Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Nissan Altima



  • tim_hooligan,

    I would you saw bad quality from the Camry because it is one of the first built.

    I'm sure if you go back in a month and look, quality will be much better.
  • "I hope the VQ engines are better than the Pathfinder's"

    The VQ is the best engine that Nissan makes. That's the one that keeps winning all the awards @ Ward's World. Nissan knows how good this engine is and that is why it is going in just about every V6 car. Pathfinder, Maxima, Altima, the upcoming 350Z, Infiniti I30/I35, and supposedly in the G35 too.

    Do yourself a favor and drive a Nissan car with a VQ, the engine is a gem.
  • barnonebarnone Posts: 118
    if only all the other parts of the car are as good as it's VQ engine, i would have purchased a nissan.
  • exzaveexzave Posts: 16
    Almost had to launch on you until I re-read your post. You said "pre-240 hp......" Yes earlier, Pathfinders were underpowered. But they had the 33VE engine not a VQ series from the Maxima.

    I own a new 250 hp (Manual tran.) Pathfinder.
    It has plenty of punch above 3K rpms. Powerband is nice and wide, but really picks up at about 2800 rpm's. Heck I dont even bother to downshift to pass. (We dont need no stinking fourth gear).
    Was worth learning how to drive a stick ;).
    Should make a requirement for new 3.5 Altimas

  • bimmer4mebimmer4me Posts: 266
    I understand what you're saying about your 96 Pathfinder. This was one of the reasons I never purchased the earlier PF's, I always liked the looks, but it was a real slug...that was untill the 2001's were introduced. My 2001 PF with its vast improvements and its new VQ engine is smooth, quiet and power is more than adequate to push the heavy Pathfinder that it is. If the new Altima lives up to everybodys expectations, I will soon be selling the Accord to buy this promising new vehicle. Can't wait to test drive one. Looked at the 2002 Camry yesterday...although nice I wasn't impressed...the interior less so, the exterior was a pleasant departure from the current design.
  • Just test drove 4cl 02 camry today as I posted on Camry board. Totally don't feel want to buy it even though the vehicle is powerful and smooth enough for a family car. Maybe the body style and interior make the vehicle boring. I still remember how I was excited when I test drove and bought a Niss 240sx years ago. I am gonna try 02 Altima next month. Hope that I feel good on test drive like I did it with Niss 240sx before. If not then I 'll buy a 02 cr-v.
  • 92drexel92drexel Posts: 153
    Anyone have a link for the 2002 Camry???

    The VQ engine is a gem...I agree. The engine is esp good in the 3000 - 4500 range. Plenty of umph from 60 to 100 mph. Really quiet too. I can't wait to see 0-60 times for the 6-speed maxima.

    If anyone can post a link to the Camry, I'd appreciate it.
  • mirthmirth Posts: 1,212
    Camry pics are at No specs posted anywhere yet as far as I know.

    Now, back to the Altima. ;-)

    I think I'm going to end up getting an Altima, maybe a Maxima. I wouldn't even have considered the Camry except Toyota promoted how much sportier the new one would be. IMHO, the result was pretty lame (for a semi-enthusiast). I'm sure their current buyers will think it's just fine, but it's not what they said it would be. I really think the Altima is going to gain some market share.
  • 92drexel92drexel Posts: 153
    Thanks for the link!

    I'm not too impressed with the Camry. The exterior, front looks OK, but the rear reminds me of the current Taurus.

    The dash looks worse than the Altima. It's too plain, too impersonal.

    I agree that the altima will take a small portion of the pie if this is the best Toyota can do. However I'll reserve final judgement until I see one in person.

    Also...anyone have a link to any 'spy' shots of the new Accord? 2003 I think?
  • mirthmirth Posts: 1,212
    Just saw a new online ad for the '02 Altima on the Car and Driver site. I was reading an article and suddenly this ad superimposed itself over the text. Pretty annoying actually. Try reading any article at the C&D site and you'll see what I mean.
  • hmpowerhmpower Posts: 20
    That pop up ad is really annoying, I couldn't read anything until it went away...When I first saw it, I decided to order the information - I was hoping for a brochure, I got a 2 page booklet that said little more than the car will be all new for 2002 - absolutely no new info at all - now I can probably look forward to annoying cards from the local dealer.
  • s852s852 Posts: 1,051
    Workers at the Altima plant are criticising Nissan and their working conditions.
    These angry workers might not be putting full effort into quality control.

  • tgif888tgif888 Posts: 351
    So, is the union good thing or bad thing?
  • In a simple phrase:

    It's gonna cost you more to have less.

    IMO, it's BAD! :(
  • Don't know if it's been posted earlier, but here's a link to the first car that rolled off the production line (according to Looks smart in that color! woohoo!

  • s852s852 Posts: 1,051
    It looks good.
    I will probably go and test drive one the day a local dealer gets an SE automatic in stock even though I will probably wait for a while for the supply to be built up before actually trying to buy one if I like it.
    I am very curious to see if the ride with the sport suspension and 17" low profile performance tires is comfortable and quiet enough to be liveable.

    I heard that if you want a smooth ride, you need the 2.5 SL because the SE has a harder ride, but if you want a smooth engine, you need the 3.5 SE because the 2.5 engine is noisy. Too bad there is no 3.5 SL with the V6 and the smoother tires and suspension.
  • scnamescname Posts: 296
    I don't know why you guys are all excited about the new Altima look. Looks like another typical Japanese econobox to me. Just like the Corollas, Sentras, Civics. Not that I think it is bad ,I drive one such econobox myself.
  • s852s852 Posts: 1,051
    Who is "all excited?" I like the way it looks in the photos, that's all. I didn't say it was the best looking car that has ever been made in all automotive history. It does look a little more stylish than a Sentra or Corolla at least even though it is not all that daring in style.
    I'm sure I like the exterior, but I want to see the interior in person or at least see some high-quality photos of production model interiors that are taken without flash before I judge that.
  • asdxereasdxere Posts: 29
    Has anyone seen the passenger side of the 2002 Altima, close-up ?
    I was wondering if Nissan is still going to continue the
    "no passenger keyhole" routine with the Altima, as well ?
  • har1bushhar1bush Posts: 207
    geez, I don't think there is as keyhole on the passenger side... look at the motortrend pictures -- I certainly don't see one there. What is the deal with that?! Well, at least it has the keyless entry that everyone will use 95% of the time.

    Altima looks like a typical econobox? Then I guess I should say that the new Q45 looks like an econobox as well, since the Altima mimicks the Q from the front and in the roofline.
  • ludacrisludacris Posts: 185
    It's good looking for a family sedan, especially the ones in the new Motor Trend issue. Being able to rival a Porsche Boxster in the 1/4 mile is pretty cool too : )
  • ecarmackecarmack Posts: 161
    If you thought the TL-S ride wasn't comfortable enough, I bet the Altima SE will also be a little too harsh. Living in the Midwest, I would actually prefer 16 inch wheels standard with the option of 17 inch wheels. I do not want the expense of bent rims or the expense and hassle of having a separate winter set.
  • What's the big deal??.. my 2000 Maxima SE doesn't have a passanger keyhole and frankly who cares?. That's what the keyless entry is for. I have yet to use my car keys to open the car door.
  • corvettecorvette United StatesPosts: 5,581
    Ditto speedracer3's opinion. Nissan, Volkswagen, and Volvo are among the companies that have done away with the passenger keyhole. I'm sure it saves them money, but personally I think a car's lines look slicker without it.
  • Well the car may look a bit "slicker" without the keyhole but 10 years from now when a lot of the keyless entry systems no longer work, many owners will be cursing the lack of keys for the passenger door and in many cases (not nissan) the trunk. Ergonomics at its worst. Gagets,gadgets, gadgets. Americans are addicted.
    Its even worse for some european cars. MBs use some fancy IR key. I'm sure a lot of those systems will fail with time. In this case you won't even be able to start the damn car. But it oh SO COOL. Thats what sells.
  • 92drexel92drexel Posts: 153
    Actually, I have an older car which doesn't have keyless entry. During the winter's snow and freezing rain, I find myself locked out of my car because the keyhole freezes and the darn lock won't turn. There is nothing more embarassing or upsetting than not being able to get into your car on a freezing cold day.

    I welcome keyless entry and technology in general. Some MB's are virtually impossible to steal because of the special keys that they employ. I'd much rather have that after investing $40K+ on a MB.
  • You have a good point. I have also been frozen out of my vehicle a few times myself. Ok then why not have keyless entry and key locks on all doors? Wouldn't that make most sense?
    I still stand by my comments about the smart keys used by MB. I am a physicist who has worked as a semiconductor device engineer most of my career. Take my word for it. A certain percentage of those won't work (may be the key itself or maybe the system) after a certain number of years. And there will be a lot of very frustrated and angry owners.
  • jeffyjcjeffyjc Posts: 14
    has anyone seen prices on these? or the new SE-R sentra? Thanks
  • I just realized that they removed the option package table from the website? I wonder how long it's been gone -- or have they simply moved it? It used to be a at the end of the "Specifications" page, after the standard Features tables.

    Luckily, I have a printout of the original page. When I realize the page had been changed, I quickly scanned for other changes on the standard features and specs tables. There were a few minor wording changes, some moving around of some stuff under different sub-headers, but there were also some changes of minor substance;

    1. Power windows/locks have been added to the 2.5 base model (thus cascading through the whole line, as each builds from the 2.5 -- it was a curious omission from the original version, since they listed such basics as the fuel door release and the rear defroster all along).

    2. Coin Holder added to 2.5 base.

    3. Originally, they had both "power" and "manual" dual outside mirrors listed on the 2.5 base. Now the power phrase has been deleted; it was probably a typo to begin with.

    4. "Manual transmission clutch interlock" deleted from 2.5 base. What is a "Manual transmission clutch interlock"?!! I hope the clutch still disengages the transmission from the engine ...

    5. 60/40 split rear seat was listed w/o lock on 2.5 base, and with lock on 2.5 S. Now, lock is included on 2.5 base.

    6. "Steering wheel controls" has been added to description of trip computer for 2.5 SL (but not to 3.5 SE)

    7. Added "Cruise Control w/steering wheel controls" to 3.5 SE, 3.5 SL. (between audio, cruise, and trip computer controls on the steering wheels I hope there is room left for hands!) Cruise was another curious omission from my early printout.

    8. Added 5-spd manual to 3.5 SE. Seems redundant, but maybe it indicates a different version with different ratios? Either way, it's probably just normal web-site wierdness.

    9. In the top specs box, in addition to the HP change on the I4 and the new EPA ratings, some weight gains have appeared; 1 pound for each base model (must be that rear seat lock!), 11 pounds for each S, 2 - 4 pounds for each SL, and 29-30 pounds for each SE (I guess I'll have to lose about 30 pounds to maintain that optimal HP/weight ratio they had posted originally).

    10. For the absolute trivia buff, my original list showed a separate, 57.8 inch height for the 17 inch wheels, and a 57.9 inch height for the 16 inchers. The height now simply states 57.9 (they must have topped off the air in the 17s).

    I, like others on this list, am awaiting a 3.5 SE manual. I was looking to see if prices had been posted yet when I noticed the missing option lists. I hope they are being re-worked; I didn't care for the option dependencies they had built in.

    I especially am surprised that you need a sunroof and a spoiler for the Xenon headlights. At 6' 8", sunroofs are my nemesis, as I need every millimeter of headroom I can get. The spoiler, although not bad looking in pictures, is not something I want stuck onto the back of my car. The headlights are something I want for the improved vision I am told they offer. However, I can, and will, live without them (assuming a 3.5 SE is ever actually built without these options -- I can imagine the dealer checking virtually all of the options on their SE allocations).

    The other item that dismays me more is that Traction Control is not available with the 5-speed. This is probably more of a technical issue than a packaging one, but TC has saved me many times on ice and snow covered hills. Once again, I can and will live without it.

    Here my rambling ends, and the waiting game continues ...
  • jrct9454jrct9454 Posts: 2,363
    RE: item 4 above, I am presuming this is the deal where you have to depress the clutch pedal in order to operate the starter. [Can't simply turn the key with the trans in neutral.] This is, of course, to prevent the inadvertent start with the car in gear [yeah, we've all tried to do it at least once].
This discussion has been closed.