Last post on Jul 16, 2012 at 8:08 AM
You are in the Chevrolet Impala
What is this discussion about?
Buick Lucerne, Chevrolet Impala, Dodge Charger, Ford Taurus, Hyundai Azera, Toyota Avalon, Nissan Maxima, Pontiac G8, Car Comparisons, Sedan
#6786 of 6854 Re: Other Way Around. [thegraduate]
Nov 17, 2008 (12:11 pm)
"That horespower will matter when merging or passing. Torque is what gets you going from a start."
Not necessarily. And not unless you really rev it up.The only way you will get the Maximas greater maximum horsepower is to wind it up to much higher than necessary revs.
Sure, the Nissan may have a sight edge in a drag race, but most people do not rev their motors to their maximum revs in normal everyday driving.
In normal everyday daily driving, extra torque is the better way to go.
I will take a modern 3.7L with more torque to a warmed over higher HP 3.5L engine anytime.
Torque is what pulls you along in normal everyday driving, when doing normal driving, grade climbing, leaving normally from a dead stop, etc.
Many do not like the CVT and prefer feeling the gear changes, and from what I have read, Mazdas six speeds do get the job done. I drove that CVT tranny for two days in a rental and it does take some getting used to.
#6787 of 6854 Re: Other Way Around. [donna388]
Nov 17, 2008 (12:23 pm)
will take a modern 3.7L with more torque to a warmed over higher HP 3.5L engine anytime.
The 3.5 in the Max (VQ) is one of the best V6s ever.... the 3.7 in the Mazda has a long way to go to even be in the same league IMO.
#6788 of 6854 Re: Other Way Around. [aviboy97]
Nov 17, 2008 (12:28 pm)
I sat in the '09 Max and felt it to be too small to my tastes. Much smaller (esp in the rear) than the outgoing model. However, the quality of the interior is fantastic.
One of the reviews I read on the '09 Max is Nissan still has some torque steer problems. Automobile mag actually just did a comparo on the Max vs 6 vs Passat cc. I didn't get a chance to read it, though
#6789 of 6854 Re: Other Way Around. [donna388]
Nov 17, 2008 (12:37 pm)
Edmunds.com have similar performance times for both vehicles. 6.5 sec to 60mph and 14.7 sec in the 1/4 mile. Both cars weigh about the same too, little over 3,500 lbs.
#6790 of 6854 Re: Other Way Around. [tjc78]
Nov 17, 2008 (12:51 pm)
I should check out that article. Thanks for your opinion!
#6791 of 6854 Re: Maxima vs. Passat CC vs. Mazda6
Nov 17, 2008 (1:11 pm)
They basically said the Mazda was nice beyond its class, but the Maxima and Passat CC were a class above it and it didn't quite bridge the chasm.
Of course, this is also an admission that the other two cost more.
If I worked for Mazda, I would be inclined to like its products, so it's hard for me to be too critical. However, it does sound to me as if that's a factor here.
#6792 of 6854 Re: Other Way Around. [donna388]
Nov 17, 2008 (1:23 pm)
grad's got it right here - hp is torque delivered over time. the actual formula is hp= (torque*rpm)/5252. In itself and as a measure of any car's ability to accelerate, the higher the HP the better the acceleration times, not necessarily the torque. If the Maxima is about the same weight as the 6 you are talking about, the Maxima's 290hp would easily blow away the 6s 260+. Otherwise we could all be driving around in rev challenged diesels that despite 350 lb ft. (or more) of torque still can't get out of their own way. Wouldn't we?
Yes it is certainly torque that you feel in the seat of your pants when you initially hit the accelerator (as grad noted) BUT it is the abililty of any engine to rev quickly (or apply that torque in a given period of time (making HP)) that determines actual accelerative power. Truck buyers worship torque numbers and tend to buy things like those slow diesels for precisely these reasons - they have big loads they need to get moving and are less concerned with how long it might take to get to any given speed.
I would also challenge you on the 'modern" V6 assertion on the DT. While the engine is obviously putting out 50 or 60 extra horses than the old DT, is not nearly the 210hp 'dog' that it was comparatively, it is still requiring more displacement to do it. Plain and simple the Nissan VQ is getting quite a bit more hp per unit of displacement than either the Ford or Mazda DT. Furthermore the Ford/Mazda engine is still a coupla generations behind in the valve train design , simple VVT on the intake valves vs. CVVTi intelligent (computer controlled) continuously variable intake AND exhaust valve timing on undeniably the best V6 of this group - the Toyota 2GR. Now that engine - is 'modern' - and innovative. Recent updates have pulled the VQ to almost the same levels as the 2GR, but not quite - it is the VQs remarkable history that sets it above all the rest, including the newer Toyota design.
#6793 of 6854 Re: Other Way Around. [captain2]
Nov 17, 2008 (2:21 pm)
If the Maxima is about the same weight as the 6 you are talking about, the Maxima's 290hp would easily blow away the 6s 260+.
It should, but it does not. Same 0-60 and same 1/4 mile times.
Furthermore the Ford/Mazda engine is still a coupla generations behind in the valve train design
That is is. Apparently, Mazda's new VV-T system will debut in the 2010 Mazda3 utilizing control over both intake and exhaust valves. The VV-T in the 3.7L is a carry over from the 3.0L, which was designed by Mazda and only adjusts the intake valves. By late 2010 or 2011, all Mazda models will have the updated VV-T system. Perhaps this would push the 3.7L hp to around 280+
The VQ is a great engine, however, I would be more impressed if they could figure out how to run it on regular fuel. The fact that they do not offer a VQ engine that runs on regular is a disappointment. Take away the compression ratio of 10:6 and say good by to the impressive power numbers. The Toyota 2GR does run on regular as does the Mazda 3.7 MZI. The 2GR-FSE is very impressive with it's direct injection as well. The 3.7L MZI is adaptable to DI, and DI has been used by Mazda for 3 years in their 2.3L DISI Turbo. I'm wondering when they will add it to the 3.7L.
#6794 of 6854 Re: Other Way Around. [aviboy97]
Nov 17, 2008 (4:41 pm)
It should, but it does not
and now you start talking about the influences of the trannies (and the gearing) in both cars. The Mazda has poorer FE despite putting out LESS HP, but equal acceleration. The only thing that might explain that - the gearing in the Mazda's 6AT is 'higher' than it effectively is in the CVT, and now you have something that would explain both the Mazda's poorer FE and it's similar acceleration despite giving up 20 something HP.
Have a sneaking suspicion that the marketing gurus over at Mazda wanted to perpetuate the 'zoom-zoom' thing although the 6.5 is somewha unremarkable these days - the CVT, of course, would argue against the 4DSC pretensions on the Maxima although it would help the FE.
#6795 of 6854 Re: Other Way Around. [captain2]
Nov 17, 2008 (5:11 pm)
and now you start talking about the influences of the trannies (and the gearing) in both cars
..something that is commonly neglected when talking about performance or fuel economy.
There is no doubt in my mind that Mazda sacrificed a few MPG's to get better performance numbers. Same can be said for Nissan and how they made a sacrifice.. They are promoting a "4 door sports car" with a 290hp engine when in fact their transmission of choice makes it's performance numbers suffer, but, have people say "26mpg and 290hp..not so bad!"....you are correct. It's all about marketing.