 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Nissan / Nissan Maxima / May 2007Acceleration Problems / Terrible Gas Mileage!!! PLZ Help
Ok, here is the situation. I recently purchased an '00 maxima for a very good deal, has 200,000 KM no check engine light, clean inside and out, beautiful Glacier Pearl paint job... Symptoms of the unknown problem are: 1) 8 KM / L (roughly 19 MPG) 2) 0-60MPH in 9 Secs. (Way below the average 7.5 secs. that I see others get) 3) Between 2500 and 3500 RPM I feel a drag when flooring it. (Like something is holding the car back) I recently got a highmileage oil change. Did a 4 step emissions cleaning (which includes seafoaming), did not help at all. Is this a MAF issue?? I've been reading that airflow and dirty sensors are the culprit of most gas mileage and acceleration problems, but others with the same problem did not notice a change. I took a look at my MAF and it looked clean to me. What else could I do to diagnose the problem? I would really appreciate any suggestions or advice. Thanks!!!!!!! On May 9, 1:35 pm, assad.ja...@gmail.com wrote: > Ok, here is the situation. I recently purchased an '00 maxima for a > very good deal, has 200,000 KM no check engine light, clean inside and [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Thanks!!!!!!! It's either your O2 sensors or the knock sensor. Change the 02's first and see what happens. Change only the 02 sensors in the exhaust manifold, there should be 2, 1 for each cylinder bank, not the other ones. CD On May 9, 12:35 pm, assad.ja...@gmail.com wrote: > Ok, here is the situation. I recently purchased an '00 maxima for a > very good deal, has 200,000 KM no check engine light, clean inside and [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Thanks!!!!!!! Agree, symptoms say it's an 02 or knock sensor. When my knock sensor went bad, acceleration was in 10-11 second territory. 19 mpg not really bad, though, just not that great. Or maybe you have a spouse or g.f. putting in regular unleaded, instead of premium ! Hi, Knock sensor..most likely...my mileage improved dramatically when I changed mine, 19 MPG to 28 MPG......but I have ALLOT more miles on mine...... O2 sensor will throw a code and you will get a check engine lamp, knock sensor will NOT throw a code, so I suspect your knock sensor before an O2 sensor...there was a guy selling Nissan branded (new in the nissan parts box) knock sensors on ebay a while back, don't know if they are still listed.... that is where I got mine for about 1/2 the cost of the Stealers (dealers) price Good luck, 2Maximas > On May 9, 12:35 pm, assad.ja...@gmail.com wrote: >> Ok, here is the situation. I recently purchased an '00 maxima for a [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Or maybe you have a spouse or g.f. putting in regular unleaded, > instead of premium ! >Hi, >Knock sensor..most likely...my mileage improved dramatically when I changed [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >> Or maybe you have a spouse or g.f. putting in regular unleaded, >> instead of premium ! 19 to 18 mpg is normal in town,,,with maybe 26 at a constant 60 mph You got 28,,,doing what,,falling off a cliff,,???? not possible,,, .......... many, many lines deleted. > 19 to 18 mpg is normal in town,,,with maybe 26 at a constant 60 mph > > You got 28,,,doing what,,falling off a cliff,,???? > > not possible,,, I have a 2000 Nissan Maxima SE, automatic transmission, sunroof, with 130,000 miles. Just finished a 4894 mile, 2 week trip. from MN to Washington, DC, to Virginia to Florida to Mississippi to Arkansas to MN. This included lots of road miles, but also included a lot of city driving as I drove around the many cities I was going thru. My average gas mileage was - 28.16 mpg. I always used High Octane gas. Speed was about 5-7 miles over posted speed limit, sometime more at night. I used cruise control a lot, and had the A/C on. With 2 people in car, back seat half full, trunk completely full ( included cooler with drinks, ice, snacks, etc ). > <common_ s...@netscape.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > With 2 people in car, back seat half full, trunk completely full ( included > cooler with drinks, ice, snacks, etc ). Exactly. 28 mpg is entriely do-able in the 3.0. Maybe he's confusing the 2002 and later Maximas which have the 3.5. CD For lo, codifus <codifus@optonline.net> hath proclaimed: > Exactly. 28 mpg is entriely do-able in the 3.0. Maybe he's confusing > the 2002 and later Maximas which have the 3.5. I have a 2000 Infiniti I30 with the same 3.0 and 96,000 miles; I get 21-22 mpg in town and 27-28 on the highway, pretty consistently. (Worst tank ever was 18.5, during a period highlighted by two ice storms.) >For lo, codifus <codifus@optonline.net> hath proclaimed: >> Exactly. 28 mpg is entriely do-able in the 3.0. Maybe he's confusing [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >consistently. (Worst tank ever was 18.5, during a period >highlighted by two ice storms.) just about the same as I get with my 2000 max SE,, 28 "average" though is not possible. >> <common_ s...@netscape.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > >CD at a constant 55mph under ideal conditions yes,, but as an "average", for a car with an EPA rating of 19 city/27 highway - not possible. Sounds like Bob must have missed figuring in a fill up or two during his trip. > >> <common_ s...@netscape.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > Sounds like Bob must have missed figuring in a fill up or two during > his trip. Actually, under those conditions, in my 98 Max SE 5 speed, I got 33 MPG. I will *never* achieve that again, of course. It was just a test to see how well I could do. I was driving like a granny for the entire tankful. No AC, windows open, 55 mph almost constantly or down to 40 mph. Always in 5th gear. It helped that the scenery and weather was beautiful at the time while driving along so leisurely. CD > Sounds like Bob must have missed figuring in a fill up or two during > his trip. Please - give me a break. I did not miss figuring a fill up or two.. Just because your expierence is different- that DOES NOT mean that mine has to be the same as yours If you are so sure that you are correct - how much $$ would you like to back that up with ???? >> Sounds like Bob must have missed figuring in a fill up or two during >> his trip. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >If you are so sure that you are correct - how much $$ would you like to >back that up with ???? did you include that last refil,,? The car has an epa (ideal conditons) rating of 19 city, 27 highway - you claim that in mixed driving with 500 lbs on board, that you beat that,???? Simple physics/logic says no you did not,,, >>> Sounds like Bob must have missed figuring in a fill up or two during >>> his trip. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Simple physics/logic says no you did not,,, Are you really for real ???? and are you that ill informed ??? Why dont you put some money where your statements are ????? and why didn't you answer my very simple question which I will repeat here for you - how much $$ would you like to back your statements with ?? .And since you try to appear to be so smart --- since when did epa == ideal conditions ???? and why do you have such a hard time accepting truth ???? and yes, I did include that last fill up.... I dont know you from adam and yet you seem to insist that I am lying or trying to shade the issue .. and as for your comment -- > Simple physics/logic says no you did not,,, if you are claiming simple physics/logic - state it -- dont waffle around it. State IT !!!! Prove your simple physics / logic argument - Oh and by the way - trying using a Valid repy to address - I have tried to send you email and it bounced with invald email address... So what are you trying to hide ?????????????? Now - how about you answering all the questions ??? or go back to your little sandbox .... On May 23, 8:26 pm, common_ s...@netscape.com wrote: > ><common_ s...@netscape.com> wrote in message > >news:465104b1.6195671@news.west.cox.net... [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Simple physics/logic says no you did not,,, I didn't realize that EPA was a science . . . . . . . . Didn't the EPA recently revise their mileage estimating scheme such that if they tested the same car today that it tested a couple of years ago that car would get worse mileage? And doesn't the EPA always end its mileage estimates by saying "your mileage may vary?" Let it go, man. Let it go. CD > On May 23, 8:26 pm, common_ s...@netscape.com wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > CD I don't know if the EPA revised their scheme or not.. I don't really care if the EPA did or did not. I know what mileage my vehicles get. That is what is revelant to me... mpg, and $$ cost per mile. From your own statement in this posting --- > And doesn't the EPA always end its mileage estimates by saying "your > mileage may vary?" and yet from another posting - you had stated -- >> The car has an epa (ideal conditons) rating of 19 city, 27 highway - >> you claim that in mixed driving with 500 lbs on board, that you beat >> that,???? DO YOU NOT SEE YOUR OWN CONTRADICTION IN WHAT YOU POST ?????????? OR are you such that type of person that only what you say matters regardless of validity ??????? Yet - you refuse to accept that someone may get better mpg than "posted" by the epa and you have to "suggest" that I missed a couple of fill up or two, or the last fill up... However, you appear to not have the necessary equipment to back up what you post ... and you refuse to answer simple questions posted to you.. and now you want to slink away.... Again my questions to you -- 1. How much $$ do you want to put up to back up your statements ?? 2. Why don't you use a valid - reply to- email address in your posting ??? > > On May 23, 8:26 pm, common_ s...@netscape.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > > - Show quoted text - So now we're totally off - topic. I've gotten 26 and 31 mpg under the same conditions with an I30t 3.0L -- except when you check whether you had a nice tailwind or a headwind. That can make a big difference and be unnoticed as you go down the highway. It IS possible to get into the 30's range with a steady cruise at 65-75 mph. But doing it consistently? No, more like 27. >> > On May 23, 8:26 pm, common_ s...@netscape.com wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 82 lines] > steady cruise at 65-75 mph. But doing it consistently? No, more like > 27. FIRST: probably is a good thing that you stated you have an I30t or CD, or common_ s...@netscape.com , or codifus <codi...@optonline.net will be ripping on you that 31 mpg is not possible and he most likely will use the epa rating again. NEXT: interesting - you say 26 and 31 --- and then you pick 27... which is 1 up from the low side and 4 down from high side. 27 vs 28 --- 1 mpg difference.... is that such a stretch that you belive it can not happen?????? What I find so very interesting is that the ones who posted that my mileage is impossible ( and therefore I am lying ) and that the best mpg is only 21 to 27 mpg have not posed any facts ( ie - their own mileage records with date, miles, gals, etc ) NOR have they requested any. I check my mpg each fill up. I check my tires weekly, oil weekly, change air filter regularly, and keep current on whatever maintenance is needed. I try to take very good care of my vehicles... So, all you self proclaimed experts, you just go on in believing you know it all and that the world revolves around you. Just keep playing in your own little sandbox...... >>> > On May 23, 8:26 pm, common_ s...@netscape.com wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 108 lines] >all and that the world revolves around you. >Just keep playing in your own little sandbox...... so,,ranting Bob.. on a weekly basis - what mileage do you get? I did say, "more like" 27. That doesn't mean I doubt your claim of 28. At all. Cars are like people -- some make more hp. Some better mpg. Some more stable. Some less. >I did say, "more like" 27. That doesn't mean I doubt your claim of >28. At all. > >Cars are like people -- some make more hp. Some better mpg. Some >more stable. Some less. yes possible,,it would be what we statisticians call an "upper six sigma" event. however- back to the original post that I responded to. Going from 19 average, to 28 average - is not possible. On May 28, 6:34 pm, common_ s...@netscape.com wrote: > jmat...@attglobal.net wrote: > >I did say, "more like" 27. That doesn't mean I doubt your claim of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > however- back to the original post that I responded to. Going from 19 > average, to 28 average - is not possible. You know I think we're all ont he same page here. When you say average, I think you mean over several tankfulls. Others, like myself, can take average for that one tank, or several tankfulls. For one tank, it is entirelly possible to get 28 mpg, just as it is possible to go from 19 mpg to 28.Let's say a guy has a 2000 maxima. He drives in stop and go traffic all week. For that tank he got 19. Then on Sunday, after completely filling his tank, he took off on a road trip to some place at least 600 miles from where he lives. The next tankfull could achieve 28 mpg average for that tank. I'm sure you can see that happening. CD >On May 28, 6:34 pm, common_ s...@netscape.com wrote: >> jmat...@attglobal.net wrote: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >CD yes we definitely are, and I am not trying to be rude. But dam it,,,an average is not a single reading,,,!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Of anything,,,,, What has happened to basic math skills???? Hey - there was a multi post "serious" discussions on this group about "mile per tankfuls" - including comparing other vehicle, that had different gas tank sizes,,,!!!!.???? When I posted the proper procedure for calculating fuel mileage - somebody flamed me as wanting people to have PHDs,,,????>>!! It just gets frustrating sometimes - but then again, thats why the Japs and Chinese are wipping our collective butts... They go to school,,,and learn something,,,!!!!! the dam Maxima gets 18 to 19 in town, and 24 to 26 on the road - and thats good BTW,,,almost gets the EPA rating, an near miracle in itself, If yours gets more than that - sorry but no you do not own a miracle car, you simply can not do simple basic math properly, >>On May 28, 6:34 pm, common_ s...@netscape.com wrote: >>> jmat...@attglobal.net wrote: [ .... many lines deleted ... ] > Hey - there was a multi post "serious" discussions on this group about > "mile per tankfuls" - including comparing other vehicle, that had [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > If yours gets more than that - sorry but no you do not own a miracle > car, you simply can not do simple basic math properly, so, please, enlighten the group again. Please post your correct way to calculate mpg.... On May 29, 9:20 pm, common_ s...@netscape.com wrote: > >On May 28, 6:34 pm, common_ s...@netscape.com wrote: > >> jmat...@attglobal.net wrote: [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > But dam it,,,an average is not a single reading,,,!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Of > anything,,,,, 1 tank is about 18 gallons. for the 1st three gallaons the car may have been driven in the city-19 mpg. Then, for the next 4 gallons the car was on the highway stuck behind truck 45 most of the time. For all that time the car just remained in 5th gear-29 mpg. And so on etc. for the entire tank the average is taken as 512 miles/18 gallons. So 1 tank is more than one reading. > What has happened to basic math skills???? > > Hey - there was a multi post "serious" discussions on this group about > "mile per tankfuls" - including comparing other vehicle, that had > different gas tank sizes,,,!!!!.???? Yes, but were's limiting this discussion to one car with the same (or extremely similar) engine and same size tank. > When I posted the proper procedure for calculating fuel mileage - > somebody flamed me as wanting people to have PHDs,,,????>>!! I think you need to be a bit more flexible with your definition. But since you stated the procedure,at least you pointed out exactly how you get your numbers. > It just gets frustrating sometimes - but then again, thats why the > Japs and Chinese are wipping our collective butts... I think that's simply because American car makers only exist to profit as much as possible. They can make great cars, but don't want to. Example include the last year they made the C4 Corvette, the last model year of the Pontiac Fiero, the Buick Reatta, Oldsmobile Silhouette. Nootice a pattern of how they make a good car just before they kill it? > They go to school,,,and learn something,,,!!!!! > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > If yours gets more than that - sorry but no you do not own a miracle > car, you simply can not do simple basic math properly, CD >> > On May 23, 8:26 pm, common_ s...@netscape.com wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] >steady cruise at 65-75 mph. But doing it consistently? No, more like >27. exactly right,,,it is possible, steady state, under extra ideal conditons. what all of the other mad rantings in your included quoted text, are about are beyond me? People get so obsessived with this gas mileage thing,,,get a life. and btw - the epa figures are widely recognized as being 20 percent to generous. >> On May 23, 8:26 pm, common_ s...@netscape.com wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] >2. Why don't you use a valid - reply to- email address in your >posting ??? Bob Up your lithium,,,you are obviously quite disturbed. >On May 23, 8:26 pm, common_ s...@netscape.com wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > >CD yes they did,, and it lowers the epa estimates by about 20 to 30 percent for most cars. Making them much closer to the real world. |
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.