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!

Are you considering a vehicle subscription service or did you previously consider one and decide against it? If so, a reporter would like to talk to you. Please reach out to [email protected] by 10/30 for more details.
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

24

Comments

  • fwatsonfwatson Posts: 639
    Quote Pat: "But kw1964, you are speaking of your own personal reaction."

    Yep, but I'll second the vote. Good Max might be, beautiful it ain't. And after all, 90% of everything said on these forums is "personal reaction", or personal opinion.
  • lcf1lcf1 Posts: 1
    >Good Max might be, beautiful it ain't.

    i am 23 and every single person i know loves my 2000 maxima se. i get compliments all the time:

    "man, your car looks sweet." etc.

    once, a kid even walked up to me in a mcdonalds parking lot just to tell me he liked my car. he mustve been about 10.

    on the flip side, i truly believe if i drove a millenia the compliments would be much more generic:

    "um, nice car."

    that says something; you figure it out.

    but if we are going to discuss looks, we must first establish something; who is to be the judge? who has the right to say which car is an old fogey car? obviously someone who is not an old fogey! everyone knows that the younger generation always dictates what is "cool, hip, and in-style." just look at music, or any industry for that matter! obviously, the decision of whether the maxima or the millenia is the old fogey car should be made by someone from the xgen or ygen.

    so here i go:

    i do like the millenia, but in my opinion, and to my generation, IT is the grandma mobile, NOT the maxima.

    ;)

    also, i cannot understand why you believe that it is a good thing that there are not many millenia's on the road. to me, it simply means that no one thought it was worth it to buy the thing.
  • but like people keep pointing out, looks are personal. You like MM, I like Max, let's call the whole thing off.

    If you want to discuss performance, reliability, features, options, quality, warranty, ... I'll discuss that. A few the MM will come out ahead, the Max comes out ahead in more. If you want to talk "styling" or "visual appeal" then you're talking to air. Arguing "visual appeal" is like arguing color - it's all preference. My first list are measurable and less subjective (and favor the Max). So, fire when ready, grimly.
  • fwatsonfwatson Posts: 639
    Quote by lcf1: "also, i cannot understand why you believe that it is a good thing that there are not many millenia's on the road. to me, it simply means that no one thought it was worth it to buy the thing."
    =======================================
    There also aren't many Hope diamonds (only one), or Picasso's. That makes owning one much more special to the person who owns it. The Max may also be a diamond, but it is not the rare diamond the Millenia is.

    Styling is subjective, as is most everything else about a car. But except for this forum I have never heard or read a negative comment about the styling on the Millenia. Quite the contrary. While on the Maxima's styling, I have read many comments on how it looks like it was kicked in the butt by a mule etc. All I can say to someone who feels styling should not be a topic for comparison, is just don't participate in that part of the discussion. But you can't just say in essense, I don't like this part of the discussion, so it is off limits.

    There seems to be an extreme defensive feeling on the part of some here, as opposed to trying to understand what the other person is saying. If someone is looking for an argument, count me out. I started this thread for a friendly comparison, because some people were bringing the comparison to the Millenia forum, and Pat was objecting. And just screaming that my car is better than yours is what the problem was over there.

    I want to thank all for participating, but I hope we can get past the pointless one upmanship.

    Quote 2k2wannabe: "If you want to discuss performance, reliability, features, options, quality, warranty, ... I'll discuss that."

    I have tried this by giving unaltered, unedited links and quotes from them. You on the other hand feel it is fair to take the Carpoint charts and alter the results to say they show equal results. For me, that does not work. It would also be impossible to look up the myriad of partial quotes you post in order to see what the entire message was IN context.

    I hope you understand what I am saying, and apologize if you take offense to it.

    I too have read many comparisons including both of these wonderful cars, and know that the lead foot testers always favor the fastest car. I have subscribed to many enthusiast magazines since the 1950's, and this has almost always been the case. Most of the quotes from comparisons here have been from tests as much as four years old. If you feel those are appropriate, fine. But they can not possibly include the recent Millenias which have been eliminated from the comparisons, because none of the testers include models being phased out by the manufacturer.

    In my mind, having driven them all, I find the Maxima, as good as it is, seems like a street brawler, while the Millenia is more of a gentleman. That is obviously ONLY MY PERSONAL OPINION.

    Enjoy your Maxima's, I most certainly am enjoying my Millenia.

    ===========================================

    And to answer lcf1's quote: "on the flip side, i truly believe if i drove a millenia the compliments would be much more generic: "um, nice car."

    NO, it has been, "Wow, what a sweet ride". And "Beautiful, I can't believe it's a 4 door". Another was by a man who came into the building I had just gone into and said: "You must be doing pretty good, when I pulled up behind your car I knew it was out of my class".
  • nvedraninvedrani Posts: 58
    I see 50 everyday....ho hum......there's another right now........
    And "lcmf" - so your'e 23, and I'm 24....believe me I was actually pleaseantly surprised from not only the "genuity" of compliments about my silver 2000 S ME, but at the number and range of whom they were coming from....everyone from "extremely" wealthy 50 year old men to the average 25-26 year old female (ps. 10 yr olds????..please), I've had people run up to me while I was refueling and say they ove it or when I'm getting the car after dining out and the valet says how sharp it is....now granted this is NOT what I will be driving when I'm say, 34 (540i or M5), but for now, right out of college, the car, options and price definitely sold me....I mean come on, my father's girlfriend drives a 2000 Maxima SE, ....I'm not one to follow the crowd...good luck with your Maximas????
  • First, you could never offend me. We don't know each other, and I thought all we were doing was having fun defending our rides.

    Next, I'll discuss styling all you want. I'm not saying "I don't like discussing it so I won't." I'm saying "it's stupid to discuss stying because it's subjective" (your words, too, I might add). How about "let's debate green?" Does that make sense? It's useless to talk about things of preference. Give me stuff I can measure. If you just want to say "I like mine better" then the discussion was over when you started the thread. Hey, I like my Max better - now what? Let's talk reliability, warranty, service, etc. or let's stop talking.

    Next, you're right. I did change one thing on the carpoint eval. I'll put it back and we can go from there.... 1995 Max had one red (easily fixed) and MM had one yellow - advanage millenia. 1996, both have one yellow - tie. From then on, both evals are the EXACT SAME. If you want to go back 7 years the MM has an argument. Since then reliability isn't an issue to discuss because they're the same.

    Next, all of my comments came from one review, the one in edmunds. I read at least 4 others and they all had the same lackluster things to say about MM so I didn't put the links in. Here again is the link to the edmunds review. Read it and read the Max review and honestly, using the words in the reviews, give me 5 good things about the MM and 5 bad things about the Max... I'll even start you off "odd styling" - there's one I know you would have used anyway.

    Next, this is not 'one upmanship'. This is MM side saying "MM is better because it's more 'visually appealing'" and the Max side saying "we disagree. Now let's talk other issues." Do you keep going back to 'looks' because 'visual appeal' *is* subjective so you can't be proven wrong? The Max side has been hammering all the other points but you haven't responded to them.. just 'styling.'

    Here are the facts as seen in the side-by-side comparison on edmunds (it won't let me link to the page so you'll have to recreate it):

    Max over MM: roomier, faster, less expensive (than the 'S'), lighter
    Same or too close to call: safety, warranty, and I'll include styling because edmunds dings both cars for it

    MM over Max: turning radius (seriously, check it out), paint (from what I've heard, not my experience)

    Have we taken this as far as it can go? I like my car, you like yours, and we're not changing each other's minds. Using the "people run up to me" meter, I've only had a few, but then again I've only had the car 4 days.
  • fwatsonfwatson Posts: 639
    I respect your right to your opinion, as you do mine. I also agree that there is no point in persuing this further, as it has been driven into the ground.

    Incidentally, I had already read and printed out every test I could find on the internet concerning both the Max and MM, before going shopping for a new car. So I am very well aware of the comments and test results they show. I also subscribe to Motor Trend, Car and Driver and Consumer Reports and am well aware of their testing also. On top of all this I researched all owner reports online, as well as Car Talk, Carpoint, Edmunds, JD Power and many others.

    With all this in hand, as well as test driving all versions of the Max, MM and many others, I chose the Millenia P. I feel I made the best choice regardless of price. With the huge discount on my P, it was a total no brainer.

    Enjoy your new Maxima. I have been enjoying my new Millenia P for seven months and 5300 miles. And am sure I will do the same for many years to come. It is an extremely pleasant car to live with. Hopefully you will be able to say that about your Max next November.
  • I'm 384 miles into my break-in period, then... ohhh, I'll enjoy on-ramps again. I'm just getting out of a ford F-150 that I liked a lot, but it's not a "driver's car" if you know what I mean.

    Truthfully I never seriously considered the MM. I started comparing BMW 3 series, Audi A4 and A6, and Volvo s60, but *man* they're all expensive and they're also smaller on the inside. With another baby on the way, we needed the back seat room and I wanted something fun to drive. In my researce for the same "type" of car, I asked mechanics, friends, read webboards (pro and con), and drove many cars. Millenia was hardly mentioned, maybe because it's end-of-life. I read and discounted it... possibly too early, but I'm definitely happy with my Maxima.
  • speedracer3speedracer3 Posts: 650
    When we go out we typically take my wive's Millenia because I rack a lot of miles going to work in my Maxima. Let me just say that if you are traveling with kids the Millenia is a real hassle. The car is so low that I have to contort into the car to be able to buckle the kids in their car seats. I usually end up cursing from banging my after I am done buckling. Putting car seats in the Maxima is a breeze, and you don't have to contort to do it. The Maxima is defintely more family friendly than the MM.
  • fwatsonfwatson Posts: 639
    I am 60 yrs old, and have arthritis for which I am taking prescription drugs. 5'11', 180 lb. I find my Millenia far easier to get out of than my '95 Oldsmobile 88, a much higher car. Getting in is about even, and the driving position is so superior in the Millenia, that I only use the Olds as protection against inconsiderate slobs who bang up other peoples cars in parking lots. In other words, I take it only to the airport, grocery store, the mall and similar unfriendly places. That works well, because after 7 months my Millenia is still flawless.

    My family now consists of my wife, my 37 lb dog, and me. We go in very comfortable style everywhere except the aforementioned exceptions.

    I protect the back seat against dog toenail scratches with large towels on the seat and back. She has it made back there. My wife dearly loves the 8 way power passenger seat, which allows her to do everything from sit at alert, to laying down for a nap on trips. She wanted the headrest closer to her head, so I exchanged the adjustable one on the drivers seat to the passenger side, problem solved. I have the same affinity for my 8 way power seat, especially the power lumbar support. If it weren't for the arthritis in my right knee, which is slightly uncomfortable when on cruise control (no good place to put the foot when not using the throttle), the driving position would be virtually perfect. But the low seats are also common to the other cars I tried, including Max's, so that is no better regardless of which of these cars I drive.

    I have never in 45 years of driving had a car nearly as comfortable to drive or ride in as the "Silver Bullet" (Hi Ho Silver away).

    As far as those on-ramps and passing, it has never left me wanting for more power. You just have to learn to use your right foot, and she takes good care of you.
  • 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 www.kbb.com 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.

    Frank
  • 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
    Sir..you are quite mistaken...I also got the "FULL MANUFACTURERS WARRANTY"....in 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"...plus my friend was the manager there....I got a 50k bumper to bumper with roadside, etc...like 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.....next 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 (www.carreview.com) 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)


    http://carpoint.msn.com/userreviews/reviewlist.asp? (+) idmodel=10230&search=MostRecent&num=50&trim=All&lang=All


    =================================


    2002 Maxima: 8.2 out of 10 (2001 is 9)


    http://carpoint.msn.com/userreviews/reviewlist.asp? (+)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.

    Frank
  • 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 miles...it 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
    Fredvh,

    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
    fwatson,

    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
    http://www.oscillatorengine.com/cengine.htm


    http://web.mit.edu/professional/ (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:


    http://www.oscillatorengine.com/cengine.htm

  • 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).
  • fwatsonfwatson Posts: 639
    http://www.tpub.com/engine1/en1-102.htm


    =============================


    Quote: "Engine efficiency is the amount of power developed as compared to the energy input"


    =============================


    Energy input = amount of fuel, ie amount of gasoline used..

  • fredvhfredvh Posts: 857
    Edmunds has a new feature called "True Cost To Own". It is listed when one researches out the various vehicles on the new car heading. It is one of the 13 subjects when you click on a particular vehicle. It is very useful when comparing one vehicle to another. "True Cost To Own" takes the purchase price and adds things like depreciation, insurance, license fees, etc. and gives you a figure for 5-yr ownership. They even tailor it to your particular zip code. I tried it on a few vehicles and it is very useful.
  • fwatsonfwatson Posts: 639
    fredvh,

    As you have apparently read that thread, you should know I have posted there. I also TRIED to compare about 5 cars, but due to the fact that they make so many unwarranted assumptions, they show my Millenia has a TCO of nearly $40000. But because their figures are so far off, including the fact they do not allow for the $8000 reduction I got on my car, plus incorrect insurance, tax etc, They missed my TRUE COST TO OWN for 5 years by nearly $12000.

    Contrary to your experience, I find that tool utterly useless in my case. It will only work for people who are unable to bargain for a better deal than Edmunds shows as the purchase price.
  • fredvhfredvh Posts: 857
    You are right about the purchase price drastically changing the TCO for the Millenia. I think in general the TCO can be used to compare vehicles to other vehicles. As with many other statistics, the variables determine the outcome. I believe it is just another tool, of which there are many, that we can use to better make our decision on which vehicle to purchase.
  • fwatson, please tell everyone about how you got your $8,000 reduction. I highly doubt it. Maybe off of MSRP, but not TMV and TCO benchmarks depreciation off of TMV. Facts are facts. Insurance costs do vary by driving record, etc. TCO uses averages, but once again, there is no way that your actual TCO varies by $12,000 over 5 years. Lay out the facts so we might see the actual variances.

    And you have misinterpreted that TCO only works for people who can't bargain for a better deal. I read everything on the site and it's clear that it bases the numbers on the median values for each category.
  • 2k2wannabe2k2wannabe Posts: 23
    I guess it's good some people are gullible, so they can pay 'median' and MSRP so the rest of us can get good deals. That TCO app is worthless. It missed my '02 Nissan Maxima by at least $4,600. It might be good for comparing vehicles side-by-side, but it's almost comical to use for a "look ahead" on a car.

    By the way... it missed on a rebate, a 'negotiaged' discount, financing, and fuel. If they allowed editing of the initial values it would be more beneficial, but to arbitrarily throw $815, $839, $864, $889, and $915 for gas for the next 5 years is dumb (why does it go up?). What if I work from home? What if I do district sales calls? What if I'm a mom who does 20 miles of hard city "car pool" miles per day and gets crappy mileage? And those are just the simple arguments for one topic... TCO app is useless.
  • fwatsonfwatson Posts: 639
    Quote rshablotnicks: "Maybe off of MSRP"

    ---------------------------------------

    That is precisely what I said, as well as "off Purchase Price". And this is the second thread I have found you calling me a liar based on your own inability to comprehend what you read. Get your own act straight before attacking other's credibility!

    -------------------------------------------

    Quote rshablotnicks: "there is no way that your actual TCO varies by $12,000 over 5 year."

    -------------------------------------------

    Once again you prove your inability to comprehend what you read and respond to it intelligently.

    Now quit wild eyed attacking others, and I will talk to you in a civil maner.
  • patpat Posts: 10,421
    I'm sure the editors would be very interested in this feedback. Please use the Help link at the top of the page to provide your thoughts on TCO and TMV.

    Thanks.
  • Median means that half pay less and half pay more. Median means middle. TMV is the median transaction price. Can people do better than median? The answer is clearly yes as 1/2 already do by definition.

    The same goes for insurance cost, fuel (based on miles driven, etc.), etc.

    Regarding TCO, the TCO fuel costs that 2k2wannabe refers to make sense to me. Looks like Edmunds adjusted for inflation at 3% which I believe has been the national average over the past couple of years. The fuel costs look like they are calculated based on the EPA average fuel costs multiplied times the "median" average 15,000 miles per year multiplied times the price of fuel. What's wrong with that?

    I agree that TCO would be better if it allowed us to place in our individual data (miles driven per year, purchase price, insurance price, etc.), but as a first edition, I think that TCO is pretty cool.
  • fwatson, I certainly wasn't calling you a liar. I thought that this was a friendly debate, and I apologize if I offended you.

    All I was trying to point out is that your assessment of TCO being wildly off based on your discounted $8,000 purchase price was, I believe, unfounded as the TCO depreciation was based on TMV and not some arbitrary MSRP or sticker number.

    You noted in your #94 post that, "It will only work for people who are unable to bargain for a better deal than Edmunds shows as the purchase price." Well keep in mind that what Edmunds says is the purchase price in none other than the True Market Value (TMV) price. And TCO depreciation is calculated from TMV. Trust me, I am the one who has his facts straight. I am trying to avoid unnecessary confusion.
This discussion has been closed.