[Shotimes] new to mailing list

[ianf@eden.rutgers.edu]

> OK, to be fair...  The Maxima uses Nissan's ubiquotous VG30DE 
engine.  Many
> more of these engines were produced than Yamaha V6's for the SHO.  
Think of
> the Nissan engine as the small block Chevy of Japan.  There are more
> performance parts from more manufacturers for the Nissan than the SHO,
> hence, the lower price for performance parts.  Also, the Nissan 
engine, from
> the factory, is not as highly tuned as the SHO engine, so the more 
basic
> bolt-on mods will do more to wake the engine up than it does with the 
SHO.
> As far as maintenance goes...  Mechanically, the SHO's Yamaha is 
equal to
> the Max's engine, but whereas the Max gets NipponDenso electrics, the 
SHO is
> sadly saddled with Ford electrics.  I have seen very few actual 
mechanical
> failures of the SHO engine itself, but the majority are electrical 
failures.
> Like the crank sensor, the cam sensor, the IRCM, and the DIS module.

so you are esentially supporting what I am saying. The Maxima has more 
potential and is a better base to start with for mods or just plain 
reliability. I classify the SHO's water pump and T-stat failures, rod 
bearing maintenance issues, etc as mechanical failures. Yeah, some of 
it is related to how well the owner cares for the car, but Nissan can 
build a motor that any idiot can own and not maintain yet they won't 
have problems with the car ever.

> As far as handling goes...  The SHO is the best handling 4-door sedan 
out of
> Detroit, but falls a little short of those from Japan, and far short 
of
> those from Germany.  My wife's 325i handles leagues better than my 
SHO, and
> has a far more compliant ride.

> 
> One thing that gives the Max a feeling of more room, is the slimmer 
front
> seat backs, and the slimmer rear door trim.  The door trim on the 
Maxima
> does not intrude as much as in the Taurus.  I could cross my legs in 
the
> Max, but not in the Taurus, as my knees hit the door trim.  If the 
Taurus
> didn't have intrusive door trim, I could comfortably cross my legs in 
the
> SHO as well.  Now, Ian, get in the front seat of a Max, adjust them 
where
> you fit comfortably, then try to get in the back seat of a Max.  Go to
> carpoint.com, and compare the interior specs of both the Taurus and 
the Max.
> The Taurus has 3 more inches of rear seat legroom than the Max (37.7 
vs
> 34.3),  1.5 inches more shoulder room (57.6 vs. 56.2), an inch less 
hip room
> (54.8 vs. 55.9), and about the same headroom (37.6 vs 37.4).  This was
> comparing a 95 SHO and a 95 Max SE.  The Max just does a better job of
> providing the "look" and "feel" of more room in the back.  

I know what I have experienced. I have sat in every seat of a 4th and 
5th gen maxima and found them to be a lot roomier. yes, the slimmer 
seat backs and door panels help a TON (I am always banging my knee into 
the door panel of my SHO when I drive and it really annoys me). I am 
not going to break out a tape measure and measure the headroom and leg 
room. :)


Ditto on soul. Everyone has a different opinion of soul, but I have a 
feeling that people equate noise (hearing the engine, etc) to soul. If 
you want to hear the engine on any car, add a simple intake with a cone 
filter. I think that my friend Steve's 97 SE with full suspension, 
intake, exhaust, brakes, wheels, tires, etc has a LOT of soul.

Ian