 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Nissan / Nissan Maxima / June 2004i30 vs. i30t
I recently acquired a '96 I30 for my teenage daughter to drive and it simply does not take the curves the way my '97 I30t does. The struts are good and I can't find anything in the suspension that is damaged or not working right. Its just a boat. I don't want to lower it or make any other aftermarket mods, just tighten up the handling to the level of the "t". I have heard the only suspension differences between the basic I30 and the "t" version are stiffer springs and wider tires. Can anyone verify that? > I recently acquired a '96 I30 for my teenage daughter to drive and it simply > does not take the curves the way my '97 I30t does. The struts are good and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I don't want to lower it or make any other aftermarket mods, just tighten up > the handling to the level of the "t". IMO, the best thing you could do for the handling of either an I30 or an I30t is add a front strut-tower brace. Costs around $40-$150 depending on the model, and it only takes a few minutes to install. Improves handling without hurting the ride (unlike stiffer springs/shocks). Can't answer your other question. At one time I knew what the difference was between the sporty trim level and not. Wheels, tires and either struts or springs, but I've forgotten. I agree the sporty trim level does feel sportier, but I'd still start with the strut-tower brace. On 6/7/04 11:47 PM, in article 2ikun8Fo9uulU1@uni-berlin.de, "David" <my_usenet_acct@hotmail.com> wrote: >> I recently acquired a '96 I30 for my teenage daughter to drive and it simply >> does not take the curves the way my '97 I30t does. The struts are good and [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > still start > with the strut-tower brace. Both of them already have FSTBs. > On 6/7/04 11:47 PM, in article 2ikun8Fo9uulU1@uni-berlin.de, "David" > <my_usenet_acct@hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Both of them already have FSTBs. I think you may be confusing an FSTB with a front sway bar, or FSB. The FSB is underneath the car and helps to redistribute the forces encountered during cornering. The RSB and the FSB do the same thing. An FSTB does none of that. Rather, it helps the structure it attaches to stay strong during cornering. When taking a hard corner, ideally the the front left strut would stay exactly parallel to the front right strut, but the intense G forces cause the outter strut in the turn to bend slightly (like thousands of an inch or so). That's what makes the car feel slightly un-sure of itself during cornering. With the FSTB, it make both struts bend a little in tandem, so they both stay in parallel with each other, and you wind up with more sure footed cornering:) CD On 6/8/04 11:08 AM, in article ca4o04$2nlp$1@news.interpublic.com, "codifus" >> On 6/7/04 11:47 PM, in article 2ikun8Fo9uulU1@uni-berlin.de, "David" >> <my_usenet_acct@hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > FSB is underneath the car and helps to redistribute the forces > encountered during cornering. The RSB and the FSB do the same thing. I don't think I'm confusing anything. I got and installed an FSTB from Courtesy Nissan within a couple of weeks of buying each car. I know what it is and what it does. > An FSTB does none of that. Rather, it helps the structure it attaches > to stay strong during cornering. When taking a hard corner, ideally the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > CD > On 6/8/04 11:08 AM, in article ca4o04$2nlp$1@news.interpublic.com, "codifus" > [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] >> >>CD Then it was me:) I thought you were saying that the FSTB came stock on the car. My mistake. CD Peek underneath and look if the 't' has a rear sway bar that the other doesn't. That's probably 2nd most important compared to the front strut tower bar. Dave > I recently acquired a '96 I30 for my teenage daughter to drive and it simply > does not take the curves the way my '97 I30t does. The struts are good and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I have heard the only suspension differences between the basic I30 and the > "t" version are stiffer springs and wider tires. Can anyone verify that? > Peek underneath and look if the 't' has a rear sway bar that the other > doesn't. That's probably 2nd most important compared to the front strut [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >>I have heard the only suspension differences between the basic I30 and the >>"t" version are stiffer springs and wider tires. Can anyone verify that? ALL 1995-1999 Maximas and I30s have a front and rear sway bar. The rear sway bar is hidden, as it is located inside the mutli link beam, but it's there. To answer the original poster's questions, And I30t is basically what a Maxima SE is to a GLE/GXE, the main difference being bigger wheels and, believe it or not, stiffer rear springs. The fronts are the same. I'm 95% sure of this, but you may want to check maxima.org looking for differences between the Max SE and GLE/GXE to be absolutely certain. On a slightly different note, I really really really wish Nissan/Infiniti made an I35t with bigger wheels and the 6 speed manual. THAT would have been an awesome product. The Maxima 6 speed is nice, but the I35T would have finessed it:) CD On 6/8/04 8:00 AM, in article ca4cvm$2kcg$1@news.interpublic.com, "codifus" >> Peek underneath and look if the 't' has a rear sway bar that the other >> doesn't. That's probably 2nd most important compared to the front strut [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > CD Thank you. You confirmed my suspicions and a careful look at the spec pages in the factory service manual seems to verify it. It shows different front springs if it is automatic or manual (bigger springs on the automatic), and different springs on the rear are marked interestingly "SE" and "all but SE" (yes, this is the I30 FSM). The SE springs are bigger. No other variations in the suspension are listed. Now the next trick will be to find a pair of rear "t" springs for less than I paid for the car... > Now the next trick will be to find a pair of rear "t" springs for less than > I paid for the car... There must be a few Maxima SEs in the salvage yards by now. I imagine I30t's would be a little harder to find, but possible. Look online for Nissan yards too. I'd be curious if the FSB wasn't different between your two I's. Maybe you FSM will tell you, or check with a dial caliper. You might want to confirm that the four struts themselves weren't different part #'s. Different valving would firm up the ride a bit and change how the "t" and SE handle vs. the "lesser" model. If so, a new set of Tokicos all around wouldn't hurt, especially if the originals (in either of your I's) have some miles on them. They ride really well on my brother's Q45, and were a world of difference vs. the very tired originals. Besides, you're going to be pulling the struts to change the springs in the rear anyway. It's a thought. For both of your I's, I'd still think about adding an aftermarket rear sway bar. You think the "t" handles better now...........just wait. On 6/8/04 12:02 PM, in article eimxc.18262$tH1.838231@twister.southeast.rr.com, "JC" <nocrapspamjacjunknospamcrap@nc.rr.com> wrote: >> Now the next trick will be to find a pair of rear "t" springs for less > than [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > part #'s. Different valving would firm up the ride a bit and change how the > "t" and SE handle vs. the "lesser" model. The specs on the struts and all other components only show one set of values. The only place they list differences is in the springs. > If so, a new set of Tokicos all > around wouldn't hurt, especially if the originals (in either of your I's) [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > For both of your I's, I'd still think about adding an aftermarket rear sway > bar. You think the "t" handles better now...........just wait. > On 6/8/04 12:02 PM, in article > eimxc.18262$tH1.838231@twister.southeast.rr.com, "JC" [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >>For both of your I's, I'd still think about adding an aftermarket rear sway >>bar. You think the "t" handles better now...........just wait. There is very little difference between the t/se and regular suspensions. I suspect your problem lies more with alignment or worn components than the fact that it's not a t/se model. > There is very little difference between the t/se and regular > suspensions. I suspect your problem lies more with alignment or worn > components than the fact that it's not a t/se model. It's possible there is a problem there, but despite the minor differences between the cars (wheels, tires & rear springs?), they feel a lot different on the road. > <cut> > Now the next trick will be to find a pair of rear "t" springs for less than > I paid for the car... If you buy used springs, surely they wont last that long, and installing suspension components is quite a bit labor intensive. Ideally, you should replace your springs and struts. If you're like me and you like the stock SE ride but want a wee bit more than that, then get: H&R springs, Tokico BLUEs shocks on all 4 corners, and finally, the piece de resistance, motivational engineering rear shock mounts. These mounts give the rear suspension an extra 1.5 inches of travel. Given that the H&Rs drop your ride height by about 1.5", the rear mounts almost give your rear suspenion nearly full range travel, therefore making the ride more like OEM without the penalties of the lower ride height, and you still get the all the benefits of a lower ride height, mainly a nicer more hunkered down external appearance which enhances the car's performance look:) CD > I recently acquired a '96 I30 for my teenage daughter to drive and it simply > does not take the curves the way my '97 I30t does. The struts are good and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I have heard the only suspension differences between the basic I30 and the > "t" version are stiffer springs and wider tires. Can anyone verify that? Besides other comments, I thought the SE (and maybe I30t) had stiffer bushings (I could be wrong). I have a 95 SE 5-spd. The easiest mod may be better high performance tires. I know it made a noticeable difference when I went from 215/70 to 235/60 (same outside diameter) on an 89 T-bird. The latter gave it SuperCoupe handling. If the base I30 has 205/65 series tires, some 215-225/60 or 50 series could make a world of difference.  SignatureDavid Efflandt - All spam ignored http://www.de-srv.com/ On 6/8/04 8:12 PM, in article slrncccp0h.o3t.efflandt@typhoon.xnet.com, >> I recently acquired a '96 I30 for my teenage daughter to drive and it simply >> does not take the curves the way my '97 I30t does. The struts are good and [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Besides other comments, I thought the SE (and maybe I30t) had stiffer > bushings (I could be wrong). I have a 95 SE 5-spd. I can't find any mention of the bushings in the FSM. > The easiest mod may be better high performance tires. I know it made a > noticeable difference when I went from 215/70 to 235/60 (same outside > diameter) on an 89 T-bird. The latter gave it SuperCoupe handling. > > If the base I30 has 205/65 series tires, some 215-225/60 or 50 series > could make a world of difference. It needs tires anyway. The I30 has 205/65 and the I30t has 215/60, so it is a good bet that accounts for some of the difference. > On 6/8/04 8:12 PM, in article slrncccp0h.o3t.efflandt@typhoon.xnet.com, > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > It needs tires anyway. The I30 has 205/65 and the I30t has 215/60, so it is > a good bet that accounts for some of the difference. I have a '91 SE that has 205/65's stock. I replaced them recently with 225/60's and the difference was enormous. I've got an FSTB on it, so it's not much different than your I30. Go to www.Tirerack.com and put those 2 sizes in and you'll see that the outside diameter is nearly identical. In fact, I can't find a size that is as close to the originals as those 225's. I got Bridgestone Traction T/A's (needed an all-season and couldn't afford Nokians). Here's the specs for those. 205/65 = 25.5" diameter 215/60 = 25.2" 225/60 = 25.6" Bill G '91 SE Auto 166K miles > It needs tires anyway. The I30 has 205/65 and the I30t has 215/60, so it is > a good bet that accounts for some of the difference. If the I30 has "H" rated tires (or less since it's a used car and some won't put up the money for better tires) and your I30t has "V" rated tires... you'd notice the difference. There are variables: a "better" H-rated tire might handle better vs. a "lesser" V-rated tire. But if the I30 has "S" or "T" rated tires and the I30t has V-rated... you'll know it. My 93 Max SE had S-rated tires on it when I bought it. I put good V-rated (supposed to have) tires on when the S's wore out and it was almost night and day... on top of the night and day from the larger rear sway bar. Consider Kumhos for your next tire. People are saying very good things about these. Even if they aren't quite as good as some, they are as good as or better than most. If you get the best tire they have for your driving need (something V-rated please), for the price you can't go wrong, and it looks worth it to find out if what folks are saying is true. I presently have Michelin Pilot XGT V4 on my car. No complaints, really. But for half the cost or less, the next set will be Kumhos even if just for an experiment. I presently have Michelin Pilot XGT V4 I've got that (or very similar) on mine. Planning to replace it with a non all-season tire. I expect to get a noticeable handling improvement (except in mud or snow). Thinking Sumitomo (based on tirerack). I'll look at Kumho too. While the Michelins when new were much nicer than the worn-out Eagle RSAs they replaced, they didn't last nearly as long, and an old-vs-new tire comparison isn't too convincing (except when the new tire is much worse, which has happened to me before). Since the tirerack survey results aren't based on track time or side by side comparisons (and the reviews are often "my new tire was better than my old worn out tire"), I pay the most attention to the "would you buy this tire again" part. On 6/9/04 12:08 AM, in article kXwxc.18361$tH1.917960@twister.southeast.rr.com, "JC" <nocrapspamjacjunknospamcrap@nc.rr.com> wrote: >> It needs tires anyway. The I30 has 205/65 and the I30t has 215/60, so it > is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > might handle better vs. a "lesser" V-rated tire. But if the I30 has "S" or > "T" rated tires and the I30t has V-rated... you'll know it. They both have "H", which is what came stock on them from new (of course neither of them is still on the first set of tires). There was enough obvious difference in handling when I was test driving them back in '97 that I put out the extra money for the "t" without any remorse. > My 93 Max SE had S-rated tires on it when I bought it. I put good V-rated > (supposed to have) tires on when the S's wore out and it was almost night [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > the cost or less, the next set will be Kumhos even if just for an > experiment. I learned the hard way with the "t" over the years that there are "H" tires and then there are "H" tires. The original Yokahamas were cheap, but it drove like it was on rails. I make the mistake of buying some highly rated and highly priced Michelins for it once and they were simply crap (handling noticeably worse and they were worn out in about half the advertised mileage). I will give Kumho a look. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.