Maxima hp ratings
Thread Starter
Junior Member
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 22
Maxima hp ratings
I went to the Maxima history page that another thread here mentioned. It lists various road tests of Maximas, with a note regarding the 5th gen performance results:
"****Calculations by Andi Baritchi indicate that the 2000 Maxima cannot use
its increased HP. The optimal shift points are above the rev limiter.
Also, the engine seems to have less low-end torque. This suggests that
engine was tuned to market high HP (torque at high RPM) versus really
adding usable power."
What's that mean? Does that mean the 222hp Gen5 is no faster than the Gen4? Did Nissan kind of fudge the numbers when they started their financial problems?
"****Calculations by Andi Baritchi indicate that the 2000 Maxima cannot use
its increased HP. The optimal shift points are above the rev limiter.
Also, the engine seems to have less low-end torque. This suggests that
engine was tuned to market high HP (torque at high RPM) versus really
adding usable power."
What's that mean? Does that mean the 222hp Gen5 is no faster than the Gen4? Did Nissan kind of fudge the numbers when they started their financial problems?
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 211
D@mn. Quit your *****ing. You brought up this same line of discussion weeks ago about marketing and blah-blah, and brought out your trusty MOPAR HP calculator to "prove" that Nissan was fudging the power ratings on their cars.
Many replied, explaining that this really is not very accurate due to many different variables that the calculator doesn't take into effect such as gearing, different levels of drivetrain loss, size of tires, driver error, etc., and the fact that magazine times are so full of politics between them and the auto makers (read :BS) that it isn't even funny!.
Just out of curiosity, what does your calculator say about the low 14s that the 2K2 Maximas have been running? As I recall, a recent review put the 2K2 Max time at around 7 seconds for 0-60 manual, and the auto at 7.5 seconds. Going by those "review" numbers skewed by politics, of course Nissan overrated the HP and the car is underpowered.
YES, HP numbers sell, as they always have. When the auto industry was full of big block V8s, the torque was there to back it up so it didn't really matter. But now you have cars like the Honda S2000, which I truly do not think highly of. Yes, you can squeeze a 0-60 time of the high 5 second range out of it if you spin the engine to 8000 RPM and drop the clutch. But for most people, they can not duplicate those times, or don't want to duplicate those actions for fear of ending up with a smoking pile of metal that used to be a tranny and a clutch. It is ridiculous ( and unusable) to have a HP rating of 240 @ 8300 RPM and only 153T @ 7500 RPM !!! Peak torque at 7500 RPM!!! Sure, as long as you keep the car practicaly redlined the power will be there, but I don't particularly like to drive around at 7000 RPM.
And what Andi is saying is that the added power is unusable during shifting because of where the next gear change will place the RPMs along the torque curve.
Also, keep in mind that manufacturers are having to put up with stricter and stricter emmissions regualtions while still trying to find more power and improved fuel economy. You cannot be so narrow sighted as to look at only power numbers from one engine to the next generation to see that technology is progressing and improvements have been made.
Many replied, explaining that this really is not very accurate due to many different variables that the calculator doesn't take into effect such as gearing, different levels of drivetrain loss, size of tires, driver error, etc., and the fact that magazine times are so full of politics between them and the auto makers (read :BS) that it isn't even funny!.
Just out of curiosity, what does your calculator say about the low 14s that the 2K2 Maximas have been running? As I recall, a recent review put the 2K2 Max time at around 7 seconds for 0-60 manual, and the auto at 7.5 seconds. Going by those "review" numbers skewed by politics, of course Nissan overrated the HP and the car is underpowered.
YES, HP numbers sell, as they always have. When the auto industry was full of big block V8s, the torque was there to back it up so it didn't really matter. But now you have cars like the Honda S2000, which I truly do not think highly of. Yes, you can squeeze a 0-60 time of the high 5 second range out of it if you spin the engine to 8000 RPM and drop the clutch. But for most people, they can not duplicate those times, or don't want to duplicate those actions for fear of ending up with a smoking pile of metal that used to be a tranny and a clutch. It is ridiculous ( and unusable) to have a HP rating of 240 @ 8300 RPM and only 153T @ 7500 RPM !!! Peak torque at 7500 RPM!!! Sure, as long as you keep the car practicaly redlined the power will be there, but I don't particularly like to drive around at 7000 RPM.
And what Andi is saying is that the added power is unusable during shifting because of where the next gear change will place the RPMs along the torque curve.
Also, keep in mind that manufacturers are having to put up with stricter and stricter emmissions regualtions while still trying to find more power and improved fuel economy. You cannot be so narrow sighted as to look at only power numbers from one engine to the next generation to see that technology is progressing and improvements have been made.
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 8,765
From: Westchester County, NY
Originally posted by 2k2se6spd
D@mn. Quit your *****ing. You brought up this same line of discussion weeks ago about marketing and blah-blah, and brought out your trusty MOPAR HP calculator to "prove" that Nissan was fudging the power ratings on their cars.
Many replied, explaining that this really is not very accurate due to many different variables that the calculator doesn't take into effect such as gearing, different levels of drivetrain loss, size of tires, driver error, etc., and the fact that magazine times are so full of politics between them and the auto makers (read :BS) that it isn't even funny!.
Just out of curiosity, what does your calculator say about the low 14s that the 2K2 Maximas have been running? As I recall, a recent review put the 2K2 Max time at around 7 seconds for 0-60 manual, and the auto at 7.5 seconds. Going by those "review" numbers skewed by politics, of course Nissan overrated the HP and the car is underpowered.
YES, HP numbers sell, as they always have. When the auto industry was full of big block V8s, the torque was there to back it up so it didn't really matter. But now you have cars like the Honda S2000, which I truly do not think highly of. Yes, you can squeeze a 0-60 time of the high 5 second range out of it if you spin the engine to 8000 RPM and drop the clutch. But for most people, they can not duplicate those times, or don't want to duplicate those actions for fear of ending up with a smoking pile of metal that used to be a tranny and a clutch. It is ridiculous ( and unusable) to have a HP rating of 240 @ 8300 RPM and only 153T @ 7500 RPM !!! Peak torque at 7500 RPM!!! Sure, as long as you keep the car practicaly redlined the power will be there, but I don't particularly like to drive around at 7000 RPM.
And what Andi is saying is that the added power is unusable during shifting because of where the next gear change will place the RPMs along the torque curve.
Also, keep in mind that manufacturers are having to put up with stricter and stricter emmissions regualtions while still trying to find more power and improved fuel economy. You cannot be so narrow sighted as to look at only power numbers from one engine to the next generation to see that technology is progressing and improvements have been made.
D@mn. Quit your *****ing. You brought up this same line of discussion weeks ago about marketing and blah-blah, and brought out your trusty MOPAR HP calculator to "prove" that Nissan was fudging the power ratings on their cars.
Many replied, explaining that this really is not very accurate due to many different variables that the calculator doesn't take into effect such as gearing, different levels of drivetrain loss, size of tires, driver error, etc., and the fact that magazine times are so full of politics between them and the auto makers (read :BS) that it isn't even funny!.
Just out of curiosity, what does your calculator say about the low 14s that the 2K2 Maximas have been running? As I recall, a recent review put the 2K2 Max time at around 7 seconds for 0-60 manual, and the auto at 7.5 seconds. Going by those "review" numbers skewed by politics, of course Nissan overrated the HP and the car is underpowered.
YES, HP numbers sell, as they always have. When the auto industry was full of big block V8s, the torque was there to back it up so it didn't really matter. But now you have cars like the Honda S2000, which I truly do not think highly of. Yes, you can squeeze a 0-60 time of the high 5 second range out of it if you spin the engine to 8000 RPM and drop the clutch. But for most people, they can not duplicate those times, or don't want to duplicate those actions for fear of ending up with a smoking pile of metal that used to be a tranny and a clutch. It is ridiculous ( and unusable) to have a HP rating of 240 @ 8300 RPM and only 153T @ 7500 RPM !!! Peak torque at 7500 RPM!!! Sure, as long as you keep the car practicaly redlined the power will be there, but I don't particularly like to drive around at 7000 RPM.
And what Andi is saying is that the added power is unusable during shifting because of where the next gear change will place the RPMs along the torque curve.
Also, keep in mind that manufacturers are having to put up with stricter and stricter emmissions regualtions while still trying to find more power and improved fuel economy. You cannot be so narrow sighted as to look at only power numbers from one engine to the next generation to see that technology is progressing and improvements have been made.
Thread Starter
Junior Member
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 22
Originally posted by 2k2se6spd
"D@mn. Quit your *****ing. You brought up this same line of discussion weeks ago about marketing and blah-blah, and brought out your trusty MOPAR HP calculator to "prove" that Nissan was fudging the power ratings on their cars."
I'm not sure what you're saying here. That a mathematical equation from a Mopar manual can work on Mopars, but not on Nissans? (By the way, you know what other manuf seems to be overrating? Chrysler.)
"Many replied, explaining that this really is not very accurate due to many different variables that the calculator doesn't take into effect such as gearing, different levels of drivetrain loss, size of tires, driver error, etc., and the fact that magazine times are so full of politics between them and the auto makers (read :BS) that it isn't even funny!."
Actually, it seems to be fairly accurate, coming within 5% of rated hp nearly all the time, across the whole spectrum of vehicle types and sizes. If the calculator has such a hard time with the factors you mention, why doesn't it have sloppier results? And why are the results low for just a few manufacturers?
"Just out of curiosity, what does your calculator say about the low 14s that the 2K2 Maximas have been running? As I recall, a recent review put the 2K2 Max time at around 7 seconds for 0-60 manual, and the auto at 7.5 seconds. Going by those "review" numbers skewed by politics, of course Nissan overrated the HP and the car is underpowered."
First of all, my post regards the 222hp Max, not the 255hp. But the calculator doesn't 'say' anything based on the low 14 sec. times, it works on trap speed. I don't know the as-raced weight for those runs, but I estimated 3400 and 3500 pounds, at 95mph, and got 240-246hp. Since you feel driver skill affects the results from this table, this result should tell you something, as I think the low 14's@95 are those of a good driver, which would yield higher than normal hp results. Those numbers also came from a car run in very good atmospheric conditions.
"YES, HP numbers sell, as they always have. When the auto industry was full of big block V8s, the torque was there to back it up so it didn't really matter. But now you have cars like the Honda S2000, which I truly do not think highly of. Yes, you can squeeze a 0-60 time of the high 5 second range out of it if you spin the engine to 8000 RPM and drop the clutch. But for most people, they can not duplicate those times, or don't want to duplicate those actions for fear of ending up with a smoking pile of metal that used to be a tranny and a clutch. It is ridiculous ( and unusable) to have a HP rating of 240 @ 8300 RPM and only 153T @ 7500 RPM !!! Peak torque at 7500 RPM!!! Sure, as long as you keep the car practicaly redlined the power will be there, but I don't particularly like to drive around at 7000 RPM."
I agree. I've never cared for cars with no torque.
"And what Andi is saying is that the added power is unusable during shifting because of where the next gear change will place the RPMs along the torque curve."
Not sure what your point is here. It looks like you think unusable hp is bad in the S2000, but ok in a Nissan.
"Also, keep in mind that manufacturers are having to put up with stricter and stricter emmissions regualtions while still trying to find more power and improved fuel economy. You cannot be so narrow sighted as to look at only power numbers from one engine to the next generation to see that technology is progressing and improvements have been made.
"D@mn. Quit your *****ing. You brought up this same line of discussion weeks ago about marketing and blah-blah, and brought out your trusty MOPAR HP calculator to "prove" that Nissan was fudging the power ratings on their cars."
I'm not sure what you're saying here. That a mathematical equation from a Mopar manual can work on Mopars, but not on Nissans? (By the way, you know what other manuf seems to be overrating? Chrysler.)
"Many replied, explaining that this really is not very accurate due to many different variables that the calculator doesn't take into effect such as gearing, different levels of drivetrain loss, size of tires, driver error, etc., and the fact that magazine times are so full of politics between them and the auto makers (read :BS) that it isn't even funny!."
Actually, it seems to be fairly accurate, coming within 5% of rated hp nearly all the time, across the whole spectrum of vehicle types and sizes. If the calculator has such a hard time with the factors you mention, why doesn't it have sloppier results? And why are the results low for just a few manufacturers?
"Just out of curiosity, what does your calculator say about the low 14s that the 2K2 Maximas have been running? As I recall, a recent review put the 2K2 Max time at around 7 seconds for 0-60 manual, and the auto at 7.5 seconds. Going by those "review" numbers skewed by politics, of course Nissan overrated the HP and the car is underpowered."
First of all, my post regards the 222hp Max, not the 255hp. But the calculator doesn't 'say' anything based on the low 14 sec. times, it works on trap speed. I don't know the as-raced weight for those runs, but I estimated 3400 and 3500 pounds, at 95mph, and got 240-246hp. Since you feel driver skill affects the results from this table, this result should tell you something, as I think the low 14's@95 are those of a good driver, which would yield higher than normal hp results. Those numbers also came from a car run in very good atmospheric conditions.
"YES, HP numbers sell, as they always have. When the auto industry was full of big block V8s, the torque was there to back it up so it didn't really matter. But now you have cars like the Honda S2000, which I truly do not think highly of. Yes, you can squeeze a 0-60 time of the high 5 second range out of it if you spin the engine to 8000 RPM and drop the clutch. But for most people, they can not duplicate those times, or don't want to duplicate those actions for fear of ending up with a smoking pile of metal that used to be a tranny and a clutch. It is ridiculous ( and unusable) to have a HP rating of 240 @ 8300 RPM and only 153T @ 7500 RPM !!! Peak torque at 7500 RPM!!! Sure, as long as you keep the car practicaly redlined the power will be there, but I don't particularly like to drive around at 7000 RPM."
I agree. I've never cared for cars with no torque.
"And what Andi is saying is that the added power is unusable during shifting because of where the next gear change will place the RPMs along the torque curve."
Not sure what your point is here. It looks like you think unusable hp is bad in the S2000, but ok in a Nissan.
"Also, keep in mind that manufacturers are having to put up with stricter and stricter emmissions regualtions while still trying to find more power and improved fuel economy. You cannot be so narrow sighted as to look at only power numbers from one engine to the next generation to see that technology is progressing and improvements have been made.
Agreed, the hp ratings aren't everything. But when a manuf. is lying about them, it really torques me (sorry, couldn't resist). If all the manufacturers did this, we wouldn't know what we were getting in a car.
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,046
But there is more than just "they are just as fast". The 5th gen VQ DOES make more torque and HP. HOWEVER, most of the extra torque is not felt cuz its a heavier car than the 4th gen, but the extra hp(harder to feel) DOES pull the car harder in the end of each gear. Thus the car 0-60 is the same, but in the upper rpm band a 5th gen would probably slowly walk a 4th gen, assumming auto to auto or 5sp to 5sp.
All YOUR grammer belong to me
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 7,400
Originally posted by Mike S.
But there is more than just "they are just as fast". The 5th gen VQ DOES make more torque and HP. HOWEVER, most of the extra torque is not felt cuz its a heavier car than the 4th gen, but the extra hp(harder to feel) DOES pull the car harder in the end of each gear. Thus the car 0-60 is the same, but in the upper rpm band a 5th gen would probably slowly walk a 4th gen, assumming auto to auto or 5sp to 5sp.
But there is more than just "they are just as fast". The 5th gen VQ DOES make more torque and HP. HOWEVER, most of the extra torque is not felt cuz its a heavier car than the 4th gen, but the extra hp(harder to feel) DOES pull the car harder in the end of each gear. Thus the car 0-60 is the same, but in the upper rpm band a 5th gen would probably slowly walk a 4th gen, assumming auto to auto or 5sp to 5sp.
Based on everything I've ever read, the numbers (Optimistic) I've had in my head have been 4th gen Auto 0-60 7.1 and 5th gen auto 0-60 7.8 so I've always held the 4th gen as the faster car. As for the 0-60 for 4th vs 5th gen 5 speeds, I've always thought the two are both at about 6.7 seconds (optimistic). As for the quarter mile, based on what I've seen, the 5th gen would catch and pass the 4th gen somewhere around 80 mph, but to me thats not really what counts. Now as for the 2K2, I expected it to be around 6.8 for the auto, now after driving one a few times, I think its easily 6.5, in other words, INSANE=BEAST, a few bolt-ons and GS 400's look out.
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,617
From: Detroit Metro Area
Originally posted by Cap'n Carl
Agreed, the hp ratings aren't everything. But when a manuf. is lying about them, it really torques me (sorry, couldn't resist). If all the manufacturers did this, we wouldn't know what we were getting in a car.
Agreed, the hp ratings aren't everything. But when a manuf. is lying about them, it really torques me (sorry, couldn't resist). If all the manufacturers did this, we wouldn't know what we were getting in a car.
Stereodude
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,835
Originally posted by NYC GXE
Based on everything I've ever read, the numbers (Optimistic) I've had in my head have been 4th gen Auto 0-60 7.1 and 5th gen auto 0-60 7.8 so I've always held the 4th gen as the faster car. As for the 0-60 for 4th vs 5th gen 5 speeds, I've always thought the two are both at about 6.7 seconds (optimistic). As for the quarter mile, based on what I've seen, the 5th gen would catch and pass the 4th gen somewhere around 80 mph, but to me thats not really what counts. Now as for the 2K2, I expected it to be around 6.8 for the auto, now after driving one a few times, I think its easily 6.5, in other words, INSANE=BEAST, a few bolt-ons and GS 400's look out.
Based on everything I've ever read, the numbers (Optimistic) I've had in my head have been 4th gen Auto 0-60 7.1 and 5th gen auto 0-60 7.8 so I've always held the 4th gen as the faster car. As for the 0-60 for 4th vs 5th gen 5 speeds, I've always thought the two are both at about 6.7 seconds (optimistic). As for the quarter mile, based on what I've seen, the 5th gen would catch and pass the 4th gen somewhere around 80 mph, but to me thats not really what counts. Now as for the 2K2, I expected it to be around 6.8 for the auto, now after driving one a few times, I think its easily 6.5, in other words, INSANE=BEAST, a few bolt-ons and GS 400's look out.
Actually, here are the various published times for 4th and 5th gens. I forget which mags, so this is just to give you an idea.
4th gen auto: 0-60 7.6s
5th gen auto: 0-60 7.8s, 7.9s, 8.1s (one of them was an Edmunds.com comparo)
4th gen 5-spd: 0-60 6.7s (tested in 1994, fastest ever gotten), 7.1s (Road and Track comparo)
5th gen 5-spd: 0-60 7.1s, 6.7s
Tenths of a second are so close it's a toss up at the stoplight.
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 1,441
Originally posted by Eric L.
Actually, here are the various published times for 4th and 5th gens. I forget which mags, so this is just to give you an idea.
4th gen auto: 0-60 7.6s
5th gen auto: 0-60 7.8s, 7.9s, 8.1s (one of them was an Edmunds.com comparo)
4th gen 5-spd: 0-60 6.7s (tested in 1994, fastest ever gotten), 7.1s (Road and Track comparo)
5th gen 5-spd: 0-60 7.1s, 6.7s
Tenths of a second are so close it's a toss up at the stoplight.
Actually, here are the various published times for 4th and 5th gens. I forget which mags, so this is just to give you an idea.
4th gen auto: 0-60 7.6s
5th gen auto: 0-60 7.8s, 7.9s, 8.1s (one of them was an Edmunds.com comparo)
4th gen 5-spd: 0-60 6.7s (tested in 1994, fastest ever gotten), 7.1s (Road and Track comparo)
5th gen 5-spd: 0-60 7.1s, 6.7s
Tenths of a second are so close it's a toss up at the stoplight.
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 606
From: Orlando, FL
The 0-60 times I've seen are of the following
3gen VE 5spd 0-60 6.7s AND 7.1s
4gen 5spd " " 6.6s 6.7s AND 7.1s
5gen 5spd " " 6.7s
-----------------------------------------
It's weird how the 3rd through 5th gen 5spd did 0-60 in about the same amount of time.
3gen VE 5spd 0-60 6.7s AND 7.1s
4gen 5spd " " 6.6s 6.7s AND 7.1s
5gen 5spd " " 6.7s
-----------------------------------------
It's weird how the 3rd through 5th gen 5spd did 0-60 in about the same amount of time.
Thread Starter
Junior Member
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 22
Originally posted by Stereodude
But you have a problem there. Quite a few people have dyno'd their 222HP 5th gen cars and Nissan isn't lying about the power. The 02 seems to be quite a bit faster than the 222HP version and people (like you in that other thread) are whining that Nissan lied.
Stereodude
But you have a problem there. Quite a few people have dyno'd their 222HP 5th gen cars and Nissan isn't lying about the power. The 02 seems to be quite a bit faster than the 222HP version and people (like you in that other thread) are whining that Nissan lied.
Stereodude
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,617
From: Detroit Metro Area
Originally posted by Cap'n Carl
From various dyno results posted here on various Nissan models/years, I've seen results at and below what you'd expect. Some do ok, others indicate a large drivetrain loss or an overated engine.
From various dyno results posted here on various Nissan models/years, I've seen results at and below what you'd expect. Some do ok, others indicate a large drivetrain loss or an overated engine.
Go troll elsewhere...
Stereodude
Originally posted by Cap'n Carl
From various dyno results posted here on various Nissan models/years, I've seen results at and below what you'd expect. Some do ok, others indicate a large drivetrain loss or an overated engine.
From various dyno results posted here on various Nissan models/years, I've seen results at and below what you'd expect. Some do ok, others indicate a large drivetrain loss or an overated engine.
ummm no
Originally posted by Stereodude
No, I believe they're less than what "you" expect. They're not less than what I expect. We've not seen any correctly dyno'd 2K2's yet, but for the 00 and 01 dynos the car has the correct amount of power (assuming a 15% MT loss or a 25% AT loss). I'm not sure what you're expecting. A 02 Maxima is as fast or faster than a stock 02 Mustang GT. Are they underated too? They're supposed to have 260HP. So the Maxima with its overated (according to you) 255HP shouldn't be able to even keep up with one, but it can.
Go troll elsewhere...
Stereodude
No, I believe they're less than what "you" expect. They're not less than what I expect. We've not seen any correctly dyno'd 2K2's yet, but for the 00 and 01 dynos the car has the correct amount of power (assuming a 15% MT loss or a 25% AT loss). I'm not sure what you're expecting. A 02 Maxima is as fast or faster than a stock 02 Mustang GT. Are they underated too? They're supposed to have 260HP. So the Maxima with its overated (according to you) 255HP shouldn't be able to even keep up with one, but it can.
Go troll elsewhere...
Stereodude
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Finkle
4th Generation Maxima (1995-1999)
13
Sep 27, 2015 09:53 PM
Goffery2uned
4th Generation Maxima (1995-1999)
9
Aug 21, 2015 09:50 PM