Is Nissan good?

[SteveG1988]

Honestly, nissan makes a decent car, i just don't like the styling they're going with. If i were to get a 2015 car i'd go for a ford fusion or focus if i want a small to mid-size sedan, an Impalla if i want a large FWD sedan, Chevy SS if i want a RWD sedan. If it was available in a 6 speed stick or any sort of stick, i'd consider the 2015 Elantra Coupe to replace my 2003 eclipse.

[Pete from Boston]

I drove a family member's '95 Altima on occasion for about 15 years.  With relatively low mileage it still suffered from a lot of minor electrical/mechanical annoyances, as a lot of vehicles do.  The automatic transmission got very flaky at the end, which was only at about 100k. 

[J N Winkler]

The automatic transmission got very flaky at the end, which was only at about 100k.

Was the fluid changed every 30,000 miles?

[Pete from Boston]

The automatic transmission got very flaky at the end, which was only at about 100k.

Was the fluid changed every 30,000 miles?

No idea.  There was an electrical issue with the shifter getting into gear for a long time, but I recall near the end the transmission itself was doing erratic things.

[bugo]

Just get a Kia or Hyundai, they are well built,and you cannot beat the price or warranty.

I still can't get the Hyundais of 30 years ago out of my head when thinking about them, which is a shame because they make some very nice cars now.

They do make a nice car. For me, their image has gone from "shitbox" to "very nice car that is nearly as good as Honda, GM, Ford and Mazda and better than Toyota and the other garbage makes."

[bugo]

I changed the mechanical fuel pump on both my old '78 Mustang II and my old '77 Ford F100 pickup truck. The Mustang had a 171 V6 that was crammed into the small engine bay and was harder to get to (and that engine was criminally underpowered) while the F100 had a 302 V8 which was easy to get to because of the V8's compact size and the loads of room under the hood (which was designed for inline sixes as well as V8s. I changed an in-tank pump in our old 1985 Buick Sky Hawk (J-Car, very similar to the Cavalier, Sunbird, Cimarron, and Firenza) and while it took a couple of hours, it was an easy job. I had to drop the tank but once it was dropped it was just a couple of screws. That Sky Hawk was a fantastically fun to drive car, believe it or not. It had a notchy but precise 4 speed manual transmission and would squawk the tires in second gear reliably. I got it to spin in 3rd gear one time. Man, I miss that car.

[realjd]

I drive a LOT of rental cars since I travel heavily for work. My favorites over the past few years have consistently been Nissans. They're sportier than the Toyotas, don't have the god-aweful Sync system that Ford uses, they don't fall apart after 30k miles of hard rental car life like GM cars seem to, and they don't have a bizarre dashboard layout like the Hondas. I've been impressed with them so much that when my wife and I were in the market for new cars, I ended up with an Infiniti G37 and she ended up with a Murano.

Hyundai and Dodge are the other car brands that I've consistently had good luck with as rentals.

[Pete from Boston]

Hyundai and Dodge are the other car brands that I've consistently had good luck with as rentals.

I've ended up with a couple of Dodge Avengers as rentals in recent years and was really surprised at the quality of their handling, ride, and pickup.

[signalman]

I'd say that Nissan is a good make.  I owned a 2000 Maxima that I put nearly 80,000 miles on trouble free.  I also owned a 2006 Sentra that I put over 100,000 miles on, also trouble free.  Both cars I only needed to do maintenance work to (brakes, tires, oil changes, etc.)  Neither one gave me any trouble mechanically.

[Stratuscaster]

I'd avoid the Nissan Versa sedan, but would consider the Nissan Versa Note wagon. The sedan seems like it was engineered for one goal - to be one of the most inexpensive vehicles in North America. They met that goal - but the car suffered for it. For whatever reason the wagon version didn't.

From what I hear from my auto industry friends, the CVTs have most of the bugs worked out, but they are still more of a "keep an eye at 50K, and they tend to just replace them rather than service them." Some folks can't get past how the CVT operates - there's no huge rev swings as the CVT keeps things in the power/efficiency band as much as possible.

I found the last few generations of Nissan styling rather ugly. The current cars and crossovers are acceptable.

Agreed with others - take care of the vehicle and it can last a very long time. My 2000 Olds Intrigue is coming up on 210000 miles, and my 2002 Dodge Caravan is coming up on 435000 miles.

[Duke87]

I have a 2011 Sentra. It is a good quality car. I like it.
My father has a 2014 Sentra. It is crap in comparison and I don't recommend it.

Interestingly though, I see the same thing elsewhere. I had a 2009 Ford Focus and it was a sweet little machine.
My girlfriend has a 2013 Focus and while it is still decent it is inferior to what my 2009 was.


The key complaint I have is that both cars have undergone a significant design change from the previous generation to the current generation where the engine displacement is smaller and is turbocharged in an attempt to compensate for the lost power.

This is, of course, done in the name of increased fuel economy, and the newer cars are several MPG above the older ones on account of this for both models. Problem is, the lost power isn't really recovered properly because of the turbo lag. In my car (current or previous), I hit the gas, and it goes. In my girlfriend's car or my father's car, I hit the gas, and it takes a split second before it goes. Very noticeable, very annoying. I hate it.


Another complaint I have specifically about the 2014 Sentra, though, is that its gas tank is a bit smaller than it normally should be and thus its range is nerfed. I expect on a road trip with mostly highway-like driving that I should get near or past 300 miles before I'm down to a quarter tank and am looking for gas. The 2014 Sentra doing the same thing reaches a quarter tank after only about 250 miles. Which again, is very noticeable and very annoying.

[PHLBOS]

The key complaint I have is that both cars have undergone a significant design change from the previous generation to the current generation where the engine displacement is smaller and is turbocharged in an attempt to compensate for the lost power.

This is, of course, done in the name of increased fuel economy, and the newer cars are several MPG above the older ones on account of this for both models.

Welcome to 1980.    Much of what's recently going on in the auto industry is indeed a case of deja-vu.

That's too bad regarding the new Sentra.  I rented one a few months ago and was very impressed with how roomy it was for its size.  Since I never drove a model form the previous generation; I couldn't compare its performance.  I'm old enough to remember when compact, economy cars were just that and nothing else.  If one wanted performance and/or luxury options; one went towards either a sportier and/or larger model... period. 

Stylingwise, IMHO, the Sentra's much better looking than the previous model (no offense).

[J N Winkler]

Another complaint I have specifically about the 2014 Sentra, though, is that its gas tank is a bit smaller than it normally should be and thus its range is nerfed. I expect on a road trip with mostly highway-like driving that I should get near or past 300 miles before I'm down to a quarter tank and am looking for gas. The 2014 Sentra doing the same thing reaches a quarter tank after only about 250 miles. Which again, is very noticeable and very annoying.

PHLBOS has a good point about the auto industry trying to lift itself by its bootstraps in response to more stringent CAFE standards, but I don't think tank size can be blamed on this.  My 1986 Nissan Maxima was engineered in the shadow of the late-1970's, early-1980's CAFE "mountain" and still had a 15.5-gallon tank which gave me a good five hundred miles plus of driving range on the highway in the mountains (high altitude increased fuel economy).  My 1994 Saturn SL2 has a 12.8-gallon tank but takes only 10 gallons to go all the way from indicated full to indicated empty.  As a result, my driving range tends to top out at 300 miles in the city, though I can push it to over 400 if I feel the percentage of highway driving is high enough.

I think the automakers have figured out that the proportion of drivers for whom driving range is a ruling consideration is quite small, and have designed tanks accordingly, since hauling unburnt fuel exacts a small MPG penalty that counts against them in CAFE.  I like a long driving range because I dislike inhaling evaporated fuel in the vicinity of gas stations, but for me it is a much lower priority than things like four-wheel disc brakes (yes, rear drums are supposed to be equally efficient, but I hate them anyway), ABS, at least one airbag, general reliability, serviceability, power output, and fuel efficiency.  Instead, I support gas stations nationwide being required to install vapor-catching collars.  California mandates them and it is really quite hard to catch even a whiff of fuel smell when refueling.

[SteveG1988]

Another complaint I have specifically about the 2014 Sentra, though, is that its gas tank is a bit smaller than it normally should be and thus its range is nerfed. I expect on a road trip with mostly highway-like driving that I should get near or past 300 miles before I'm down to a quarter tank and am looking for gas. The 2014 Sentra doing the same thing reaches a quarter tank after only about 250 miles. Which again, is very noticeable and very annoying.

PHLBOS has a good point about the auto industry trying to lift itself by its bootstraps in response to more stringent CAFE standards, but I don't think tank size can be blamed on this.  My 1986 Nissan Maxima was engineered in the shadow of the late-1970's, early-1980's CAFE "mountain" and still had a 15.5-gallon tank which gave me a good five hundred miles plus of driving range on the highway in the mountains (high altitude increased fuel economy).  My 1994 Saturn SL2 has a 12.8-gallon tank but takes only 10 gallons to go all the way from indicated full to indicated empty.  As a result, my driving range tends to top out at 300 miles in the city, though I can push it to over 400 if I feel the percentage of highway driving is high enough.

I think the automakers have figured out that the proportion of drivers for whom driving range is a ruling consideration is quite small, and have designed tanks accordingly, since hauling unburnt fuel exacts a small MPG penalty that counts against them in CAFE.  I like a long driving range because I dislike inhaling evaporated fuel in the vicinity of gas stations, but for me it is a much lower priority than things like four-wheel disc brakes (yes, rear drums are supposed to be equally efficient, but I hate them anyway), ABS, at least one airbag, general reliability, serviceability, power output, and fuel efficiency.  Instead, I support gas stations nationwide being required to install vapor-catching collars.  California mandates them and it is really quite hard to catch even a whiff of fuel smell when refueling.

What i find funny is that ford at one time offered two fuel tank sizes on the taurus, then later (2001) standardized on the extended range one. 89-00 you had the option of the 18 gal extended or the default 16.

Does any car offer that option?

[billtm]

In my opinion Nissan makes decent cars. A few downsides to Nissan that I have heard of are that the more recent redisigns are getting cheaper, especially the interiors. Also, the more recent models don't have the best reliability either. Many other brands make models that outcompete Nissan. I don't have the auto issue of CR by me right now but I can post the ratings after school is over...

[PHLBOS]

PHLBOS has a good point about the auto industry trying to lift itself by its bootstraps in response to more stringent CAFE standards, but I don't think tank size can be blamed on this.

While I appreciate your compliment; I don't believe that I was implying that shrinking gas tank sizes was done for fuel economy reasons.  When I was quoting Duke87's earlier post, I intentionally did not include his reference regarding the newer Sentra's smaller fuel tank.

One only possible reason for the newer Sentra using a smaller tank could be that such was done to increase trunk space.  The gas tank capacity vs. trunk capacity issue's existed for decades... even before larger cars started downsizing in the late 70s.

Case-and-point: while GM's full-sizes of the 70s had 25-26 gallon fuel tanks; it's Ford Motor Company rivals of the era only had 23-24 gallon tanks.  However, the Fords offered more trunk space (greater than 20 cubic feet) than their GM counterparts. 

When those models indeed downsized; the differences became more extreme.  Many of the Panther-bodied Fords ('79-'11) only offered 18-20 gallon fuel tanks (depending on vintage & particular model) whereas the '77-'96 GM B & C bodies had 25 gallon tanks.  Converserly, the Fords still offered a larger, roomier and more usable trunk (especially if one had a full-size spare vs. the mini donut) than the GM models.

While the new Sentra certainly wasn't a downsize (IIRC, the wheelbase may actually be longer) from the old one; Nissan may have indeed favored trunk capacity over fuel capacity.

[jeffandnicole]

Smaller fuel tank equals less weight (when full) which equals better fuel economy.  And when car makers are trying to eek out better fuel economy, every pound counts.

[PHLBOS]

Smaller fuel tank equals less weight (when full) which equals better fuel economy.  And when car makers are trying to eek out better fuel economy, every pound counts.

While that is a reason; apparently in the case of the Sentra, it's more of a penny-wise/dollar foolish proposition.

Again, those of us over 45 saw similar mindsets play out some 30 to 35 years ago.

[billtm]

A good example of a good car made by Nissan that is simply just outcompeted is the Nissan Altima. (All ratings mentioned will be for the base trim.) The Altima gets a score of 81, which is pretty good. It even gets 31 mpg. But the Fusion gets an 82, Malibu 84, Mazda 6 got 85, Camry 88, Sonata 89, and Accord 90. They are all neck and neck, but they all edge out the Altima. The cars that the Altima ties are the Optima and Legacy. It beats the Passat (80) and 200.
(Source: Consumer Reports)

[bugo]

(Source: Consumer Reports)

There goes your credibility.

[bugo]

Are the EPA tests done with a full or empty tank? There may lie your answer.

[bugo]

Keep in mind that cars aren't designed to get good real world mileage, they're designed to do well on the EPA tests.

[billtm]

(Source: Consumer Reports)

There goes your credibility.

Wtf is wrong with Consumer Reports?
I find their testing to be comprehensive. And they also provide helpful reviews of cars that people actually buy. The only complaint I have about their auto issue is that they got rid of the profiles section. That was my favorite!

[J N Winkler]

Wtf is wrong with Consumer Reports?

I find their testing to be comprehensive. And they also provide helpful reviews of cars that people actually buy. The only complaint I have about their auto issue is that they got rid of the profiles section. That was my favorite!

Lots of car people don't like Consumer Reports, for a variety of reasons:

*  Their testing of performance characteristics is rather limited (no reporting of sideways skid coefficients, for example).

*  Consumers Union (the organization that publishes Consumer Reports) often lobbies in favor of regulations that are seen as overbearing, such as stricter emissions controls, more stringent CAFE, the vehicle rollover standard, etc.  (My own position is somewhere in the middle.  I acknowledge the problems tighter CAFE and new emissions controls can cause for the consumer because I used to own a 1978 Chevrolet Impala that was barely driveable as a result of the automakers' attempts to deal with the Carter-era phase-in of tighter emissions controls while still clinging to obsolete carburetor technology.  On the other hand, some entity with enough heft to stop the automakers in their tracks had to intervene, otherwise we would still be driving carburetor-equipped cars.  Because of the way industry interacts with government in this country, smooth phase-in of new regulatory requirements is too much to expect, so I have learned just to sidestep the "mountains" that new CAFE and emissions requirements create.  My 1978 Impala did not allow me to do this with the Carter-era emissions mountain, but we now have a new Obama-era CAFE mountain which I plan to wait out with my 1994 Saturn.)

*  They have occasionally assigned high reliability scores (which are calculated on the basis of reader reports) to models in which major design defects have later surfaced, e.g. the 2001 Toyota RX300 with an engine that sludges up prematurely and a transmission that gives out after 70,000 miles.

*  Consumer Reports, reflecting its parent organization's focus on environmental issues, often takes unpopular stands on issues that are deeply contentious within the car enthusiast community, such as abandonment of the 3,000-mile oil change interval.  (Consumers Union dislikes the 3,000-mile interval because of the environmental burden of used oil disposal.  Many enthusiasts stick firm to it, in spite of car manufacturer recommendations in favor of longer 5,000- or even 7,500-mile intervals, because they perceive that modern engines will rapidly sludge up conventional oils--even the ones with top-notch detergent additives--and they don't want cars they paid top dollar to buy new to become oil burners at 100,000 miles.  One popular conspiracy theory has it that the "real" oil change interval is still 3,000 miles but the car manufacturers are now pushing longer intervals in order to shave the perceived cost of ownership of vehicles that now often cost upwards of $30,000 to buy new.  For what it is worth, I don't agree with Consumers Union on this issue since I consider the 1 gallon that goes into the crankcase quite insignificant compared to the 100+ gallons that are burned over a 3,000-mile oil change interval, and preventing the engine from burning large quantities of oil--which sooner or later poisons the catalytic converter and results in tailpipe emissions going through the roof--has to take priority.)

While these criticisms have merit, Consumers Reports still has no real competitor as a source of independent auto testing reports, since the motoring magazines (Motor Trend and so on) are far too beholden to the car manufacturers for advertising revenue, test vehicles, access to engineers and senior management for interviews, etc. to offer truly unbiased reporting.

I don't think the culture clash between car people and Consumer Reports will ever go away.  The former want arousal (whether that comes from engineering, styling, performance, or whatever) while the latter is focused on practicality and caters to people who are not necessarily enthusiastic about cars but recognize that they need one to meet lifestyle demands and want the lowest cost of ownership that is consistent with a reasonable level of satisfaction.

[PHLBOS]

Lots of car people don't like Consumer Reports, for a variety of reasons:

Another reason was bias towards certain brands.

There have been instances in the past where CR will test 2 different brands (not commonly associated with the other) that came out of the same exact factory, were built on the same platform but grade the two vehicles completely differently (based on the brand label).