Home » Ratings

2014 Nissan Maxima

Midsize moderately priced car
2012 Nissan Maxima shown
2012 Nissan Maxima shown
Crashworthiness
  • Small overlap front
    A
  • Moderate overlap front
    G
  • Side
    G
  • Roof strength
    A
  • Head restraints & seats
    M

Front crash prevention
Crash avoidance rating
Not available

Check for NHTSA recalls


Child Seat Anchors (LATCH)
ease of use
A
1
Side airbags: front and rear head curtain airbags and front seat-mounted torso airbags
2
Electronic stability control
3
Antilock brakes
Model year Front overlap SideRoof strengthHead restraints & seatsFront crash prevention
SmallModerate
2014
A
G
G
A
M
Crash avoidance rating
Not available
2013
A
G
G
A
M
Crash avoidance rating
Not available
2012
A
G
G
A
M
Crash avoidance rating
2011
A
G
G
A
M
Crash avoidance rating
2010
A
G
G
A
M
Crash avoidance rating
2009
A
G
G
A
M
Crash avoidance rating
2008
G
M
M
Crash avoidance rating
2007
G
M
M
Crash avoidance rating
2006
G
M
P
Crash avoidance rating
2005
G
M
P
Crash avoidance rating
2004
G
M
P
Crash avoidance rating
2003
A
Crash avoidance rating
2002
A
Crash avoidance rating
2001
A
Crash avoidance rating
2000
A
Crash avoidance rating
1999
A
Crash avoidance rating
1998
A
Crash avoidance rating
1997
A
Crash avoidance rating
1996
P
Crash avoidance rating
1995
P
Crash avoidance rating

Applies to 2009-14 models

Overall evaluation
A
Structure and safety cage
M
Injury measures
Head/neck
G
Chest
G
Hip/thigh
G
Lower leg/foot
G
Restraints and dummy kinematics
G
Important: Frontal crash test ratings should be compared only among vehicles of similar weight.

The Nissan Maxima was redesigned for the 2009 model year.

Structure

The driver space was not maintained well. Lower interior intrusion measured as much as 22 cm at the hinge pillar, and the instrument panel intruded 17-19 cm. The steering column was pushed back 7 cm toward the driver.

Injury measures

Measures taken from the dummy indicate a low risk of any significant injuries in a crash of this severity.

Restraints and dummy kinematics

The dummy’s movement was well controlled. The dummy’s head loaded the frontal airbag, which stayed in front of the dummy until rebound. The side curtain airbag deployed but does not have sufficient forward coverage to protect the head from contact with forward side structure and outside objects. The side torso airbag also deployed.

Tested vehicle specifications

Tested vehicle2012 Nissan Maxima 3.5 S 4-door
Weight 3,523 lbs.
Side airbagsfront and rear head curtain airbags and front seat-mounted torso airbags
Wheelbase109 in.
Length191 in.
Width73 in.
Engine3.5 L V6
EPA ratings19 mpg city / 26 mpg highway

How this test is conducted

Measures of occupant compartment intrusion on driver side

Test IDCEN1230
Lower occupant compartment
Lower hinge pillar max (cm)22
Footrest (cm)13
Left toepan (cm)9
Brake pedal (cm)3
Parking brake (cm)15
Rocker panel lateral average (cm)5
Upper occupant compartment
Steering column7
Upper hinge pillar max (cm)14
Upper dash (cm)17
Lower instrument panel (cm)19

Driver injury measures

Test IDCEN1230
Head
HIC-1565
Peak gs at hard contactno contact
Neck
Tension (kN)1.0
Extension bending moment (Nm)12
Maximum Nij 0.22
Chest maximum compression (mm)23
Femur (kN)
Left2.3
Right0.2
Knee displacement (mm)
Left3
Right1
Knee-thigh-hip injury risk (%)
Left0
Right0
Maximum tibia index
Left0.45
Right0.28
Tibia axial force (kN)
Left1.5
Right1.2
Foot acceleration (g)
Left56
Right34

Applies to 2009-14 models

Overall evaluation
G
Structure and safety cage
G
Injury measures
Head/neck
A
Chest
G
Leg/foot, left
G
Leg/foot, right
G
Restraints and dummy kinematics
G
Important: Frontal crash test ratings should be compared only among vehicles of similar weight.

The Nissan Maxima was redesigned for the 2009 model year. Frontal ratings are assigned by the Institute based on a test conducted by Nissan as part of frontal crash test verification.

Injury measures

Measures taken from the neck, chest, and both legs indicate low risk of injuries to these body regions in a crash of this severity. A high head acceleration occurred when the dummy's head hit the steering wheel through the airbag, indicating that head injuries would be possible.

Restraints and dummy kinematics

Dummy movement was well controlled. The driver side curtain and side thorax airbags deployed during the crash.

Tested vehicle specifications

Tested vehicle2009 Nissan Maxima 3.5 S 4-door
Weight 3,627 lbs.
Side airbagsfront and rear head curtain airbags and front seat-mounted torso airbags
Wheelbase109 in.
Length191 in.
Width73 in.
Engine3.5 L V6
EPA ratings19 mpg city / 26 mpg highway

How this test is conducted

Measures of occcupant compartment intrusion on driver side

Test IDVTF0805
Footwell intrusion
Footrest (cm)4
Left (cm)4
Center (cm)5
Right (cm)7
Brake pedal (cm)3
Instrument panel rearward movement
Left (cm)0
Right (cm)1
Steering column movement
Upward (cm)5
Rearward (cm)1
A-pillar rearward movement (cm)0

Driver injury measures

Test IDVTF0805
Head
HIC-15482
Peak gs at hard contact94
Neck
Tension (kN)1.3
Extension bending moment (Nm)20
Maximum Nij 0.28
Chest maximum compression (mm)31
Legs
Femur force - left (kN)0.3
Femur force - right (kN)4.3
Knee displacement - left (mm)1
Knee displacement - right (mm)8
Maximum tibia index - left0.28
Maximum tibia index - right0.59
Tibia axial force - left (kN)2.1
Tibia axial force - right (kN)1.1
Foot acceleration (g)
Left55
Right123

Applies to 2009-14 models

Overall evaluation
G
Structure and safety cage
A
Driver injury measures
Head/neck
G
Torso
G
Pelvis/leg
G
Head protection
G
Rear passenger injury measures
Head/neck
G
Torso
G
Pelvis/leg
G
Head protection
G
Side crash test ratings can be compared across vehicle categories.

The Nissan Maxima was redesigned for the 2009 model year.

Injury measures

Driver — Measures taken from the dummy indicate a low risk of any significant injuries in a crash of this severity.

Passenger — Measures taken from the dummy indicate a low risk of any significant injuries in a crash of this severity.

Head protection

Driver — The dummy's head was protected from being hit by any hard structures, including the intruding barrier, by a side curtain airbag that deployed from the roof.

Passenger — The dummy's head was protected from being hit by any hard structures, including the intruding barrier, by a side curtain airbag that deployed from the roof.

Tested vehicle specifications

Tested vehicle2009 Nissan Maxima 3.5 S 4-door
Weight 3,522 lbs.
Side airbagsstandard front and rear head curtain airbags and standard front seat-mounted torso airbags
Wheelbase109 in.
Length191 in.
Width73 in.
Engine3.5 L V6
EPA ratings19 mpg city / 26 mpg highway

How this test is conducted

Measures of occupant compartment intrusion on driver side

Test IDCES0925
B-pillar to longitudinal centerline of driver's seat (cm)
Negative numbers indicate the amount by which the crush stopped short of the seat centerline.
-10.0

Driver injury measures

Test IDCES0925
Head HIC-15161
Neck
Tension (kN)0.6
Compression (kN)0.2
Shoulder
Lateral deflection (mm)35
Lateral force (kN)1.3
Torso
Maximum deflection (mm)36
Average deflection (mm)32
Maximum deflection rate (m/s)4.11
Maximum viscous criterion (m/s)0.41
Pelvis
Iliac force (kN)2.3
Acetabulum force (kN)1.1
Combined force (kN)2.3
Left femur
L-M force (kN)1.2
L-M moment (Nm)221
A-P moment (Nm) 64

Passenger injury measures

Test IDCES0925
Head HIC-15109
Neck
Tension (kN)0.4
Compression (kN)0.2
Shoulder
Lateral deflection (mm)31
Lateral force (kN)1.3
Torso
Maximum deflection (mm)27
Average deflection (mm)20
Maximum deflection rate (m/s)4.09
Maximum viscous criterion (m/s)0.21
Pelvis
Iliac force (kN)0.7
Acetabulum force (kN)1.6
Combined force (kN)2.2
Left femur
L-M force (kN)0.6
L-M moment (Nm)107
A-P moment (Nm) 16

Applies to 2009-14 models

Overall evaluation
A
Curb weight3,532 lbs
Peak force12,103 lbs
Strength-to-weight ratio3.43
Tested vehicle
2009 Nissan Maxima 3.5 S 4-door
Roof strength test ratings can be compared across vehicle categories.

In the test, the strength of the roof is determined by pushing a metal plate against one side of it at a slow but constant speed. The force applied relative to the vehicle's weight is known as the strength-to-weight ratio. This graph shows how the ratio varied as the test of this vehicle progressed. The peak strength-to-weight ratio recorded at any time before the roof is crushed 5 inches is the key measurement of roof strength.

A good rating requires a strength-to-weight ratio of at least 4. In other words, the roof must withstand a force of at least 4 times the vehicle's weight before the plate crushes the roof by 5 inches. For an acceptable rating, the minimum required strength-to-weight ratio is 3.25. For a marginal rating, it is 2.5. Anything lower than that is poor.

How this test is conducted

Applies to 2009-14 models

Overall evaluation
M
Dynamic rating
M
Seat/head restraint geometry
G
Important: Ratings for head restraints & seats should be compared only among vehicles of similar weight.

Seat type

Power leather seats AHR

How this test is conducted

Seat typePower leather seats AHR
Geometry
Backset (mm)32
Distance below top of head (mm)32
Seat design parameters
Pass/failFail
Max T1 acceleration (g)10.5
Head contact time (ms)81
Force rating2
Neck forces
Max neck shear force (N)148
Max neck tension (N)766

Applies to 2013-14 models

Overall evaluation

Crash avoidance rating
Not available
0 points total

Forward collision warning

Not available.
0 points

Low-speed autobrake

Not available.
0 points

High-speed autobrake

Not available.
0 points

How this rating is determined

Applies to 2014 models

How this rating is determined

Overall evaluation

A
Vehicle trim3.5 SV
Seat type leather

This vehicle has 2 rear seating positions with complete child seat attachment (LATCH) hardware.

It has 1 additional seating position with a tether anchor only.

123


Good
Acceptable
Marginal
Poor
Seating positions that rely on borrowed lower anchors or have only a tether anchor available are not rated.
Tether anchor
Lower anchors
Lower anchor(s) can be borrowed from adjacent positions(s)
No hardware available

Details by seating position

1
Tether anchor
easy-to-find location
no other hardware could be confused for anchor
Lower anchors
too deep in seat
not too much force needed to attach
easy to maneuver around anchors
2
Tether anchor
easy-to-find location
no other hardware could be confused for anchor
Lower anchors
none available
3
Tether anchor
easy-to-find location
no other hardware could be confused for anchor
Lower anchors
too deep in seat
not too much force needed to attach
easy to maneuver around anchors

Seat position 21

3
Lower anchor A
Depth (cm)2-4
Force (lbs)22.4
Clearance angle (degrees)65
Lower anchor B
Depth (cm)2-4
Force (lbs)19.3
Clearance angle (degrees)60
Tether anchor
LocationRear deck
Confusing hardware presentNo
Has contrasting label
within 3 inches of tether anchor
No

Seat position 22

2
Lower anchor A
No lower latch for this seat position
Lower anchor B
No lower latch for this seat position
Tether anchor
LocationRear deck
Confusing hardware presentNo
Has contrasting label
within 3 inches of tether anchor
No

Seat position 23

1
Lower anchor A
Depth (cm)2-4
Force (lbs)19.0
Clearance angle (degrees)59
Lower anchor B
Depth (cm)2-4
Force (lbs)20.8
Clearance angle (degrees)66
Tether anchor
LocationRear deck
Confusing hardware presentNo
Has contrasting label
within 3 inches of tether anchor
No

©1996-2015, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Highway Loss Data Institute | www.iihs.org