Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Nissan Altima

1424345474897

Comments

  • lsclsc Member Posts: 210
    The Altima has gobs of headroom in the front...one of the reasons why it's so tall. How tall are you that you can't fit. I'm 6'1" and I have no problems in my Altima.

    I've had mine for about a month now and because the ergonomics are so good, I don't even notice the cheap plastic anymore. The dash is designed in such a way that my right leg doesn't rub up against the middle console and my left leg doesn't touch the door. Not to make excuses on the interial materials because they really should have stepped it up on their do or die car but it wasn't enough to detract me from the awesome looking exterior. Plus I liked the neat little features like the trip computer the steering wheel controls as well as the gauge layout. Also, the auto on/off headlights are cool too, I never have to touch the headlight switch.

    A couple of cars were trying to challenge me today, one was a Honda Accord LX. ha ha ha! I actually let him win..no need to race a car you can smoke w/o trying
  • cupholder1cupholder1 Member Posts: 231
    I am about 6'4. Call me old fashioned, but I definitely like to have more than an inch or so of space between my head and the roof of the car... And I like to be able to see whether the light has changed from red to green without having to crouch down to peek under the windshield.
  • stebustebu Member Posts: 204
    I looked over the Altima, as well as every other car being mentioned here, pretty closely this past week at the NE Auto Show. The Altima really is a nice looking car, especially compared to the Accord. I was somewhat surprised by the interior of the Altima. By that I mean, I went to the show a bit jaded and expecting the worst considering some of the negative remarks I'd been seeing on this list. Sorry folks, I don't see what all the fuss is about. There was gobs of room both front and back (I'm 6ft tall). The switches were well placed and felt as smooth as any of it's main competitors. Seats were supportive and comfortable. The tilt/telescoping steering was slick since it makes the Altima one of the few cars that both myself and my wife (5ft tall) could adjust for a perfect fit. All in all not bad and very competitive with the interiors in the other mainsteam sedans, and certainly no where near deserving of the criticism I'm seeing leveled at it by some here. If you want to experience a dissapointing interior sit in a new Saturn. Even Hyundai has blown past them in that department. I can only hope the Altima's performance is being as understated as its interior.

    Speaking of interiors, I think someone mentioned an article that blasted the new Mercedes C-coupe interior. I guess I can understand some consternation about the funky pattern they used on the cloth seats. But then again, you can't get in any other new Mercedes at the coupes price point. So what's the [non-permissible content removed]?

    However, getting back to the Altima, its exterior, especially a light green 3.5SE they had at the show, was attracting quite a bit of attention. In fact, there was a new A4 directly across the isle, and it was getting nowhere near the hordes of onlookers the SE was harvesting. Actually, the only other cars that seemed to be getting nearly as much attention as the Altima along it's isle was a WRX wagon (it had a $3K BBS wheel/tire package), and the new IS300 Sportcross.

    That said, I would never expect the Altima to post the sales numbers the Camcords achieve, unless the new ones completely drop the ball (I would hope not and it's not likely). But I wouldn't be surprised if the Altima stole a disproportionate share of previous generic sedan owners and others who might be shopping for something with a bit more of an edge in the family sedan market.
  • fasterthanufasterthanu Member Posts: 210
    Motor Trend should never have said the Altima lets drivers pick on Porsche's Boxter, even in jest. Yesterday I saw 3 guys in an Altima 3.5 challenge a previous gen. M3. They punched it, burned rubber, got ahead of the M3 at the stoplight. Needless to say, the M3 spanked the Altima REALLY hard. They stopped laughing and looked pretty ridiculous. Having 3 guys in the car didn't help I'm sure.
  • one_loveone_love Member Posts: 28
    3 people in the car of cousre it will be slowed down. Plus an M3 and a Porche have their differences. The Altima is FAST period there is no need to debate this. I't's the fastest car in it's class and then some. I'm frankly tired of your hating. Especially your complaints about the interior. If you think the Altima is so bad check out the new CR-V. If you think the use of plastic was stretched to the limits in the Altima welcome to a whole to new Universe at Honda.
  • one_loveone_love Member Posts: 28
    I have to continue from my above post. Seriously though to people complaing about the Altima check out the new CR-V and then close your complaints about the Altimas interior. From the get go the CR-V's cheapness is apparent:

    1) Just by looking at the CR-V from the outside you know it's cheap. The front and rear uses more plastic even more so then the last model.

    2) At least the Altimas interior has unique and attractive design. I couldn't stand staring at the most boring interior in the world.

    3) The seats are just sad with their ugly pattern.

    4) From what I heard leather is not an option. Sorry folks :(

    5) even the door handles are black plastic.

    Of course Nissan will get the double standard and everyone will ignore how cheap the New CR-V is. The sad thing is that Honda has more funds then Nissan and their cost cutting efforts are more apparent then Nissans. It all started with the Civic with the cheap suspension(Even edmunds thinks the new Si's use of platic is overdone.)
    I suggest some of you who are looking to the Heavens for the 2003 Accord to be your savior better not get your hopes up too much cause this Honda trend with cost cutting seems to be stretching through out their whole line-up.
  • blueguydotcomblueguydotcom Member Posts: 6,249
    Any chump who decides to challenge a Porsche Boxster or M3 deserves the ensuing loss. He's driving a family sedan and a FWD one at that.

    I just noted that the local dealer has a few 5 speed Altimas listed. Finally gonna try one on! Yahoo. Maybe my annoying 1.8T will finally find a new home.
  • aftyafty Member Posts: 499
    Motor Trend did not say that in jest. According to their test results, the Altima has acceleration numbers very similar to a Boxster. Check out an issue of MT and look at their road test digest, you'll see what they mean.

    I think MT's numbers were something like this:
    Altima - 6.3 0-60, 14.7@97 1/4-mile
    Boxster - 6.1 0-60, 14.7@96 1/4-mile

    Note that they were not referring to a Boxster S or an M3, which are both significantly faster than a base Boxster.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    OK, I'll take the bait. What does the Altima offer beyond the 0-60 numbers?

    Boy, you'd think it was a 1986 Hyundai Excel with a VQ series engine strapped to the front. Any how:

    * solid braking performance
    * good handling for a family sedan
    * exterior styling
    * 17" wheels standard
    * interior space (cross your legs in back, go ahead)
    * 5 speed manual offered with both engines
    * HID option
    * moonroof option (WRX does not have this)

    That's a pretty unique combination of pros to go along with the engine.

    -juice
  • mirthmirth Member Posts: 1,212
    I'm looking to buy a new car early year and the Altima and Maxima are on my list 'o possibilities. The other day I ran some numbers based on the invoice prices of the Alty and Max I would want. The Alt would be a 3.5SE with abs, traction, side air, floor mats, and air filter. The max would be an SE with just floor mats.

    The invoice on the Max ends up about $900 more than the Alty. However, the residual on the Max after 5 years (cars.com) is about $1500 more than the Alty. So basically, even at invoice the Max is $600 cheaper in the long run than the Altima. If you use TMV, the difference is even greater: $2300 more for the Altima. I just don't see the value of the 3.5SE. I think Nissan screwed up the pricing on this one.

    OTOH, I think the 2.5 liter version of the Altima is very competitively priced.
  • fasterthanufasterthanu Member Posts: 210
    Nice name.

    Be tired all you want, but valid complaints about a car is not a form of hating on it. Sorry you can't appreciate the difference.

    Sure, the CR-V's interior is plasticky in a bad sense, but look at its competition. That's what I said about the Altima too - look at its competition. The Altima claims to compete with the Accord and Camry but can't match even their interior appointments in quality.

    The CR-V competes against other mini-utes, and there, materials quality is lacking across the board - esp. in the Escape/Tribute.

    So what's the beef?

    What I said about the racer in the Altima is that he's dumb enough to try to race an M3. He obviously bought into a lot of hype about his car, and he got spanked for it. That's my point - I didn't deny the Altima being a fast car, just not THAT fast, and certainly not with 3 people on board.

    Jeez. Chill out cuz I ain't hatin, so dont you be hatin.
  • cupholder1cupholder1 Member Posts: 231
    Looking at magazine times really isn't that smart when trying to determine whether you can outrun an M3 with an Altima SE. First, the magazine tests are all on stick shift. Most Altima SE drivers will be in auto, and will be doing 60 in the 7's. And to get that 7+ number, they will have to floor it and burn rubber.

    Second, the magazines use professional drivers, on a track, who are capable of dealing with the torque steer that the Altima has.

    Bottom line is an ordinary driver is more likely to replicate the magazine times in an M3/Boxster in a safe manner than an Altima driver.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    With an auto, and in a straight line (as most drag races are), it's a simple matter of mashing the throttle.

    -juice
  • cupholder1cupholder1 Member Posts: 231
    will beat the slush box driver in a straight line race -- every time (assuming the cars are about equal).
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    True. Especially if he's not caught by surprise.

    Remember, just because you outrun someone doesn't mean they were trying. ;-)

    -juice
  • shriqueshrique Member Posts: 338
    You sure need to deal with tons O' torque steer on that straight line drag strip and those massive 60mph speeds are just insane. You just need to be able to shift fast and hold on. Of course you also have to be willing to beat the living heck out of your car. 1/4 mile? That's another story.

    Bottom line most people that drive any car whether it be M3/Boxster/Altima/Elantra are ill prepared to do anything out of the ordinary in their cars. Most people drive down the highway at 75mph talking on their cell phones. It's pretty evident around my home town up Nort' when that first snow fall comes around.
  • aftyafty Member Posts: 499
    The whole point of magazine comparisons are to determine what the *machine* is capable of, driver notwithstanding. Arguing based on the "typical" Altima driver is silly. Do you think magazines should qualify all acceleration numbers with demographic information about the people who will buy that car?

    The Altima is not exactly a difficult car to launch. It doesn't require a ridiculous launch technique to get good times like some other fast cars do (*cough* S2000, WRX *cough*).
  • cupholder1cupholder1 Member Posts: 231
    actually, getting a good Altima launch is quite hard --- if you don't want to shred your tires to little bits and have people laughing as you burn rubber at a stoplight. No such worry with the AWD WRX.
  • aftyafty Member Posts: 499
    But with the WRX, you get no boost below 3000 rpm. It's apparently quite hard to get a good launch in that car without bogging the engine, at least from what I've read. Car and Driver claimed they had to rev up to 5000 rpm and drop the clutch (they called it "doing the unthinkable in an AWD car") to get the times they published. I have not driven the WRX, so I can't confirm this. I have driven an S2000 and an Altima 5-speed, and of the two the Altima was much easier to get a good launch out of.
  • cupholder1cupholder1 Member Posts: 231
    You can get to 60 in 6 seconds without any clutch dropping. You just need to know how to drive a turbo, i.e., rev it up, and then slip out the clutch and then increase the gas at the same time. practice makes perfect.
  • aftyafty Member Posts: 499
    If I ever get a chance to drive a WRX, I'll give that a try.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    True, but C&D's WRX smoked the Audi S4 and BMW 330xi using that approach. Even with a more reasonable launch, you're still easily in the 6 second range, without trying much.

    I've driven one and the docile under 3000rpm personality actually is an advantage IMO because it's quiet, smooth, efficient, and generally easy to live with. When you want it to it'll go, for sure.

    -juice
  • maxamillion1maxamillion1 Member Posts: 1,467
    Look at the interior of the new RAV4, it's much better than the new CR-V. Even the Escape and Tribute have better interiors than the new CR-V. The design is so ugly, the radio is all the way up at the top of the dash, and their is a cheap looking console that is where the radio should be. Honda doesn't have an excuse either, they no people are going to complain about the cheapness, I will.

    Also, for the comments about the Honda Accord having a cheap interior next year, I doubt it. Why? Honda knows that if they drop the ball on interior quality they will loose sells, they know that buyers look for cars with extreme refinement and quality, they won't drop the ball.
  • alpha01alpha01 Member Posts: 4,747
    If you take a look at the 0-60 times in Car and Driver, it seems as though at 7.3 seconds, the car is significantly faster than the Camry V6 and Accord V6.... but, how many people out on the road use the "brake torqueing" technique (which is defined in the chronicle of yearly road tests, called Road Test Digest)? If you look at the "street start" test, in which the driver more realistically just stomps on the accelerator at a stoplight, the Altima's performance trump card vanishes. In addition, if you want a true measure of family car performance, look at the passing times. The Altima is ahead, but not earth shatteringly so.
    just my .02 on the article and 0-60 times.
    ~alpha
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    OK, but combine all those slightly better times with 24mpg (2nd best in test), and that extra performance isn't costing you an extra. So why not have it?

    It's not one result that makes the car, it's the group of solid results. Look again at the numbers for braking and handling.

    -juice
  • alpha01alpha01 Member Posts: 4,747
    if you look at braking and handling, the Camry stops shorter but is second to the Altima in Emergency lane change speed... But if you're looking at MPG, then Camry managed 26 MPG... so I'd still pretty much call it a draw... and I really don't see the extra performance advantage, at least not in the automatic version... correct me if I'm wrong, but the Camry beat the Altima in the street start... but the passing times and 0-60 were quicker. Quarter mile times are still of the brake torque nature, and those stats, as I stated previously, are less representative of the real world, at least where family cars are concerned. Don't get me wrong, I'd still buy an Altima SE over an SE V6 Camry for its 5sp and firmer suspension, I'm just pointing out that there isnt this perceived huge advantage in performance for the automatic versions.
    ~alpha
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    IIRC Altima also led in lateral cornering forces.

    It's funny because the way I read it the Altima was the sportiest and the Camry seemed to be best of the non-sporting bunch. Really I'd be OK with the wife choosing either one, or the Accord for that matter.

    -juice
  • one_loveone_love Member Posts: 28
    maxamillion1
    Civic, CR-V, Accord and Oddy are Hondas prime vehicles and the trend so far doesn't look good. I'm just saying don't expect a "perfect" car or a much better one then the Altima(if that even).

    fasterthanu
    For all the interior complainers (or Altima complainers period) I'm also really surprised how no one seems to mention how plasticy the Camry can be. The base models are a whole different story then the top of line ones. Where Nissan messed up was not at least giving a better interior for the higher level models. I have a black interior Altima and my biggest complaint is the doors, I also saw a 2002 Camry I think it was an SE version and the door was just as plasticy as the Altima was. Plus the base Camry's have plastic interior door handles. So I'm just not getting why nobody complains about these things in other manufacturers vehicles. Like I said though a double standard for Nissan.
  • shriqueshrique Member Posts: 338
    Just in case you were wondering (like I was) what the technical definition of brake Torquing you can look it up in the dictionary of automtive terms that I found. Pretty much it's just a brake stand.


    http://www.parttrackers.com/auto_glossary/


    After driving it I still think it FEELS tons faster than the other cars. The slush-box has a much better feel than other automatics. It has a nice quick response when you mash the gas.


    After thinking about it I don't think the brake-torque mehtod would work well on the Altima. When I did a stree-start with a 3.5 it spun the tires pretty readily. I think if you did a brake-torque start you would probably smoke 'em pretty good which doesn't help your stats. But I don't own one so I can' back that up with practical experience. I will however be giving it a try the next time I drive one. (wicked grin)

  • riezriez Member Posts: 2,361
    From the C&D Family Car test:

    maybe the Hyundai XG350? 2nd quickest acceleration and street start time, 3rd quickest top gear 30-50, 3rd highest top speed, best warranty, loaded with safety & luxury amenties (standard ABS/TC and side airbags, sportshift, 5-speed automatic, leather, and more), and value priced ($2,400 less than the tested Altima 3.5SE and $1,500 less than Camry SE V-6). Love the cloth seats in the Camry & Accord. Not!

    Passing/top gear times mean different things for cars with automatic and manual transmissions. For the latter, shows engines power & gearing combination in the top gear, while in the former it can depend upon how many gears the transmission downshifts when floored. I'd like to see the figure for automatics include leaving the tranny in D as well as "manually" downshifting to the optimum ratio.
  • speedracer3speedracer3 Member Posts: 650
    The Altima is a family car, and it might not be the fastest thing on the road (although faster than all of its immediate competitors). Wanna race?... just wait until Nissan unleashes the 350Z. The new Z promises to be quite a powerhouse for the price. Enthusiasts rejoice!

    Speed
  • emmo1emmo1 Member Posts: 6
    Today I sat down with an Altima dealer, intending to buy a car. I chose the Altima 2.5 S and I wanted it with the ABS and Airbag package. The package offered also included floor mats, a filter, and splash guards. The dealer offered it for $19,626, which he claimed was Invoice plus 3 percent. But when I added up the costs (using Edmunds' numbers) it only came to $19,3XX. (I forget the exact figure). The difference, the dealer claimed, was an Advertising Charge of more than $300, which he claims is added to every car. Was he being straight with me? Is this a negotiable fee? He also refused to give me any trade-in on my 1990 Mercury Topaz, which I think should be worth at least a couple of hundred bucks. Any thoughts? IS $19,626 (NOT including taxes, title, license, and document fee) a good deal or not?!?! Thanks.
  • cupholder1cupholder1 Member Posts: 231
    A dealer won't even be able to wholesale it out. You're better off donating it to charity for the write-off. Or make the dealer haul it off to the junkyard in order to seal the deal.
  • emmo1emmo1 Member Posts: 6
    I was offered invoice on a fully loaded 3.5SE. The MSRP was $28,500. Dealer was willing to drop to $26,500. I still think this is too much based on the cheap interior - leather trim or not. It should be closer to $24,000.
  • cupholder1cupholder1 Member Posts: 231
    was the offer "If I could sell it to you for invoice, would you buy it today?"
  • fasterthanufasterthanu Member Posts: 210
    Emmo:

    Funny you asked about the ad fee - there was another forum where the ad fee was examined. Basically, it's a charge by the manufacturer to the dealer. The fact that they are trying to pass it on to you as an additional fee on top of your negotiated price means the salesman was preparing to - um .. - mess with you. The fee is BOGUS and you should walk. Period.

    One Love:

    All cars have vast expanses of plastic (what else would they make the interior panels with - wood? But we're talking about the quality of the plastic, as well as build and design quality.

    What Altima do you have? Next time you get in, poke the roof. It's like a sagging sheet of tin. A tuna can is built sturdier than the Altima's roof. That's the issue we're discussing - QUALITY.
  • aftyafty Member Posts: 499
    Are you sure about the advertising fee? From what I've read in the Smart Shopper forum, the advertising fee is real, a charge from the manufacturer to you, not to the dealer.

    Emmo, I suggest you post your question in the Smart Shopper forum. There are several car salemen there who are more qualified to answer your question than we are here.

    Edit: There's a topic over there called "REAL FEES...OR NOT REAL FEES when buying" that I believe will answer your question.
  • emmo1emmo1 Member Posts: 6
    He offered invoice when I told him $28,500 for a 3.5SE was crazy. And yes, he was offering it that day. Isn't that always the way?
  • fasterthanufasterthanu Member Posts: 210
    I am POSITIVE about the ad fee:


    Check this out:


    /direct/view/.ef06138/70

  • fasterthanufasterthanu Member Posts: 210
    74 of 112 Ad fees are BOGUS by fasterthanu Nov 10, 2001 (12:24 pm)
    Whether they're to cover costs by the manufacturer or dealer, Ad Fees are bogus if they're charged back to the consumer. Why should the buyer have to reimburse a fee for advertising? Advertising is a cost of doing business, and the manufacturers and dealers should count it as part of the cost of the product itself.

    What's next? A Janitorial Fee to cover the cost of mopping the showroom floor? A Country Club Fee to cover the cost for executive privileges?

    How stupid is this ad fee? Very. I've never paid it, and if someone asked me to, I'd tell him to pay me a Shopping Fee for all the work I do to get a car.

    If the fee is built into the final price, and the buyer thinks the price is fair, then that's all good. If it's separately itemized and added to a negotiated selling price, then you need to walk out of the showroom, preferably stepping on some sales toes on the way out.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    #75 of 112 Bogus by artwis Nov 10, 2001 (02:01 pm)
    I've never had the manufacturer ad fee itemized and added to the negotiated price but it's in there somewhere just like when you buy a box of cheerios at the grocery store. It would be better if it was averaged to be the same all over the country and just part of final invoice price. I guess that would be the same as counting it as part of the manufacturing cost. Manufacturers could cut the advertising costs if they would cut back on the regional and national tv ads, they get old and agravating real fast especially when you see the same one 3-4 times in an hour or less on the same channel.
    Art

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    #76 of 112 faster by brentwoodvolvo Nov 10, 2001 (03:10 pm)
    I think you ought to scroll up and read that image that I linked to.

    It might explain what we're talking about.

    If you negotiate a price with a dealer and then get hit with an advertising charge, yes, that is bogus in all likelihood.

    If you're negotiating from the invoice up and see an advertising charge on the invoice, its' likely a legit fee that's part of the invoice of the car.

    Bill

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    #77 of 112 Ad's fees .... by rroyce10 Nov 10, 2001 (03:19 pm)
    .......... You guys have kinda missed the whole point ....

    The conversation started because of a question "about them" ...

    So what do you get for the small upgrade in cost ...? Well lets see ...

    How about 0% financing -- or $2500 rebates..(and in some cases $4,000) .. or both. --- how about some of the manufacturers, who are also giving away full value packages that are 7/8/$900+++ for -0- ....

    Gee whiz, lets see .. you only have an opportunity to save somewhere in the area of $2000 to $5,000+ .. and you are whining about a $200 advertising fee ....????

    Does your mom still press your shirts and pack your lunches ...? -- l...o...l...

    Terry.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    #78 of 112 by fasterthanu Nov 10, 2001 (05:47 pm)
    Artwis:

    The example of Cheerios is extremely appropriate to this discussion. It's been documented that the actual cost of production for cereals and their packaging are NEGLIGIBLE compared to the cost of advertising/marketing them: endless commerials, promotions, supermarket space, etc. When you pay $4 - $6 for a box of Count Chocola or Fruit Loops, that is for advertising and profit, with a minimal amount (pennies, really) towards the productions costs and overhead. Crazy, no?

    Brentwood:

    Good point, one in which I acknowledged in my post. Sure, ad fees are charged to dealers, but what I'm talking about is the dealer assessing that same charge to the buyer, in addition to the negotiated price. It's happened often, and buyers need to be educated about it - like it's happening her
  • venus537venus537 Member Posts: 1,443
    LOL. If the 2003 Accord came out with the same cheap interior as the Altima, all hell would break out in the auto industry. The complaints the Altima is getting now for its interior would be nothing compared to what the Accord would get if it dared came out with such a interior. The same would hold true for the Maxima. Hopefully the interior design guru of the Altima won't be allowed near the Maxima.
  • cupholder1cupholder1 Member Posts: 231
    I haven't actually been inside an '02 Maxima. There was one on the lot I was at this weekend. Since it was sold, I could only peek inside. It definitely looked A LOT nicer. Looked like it had real door handles, not dixie cup plastic. The rear tail lights had some taste and class. Heck, it even had a cassette player!

    I might even be interested in one if Nissan did not configure their cars so that I had to get a totally optioned out vehicle just to get airbags and ABS!
  • ikester12ikester12 Member Posts: 5
    2002 Auto Altima 2.5S
  • aftyafty Member Posts: 499
    I stand corrected. Thanks for the info!
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    FWIW, at least the Altima interior has some style. Seriously, the Camry's interior is plasticky and boring. It doesn't even look Japanese. The Accord's is also very boring, simple. At least Nissan took some risks.

    Expecting to get a fully loaded anything for $24k is a bit much, unless it's Korean.

    Look at the levels of equipment. The Accord got a failing grade in content in that C&D comparo, as did the Camry. A loaded up Camry exceeds $30k, more than a loaded Altima. The Accord simply doesn't offer a lot of the equipment that the Altima does, so you can't really compare.

    -juice
  • storytellerstoryteller Member Posts: 476
    If you would like to see what happens when an Internet board on cars does not have a helpful host like the ones Edmunds provides, check out the 2002 Altima customer satisfaction board on Microsoft's Carpoint site. For some reason, with other cars on that site, the customer ratings are predictably bland and positive, but the Altima site has turned into an "Animal House" food fight. Things got rough when satisfied Alty owners began dissing Camcords, and the Camcord group retaliated with ferocity. Now fans of the Korean makers are in a hissy fit, giving Altima rock bottom ratings even though they've never driven the car.

    One lesson is that hosts play an important role. But you have to wonder, what is it about Altimas that has stirred the wrath of so many fans of other cars?
  • oac3oac3 Member Posts: 373
    so much talk about C&D, MT, etc.. on speed and stuff is all nice and good, but the real seller is the would-be customer's views and perceptions and other intangibles to getting the car of their choice. You can have the fastest 0-60 or 1/4 mile speed, HID's, 17" wheels, etc. but you gotta make the hard compromises living with the below par interior. Let us just hope that Nissan makes a change in this direction for the '03.

    The '03 Accord will have much better interior materials than the current '02 version, which would be leaps and bounda ahead of the '02 Alty. Nothing less would satisfy the hordes of people waiting for this proposed new design of the Accord. I mean, Honda would lose big if they cut corners in this area. And why should they ? The Accord is a FAMILY sedan, and they would get it right.

    Nissan, OTOH, hasn't figured out what it takes to succeed in this market segment, and their tinkering on inside/outside changes only proves they have some ways to go before they get it...

    just my thoughts tho'
  • aftyafty Member Posts: 499
    I saw the Carpoint site a few weeks ago, and it gave me quite a chuckle. It's just a big flame war over there, but at least it's easy to pick out the real responses from the 10-year-olds who have never driven the car. MSN could at least make an effort to remove the bogus reviews...
  • fasterthanufasterthanu Member Posts: 210
    afty:

    Not a problem - glad to be able to point something out that's useful to the buyer. That's what Edmunds is here for.

    storyteller:

    I can tell you from a personal perspective why the Altima has drawn my strong criticism: Lack of quality (as compared to its competitors), high price that the dealers are not willing to negotiate upon, dealers' arrogance because of this new model. Nissan has advertised the Altima to the hilt and came short on supplying a quality product. Sure, some juices only care about the engine, but the rest of the car falls so short of benchmark that it's become a symbol of style over substance in the family sedan market.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Good point, storyteller.

    You may see a below par interior, in terms of materials and quality, but I see an above par interior in terms of design. It's much more of a cockpit, a driver's environment, than either the Accord or Camry. Whether or not you like that is up to your personal preferences.

    Nissan has not been successful? Have you seen the sales figures? They just broke another record in production (per Automotive News).

    Some "juices" only care about the engine? I cannot help but take that personally. Now you are blind-folded.

    I've been talking about balance this whole time, how mileage was good, lateral gs were good, slalom times were solid, brakes were within a foot of the best. The design is inspired, inside and out, and that is better than being boring, at least to me.

    Open your eyes, please.

    -juice
This discussion has been closed.