Why is the 95, the fastest?
10-31-2000, 09:30 PM
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
Ok, I see a lot of people saying that the 95 is the fastest 4th gen, why is that? and also people are saying that the 97's are the best put together. I have owned a 97 SE r.i.p. And now I have a 99 SE-L, and notice no difference except the 99's clutch was softer (maybe the mileage???). And yes the 5th gen's have more power, but dont they also weigh more? Just a few questions to throw out there, any input is welcome!
10-31-2000, 09:43 PM
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 460
less restrictive
emmission requirement?....the ECU is different...some weight difference <---I think this has something to do with the front and rear bumper of the 95 VS 97
other than that 97 and 95 should be the same?
99 has another different beast as its ecu...
00+ is just a totaly different thing compared to the pre 00.....fuel delivery setup, internals, intake runner?...muffler, ecu..bla bla bla ....although they are sort of the same (00 and pre 00)..but not quite...
other than that 97 and 95 should be the same?
99 has another different beast as its ecu...
00+ is just a totaly different thing compared to the pre 00.....fuel delivery setup, internals, intake runner?...muffler, ecu..bla bla bla ....although they are sort of the same (00 and pre 00)..but not quite...
10-31-2000, 10:04 PM
#4
Guest
Posts: n/a
The 97 SE died because people are idiots!
I just bought my 97 SE and headed back up to school a couple weeks early. We were re-finishing the hardwood floors in my fraternity house, so I had my girlfriend at the time take care of the dog. I was on my way to get the dog when some idiot who was parked on the side of the road decided to pull out. And I dont just mean pull out and go... he pulled out to make a U-Turn. Slammed into the passenger's side front fender, and knocked my off the road into a tree at about 25mph. Would have just knicked the tree, but my wheel had been turned out, so the tree caught on the rim and smashed it up into the frame. The frame was so f%^D that they totaled it. I'm just glad that the initial impact knocked my foot off the clutch, went back to look at the damage, and the pedal was on the floor with lots of ugly looking metal wrapped around it. I was wearing Teva's that day so it could have been ugly! Hadn't even put 500 miles on the damn thing!
You say the 99's have a different ECU?? is this good or bad!!
You say the 99's have a different ECU?? is this good or bad!!
10-31-2000, 10:47 PM
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,032
Re: less restrictive
Originally posted by Zprime
emmission requirement?....the ECU is different...some weight difference <---I think this has something to do with the front and rear bumper of the 95 VS 97
other than that 97 and 95 should be the same?
99 has another different beast as its ecu...
00+ is just a totaly different thing compared to the pre 00.....fuel delivery setup, internals, intake runner?...muffler, ecu..bla bla bla ....although they are sort of the same (00 and pre 00)..but not quite...
emmission requirement?....the ECU is different...some weight difference <---I think this has something to do with the front and rear bumper of the 95 VS 97
other than that 97 and 95 should be the same?
99 has another different beast as its ecu...
00+ is just a totaly different thing compared to the pre 00.....fuel delivery setup, internals, intake runner?...muffler, ecu..bla bla bla ....although they are sort of the same (00 and pre 00)..but not quite...
10-31-2000, 11:05 PM
#9
Originally posted by Victim64
So can you put a 95 ECU in a 96?
So can you put a 95 ECU in a 96?
11-01-2000, 04:59 AM
#10
Guest
Posts: n/a
I put a JWT modified 95 ECU in my 97 GXE, mainly so that I could get rid of the speed limiter (I'm in the military stationed in Germany - get to play on the Autobahn whenever I want). I've had it in for over 3000 miles know with out any problems. The 95 ECU made the car a lot stronger, but I don't know how of that might be the 95 vs. 97 thing, and how much I should credit to JWT.
11-01-2000, 08:04 AM
#12
Guest
Posts: n/a
Here's my guess why the 95's are the fastest of the bunch:
WHEELS
The 95/96s use the 15" wheels, which are slightly lighter but more importantly have a lower moment of inertia than the 16"s on later years. It will make an impact of a 0.1 or two in acceleration tests.
The ECU...I don't think that makes much difference. The 96 CA and up models have a different ECU, but it's really just different hardware...different board...but the program is probably the same (probably, because I don't know for sure)...but every dyno I've seen of stock Maximas shows that 95's have similar HP/TQ as all the other years up to 98. Biomax (Robert) dynoed his 97 with a stock 95 ECU and gained NO HP at all. (This was one of the dyno tests he did when dynoing the 95 JWT ECU in his 97/98? Maxima.)
Now the 99's have a more restrictive front exhaust setup with the pre-catalyst right up below the manifold. I don't know for sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if that saps 5 HP or so. Judging by the mediocre 99 track results, I think that may be a good guess.
FYI 95/96 Maximas weigh a whopping....drum roll please...7 lbs less than 97's. The bigger rear bumpers don't add any significant weight. 98/99s have the side airbags, so that probably weighs another 25 lbs or so, but even that's not really significant.
[Edited by Keven97SE on 11-01-2000 at 10:06 AM]
WHEELS
The 95/96s use the 15" wheels, which are slightly lighter but more importantly have a lower moment of inertia than the 16"s on later years. It will make an impact of a 0.1 or two in acceleration tests.
The ECU...I don't think that makes much difference. The 96 CA and up models have a different ECU, but it's really just different hardware...different board...but the program is probably the same (probably, because I don't know for sure)...but every dyno I've seen of stock Maximas shows that 95's have similar HP/TQ as all the other years up to 98. Biomax (Robert) dynoed his 97 with a stock 95 ECU and gained NO HP at all. (This was one of the dyno tests he did when dynoing the 95 JWT ECU in his 97/98? Maxima.)
Now the 99's have a more restrictive front exhaust setup with the pre-catalyst right up below the manifold. I don't know for sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if that saps 5 HP or so. Judging by the mediocre 99 track results, I think that may be a good guess.
FYI 95/96 Maximas weigh a whopping....drum roll please...7 lbs less than 97's. The bigger rear bumpers don't add any significant weight. 98/99s have the side airbags, so that probably weighs another 25 lbs or so, but even that's not really significant.
[Edited by Keven97SE on 11-01-2000 at 10:06 AM]
11-01-2000, 09:57 AM
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 755
The difference in the moments of inertia of the wheels is insignificant compared to the inertia of the car, which is what you are really trying to accelerate. Further more, the distribution of the mass is just as important as the total mass (weight) of the wheel & tire.
Now, if the overall diameter of the tire/16" wheel is greater than the 15" one, then the car with the 16" wheels is pulling taller gearing, and will accelerate slower.
"Here's my guess why the 95's are the fastest of the bunch:
WHEELS
The 95/96s use the 15" wheels, which are slightly lighter but more importantly have a lower moment of inertia than the
16"s on later years. It will make an impact of a 0.1 or two in acceleration tests."
Now, if the overall diameter of the tire/16" wheel is greater than the 15" one, then the car with the 16" wheels is pulling taller gearing, and will accelerate slower.
"Here's my guess why the 95's are the fastest of the bunch:
WHEELS
The 95/96s use the 15" wheels, which are slightly lighter but more importantly have a lower moment of inertia than the
16"s on later years. It will make an impact of a 0.1 or two in acceleration tests."
11-01-2000, 12:39 PM
#15
Guest
Posts: n/a
Uh, got my info directly from the Nissan brochures. Something like 3007 for a 95-96 GXE 5spd, 3015 for a 97 GXE 5spd.
Whazzzaaaap!
Even the 2000's only weigh ~150 more than 4th gens. 300...fget abat it.
Whazzzaaaap!
Even the 2000's only weigh ~150 more than 4th gens. 300...fget abat it.
Originally posted by doug
who told you it was 7 lbs... its more like 300lbs.. where did you get your info from? there are more things other than bumpers, the trunk is stronger, the body panels are stronger, more features inside the 97+ its more than 7 lbs..
who told you it was 7 lbs... its more like 300lbs.. where did you get your info from? there are more things other than bumpers, the trunk is stronger, the body panels are stronger, more features inside the 97+ its more than 7 lbs..
Originally posted by Keven97SE
Here's my guess why the 95's are the fastest of the bunch:
WHEELS
The 95/96s use the 15" wheels, which are slightly lighter but more importantly have a lower moment of inertia than the 16"s on later years. It will make an impact of a 0.1 or two in acceleration tests.
The ECU...I don't think that makes much difference. The 96 CA and up models have a different ECU, but it's really just different hardware...different board...but the program is probably the same (probably, because I don't know for sure)...but every dyno I've seen of stock Maximas shows that 95's have similar HP/TQ as all the other years up to 98. Biomax (Robert) dynoed his 97 with a stock 95 ECU and gained NO HP at all. (This was one of the dyno tests he did when dynoing the 95 JWT ECU in his 97/98? Maxima.)
Now the 99's have a more restrictive front exhaust setup with the pre-catalyst right up below the manifold. I don't know for sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if that saps 5 HP or so. Judging by the mediocre 99 track results, I think that may be a good guess.
FYI 95/96 Maximas weigh a whopping....drum roll please...7 lbs less than 97's. The bigger rear bumpers don't add any significant weight. 98/99s have the side airbags, so that probably weighs another 25 lbs or so, but even that's not really significant.
[Edited by Keven97SE on 11-01-2000 at 10:06 AM]
Here's my guess why the 95's are the fastest of the bunch:
WHEELS
The 95/96s use the 15" wheels, which are slightly lighter but more importantly have a lower moment of inertia than the 16"s on later years. It will make an impact of a 0.1 or two in acceleration tests.
The ECU...I don't think that makes much difference. The 96 CA and up models have a different ECU, but it's really just different hardware...different board...but the program is probably the same (probably, because I don't know for sure)...but every dyno I've seen of stock Maximas shows that 95's have similar HP/TQ as all the other years up to 98. Biomax (Robert) dynoed his 97 with a stock 95 ECU and gained NO HP at all. (This was one of the dyno tests he did when dynoing the 95 JWT ECU in his 97/98? Maxima.)
Now the 99's have a more restrictive front exhaust setup with the pre-catalyst right up below the manifold. I don't know for sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if that saps 5 HP or so. Judging by the mediocre 99 track results, I think that may be a good guess.
FYI 95/96 Maximas weigh a whopping....drum roll please...7 lbs less than 97's. The bigger rear bumpers don't add any significant weight. 98/99s have the side airbags, so that probably weighs another 25 lbs or so, but even that's not really significant.
[Edited by Keven97SE on 11-01-2000 at 10:06 AM]
11-01-2000, 12:54 PM
#17
Guest
Posts: n/a
Uh sure. Wheel weight is not significant.
I think you're confusing inertia with moment of inertia. (Side note: when you're starting from a stop, the inertia of the car is zilch zero nada.) Moment of inertia is the resistance of an object to resist acceleration. Essentially is "negative torque". For every lb gained at each drive wheel, there's an estimated 2 ftlb torque loss (estimated total loss for two drive wheels that are 1 lb heavier each). Not only are the 95-96 15's lighter by a few lbs (something like 3) over the later 16's, but the diameter is also of course smaller, hence the MI is even lower. I know perfectly well that weight distribution affects the actual MI, but my statements above are generally correct.
It's certainly enough to be significant and felt. Ask anyone who's installed aftermarket 17's, especially the lead ones like Momo Arrows. Slows you noticeably down. And that's not perception...that's physics. Heavy wheels are hard to accelerate.
I think you're confusing inertia with moment of inertia. (Side note: when you're starting from a stop, the inertia of the car is zilch zero nada.) Moment of inertia is the resistance of an object to resist acceleration. Essentially is "negative torque". For every lb gained at each drive wheel, there's an estimated 2 ftlb torque loss (estimated total loss for two drive wheels that are 1 lb heavier each). Not only are the 95-96 15's lighter by a few lbs (something like 3) over the later 16's, but the diameter is also of course smaller, hence the MI is even lower. I know perfectly well that weight distribution affects the actual MI, but my statements above are generally correct.
It's certainly enough to be significant and felt. Ask anyone who's installed aftermarket 17's, especially the lead ones like Momo Arrows. Slows you noticeably down. And that's not perception...that's physics. Heavy wheels are hard to accelerate.
Originally posted by brubenstein
The difference in the moments of inertia of the wheels is insignificant compared to the inertia of the car, which is what you are really trying to accelerate. Further more, the distribution of the mass is just as important as the total mass (weight) of the wheel & tire.
Now, if the overall diameter of the tire/16" wheel is greater than the 15" one, then the car with the 16" wheels is pulling taller gearing, and will accelerate slower.
"Here's my guess why the 95's are the fastest of the bunch:
WHEELS
The 95/96s use the 15" wheels, which are slightly lighter but more importantly have a lower moment of inertia than the
16"s on later years. It will make an impact of a 0.1 or two in acceleration tests."
The difference in the moments of inertia of the wheels is insignificant compared to the inertia of the car, which is what you are really trying to accelerate. Further more, the distribution of the mass is just as important as the total mass (weight) of the wheel & tire.
Now, if the overall diameter of the tire/16" wheel is greater than the 15" one, then the car with the 16" wheels is pulling taller gearing, and will accelerate slower.
"Here's my guess why the 95's are the fastest of the bunch:
WHEELS
The 95/96s use the 15" wheels, which are slightly lighter but more importantly have a lower moment of inertia than the
16"s on later years. It will make an impact of a 0.1 or two in acceleration tests."
11-01-2000, 07:25 PM
#18
Guest
Posts: n/a
I wish I had known....
I wish I had known about the crappy exhaust on the 99's. I had a 97 and loved it for the 345 miles I had it. I could have kept looking for another 97 but the 99 presented itself and was practically brand new and for a good price. I really dont care about a UPRD ECU thats too much money anyways. Is there anything that can be done about the exhaust that wont drain every penny I have? Also it needs to pass emissions in MA which is almost as tough, if not the same as California.
11-01-2000, 08:18 PM
#19
Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 75
stats...
you guys can spit out all the stats you want, but I drove my dad's 2000 SE and it is SLOWER than my '98 GLE (auto). Sorry, but more power doesn't mean it's faster. Of coarse all of this is first hand experience, and sure that stats say different, but that's the truth as much as I am concerned.
11-01-2000, 09:24 PM
#20
Re: stats...
Originally posted by OklaMaxima98
you guys can spit out all the stats you want, but I drove my dad's 2000 SE and it is SLOWER than my '98 GLE (auto). Sorry, but more power doesn't mean it's faster. Of coarse all of this is first hand experience, and sure that stats say different, but that's the truth as much as I am concerned.
you guys can spit out all the stats you want, but I drove my dad's 2000 SE and it is SLOWER than my '98 GLE (auto). Sorry, but more power doesn't mean it's faster. Of coarse all of this is first hand experience, and sure that stats say different, but that's the truth as much as I am concerned.
Maybe you didnt speed fast nuff. :> (i didnt, stayed under 60 on local streets)
11-02-2000, 05:45 AM
#21
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,014
Re: stats...
Originally posted by OklaMaxima98
you guys can spit out all the stats you want, but I drove my dad's 2000 SE and it is SLOWER than my '98 GLE (auto). Sorry, but more power doesn't mean it's faster. Of coarse all of this is first hand experience, and sure that stats say different, but that's the truth as much as I am concerned.
you guys can spit out all the stats you want, but I drove my dad's 2000 SE and it is SLOWER than my '98 GLE (auto). Sorry, but more power doesn't mean it's faster. Of coarse all of this is first hand experience, and sure that stats say different, but that's the truth as much as I am concerned.
The 5spd 2k is probably the fastest of all, several people have gotten sub 15 sec runs bone stock and I've never seen anyone do that with any other model maxima to date. Hell, with a CAI and better tires I've pulled a best of 15.29 with my 99.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
max_speed97
5th Generation Classifieds (2000-2003)
2
08-26-2015 07:46 PM
MILLENIUM MAX
3rd Generation Maxima (1989-1994)
46
10-24-2000 01:41 PM