You are right

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.

 

pk-

Theoretically, yes, lowering the center of gravity should reduce body roll when cornering. It would have no effect on straight-line acceleration.

-njjoe

 

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.

 

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

 

You can do just about anything to make a nice looking car look like crap...

 

Thanks for the replies NJJoe and GripperDon. Great insight!

Anyone know what the process is in lowering an 05 SE?

 

You can do just about anything to make a nice looking car look like crap...

:2: :5: :2: :5: :2: Nice video. Someone was proud enough to take a video of her.

Some might say beauty is in the eye of the beholder (or modder, as the case may be).

-njjoe

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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?

 

:16: :16: :16: Lowering an SUV? :16: :16: :16:

 

: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

 

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:

 

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.

 

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.

 

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).

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

And from here:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Sport Utility Vehicle

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?

 

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.......

 

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.