Talk:Nissan Maxima

message: Image:00-01 Nissan Maxima.jpg|New image
Image:2001 Nissan Maxima GXE.jpg|Existing image I replaced
I uploaded the image of the white Maxima today to replace the existing silver one because I felt the angle showed the car better, and the image was of sufficient quality. User:Rarelibra doesn't like the new image. Does anyone else have any preference? IFCAR 02:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The white image is fuzzy (and smaller), the car is dirty (look at the shine on the gold one!), and the gold one still fits within the 3/4 view standard. The white one is also a GXE, while the gold one appears to be an SE (due to the color-coded door handles) - a better one to show (especially with the optional 17" 6-spoke Nissan tires, rather than the 'plain' 15" ones on the white one). Also, the gold one does not have a front license plate - giving a more 'cleaner' look, as opposed to the white one, which the license plate takes away from. Need I go on? You don't need to go around replacing images if they are of a good quality, Keizen or not. In this case, I believe the white one does not qualify as "better". Rarelibra 03:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Also keep in mind, if someone else uses your same "Keizen" approach, then your images will also continue to be replaced. This will create an endless amount of unnecessary edits, potentially. Focus on the images that need replacing. Rarelibra 03:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's bigger, and in no way fuzzy. It's just how the car looks. And as I've said many times, there is no way to "focus" on cars that don't have a picture. If I see it, I take it, and if the picture is an improvement, it goes in. In almost no circumstances is a perfect picture in use. But, we will see if there is any other feedback. IFCAR 13:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The image of the white car shows the side and the front of the car in more or less equal proportions. Why does it matter that the gold car has "nicer" rims on it when you can barely see them? --Sable232 14:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The image of the gold car also shows the side and front - the front even more, by comparison. It does matter about showing better options - and you can see them (don't understand the "barely" comment). Rarelibra 15:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Overall the gold car is a better candidate for an article (it's cleaner, no license plate, etc). BUT the gold car has another car in the photo which detracts from the focus and also the gold car isn't at the best of angles (not bad, but could be better). Although there could be a better candidate the white one isn't it. It looks almost milky and washed out. I say gold car stays. ren0talk 16:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The white image has a better composition. The gold image is of better image quality. I'm always partial to quality images, but in this case the white image is more encyclopedic and, therefore, is better for this article. Roguegeek (talk) 17:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd also like to note the following. I prefer the white image for this article, but it's very hard to turn down the gold image due to the license plate bracket not installed. This is, in my opinion, very important because license plates are a major region defining feature and it's always a good thing to have non-region specific images. Roguegeek (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Rarelibra 17:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2000-2001 Maxima image 

message: Uh, was anyone making five speed automatics in 1981? TJSwoboda (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  First generation Maxima transmission 

message: Time for a photo of the 2009- Maxima for the top display.  If anybody has one, please put it up. Crazykrazyqrazy (talk) 23:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Update

message: The article cites a number of typical problems with this generation, to wit: 
"The fifth-generation Maximas have a number of common problems: ignition coils, MAF sensor, TPS (Throttle position sensor) and IACV-AAC (Idle control valve).[citation needed] Users should be particularly aware of the IACV problem which can short out the ECM leading to a very costly repair.[citation needed] All of these faults trigger the check engine light.[citation needed] This generation of Maxima also sees Nissan introducing a Bridgestone-made engine mount with sensors that communicate with the ECM. Many transmission-like problems such as 'unable to shift into higher gears' are resulted from worn engine mounts triggering signals to prevent the vehicle gaining higher speed. This problem was not often detected by the diagnostics conducted on the transmission and ECM as they were not the cause of the problem."
However, I am the original owner of a late 2001 Maxima SE 5-sp (Japan made, American marketed) and, after almost 12 years and 160K (non-pampering) miles, I have experienced NONE of the 5 "common" problems cited - nor am I aware of the "commonality" of these problems that - in any case - may have been addressed by technical bulletins from Nissan and fixed under warranty. I wonder if these were problems with the 2000s and, possibly, early 2001s that were ironed out by late 2001. Alternatively, early models (2000) of this generation sold in the U.S. came in both CA- and non-CA-emission standards, but by 2001, all models marketed in the U.S. - including mine - were made to CA-emission standards which might have cleared up a lot of these "common" problems. In any case, I think a citation of some "authoritative source" (and, if the engine mount problem was confined to automatic transmission models, then say so) or the whole passage should be dropped and problem descriptions left to more appropriate and authoritative sources.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.1.215 (talk) 19:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The section is currently tagged as needing sources - I always suggest waiting a month or two before deleting uncited content, but unless cited I agree that it should be removed. You could also use the page history to find out who added the things and ask them to provide a source. Lastly, just because nothing has gone wrong with your car doesn't mean that there couldn't be problems.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Uncited problems

message: Yes, the Maxima does qualify for the full-size and executive car segment. It is not the overall dimensions, nor the EPA, nor Consumer Guides, nor the official automaker website (e.g. Nissan USA), or anything else, that makes a car in a size segment (i.e. subcompact, compact, mid-size, full-size). IT IS THE WIDTH THAT DOES, AS WELL AS THE LENGTH! The Maxima is 73.2 inches wide, so that means it is a full-size car. It is 190.6 inches long, like many mid-size cars. Wheelbase and height are nothing but legroom and headroom creators. This is how classes are defined by today's standards:
Subcompact = less than 70.5 inches wide or 175 inches long
Compact = less than 71.5 inches wide or 185 inches long
Mid-size = less than 72.5 inches wide, and less than 195 inches long
Full-size = 72.5 inches wide or wider, more than 190 inches long 166.137.191.32 (talk) 18:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, we always go by the EPA. Richard Nosehard (talk) 04:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full-size 

message: Hi, I was wondering what the 3-litre Maxima's model code was? As far as I can tell, PU11 (currently listed as its code) is only for the JDM 2.0 V6. I've seen officialish mention of U11/WU11 for the three-litre Maxima and Maxima Wagon, which would make some sense as it is the main model, but would be confusing since U11/WU11 is also the model code for the CA18-engined Bluebird of the same era. Anyone have access to manuals or suchlike? Cheers,  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Maxima U11 model code?

message: This article is improperly classified under "belts" instead of "car model" JDM Jason (talk) 03:34, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improperly classified 

message: When searching for the page, it appears that it is listed under “Belts” for some reason? Sir hobbes3 (talk) 18:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shows up as “belts” in search 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion