v6 2.3l how thirsty would they be on petrol and what are they like. Took one for test drive and really liked it but unsure about it been a v6
intrade,
Nov 30, 6:35pm
if i was you id look at testdriving a lexus toyota "inline 6" V engine are not something to buy on any make and nissan are poo fighters from mid 2000
vtecintegra,
Nov 30, 6:47pm
Modern Lexus use a V6 too.
Anyway OP you may as well look at the 3.5l (also badged as a Maxima if sold new here) - much more pleasant and there, a lot more around and not a huge difference in fuel consumption
tamarillo,
Nov 30, 7:01pm
Kind of agree with post 3, might as we'll enjoy the extra possible power of the 3.5 version. Teana is same as maxima, both front wheel drive using cvt box, suggest you drive it well including hard acceleration up hill to ensure that works for you, not everyone like cvt boxes. Also no good for towing. If you find one you like get it checked properly and ensure cvt is serviced correctly, else it fails. Other similar cars are the v6 Honda Accord also fwd but conventional auto, Toyota mark X which is rear wheel drive, v6, 6 speed tiptronic using Lexus underpinnings, no good if your tall or big. Both are arguably better cars than the Nissan.
vtecintegra,
Nov 30, 7:06pm
The pre-facelift NZ new Maxima had a standard four speed auto, they only switched to the CVT sometime during 2005
Not sure about imports, they may well have been all CVT
peanuteater,
Nov 30, 7:15pm
i have 2005 3.5 maxima with non cvt trans, had no issues with it, like any car, give it maintenance. my ave.works out around .19 cents a km., depends how hard you drive them, 3.5 has ok kick when needed.
mojo49,
Dec 1, 3:18am
Have a 3.5 L Maxima 2004. Motorway driving in cruise control at 100kph - under 8 l/100 Km. General open road cruise control on/off 100kph about 9 l/100km. Don't do city driving so no idea how gas heavy the are in town especially sitting at the lights for half the day, texting, drinking coffee, reading the news, checking facebook or whatever else townies do while waiting for a chance to actually move their car.
geordiemotors,
Dec 2, 12:21am
I do 1600k a week in my Teana, costs around $200. Mind you I don't tend to drive slow, my ex used to drive it before we split, she was getting 200k per $20 on average. She does drive like a nana though. The Maxima are down on the power compared to the Teana, only boasting around 180Hp. Depends on the Spec of the Teana, you could be looking at 230Hp +. The CVTs are great 2004 onwards, everyone best get used to them as that's the next Generation Gearbox, Fantastic Fuel Economy. Having said that, you should never tow with a CVT, and get them serviced at the proper intervals recommended by Nissan. I hope this helps.
kazbanz,
Dec 2, 12:42am
This is NOT personal experience but is the next best thing. ive sold several of those 2.3l and have had nothing but positive feedback about the fuel economy.
vtecintegra,
Dec 2, 1:21am
That isn't correct, the Maximas are all 3.5 with 170kw (230ish HP). The 2.3 Teana was well down on power compared to any of the 3.5s
peanuteater,
Dec 2, 1:46am
last post is correct,( i have heard the maximas have pretty much the same engine as the skylines, tho are derated with a diff. chip, as apparently f.w.d. doesnt handle 210 kw very well ) ?
franc123,
Dec 2, 3:22am
The question I'd have is how much MORE fuel efficient the 2.3 version is compared to the 3.5, if its the same or only say 10% better you may as well go for the bigger engine and have better performance available. Past experience tells me that as a general rule Jap V6's that are under 2.5-3.0 litre tend to be both thirstier than they should be and lacking in low speed torque, and makes the exercise somewhat pointless in a heavyish car. They probably only make them to avoid some silly engine size tax in Japan.
nzjay,
Dec 2, 4:04am
It may not be more efficient. I have a 3.5 skyline coupe and it's amazingly frugal if you drive carefully. Makes over 300HP, so uses fuel when you boot it. I also owned a 3litre Presage which was more fuel efficient than the 2.4 version of my friends.
utwo,
Aug 5, 9:32pm
I think if most of your driving is stop-start city driving the 2.3 would use a lot less fuel but on the open road the difference would be minimal.
Since the public registrations are closed, you must have an invite from a current member to be able to register and post in this thread.
Have an account? Login here.