3rd gen vs 4th gen
Originally Posted by zack342
Yes but could you dig up 3? 
http://home.earthlink.net/~maxfaq/history.htm#VQ30DE
The 4th gen interior is no way comparable to the 3rd gens. I was driving to work the other day in my 4th gen and went to plug in my phone charger and the damn cigarette lighter busted through the cheap plastic shift trim and fell through the back POS pieces me off now I have to buy a new trim. Lets not get started on the rattly dash and doors. Also, the nice clunk in the rear when you go over bumps at the littlest bit of speed. The 4th gen is nice in many ways, it does have a better low-mid than the VE BUT for Dave B to sit up there and try and make it seem the top end is comparable he is WRONG!!! When you put the 4th gen in 3rd gear at 75mph I think it pulls MUCH MUCH SLOWER than the VE and it doesnt rev out to 107mph. If you guys want the truth I can sit here all day, but when you look at the overall they are pretty similar.
Originally Posted by dmontzmax
The 4th gen interior is no way comparable to the 3rd gens. I was driving to work the other day in my 4th gen and went to plug in my phone charger and the damn cigarette lighter busted through the cheap plastic shift trim and fell through the back POS pieces me off now I have to buy a new trim. Lets not get started on the rattly dash and doors. Also, the nice clunk in the rear when you go over bumps at the littlest bit of speed. The 4th gen is nice in many ways, it does have a better low-mid than the VE BUT for Dave B to sit up there and try and make it seem the top end is comparable he is WRONG!!! When you put the 4th gen in 3rd gear at 75mph I think it pulls MUCH MUCH SLOWER than the VE and it doesnt rev out to 107mph. If you guys want the truth I can sit here all day, but when you look at the overall they are pretty similar.
you should get that taken care of my car doesn't clunk when i go over bumps and no rattles at all. i am extremely impressed with the build quality for a nissan.My only problem is my drivers seat back squeaks. i haven't been in a 3rd gen in a while so i can't compare but they are all pretty much the same.
Basically it comes down to this. the 4th gen is the better car in this comparions. its Faster, light more efficent, more relaible, more aerodynamic. for the time fram the 4th Gen was released it was top of the food chain (in its class) what else was as fast at that time as a 95 Maxima SE 5 speed. if you were to read the original review from car and driver you would know what i am talking about.
no lets talk about the 3rd gen. the 92-94 SE 5speeds are decent but they weren't the top of the game. you had the Ford Taurus with a 5 speed which would destroy the 5speed VE in a heart beat and run with the 5speed VQ's.
What it comes down to is, the 4th gen is better than the 3rd gen and the 5th gen is better than them both. that is the way it works. when a maufacture redesigns a Car they want to improve it. that is the point.
the VE was a good motor for its time the VQ was a better motor and VQ30DE-K was the best.
So lets all now agree to disagree that the 4th gen's are better. And of all the 4th gens the 99 SE-L 5speed with BLK Leather and ABS is Sherwood green is the best.
A SHO would not Destroy a VE 5sp (since you guys are talking mag numbers the VE 5spd did do 0-60 under 7 seconds,) I have read anywhere from 6.6 to 6.9 . The SHO was okay but it would not destroy a VE. The 89 and 90 were lightest I test drove a 93 and then I took the owner for a ride in my 97 5speed (at that time) and he was amazed. For that matter there were only a few manual 6 cylinder sedans available then
Acura Legend
Nissan Maxima
Ford SHO
and of course the 5 and 3 series bimmers but they were not in the same class. IN 92 what could touch the Maxima in the same price range?
Acura Legend
Nissan Maxima
Ford SHO
and of course the 5 and 3 series bimmers but they were not in the same class. IN 92 what could touch the Maxima in the same price range?
Originally Posted by zack342
you should get that taken care of my car doesn't clunk
no lets talk about the 3rd gen. the 92-94 SE 5speeds are decent but they weren't the top of the game. you had the Ford Taurus with a 5 speed which would destroy the 5speed VE in a heart beat and run with the 5speed VQ's.
.
no lets talk about the 3rd gen. the 92-94 SE 5speeds are decent but they weren't the top of the game. you had the Ford Taurus with a 5 speed which would destroy the 5speed VE in a heart beat and run with the 5speed VQ's.
.
When the 4th gen first came out in 95 people didn't respond well to the new body style. In some cases the leftover last year's 94 body style was selling for more than a brand new 4th gen. The 97-99 looked a little better, but still its just different tail lights and front bumper. It's all a matter of opinion.
Originally Posted by zack342
What it comes down to is, the 4th gen is better than the 3rd gen and the 5th gen is better than them both. that is the way it works. when a maufacture redesigns a Car they want to improve it. that is the point.
5th gen are/were built better since renualt (sp?) bailed them out.
you can claim this and that about how your 4th gen is better...but the proof is in the company's bottom line.
Originally Posted by bru91
When the 4th gen first came out in 95 people didn't respond well to the new body style. In some cases the leftover last year's 94 body style was selling for more than a brand new 4th gen. The 97-99 looked a little better, but still its just different tail lights and front bumper. It's all a matter of opinion.
Originally Posted by zack342
you should get that taken care of my car doesn't clunk when i go over bumps and no rattles at all. i am extremely impressed with the build quality for a nissan.My only problem is my drivers seat back squeaks. i haven't been in a 3rd gen in a while so i can't compare but they are all pretty much the same.
Basically it comes down to this. the 4th gen is the better car in this comparions. its Faster, light more efficent, more relaible, more aerodynamic. for the time fram the 4th Gen was released it was top of the food chain (in its class) what else was as fast at that time as a 95 Maxima SE 5 speed. if you were to read the original review from car and driver you would know what i am talking about.
no lets talk about the 3rd gen. the 92-94 SE 5speeds are decent but they weren't the top of the game. you had the Ford Taurus with a 5 speed which would destroy the 5speed VE in a heart beat and run with the 5speed VQ's.
What it comes down to is, the 4th gen is better than the 3rd gen and the 5th gen is better than them both. that is the way it works. when a maufacture redesigns a Car they want to improve it. that is the point.
the VE was a good motor for its time the VQ was a better motor and VQ30DE-K was the best.
So lets all now agree to disagree that the 4th gen's are better. And of all the 4th gens the 99 SE-L 5speed with BLK Leather and ABS is Sherwood green is the best.
Basically it comes down to this. the 4th gen is the better car in this comparions. its Faster, light more efficent, more relaible, more aerodynamic. for the time fram the 4th Gen was released it was top of the food chain (in its class) what else was as fast at that time as a 95 Maxima SE 5 speed. if you were to read the original review from car and driver you would know what i am talking about.
no lets talk about the 3rd gen. the 92-94 SE 5speeds are decent but they weren't the top of the game. you had the Ford Taurus with a 5 speed which would destroy the 5speed VE in a heart beat and run with the 5speed VQ's.
What it comes down to is, the 4th gen is better than the 3rd gen and the 5th gen is better than them both. that is the way it works. when a maufacture redesigns a Car they want to improve it. that is the point.
the VE was a good motor for its time the VQ was a better motor and VQ30DE-K was the best.
So lets all now agree to disagree that the 4th gen's are better. And of all the 4th gens the 99 SE-L 5speed with BLK Leather and ABS is Sherwood green is the best.
Dude, without sounding like a complete **** (dont take it wrong) Please do not try and tell me which is a better car, PLEASE. Personally as I read this all that stuff you typed was BLAH BLAH BLAH you really DO NOT have experience to back up your comments. Give your car another 2 years and we will see, mine is a 97. BTW: My 3rd gen has 290+k and is still alot more solid than the 4th gen.
Originally Posted by dmontzmax
Dude, without sounding like a complete **** (dont take it wrong) Please do not try and tell me which is a better car, PLEASE. Personally as I read this all that stuff you typed was BLAH BLAH BLAH you really DO NOT have experience to back up your comments. Give your car another 2 years and we will see, mine is a 97. BTW: My 3rd gen has 290+k and is still alot more solid than the 4th gen.
Originally Posted by zack342
Didn't mean to offend you, sorry if i did. i wish i could take you up on my offer but i don't plan on owning my maxima past August of 2005 so i guess i wouldn't know its short comming and design flaws. i have been around every generation maxima since the 2nd gen, my uncle owned a 1987,2000 SE and now a 2004 SE.my cousin owned 1993 GXE my brother owned a 1999 SE and 2003 SE. i own 1999 SE. i have seen them all and everyone likes diffrent things so no offense but if you liked your 3rd gen so much why buy a 4th gen.
I bought my 4th gen cause I got it for CHEAP! If I told you, you wouldnt believe me. Plus I had worked on this car and followed it for years the weird thing is I told the owner ( a board member ) if I ever owned a 4th gen, it would be that one, and look what happened. Dont get me wrong, it is a great car, I know it may seem as if I bash them, but I am bashing them compared to the 3rd gen, but in the car world they are great still.
Originally Posted by VQuick
Again, I'd rather have a few rattles (which can be easily remedied with a roll of squeak tape and/or installing subframe connectors) than a 1980s-era steering wheel. :P
How are you going to remedie that 1860 wagonwheel rear beam suspension? 
Originally Posted by VQuick
Again, I'd rather have a few rattles (which can be easily remedied with a roll of squeak tape and/or installing subframe connectors) than a 1980s-era steering wheel. :P
Not DAVEB the parts guy
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 8,549
Originally Posted by Jeff92se
How are you going to remedie that 1860 wagonwheel rear beam suspension?
1) Coilover struts
2) 1.2" sway bar
3) Trailing arms
4) chassis to beam dual-linkage that causes a scissor-type movement and keeps the axle perfectly centered under the car during all manuvers and keeps an ideal camber
Mom's Minivan beam axle:
1) Leafs springs
2) Shocks
Not DAVEB the parts guy
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 8,549
Originally Posted by dmontzmax
I was driving to work the other day in my 4th gen and went to plug in my phone charger and the damn cigarette lighter busted through the cheap plastic shift trim and fell through the back POS pieces me off now I have to buy a new trim. Lets not get started on the rattly dash and doors. Also, the nice clunk in the rear when you go over bumps at the littlest bit of speed.
When you put the 4th gen in 3rd gear at 75mph I think it pulls MUCH MUCH SLOWER than the VE and it doesnt rev out to 107mph. If you guys want the truth I can sit here all day, but when you look at the overall they are pretty similar.
Contrary to what you guys want to believe, I actually do like 3rd gens quite a bit.
Dave I am sure you saw the cartest that Neal ran I think this top end everyone is talking about would be north of 100mph on his test the VE made it 130 6 seconds quicker than the VQ. It would be interesting to see how a VE 5speed/VQ USIM 5spd and a VQ with MEVI do a "road test" of shifting into third around 60 ish and starting the "test" there and explore the higer end of the speedo (130 +). I think I remeber MikeD saying he could take third to 102 with MEVI/ecu as you know with USIM we can ride 3rd to about 90 and some change. I would like to see the top end of MEVI/ecu compared to a VE no dyno an actual road "test" Sure the stock VQ can do 142 but takes forever I am a believer in the top end of the VE (not in the 1/4 but but as I said earlier north of 100 mph) I have driven a couple of the VE 5spds and encountered one during during a crazy Atlanta video a few years ago it slowly walked all the VQs on the highway.
Originally Posted by Dave B
The 4th gen was tested my MT to go 15.2@92mph and top out at 142mph. That's on par if not better than the VEs they tested. Stock VEs on the this board get 90-92mph traps and so do the 4th gens. Where is this topend advantage? It would easily be seen in the 1/4 mile if the VE had such a better topend? .
Originally Posted by zack342
light more efficent
Originally Posted by zack342
more relaible
Originally Posted by zack342
more aerodynamic
Originally Posted by zack342
the VE was a good motor for its time the VQ was a better motor and VQ30DE-K was the best.
Originally Posted by zack342
And of all the 4th gens the 99 SE-L 5speed with BLK Leather and ABS is Sherwood green is the best.
Originally Posted by VQuick
Again, I'd rather have a few rattles (which can be easily remedied with a roll of squeak tape and/or installing subframe connectors) than a 1980s-era steering wheel. :P
DE-K wheel > *
Originally Posted by Dave B
Well things do break on 7-8 year old cars. I've never heard of this happening, but anything is possible. I guess I'm in minority because my car doesn't rattle at all. The doors give a nice solid "thunk" when I close them. As for the clunk, that's obviously related to something on the suspension which is a wear and tear item. It could easily be fixed.
The 4th gen was tested my MT to go 15.2@92mph and top out at 142mph. That's on par if not better than the VEs they tested. Stock VEs on the this board get 90-92mph traps and so do the 4th gens. Where is this topend advantage? It would easily be seen in the 1/4 mile if the VE had such a better topend? I'd expect at least 94mph to claim "superior topend". My 4th gen with an intake/y-pipe/muffler did 96.5mph in the 1/4 mile which better than the 3rd gens with similiar mods save for the infamous BryanH and his 92 VE that did 98mph. With the 1/4 mile data we have and the VEs I've faced both on the street (including racing Bryan's 92) and track (including Matt93SE), I still say their is no difference in the topend of these cars.
Contrary to what you guys want to believe, I actually do like 3rd gens quite a bit.
The 4th gen was tested my MT to go 15.2@92mph and top out at 142mph. That's on par if not better than the VEs they tested. Stock VEs on the this board get 90-92mph traps and so do the 4th gens. Where is this topend advantage? It would easily be seen in the 1/4 mile if the VE had such a better topend? I'd expect at least 94mph to claim "superior topend". My 4th gen with an intake/y-pipe/muffler did 96.5mph in the 1/4 mile which better than the 3rd gens with similiar mods save for the infamous BryanH and his 92 VE that did 98mph. With the 1/4 mile data we have and the VEs I've faced both on the street (including racing Bryan's 92) and track (including Matt93SE), I still say their is no difference in the topend of these cars.
Contrary to what you guys want to believe, I actually do like 3rd gens quite a bit.
I am not necessarily talking from a dead stop to top end race. You ever been cruising on the freeway and had someone try and race you? Well that is what I am talking about, get a VE and a VQ side by side on the highway and have them both drop it and go from a solid 75mph roll, that is the top end I am talking about, real experience.
Originally Posted by Jeff92se
How are you going to remedie that 1860 wagonwheel rear beam suspension?
I believe the last live axle on a Maxima was on the 1983 Maxima station wagon. That would be the Datsun Maxima.
The 4th gen Max is cheaper than the 3rd gen Max in many respects. Cheaper is not necessarily inferior. Motor Trend awards the redesigned and presumably cheaper-to-produce 1995 Maxima Import Car of the Year. Regarding the rear suspension, they said:
The new Maxima benefits from a generous helping of suspension wizardry. MacPherson struts carry over up front, but the rear struts with parallel links have given way to a new Multi-Link Beam configuration with trailing arms. Lighter, more compact,, more space-efficient, and less expensive to produce, the new system also delivers tangible dynamic improvements over the one it replaces. Nissan will use this patented rear-axle design on many of its upcoming front-drive vehicles, including the new Sentra.
The challenge facing Nissan engineers was to devise rear suspension that would deliver a properly compliant ride while preventing unwanted camber change and suspension jacking under cornering and eliminating scuff change (transverse movement of the body relative to the axle) over uneven road surfaces. Both are common problems in a conventional beam-axle design located by a simple Panhard rod. Nissan's variation on the basic theme involves two key modifications. The first substitutes a special oversize lower bushing in the Panhard rod that's stiff vertically but pliant laterally. The second piece in the puzzle is a control link (formally known as a Scott-Russell link) that connects the Panhard rod with the axle to provide additional stability. This combination ensures that the axle will only move up and down, thereby maintaining proper camber in the rear tires at all times. This unique hardware also maintains a more consistent relationship between the vehicle's roll center and its center of gravity, which contributes to a better cornering feel and less body roll, regardless of loading. Since the springs and shock absorbers no longer have to contend with as much lateral force, they can be made smaller and lighter. The result: Both ride and handling are improve. And, as an extra bonus, fewer suspension mounting points result in less noise being transmitted back into the body structure.
The challenge facing Nissan engineers was to devise rear suspension that would deliver a properly compliant ride while preventing unwanted camber change and suspension jacking under cornering and eliminating scuff change (transverse movement of the body relative to the axle) over uneven road surfaces. Both are common problems in a conventional beam-axle design located by a simple Panhard rod. Nissan's variation on the basic theme involves two key modifications. The first substitutes a special oversize lower bushing in the Panhard rod that's stiff vertically but pliant laterally. The second piece in the puzzle is a control link (formally known as a Scott-Russell link) that connects the Panhard rod with the axle to provide additional stability. This combination ensures that the axle will only move up and down, thereby maintaining proper camber in the rear tires at all times. This unique hardware also maintains a more consistent relationship between the vehicle's roll center and its center of gravity, which contributes to a better cornering feel and less body roll, regardless of loading. Since the springs and shock absorbers no longer have to contend with as much lateral force, they can be made smaller and lighter. The result: Both ride and handling are improve. And, as an extra bonus, fewer suspension mounting points result in less noise being transmitted back into the body structure.
Originally Posted by VQuick
I guess IRS was so great Nissan got rid of it in 1995.
1980's steering wheel, You must be refering to the non-SRS 1989-1991 SE's...the 1992-1994 SRS SE's have the similar style to a 1997-1999 GLE.
I'm not stupid, I was shooting it back at you. And as I just said, cheaper does not mean inferior.
Yes, and I believe that the 4th gen GLE steering wheel is also hideous, hence my point.
Yes, and I believe that the 4th gen GLE steering wheel is also hideous, hence my point.
Originally Posted by VQuick
I'm not stupid, I was shooting it back at you. And as I just said, cheaper does not mean inferior.
Yes, and I believe that the 4th gen GLE steering wheel is also hideous, hence my point.
Yes, and I believe that the 4th gen GLE steering wheel is also hideous, hence my point.
When your rear-end side steps and makes an ugly kathump with a sharp kick through the body structure, that is an inferior design, especially when used in daily traffic where you encounter the occasional pothole, that was an uneasy feeling in my beam-equipped 5th gen.
Haven't noticed that in regards to the rear thumping, honestly.
I am not maintaining that a MLB is inherently superior to an IRS. It is not. I'm merely stating that significant improvements were made in the 4th gen rear suspension over the 3rd gen rear suspension. That is all.
I am not maintaining that a MLB is inherently superior to an IRS. It is not. I'm merely stating that significant improvements were made in the 4th gen rear suspension over the 3rd gen rear suspension. That is all.
Don't know about that. Regardless of what the article says, numerous 4-geners complain about the handling over bumpy surfaces. Where the 3-genners don't complain at all.
Originally Posted by VQuick
Haven't noticed that in regards to the rear thumping, honestly.
I am not maintaining that a MLB is inherently superior to an IRS. It is not. I'm merely stating that significant improvements were made in the 4th gen rear suspension over the 3rd gen rear suspension. That is all.
I am not maintaining that a MLB is inherently superior to an IRS. It is not. I'm merely stating that significant improvements were made in the 4th gen rear suspension over the 3rd gen rear suspension. That is all.
Originally Posted by VQuick
Haven't noticed that in regards to the rear thumping, honestly.
I am not maintaining that a MLB is inherently superior to an IRS. It is not. I'm merely stating that significant improvements were made in the 4th gen rear suspension over the 3rd gen rear suspension. That is all.
I am not maintaining that a MLB is inherently superior to an IRS. It is not. I'm merely stating that significant improvements were made in the 4th gen rear suspension over the 3rd gen rear suspension. That is all.
Not DAVEB the parts guy
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 8,549
First off, how does a VE 5 speed top out in 3rd higher than a VQ 5 speed when they have the exact same gearing, tire height, and rev limiters 
Also why brag about the fact that you might have to shift out of 3rd gear above 100mph? I absolutely hate the fact that my 3rd gear goes to ~103mph with the 7000rpm limiter. That type of gearing is way to tall for ideal acceleration. I'd much rather have a 4.4 gear in place of the 3.8 gear and be shifting out of 3rd at around 90mph. The car would be far more entertaining to drive too.
Also why brag about the fact that you might have to shift out of 3rd gear above 100mph? I absolutely hate the fact that my 3rd gear goes to ~103mph with the 7000rpm limiter. That type of gearing is way to tall for ideal acceleration. I'd much rather have a 4.4 gear in place of the 3.8 gear and be shifting out of 3rd at around 90mph. The car would be far more entertaining to drive too.
Not DAVEB the parts guy
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 8,549
Originally Posted by Jeff92se
Don't know about that. Regardless of what the article says, numerous 4-geners complain about the handling over bumpy surfaces. Where the 3-genners don't complain at all.
W/O any mods a VE 5-sp is having to shift right about the low-mid 90s. With mods and my JWT ecu, I'm into the 100+ range at 7100-7200 rpm. Point is the engine is no longer struggling at the mid-90 mph. It's still pulling right near redline. So while a 4-gen is running out of breath and not pulling, he's gotta shift. I'm still pulling and can wait and grab my gear that much later.
Originally Posted by VQuick
Haven't noticed that in regards to the rear thumping, honestly.
I am not maintaining that a MLB is inherently superior to an IRS. It is not. I'm merely stating that significant improvements were made in the 4th gen rear suspension over the 3rd gen rear suspension. That is all.
I am not maintaining that a MLB is inherently superior to an IRS. It is not. I'm merely stating that significant improvements were made in the 4th gen rear suspension over the 3rd gen rear suspension. That is all.
Swaybars don't cause the suspension to bind Dave. Maybe in a 4-gen but not on a IRS 3-gen
Originally Posted by Dave B
Even IRS won't give you a smooth ride over bumpy pavement. The 4th/5th geners that complain about the bumpy surface handling are typically the ones also running aftermarket sway bars on their lowered suspensions. Bumpy surface, lowered suspension, aftermarket swaybar = suspension bind in the turns and you'll get a rocking motion over the bumps. The beam basically can't do it's job. My car is quite good over bumpy surfaces in fast turns. I've never had the rear end step out on me or feel "loose".