The proof is in the pudding now and I was proven wrong (not a bad thing though). DMBMaxima pulled off a 1/4 time of 14.3 twice. All you 2k2 6 speed owners have the power now to hit 13's without NOS or an SC.

 

PLEASE GOD, MAKE IT STOP!!!

 

 

14.3? Nice run.

 

You haven't seen any good member times from 02 5-sp Altimas yet, so I wouldn't retract yet.

 

Hi Bill!! BTW, NickelodeOn.

 

Hmmm....I never knew that......



my spelling skillz

 

I don't know but we'll see. I am very surprised with the performace of the new Max. I thought it would be slower. I don't the Alty will be running high 13's stock though. The Max is capable.

 

 

Well 14.4 is the best I have seen in a mag by a professional driver for the 5spd altima. Steve just learned to drive manual and pulled off a 14.3 in his very first run. I've seen a few times posted on altimas.net and they weren't that low.

 

Wait till a Y-pipe comes out for the thing.

 

yeah i know i wanna see some dyno numbers of sixer. i wonder if stillen is gonna SC this max too. better yet JWT turbocharge it.

 

Stillen should leave the Max alone all together. Another company should look into making the SC. Nismo parts will be available next fall anyway. Lets see what they produce.

 

decals and filler caps

i'm not so sure they'll be introducing any actual "brand new" parts for the maxima.. prolly just some A32-33 cefiro parts.. which is also good.

 

nismo better get me some performance parts. i want a y-pipe in the spring and an intake too. i'm hoping with those two mods and tweaked shift points a 13.9 we'll have to wait and see. over the winter i will concentrate on trying to find a 3.5 5-spd altima to beat. and i don't care who does it but i want to see a S/C.

 

you guys...the maxima (cefiro) is not a popular model in Japan. They are probably only bringing parts over for the Z and the SE-R.

 

I would think that they would know the Max is popular here so they would send parts for maimxas too.

 

I'd still like to see both tested under the same conditions by a neutral source untill I judge. The trap speed on that Motor Week Altima run was a good 6mph faster than the 14.3 run by the Max (and it wasn't on a prepared track), and admitedly the Max was driven under very good conditions.. weather and track wise. Still to early to tell, IMHO.

 

I am doubting they MAKE THEM.

 

I think there will be parts for the 3.5L in general.

 

 

I've never priced TRD (Toyota Racing Development) or other manufacture supported upgrade parts. Any idea's on pricing. I'd imagine that Nismo stuff is going to be $$$$$. Not only that but I'd also imagine that they'd keep the factory warranty? So perhaps the part won't be all that it could be. I mean if they produce a 'super' y pipe for example then that could mess up the tranny with too much power. So why would they produce one? Instead tune it down so it won't produce as much power.

My 0.2 cents

I can't wait to see what they will offer us.

 

I agree with much of what you said. I'm sure you know this, but the only thing I'm not buying is that Motor Weeks trap speeds. Their trap speeds are much higher than anyone else's. The Altima ran 100mph in the 1/4 mile and even the Bullit Mustang ran 105mph. Most of us musclecar guys know the 99+ 4.6 SOHC motor is not capable of 105mph trap speeds with out some serious breathing mods. Most 99+ GTs/Bullits struggle to hit 100+mph thru the 1/4. The reason for Motor Weeks super high trap speeds is simple. Nearly all the mags run on-board timing devices or timing "guns" therefore the trap speed they record is the true trap speed thru the 1/4 mile (G-tech does the same thing). With true 1/4 mile track timing devices, the last 60' is averaged to give you mph, therefore you truely don't get your speed as you're crossing the finish line. I'm sure most of us would be getting 98-99mph trap speeds if we got our ending mph across the finish line. Another thing to remember is that ALL mags correct ets to standard conditions. If members were to correct ets to standard, we'd have some wickedly fast Maximas here. My "corrected" et would be 14.45@96.5mph (14.73@94mph, 1100' above sea level, 29.54 baro, 65% humidity) and that's with a pathetic 2.28 60'.

As for DMBMaximas 14.3-14.4 runs at 94+mph, they are very impressive. What suprised me was the low trap speeds. Many are now saying he shifted early (he was shifting at 6300-6400) which gave him low speeds. I don't think shifting any later will help things )possibly slow him down) because the 3.5 doesn't rev like the 2k-2k1. The 3.5 makes peak power at 5800rpms just like the 4th gen. My shift points in my 4th gen are as follows (determined by dyno and gear ratios):

1-2 6400
2-3 6300
3-4 6100

If I was to extend my shift rpms higher, I would be landing slightly above my torque peak of 4300rpms. The goal is to land 4300rpms in every gear and "ride" the end of the torque curve and hit the hp curve. Conditions that DMBMax ran in were pretty ideal. I'm gonna hold off saying the Altima is slower than hte 2k2 Max until more numbers come in. I have a good hunch that most stock 2k2 6 speeds will be running 14.6-14.7s.


Dave

 

The 2K2 6spd Maxima is faster than a 2k2 5spd Altima as proven in real life.(period) I highly doubt a 2k2 5spd STOCK Altima with Stock tires will be running a 14.2. None of this corrected stuff either. Maybe someone should do the "corrections" for Steve's times as well? Probably put him in the 13's

Go to altimas.net and see the times posted. None of which are near the 14.4 mag time let alone Steve's REAL LIFE time of 14.3 (his very first run ever!)

 

That's right because the track we went to was "supposed" to be 500 feet above sea level. That means my auto should be running 15.2's or 15.3's.

I still retract my Max is slower statement.

 

Sorry, Deezo. Yes, I suppose they will do this. Assuming the parts are just bolt ons, and the engines are comparable in layout and adaptors, they will probably make intakes and the like. I doubt they will have real "performance" parts like lightened flywheels or anything. Maybe exhaust, but, again, this will probably only be available for the "sportscars."

 

yes my low trap speed did surprise me. on my run that i botched up, my third one, 2.29 60ft time i got a 14.67 @ 93+ so i think if i switch my shift points up a little i might get higher traps but similiar et's. look at pauls 14.7 @ 97 the HP peak might be 5800rpms but it holds that WAY longer then the 4th gens. The thing i did notice way better low end too. the launch was bad, like a bogged to 1500rpms and then started to go, i thought it was all over, like a 2.5 60 time. but i still got a 2.29. this car is easier to launch then i thought. next year we will see what happens.

 

How can you make statements like this when there is hardly any data in supporting this? As far as I know, two guys from the org have run their 2k2 6 speeds. One ran a 14.3-14.4@94mph while the other ran a 14.8@97. One guy at the Altima site has run a 14.4. So far we've had 3 guys run with the two different cars. I think it's PAINFULLY obvious that Nissan underrated the Altima simply not to take away from the sales of the Maxima. This kind of marketing has happened before (ie C5 vs F-Body). Steve mostly likely can't correct his ets because of the conditions he ran in. If Steve wants to post where he made his runs at, I can bring up the conditions for the day and time he ran.

BTW..who ran a 14.2?


Dave

 

Island Dragway, Great Meadows, NJ

December 2 conditions:
-30.30 average baro pressure
-Temp range from 43-53 degrees
-slight wind
-40% humidity
-elevation ~350'


Corrected best et = 14.41@94.71mph



Dave

 

I agree. The new Altima looks like a better value for the money anyway. Its smaller, alot cheaper, got the same engine available, HAS AN INDEPENDENT REAR SUSPENSION, and according to Forbes the chassis doesnt flex as much as the new maxima. Not only that the new Altima is plenty large, its huge compared to what it replaced. But needless to say i still wouldnt buy one just because it was built by nissan. Nissan might have shot itself in the foot once again with their marketing strategies. We'll see how the maxima does now that its in the price range and class of Acura TL's, etc...

BTW, those 14.4 trap speed times of 94 mph are kinda low arent they? The 97 MPH is more like it, but I guess somebody didnt shift or launch optimally cause it only pulled a 14.8.....

 

 

Btw the other was 14.7@97mph with a bad 60ft from Paul's perspective and compared to Steve's.

Well show me data that a stock alty is faster than 14.3? The Maxima is proven to be faster by exisiting data. Unless someone has run 14.2 (actual no corrected times) then there is no question that the Max is faster IMO. Please forward me the link to the timeslip of the stock altima that did 14.4 (actual not corrected)? All the track times I have read are high 14's and low 15's other than mag times.

 

Do you fellas really believe in the "Corrected Time" stuff? I know when your talking about 10000 feet above sea level there is a big difference in oxygen levels but is 1000 feet worth correcting times?

 

I don't unless there is a major difference. He corrected Steve's real world time and his time became slower??

 

Why?? The dude ran 14.3, there's nothing to correct there. This is what the clock said, not the altitude.

 

There is no question the Max is faster???? I beg to differ, I don't see any conculsive evidence either way.

What we have is a couple pre-production Altimas Mag tested at around 14.6-14.7@97mph. One Production Alima Mag tested at 14.4@100mph (which some dispute). One Max member tested at 14.3@94 (which looks ackward considering that MPH is slower than some 95-99 190hp maxs can do). And a couple other Maxs and Altimas driven by members around the 14.6-14.8@95-97mph range. NO max Mag times, NO good Altima owner times, and NO dynos.

Concerning the 14.3@94 time, I'm NOT disputing the time or that it happend, but the MPH isn't most would expect on a good run. Track testing should yeild faster times than Mag times b/c tracks are better prepaired for lauching (most mags use testing facilites that simulate an average street), mags don't do any type of power shifting, mags don't lower air pressure for traction, and mag times are adjusted to standard weather conditions (the 14.3 was ran in cool/cold conditions that would have been adjusted slower in a mag).

All I see is a bunch of speculation. It will be nice when some "good" fast times start rolling in and when Mags start testing both cars.

 

Motor Trend has run 14.6X@96.6Xmph in the 2k2 Altima. The Maxima has yet to be tested. Motor Week (TV show) ran a 14.4@100mph in the 2k2 Altima.

The National Hot Rod Assoc (NHRA) has correction factors for conditions and altitude simply to help fellow drag racers correct thier ets/mphs due to conditions like track elevation, temp, humidity, pressure, etc. Without correction factors, you would have no idea if you mods were working or not if you were running in different conditions or on a different track. You guys can argue this till you're blue in the face, but 1000' does have less o2 than 0'. You pretty much lose 2-3% in power for every 1000'. Barometric pressure plays a HUGE roll in how your car performs. Higher the pressure, the easier the air gets swallowed into the motor.

Example: Maryland Dragway 12/00, two new Celica GT-Ss go to the track with just intake and exhaust mods, nothing else. They both run 14.3s@99mph. The conditions were 30 degree temps, 30% humidity, and wildly high baropressures exceeding 32.00 (29.8 is average). They have NEVER been able to come close to those ets since that night. Go over to newcelica.org. and check out the best times. I doubt many in this org had any idea that a 180hp GT-S could run very low 14s and it makes the Maxima look not so quick. With a baro pressure of 32, it is the equal to running about 3000' BELOW sea level. The air is very dense and almost has a slight supercharging effect. Why do Steve's ets actually correct higher instead of lower? Because it works both ways. He was running in pretty good conditions (ie a slightly high baro pressure). Steve ran a 14.3 and there's no disputing that. The point I was making is that his et can't be corrected because the conditions were ideal.

Honestly, I really hope the 2k2 Max and Altima take to mods like the 95-00 Maximas did. Current data suggests that the 2K1 Maximas don't take to the Y-pipes and intakes like the prior models did and I hope the 2k2 isn't the same way. The way it sits right now, a bonestock 2k2 6 speed Max is no quicker nor faster than a well driven 95-00 Maxima with a y-pipe, exhaust, intake. If I remember right:

Jeff K 95 Max (y-pipe, catback, intake) 14.3@95
MaddMax 00 Max (y-pipe, intake) 14.3@97mph
theBlue 97 Max (y-pipe, intake, catback) 14.2@96mph

And there's a handful of others in 4th gens hitting 14.4-14.5s@95-96mph (intake, y-pipe, catback, UDP)



Dave

 

The Max should be faster considering the Steve is new to the car and driving stick. Now put someone like Aaron(theblue) behind the wheel and see 13.7 or .8.

 

yup, just wait till i get better at it and shift higher, according to the dyno from another new thread it hold a flat curve till redline so holding the shifts should help.

 

I don't think that's possible. Maybe 14.2 or 14.1, but no 13s.