Talk:Nissan Maxima

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Automobiles (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Brands (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Only the A34 is an exclusively American model. Its predecessors were originally conceived for the Japanese market and the article should reflect that. --Pc13 13:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


I understand what's going on. You're American, so this is a case of systemic bias. I'm European, and I can explain why I'm correcting that information. The BMW 3-Series and the JDM Honda Accord (which the Acura TSX is a rebadged version of) are too small to properly fight against the Maxima. The "Consumer Reports" thing, whatever it is, does not apply outside North America. In the rest of the world, the 3-Series and the Accord are D-segment cars, while the Maxima is in the E-segment, that is, with similar size and engine line-up to a 5-Series or a Legend. The current model, in Japan, is the Teana, where its competitors are the Honda Legend, Subaru Legacy and Toyota Camry. Mazda does not have an E-segment since the demise of the Millenia. And the Maxima is no longer available in Europe, where the proper Accord fighter has always been the Primera, with the Maxima sitting above it. I should also notice that, having driven the two previous generations of Maxima, the car was a crapmobile that was completely outclassed by mass market D-segment models, such as the Opel Vectra, Ford Mondeo or Peugeot 406 (let alone the larger actual competitors Omega, Scorpio and 605). So, no, the Maxima does not fight 25cm shorter luxury vehicles (which the Acura TSX isn't, anyway). --Pc13 15:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I can see that this becomes complicated rather quickly. Yes, I'm American - but please note I am married to a European and have travelled enough to 'see the world'. I've driven many cars in Europe - and there is an inherent different on all continents. The BMW's I drove in Germany were nothing more than "common man" cars (similar to our Chevy's, Ford's, and Dodge's)... but the BWM's in the US market are top-of-the-line models. It is this way because of competition and exporting. Heck, there are also big differences such as, again, the BMW I drove with 5-speed manual with roll-down windows - something that a BMW would NEVER have in the United States. Consumer Reports is an official source - albeit, in the United States. So maybe we need to find a way to break this paragraph down and describe the car in the varying competitive markets on each of the continents. You have a lot of knowledge, so your input would be a great start.
As an FYI - when I was in Europe, the Maximas I saw were actually badged as Infinitis in the United States. And in Poland - they had both a "Maxima" and another car that resembled a Maxima as well. As far as a crapmobile - I don't know, I've never driven a Nissan in Europe. I know my Maxima - modified to 290HP - can keep up with 4.6L Mustang GTs. I don't consider it a crapmobile - nor would the Maxima, in the US, be the same. But the competition here in the US, nonetheless, includes such models from Acura, Toyota, Honda, etc. Rarelibra 16:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
We don't have Infinitis officially, and won't have until 2008. Those were probably brought by US military (I've seen an FX45 in France, once). The Maximas I drove were A32 and A33, the first one had a 12-valve 3.0 V6 engine (170hp), and the second one had a 24-valve 2.0 V6 (143hp) (there was a 193hp 3.0 V6 as well, but I didn't test-drive it). Neither had much in the way of muscle, and the cabin was filled with those coarse plastics that bend when you bang them with your fist. Worse, the radio was not integrated. The UK-built Primera, which was one segment below had better overall quality, on par with regular European models. The current Maxima is not available in Europe, as this market segment is no longer profitable outside the luxury niche. In Japan, the Maxima is called Teana (there's an article on it) but the chassis has a shorter wheelbase. This SWB model is available as Teana in China and Thailand, but is called Maxima in Australia. The LWB model is also built in Korea by Renault-Samsung and sold as the SM7. There are slight styling differences between all models. The 265hp engine is exclusive to North America, all others getting a 231hp version (most of them also have an option for a 2.3 V6 with 170hp). I can hope that the growth in size and engine was accompanied by growth in overall quality, but the previous car just blew. Still, build quality issues aside, the only way it can be an alternative to the 3-Series is by price comparison - get a bigger car for the same money, but I know, from driving the E90 3-Series (it's too bad you don't get the Diesel versions in America, the 320d is a decent sporty car, and the 330d can keep up with the 330i), that there are some technological items, that you can't get unless you buy a luxury car. Car, a British magazine, used to have some cute little comments in its price guide, telling people not to buy certain "luxury" Korean models, get a used Merc instead, but of course, a used Mercedes is not officially considered a competitor for a brand new car. --Pc13 17:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Well I was always a "buy US!" person for years - I drove Chevy's, then a Dodge (Intrepid). The Dodge actually was a beautiful car (although the 3.5L was grossly underpowered) - but it suffered from what Dodge has suffered for years - a poorly integrated transmission. When my wife bought a 2000 Maxima GLE (220HP 3.0L V6), I became rather attached to Nissans, and traded my Dodge in for a new 2003 Maxima SE/TE (255HP 3.5L V6). The torque on the newer car is incredible - and with modifications I have run a 14.5-second 1/4-mile and I can tease even an M3 (BMW) on the road.
What I meant by the Maxima in Europe badged as an Infiniti in the US is the cars used to share the same frame - the I30 was nothing more than a re-badged Maxima with 'upgrades'. Nissan/Infiniti has a history in the US of releasing a "standard" feature on an Infiniti as an "option" on a Nissan... only to offer it as "standard" on the Maxima a few years later. Trust me, the US-spec Maxima is definitely not the same as that in Europe. As for the diesel cars, I wholeheartedly agree with you that the US is far behind in not offering a lot of the same diesels/turbodiesels that are offered in Europe. Maybe it's a Detroit thing. I wish that Opels, Puegots, etc were available in the US, because then I could own a car that would last long and perform well.
So what do you think - can you offer up a way to reword the paragraph for focus on the various continents? Rarelibra 18:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
What neither Europeans nor Americans seem to notice is how popular Japanese cars are in the Far East and Southeast Asia. The most popular European cars in these markets are BMW and Mercedes, but they have a wealthy clientelle. Cars like the Maxima, Accord (the US model, strangely, and not the Japanese one) and the Camry are aimed at the growing middle class in countries like China, Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia. So they fight mostly amongst themselves. Ford offers mostly the European models (Focus and Mondeo), while Chevrolets are rebadged Daewoos. Peugeot, Fiat and Renault are not under consideration as they have limited presence in these markets. The VW Passat is a possible competitor, but I don't feel the need to add a European model because it would clutter the text. So, my proposal is this:

Worldwide, the Maxima's direct competitors are Japanese models such as the Honda Accord and Toyota Camry, and Koreans like the Hyundai Sonata, while in the US it may also compete with the Chevrolet Malibu and Ford Five Hundred. In Australia, the local Mitsubishi 380 and lower-end versions of the larger Holden Commodore and Ford Falcon are also competitors.

I'm advocating the use of a more diverse list of competitors worldwide, without the need to mention smaller luxury automobiles at all. --Pc13 08:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Sounds great. I went ahead and changed the intro text to reflect that. Good enough to cover all of the 'basic' competition without having systemic bias. Funny you mention the Ford Falcon - I loved the one in Mad Max. The new ones look pretty nice, like they've come a long way. Rarelibra 13:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to remind you - the "similar" field is not for listing competitors, but similar cars. They might have actually never competed with each other in a given market. Bravada, talk - 13:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to remind YOU and let YOU know - this has been decided on CONSENSUS and the 'competitor' or similar cars will stay. Otherwise, it leaves it up to subjectivity as to which car is "similar" to which person is making edits. Rarelibra 13:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
A consensus between you and Pc13 is not as impressive as you would want to. You had a nice chat and I appreciate that, but the similar list has to list vehicles that are similar to the model as a whole. Actually, I am not arguing with some of your choices. I believe the most similar cars by mode of development are models that were initially primarily aimed at the US market and were slotted above the standard "family car" offerings of a given manufacturer given their dimensions, engine lineup etc. I would consider Toyota Avalon rather than Camry for example, because Nissan had the Altima all the time. As concerns Honda, the Legend was too big, and the Accord seems to small to me (again, look at Maxima's three decades of existence, not only today).
On the other hand, the Maxima came in a wagon version for some time, and so did Camry, as well as being sold in most other markets where Maxima was (the article is more about a nameplate than an actual car, the actual cars varied from Bluebird through Laurels to Cefiros, and now Maxima is either a standalone model or a Teana, depending on the market).
Now, what I believe is the most important is that Maxima was born as a car based on a stretched mid-size platfom and continues to be like that (even though now the "stretch" from the Altima is quite smaller than it used to be). Considering that, Avalon and Diamante/Sigma/Magna seem to be the closest in concept, also given their "export" orientation. Bravada, talk - 14:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
PS. I believe American and European cars were still too different to be considered here.
Stop it with your offensive remarks. If only two people are interested and discuss things, it is still a consensus. You weren't a part of the decision (not a 'nice chat'). As far as similar, it is only your opinion about the differences of size and such. The Accord is the competitor - we're not talking history or two decades ago. The wagon version is mentioned, I believe, and not inclusive of competition. The Maxima was born on the 810 model (offered in a "Maxima" version, then later simply renamed to "Maxima"). The current model is based off of the Altima platform, and is larger than any of the previous models. This may be the first qualified "executive" model but, again, the designation is only in Europe. The Diamante is NOT a competitor nor a similar car. The Avalon is more competitor to the Lexus, Infiniti, and Acura models. Rarelibra 14:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Bravada, an opposing consensus. Furthermore, WikiProject policy states that there should be no more than three cars in the Similar field. IFCAR 19:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it is not a policy, only the "going custom", as I can't get people to finally put down the policies, conventions and standards... That said, I was happy to have the issue that arose before resolved peacefully (by taking some time to take a deep breath and exhale ;D ), and I believe what we need the least is inflaming the issue again. I am happy I am not the only one who is not happy with the previous "consensus", but I guess I can't agree with all your choices either, IFCAR.
The Impaler surely does not belong here, as for a large part of the nameplate's life it was not an oversized (and antiquated) FWD midsize car, it was a tradtional American BOF V8-powered cruiser. There is a problem with the Maxima in that the nameplate apparently first served on standard Bluebirds (Nissan's tradtional entry in the midsize class), and then switched to the executive Cefiro. I'd argue the Mitsubishi Sigma nameplate has similar history, first being used on a Galant and then evolving into its own, larger line (known also as Diamante or Magna/Verada). Bravada, talk - 19:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Pick what you want, but saying that the Impala isn't similar to a large-midsize FWD sedan because forty years ago it was a RWD land yacht is like saying that a Chevy Monte Carlo isn't similar to a Sebring coupe or Solara because it used to be very different from what it is now. And I know I'd seen the 3-car guideline in writing once, on a page I can no longer find. I distinctly remember it and the policy not to list a year range in a photo caption, because I remember how surprised I was. IFCAR 20:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
You distinctly remember, yet fail to link to it for reference. We'll keep the 'three car limit' to the competitors. As stated, the Diamante (unless you wish to link for reference otherwise) will remain off the list. This list doesn't need to continually change every few months - the similar cars will remain, by consensus, for stability. Rarelibra 21:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


GAAAAAAAAA! The "similar" field is NOT for listing competitors! This is NOT Consumer Guide! Otherwise, we would have to constantly revise the content of those fields... The purpose of this field is not link to vehicles similar overall. Let me mention my favorite example - for the NSU Ro80, the proper "similar" cars would be other Wankel-powered cars rather than contemporary competitors. And all articles on cars should be considered in the entirety here - the fact that GM reitroduced the Impala nameplate in 2000 does not cancel its previous, much longer history. The same applies to Maxima - what became of it today cannot overshadow all of its history over the past decades. Please reconsider the Mitsubishi Sigma thing, and think of examples of cars with similar history over the years. Bravada, talk - 22:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
PS. Although this is irrelevant, I just wanted to note that Cars.Msn.Com actually lists the 2004 Diamante as the competitor for the 2004 Maxima [1] (no further comparison possible as the Diamante was discontinued and the current Maxima only apparead in 2004)
Look, you just said "...the Diamante was discontinued...in 2004". That ends it. Similar and/or competing cars should be current. And your example isn't quite correct either. Similar cars wouldn't necessarily be Wankel-powered cars. That's like saying the Dodge Charger should have comparison to similar Hemi-powered cars (which there are none). We have put down the Hyundai on the list being that it is a similar car in the Korean market. Etc. I don't want to have a long, drawn out debate - I just want to ultimately avoid changing the list every few months (which is what was happening until we reached 'consensus'). I love the disrespectful comments people make, btw, about consensus. Let me tell you - if only two people responded, then it seems only those people care. Then months later along comes someone who wants to change it all... that isn't consensus. Also, I'm not devaluing "cars.msn.com" but Consumer Reports and others have been around a lot longer than MSN.com, and are a greater source for 'competitors', IMHO. Rarelibra 04:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

(reset indent) Nobody said similar (and NOT competing) cars should be "current", it would be quite illogical to impose such limitation, and that would actually require to change the infobox every few months. Similar cars should be cars that are similar with regard to their prominent characteristics. The Maxima is actually more of a nameplate than an actual car, as it was applied to various unrelated models for export markets over the years. With regard to that, and the evolution it underwent, I believe it resembles the story of the Mitsubishi Sigma nameplate. Bravada, talk - 04:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC) PS. The value of the consensus is a function of the number of people involved. A consensus between two people is not worth much in view of two other people disagreeing with it.

I'll remember that when I step into my 'nameplate' to drive to work tomorrow. As for the comment on the consensus, I won't even comment on the lack of recognition that it smacks of. Enough said is to have it stable, and stable it is... with no reference to cars that were discontinued two years ago. Rarelibra 04:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Maxima should be Full-size[edit]

My Nissan dealer told me the car is actually Full-size, and the Maxima is a much larger and roomier version of the Altima. The size of the car is roughly close to that of a full-size car though not as large as oter full-size cars, but I believe it fits in this segment as Nissan's flagship sedan.

According to the specifications through Nissan, the A35's combined volume (interior passenger and cargo) is 110 cu. ft. (3,115 L). According to EPA's classification, the mid-size category is classified between 110 cu. ft. and 119 cu. ft. For the exterior, the overall length of the A35 Maxima is 190.6 inches (484.3 cm). The Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI) classifies a mid-size car's overall length between 180 inches, and 195 inches. The wheelbase of the Maxima is measured at 109.3 inches (277.5 cm). Again, HLDI classifies a mid-size car's wheelbase between 105 inches, and 110 inches. So in short, the Maxima is a mid-size car. However, it barely qualifies as an entry-level/compact executive car. Barkeep2009 (talk) 08:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Not true. While it is the flagship sedan for Nissan in the United States, it is still not classified as a full-size car. The Maxima started out as a smaller mid-size car, and has slowly graduated to an 'upper level' mid-size luxury car. The Maxima has gained size, especially during the redesign from the 5th Generation to the 6th Generation, and this is strictly because the current (6th Gen) Maxima is based off of the Altima frame (as is the up-and-coming 7th Gen). The Maximas I own (both 5th Gen - or technically, one is 5th Gen, the other is 5.5 Gen) were smaller than their Altima counterparts, and this is one reason Nissan chose to go to the larger-frame Maxima for the 6th Gen. One can probably expect an Infiniti V8 in the future Maxima(s).
Please go back and read the description for mid-size cars to understand more why the Maxima still qualifies under this category. Thank you. Rarelibra 21:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I switched it to the Chevrolet Impala, because the 500 is longer than the Impala. Maxima in the 1990's was a competitor for the Dodge Dynasty/Intrepid, while the Spirit competed with the Nissan Stanza/Altima. -- Bull-Doser 02:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, the 1985 Maxima was only assigned compact status though it had far more luxurious and futuristic features than cars much larger, I don't see why it was a compact though. 28 Nov 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.254.46.104 (talk)

Interestingly, the '09 Max has slightly less interior room than the '07+ Altima.Vrefron (talk) 03:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Worldwide view[edit]

The {{world}} tag was recently removed from the article. While I could agree there might not be enough rationale to reinstate the tag for the entire article, it still very American-POV. The status and history of the Maxima in other markets is described in minimal amounts, and it is also not clear in which markets and when the Maxima nameplate was used. Overall, I still feel like reading an article on the North American Nissan Maxima, and not on the history of the nameplate and models bearing it in general. Especially the last two sections need deep refurbishment - e.g. the mentioned facelift was North-American-market only, AFAIK, while the description of the diverting development paths of Nissan Maximas for different market is not covered too appropriately. I would like to draw the attention of the editors of this article to that. Bravada, talk - 19:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe there should be two articles? The Maxima in Eruope was a rebadged Q45 for quite a while and is an actual luxury car. These are two different vehicles. A European Maxima is the equal of Infiniti in the US-this article really only does cover the US car. At least there should be mention that the Euro equal of the Q is also called the Maxima. Regards, Signaturebrendel 05:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
The Q45 is an Infiniti in the United States, a totally different vehicle. Rarelibra 05:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Here is some more info for your clarification - The Infiniti Q45 is a fullsize luxury car and serves as the flagship of Nissan's Infiniti marque. It is a rear wheel drive luxury sedan powered by a V8 engine. The original Infiniti Q45 was based on the Japanese-market Nissan President (the flagship of the entire Nissan lineup at the time), but later generations were based on the lower-end Nissan Cima. Thus, the Q was a totally different car, NOT a 'rebadging'... especially when most Nissan cars never had a V8... only Infiniti. As for rebadging... looking at older Maximas and I30s, you can see they are the same body with different front and rear ends (like a firebird and camaro were, like the chevy cavalier and the cadillac version was, etc, etc, etc). That doesn't make the I30 a "rebadged Maxima" - it was a separate car. Seeing how the Q was not only a fullsize luxury car, v8 powered, and was based off of the President (or Cima), I think that it's clear, don't you? Rarelibra 05:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Just to clarify - neither of the vehicles ever sold as Infiniti Q45 in the US were ever offered in Europe. The Maxima nameplate appeared in Europe when it started being applied to the Cefiros, and lasted through the I30 and QX Maximas (including the facelifted 2000s model). Previously, vehicles closely related to what Nissan sold as Maximas in the US were sold as Bluebirds (replaced by the Nissan Primera later on) worldwide, and after the facelifted QX was dropped, Nissan pulled out of the executive market in Europe at all. There are currently actually two slightly different vehicles based on the FF-M platform using the Maxima name - the NA Maxima as described in the article, and the related Nissan Teana in some other markets. Bravada, talk - 12:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
PS. I'd say the Infinitis I30/35, I think they are even less differentiated from the Maxima than the Sables were from corresponding Tauruses, so I'd say they were rebadges and belong in the "aka" infobox fields. I am not an expert on that, but based on the photos I must say the European Maximas seem to have more in common with the Infiniti than US Maxima versions of th corresponding generations.
Okay from I do know the Primera was a rebadged Infiniti G20-beyond that my knowledge is shaky. As for the Maxima as far as I know there is some connection to Infiniti-and the lest I remember the Maxima's I saw in Germany looking very differently from those driving around the US-as Bravada said "based on the photos I must say the European Maximas seem to have more in common with the Infiniti than US Maxima." Signaturebrendel 01:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Maybe it wasn't stated too clearly before - it is quite understandable that the foreign-car markets vary quite differently than the domestic car markets, no matter the country (this isn't a US-centric statement). Many examples can be made - BMWs in the US have all kinds of options on them compared to the ones over in Europe, for example (I drove a BMW in Germany that actually had roll-down windows and manual locks on it - and it was a new car!). Especially with Japanese vehicles, the 'luxury' market in the US drove various changes to models that were released differently in other parts of the world. We all know that a rebadged Nissan was an Infiniti, rebadged Toyota was a Lexus, and rebadged Honda was an Acura - years ago. Nowadays, there is a distinct difference in the models without simply rebadging the vehicle. Instead of the I30 being a rebadged Maxima, the G35 is a separate model than the Maxima (although it may share the same 3.5L VQ35 engine - the same engine that gets 255HP in a Maxima and 285HP in a 350Z in the US). Because of the variance in foreign markets, the Maxima here was not the same in Europe - rather the Infiniti here was released as a Maxima in Europe (NOT 'rebadged')... because the Infiniti market is different in Europe, correct? So as far as content and worldwide view, the question would fall as to which article to include such information - do you include notes in the Infiniti article as to being released under the Maxima name? It probably deserves an honorable mention. But the complexity here is that the current Maxima is only released in a few countries under the larger frame model - in other countries it is now a completely different design and model (and is no longer a "Maxima"). We need a creative way to write up the articles as to include such references and definitions (like "executive") - and including the various competitors or similar cars at that time (instead of as a 'current' similar or competitor). Rarelibra 13:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

2000-2001 Maxima image[edit]

I uploaded the image of the white Maxima today to replace the existing silver one because I felt the angle showed the car better, and the image was of sufficient quality. User:Rarelibra doesn't like the new image. Does anyone else have any preference? IFCAR 02:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The white image is fuzzy (and smaller), the car is dirty (look at the shine on the gold one!), and the gold one still fits within the 3/4 view standard. The white one is also a GXE, while the gold one appears to be an SE (due to the color-coded door handles) - a better one to show (especially with the optional 17" 6-spoke Nissan tires, rather than the 'plain' 15" ones on the white one). Also, the gold one does not have a front license plate - giving a more 'cleaner' look, as opposed to the white one, which the license plate takes away from. Need I go on? You don't need to go around replacing images if they are of a good quality, Keizen or not. In this case, I believe the white one does not qualify as "better". Rarelibra 03:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Also keep in mind, if someone else uses your same "Keizen" approach, then your images will also continue to be replaced. This will create an endless amount of unnecessary edits, potentially. Focus on the images that need replacing. Rarelibra 03:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
It's bigger, and in no way fuzzy. It's just how the car looks. And as I've said many times, there is no way to "focus" on cars that don't have a picture. If I see it, I take it, and if the picture is an improvement, it goes in. In almost no circumstances is a perfect picture in use. But, we will see if there is any other feedback. IFCAR 13:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The image of the white car shows the side and the front of the car in more or less equal proportions. Why does it matter that the gold car has "nicer" rims on it when you can barely see them? --Sable232 14:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
The image of the gold car also shows the side and front - the front even more, by comparison. It does matter about showing better options - and you can see them (don't understand the "barely" comment). Rarelibra 15:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Overall the gold car is a better candidate for an article (it's cleaner, no license plate, etc). BUT the gold car has another car in the photo which detracts from the focus and also the gold car isn't at the best of angles (not bad, but could be better). Although there could be a better candidate the white one isn't it. It looks almost milky and washed out. I say gold car stays. ren0talk 16:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
The white image has a better composition. The gold image is of better image quality. I'm always partial to quality images, but in this case the white image is more encyclopedic and, therefore, is better for this article. Roguegeek (talk) 17:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd also like to note the following. I prefer the white image for this article, but it's very hard to turn down the gold image due to the license plate bracket not installed. This is, in my opinion, very important because license plates are a major region defining feature and it's always a good thing to have non-region specific images. Roguegeek (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Rarelibra 17:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The gold car image is cleaner and I would perfer it in the article. Karrmann 18:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Roguegeek - whether or not you try to embolden certain text, does not take away from the fact that the gold image is of better quality. I have stated the gold image is better, Ren0 has stated the "gold care is a better candidate... I say gold car stays". You, yourself, have stated "the gold image is of better quality. I'm always partial to quality images..." as well as the statement about the license plate bracket. We do have a responsibility to keep quality in this case. Rarelibra 18:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

External Links[edit]

I deleted a bunch of links that I felt didn't comply with WP:EL and are potentially linkspam. I suggest that we discuss any new links before reinstating them. --Selket Talk 06:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Some like the maxima.org are NOT linkspam. It is the official site of the Nissan Maxima enthusiasts' club. Rarelibra 06:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
You are correct that maxima.org is not linkspam, but why did you put the linkspam template back? However, see WP:EL, particularly number 13. I'm inclined to think that one or two "fansites" are ok even though the policy discourages it, but six or seven is getting out of control. The problem is how to you pick which. --Selket Talk 06:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
The policy may discourage it, but it doesn't outright disallow it. Therefore, I would appreciate it if you STOP removing legitimate entries and next time do your research about the entry first before simply shouting "spam" and deleting it. There is no problem of picking - if you look at other vehicles, there are several 'fansites'. As long as they are legit, they are allowed. 'nuf said. Rarelibra 13:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I read it differently than you, but I didn't think the tone of my last post was particularly confrontational. I would appreciate it if you would not insinuate that I am acting in bad faith – particularly since I didn’t actually remove the link again between our posts. I did not say that nissan.org was link spam; I said that I didn’t feel it complied with WP:EL links normally to be avoided and potentially link spam.
There are fan sites on a number of other vehicle pages, but many of them are tagged for spam cleanup as well. Two bad links don't make a good one.
-Selket Talk 15:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Your actions were a 'broadsword' sweep of all the links, as well as the "spam" cleanup tag. I would have personally checked the list and - if not identified as spam - researched first. Rarelibra 15:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
If you look back to my original edit 105429917, I did look at the link, did not call them spam, and enumerated my reasons: "4, 12, 3, 3, and 13 respectively." I deleted nissan.org because I did not feel the connection between the site and the article's subject was symmetric. --Selket Talk 16:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

So in other words, you are saying you just deleted the link because you "didn't feel the connection". There are huge connections between the article and the user sites. But now you know. Rarelibra 16:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have said "I felt the connection ... was unsymmetric" rather than "I did not feel the connection ... was semetric." --Selket Talk 18:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Another Maxima image question[edit]

A common editor on this page seems to be of the opinion that changing an image is somehow so unlike any other edit to an article that for whatever reason, any replacement merits a revert unless there was a thorough discussion on the talk page. As tempting as it would be to be a giant prick and revert every single one of that user's edits and demand a consensus before they are allowed on the article, I will ask if there are any objections to replacing the first of these two images with the second:

IFCAR 11:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Being a "giant prick" would only start an edit war and get you in jeopardy of 3RR. Being the common editor you refer to, my point is this - figure out an image, post it, and leave it. When you take a picture, if you don't think it matches the requirements, don't upload it. You seem to spend so much time changing common pictures when there are so many more pictures missing that are more desperately needed on wiki. Tell you what, do what you want, time for me to leave this article alone, seeing how you and Bull Dozer do what you want whenever you want, right? You always come in and change all of the pictures, while Bull Dozer always comes in and changes all of the associated or related/similar vehicles. Take care. Rarelibra 12:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
By the same token, I could ask you never to change any of the articles in any other way: just find a way you like each article and never touch it again. Many image meet the minimum standards, and then if a better one can be created, it should replace it.
I have made my position very clear on the subject, and so have you. If no one else comments in 24 hours from my first posting, I'll put up a notice on the WikiProject Autos talk page. IFCAR 21:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
The proposed image in the above gallery should be used. It has a background that is much more pleasing to the eye and has higher overall esthetical value. Regards, Signaturebrendel 19:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
The proposed image shows more of the car, so, according to WikiProject Automobile standards, it is better. PrinceGloria 19:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Can we also use this opportunity to get opinions as to whether or not a consensus must be reached before any image changes? IFCAR 19:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
So Rarelibra's pissing and moaning about this again? I'm tired of it. "Post it and leave it" is directly against the purpose of WP. If he finds it so terrible to be improving an article, he should either shut up and let us impove it or go out himself and get promotional-quality photographs of these vehicles so there will be no need to replace them.
To respond to IFCAR's question, no. If we had to discuss every single image it would be a waste of time and space. In fact, it seems Raelibra is the only editor who throws a fit over images put on the articles he edits. If I weren't in such a good mood, I'd say he's intentionally being disruptive. --Sable232 15:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry to have to say so, but I believe speaking of a fellow Wikipedia editor in such tone and way is rather inappropriate and not befitting an experienced and revered Wikipedist like you, Sable232. Any edit can be contested for a valid reason, and yes, it needs to be discussed if there is any controversy. That said, if the reason for the edit is clear and sensible, while contesting it is quite unfounded, I believe the discussion does not need to take longer than two "posts". In this case, referring to the WikiProject convention would be enough (I guess it might have been done in the edit summary). This also underscores the need for firmer and clearer standards governing auto articles, and I want to thank you, Sable232, for starting the work on those. PrinceGloria 16:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
(An outsiders' view) There is really very little to choose between those two photos - they both suck. The white car photo is poorly lit - the other photo has a horribly cluttered and distracting background - neither of them are really compelling and whichever one ends up in the article, I hope everyone would be out there looking for something better. But if we have only these two to choose between, they both show the car reasonably well - both have artistic issues. There is almost nothing to choose between them. Why so much bitterness over two photos that really aren't a whole lot different in terms of encyclopeadic content? I sure hope neither proponent is pushing to get "their" photo into the encyclopedia because that would just be childish. I recommend that there be a vote - and that the respective photographers recuse themselves from the voting. I further recommend that everyone go out there and try to get a photo of this car with no other cars in the shot - preferably with some nice trees and such in the background - and please take it in bright sunlight with the sun behind you and your camera's flash turned on. SteveBaker 18:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I took both photos. I also can't see evidence of poor lighting in the second photo. IFCAR 18:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
IMHO, the second photo is dull, lifeless, very little specularity. Not that I prefer the first one - the background clutter is awful. They are both merely "adequate" - neither is "compelling". I don't see any reason to prefer one over the other - which is why I'm surprised to see a flamefest over it. SteveBaker 19:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I apologize for being too harsh in my above post. However, I do find it amazing that there has to be an issue about this.
As I see it: The images are roughly equal in terms of lighting. The new image is somewhat less cluttered, but cluttered nontheless. However, the new image was taken at the proper angle per project image standards. The old image was not, and that's why it was replaced. There shouldn't be a problem here.
I am going to add some image usage guidelines to the article standards. We'll determine the most important image criteria as well. --Sable232 21:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

First generation Maxima transmission[edit]

Uh, was anyone making five speed automatics in 1981? TJSwoboda (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC) Hands down, from Datsun to Nissan, in my opinion, the Nissan Maxima is one of the best built, looking cars in North America. I do have one question. I thought that in Japan the Maxima was called the Salene and was used for racing. minihaha —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.40.50 (talk) 00:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Update[edit]

Time for a photo of the 2009- Maxima for the top display. If anybody has one, please put it up. Crazykrazyqrazy (talk) 23:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

1999-2003 (5th Generation)

Uncited problems[edit]

The article cites a number of typical problems with this generation, to wit: "The fifth-generation Maximas have a number of common problems: ignition coils, MAF sensor, TPS (Throttle position sensor) and IACV-AAC (Idle control valve).[citation needed] Users should be particularly aware of the IACV problem which can short out the ECM leading to a very costly repair.[citation needed] All of these faults trigger the check engine light.[citation needed] This generation of Maxima also sees Nissan introducing a Bridgestone-made engine mount with sensors that communicate with the ECM. Many transmission-like problems such as 'unable to shift into higher gears' are resulted from worn engine mounts triggering signals to prevent the vehicle gaining higher speed. This problem was not often detected by the diagnostics conducted on the transmission and ECM as they were not the cause of the problem."

However, I am the original owner of a late 2001 Maxima SE 5-sp (Japan made, American marketed) and, after almost 12 years and 160K (non-pampering) miles, I have experienced NONE of the 5 "common" problems cited - nor am I aware of the "commonality" of these problems that - in any case - may have been addressed by technical bulletins from Nissan and fixed under warranty. I wonder if these were problems with the 2000s and, possibly, early 2001s that were ironed out by late 2001. Alternatively, early models (2000) of this generation sold in the U.S. came in both CA- and non-CA-emission standards, but by 2001, all models marketed in the U.S. - including mine - were made to CA-emission standards which might have cleared up a lot of these "common" problems. In any case, I think a citation of some "authoritative source" (and, if the engine mount problem was confined to automatic transmission models, then say so) or the whole passage should be dropped and problem descriptions left to more appropriate and authoritative sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.1.215 (talk) 19:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The section is currently tagged as needing sources - I always suggest waiting a month or two before deleting uncited content, but unless cited I agree that it should be removed. You could also use the page history to find out who added the things and ask them to provide a source. Lastly, just because nothing has gone wrong with your car doesn't mean that there couldn't be problems.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Full-size[edit]

Yes, the Maxima does qualify for the full-size and executive car segment. It is not the overall dimensions, nor the EPA, nor Consumer Guides, nor the official automaker website (e.g. Nissan USA), or anything else, that makes a car in a size segment (i.e. subcompact, compact, mid-size, full-size). IT IS THE WIDTH THAT DOES, AS WELL AS THE LENGTH! The Maxima is 73.2 inches wide, so that means it is a full-size car. It is 190.6 inches long, like many mid-size cars. Wheelbase and height are nothing but legroom and headroom creators. This is how classes are defined by today's standards:
Subcompact = less than 70.5 inches wide or 175 inches long
Compact = less than 71.5 inches wide or 185 inches long
Mid-size = less than 72.5 inches wide, and less than 195 inches long
Full-size = 72.5 inches wide or wider, more than 190 inches long 166.137.191.32 (talk) 18:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)