Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Midsize Sedans Comparison Thread
This discussion has been closed.
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Things are not always as they seem (feel). Some cars have a more sporty feel to them than the Accord, but not many can actually out handle it. That's one of the reasons why it wins so many comparison tests.
I looked at the 98-'02 version before a purchase in 1998/9 and I ended up with something that better met my needs/wants.
In 2005 we went to look at the '03-05 style and it felt more elegant than the last 94-02 but still less fun to drive than the 90-93. Again, there was another vehicle that better met our needs.
In the market again, the Accord is the same bland self, the Altima looks nice but buying a French car in its first year is double asking for it, IMO, I don't care for the Camry styling, and new stuff from everyone else will be out next year. Maybe the old car has another year and I'm not so in the market after all.
The handling was the best ever (90-93). In 94 they had to make the car larger, and heavier, to accomodate the newly available V6 engine. In 92 the Accord was too small for a V6, now it seems to be too large for the I4 IMO.
I would attribute more of the increase to the fact that the car changed size classes (compact to a solid, grown-up midsize), and added a 240 horsepower V6 (something unmatched in 2002), as well as a more powerful 4-cylinder engine. The Altima became a competitor with the big boys, like the Maxima used to be back in the late 90s, early 00s. Now the Maxima takes on the full-size crowd, and the Altima hits the meat of the midsizers. I don't think the styling is particularly dazzling on the Altima, Camry, OR Accord, but since we're talking taillights lately, I'll say I would MUCH rather have the LED brakelamps on the Accord over the mirrored "aftermarket" looking taillamps on Fusion or Altima.
Its personal preference though, neither of us is really "wrong." How's that for being PC?
Remember back a few years ago when those "black-out" or "smoke lense" head light and tail light covers were very popular as aftermarket add-ons? You don't see many of those anymore, that trend was pretty much replaced by xenon or HID head lamps and the new clear, mirrored Euro-syle "Altezza" tail lights as the more popular aftermarket visual enhancements.
Will the new lights still be as trendy and fashionable in 5 or 10 years? Or will they look very dated, like the black-out covers look now?
Notice that it looks like Nissan will use different tail lights on the upcoming Altima Coupe? I like these tail lights much better.
Se V6 which he got for about 22000. Nisson has announced that it will not try and sell cars with heavy rebates, but the 07 Max now has a 1500 rebate. When all the 06 altimas are gone watch 07 altima sales if they drop then the rebates might start. THe 07 Altima priceing for the V6's is quite high when you start adding options, perhaps way too high. My Jeep lease is up in August, and I might want an 07 Altima but now might have to wait for the 08 Accord. Old Mike
Nissan styling doesn't seem to last the test of time... the older Altimas look bleh now. The initial G35 and G35 coupe looks just as bland nowadays. I think the Altima coupe's lines are going to grow old faster than the sedan.
The Accord coupes need a big bold step forward though - which seems to be what Honda is doing for the next model. The current Accord sedans are much better looking that the coupes to me. Though I wouldn't complain if Honda ditches the Accord coupe totally and brought the Prelude back.
One of the reasons I never looked at the new Altima though is the CVT only now... curious to hear what people think of this CVT. I think Nissan probably has one of the best CVTs out there now, but still, I like the feel of gear changes and engines revving up.
Actually the base transmission is a wonderful 6 speed manual. Thats the main reason this car gets to stay on the list and why I don't see it as a direct competitor to the Maxima which is Slushie only (and generally too big for me). We will see if I wait another year or not.
I think for most people that would be about a $700 investment but would do a lot to make the car actually fun (not changing the springs or ride height makes for a good highway ride and acceptable in winter weather).
My problem is its hard for me to justify buying something brand new and then spending additional money to make changes to it. German manufacturers typically offer a sport suspension package bundled with tires and wheels for about $1000. I think this would do a lot for their performance and also how they are perceived.
That said, I drove a WRX with the STi aftermarket suspension package (shocks/springs/bars) and I found it a little to stiff to cope with the roads around here. Driving these roads makes me understand how the domestic cars of yore got that way.
-Loren
-Loren
if that tire comes with an increase in either total wheel/tire weight or diameter, handling and/or braking could actually be compromised. Recommend sticking with factory wheels and possibly even a 'plus 0' tire sizing - meaning widen the tire (the 1st number) but decrease aspect ratio (the 2nd number) in the same proportion - all if wheel well clearances allows. Be careful to maintain total tire/wheel circumference otherwise your speedo, odo and even acceleration and FE can suffer. A good tire store should be able to fit a good set of 'summers' taking all this in account even allowing for an increase in wheel diameter and width. As a rule, the lower the aspect ratio the worse the ride. While we've all had our share of crappola OE tires, keep in mind that your tire and wheel sizes are part of an engineered system designed for your particular car although that doesn't mean that improvements can't be made. These cars are NOT after all 'sports sedans' by almost any definition - there is only so much you can do with all that front weight bias.
A good performance 'summer' tire, BTW, can easily cost twice as much and last maybe half as long. This purchase of a set of tires needs to reasearched and considered as much as you did for the car itself! Such is the price of pleasures.
I look for the Altima 2.5 to be immensely popular, perhaps even supplanting the Impala in third place in total sales and right behind you know who.
I test drove a base Aura, then a week later, the Accord. I liked the Accord. Will have to test the Aura XR down the same road again and see if I have a change of heart. It seemed like the Aura was OK, but the Honda a better overall feel. And a very fine V6, and transmission, I may add.
-Loren
-Loren
Having had a 2006 Altima 3.5SL for 10 months now, I am very impressed with the quality of the vehicle.
I'm not sure about the 2007 Altima though. It seems quite a bit smaller than my 2006, especially in the back, and like you, I'm not convinced of the CVT yet, but it may be a better alternative than Camry's problematic 6 speed.
A CVT may be a better solution that a perpetually shifting and confused multi-speed auto. Can you imagine the Lexus LS460 with it's 8 speed? No thanks. Perhaps Nissan is on to a good thing after all.
People tease me for being "old school" and wanting a true manual transmission but when technology comes along to make the slushbox a little more effective, people don't like it. I don't get it.
Sometimes less IS more.
If you have a slushbox, something is thinking for you, thats why people get it, so they dont have to pay as much attention when they drive. I don't get what the big deal is with the CVT being more efficient about it.
Is peak torque, peak horsepower, and peak efficiency all the same RPM? (not likely) At least I know what my traditional automatic will do when I hit the gas. The CVT would have to be consistent, for me to trust it to give me the power when I want it. Don't think it could win that trust with just a test drive.
A Honda automatic seems to be a weird beast - its not your typical slushbox and neither is it an automatically shifted manual. I can't seen to find much more information about it though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hondamatic
I'd rather have a smooth-shifting 4 or 5 speed than an up-to-the-minute hyper-intelligent Super-Cray powered multi-speed Hi-IQ tranny that is a technological showpiece and looks great on paper and does everything except change gears smoothly and appropriately. From a practical perspective, how can a car possibly drive smoothly or be perceived as functioning properly when the transmission is perpetually trying to recalculate and flip ratios?
Remember Cadillac's cellular-based multi-sensored, micro-processor controlled multi-pump orthopedic seat they came out with a few years ago? Just one small problem - it wasn't as comfortable as a regular seat.
This is all techno overkill with diminishing practical returns.
The words "Honda", and "typical" don't go together. Honda does things their own way. The Accord is the only manufacturer using a SOHC V6, when most others have DOHC V6 engines. These SOHC engines seem to be very competitive though.
It's more about fuel economy, than power. Car shoppers are not really looking at how many gears the tranny has, but what the fuel mileage is.
IMHO a transmission with more than 5 speeds in a quest for greater fuel economy is fundamentally a flawed concept. Transmissions with more than 5 speeds are an attempt to engineer a conventional stepped ratio transmission to achieve the functionality of a CVT. If more ratios are deemed necessary, then a CVT starts making sense, so why not invest the R&D into perfecting a CVT instead. A CVT could be software programmed to behave like a CVT or like a stepped 4 or 5 or 6 speed to satisfy any driver's preferred mode of operation.
I'm still not quite 100% convinced yet, but I keep thinking that Nissan is on the right track here...
And its impossible to drive in non-racing situations, its shifts are too rough and violent. Might be okay for F1 racing, but not so good for driving to the country club. Driven by mortals, the manual still seems to be a better choice.
A Honda automatic seems to be a weird beast - its not your typical slushbox and neither is it an automatically shifted manual. I can't seen to find much more information about it though.
The Hondamatic was a 2 speed semi-automatic from the late 70s and early 80s, its not quite what is being discussed here.
ELROY: there was an OR in that statement, although I would think it could hold the motor at the rpm where the hp curve and the torque curve cross if it wanted to.
Could that cause carbon and also cause emmision problems down the line?
I was told by a friend this might be an issue using CVT transmissions
I miss driving a manual and yet I'm set in my ways for an auto daily.