Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Did you get a great deal? Let us know in the Values & Prices Paid section!
Meet your fellow owners in our Owners Clubs

Nissan Maxima v. Mazda Millenia



  • I'm 33, 6'3", 220lbs. Wife is 5'10" and she won't give me the other details. Kids are 3 and T-4 months and counting to d-day.

    The height is perfect. I had an eclipse years ago that was too low. Edmunds says the eclipse is 2 inches higher than the Millenia. If my eclipse was too low, the MM wouldn't be acceptable.

    The back seat is huge. I'm surprised at how roomy it is. I 'noticed' it during the test drives, but didn't understand how big the back seat is until I put the booster seat back there and saw how far the boy is from the back of the front seat.

    I guess our cars are appropriate for us.
  • fwatsonfwatson Posts: 639
    Quote tonyq35: "Don't even think about resale value".

    I have seen this same basic quote about the Millenia innumerable times, so I bit the bullet and typed into my address line, then held my breath. I thought about taking a tranqulizer, or drinking a quart of Jim Beam, but being totally stupid I decided to tough it out and learn what a fatal financial mistake I and the other Millenia owners had made.

    With great trepidation, I first chose dealer retail as the catagory. I proceeded to first select 2001 Nissan Maxima GLE. I then added all options to the Max that were offered that are standard equipment on the Millenia. After I got the results for the Max, I entered Millenia S, then Millenia P. I added no options to them, as they already had everything listed for the Maxima.

    Results, Dealer retail:

    2001 Maxima GLE ----- 12000 miles = $25130
    2001 Millenia S ----- 12000 miles = $26010
    2001 Millenia P ----- 12000 miles = $22260
    2001 Millenia P ----- 5000 miles = $22935 (my car)

    2001 Maxima GLE ----- 18000 miles = $24605
    2001 Maxima SE ------ 18000 miles = $23440
    2001 Millenia S ----- 18000 miles = $25435
    2001 Millenia P ----- 18000 miles = $21735

    Results, Dealer Trade In: Excellent Condition
    2001 Maxima GLE ----- 18000 miles = $19670
    2001 Millenia S ----- 18000 miles = $20020
    2001 Millenia P ----- 18000 miles = $16720
    2001 Millenia P ----- 5000 miles = $17920 (my car)

    Results, Private Party Sale:
    2001 Maxima GLE ----- 18000 miles = $22305
    2001 Millenia S ----- 18000 miles = $22885
    2001 Millenia P ----- 18000 miles = $19385

    Just for fun, I decided to include the 2000 models. I evened up options as much as possible.

    Results, Dealer Retail:
    2000 Maxima GLE ----- 33000 miles = $22665
    2000 Millenia S ----- 33000 miles = $23265
    2000 Millenia P ----- 33000 miles = $19915

    Wheew, sure am glad I didn't drink that Jim Beam. I haven't had a drink since 1989, and that would have ruined my record. And anyway, maybe I didn't take such an acid bath after all.

    Now there might be better sources for car resale prices than Kelly Blue Book, but not being too bright I didn't know what they were. So I will just have to live with these results.

  • Is it just a list, or is it trying to show a better resale value for one or the other?

    The way I read it, both hold value 'ok' (not excellent) but your kbb analysis isn't showing a preference to either car.

    If you're using it to debunk the 'myth' of bad resale for MM, cool.
  • fwatsonfwatson Posts: 639
    Quote 2k2wannabe: "If you're using it to debunk the 'myth' of bad resale for MM, cool."


    Precisely. That has been repeated by some people so many times, I was actually surprised to find it is false.

    Not knocking the Max, just using it for comparison, as it has been almost entirely Max owners who have perpetuated this myth.
  • nvedraninvedrani Posts: 58
    My 2000 S Millenium Ed. had (remember this 2k2 -"admit it you bought used") - mine had 3,000 miles on it when purchased (sales rep car for a few months), I got it out the door with Winter package, 6 disc in dash Bose, LOADED...for $22k.
    Hmmm....I only have 17,000 miles on it now, not the 33,000 as used for the above examples....and whatdaya know, I could trade it in for roughly $21k......hmmm, looks like I DID in fact get one hell of "bang for my buck".....just an FYI and in support of fwatson comparison....
  • fwatsonfwatson Posts: 639
    To clarify what I was trying to convey.

    I ran a "Build your own" or similar online for both the Max GLE, and MM-P. The price when equipped as equally as I could by making minimal changes on the options turned out almost identical.

    The Max GLE MSRP so equipped as to try to simulate the standard equipment on the MM-P came to $28617. MSRP for the P is $28595.

    I thoroughly shopped both cars before I bought the MM. Because the dealers were apparently pushing SE's and GXE's I had little luck getting a reduction on the GLE. The best price I could get on a GXE was $24000 with cloth seats and no moonroof. I bought the MM-P for $21680.

    My point is that in real world pricing, I saved more on the MM than the difference in depreciation between the GLE and MM-P. In other words I saved money buying the MM even allowing for a little more depreciation.

    By the way, the 2001 GXE I was offered at $24000 is now listed thus:

    With 5000 miles as mine now has.
    Dealer retail: $20760
    Trade In:$16605
    Private sale:$18835

    With 18000 miles.
    Dealer retail:$19685
    Trade In:$15530
    Private sale:$17760
  • I stand by my remark. I'd say you got a good deal for an MM, but not a great deal compared to the Max.

    There is more in my 2k2 SE 6-speed than in your MM, for less than $3k more. You're flipping back and forth between comparisons and picking parts that fit your side. Let's try it this way instead:

    MM new v. MM used: you definitely win. You got an excellent deal, spending about $6k less but still getting a new warranty and a loaded car (and a nice car at that).

    MM new v. Max new: I think we've killed this topic. I think my Max is better, you think the MM is better. Go back and read from the beginning of this thread and make your informed decision.

    MM used v. Max new: there is *no* comparison. You're talking about less than a $3k difference for a brand spanking new car. I got a new car (6 miles), no "previous owner/user/driver", and full factory warranty (not factory - 3k miles).

    If you only wanted a MM and never considered a Max then you did well. If you had a brand new Max in your list of cars to check out and still chose the used MM, you.... didn't do as well as you could have (how's that for PC, Pat?)
  • nvedraninvedrani Posts: 58 are quite mistaken...I also got the "FULL MANUFACTURERS WARRANTY" Mass, a car is NOT deemed used by Mazda until it has over 5,000 miles when held by the dealership or owner/rep of one (confusing I now)...sorry but you lost that one for sure..since it was driven for a short period by a rep..., they couldn't sell it at a new price but had to warranty as if it were "new" my friend was the manager there....I got a 50k bumper to bumper with roadside, I said, the registry and dealership considered it a "new" car....and buddy, I just figure someone else drove my break-in period for me.....I actually prefered it that way so I didn';t screw it up during that time you may want to check your facts regarding warranties :-)....and too boot I have every single available option for the MM; heat seat, mirrors, suede interior, 17" chrome, Bose 6 disc in dash changer.....I'm sure you know the rest(inflated "new" sticker was $32.8k)....happy driving...I know I am!!
  • mirthmirth Posts: 1,212
    Someone mentioned before Edmund's consumer ratings. I prefer the Car Review website ( because it has a greater number of posts to average out the extreme posters. Here are their results for the Millenia and Maxima:

    Millenia: 3.89 out of 5, 54 posters
    Maxima: 4.53 out of 5, 294 posters
  • fwatsonfwatson Posts: 639
    I'll go one more round on this, but I think we're spinning our wheels.

    Here are links to Carpoint Consumer Ratings for the 2002 Millenia and Maxima. I didn't count them, but there are many owner reports for both.

    Well, they won't let me post the links because they exceed 115 characters, so I broke them up with plus (+) signs. Remove the (+) signs to use them.


    2002 Millenia: 8.6 out of 10 (2001 is 8.4) (+) idmodel=10230&search=MostRecent&num=50&trim=All&lang=All


    2002 Maxima: 8.2 out of 10 (2001 is 9) (+)idmodel=10135&search=MostRecent&num=50&trim=All&lang=All


    Looks like this is a teeter-totter situation. One site MM wins, another site Max wins. Can we call this a draw? It's getting hard to find more sites with owner ratings. Plus, it looks like both have mostly happy owners. You ought to see the reports on some of the cars you would expect to get great results. It is very surprising.

    For instance, 2002 Camry 6.4, 2002 Accord 6.8.

  • Nved, I live in NH and bought my car in Mass. I know more stupid Mass laws than I care to admit. I'll give you that battle - congrats on getting the equivalent of a new warranty. But, if I were you I'd make sure it's WRITTEN DOWN that you get full warranty until 39k (when it should be 36k). If it's not *written* good luck fighting for it. Not saying they won't honor it, but... well, good luck.

    I prefer knowing what happened to my car before I got it. I know it was driven 6 miles - oh well. But what happened during your 3,000? Seems like there are about 2,994 miles that you could have had an influence on you engine and transmission but instead, someone who had no stake in the car may have been beating on it knowing he didn't own it. And don't tell us that your manager friend made sure nobody beat on the car. All he knows is how many miles, not "what kind" of miles that salesman put on the car.

    Lastly (because I agree with watson - this issue is done) I find it curious you just now mentioned the manager is your friend... seems like you may have gotten preferential treatment. I've been saying all along you got a good deal for a Millenia, I guess now we know why. Could anyone have gotten that deal? If he sold it to someone he didn't know, would it have been priced higher? Now I'm completely convinced the MM is *not* a better deal for the dollar because you had to know someone to get it.

    I'll estimate, and say if you didn't know the manager he would have jacked the price up a few thousand putting a used (technically new, but with thousands of 'unknown' miles racked up by someone who didn't care about it) Millenia at the same price I paid for my NEW Max.

    You won the warranty battle but the Max just won the better value war.

    With that, enjoy your rides. I just got back from Walmart and smoked a Honda with the coffee can muffler without breaking 3k rpm. Man I can't wait for the next 512 miles to pass!!! And enjoy looking at the back of my Maxima, 'cuz unless it's parked, that's all you'll ever see.

    My email is [email protected] and I'm signing out.
  • fwatsonfwatson Posts: 639
    You seem to be leaving, and I also feel we have hashed this out as far as good sense will allow. I seldom feel on an online forum that I have accomplished a personal understanding with someone. Despite our somewhat confrontational attitudes on the subject, I think we have done that.

    I will check here at least for awhile to see if anything new comes up, and you probably will too.
    I started this thread to have a place to send the pro Maxima trolls who were interupting, and now seem to have killed off the Millenia forum. Interestingly they didn't show up here, I wonder why.

    In reality, I find the Maxima and Millenia so different, that this thread doesn't even make good sense.

    I started out to buy a Max, and ended up with a MM for many reasons. I guess I'm not the Max type.

    Anyway, you have a fine car, enjoy it.

  • mirthmirth Posts: 1,212
    Frank's right. Different cars. Both good.
  • obioha1obioha1 Posts: 27
    You know this whole debate really centers around power. I mean if the millenia had let's say 250hp, then I really don't think this would such a debate. Both cars are good in their own ways and yes they do appeal to different drivers. But the millenia's main draw back is a lack of power. I own a '99 S white/sand with chrome wheels and I think that the car is awesome, it just lacks a little power. I mean with an extra 40 horses on tap, the would-be max owners would more than likely steer down to mazda dealerships. In an earlier post styling was mentioned and no offense max owners but the millenia looks waaaaaaaaay better. Well I should say that it looks a lot more expensive. anyways just my .02.
  • nvedraninvedrani Posts: 58
    I totally agree and actually thought the same thing this weekend...( I didn't spend my Friday night online...LOL-2k2)...."what if the Millenia had, let's say, 265 HP, - would it then be seen as better because it now has more Hp than the Max??" These Max owners seem to be saying that it's only "real" advantage" is power...if that is so, then I can easily create 40-50 more Hp in an Millenia S for about $1,000....Maxima power in a Millenia body style - what more could you want for $23k....and 2k2 - considering I'm going to have the car for about 50k miles, I really didn't care about the first measly 3k is a moot point and I don't like driving off the lot (like you did) and instantly losing 10% of the money I just paid....have fun with your residual....mine's worked out great - ciao
  • speedracer3speedracer3 Posts: 650
    I have to get actual results out of the Mazda, but I am noticing that the 2.5L in the Millenia spends a LOT of gas, even more then the 3.0L V6 in my Maxima. I figured that this has to do with the Millenia's smaller engine having to move such a heavy car.
  • fredvhfredvh Posts: 857
    How many miles do you have on the Millenia? What has been the highway mpg?
    I have also heard that the 3.5 is not getting as good of mpg as the 3.0 in the Max. Any owner opinions?
  • speedracer3speedracer3 Posts: 650

    Again, I have to get hard numbers. My observations are based on the fact that the Maxima is racking up larger mileage and is going longer between fill ups. The Mazda is driven a LOT less and fillups seem to often. Again...I will post actual gas mileages for comparison.

    The 3.5 VQ should spend more than the 3.0L after all it is a larger engine.
  • fwatsonfwatson Posts: 639
    The type of driving will have a huge effect on milage. Stop and go is worse, city next, then mixed driving and finally highway best. If the cars are used identically, you can make the comparison you suggest. If not, it will mean nothing.

    I have posted several times that I get about 20 mpg city, 22.2 mpg mixed driving, and 27 to 28 mpg highway. If anyone considers that poor milage for a 3400+ pound car (empty weight), I will just have to disagree. I have seen real figures posted for other cars, and Millenia is very nearly the same as similar weight cars.

    My Millenia gets about 2 mpg better in city, 1 mpg better mixed, and 1 to 2 mpg better highway milage than my '95 Oldsobile 88 with a 3.8L V-6 and weighs 3600 pounds. So much for the larger engine getting better milage theory. Given the 200 pound difference, they are pretty even.

    The MM is not a little economy car. You are not going to get Corolla type milage from it. The most economical cars built use tiny engines to accomplish the goal.

    Quote speedracer3: "The 3.5 VQ should spend more than the 3.0L after all it is a larger engine."

    If they are doing equal work, ie driving the same car, they should get equal milage. If it gets worse milage, it is because it is less efficient than the 3.0 (given identical conditions). A large foot weighing heavily on the gas pedal is most likely the cause.
  • speedracer3speedracer3 Posts: 650

    Again...I will post the actual mpg for both cars. The Maxima gets more mixed driving, while the Millenia gets more city driving. I know this favors the Maxima in terms of driving conditions, but the hard numbers should not be THAT different apart. We shall see if my seat-of the pants assesment is right.

    In regards to the 3.5 vs. 3.0 engines in the Maxima. Again, the 3.5 is a larger engine and they are squeezing about 40hp more out of it than the 3.0, it is natural that it would spend more gas.
  • speedracer3speedracer3 Posts: 650
    BTW according to Edmunds:

    Mazda Millenia P 20/27 mpg
    Nissan Maxima SE (auto) 20/26 mpg

    Something wrong with that picture. One car has a 3.5L 255hp engine and the other 2.5L 170hp. Either the Millenia is highly inneficient or the Maxima is very efficient.
  • fwatsonfwatson Posts: 639
    Quote speedracer3: "the 3.5 is a larger engine and they are squeezing about 40hp more out of it than the 3.0, it is natural that it would spend more gas."

    Quote speedracer3: "One car has a 3.5L 255hp engine and the other 2.5L 170hp. Either the Millenia is highly inneficient or the Maxima is very efficient."

    The ONLY thing that counts is the work accomplished by the engine under identical conditions. If they are doing the same amount of work, regardless of displacement, they should get equal milage if they are equally efficient.

    The fact that the Max CAN put out 255 HP has nothing to do with it. The only time that enters the picture is if you actually make the engine generate that much power with your right foot. Under the same conditions, assuming all else is equal (weight and wind drag of the cars etc) they should get equal milage The Edmunds figures you show prove that is the case at least in their tests.

    If the bigger engine gets worse milage doing the same amount of work, it is less efficient. That could be from more internal friction, but new engines such as these are precision machines, so that should not be the case.

    Equal power usage = equal milage if the engines are equally efficient regardless of potential HP or displacement. At highway cruising speed you use only a minute percentage of the power either the 170HP MM, or the 255HP Max are capable of producing. Something on the order of only 4 to 5 HP at 60 MPH if my memory serves me right.

    The rest is reserve power for acceleration, such as the Stop Light Gran Prix. In which case the 255HP will handily defeat the 170HP.
    Actually in the drag race, torque is more important than HP. But the engine still has to produce the power, and the big displacement engine should also deliver more torque.

    The odds are that you will never use all the potential power of your car engine unless you race it.
  • speedracer3speedracer3 Posts: 650
    If displacement has no bearing on gas mileage then why do smaller 4 cylinder engines return better MPG than larger 6 cylinder engines??.
  • fwatsonfwatson Posts: 639
    Quote speedracer3: "If displacement has no bearing on gas mileage then why do smaller 4 cylinder engines return better MPG than larger 6 cylinder engines??."

    If you make it do equal work to the V-6 engines we are discussing, it might get minimally better milage, because it has two less cylinders to cause power wasting friction. But mostly it is because the little fours are used in lighter vehicles, and because they are incapable of producing high HP, they aren't forced to do it.

    At Indianapolis, many of the racing engines have been 4 cylinder. And they were in no way economy engines. And because they were forced to produce the same power as the V engines, they have no real advantage in fuel milage.

    Also, economy cars are geared higher in order to get better milage. That is part of why they feel "doggy", in addition to the low power output.
  • fwatsonfwatson Posts: 639
    I have been trying to find a web site that will explain all this better than I can. But it is all based on the physics of the I/C engine.
  • fwatsonfwatson Posts: 639 (REMOVE THIS SPACE) summer/courses/engineering/2.61s.html

  • speedracer3speedracer3 Posts: 650
    I am not trying to be a smart [non-permissible content removed], but what you are telling me goes against everything I understand about cars. Let's take an example here with one car. The VW Passat is made in 4cyl or V6 configurations. Same car different engines.

    The 1.8LT 4 cyl. uses turbo to boost it's power to 170hp. and it gets 22/31 mpg in manual.

    The 2.8L V6 Passat is normally aspired puts out 190 hp. and gets 20/28 mpg in manual.

    Two cars that weigh the same (execpt for the engine) and yet, the smaller engine gets better gas mileage. Explain
  • fwatsonfwatson Posts: 639
    Quote speedracer3: "The 1.8LT 4 cyl. uses turbo to boost it's power to 170hp. and it gets 22/31 mpg in manual.

    The 2.8L V6 Passat is normally aspired puts out 190 hp. and gets 20/28 mpg in manual.

    Two cars that weigh the same (execpt for the engine) and yet, the smaller engine gets better gas mileage. Explain"


    Here you have a case of lower friction due to fewer cylinders and associated components. I suggest you read the first link I gave you, and find everything else you can find concerning the operation of an internal combustion engine. You will get better information that way than I can give you off the top of my head.

    Here is the link again:

  • fwatsonfwatson Posts: 639
    I just noticed that the first link I gave is a site trying to sell some gimmick. It isn't my intention to help them sell some trick gadget, but they do give a pretty good simple exlpanation of how the IC works and efficiency of it.
  • speedracer3speedracer3 Posts: 650
    There is a part of the article that talks about engine "efficiency", and although I understand the concepts, the connection between gas mileage and efficiency is not made (at least not in the article).
This discussion has been closed.