remember way back when we were complaining that the Altima had 0-60 times of 5.8??? well in the back of MT, it has it listed at 6.3...and in the SAME issue of MT, they did a test of the "Mainstream Midsizers" where the Altima was 6.6...now i know different conditions cause different times, but by almost a full second???

what SEEMS to b the most realistic time???

 

I would say 6.6. It seems when cars first come out there times are very low. Who could ever forget the RSX-S 0-60 in 6.1 seconds time.

 

Motortrend times are ALWAYS fast. They seem to test down hill or something Car and driver seem to be a tad more realistic.

 

Yeah well maybe the 6.6 was the 2.3SE.

I've only seen two 3.5L new Altimas out of the 50+ I've seen. That means a heck of a lot of people are buying the 4cyl one. Hey, less threat to my CLS.

 

That's what I've been saying...so what Nissan makes a 3.5L 5sp Alitma, chances are if you race one it'll be a 2.5. or maybe even a 3.5L auto. I mean how many top of the line 5sp Altimas do you see on the road?

 

The 3.5 I would say is mid 6s. It was right on par with the STock CLS loaner car I got. 6.4-6.6 sounds about right. Car & Driver are def. the best to match up times with.

 

The 6.6 was an automatic Altima tested by motortrend. The other mags rated the 5 speed alty at 6.2 (motortrend, C&D, R&t). The fastest it has been rated was at 5.9 on motorweek. There are vid caps around of it since it was on TV. Lots of guys on Altima.net have been pulling mid 14s easily so it seems the mags were right on the money.

 

No way could a the 2.5 4-cylinder Altima hit 0-60 in 6.6 seconds. The V-Spec Sentra has the exact same engine, weighs a lot less and only does 0-60 in approx. 7.3 or so

 

this thread is about the 240hp 3.5 6 cylinder.............

 

Dude... Did you look at my post? I was responding to JRock.

Please read through the thread first...

 

there is no 2.3se ......................and yeah i read the post.........but seeing your name reminded me of that 300m crap so i figured whatever you were saying was garbage anyway

 

First of all, I said it was a 2.5. I corrected JRock. Read my post again:

Secondly... your attitude is not welcome here on this message board. I have been a member for over a year, and you are the first person I have seen that acts so immature.

Attacking someone because they disagree with you in another thread is the wrong way to conduct yourself. Do you even really have a Acura? The way you are acting makes you seem like you are 12

Oh, BTW, still waiting for that dyno

 

friggin newbies... break it up and just understand that its an altima, with a cheap interior. so don't sweat it, and 0-60 times aren't everything, just look at the camaro.

 

What's wrong with the Camaro? Mine was more reliable than my CL-S. :P

-Ash

 

Ashburner is PRO GM. This is the THIRD post today.

I dont think you should have bought an Acura, Ash...

Both the camaro and vette have a good engine, but it is like my 1986 T-Type alot of power in search of a car!!!!!!

BTW my 1986 Buick Regal T-Type is still an engine in search of a car. 11.20 1/4's with minor mods including chip down pipe , headers and 4.11 rear end.........Too bad it doesnt turn or stop!!!!!

 

I would agree that the time differences are due to different transmission...

Also, the interior isn't just cheap.... It's Fawkin' Nasty!!!

I couldn't believe how crappy it looked when I first saw it...

 

Thanks for the correct cusdaddy!