+1.sweet3rdgen wrote:3rd gen...hands down. This is the car that started the 4DSC love fest.
Road and Track tested the car new and recorded 0-60 in 8.6 seconds and quarter in a little over 16. The 92 thru 94 SE recorded a 0-60 in 7 flat. 13 seconds? I don't think so. I will agree that the VG auto was a weak trans, but bad enough to slow a car to a crawl, no.justjuiceit4 wrote:4th Gen for sure! The 3rd gen with the automatic base motor was painfully slow. My best friend got one brand new and we got 0-60 in 13 seconds!
Well the guy driving was not a professional driver! We had some people in the car with the a/c on. Believe it! You are very ignorant to think that all of them will do 0-60 in 8.6 seconds. Poor driving can add a half of second to a second. A green engine and/or poorly toleranced engine can add even more time to that number. This car felt like it was built on a Friday at an American plant!Yes, having people in the car will slow down any car, but this car was really struggling.sweet3rdgen wrote:
Road and Track tested the car new and recorded 0-60 in 8.6 seconds and quarter in a little over 16. The 92 thru 94 SE recorded a 0-60 in 7 flat. 13 seconds? I don't think so. I will agree that the VG auto was a weak trans, but bad enough to slow a car to a crawl, no.
Well before you start calling people out I'd read his post again.Gman8990 wrote:sweet3rd... sorry to be mean but you are wrong... the 4th gen auto is listed as 7.1 secs... the 3rd gen VG engine is listed as 8.9... not 13 but still slow...
Now I'm no rocket scientist but the '92-'94 Maxima SE's were VE's...NOT VG's...only the '89-'91 SE's were VG's.sweet3rdgen wrote:The 92 thru 94 SE recorded a 0-60 in 7 flat.
Granted he said 7 flat.maximaclub.org wrote: ENGINE/DRIVETRAIN (VE30DE):Engine: iron block DOHC V6 with aluminum heads and variable inductionBore and stroke 93.0 x 73.3 mmDisplacement: 2960cc 3.0LCompression: 10.0:1Max engine speed: 6500 rpmPower (SAE net): 190 bhp @ 5600 rpm; Torque (SAE net): 190lbs:ft. @ 4000rpmTest Results:Zero to 60mph: 7.3 secStanding 1/4 mile: 15.7 sec
It's supposed to be. It should never have dropped into the $25,000 Accord fighter bracket in the first place. The 6th gen was just a LONG awaited return to the car's higher-tier roots.DominosPizzaGuy wrote:i dont like the 6th as much, especially since its such a higher price.
justjuiceit4 wrote:Well the guy driving was not a professional driver! We had some people in the car with the a/c on. Believe it! You are very ignorant to think that all of them will do 0-60 in 8.6 seconds. Poor driving can add a half of second to a second. A green engine and/or poorly toleranced engine can add even more time to that number. This car felt like it was built on a Friday at an American plant!Yes, having people in the car will slow down any car, but this car was really struggling.
justjuiceit4 wrote:
That is one crazy statement.
Anyway. Gman and PBfrEAK, let's not start a war of words. All I will say is that the original poster said 0-60 in 13 seconds. I rebutted that statement with information from a well respected magazine. It is pointless calling me wrong when I am quoting another source simply because you looked at a different source. What cares about .3 seconds? Weather can effect a car that much.
Are we all in agreement that 13 seconds sounds a little exaggerated? That was whole original point, nothing more.
I agree. I've put ~ 150,000 miles on a 93 SE --- it was no 13 seconds, more like half that. It was a quick car for the day.sweet3rdgen wrote:Are we all in agreement that 13 seconds sounds a little exaggerated? That was whole original point, nothing more.
First four words of my statement "Road and Track tested..."PBfrEAk wrote:(even though it would have been hard for me to tell that you quoted it from somewhere else since you didn't state that...)
Good game sir....good game indeed.sweet3rdgen wrote:
First four words of my statement "Road and Track tested..."
But let's move back on subject