similar to that done by builders of racing engine- of crank and cam journals and cam lobes, as well as by molybdenum coating on the piston skirts, reduced skirt area, and thinner piston rings.

Nissan trimmed the engine block's weight (by 50 percent) and size by changing from cast iron to high-pressure cast aluminum (with cast-in iron liners), and by radically reducing water jacket area and rerouting coolant flow. Now, most of the coolant goes directly to the heads, with a small amount simultaneously diverted to the block.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Road & Track, June 1994

Does this new focus make the new Maxima a performance lightweight? Hardly. The 1995 Maxima showcases an all-new 3.0 liter V-6 engine, the first of a family of bent sixes (also displacing 2.0 and 2.5 liters) that will power numerous front- and rear-drive Nissans, including the next 300ZX, well into the 21st century.

The Maxima's new 4-cam, 24-valve all-aluminum V-6 is a gem. It replaces both the SOHC 12-valve 160-bhp base engine (around in one form or another since 1983) and the 1994 SE's DOHC 24-valve 190 bhp of the same displacement and shares not a single part with those cast-iron-block V6s.

For starters, it is 108 lb. Lighter than last year's 3.0 liter, helping improve the Maxima's font/rear weight distribution. A 2-stage chain cam drive (which permits use of smaller exhaust-cam sprockets) and cast-aluminum timing-chain cover and oilpan (which incorporate mounts for accessories) make the engine more compact, giving more space to the passenger compartment. Nissan engineers reduced mass of items such as the pistons, crankshaft, rods and flywheel some 17 percent, which when combined with the engine's shorter stroke, makes for easy revving and delightful throttle response. Power-robbing friction is reduced by the use of moly-coated piston skirts and microfinished crankshaft and camshaft surfaces.

Aerodynamic port development keeps intake-charge velocities high through the crossflow head, even at low engine speeds. The V-6 develops an impressive 205 lb.-ft. of torque at 4000 rpm, but more important, more 90 percent of that peak torque is available from a lazy 1600 rpm to a freeway-flying 5500. This is one flexible, responsive engine that acquits itself nicely without the aid of variable cam timing or induction tuning. And it's quiet at idle and smooth as silk throughout the rev range, aided by electronically tuned fluid-filled engine-mount technology.

 

I could dig up a
'rave' review on the VE engine also...

 

O shhh your still angry, dont be mad cause our car is better. 4th gens will always be cooler, faster, and more sexually apeealing then that old boxy 3rd gen!!! Is just as simple as that

 

naw Im just kiddding I love 3rd gens, My uncle has a 94 se, too bad its not manual though!!!

 

A lowered 4th gen on nice rims is teh sex on wheels that a box simply cannot duplicate. Simple geometry.

Besides, has there been a 12 second turd gen yet??

 

I'm not.


Hahaha...j/k... I got love for 3rd gens...errrr...3rd gen SE's to be exact. Those cars were wayyy ahead of their time. I just think it'd be awesome to mix the 3rd gen's VTC's, IRS, and build quality with the 4th gen's looks, interior, butta-smooth VQ, and aftermarket potential.

 

Yes but could you dig up 3?

 

Wow this thread was interesting. I actually read through just about everything and I must say, some of you guys sure come out sounding like a mob of angry old men. So testy and so subtly opinionated that it makes for good entertainment. Put aside the differences and have a group hug

 

everyone is just having fun, no hard feelings, we all do drive maxima's. i am bored so i post in here

 

Probably not, not alot of magazines tested the VE

 

how about just the aftermarket support?
oh well, when not availible, make it yourself

 

5th gen owns all Maximas. Last Maxima made in Japan, and used THE best of the best features, best interior design. I owned a 3rd Gen VG30 SE 5spd, it was fun to drive that to the ground in the winter last year. All in all... 4th gens look cheap nowadays, interior is really cheap compared to a 3rd or 5th gen. My brother has a 98 GXE 4th gen and that car is reliable as hell, but nothing exciting to look at really.

 

if a VQ35 had IRS I would agree with you fully, except interior room. I'm a fairly big guy, e-brake handle placement and steering wheel adjustment suck

gauges and stereo are quite nice though

 

In the looks department, a 97-99 4th gen lowered 2.5 inches on 17" wheels spaced correctly with a stillen body kit > * in my opinion.

 

then make it for the other gens and profit off them