Nissan Murano Forum banner

1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
95 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I know it is hard... but...

What is the realistic 0 to 60 for MO?

I have seen anywhere from 7.5 to 8.9
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
203 Posts
I have no clue but this will throw you off even more.Copy/paste from Motor Week road tests


2003 Nissan Murano

Engine 3.5-liter DOHC V6

Horsepower 245

Torque 246 lb feet

0-60 mph 7.0 seconds :2:

1/4 mile 15.6 seconds @ 90 mph

60-0 mph 124 feet

EPA Mileage 20 mpg city
24 mpg highway
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,285 Posts
What is realistic?


I think they all are. Maybe.

Do you want to time your car while putting the car in gear, holding the brake with your left foot and preload the transmission to about 1000 RPm with your right foot and floor it and lift the brake synultaneously? I think that will get you "about" 7.5 secs depending on gas used, altitude, Barometric pressure, temperature and humidity, track temperature, track surface, tire temperature, Tire pressure, and probably some more things that escape me at the moment.

Do you want to do the same as above but preload the tranny at maybe 5000 rpm (Some experimantation is required)? This will insure that the torque converter is llocked and if you don't burn things up, you will proabably set the fastest time.
This is likely the only way you are going to get 7.0 secs.
Plus it has to be an SL FWD American (not Canadian) model with a very small man or even a slim girl driving.
It's the weight you know.

The major difference is often in testing techniques.

And sometimes the cars coming off the assy line actually vary.
A Lot.
Sometimes it is based on When they are manufactured/tested.

Twice now, people have tested Mazda pre production cars (Miata and now the RX8) and changes were made that reduced the HP by the time the car got in production. If you bought an early RX8, Maxda will give you back your money.
The HP difference between pre-production and production was significant.

And there are changes rolled into production. Not all changes are done at model year.

Who's to know that the current MO is faster than the early MO?
Or the other way around?
Maybe a change in the CVT profile?

I like to think of the MO as an 8.0 second machine.

IMO the hotrodding of the MO will concentrate on the ECU and the CVT.

Homer
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
472 Posts
The FWD drive car is lighter than the AWD by about 150 pounds but the AWD car should have much better traction at the start if one is trying to get max acceleration by reving the engine before releasing the brakes. It probably depends on driver technique which car is faster.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26 Posts
Speaking of 0 - 60 does anyone else have a problem of keeping there Rano under 60mph. Had mine up to 110 mph and could not believe how smooth and stable it was. Unreal!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
792 Posts
I really don't think the Murano has a traction disadvantage. Is it really easy to spin the tires in a FWD model? I know I can't in the AWD.

I think 0-60 in 7.0 is very unrealistic. Its quick - but not that quick.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
37 Posts
I think the people at Motor Week are much more likely to put an experienced driver in the seat and wring out the most the car can give. They review all types of cars and trucks including high end sports cars. I suspect, but can't confirm, that they would certainly get more from a car than say, Consumer Reports, who like things safe, secure and unthreatening.

But let's say it is between 7 and 8 seconds. For those of us who don't keep up with this sort of thing, what other types of cars/suvs get this sort of 60 time?

George
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26 Posts
The original Motorweek review that was televised and printed (which was reduced on their web site currently due to being dated) was with an early 2003 AWD Murano not a FWD. So, considering the FWD is lighter than the AWD, it is very likley a FWD could have recorded sub 7 second times.
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top