It's wonderfully wacky, and the surface changes are interesting.
Power comes from the old-as-shit 3.5L VQ, mated to the now ubiquitous CVT auto.
Drag is very low (0.31 CD, not a mean feat for a big tall car like this) , as well as a weight trimming of over 100lbs. It's physically slightly bigger, but probably not by a huge amount.
http://www.autoblog.com/2014/04/14/2015-nissan-murano-revealed-photos/ (http://www.autoblog.com/2014/04/14/2015-nissan-murano-revealed-photos/)
(http://o.aolcdn.com/dims-shared/dims3/GLOB/crop/1159x778+56+21/resize/628x417!/format/jpg/quality/85/http://o.aolcdn.com/hss/storage/midas/3b631e0b6cd9f3c0696817074773b994/200028645/2015_nissan_murano_08.jpg)
Without the upper boomerang it'd look a lot cleaner.
Quote from: hotrodalex on April 14, 2014, 10:06:40 AM
Without the upper boomerang it'd look a lot cleaner.
Well, the Murano was always supposed to look funkier than other Nissans. I think it should stay as is.
The big chrome "U" in the grille is ugly. Otherwise it looks alright.
Looks pretty good but I will wait till the new CX-9 comes out.
Quote from: SVT666 on April 14, 2014, 11:34:17 AM
The big chrome "U" in the grille is ugly. Otherwise it looks alright.
The metal "U" is the new Tooth!
Looks great imo
It looks forced, but so did the successful first-gen. At least Nissan didn't repeat the second-gen mistake of tentative updates to a car that's supposed to be adventurous to look at.
I don't think it looks "forced" at all...this one or the first one.
Looks good
Hmm, the real test will be what it is like to drive.
I really liked the first gen car, which sounded like a 350Z with an SUV body, went well, drove well, looked decent. They even sold a fair few in Europe.
This vacation I got to test the second gen car, and I expected it to be no unlike the first model. How wrong could I be. Talk about a blandification - it sounded ordinary, was nothing special to drive, and although there was nothing really wrong with it, there was no good reason I could think of why you would specially want one either. Even after they put a diesel in it, it bombed in Europe, and now I know why.
Let's hope the third gen car rediscovers some of the original mojo - somehow, I fear it won't. It looks like a slightly enlarged Qashqai/Rogue/XTrail from the front with a vulgar over-sized grille - so the omens are not good.
Im not sure the 1st gen Murano sounded like a Z... 1st gen FX35 def did
This thing looks good aside from the U grille.
Wait, are you telling me that this is the 3rd gen Murano? There was a 2nd gen?
Quote from: Raza on April 15, 2014, 08:13:46 AM
Wait, are you telling me that this is the 3rd gen Murano? There was a 2nd gen?
(http://static.cargurus.com/images/site/2008/01/19/12/39/2009_nissan_murano-pic-50782.jpeg)
Wasn't the 2nd gen just a facelift?
Quote from: MX793 on April 15, 2014, 10:34:20 AM
Wasn't the 2nd gen just a facelift?
If so, it was a pretty extensive face lift. New everything, including (I think) a new gen of CVT mated to it.
Quote from: MX793 on April 15, 2014, 10:34:20 AM
Wasn't the 2nd gen just a facelift?
Nope, Nissan just didn't know how to advance the styling.
It's a Mazda CX-7 with a big nose.
(http://www.davesdiscountautoparts.com/wimages/CX-7.jpg)
Does Nissan even have a new engine lined up so are they going to milk the VQ for as long as they can? The thing is what? 15 years old?
Quote from: NomisR on April 25, 2014, 10:14:00 AM
Does Nissan even have a new engine lined up so are they going to milk the VQ for as long as they can? The thing is what? 15 years old?
Yeah its getting real old.
Quote from: Colin on April 14, 2014, 06:12:29 PM
Hmm, the real test will be what it is like to drive.
I really liked the first gen car, which sounded like a 350Z with an SUV body, went well, drove well, looked decent. They even sold a fair few in Europe.
This vacation I got to test the second gen car, and I expected it to be no unlike the first model. How wrong could I be. Talk about a blandification - it sounded ordinary, was nothing special to drive, and although there was nothing really wrong with it, there was no good reason I could think of why you would specially want one either. Even after they put a diesel in it, it bombed in Europe, and now I know why.
Let's hope the third gen car rediscovers some of the original mojo - somehow, I fear it won't. It looks like a slightly enlarged Qashqai/Rogue/XTrail from the front with a vulgar over-sized grille - so the omens are not good.
Sounds perfect for the current generation of drivers. Just plain ugly.
Quote from: Catman on April 25, 2014, 02:11:20 PM
Yeah its getting real old.
The 2.5 in the Altima/Rogue is long in the tooth too and it wasn't terribly great it when it was new either.
Quote from: Xer0 on April 26, 2014, 10:38:55 AM
The 2.5 in the Altima/Rogue is long in the tooth too and it wasn't terribly great it when it was new either.
The QR is a fair bit younger than the VQ (which turns 20 this year). But you're right, it's a pretty mediocre engine and while Nissan has made some updates to it over the years, it still doesn't make anybody's list of great engines.
It sounds soooooo bad with a CVT.
It's not like a regular auto makes engines sound better...
The CVT does tend to keep engines in a narrow power band for efficiency. It may not modify the sound per se but it sure affects the experience of the sound if that makes sense,
Cvt's just drone. Uh, it's awful.
It's not like at a constant speed regular autos are just changing gears....
I spend a fair amount of time driving CVTs (rental cars) and really don't mind them at all. They kind of suck when paired with a 4-cylinder, but then so do most automatics. But, I had a Maxima last weekend, and the CVT didn't bother me one bit.
SUV with a CVT though? That just sounds wrong to me.. well, VQ with a CVT sounds wrong too..
I like the VQ - does the job fine, competetive fuel economy and NHV, as well as power output.
Oh and it's dependable.
Quote from: NomisR on April 25, 2014, 10:14:00 AM
Does Nissan even have a new engine lined up so are they going to milk the VQ for as long as they can? The thing is what? 15 years old?
Sounds like what GM did with the 3.8, 3.1 , 5.7....etc.
Quote from: Laconian on April 26, 2014, 09:08:46 PM
It sounds soooooo bad with a CVT.
Yea I dont think I could ever get used to this
2009 Maxima 0-130mph - CVT - intake, grounding kit only (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMcXd0E62LQ#)
I dont see the problem with the VQ. LSx, Honda's V6 and a bunch of other engines are just as old. I tell you what though. I'd rather have a 20 year old VQ than a brand new 2.0T.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on June 24, 2014, 06:12:55 AM
Yea I dont think I could ever get used to this
2009 Maxima 0-130mph - CVT - intake, grounding kit only (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMcXd0E62LQ#)
I dont see the problem with the VQ. LSx, Honda's V6 and a bunch of other engines are just as old. I tell you what though. I'd rather have a 20 year old VQ than a brand new 2.0T.
No you wouldn't. You like shit characterless engines made by VW.
Quote from: Char on June 24, 2014, 01:03:16 PM
No you wouldn't. You like shit characterless engines made by VW.
Lol, which is why I drive an Audi TT and not a 350Z, and have owned a ton of turbo VWs and not Maximas. Wait, actually no.
What do you drive again?
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on June 24, 2014, 06:12:55 AM
Yea I dont think I could ever get used to this
2009 Maxima 0-130mph - CVT - intake, grounding kit only (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMcXd0E62LQ#)
I dont see the problem with the VQ. LSx, Honda's V6 and a bunch of other engines are just as old. I tell you what though. I'd rather have a 20 year old VQ than a brand new 2.0T.
I love CVTs with big engines
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on June 24, 2014, 06:12:55 AM
Yea I dont think I could ever get used to this
2009 Maxima 0-130mph - CVT - intake, grounding kit only (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMcXd0E62LQ#)
I dont see the problem with the VQ. LSx, Honda's V6 and a bunch of other engines are just as old. I tell you what though. I'd rather have a 20 year old VQ than a brand new 2.0T.
Jesus that sounds terrible
Quote from: CALL_911 on June 25, 2014, 09:01:01 AM
Jesus that sounds terrible
Some folks really love it
They really shouldn't. That sounds horrible.
And it also just looks slow.
With a powerful engine, you're not hearing the steady volume for a sustained period of time unless you're trying, as in this case, to get up to 130 mph. It's just not going to be a problem very often.
Quote from: ifcar on June 25, 2014, 12:10:17 PM
With a powerful engine, you're not hearing the steady volume for a sustained period of time unless you're trying, as in this case, to get up to 130 mph. It's just not going to be a problem very often.
That may be, but it still sounds shitty under hard acceleration
Yah when I give my car the goose I want to hear a thousand lions charging, not Tina from Bobs Burgers on steroids.
But for a car I dont drive for pleasure anyway (i.e. wifey's ride), no biggie. That thing had an intake and exhaust, I think. I doubt a stock Maxima is that loud.
SHIFT ALREADY YOU DUMB TRANSMISSION!
Also, seems very hard on the engine to keep constant high rpms like that.
Quote from: hotrodalex on June 25, 2014, 03:40:17 PM
SHIFT ALREADY YOU DUMB TRANSMISSION!
Also, seems very hard on the engine to keep constant high rpms like that.
Like has been pointed out, that is a rare event in a normal car
I had a CVT in the Freestyle we used to own. It was cool on road trips where you are going up and down hills for hours at a time on cruise. The revs change, but there's no downshifting, or speed fluctuations. In city driving or just normal running around with it, the noise was annoying.
Shit that maxima looks slow.
I've had a couple of Maximas and a Murano with the VQ CVT combo as rental cars. Didn't bother me at all around town and found them to be quite pleasant vehicles, much more so than the Altima with the I4 CVT combo, which I've had three or four times.
sounds like a Plane LOL just humming along
I kinda dig the looks of the Murano and always have. But the VQ is just too much of a gas guzzler for my liking.
As for the CVT, I just don't know. The only CVT car I've ever driven was a 1998 Honda Civic HX coupe and it felt weird. When I put it in reverse it made such a godawful noise I thought I had broken it. Nope, turns out they all sounded like that. I certainly hope CVTs have improved over the last sixteen years.
Quote from: Madman on July 02, 2014, 09:18:56 PM
I kinda dig the looks of the Murano and always have. But the VQ is just too much of a gas guzzler for my liking.
As for the CVT, I just don't know. The only CVT car I've ever driven was a 1998 Honda Civic HX coupe and it felt weird. When I put it in reverse it made such a godawful noise I thought I had broken it. Nope, turns out they all sounded like that. I certainly hope CVTs have improved over the last sixteen years.
They have, although they still exude weirdness.
Quote from: Madman on July 02, 2014, 09:18:56 PM
I kinda dig the looks of the Murano and always have. But the VQ is just too much of a gas guzzler for my liking.
As for the CVT, I just don't know. The only CVT car I've ever driven was a 1998 Honda Civic HX coupe and it felt weird. When I put it in reverse it made such a godawful noise I thought I had broken it. Nope, turns out they all sounded like that. I certainly hope CVTs have improved over the last sixteen years.
I didn't even know CVT's were available back then
Quote from: SVT_Power on July 03, 2014, 11:34:25 PM
I didn't even know CVT's were available back then
The late-'90 Civic HX was a fuel miser special that could be had with either a five speed manual or a CVT. But, because gasoline was practically free at the time, nobody bought it.
By the way, DAF introduced the Van Doorne Variomatic CVT in the DAF 600 way back in 1958.
Quote from: Madman on July 02, 2014, 09:18:56 PM
I kinda dig the looks of the Murano and always have. But the VQ is just too much of a gas guzzler for my liking.
As for the CVT, I just don't know. The only CVT car I've ever driven was a 1998 Honda Civic HX coupe and it felt weird. When I put it in reverse it made such a godawful noise I thought I had broken it. Nope, turns out they all sounded like that. I certainly hope CVTs have improved over the last sixteen years.
Nissan CVT's are the best in the biz. They're pretty adept at finding the correct gear ratio, and matching correctly without too much rubber banding .
Chrysler/Mitsubishi, however, have some of the worst.
From what I've read the Subaru high torque CVT is bettars
I had a Sentra in LA. It was surprisingly good.
The 2007 Maxima we had was good.
The last gen Altima was my go-to rental of choice. The CVT was a little odd at first but I grew to like it a lot. Ex's Murano wasn't bad either. I really had no complaints about the recent Nissan CVTs.
Quote from: Madman on July 04, 2014, 07:11:59 AM
The late-'90 Civic HX was a fuel miser special that could be had with either a five speed manual or a CVT. But, because gasoline was practically free at the time, nobody bought it.
By the way, DAF introduced the Van Doorne Variomatic CVT in the DAF 600 way back in 1958.
Daimler and Benz patented a type of friction belt CVT back in 1886. American inventor and automotive pioneer Milton Reeves invented a CVT in the 1870s for use in saw mills and later adapted it into his cars in the 1890s (Reeves is also credited with inventing the muffler).
Quote from: MX793 on July 06, 2014, 07:30:00 AM
Daimler and Benz patented a type of friction belt CVT back in 1886. American inventor and automotive pioneer Milton Reeves invented a CVT in the 1870s for use in saw mills and later adapted it into his cars in the 1890s (Reeves is also credited with inventing the muffler).
The friction belt type cvts were in widespread use on electric industrial motors until the early '90s, when the inverter VFD became useful.
Unfortunately, I'm apparently not related to him or any other notable Reeveses
Quote from: CJ on July 04, 2014, 04:33:18 PM
I had a Sentra in LA. It was surprisingly good.
I had one in Memphis a couple of years ago. It was shitty.
Quote from: Raza on July 27, 2014, 08:02:10 PM
I had one in Memphis a couple of years ago. It was shitty.
That's like saying you drove a Jetta III once so all Jettas are shit
Quote from: 2o6 on July 27, 2014, 08:32:16 PM
That's like saying you drove a Jetta III once so all Jettas are shit
Lol. Dude I am loving your new no BS posting style. Keep it up
Quote from: Raza on July 27, 2014, 08:02:10 PM
I had one in Memphis a couple of years ago. It was shitty.
It was by no means a good car, just not as bad as I thought it was going to be. The Ford Focus I had lunched its transmission, so anything was an improvement.
Quote from: 2o6 on July 27, 2014, 08:32:16 PM
That's like saying you drove a Jetta III once so all Jettas are shit
It was the same generation Sentra, I believe. It was shitty. Has there been a new Sentra lately?
Quote from: CJ on July 28, 2014, 08:58:30 AM
It was by no means a good car, just not as bad as I thought it was going to be. The Ford Focus I had lunched its transmission, so anything was an improvement.
No power, I hate CVTs, but it was easy to see out of and surprisingly roomy. I could see why someone would buy one, if they didn't like the funk of the comparable Civic.
Quote from: Raza on August 07, 2014, 03:58:34 PM
It was the same generation Sentra, I believe. It was shitty. Has there been a new Sentra lately?
Yes...
Redesigned for the 2013 model year, updated again for 2014. Neither very nice to drive, but indeed roomy.
Quote from: ifcar on August 09, 2014, 04:17:47 AM
Redesigned for the 2013 model year, updated again for 2014. Neither very nice to drive, but indeed roomy.
Ah. Had no idea.
As you can imagine, it's not a segment of the market to which I pay much attention.