Nissan Murano Forum banner

1 - 20 of 42 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Well everybody I traded my Mo in for a Lexus IS350. I must say what a car for the money, everything I always wanted in a car. Luxury, performance, room for five an aggressive look all for 35800.00 out the door. My options were upgraded to 18 inch wheels spoiler and preferred accessory package. Window sticker was 37299.00. Well I'll still miss my mo for moving large items, and Home Depot trips. Well all good luck in the future and happy new year. Like everybody says they will probably check back to how everything is going with everybody's Mo, I will too.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,368 Posts
The IS is a great car. Best of luck and enjoy the ride.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,257 Posts
Very nice car.
I can't imagine how much more I would like the Murano if IT had the VQ tuned to 300 HP!


Homer
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
5,244 Posts
hfelknor said:
Very nice car.
I can't imagine how much more I would like the Murano if IT had the VQ tuned to 300 HP!


Homer
Homer,

what's the problem? A blower or two...................:D

Sorry, forgot about CVT.........oh and no RWD :(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,512 Posts
Homer,

You hit the nail on the head. If the MO was sporting 300 HP it would be a phenomenal piece of machinery!! That would probably give us close to 6 seconds in the 0 - 60 run. We would still be looking at jaak's tail-lights, but it would be one hell of a ride.

Maybe one day...

-njjoe
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
5,244 Posts
njjoe said:
Homer,

You hit the nail on the head. If the MO was sporting 300 HP it would be a phenomenal piece of machinery!! That would probably give us close to 6 seconds in the 0 - 60 run. We would still be looking at jaak's tail-lights, but it would be one hell of a ride.

Maybe one day...

-njjoe
nope, FX35 - 285HP, 0 - [email protected] Murano would need much more than 300HP to go sub 6s. But you are right - 300HP would have been nice............;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,257 Posts
That doesn't make sense Kris.

a bump of 40 HP only gets .2 secs?
I think the fact that the FX is geared differently is the main culprit here.
So I think FX vs Murano is Apples and Pumpkins.

If you bump the Murano by 55 HP, I would expect not sub 6s, that's not what joe said, but certainly into the 6s from 7.5.
And, it has been my experience that the more you tune an engine, the better throttle response you can expect.

Homer

BTW - I don't know for sure, but I have seen published numbers indicating that the FX is 200 pounds heavier than the Murano.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
5,244 Posts
Yes, MO FWD is at least 200 pounds lighter than FX35 AWD. So it must make a difference. Also CVT. This is probably the reason that FX35 is only 0.2 faster.

55HP extra it is approximately 20% increase. If the relation is linear 7.5 sec should go down to almost 6 sec! Hm, interesting......I guess CVT does make the difference and tuning the engine to what FX has would make a significant impact on MO performance. Eh, if only CVT could take it....:D
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,368 Posts
While Road and Track did get a 7.5s time on their Murano, all the other mags did it in around 8 seconds. So overall, the FX35 is noticeably (not just an absolute 0.2s) faster than the Murano. The FX's exhaust note is also nicer.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
5,244 Posts
Eric,

having driven both I do think FX is faster. And not just 0.2 sec. I do not think 0.2 sec would feel. But this is subjective. I would like to do a test for both cars. It would be interesting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,257 Posts
If you are going to test for 0-60, you have to determine a philosophy and stick with it.

Many mags will sit there with their foot on the brake and then floor it.
This will give you the "typical" 0-60 time. Apparently this is about 8 seconds.

But that fails to answer the question "How fast"?

Other, more enthusiast oriented groups, prefer to see what is the fastest 0-60 time.
R&T is an enthusiast magazine. They have always revved the car (Any car, not just this one) to the stall point and then floored it.
At the very least they will lock the TQ on the Murano.
The same as you would do if you took it to the track or were street racing the cousin that you hated.

The point is, the Murano is capable, and has been measured, at 7.5 seconds 0-60.

The FX is faster,
NOBODY diputes that.

Homer
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,368 Posts
hfelknor said:
If you are going to test for 0-60, you have to determine a philosophy and stick with it.

Many mags will sit there with their foot on the brake and then floor it.
This will give you the "typical" 0-60 time. Apparently this is about 8 seconds.

But that fails to answer the question "How fast"?

Other, more enthusiast oriented groups, prefer to see what is the fastest 0-60 time.
R&T is an enthusiast magazine. They have always revved the car (Any car, not just this one) to the stall point and then floored it.
At the very least they will lock the TQ on the Murano.
The same as you would do if you took it to the track or were street racing the cousin that you hated.

The point is, the Murano is capable, and has been measured, at 7.5 seconds 0-60.

The FX is faster,
NOBODY diputes that.

Homer
Yeah in the road test summary section of R&T they do say for automatic transmissions, they brake torque whenever possible.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,512 Posts
You know what I would fine interesting? If Nissan had a Murano AWD test mule that had all the CVT safeguards removed and let her rip. Could we see a 7-second run? I'd like to think so.

-njjoe
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
5,244 Posts
Homer,

I do recall reading a review and yes, they did brake torque the Murano to achieve 7.5 sec. And to be honest I can see the difference when you do it or just floor the gas.

FX - I really do not care how much faster it is. What would interest me is an identical test for Murano and FX35. Murano could be extra loaded to get the same weight. Why it interest me? Simply for the fact that Murano has CVT. Just curious how much difference it makes. And as njjoe said if only we could disengage CVT safety features on the Murano...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
252 Posts
we only get the IS250 in Australia, not the 350. I am assuming its just a bigger engine?

Nice looking car though very different to the MO. Good luck with it and Happy new year to all!
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
4,601 Posts
While you guys are testing the Murano against the FX and the IS, I'll scoot ahead and get the beer ordered.

:7:

Oh, and while we're at it, lookout for any old Dodge Caravans that say Turbo on the side. Many of them will beat an SRT8!

http://www.turbominivan.com/
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
5,244 Posts
Did some comparison between FX35 and Murano – see the table below. How to read it – FX35 AWD is 11% heavier, has 14% more power, 9% more torque. Important number however, is the power-to-weight ratio. And FX is winning here by 3%. If we were to believe in the 0-60 published times, FX is 3% quicker. So the HP/weight does count! What else – CVT does not seem to be a real factor here.

Having driven both I think FX is faster off the line but Murano catches up later. But it is how I feel it, cannot support it with any scientific data….maybe is time to go to a drag strip……….or but G-Tech….
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
828 Posts
I've seen figures somewhere that shown the FX-35 beating the MO in 0 - 60, but the MO beating the FX-35 in the 30 - 60 time.

As a matter of fact, the MO's 30 - 60 time was the same as the FX-45!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
Kris said:
Did some comparison between FX35 and Murano – see the table below. How to read it – FX35 AWD is 11% heavier, has 14% more power, 9% more torque. Important number however, is the power-to-weight ratio. And FX is winning here by 3%. If we were to believe in the 0-60 published times, FX is 3% quicker. So the HP/weight does count! What else – CVT does not seem to be a real factor here.

Having driven both I think FX is faster off the line but Murano catches up later. But it is how I feel it, cannot support it with any scientific data….maybe is time to go to a drag strip……….or but G-Tech….
Does the FX35 have the same basic engine? If so, then what is differant about it that the FX has additional HP? Can these differances be imported to the MO?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,512 Posts
jaak-

Thanx for posting the minivan website. It was great. Those guys are nuts.

The videos were especially fun to watch. They are running 12 second quarters in a plain Jane, stock-looking, 2.5L, 4-cylinder, grocery-hauling, family van!!! You have got to feel sorry for the guys in the other lane.

Thanx again.

-njjoe
 
1 - 20 of 42 Posts
Top