| pk7683 |
Hey guys was just wondering if lowering my car would only be a cosmetic advantage as compared to a performance advantage?
I have a 05 SE AWD.
Thanks! |
|
|
| GripperDon |
| Mostly cosmetic. Driving at high speed 60+ for a major potion of the time could help But I believe the increase in MPG would be less than 1 percent. |
|
|
| njjoe |
pk-
Theoretically, yes, lowering the center of gravity should reduce body roll when cornering. It would have no effect on straight-line acceleration.
-njjoe |
|
|
| Corin |
A lowered SUV? Are you kidding? What's the point? I think you bought the wrong vehicle.
I personally think the MO handles quite well for being an SUV. It has the power and the turning capabilities of a large car rather than an SUV. If that's not good enough for you, then you should really be looking at cars, not SUVs. |
|
|
| njjoe |
Since the MO is more of a crossover than an SUV, it would not be a mortal sin to lower it. I have seen pictures of one or two lowered MOs here on this forum, and while it is not my cup of tea, they did look pretty good.
-njjoe |
|
|
| pk7683 |
Thanks for the replies NJJoe and GripperDon. Great insight!
Anyone know what the process is in lowering an 05 SE? |
|
|
| Eric L. |
Its a tradeoff between lowering and "handling" - lower a little bit and you lower the center of gravity, which improves handling. Lower too much, and you sacrifice suspension compliance - if you hit a bump in midturn, you'll upset the chassis and that will lead to less control.
If you do lower, change out the struts/shocks to performance versions as well. Wait, there are NO performance shocks/struts for the Murano (that I know of), so I guess you are out of luck. The UK version of the MO has a prototype with Bilsteins, but I have no idea where we can get those. |
|
|
| SIM |
Let's face it, other than visual changes, nothing will convert the Murano into a speed bullet cornering like a sports car.
It was not designed from the base to be like that. And unless you go to the base, you will only damage the engineered balance ratio between comfort, handling, braking and power.
Efficiency:
Bigger wheels? Some may look nicer then OEM but they are heavier and the increased diameter makes it harder to stop, so longer stop distances in case of an emergency.
Rear spoiler? How many times do you drive at 100 MPH and what does it bring to a FWD other than more drag at that speed?
Body kit? What company put their kit through a wind tunnel to check the drag ratio? None that I know of so you usually end up with a higher drag and increased wind noise at cruising speed.
Lowered suspension? As stated earlier, unless you upgrade everything, struts, springs and torsion bars with a reputable aftermarket company like Bilstein, you end up with a dangerous vehicle in emergency situations.
All in all, changing the car external dynamics today usually only brings its efficiency down. |
|
|
| ColdFish |
| I lowered my MO with H&R spring sets made for Murano. The ride is much tighter and the handling is def better. The con is the bumps. They are twice as hard. It feels like the vehic bottoms out when you hit anything. I am searching for new springs:) |
|
|
| Eric L. |
quote:
Originally posted by ColdFish
I lowered my MO with H&R spring sets made for Murano. The ride is much tighter and the handling is def better. The con is the bumps. They are twice as hard. It feels like the vehic bottoms out when you hit anything. I am searching for new springs:)
If you kept the stock struts/shocks its likely the stock dampers are not up to the task of the lowered ride height either. I don't think changing springs will make a difference unless performance aftermarket dampers are available, and I don't think they are. |
|
|
| pk7683 |
quote:
Originally posted by ColdFish
I lowered my MO with H&R spring sets made for Murano. The ride is much tighter and the handling is def better. The con is the bumps. They are twice as hard. It feels like the vehic bottoms out when you hit anything. I am searching for new springs:)
Hey coldfish, checked out the pics in your gallery, Your MO looks real good lowered, it's different, yet subtle. How much did the whole setup cost you? |
|
|
| SExyMurano |
| :16: :16: :16: Lowering an SUV? :16: :16: :16: |
|
|
| njjoe |
quote:
Originally posted by SExyMurano
:16: :16: :16: Lowering an SUV? :16: :16: :16:
Hold on to that barf-bag. The MO is most definitely not an SUV. The Ford Bronco is an SUV. The Chevy Blazer is an SUV. The Dodge Durango is an SUV. The Nissan Murano is a passenger car with a futuristic-looking crossover body and a part-time AWD system.
-njjoe |
|
|
| SIM |
Well, sorry to disagree but what does SUV means? Sport Utility Vehicle.
The Murano is sporty, much more than a GMC Trailblazer or a Ford Bronco.
The Murano is a utility vehicle, offering a wide cargo area, a set of rool rails on which you can carry a wide array of stuff and an acceptable hauling capacity for a 3.5L. It can also do light off-roading and I have yet to see a $100,000 Cadillac Avalanche in the woods.
And the Murano is most definitely a vehicle.
It is a crossover because it borrows the chassis of a car instead of the traditional truck frame. But hey, who cares? Me, because I don't have to see my chiro as often as the other guys... :2: |
|
|
| Corin |
quote:
Originally posted by njjoe
Hold on to that barf-bag. The MO is most definitely not an SUV. The Ford Bronco is an SUV. The Chevy Blazer is an SUV. The Dodge Durango is an SUV. The Nissan Murano is a passenger car with a futuristic-looking crossover body and a part-time AWD system.
-njjoe
The Murano is classified as a "Crossover SUV". It's a type of SUV. It's an SUV with unibody construction. Still an SUV.
If the Toyota Rav 4 is an SUV, the Murano is an SUV.
I would personally classify the HUGE "SUV's" (Durango, Suburban, etc) as TRUCKS rather than SUV's, but that's just me.
The whole "Crossover" term, in my opinion, is simply marketing BS. As SUVs got larger and larger and larger, auto makers didn't want their "normal-sized" SUVs to be categorized the same way, so they came up with a new name.
My dad had one of the OLD Chevy Blazers. 1991, if I remember correctly. It wasn't any larger than the MO, and it was considered (and still is) an SUV.
Don't confuse the style of vehicle with the size. You wouldn't call a 4-door Scion xB a "coup" just because it's the size of a 2-door Accord. |
|
|
| Corin |
Sorry, one final note:
If the MO was classified as a CAR, then it would have to meet emission requirements for a CAR. But as an SUV, it has a different set of standards that are required. That's a big distinction. |
|
|
| Eric L. |
Well technically the Murano is a CAR. My reasoning is that it is based on the Altima/Maxima FF platform, which is a car. Crossovers are nothing more than "SUV-styled" equivalents of the modern station wagon, and should be driven as such. The image says SUV, but the substance is "big Altima." Its classified with the EPA as a truck since Nissan takes advantage of the MO's "close to 20mpg" average to offset their V8 vehicles which get considerably less mpgs. Its the same reason why the Chysler PT Cruiser and now the Dodge Caliber are considered a "truck" by the EPA.
But to each their own, as long as you enjoy the vehicle who cares what other people think it is. Even for those people who call the MO a truck (grrrr....ok I'll be nice). :D |
|
|
| njjoe |
quote:
Originally posted by Eric L.
Well technically the Murano is a CAR. My reasoning is that it is based on the Altima/Maxima FF platform, which is a car. Crossovers are nothing more than "SUV-styled" equivalents of the modern station wagon, and should be driven as such. The image says SUV, but the substance is "big Altima."
I agree 100%.
Bodywork alone does not make an SUV.
-njjoe |
|
|
| SIM |
Ok, so according to your statement, since the Escalade, Yukon, etc... are based on the GMC and Chevrolet pickup truck frame, they should be called trucks?
All modern SUV are based on existing frames, unibody or the older H-beam truck design. It doesn't change anything to the vocation of the vehicle. A Murano is not the same as an Altima nor a Maxima. It is closer to a truck than a car when you look at it from outside. When you drive it, it is closer to the feeling of driving a car, only that you are seated much higher.
It all brings us back to what SUV means and I'll be damned if the Murano does not fit the description of SUV. |
|
|
| Eric L. |
quote:
Originally posted by SIM
Ok, so according to your statement, since the Escalade, Yukon, etc... are based on the GMC and Chevrolet pickup truck frame, they should be called trucks?
All modern SUV are based on existing frames, unibody or the older H-beam truck design. It doesn't change anything to the vocation of the vehicle. A Murano is not the same as an Altima nor a Maxima. It is closer to a truck than a car when you look at it from outside. When you drive it, it is closer to the feeling of driving a car, only that you are seated much higher.
It all brings us back to what SUV means and I'll be damned if the Murano does not fit the description of SUV.
Yes truck frame = truck, regardless of how the outside looks. Car frame = car, regardless of how the outside looks. The MO is not a truck, but as long as you like it, its fine. |
|
|
| njjoe |
According to Merriam-Webster a Sport Utility Vehicle is defined as: a rugged automotive vehicle similar to a station wagon but built on a light-truck chassis. The MO is neither rugged nor built on a light-truck chassis. Those are facts.
Just because the marketing suits at Nissan elect to call it an SUV does not mean it is a true SUV. The suits knew they would sell more Muranos if they marketed it as an SUV instead of a station wagon.
I have owned only one SUV. It was a Jeep Grand Cherokee LTD V-8. It was ruggedly-built and utilized a light-truck chassis. I didn't want another SUV so I bought the MO. Compared to the Jeep, the MO is a sharp-looking and smooth-riding... car.
Personally I don't care what "they" call it. It meets 95% of my expectations so I bought it.
-njjoe |
|
|
| Corin |
And from here:
http://dictionary.reference.com/bro...ility%20Vehicle
it claims that it must be four-wheel drive as well, which means there are a LOT of vehicles out there that we call SUVs that aren't.
Also, by your definition, you could have a pickup with a uni-body frame that would no longer be considered a truck, huh? |
|
|
| Corin |
By the way, if you go to Edmunds.com and try to look for the Murano under CARS, you will not find it. Even looking under WAGONS, it's not there.
They even have Cars->Crossovers and Wagons->Crossovers. Not listed in either.
It IS listed under SUV->Crossovers.
Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmm....... |
|
|
| SIM |
Eric, I'm puzzled. If vehicles based on truck frames are trucks and vehicles based on car frames are cars, then what is a SUV? There is no such thing a s a SUV frame so I really have a hard time following your logic.
All SUVs are based either on car or truck frames. A SUV is not defined by its frame. It is defined by its features. It has to be a sporty and utilitarian vehicle. And according to a lot of people including reputed car magazine authors, Nissan's designers and marketing people, the MO fits exactly in the center of that sweet spot. |
|
|
| Eric L. |
This thread just shows how successful the marketing people have been. The crossover SUV is a very clever invention, appealing to those who want the SUV image but without the traditional SUV poor handling and gas mileage. The fact is that every crossover vehicle is based on a chassis originally designed for a car. Other SUVs such as say, the Pathfinder or Armada, are based on the chassis of their truck cousins, the Frontier and Titan. To me, that is a very clear distinction, car vs. truck. Do you consider the Civic based Honda CR-V a truck? Its basically what the Murano is to an Altima.
To me, an SUV can be a car or a truck, since it includes crossovers (car-based) and traditional SUV's (trucks-based).
If Nissan's marketing folks read this thread, they'd be giving each other high fives. Maybe it takes away the cool factor of a crossover if we call it a modern station wagon, but I already knew what the MO was when I bought it, and had no pretentions it was anything other than a big roomy Altima with a little more traction when it snows. |
|
|
| SIM |
quote:
To me, an SUV can be a car or a truck
Then we agree! :2: |
|
|
| njjoe |
quote:
Originally posted by Eric L.
To me, an SUV can be a car or a truck, since it includes crossovers (car-based) and traditional SUV's (trucks-based).
What a way to wimp out on that one. :p
-njjoe |
|
|
| Eric L. |
quote:
Originally posted by njjoe
What a way to wimp out on that one. :p
-njjoe
Hey I only said the MO is a car, never said it wasn't an SUV too. Maybe kind of a softie in the SUV crowd, but nonetheless the marketing folks have put them all into the same group. :p
I still stand by my original statement though, that the MO is definitely NOT A TRUCK! :3: |
|
|
| Eric L. |
quote:
Originally posted by SIM
Then we agree! :2:
Hey, we're all friends here, so no point in arguing about this, so I figured I'll take up the middle ground, you know, like a MO. ;) |
|
|
| SIM |
| Eric, you're the crossover of moderators but I hope that it only applies here otherwise I don't want to hear about it! :2: |
|
|
| Eric L. |
quote:
Originally posted by SIM
Eric, you're the crossover of moderators but I hope that it only applies here otherwise I don't want to hear about it! :2:
:D :D :D |
|
|
| Kris |
| Who really cares about SUV, trucks etc. This is all about naming conventions and marketing spill. I bought Murano for what it is. And I really do not care what it is called. Even if it was called a minivan......it does what it does....and it suits me.....at least for time being...;) |
|
|
| SIM |
Kris, I agree 100%.
It does not matter how anyone calls it. It is still the sportiest and smoothest machine of its kind and it still makes me smile when I drive it. |
|
|
| Eric L. |
What convenient timing - this question was posted on Cartalk this morning:
Dear Tom and Ray:
I've always owned an "old lady" car (i.e., Pontiac Bonneville, Oldsmobile 88, Buick LeSabre). But I recently bought a 2007 Toyota Highlander. While I love the vehicle, I'm concerned about how easily SUVs "tip" over. I know there's a higher percentage of these vehicles that end up in the "turtle on its back" position. My husband assures me that my driving skills will not tip it over; it's just the idiots who think they can do anything because they have an SUV. Am I worrying for nothing, or do I have to learn to drive all over again and not take corners like I did in my old-lady cars? Thanks. -- Cheryl
RAY: I don't think you have to worry, Cheryl. But I think Toyota might be concerned that its Highlander is winning the "old lady" market!
TOM: First of all, your Highlander is not a traditional SUV. It's what is often called a "crossover." Not to be confused with my brother, who is often called a "cross-dresser."
RAY: The term "crossover" usually refers to a vehicle that looks like an SUV and has many of the advantages of an SUV, but is actually built on the underpinnings of a car. In the Highlander's case, it's based on the chassis of the Toyota Camry.
TOM: That means its center of gravity is lower to the ground, it handles better and it's less likely to flip over. Think of it as more like a station wagon than a truck. And as an old lady, you certainly remember when station wagons ruled the earth.
RAY: Plus, the Highlander comes with electronic stability control, which is a wonderful safety enhancement that works with the anti-lock braking system to help prevent you from losing control of the vehicle, even if you do something stupid (up to a point), like turning too sharply.
TOM: Can you flip it over? I'm sure, given enough effort, you could -- or given an unfortunate set of gravitational circumstances in just the wrong kind of accident. But that's true of almost any vehicle.
RAY: But your Highlander is much closer to the old-lady cars than to traditional SUVs. So, drive reasonably -- which I'm sure you do, Cheryl -- and you'll be fine. |
|
|
| SIM |
I certainly agree that the Highlander looks and feels like an old-lady car. This is typical Toyota stuff. No fun but highly reliable.
The MO is better balanced. Maybe a little less reliable but SO MUCH MORE fun to drive! :D
The same comparison applies to a Corolla vs a Civic. Both cars are excellent but only one of them is fun to drive and feels safe over 60 mph in heavy rain. |
|
|
| Kris |
Recently, I guess 4 weeks ago, I rented Camry in Houston and drove it for a week. Inside car feels OK but terrible driving experience! I would never ever recommend Camry! You turn steering wheel and..........5 seconds later car starts turning!
After that I drove Pontiac GrandPrix with turbo over mountains of Nevada, Arizona, Utah, 10,000 feet aboe the sea level. There is no comparison with Camry! I would take Pontiac over Camry in a hear beat!
I am a fun of Toyota as a company, as a business. But if Camry I rented is any indication of "fun to drive" Toyota style - there are no Toyotas for me! Reliability is not the only aspect of a car I consider during buying. There is much more.....
But what all of these has to do with lowering Murano?
:D |
|
|
| SIM |
quote:
But what all of these has to do with lowering Murano?
Who anyway, in his right state of mind, would even think about doing something so criminal? :2: |
|
|
| tdmer |
quote:
Originally posted by Eric L.
What convenient timing - this question was posted on Cartalk this morning:
Dear Tom and Ray:
TOM: That means its a station wagon. And as an old lady, you certainly remember when station wagons ruled the earth.
Yup! |
|
|
| njjoe |
quote:
Originally posted by Eric L.
you certainly remember when station wagons ruled the earth.
Yeah.... :4: We once had a Pontiac Grand Safari Station Wagon with a monstrous (by today's standards) big-block 455 cid engine. It produced in the neighborhood of 400 lb-ft of torque, and that's a nice neighborhood. :D Unfortunately, that much torque is a rarity today.
-njjoe |
|
|
| dborla01 |
Interesting discussion. I have never liked truck based suv's. Too high, and heavy and gas guzzlers, not to mention rather ugly.
We had ordered a Honda Pilot in Dec. of 02 but when MO came in, we drove it and never looked twice at Pilot except to comment on it's ugly (Toyota) looks. Had good luck with MO and scant reliability problems. Sold it almost two years ago and still are attracted to modern ones.
A friend of ours, who we may be in business with, has an almost new Pilot. I drove it and it was BORING as compared to MO. :o |
|
|
| GripperDon |
| My youngest son (36) just got a new Pilot and I drove it boring, well done but no spark or interest. I recently drove a Civic and an Accord I also was not impressed. They may be reliable but not exciting, as least to me. Nissan seems much more on the edge. |
|
|
| SIM |
Inspiring cars. Nissan cars like the Max and the MO are Japanese BMWs.
The Civic used to be fun to drive. Now it's too big. The S2000 is another thing though, and in another price bracket... |
|
|
| Corin |
quote:
Originally posted by dborla01
A friend of ours, who we may be in business with, has an almost new Pilot. I drove it and it was BORING as compared to MO. :o
Now there's some additional input to this discussion. What do you guys consider the Pilot to be? It's a uni-body design, considered a cross-over SUV. Do you consider it to be more of an SUV than the Murano? If so, why? If not, how come the Pilot is a car, while the old Toyota Rav 4 is an SUV? |
|
|
| Eric L. |
quote:
Originally posted by Corin
Now there's some additional input to this discussion. What do you guys consider the Pilot to be? It's a uni-body design, considered a cross-over SUV. Do you consider it to be more of an SUV than the Murano? If so, why? If not, how come the Pilot is a car, while the old Toyota Rav 4 is an SUV?
It depends whether you think SUV can only be a truck based vehicle like a Suburban or 4Runner. In the past ten years, SUV's have split into a) traditional (truck based), and b) crossover (car based).
The Pilot is identical to the Murano is basic design - build an SUV looking (i.e. higher off the ground) vehicle on a car chassis (Murano = Altima, Pilot = Accord). The older RAV4 is also a car-based crossover SUV, based on the Corolla platform, although I think the current RAV4 has its own platform. |
|
|
| GripperDon |
| Third Row of Seats. Sitting beside a Mo it is significantly bigger. |
|
|
| pob312 |
quote:
Originally posted by Eric L.
[B]
Pilot = Accord
Care to share a source?
Everything I've read shows: Pilot=Odyssey=MDX. |
|
|
| Eric L. |
quote:
Originally posted by pob312
Care to share a source?
Everything I've read shows: Pilot=Odyssey=MDX.
All of them are on an extended Accord platform, much like the Maxima, Altima, Murano, and Quest all share the same FF platform in one variant or another (well they used to, Altima is now on the D platform).
Its like how the Camry shares a platform with the Highlander, Sienna, RX, and ES. Ford has gotten into the game too, using the Mazda 6's underpinnings as the basis for the Ford Fusion, Ford Edge and its Lincoln Mercury cousins. Ford also uses the older Volvo S80 platform on the Five Hundred (now the Taurus), Land Rover LR2, and Ford Freestyle (now the Taurus X.....w00t!)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acura_MDX |
|
|
| SIM |
What is coming out of this discussion is that everyone is both right and wrong and everyone has his own opinion of what a SUV is or should be.
I would personally exclude all 4 bangers from this denomination since they have a very limited hauling capacity of 2000 pounds (class I) and thus are very limited utility vehicles but this is my humble opinion.
And the CX-7 would be the only 4 cylinders vehicle sporty enough to be called a SUV for me as well if it was not limited to a class I hitch like the rest. |
|
|
|
