Rare Rides Icons, The Nissan Maxima Story (Part VI)

Corey Lewis
by Corey Lewis
rare rides icons the nissan maxima story part vi

It turned out that 1994 was a high point for the Nissan Maxima. The third-generation sedan was just about the ideal mix of driving dynamics, quality, luxury, and whiz-bang tech features. It was offered in well-equipped GXE trim for lovers of comfort, and sportier SE for Sports Enthusiasts (or something). After its introduction for the 1989 model year, Nissan made relatively few changes to its impressive sedan.

Sales were around 100,000 units in its first two years, and then around 85,000 for the next two years. But in its final model year of 1994 the third gen’s sales nearly doubled, to 163,138. It was time for a new Maxima in 1995. It was a generation that branched out to become other interesting vehicles but also started the model’s decline.


The Japanese economic bubble that had created the excellent late Eighties and early Nineties Japanese cars had burst by the end of the third-gen Maxima. The situation lasted from 1986 to 1991 and saw the Japanese economy (especially with regard to stocks and housing) soar to new heights and experience massive inflation. The bubble burst early in 1992 and sent the economy tumbling into a long period of stagnation. It’s a very complex and interesting topic that’s out of scope for this series, but suffice to say it’s the reason the full-fat “Golden Era” of Japanese cars saw its last outing in the designs of 1995. 


Elsewhere, competition against the Maxima had arrived. Though its primary competition in the Toyota Cressida died off after 1992 (it was not especially competitive, and Lexus needed the upmarket stage), Toyota had new options for consumers. At the upscale end of the Maxima was the Lexus ES 300, which was on its way to premium comfort sedan dominance. Its first XV10 generation ran from 1992 to 1996 (coinciding with Camry).


On the lower end of Maxima’s market was the Toyota customer who wanted a comfortable sedan, but not the flash and ruched leather of the ES. To them, Toyota offered the Avalon in 1995. There was other new competition in the mix, too: The second generation Mitsubishi Diamante was new for 1995, and so was the all-new and premium Mazda Millenia. 


Suddenly, the 1993-1994 era where Maxima had a market to itself was over, and there were five total competitors for the same sort of customer. And that’s if you leave out upscale V6 versions of the XV10 Camry, which was as we know quite good. Though it could not anticipate all this new competition, Nissan worked long and hard on its fourth-generation Maxima. Its design was finalized by March 1991, and that date was significant given Japan’s economic timeline.

Nissan’s finances after the asset bubble were in shambles, and the company would not recover. Existing as an independent company for a few years after as it attempted to get itself back in order, Nissan was eventually forced into a partnership with well-funded Renault in 1999. The company’s early Nineties financial state immediately affected the new Maxima. 


Known as the A32, the fourth Maxima was a victim of cost-cutting. The most notable engineering feature stripped from the new design was its independent rear suspension. Nissan replaced it with a torsion bar solid axle that was much cheaper to make. And though the Maxima was still of quality construction, it was not as solid as its predecessor.


As far as size was concerned, the new Maxima varied little from the outgoing model. Wheelbase increased by two inches to 106.3”, but overall length grew only fractionally, from 187.6” in 1994 to 187.7” in 1995. Width increased almost half an inch to 69.7”, as almost all cars grew wider throughout the Nineties. 


Overall height increased notably too, as the Maxima grew more rounded and less sleek: The ‘94 was 53 inches tall, while the ‘95 was 55.7”. And down to its lighter suspension, the 1995 Maxima was lighter than its predecessor: It weighed 3,063 pounds in SE trim, while a 1994 SE was 3,139 pounds.

With the entry into its fourth generation, there was a product change for Nissan in its home market. The Maxima was no longer offered in Japan, as it was large and American-centric, and proved unpopular. Instead, Nissan offered the Maxima as the Cefiro, where it wore the suit you’d know as the Infiniti I30. 


The Cefiro was one of Nissan’s JDM offerings since 1988, as a sporty upmarket alternative to the more conservative Laurel. The first Cefiro was related to the Laurel, shared its rear suspension with the Skyline, and competed against the Toyota Chaser at home. It offered inline-six engines with optional turbocharging and even optional four-wheel drive. 


That changed with the summer 1994 introduction of the A32 Cefiro which debuted before the American market Maxima, and previewed what the Infiniti I30 would look like nearly two years in advance. Cefiro was available with different engines than the Maxima, in keeping with Japan’s displacement tax considerations. 


All engines were V6 configuration and from the VQ engine series. The smallest Cefiro engine was a 2.0-liter, but the 2.5-liter VQ25 and 3.0-liter VQ30 were also available. While other markets offered the 2.0 and 3.0, the 2.5 was sold only in Japanese Cefiros. This generation of the Cefiro was front-drive only, and also spawned a wagon version. 

Worth noting, the A32 was called Cefiro only in Japan, as when Nissan exported it to places other than North America it was usually called the “Maxima QX.” Keep in mind, Infiniti was sold only in North America at the time. Limited to the UK market was plain “QX” badging, as Nissan wanted customers there to forget the Maxima altogether. This was also the first use of QX which Infiniti would adopt later to ruin its SUV nomenclature.


And we aren’t finished with Maxima variants just yet, as there was another major venture with the A32. With Nissan’s cash-strapped lifestyle it looked far and wide for opportunities to make money in new ways. One of those ways, it turned out, was with a small automaker in Korea, Samsung Motors International. 


What happened next was a rapid-fire series of events between 1998 and 1999, which led to the investment of Renault into yet another car company, and the first Samsung passenger car ever made. A Maxima underneath with mixed styling and various pieces of trim, the sedan remained in production long after the rest of the world moved on (twice) from the A32. We’ll pick up there next time and then work our way back around to the standard North American Maxima that arrived in 1995.


[Images: Nissan, Samsung]


Become a TTAC insider. Get the latest news, features, TTAC takes, and everything else that gets to The Truth About Cars first by subscribing to our newsletter.

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 12 comments
  • Jjeffnc Jjeffnc on Oct 05, 2022

    I bought a used '94 Maxima to replace the '88 version we had for years. While it was better in many aspects, we didn't like it as much as the '88 and didn't keep the '94 as long. I know this is subjective, but the '94 just didn't have as much soul as the '88. Later purchased an '02 Maxima and kept it longer than the previous two combined.

  • ChristianWimmer ChristianWimmer on Oct 06, 2022

    My father owned a 1998 Nissan Cefiro Elite 2.0 V6 VQ (A32). The car had only two good aspects: it looked good and the VQ V6 was smooth and quiet. That’s it.


    As good as the 155-hp 2.0 VQ V6 was, the car was a total dog to drive because of the ancient 4-speed automatic it was mated to. The shifts were slow and the gearing was totally off. This also resulted in attrocious fuel consumption. The car was mainly driven in the city so we would average 14-17 L / 100 km. Thankfully fuel was dirt cheap in the Philippines where we owned the car at the time.


    By the way, Nissan sold the Cefiro nameplate in mainland Europe and in most Asian countries as well.

  • IH_Fever The sales model was neat, especially the delivery part, but other than that, what was carvana besides carmax without a traditional brick and mortar lot? It couldn't keep its finances (or title documents) in order. Let it burn.
  • IH_Fever EV charger on a GM lot, probably with a Cummins generator to keep them running. A regular melting pot haha
  • Tassos Wake me up when VW (or any other loser "Legacy" automaker comes up with a "BETTER TESLA" BEV AT THE SAME PRICE. SO far, VW has FAILED MISERABLY AND LOST BILLIONS DOING IT. Its models are way underwhelming and inferior, and cost not much less than the model 3. ANd DESPITE the SCANDALOUS $7,500 tax credit, which is an INVERSE ROBIN HOOD, takes from the average household and gives it to the average BEV buying family, which has an income of $170k+, VW STILL FAILED.ALso notice the so-called "Mobility Officers" at FORD AND Renault QUIT. another HUGE SCAM, Autonomous Vehicles, they wasted 100s of billions (all idiot legacy makers together) and predicted billions of profits, but so far they DROWN IN A SEA OF RED INK with NOTHING to show for it. Morons will be morons, and the ones in this forum will cheer for their failures "AWESOME, WV, Indeed"! LOL!!!
  • Jwee More range and faster charging cannot be good news for the heavily indebted and distracted Musk.Tesla China is discounting their cars. Apart from the Model 3, no one is much buying Tesla's here in Europe. Other groups have already passed Tesla in Europe, where it was once dominant.Among manufacturers, 2021 EV sales:VW Group 25%, Stellantis at 14.5%,Tesla at 13.9%Hyundai-Kia at 11.2% Renault Group at 10.3%. Just 2 years ago, Tesla had a commanding 31.1% share of the European EV marketOuch. https://carsalesbase.com/european-sales-2021-ev/@lou_BC, carsalebase.com changed their data, so this is slightly different than last time I posted this, but same idea.
  • Varezhka Given how long the Mitsubishi USA has been in red, that's a hard one. I mean, this company has been losing money in all regions *except* SE Asia and Oceania ever since they lost the commercial division to Daimler.I think the only reason we still have the brand is A) Mitsubishi conglomerate's pride won't allow it B) US still a source of large volume for the company, even if they lose money on each one and C) it cost too much money to pull out and no one wants to take responsibility. If I was the head of Mitsubishi's North American operation and retreat was not an option, I think my best bet would be to reduce overhead by replacing all the cars with rebadged Nissans built in Tennessee and Mexico.As much as I'd like to see the return of Triton, Pajero Sport (Montero Sport to you and me), and Delica I'm sure that's more nostalgia and grass is greener thing than anything else.
Next