General Maxima Discussion This a general area for Maxima discussions for all years. For more specific questions, visit one of the generation-specific forums.

TL-S Guy says that Altima does 5.9

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 02-01-2002, 09:10 AM
  #1  
Administrator
Thread Starter
iTrader: (10)
 
Sprint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 26,949
TL-S Guy says that Altima does 5.9

so that means that the MAXIMA should be a touch faster with HLSD.. like 5.7

http://www.acura-tl.com/forum/showth...752#post291752
Sprint is offline  
Old 02-01-2002, 09:19 AM
  #2  
Senior Member
 
Supermachoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 689
Doesn't Motorweek correct their times for altitude or something like that?
Supermachoman is offline  
Old 02-01-2002, 09:24 AM
  #3  
Administrator
Thread Starter
iTrader: (10)
 
Sprint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 26,949
Originally posted by Supermachoman
Doesn't Motorweek correct their times for altitude or something like that?
i hope not.. then they would actually be running 15's like someone in cali
Sprint is offline  
Old 02-01-2002, 10:08 AM
  #4  
Senior Member
 
Sonic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Westchester County, NY
Posts: 8,765
Originally posted by SprintMax
i hope not.. then they would actually be running 15's like someone in cali
Sonic is offline  
Old 02-01-2002, 10:41 AM
  #5  
BlkCat
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Did you guys read the March SCC issue on the Altima?
They're picking the Altima over the Maxima on page 96.
They got quarter miles of 14.9 at 95.5 for the Altima and 15.0 at 95.6 for the 2002 Max SE.
 
Old 02-01-2002, 11:12 AM
  #6  
Donating Maxima.org Member
 
gjabo178's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 211
but which has better handling?
gjabo178 is offline  
Old 02-01-2002, 12:02 PM
  #7  
Senior Member
 
edadams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 335
The Altima!
edadams is offline  
Old 02-01-2002, 12:10 PM
  #8  
Supporting Maxima.org Member
 
theblue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 3,150
Originally posted by BlkCat
Did you guys read the March SCC issue on the Altima?
They're picking the Altima over the Maxima on page 96.
They got quarter miles of 14.9 at 95.5 for the Altima and 15.0 at 95.6 for the 2002 Max SE.
did they use a limited slip maxima? I doubt it. I'm so sick of magazine times that I don't really trust them as more than a basic guideline. This of it this way... its more of a headline to say the altima is faster than to say the maxima is (which we would expect).
theblue is offline  
Old 02-01-2002, 12:17 PM
  #9  
Donating Maxima.org Member
 
gjabo178's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 211
Originally posted by edadams
The Altima!
How does it feel sitting in the car. Does it give
you the sense of speed and agility. ie feel low to the
ground. Looking at the interior it seems to 'camry' to me.
How are the seats when pulling some lateral g's.
gjabo178 is offline  
Old 02-01-2002, 12:18 PM
  #10  
SLOW
iTrader: (23)
 
Nealoc187's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: West burbs, Chicago
Posts: 14,631
Magazine times suck. 15.0 in a new maxima haha. A retarded chimpanzee could run a 15.0 in a new maxima. Where the hell do they do their testing at.
Nealoc187 is offline  
Old 02-01-2002, 12:22 PM
  #11  
Keven97SE
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
What if the testing is done in Colorado at 6000 ft? It's not at all unreasonable to get much higher-than-expected times simply due to higher altitude.

You guys need to lighten up about the test results, anyway. Sheesh, get a life or something...acting like they called your momma a bad name. Re-lax.

Originally posted by Nealoc187
Magazine times suck. 15.0 in a new maxima haha. A retarded chimpanzee could run a 15.0 in a new maxima. Where the hell do they do their testing at.
 
Old 02-01-2002, 12:25 PM
  #12  
SLOW
iTrader: (23)
 
Nealoc187's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: West burbs, Chicago
Posts: 14,631
Originally posted by Keven97SE
What if the testing is done in Colorado at 6000 ft? It's not at all unreasonable to get much higher-than-expected times simply due to higher altitude.

You guys need to lighten up about the test results, anyway. Sheesh, get a life or something...acting like they called your momma a bad name. Re-lax.

SCC doesn't do their testing in colorado. Its done in california. Though much of california is high altitude as well. I was just pointing out the fact that magazine times do not necessarily reflect real world times.
Nealoc187 is offline  
Old 02-01-2002, 12:34 PM
  #13  
Senior Member
 
Stereodude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Detroit Metro Area
Posts: 1,617
Originally posted by Keven97SE
Acting like they called your momma a bad name. Re-lax.
They can call my momma names all they want. When they start coming up with bad times for the Maxima, that's when I draw the line.

Stereodude
Stereodude is offline  
Old 02-02-2002, 06:15 PM
  #14  
Senior Member
 
vmax8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 119
Originally posted by gjabo178
but which has better handling?
SCC claims that the 6spd Maxima handles better than a 5spd Altima. They believe that the 6spd Max's suspension is tuned a bit tighter. You'll find this in a little boxed excerpt after the main article which compared the Max with the Altima.
vmax8 is offline  
Old 02-02-2002, 06:25 PM
  #15  
Administrator
Thread Starter
iTrader: (10)
 
Sprint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 26,949
Originally posted by vmax8


SCC claims that the 6spd Maxima handles better than a 5spd Altima. They believe that the 6spd Max's suspension is tuned a bit tighter. You'll find this in a little boxed excerpt after the main article which compared the Max with the Altima.
its the rear beam
Sprint is offline  
Old 02-02-2002, 06:28 PM
  #16  
Senior Member
 
Supermachoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 689
Originally posted by vmax8


SCC claims that the 6spd Maxima handles better than a 5spd Altima. They believe that the 6spd Max's suspension is tuned a bit tighter. You'll find this in a little boxed excerpt after the main article which compared the Max with the Altima.
It would only handle better on a flat surface. (e.g.: no bumps in the road)
Supermachoman is offline  
Old 02-02-2002, 06:29 PM
  #17  
192.168.1.1
iTrader: (50)
 
gtr_rider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Posts: 17,637
Originally posted by Stereodude
They can call my momma names all they want. When they start coming up with bad times for the Maxima, that's when I draw the line.

Stereodude
gtr_rider is offline  
Old 02-02-2002, 06:45 PM
  #18  
Member
 
funkdaddysmack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 87
Originally posted by BlkCat
Did you guys read the March SCC issue on the Altima?
They're picking the Altima over the Maxima on page 96.
They got quarter miles of 14.9 at 95.5 for the Altima and 15.0 at 95.6 for the 2002 Max SE.
When I first read that article, I thought that SCC didn't even TEST a maxima. I think they just fudged the numbers from the altima, and just assumed it would be slower because of the extra weight. Did anyone write SCC an e-mail? DMB ran back to back 14.3s bone stock, right? I'm actually offended that they probably didn't even test a Max, and just assumed the altima to be faster. The altima is a great car for sure, but it's not cool to be dissin' it's big brother.
funkdaddysmack is offline  
Old 02-02-2002, 07:51 PM
  #19  
Senior Member
 
LucentAUTO's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 1,591
Originally posted by gtr_rider


whos that gurl?
LucentAUTO is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
MaxLife17
New Member Introductions
5
09-08-2015 02:36 PM
sdotcarter
6th Generation Maxima (2004-2008)
2
09-02-2015 09:53 PM
Justin Kroll
5th Generation Maxima (2000-2003)
7
09-02-2015 11:06 AM
iflexsteel
5th Generation Maxima (2000-2003)
0
09-02-2015 08:04 AM
coasterswim
8th Generation Maxima (2016-)
0
09-02-2015 07:43 AM



Quick Reply: TL-S Guy says that Altima does 5.9



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:01 AM.