Ask the Car People.SM


Nissan Maxima vs. Honda Accord

574 messages,  Last post on Jan 05, 2010 at 12:42 AM

You are in the Nissan Maxima Forum.

What is this discussion about? Nissan Maxima, Honda Accord, Sedan

Messages Page 57 of 58

#559 of 574 Re: VQ3.0 vs. VQ3.5 (2000 vs. 2002) [maxsman] by thegraduate

Jan 20, 2006 (12:59 pm)

Replying to: maxsman (Jan 19, 2006 11:16 pm)
maxsman,
 
The difference in horsepower is 33 between the two engine (222 hp vs 255 hp for the 2002). Nissan is relying on this 3.5 to power the vast majority of its cars and trucks.
 
Nissan 350Z
Altima 3.5
Maxima
Murano
Quest
 
Infiniti M35, G35 coupe and sedan
 
From what I have read (and I subscribe to Car and Driver, Motor Trend, and the like) they have not mentioned problems with engine reliability. No one area sticks out in my memory as being a problem (except interior quality, which won't change really). I drive a car with 166 hp, and coming from 130 hp, it feels MUCH faster, so I would imagine the 222 hp should be plenty ample for you. But, it comes down to which you personally prefer. You won't feel much of a difference around town, but when flooring it at 75mph, you might be able to tell between the two.
 
Good luck with your purchase, sir!
 
thegrad

#560 of 574 Re: VQ3.0 vs. VQ3.5 (2000 vs. 2002) [maxsman] by suydam

Jan 20, 2006 (4:30 pm)

Replying to: maxsman (Jan 19, 2006 11:16 pm)
I have a 2001 GLE. I have always found it to have plenty of power. It gets pretty good gas mileage too. I wondered if gas mileage suffered somewhat in the years after 2002. Anyway, it would come down to your preference. For me the 2001 is terrific.

#561 of 574 Re: VQ3.0 vs. VQ3.5 (2000 vs. 2002) [suydam] by kennyg5

Jan 21, 2006 (9:18 am)

Replying to: suydam (Jan 20, 2006 4:30 pm)
I don't have a 2001 Max, but do have a 97 and an 03. The mpg on the 97 is much better. The 03 is very thirsty due to its much bigger engine, but you know the hp is there if you need to pass cars on the highway.

#562 of 574 Re: VQ3.0 vs. VQ3.5 (2000 vs. 2002) [kennyg5] by midnightcowboy

Jan 24, 2006 (12:09 pm)

Replying to: kennyg5 (Jan 21, 2006 9:18 am)
I looked at a Altima SE-R with the 260 HP V6 3.5 liter engine. But the Nissan 3.5L is so so thirsty.
 
I went with an Accord V6 6-speed and easily get 30-32 on the highway. No way you can actually get that mileage in a Maxima and the v6 Accord also has plenty of passing power.
 
Double sixes,
 
MidCow

#563 of 574 Re: VQ3.0 vs. VQ3.5 (2000 vs. 2002) [maxsman] by beanctr

Jan 30, 2006 (8:25 pm)

Replying to: maxsman (Jan 19, 2006 11:16 pm)
I have a 02 Max SE 6 Speed with the 3.5 engine. It currently has provided me 84,000 trouble free miles. As to mileage, I average 25 to 26 MPG in mostly highway driving. Great car!

#564 of 574 Comparing Apples & Orages by leirex

Jan 31, 2006 (12:37 pm)

After I read most of the posts so far for several days, it might have been ok to compare the Maxima and the Accord before. After Nissan designed the new Maxima in 2004, as some assiduously pointed out it is like comparing oranges with apples. In a nutshell, the Maxima is NOT in the same league as the Accord. Two different classes.
  Actually, about a week and a half ago, I traded my 03 Accord EX V6 in for the 06 Maxima SL with Driver's Preferred Package. When I was in the market, I was comparing the Maxima SL with the Toyota Avalon Touring, the Acura TL and the Infiniti G35, which are in the same class. I ended up with the Maxima SL for several reasons but could have gone for either the G35 or the TL for just about the same price (before $1500 rebate for the Maxima). In my opinion, this forum is not even as meaningful as it used to be because the two cars are in two different class since 2004. I can definitely tell you the two cars are in completely different class as a previous Accord owner (I have driven the Accord for 3 years with 63000 miles by the way).
  To add to the infamous steer torque, I also think it is overstated as I did not feel it at all for the last 1000 miles. I never drove it hard anyway.
  I stayed away from the Avalon due to quite a few reported transmission problems which Toyota dealers claim are computer controlled and they cannot do much about it. I read about several close calls because of this transmission problem. Also, it costs much more than the Maxima SL with less features. Some options are listed as options but come as standard from factory to elevate price. I do not like their marketing strategy. It is like fooling customers with low base price but high selling price with standard options from factory which are not options any more.
  I agree that my 03 Accord EX V6 had better interior in overall quality and layout to my liking than in the Maxima SL. I do not understand why the Maxima SL (Sport Luxury ?) does not have the same kind of interior quality at least as the Murano. The Murano has much better interior in material quality and feel. Other than that, only other complaint which I learned to have is the wide turning radius. Then again, the Acura TL also has pretty close turing radius. So far so good. By the way, the Accord reliabilty is proven for 3 years while I was driving it with no single problem other than the factory recall regarding transmission issue, which I already forgot about. Let me see how reliable my new Maxima SL will be. I wonder if I want to buy an extended warranty for the sophisticated electronic controls.

#565 of 574 Re: Comparing Apples & Orages [leirex] by urbancar

Sep 25, 2006 (3:36 pm)

Replying to: leirex (Jan 31, 2006 12:37 pm)
"I don't understand why the Maxima SL..does not have the same kind of interior quality at least as the Murano..."
 
Now it does, and competes very well with Honda, Toyota, etc. and is really more in Acura or Passat territory in terms of interior feel, especially in the SL version.
 
The 06 version gives no sense of the new interior, which was changed very significantly in the 07 version. The 07 was, by most accounts, redesigned specifically to address the type of issue you raised (owners who loved the Maxima as drivetrain, but were disappointed by cheap interiors).
 
The 07 is far from cheap looking, especially in the SL, which has a very impressive interior (especially in leather). In fact, you can see a lot of the "old school" Maxima types whining that the Max has now gone "too luxury."
 
The seats are redesigned, as are all interior accents (e.g. real aluminum on guages, all metal door lock trims, higher grade plastics elsewhere).
 
If I sound like I drank the Koolaid, I have, to a certain extent. I bought an 07 and have had nothing but great feelings from the car. My German car friends are also very impressed by the car in general, including the new interior, to the point where they comment that the Maxima has "gone German."
 
Also, torque steer and turning radius issues are to my own estimation (and comments from most reviewers) substantially improved in the 07 iteration. And I do drive the car aggressively from time to time...

#566 of 574 Re: Comparing Apples & Orages [urbancar] by maximafan

Sep 25, 2006 (8:48 pm)

Replying to: urbancar (Sep 25, 2006 3:36 pm)
urbancar, I'd like to get your feedback on the
new CVT tranny on the '07 Maxima. Tell us your
thoughts and how you're liking it so far.
Enjoy your new Max.!!!

#567 of 574 Re: Comparing Apples & Orages [maximafan] by urbancar

Sep 26, 2006 (4:35 pm)

Replying to: maximafan (Sep 25, 2006 8:48 pm)
I really love the CVT, which IMHO is the "pefect match" for this engine.
 
Keep in mind that the VQ engine revs lower in producing peak HP and torque most other engines in this class, which works extremely well with the CVT. In thinking about it, if this makes sense, I think that the VQ engine was in a sense "waiting" for development of a good CVT that works well in high performance applications. In the combination of VQ engine and current Maxima CVT, this gives a very smooth but very powerful feel, with excellent responsiveness/feedback throughout. This is because, with this engine, only a small increase in revs gives a proportionately greater increase in torque/hp, versus other engines that need to rev higher to get a real power response --which is tailor made for CVT.
 
It does not "drone" (as some have feared) but growls, in a very refined sort of way, but again, the feeling is also one of a lot of responsiveness, which makes you very connected to the driving.
 
I also think that the CVT produces less power train loss versus "conventinoal automatics" I haven't seen anything in numbers, but I would bet (based on feel) that the CVT places nearer a standard than conventional auto in power train loss. This means that more of the engine power actually gets to the wheels, and you lose much less at the "shift points" of a conventional auto. This not only affects raw power, but handling in my opinion, as you really "feel" the true changes in power in a more linear way, and can drive the car with more predictability in curvy/speed changing (and what would be gear changing situations in a conventional auto).
 
I would describe the overall feel is very responsive, smooth and powerful. This is a great car for long trips, especially where there is less than perfect enforcement.
 
My personal view is that paper/stats tell you only so much. Ultimately, you have to drive it. This is where I got "sold" on the car (very quickly) after having driven a number of competitors first. All the good Japanese cars cover the basics very well (Honda, Toyota, Nissan, and their respective "upmarket" brands). After that, my view would be to narrow the field on paper, then drive those, and buy the one that puts a smile on your face.

#568 of 574 Re: Comparing Apples & Orages [urbancar] by autoboy16

Oct 02, 2006 (5:53 am)

Replying to: urbancar (Sep 26, 2006 4:35 pm)
Do you feel a HP rating. I saw that the HP number are down 10. I don't even know if it was because of SAE.
 
-Cj

Messages Page 57 of 58

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement