Are Nissans good to drive? I heard they are noisy and break down, but yet there are many on the road.
Good luck finding a car that never breaks down.
My Nissan was quiet and had 221,000 miles on it when I got rid of it.
The only way you'll know for sure is by taking a test drive of the ones you want.
Quote from: J Route Z on November 08, 2014, 12:59:54 PM
Are Nissans good to drive? I heard they are noisy and break down, but yet there are many on the road.
But not as much as the American makes, from what I've heard. And your best bet would be to buy a Honda or Toyota; don't be surprised if you find 25+year old ones that are still on the road today.
My dad owned cars of several different marques and in circa 1994 he bought his first Nissan, a Sentra sedan. He has since owned 4 more Nissans: a Maxima, two Altimas, and his current crossover: the Rogue. My uncle who also used to buy cars from assorted marques bought a Nissan and has only owned Nissans ever since. His kids even drive Nissans. That is enough of a testimony for me.
I would buy an older model with a 5 or 6 speed manual transmission. Avoid the CVT if possible, if you care about performance at all.
Quote from: Henry on November 08, 2014, 01:38:59 PM
Quote from: J Route Z on November 08, 2014, 12:59:54 PM
Are Nissans good to drive? I heard they are noisy and break down, but yet there are many on the road.
But not as much as the American makes, from what I've heard. And your best bet would be to buy a Honda or Toyota; don't be surprised if you find 25+year old ones that are still on the road today.
Old Toyotas were good cars, but they started decontenting them and quality took a nosedive, so your observation is flawed. Honda, however, still makes a great car.
Most American cars are just as good as their foreign competition today, and many are better. Cadillac V models typically win competitions in car magazines against German marques such as BMW and Mercedes Benz. Mustangs and Camaros and Challengers are all world class performance cars, not to mention the Dodge Viper and venerable Chevrolet Corvette. The new Buicks have gotten rave reviews, as a hybrid of a sporty car and a luxury car. Ford cars of all sorts are world beaters. The jury is still out on Fiat-dominated Chrysler but hopefully the quality will at least remain acceptable (Most Chryslers were less reliable than their competition.)
Luxury cars of the past were better than modern luxury cars. Before 1990, makes such as Mercedes and BMW built their cars to a quality point, not to a price point. Then along comes the bargain basement luxury car, the Lexus (and to a lesser extent Infiniti, which has never really caught on in the US) which were built to a price point. This forced the German makes to decontent their cars and today a new Mercedes is built cheaper than one built 25 years ago.
In 2014 you really have to go out of your way to find a car that won't last multiple hundreds of thousands of miles if properly maintained, and maintenance is easier than ever. There isn't a make available in the USA today I would hesitate to buy from a reliability standpoint.
As far as noisy, take one for a test drive and judge for yourself.
Nissan is good. It's also only marginally better or worse than anything else.
The Nissans now are all CVT. Don't get a small one, the transmission just never settles down. The Sentra I rented did way better than the Versa.
My aunt had an '84 300ZX and then later an '89 Maxima that she enjoyed a lot, but traded both of them in due to what she described as the transmission not feeling right. Since then she has had Hondas and Toyotas.
My mom had a '95 Sentra that was pretty good, but one issue with it that I clearly remember was the malfunction of the mechanism that requires you to press the brake pedal to shift out of Park.
Currently my youngest brother and oldest stepsister drive Rogues. My brother's is a 2013 with a CVT, and I find it strange to drive. I wouldn't buy one personally, and I think he'll get a Ford for his next vehicle once this one wears out.
I even had a '95 Altima about 10 years ago that I used as a commuter beater. Had nothing but problems with it despite my diligence with maintenance. I suppose the previous owner neglected the maintenance, but still. Toyotas of that era seemed to be neglect-proof, so why not Nissans? It shouldn't have started falling apart at around 130k in my opinion.
If I were to buy another Japanese make again, it would be Honda or Subaru hands down.
Just a word of caution: If you live in a non-urban region, parts and/ or labor will usually be more expensive when repairs do need to be made.
Quote from: corco on November 08, 2014, 02:32:54 PM
In 2014 you really have to go out of your way to find a car that won't last multiple hundreds of thousands of miles if properly maintained...
That is the key. As long as you do proper preventative maintenance, you should be able to drive just about any make and model into the ground. Every company has a few lemons; every company has a supplier issue from time to time.
Quote from: corco on November 08, 2014, 02:32:54 PM
...and maintenance is easier than ever.
I wouldn't go quite that far...at least not for some things. For instance, changing a headlamp bulb used to be a 5-10 minute job. Now, on several makes, you have to take half a dozen things out in order to access the back of the headlight with how they all the stuff they cram into an engine compartment these days.
Quote from: on_wisconsin on November 08, 2014, 04:34:03 PM
Just a word of caution: If you live in a non-urban region, parts and/ or labor will usually be more expensive when repairs do need to be made.
I've found the opposite on labor. Small town dealerships, at least in my experience, tend to have much fairer pricing and be more honest about repairs that need to be made than the chain dealers in cities that bill everybody like they bill the manufacturer on warranties (our book says x job takes y hours, so we charge z no matter what, even if we're also replacing another part nearby that will require the same disassembly).
My parents always take their Fords to the dealer in Weiser, Idaho instead of the ones in Boise because they are much cheaper. I do most of my work myself, but here in Montana I've found that the dealer in Anaconda is much fairer than the dealer in Helena when I do need dealer work on my Jeep. The smaller dealers charge for the actual amount of time it takes to do the job, I've noticed, and not what some chain dealer franchise book says it will take to do the job.
Even routine service- on my Jeep Liberty, the dealer in Helena charges $100 to flush each differential. The front differential is really easy to flush yourself- it's basically like changing oil with a drain plug and a fill plug. The rear differential requires actually dropping the pan, which makes it a lot messier and a lot more of a pain to do. Same price for each. The Jeep guy in Cascade, Idaho charges $40 for the front and $80 for the rear. $40 is still a little bit spendy, but it's a lot fairer than $100, which is just a "the differential sounds scary, I can't possibly do that myself" price.
"Datsun...we are driven!" That was the slogan before the Nissan name came along. Over here the franchise was destroyed by crooked dealers while the Toyota franchise hung in there during tough times by treating people right. Now the only foreign car franchises in our county are Toyota and Honda.
Back in the day we had Volkswagen, Porsche, Audi, Fiat, Toyota, Datsun/Nissan, Subaru, Mazda, Honda and Volvo. Over here you had better "buy the dealer" since a bad one giving up the ghost will leave you orphaned with a 200+ mile round trip at an absolute minimum to reach another franchise. Read the Yelps and see which dealer gets the best ratings, then go buy there. That's my best advice for someone buying cars.
Good luck with whatever you get!
Rick
I have a 2004 Toyota Camry with 103,000 miles on it. No problems except for cd player failure.
I own a Nissan. I haven't put that many miles on it yet, but I'm satisfied with it so far.
Quote from: Alps on November 08, 2014, 03:50:59 PM
The Nissans now are all CVT. Don't get a small one, the transmission just never settles down. The Sentra I rented did way better than the Versa.
That Corolla you rented that one time was terrible. We did hit triple digits, however, giggling like little girls all the way.
Quote from: J Route Z on November 08, 2014, 12:59:54 PMAre Nissans good to drive? I heard they are noisy and break down, but yet there are many on the road.
I think
Consumer Reports, a selection of auto magazines, some background reading in Wikipedia, and a reconnoiter of the marque enthusiasts' forums are probably your best bet for an up-to-date, informed opinion that covers Nissan models in their current design generations. I used to own a 1986 Nissan Maxima (VG30E engine peaking at 152 HP/4,400 RPM, four-speed automatic with fourth-gear lockup overdrive, U11 body) that entered my ownership at 10 years/56,000 miles and left it at 22 years/227,000 miles. It was refined and handled well, and I loved it, but it is now five generations behind the current Maxima (1984-1988 was second generation; 2009 to present is seventh generation).
My Maxima was reliable for the most part and routine maintenance was generally fairly easy to do (oil changes in particular could be done on the road since access from below was not required; spark plugs, coolant, transmission fluid, fuel and air filters, throttle body cleaning, etc. were also fairly simple), with the glaring exception of the timing belt--a required replacement at 60,000 miles, with the water pump also requiring replacement every other timing belt change. Belt jobs started at $250 when I got the car and had gone up to about $500 when I gave it away. There were design issues as well, especially with the body. Safe lifting points were hard to find, while rust tended to start in the rear wheel arches because the back of each arch had a three-layer weld that was hard to do properly at the factory and tended to come apart.
However, very little of this servicing information carries over to a car bought new today, because the technology has changed so much in the last 30 years. Spark plugs were still copper with a 30,000-service interval back then, and are now platinum "lifetime" with a 100,000-mile interval; organic acid-based coolants now require changing every five years instead of every two; 1980's ATFs were generally petroleum-based ("conventional") with a 30,000-mile drain-and-fill interval, and Dexron II was state of the art, while nowadays Dexron VI full-synthetic "lifetime fill" is the norm; the 3,000-mile oil-change interval is almost a thing of the past; etc. Access to the parts may have gotten more difficult in compensation, however--I've looked under the hood of a 2005 Toyota Camry (V-6 engine) and have no real idea how to even begin changing the spark plugs.
Quote from: wriddle082 on November 08, 2014, 04:17:49 PM
My aunt had an '84 300ZX and then later an '89 Maxima that she enjoyed a lot, but traded both of them in due to what she described as the transmission not feeling right.
Second-generation Maximas had problems with the automatic transmission that may have carried over into the same-vintage 300ZX (which I think had the same engine) and the next-generation Maxima. These issues may have had something to do with Nissan not specifying a change interval for the transmission fluid, at least for the second-generation Maxima. The transmission would shift fine for the first 90,000 miles or so, and then gradually the shifting would become so hard the transmission needed to be rebuilt. It is almost impossible nowadays to find a second-generation Maxima advertised for sale, but back when such ads were common, it was almost as common to see "Transmission rebuilt at 200,000 miles."
I never had to rebuild the transmission in my Maxima. There was no change interval in the owner's manual, nor was there a change procedure in the factory service manual (which I bought and still have), but the Haynes and Chilton books both have a drain and fill procedure which I used every 30,000 miles to keep the fluid looking fresh and red. I also studied the factory procedure for adjusting the cable linkage between the throttle and transmission valve body. Instead of following it to the letter, I customized the shift pattern so that shifts were smooth. When I gave away the car, I had the feeling that the engine was starting to lose compression while the transmission was starting to slip, but neither of these problems was bad enough for a powertrain overhaul to be imminent.
Every design generation of a given model has issues--the trouble, when buying new, is that it is usually impossible to know in advance what these will be, and once they are discovered, it is usually by dealer technicians and the knowledge is slow to escape since it is commercially valuable to them.
Quote from: corco on November 08, 2014, 02:32:54 PM
In 2014 you really have to go out of your way to find a car that won't last multiple hundreds of thousands of miles if properly maintained, and maintenance is easier than ever.
Ease of maintenance is a function of service engineering and the underlying technology. The designated intervals are much longer now than they were just 20 years ago, and many maintenance procedures have disappeared because the parts that require them have simply become obsolete--for example, if you can remember what it was like to clean points, you are probably over 50.
On the other hand, to quote just one example, some casual Googling reveals that spark plug replacement has gone from being a straightforward 20-minute job (not including setup and takedown) in a (early 1990's) first-generation Saturn S-Series to a four-hour-plus job in a (early 2000's) fifth-generation Toyota Camry. What modern technology offers, service engineering often takes off the table.
I have changed alternators in a Geo Metro and a Plymouth Neon. Both were at the back of the engine, near the firewall on the passenger side. The Suzuki 3 cylinder was easy to change but the DOHC 4 banger in the Mopar was a real pain in the ass to change.
Older ('80s and older) Ford mechanical fuel pumps are extremely simple to replace. It's a 15 minute job if you know what you're doing.
Just get a Kia or Hyundai, they are well built,and you cannot beat the price or warranty.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on November 09, 2014, 05:54:04 AM
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.
Quote from: bugo on November 08, 2014, 11:20:34 PMI have changed alternators in a Geo Metro and a Plymouth Neon. Both were at the back of the engine, near the firewall on the passenger side. The Suzuki 3 cylinder was easy to change but the DOHC 4 banger in the Mopar was a real pain in the ass to change.
My Saturn also has the generator between the engine and the firewall, so it is an easy from-above DIY replacement only for owners of the base model who don't have power steering. Others, like me, have to go in from below and through the passenger-side front wheel arch. The Saturn enthusiasts' forum has a new Saturn owner's checklist which recommends replacing the battery every four years whether it needs it or not, and part of the motivation for this is to help keep a bad battery from taking down the generator with it. Generator life is very variable with some people reporting replacements at 30,000 miles while others say they are still running on the original generator at 200,000+ miles.
Diagnosing generator problems is also hard to do because of the bad access. You can do a simple wellness check by checking voltages at the battery terminals before and after running the engine (should be above 12.5 V with engine not running and between 14.2 V and 14.7 V with engine running), but for absolute certainty you have to measure the current output instead of just the voltages, since a bad generator can still hold the correct voltages under low load even if it has a blown rectifier diode or worn-out brushes. It is so much trouble to get access to the correct terminals for current output measurements on a Saturn alternator that it essentially has to be removed for bench testing, and once that is done, you may as well install a new generator and take the core refund.
I coddle the generator on my Saturn by trying to keep accessory loads light. I don't use the cigarette lighter to charge my phone unless I have no convenient access to mains power, I take a minimum approach to using headlamps (on promptly at sunset, off promptly at sunrise, not on in bad weather unless visibility is genuinely degraded, on in safety corridors only if it is legally required and turned off as soon as I can), and I turn off electrical accessories before I shut off the engine. I used to inflate tires from battery power but I don't do that anymore--instead, I now have an air compressor that runs off wall current.
QuoteOlder ('80s and older) Ford mechanical fuel pumps are extremely simple to replace. It's a 15 minute job if you know what you're doing.
I never attempted it on my 1978 Chevrolet Impala, but I believe that in general cam-driven fuel pumps on older American cars are pretty easy to do. Newer cars tend to have electric fuel pumps in the tank and while replacement is within reach for DIY mechanics, it is difficult since the tank has to be drained and dropped to get access to the pump housing at the top. Standard advice nowadays is never to allow the tank to get more than two gallons from dry since the fuel pump depends on the gasoline itself for lubrication and cooling.
I have never owned a car that was newer than 10 years when it came into my hands and my approach has generally been to dodge difficult end-of-life replacements by overmaintaining and coddling the parts. If I had had to replace everything on my Nissan or Saturn that has a nominal 100,000-mile service life, I would have been far deeper in the hole than I was with the added maintenance expense--as an example, my Maxima still had the original fuel pump at 227,000 miles.
In regard to repair operations in general, some things become less difficult while others become more difficult. It is a lot easier to do an ATF and filter replacement (not just a drain and fill) since spin-on can filters are increasingly the norm for automatic transmissions, not just engines. On the other hand, fuel filters designed for use with modern returnless systems are a lot more trouble to replace (including finding a good-quality part) than the older can filters with no internal moving parts.
Ignition system components have gone back and forth. My Impala and Maxima had actual distributors; I think the Impala might have been one of the first cars without points, but its distributor still required disassembly for checking while I only had to take the Maxima's apart once, to check for carbon deposits on the optical crank angle sensor. (It was clean and shiny.) My Saturn has just coil packs with waste spark ignition. The newer cars in the family have coil-over-plug technology, so things are now ten times harder than they used to be.
I'm pretty satisfied with our '12 Rogue, which we've had almost two years now and have put almost 20,000 miles on. We've driven a couple of cross-country trips with it, and it's comfortable for long hauls with reasonable if not great fuel mileage. It also handles nicely on mountain curves. The only complaint, referenced above, is the CVT. What I have found is that, if I want immediate foot-to-the-floor acceleration, I only need to push the overdrive button on the shift lever. Despite the lack of individual gear selection, though, it does have the ability to hold well on steep downgrades without excessive braking, using the OD button or, if the hill is extremely steep and winding, the "L" selection.
We recently rented a Jeep Patriot for a week-long drive around the Southeast coast, and I think Chrysler does the CVT much better. Not only is acceleration immediate, you also have the ability to select discrete gears in pseudo-shifting.
I've had my Sonata for nearly 6 years now (bought new) and its over 103K for miles (having been to almost every corner of the country (New England, North Dakota, New Orleans, Los Angeles and points between several times). I've had no issues with it through the years except for an unscheduled replacement of the rear brake rotors and pads due to a stuck caliper on them causing damage and a couple tire issues. Its technology is (obviously) outdated compared to today's vehicles, but that is not going to stop me from keeping it and running it into the ground. Its equipped with the electronic shifter which comes in handy for downhill driving without wearing out the brakes.
Had a 2009 Altima for nearly 6 years now with 96k miles on it; all I've had to do is replace tires, do oil changes, a front brake job, and deal with a couple of flaky TPMS sensors. So I'd definitely say it's been reliable. The CVT doesn't bother me at all, although you can throw it into manual shift mode if you really want some engine braking (useful if you want to lose some speed without the brake lights coming on).
Before that I had a used Infiniti I30 (essentially a Maxima) that I bought with 92k on it and until the transmission (non-CVT) gave out about 6 years later it was reliable too.
My 2006 Nissan Titan pickup truck has over 130,000 miles on it. It's reliable enough that I confidently take it on remote unpaved roads like the Dalton and Dempster highways in the Arctic, where a breakdown can put you in really deep shape (hasn't happened yet).
It was a little noisier than the Toyota Tundra that was my second choice when I was shopping for a pickup. I suspect that was to project a macho image for the truck, rather than something with all the brand's vehicles, though I've never driven any Nissan cars lately (not counting several Datsuns back in the 1970s).
No CVT -- I'm not sure they even exist for 4x4 pickups.
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.
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.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 10, 2014, 11:21:13 AMThe automatic transmission got very flaky at the end, which was only at about 100k.
Was the fluid changed every 30,000 miles?
Quote from: J N Winkler on November 10, 2014, 11:53:23 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 10, 2014, 11:21:13 AMThe 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.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 09, 2014, 10:23:27 AM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on November 09, 2014, 05:54:04 AM
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."
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.
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.
Quote from: realjd on November 11, 2014, 04:42:56 PMHyundai 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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Duke87 on November 13, 2014, 12:34:57 AMThe 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).
Quote from: Duke87 on November 13, 2014, 12:34:57 AMAnother 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.
Quote from: J N Winkler on November 13, 2014, 10:54:28 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on November 13, 2014, 12:34:57 AMAnother 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?
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...
Quote from: J N Winkler on November 13, 2014, 10:54:28 AMPHLBOS 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.
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.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 14, 2014, 09:07:26 AM
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.
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)
Quote from: billtm on November 14, 2014, 04:20:33 PM
(Source: Consumer Reports)
There goes your credibility.
Are the EPA tests done with a full or empty tank? There may lie your answer.
Keep in mind that cars aren't designed to get good real world mileage, they're designed to do well on the EPA tests.
Quote from: bugo on November 14, 2014, 11:58:42 PM
Quote from: billtm on November 14, 2014, 04:20:33 PM
(Source: Consumer Reports)
There goes your credibility.
Wtf is wrong with Consumer Reports? :confused:
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!
Quote from: billtm on November 15, 2014, 09:48:44 PMWtf is wrong with Consumer Reports? :confused:
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 (http://www.saturnfans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=149914&page=3).
*
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.
Quote from: J N Winkler on November 16, 2014, 12:18:47 AMLots 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).
Quote from: J N Winkler on November 16, 2014, 12:18:47 AM
Quote from: billtm on November 15, 2014, 09:48:44 PMWtf is wrong with Consumer Reports? :confused:
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 (http://www.saturnfans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=149914&page=3).
* 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.
I actually do a 5k oil change on all my cars....because cars burn cleaner now, there is less gunk getting into the Oily bits. Also with modern oils, most are partially synthetic, even the cheap conventionals.
http://www.pqiamerica.com/ some info on oils there. Pennzoil was known to be a sludge maker btw, but nowadays it is regarded as an oil that will keep your engine clean and even clean it out over time in a gentle process.
3,000 miles is garbage pushed by the folks like Valvoline who make money selling oil changes. Of course they recommend you do it more frequently than you need to so you pay them to do it more frequently than you need to, and get away with it since the vast majority of American motorists don't know better.
On the other hand, there is also the factor of the great American pastime of procrastination. Some people need to be nagged to do it every 3,000 miles so they hopefully get around to doing it every 5,000. Some people you're lucky if they change it before 10,000 either because they're too busy or because that's how long it takes them to be able to spare the $40 for it.
I do it every 5,000, and it's mostly based on how dirty/low the oil tends to be.* This seems to be a good interval for both. Of course I could baby my truck more by doing it every 3,000, but the practical benefit probably doesn't outweigh my quality of life in doing it 40% less.
* This kind of observation is one of the non-time/money x-factors that tilt me to the side of changing my own oil.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 17, 2014, 10:11:04 PM
I do it every 5,000, and it's mostly based on how dirty/low the oil tends to be.* This seems to be a good interval for both. Of course I could baby my truck more by doing it every 3,000, but the practical benefit probably doesn't outweigh my quality of life in doing it 40% less.
* This kind of observation is one of the non-time/money x-factors that tilt me to the side of changing my own oil.
The only time i do less than 5k is when i first get a used car, i do 2500 miles, change it, then go another 2500, that way i potentially get a lot of gunk out.