RE: Lost to Maxima?
Login  | |
|
RE: Lost to Maxima? - 12/28/2007 6:59:21 AM
|
|
|
Tha Abbot
Posts: 104
Joined: 10/19/2007
Status: offline
|
I have a 99 Infiniti I30, basically it's a Maxima. For people who dont know this, The Maxima is labled a Foor door sports cars (4DSC). In the 90's, the Maxima used the non-turbo 300ZX motor and transmission. Now they have the 350/G35 motor and transmission, if he has a manual, its a 6-speed, the same one as the 350/G35. The 2002 Maxima has 255hp and 246 torque not 220hp, the 2000's has 220hp.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Lost to Maxima? - 12/28/2007 10:22:24 AM
|
|
|
AZAudiA6Q
Posts: 563
Joined: 11/14/2007
Status: offline
|
Maximas have always been quick cars. My uncle had the 2000 Maxima 20th Aniiversary edition with 245 horses and a 6 speed manual. it KILLED.
I drive a 2.8 and I know first hand that the car's biggest downfall is first gear. It's just terrible.
_____________________________
"I'm the bomb BLOW me."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Lost to Maxima? - 12/28/2007 1:15:02 PM
|
|
|
Four Ring Circus
SoCal Crew Member
Posts: 300
Joined: 2/28/2007
Status: offline
|
I think the A6 is the ultimate sleeper. The exception is the 2.8, where the car is truely asleep. If I had this version, I would think of it as much less of a car for racing as I would a beautiful car with a solid engine and less headache to boot.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Lost to Maxima? - 12/28/2007 2:30:22 PM
|
|
|
AZAudiA6Q
Posts: 563
Joined: 11/14/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Four Ring Circus
I think the A6 is the ultimate sleeper. The exception is the 2.8, where the car is truely asleep. If I had this version, I would think of it as much less of a car for racing as I would a beautiful car with a solid engine and less headache to boot.
Precisely. I enjoy driving it. It's an elegant beauty of a car. Not to mention, it's only slow in a 1/4 mile race. Other than that, it picks up nicely for highway driving and street driving if you need to get in front of someone quick. I'm in love with it whether it makes 300 HP or not.
_____________________________
"I'm the bomb BLOW me."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Lost to Maxima? - 12/28/2007 5:10:23 PM
|
|
|
euro_2nr
Posts: 695
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline
|
Dude don't even trip you lost to a nissan period. Nissans are my favorite japs. I've had 3 already in less than two years of driving. and I will own 'em for the rest of my life. Currently I have an anniv. Edition maxima manual w/ about 145,000 on the odo and drives like a dream. Even though my 2.7 is pretty well modified the maxima doesn't feel too much slower. Too bad yours is fwd otherwise that would be your advantage in launching off the line if you hold your rpms nicely. Try doing a freeway rally (90+mph) and your lenghty gear ratios will show your vehicle's top speed advantage.....maybe
_____________________________
My car so pretty all these hoes wanna f*ck it, I got p*ssy wet paint, big boy shoes, soft ass seats and my trunk goes boom! - Lil Wayne
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Lost to Maxima? - 12/28/2007 6:12:52 PM
|
|
|
Kevin
Posts: 600
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Tha Abbot
quote:
ORIGINAL: Kevin
quote:
ORIGINAL: Tha Abbot
quote:
ORIGINAL: RedShoeRider
Out of the box, the 4.2 is faster (higher hp and torque, though it is a bit heavier. Great fender flares, too!). Modded, the 2.7T is faster. Of course, modding it isn't that expensive or complicated, so given the price differential, you'd likely end up with a faster, cheaper car with the 2.7T. However (always a but...) the 4.2 is rock-stable, the 2.7T's block sure is, but you eventually will get into turbo replacement with them. There's another thread floating around here about roughly when that replacement is. Then you can go nuts and go with the K04 turbos (from the RS-series cars), yada, yada....but that's a whole 'nuther story.
The biggest problem we have as A6 drivers is weight. Sure, we make a bunch of power. But with all the hardware for the quattro (not to mention that there's plenty of body metal), we're lugging around an extra 400-800lbs compared to other cars in the same class. What we gain in stability from quattro we loose in absolute acceleration due to the weight.
2.8 = great engine, great car, great for driving around, not so great for playing around.
2.7T = for fun. Can mod to the heavens. The most tunable of the family.
4.2 = for raw refined power. Nothing says low-end grunt like a V-8. Bulletproof engine.
Pricing? Around here (North Jersey), for an 01 2.7T you're talking 12-15k, for a 01 4.2 it's something like 14-20k. That's really, really ballpark. MT6 might cost you more, as they can be harder to find.
Not true, out the box the 2.7 is faster http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt1848.shtml
Again it depends what you are comparing. I am a highway guy, not a red light guy, and the article you linked actually shows that the 4.2 is faster, not quicker off the line, but clearly faster and quicker on the top end. According to your own article, the 2.7t goes from 60 to 92 in 8.5 seconds, while the 4.2 goes from 60 to 92 in 7.7 seconds (the 4.2 goes from 60 to 94 mph in 8.2 seconds, or 1 mph in acceleration for every .24 seconds assuming linear acceleration, by reducing the 4.2's 94 mph 1/4 mile speed to the 2.7ts 1/4 mile speed of 92 mph, it is approximated that the 4.2 hits 92 mph .5 seconds before it hits 94 mph (2 mph times .24 seconds) or in approx. 15.0 seconds, since cars are not typically capable at linear acceleration over 60 mph it is likely that the 4.2's time from 60-92 is probably a couple of tenths of a second better than I am estimating). So the 4.2 is nearly a second faster from 60 to 92. In other words, while the 2.7T is winding down when it reaches the speed limit, the 4.2 is still pulling. The only reason why the stock 2.7T was .5 seconds faster on the bottom end is that it had a MT. So the 4.2 is clearly faster. The 4.2 is also quicker on the top end. The 2.7t's quickness is only useful if you are a boy racer who likes to pull away from traffic lights.
What are you talking about? The link it say:
2.7T = 1/4 mile 15.3 at 92MPH, 0-60 6.8 (MT)
4.2 = 1/4 mile 15.5 AT 94MPH, 0-60 7.3
There was no 60-92 test. If you can go from point A-B and get there with a better time and a lower MPH, to me thats saying that the 2.7 is faster.
From what you are saying, the 2.7 power dies b4 the 1/4 miles is over.
Based on the facts in your link, the 2.7 takes 6.8 seconds to get to 60 mph and an additional 8.5 seconds to travel from 60 mph to 92 mph for a total of 15.3 seconds. In comparison, the 4.2 takes 7.3 seconds to get to 60 mph and then an additonal 7.8 seconds to get to 94 mph for a total of 15.5 seconds. As a result the 4.2 is quicker when accelerating at speeds of 60 mph or above (7.8 for the 4.2 and 8.5 for the 2.7) . The rest of the analysis in my earlier posting was in order to adjust for the fact that the 2.7's 1/4 mile mph speed was lower than the 4.2s.
Instead of saying that the 2.7's power dies before the 1/4 mile is over, I would characterize it as the 4.2's power is significantly greater than the 2.7's when you are at speeds over 60 mph. In fact if we were to chart an acceleration graph for both cars it would probably show that the 4.2 becomes a quicker car at around 50 mph.
I hoped that this helped.
|
|
|
|
|
Printable Version
