TL-S vs 2002 Maxima SE?
#41
Drifting
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: toronto
Posts: 2,124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I did some actual pricing and I can get a TL-S for about $3k CAD more than the 2002 Maxima SE. I think that the TL-S is definately worth the difference. The difference is small because the latter have just arrived and dealers aren't going to discount them until they've cleared the back log of 01's on their lots. That may change in a few weeks.
That being said, if I went for a 2001 I30t I'd save about $3500 CAD and if I bought a 2001 SE I'd save about $8000 CAD.
(I'm sure the 2001 TL non type S would be cheap too but the suspension is too soft for my taste)
I guess it comes down to whether I can live with 227 hp vs 260 in order to save some $$$.
As much as I love cars they are essentially a big waste of money
ARgh... decisions...I'll keep you posted.
That being said, if I went for a 2001 I30t I'd save about $3500 CAD and if I bought a 2001 SE I'd save about $8000 CAD.
(I'm sure the 2001 TL non type S would be cheap too but the suspension is too soft for my taste)
I guess it comes down to whether I can live with 227 hp vs 260 in order to save some $$$.
As much as I love cars they are essentially a big waste of money
![Smile](https://acurazine.com/forums/images/smilies/smile.gif)
ARgh... decisions...I'll keep you posted.
#42
Suzuka Master
Originally posted by SithMax
But, really, they're not even close. EVERYTHING is different, except the Nissan symbol and maybe the door handles, since Nissan likes doing that kind of stuff.
And yes, the auto tranny is pretty average. Nothing special, but it's not cr@p either. I can't speak for the 3rd gen auto tranny but I know mine isn't very sluggish, and I have no trouble passing people at any speed. But I am aware that my car could do more with a manual. I was surprised myself to find that they did not go with a 5 speed auto. I guess they just couldn't get one to market soon enough to put it on the car. My hopes are that by 2005 it'll be rear wheel drive with 280 hp. But as it stands, I have yet to drive a 2002, although I have heard they have no trouble spinning the tires going into second when you really go.
The suspension was probably "better" (ie, it felt more responsive in turns but the newer ones actually hold the road better) because it was a lighter car lower to the ground. Plus, I'm not sure if this was on the 92 or not but I think it might have been a fully independant suspension as opposed to the stupid rear multi-link beam suspension that 4 and 5th gen have.
And yes, those tail lights are ugly. Very, very ugly. At least the 2002 are a very slight improvement over the 2001. Very slight.
But, really, they're not even close. EVERYTHING is different, except the Nissan symbol and maybe the door handles, since Nissan likes doing that kind of stuff.
And yes, the auto tranny is pretty average. Nothing special, but it's not cr@p either. I can't speak for the 3rd gen auto tranny but I know mine isn't very sluggish, and I have no trouble passing people at any speed. But I am aware that my car could do more with a manual. I was surprised myself to find that they did not go with a 5 speed auto. I guess they just couldn't get one to market soon enough to put it on the car. My hopes are that by 2005 it'll be rear wheel drive with 280 hp. But as it stands, I have yet to drive a 2002, although I have heard they have no trouble spinning the tires going into second when you really go.
The suspension was probably "better" (ie, it felt more responsive in turns but the newer ones actually hold the road better) because it was a lighter car lower to the ground. Plus, I'm not sure if this was on the 92 or not but I think it might have been a fully independant suspension as opposed to the stupid rear multi-link beam suspension that 4 and 5th gen have.
And yes, those tail lights are ugly. Very, very ugly. At least the 2002 are a very slight improvement over the 2001. Very slight.
1. Not having the service manual (anymore) for the 92 (or ever having the Z manual) I'll take your word for it -- if I ever see the service guy that insisted that, I'll ask for some service books from the service area…
2. Either they changed the gearing, or we drove different cars -- the 1st gear was about 50 MPH, so at 25 MPH it was "off cam" and with no VTECH I really could NOT safely pass on my local canyon roads. There is an analogy here to tracks -- on some of them the gearing is just perfect for a given car (without swapping gear sets) and at others it is misery... AS I said, the car was great on the freeway (as was the later model), but I didn't have the punch for safe low-speed passing.
3. The car [Max SE] was much better balanced (even though its handling limits were nowhere close to the CLS with 235/45 Toyos vs. the Max SE with RE-71s. The Max was tossible, the CLS will only get the rear out on water, gravel, sand, etc.
4 -- YOU mentioned one of the key issues when I looked at the 2000 Maxima (among others) before buying the CLS (I probably would have bought a TLS if it was out at the time) -- THOSE REAR Tail lights!!!!! My sister went to an A4 for similar reasons (SS, not ugly rear lights, etc)
5 -- the 92 (mine) had the independent suspension -- when they removed that it hurt...
So -- we were all loyal Maxima buyers and we are now all driving Acuras, Bimmers, and Audis now… (Well, my wife still has a great 95 Altima)
(I'll look again when delivered car looks like some of the excellent prototype/pre-production artwork -- witness the Altima/Meltima)
#43
1. Not having the service manual (anymore) for the 92 (or ever having the Z manual) I'll take your word for it -- if I ever see the service guy that insisted that, I'll ask for some service books from the service area…
2. Either they changed the gearing, or we drove different cars -- the 1st gear was about 50 MPH, so at 25 MPH it was "off cam" and with no VTECH I really could NOT safely pass on my local canyon roads. There is an analogy here to tracks -- on some of them the gearing is just perfect for a given car (without swapping gear sets) and at others it is misery... AS I said, the car was great on the freeway (as was the later model), but I didn't have the punch for safe low-speed passing.
3. The car [Max SE] was much better balanced (even though its handling limits were nowhere close to the CLS with 235/45 Toyos vs. the Max SE with RE-71s. The Max was tossible, the CLS will only get the rear out on water, gravel, sand, etc.
4 -- YOU mentioned one of the key issues when I looked at the 2000 Maxima (among others) before buying the CLS (I probably would have bought a TLS if it was out at the time) -- THOSE REAR Tail lights!!!!! My sister went to an A4 for similar reasons (SS, not ugly rear lights, etc)
5 -- the 92 (mine) had the independent suspension -- when they removed that it hurt...
So -- we were all loyal Maxima buyers and we are now all driving Acuras, Bimmers, and Audis now… (Well, my wife still has a great 95 Altima)
(I'll look again when delivered car looks like some of the excellent prototype/pre-production artwork -- witness the Altima/Meltima)
(I'll look again when delivered car looks like some of the excellent prototype/pre-production artwork -- witness the Altima/Meltima)
#44
Instructor
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by MedicSonic
While I respect your opinion, I have NEVER heard a person complain about a Maxima being underpowered. What exactly were you driving?
While I respect your opinion, I have NEVER heard a person complain about a Maxima being underpowered. What exactly were you driving?
I really loved driving my Maximas during that 10 year run. I would be willing to give the new 3.5 a look when it's time to replace the TL-S. I'm at least going to go down and drive one to see what it's all about.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
MetalGearTypeS
3G TL Audio, Bluetooth, Electronics & Navigation
6
08-29-2016 08:28 PM
xsilverhawkx
2G TL Problems & Fixes
5
09-28-2015 06:51 PM