A lot of comments have been made on the cheap quality and feel of the Altima's interior. However, the point to note is that Nissan can easily upgrade and improve its interior while the Accord is stuck with its exterior shape for the next five years!
I was hoping for something a little less... hum... bloated?!
Sedan: From certain angles, it looks nice BUT, it's the other views that I can't get used to. From the side it looks like a balloon, from the front it looks like a cheap Civic & from the rear it looks like a Saturn.
Coupe: A lot better but I still think it looks like a balloon. Something is just not right. Could side molding help?
I think I will wait for the TSX... Now that one looks great (so far).
Check out the official news link from American Honda: http://www.hondanews.com/. This contains official information and loads of photos from American Honda. I particularly like the Side Airbag curtain. I'm getting in line for my EX V-6 Sedan.
I read somewhere that Mr. Baker (project leader of the 2003 Accord) based this design on the lines of a cheetah. By no stretch of the imagination do I see a cheetah,or for that matter, any member of the cat family! What I see is a crouching frog!! But since Baker used to be a designer at SATURN, what can one expect? And that is why you see the "Saturnized tail-lights" on the 2003 Accord. IMHO Honda would be better off if they shopped for designers at Daimler-Chrysler, VW or even Ford!!
From Hondanews.com, this is one thing that REALLY bugs me about our '01 Accord:
Relative to the previous Accord, the steering wheel has been tilted towards the driver by four degrees, and raised 20 mm. The steering column is now aligned ideally with the driver's body, instead of being slightly offset laterally.
I really think the new interior looks great, especially in black or grey...
What's this facination with Cheetas lately? Nissan claims that the Cheeta was the inspiration for the upcomming Infiniti FX45 crossover SUV...
I agree with the critisim of the front clip. It does look down market from the Civic. Of course, so does the current car. The back also has too much previous generation Camry and Saturn L-Series. Overall, its livable but not great...
thanks for the Pics rsparrow. resembles a Picasso I once saw.... th83, there vehicles are built in Germany, sounds like your mom got one built during Oktoberfest. But really, my wife has a 2k passat and it has been nothing but excellent, drives as good as the day we purchased and has 41k on it. We were comparing the camry vs accord and decided to give the passat a test drive. SOLD! The passat was $3k more, but we were glad to pay it. Our lease is near it's end, contemplating again on what to buy. Will give all three a test drive again. cheers!
The rear-end light treatment (especially the side) is uglier than that of even the Saturn L series of which it appears to have been inspired. Will it take Honda three years to correct this styling blunder? Maybe someone will create a rear bra to camouflage the "frumpy" look. At least Toyota can remove the rear spoiler from its Camry SE without major surgery. Should Toyota offer a manual V6, then perhaps Honda will be motivated to offer the 6 speed V6 package in the sedan.
No, the Accord is no sport sedan, but neither do I see Honda EVER promote the Accord as such to the general public in their advertising. They may want to show automotive journalists how the Accord's suspension and handling have been improved, but I think this review would have us believe Honda is trying to pull a fast one when it is not. If anything, Honda's advertising has always been sedate. Acura, however, always promotes the cars' performance and handling .. but guess what, the Accord ain't too far off from a TL.
And who cares about advertising? I sure enjoy VW commercials but a smart person doesn't buy from advertising alone, especially something as expensive as a car. Like the old Honda ads say, Hondas sell themselves. Advertising is just something to keep the brand image alive in the public eye. The product itself has to be good. And the Accord IS good.
The two are actually pretty close in size. The Mazda6 has been getting great reviews from the European press for its driving dynamics and quality materials and assembly.
I'm not buying for a while, so I have plenty of time to contemplate matters related to the Accord, TSX, and Mazda6. I like the interior of the new Accord better, and have more confidence in Honda's reliability. The Mazda6 may be an interesting out-of-the-box alternative, however.
but I don't know if it'll be so easy to fix its general lack of refinement. The engines, while powerful, are coarse-sounding, it has an extremely hard ride, it's noisy and cheap-feeling, and it currently has that infamous Plasticville interior from hell. I'll guarantee that Honda will have no problems with the styling of the Accord over the next five years... it'll continue to sell in droves. The Altima will remain a blip on the radar by comparison, because it doesn't have the necessary characteristics to compete at the Accord/Camry level.
I agree that the real wild card here may be the Mazda 6. It has class leading styling, the interior looks great, and the early reports make it sound like it will have refinement that's competitive with the best in class, unlike the Altima. I'll be looking at a 2004, and it'll most likely be between the Accord EX V6 and the Mazda 6 V6. The Altima? Not a chance.
Y'know, I haven't looked at pictures of the Mazda 6 for a while, and I don't know why, but it doesn't look as good to me anymore.
From some angles, I see a strong resemblence to a Cavalier, as I said. From others, it looks a lot like an Olds Achieva. Not exactly my idea of style trendsetters, those. Mazda's photographers apparently wield no magic themselves.
I guess with all of these cars, the pictures only take you so far.
It's not as bad as it looks. I think the reviewer was annoyed when Honda implied that the new Accord could be considered a sports sedan. He wanted to take them down a peg. Aside from the Accord's handling in the California twisties, however, the review was really quite favorable. And his criticism of the V6--I can't figure out what he's talking about. Urgency? Maybe it's not as noisy as the Altima. This is a negative?
On the other hand, according to the forthcoming review in Car & Driver, the editor is reported to have written that the Accord now qualifies as a sports sedan. Go figure.
Some disappointments, however, in the new Accord:
No trip computer No skid control No Xenons No trunk hinges outside the trunk No cassette deck (for books on tape)
Nonetheless, the Accord has certainly leapfrogged the Camry, and Toyota will have to give the Camry away next year when it goes up against the new Accord.
How has Honda leapfrogged the Camry? Perhaps the V6, but the 4cylinder? I'm not seeing a power advantage, an interior room/design/quality advantage (I like the Accord's center stack setup, but I prefer the Camry's instrument cluster), a trunk space advantage, and I still feel that the Accord is not as attractive, especially from the rear. If the Accord is better than the Camry its only incrementally (at least in 4cylinder guise), and in an area that it already bests the Camry-steering/handling. ~alpha
160 v 157. Small, but an advantage nonetheless. But I'd bet the Accord is also significantly faster/quicker than the Camry in 4 cylinder guise since it has a 5-speed auto to make better use of that power.
I started an Acura TSX topic under the Sedans board for those interested in following information and discussion on what we all hope to be a more narrowly focused sports sedan than the '03 Accord appears to be.
I like the Mazda6, but really, I don't see much of a difference between it and the Millenia before that was given a restyled front. For as long as the Millenia has been around, I thought it one of the nicest looking sedans on the road. I also thought the 626 to be better looking than the 94-97 Accord, but it never took off sales-wise. And any of Mazda's products have all been better-looking than Nissan's. I hope the Mazda6 does well because it deserves to.
Like someone mentioned, the Accord's 0-60 time for the V-6 matches the Altima's FWIW (who really needs that kind of acceleration anyway?). The urgency factor is definitely there, but to Honda's advantage. A friend of mine has an Altima (2.5 however), and he said the initial launch is very jarring. I think this adds to the feel of a fast car, but is not a good thing in slow traffic. I think Honda had this in mind for the Accord - most people will not be wanting a car that kicks everytime they start from a stop light. It's not comfortable for the passengers either.
3 hp is barely an advantage, but if you're going along that line, the Camry has the advantage of an extra lb-ft of torque. I'd agree that the 5sp transmission may make a difference in acceleration, although I'm not convinced that more gears necesarily means a better transmission overall. ~alpha
post scipt- the picture from the link in the following post has to be the WORST picture/angle of the Accord yet. completely hideous. seriously, I'd be shocked if that design grows on me. (ugly hubcaps to boot!)
makes me think that this big car came from Buick or Oldsmobile. I guess that's what happens when you take the project leadership away from the Japanese and give it to an ex-Saturn guy.
I actually thought the car looked good in that picture, dispite the fact its an LX without aluminum wheels. It emphasizes the character line carried through the side of the car and down the hood. It looks almost dramatic...
Thanks for the link. It looks pretty good to me, nothing like a Buick or Oldsmobile (altho I don't find Oldsmobiles that terrible, at least they're better than Chevys). I also like the character line and angles in this pic.
And what's with Wardlaw's comment about a frown? Was he standing on his head?
I find the new Accord to be the next step in the Accord evolution. The car is familiar looking in a way that is refreshing. My only gripe is the automatic shifter. They have been using that design for years. I presently have a 02 Altima 3.5 SE and have not been very pleased with car. It is noisy and it is harsh on the highway. Along with minor problems the car has had it doesn't want to start when it gets below 1/4 of a tank. The car I traded in was a 98 Camry and it was a nice automobile, but it was no Accord. I bought the Altima only because I knew Honda would bring a new Accord out soon and I didn't want an 02 model and maybe I would have liked the Altima. WRONG. I will wait for the 2 door with V6 and 6 speed, but until then I will hope my wife drives the Altima and I can drive her MDX. Honda's are the best cars out there.
Looks are subjective of course, but the new Accord looks like a big boat to me. Others have called it an Avalon.
What's unfortunate is that along the way, the Accord seems to have lost it's youthful look; the '86-'90, and '94-'97 models were very attractive. The new one really looks too big and in the same class as Avalon.
This is not a question about whether people will buy. Honda will sell tons of them, but in my opinion, they are making the same mistake that Toyota is now trying to correct. This car will appeal more to the mature baby boomer.
boy, after reading all these posts, i've come to the conclusion that you hondaphiles are an interesting breed. i'd be willing to bet that if the new accord looked like a freezer on wheels, you still say it was a proper "evolution" of the accord design, and then rush to the dealer with wallet in hand. to each his own i guess...
I'm glad to see that I am not the only one who can see through their (hondaphiles) tranparent wrap! Just the other day they were arguing as to how well the 200hp Accord performed against the 240hp Altima and now that Edmunds states that the new 240hp Accord (lacks in torque) cannot hold a candle to the Altima and now all of a sudden performance means nothing and the Saturn-look is now apparently "in". Talk about sad sacks! Love my new Altima SE (yes, I really own one), the engine sounds and runs great, and yes it even started with an 1/8 of a tank of gas this morning.
It does look sort of Saturn-esque, especially the rear taillight treatment-the way the lights lift up in the corners. Both Toyota and Honda have disappointed me this year w/ their designs of the Camry and Accord. On the bright side-the interior looks really nice, well except for that faux wood-I hate that stuff.
Sorry, but the Edmunds review is just one person's opinion. It didn't come down from the mountain on stone tablets. It doesn't prove me wrong, nor does it prove his statements right. It's interesting to note that so many of the Honda bashers claim that it's game, set and match just because the ONE AND ONLY review of the new Accord so far is less than favorable. Well, Edmunds is just one opinion, and I've found in the past that other reputable sources for reviews seem to be much more reliable (that is, I find that when I check things out, my experience and their opinions match more closely.)
The opinions that I expressed are based on an afternoon of driving an Altima 3.5 SE. Definitely a hoot to drive, but other aspects of the experience (ride, refinement and particularly interior quality) fell significantly short, IMO.
But if you want to match reviews, I'm game. Regarding refinement and interior quality, here's a quote from a review in Consumer Guide:
"Obvious cost cutting has cabin rife with low-budget plastic, and tinny clang of trunk lid and exterior panels disappoints. Altima frustrates here, where Accord, Passat, Camry shine."
Regarding engine coarseness, from the same review:
"But Altima's 4 cyl is noisier and somewhat coarser than its rivals."
and
"Growling 4-cyl engine intrudes in rapid acceleration."
This is significant because this is likely to be the big seller in the Altima, with its relatively high horsepower. To be fair, the same review praised the V6 for smoothness.
As for hard ride, here's a quote from Car and Driver:
"Out on the road, the ride is extremely firm, overdamped for family use in our judgment."
More on refinement, from the same review:
"The front doors make a low-rent sound when slammed."
And the best one is one I can't find, unfortunately. It was in a recent issue of either Automobile or Road and Track, and it includes a hilarious editorial where the editor rips Nissan a new one for the abysmally cheap interior in the Altima. I believe he said that a Kia Rio would put it to shame, or something like that.
I could go on and on, but the point is clear. These quotes back my statements about the Altima. They're just opinions, as were my statements. They don't make me right, no more than the Edmunds review makes me wrong or makes you right. But clearly I'm not the only person to have these opinions about the Altima.
And if you looked around, I'm sure you could find reviews with opinions that differ from the ones I cited. Again, they'd be just opinions... they wouldn't make me wrong, not would they make you right.
Now I see that you are an Altima owner (who'da thunk?)... so just how tranparent (sic) is your wrap?
For proper comparison's on vehicles, I'll stick with Car & Driver. They usually have a group of testers, many of them with engineering backgrounds, test all of the cars back to back in their comparison tests. Hence, you get a thorough evaluation for each vehicle, with its strengths & weaknesses. Every vehicle-- built with cost contraints in mind--- will have its own set of strengths & weaknesses. I found Wardlaw's review of the 2003 Accord to be unnecessarily crass. I do not know what Wardlaw's background is, but I think I'll stick with CSABA CSERE and the rest of his group when it comes to seeking a well balanced, well thought out automotive review.
LOL now that the new Accord has come all the Altimaphiles are crawling out of the woodwork to bash it. I wouldn't blame them though - there is a lot to bash about the Altima itself. And it's about its build quality, reliability, structural design (my friend had to pay to get his Alty tailights fixed because the bumper is non-existent) and fit/finish. So yeah, it looks okay and drives fast, but any smart shopper would look at the cost factor and know the Honda is the better buy. Heck, if I wanted a car for looks and speed I'd get a BMW 3-Series or M-B C-Class.
At least Honda and Toyota know how to give their customers reliable cars be they appliance-like or not.
Even if I were in the market for a family sedan and wanted something different, I'd still go with the Mazda6 (sight unseen) before wasting my cash on the Altima. Quality counts.
I think the Altima-lovers are p*ssed because the one trump card that the Altima had, HP, has now been neutralized. The Altima will not get the quality and interior right before the next re-designed because the Nissan beancounters wouldn't allow it. Style-wise, the Altima will be yesterday's news in a couple of years. And the style will go in a completely different direction the next time around.
If quality is all you care about then I guess Honda and Toyota are your appliances. That said, the quality gap is now so small between these two and manufacturers like Nissan and GM that I would question the wisdom of following that road.
In my opinion one should also strongly consider price, looks, performance, re-sale, features and many other things. I am certainly not bashing anything, this new Accord looks good to me. All I'm saying is quality should not be that big a factor because the difference in problems per hundred between the first and the fifth best car is not great.
actually, domestic Mustang GT is a better fit for power and looks, at least IMO. i know i'd smash that gas pedal and smoke the other car, and then with a retarded expression on my face, i'd holler "sucka !!!"
I already see lot of "roomy" (and bloated) SUVs/trucks/vans parked on driveways as they don't fit in garage anymore. In another 5 years, family sedans will be in the same category, as garage size is not increasing in proportion with the aerage footprint of family sedans (Accord, Camry etc.) Another side effect of this is these vehicles are looking bloated and ugly. No wonder European/global versions of the same vehicles look a lot more attractive. Look at Euro Accord (the one that will be introduced to America as accura) or Mazda-6, which is same vehicle designed for worldwide sales. Am I the only one noticing this corelation ?? If this trend continues, I am better of buying 2007 Civic/Corolla than 2007 Accord/Camry.
Very well said (concerning Car and Driver). However, I sometimes object to how they equip and then compare the cars that don't have similar levels. I'd rather them equip everything the same, and then comment on price than equip everything differently, and comment on features. Maybe this seems strange, but think about it.
btw-I'm not a HUGE Altima fan, but its a good car, and even if it doesnt have an HP advantage now, its got a whole lot more torque than the Honda, and Nissan can obviously boost the output of the 3.5 easily if they felt like it. Who's to say that a 350Z inspired 280hp Altima GTR or some crap won't show up next year? Hell, there is going to be a 165 hp Sentra LE for 2003, so why not?
Regardless of the interior, its obvious that if pure performance in your 25K family sedan is of paramount, the Altima is the choice. It wouldnt be for my family, but its obviously popular enough of a trade off, given the amount of Altis on the road.
I think it was Jamie Kitman who ripped Nissan and their revival based on cost cutting materials. The premises of his commentary was that saving $$$ in places where the customer interacts with the car is doomed to failure...
I also like C&D as a reliable source of information and opinion. I also agree with the critique of their tests with unequal equipment levels. Its has more to do with what the manufactures send them and they always say up front that they don't include such factors in the final evaluation. Yet the "more features" factor always seems to creep into their evaluation anyway. Like the oft mentioned $25K sedan comparo a few years ago where the Passat was a $29K car and they raved about the leather, features, V-6 and autobox transmission. Of course, you can't buy a V-6 equipped Passat with all those features for 25K!
The high end Accord seems to have leapfrogged Camry in several noticeable areas: V6 engine with much more power; (The Camry can now be considered underpowered, as can the much pricier Lexus ES300); 5-speed auto (similar to higher priced vehicles); dual climate control; etc.
True, nothing beats Toyota for sheer silence on the road, plus reliability, fit and finish, etc. But in adopting features that are common mainly to luxury and near-luxury cars, the high end Accord seems to have pushed the envelope beyond the Camry. Toyota will have to answer.
The Altima's style isn't wearing off anytime soon (like Accord's did!).
And Nissan can add 10-45HP whenever they want to their 3.5L V6. Honda won't because they will lose their cherished ULEV rating.
Nissan's "cheap interior" (you want cheap, look at Pontiac Grand Am/Prix, now THAT'S CHEAP!), can be fixed quickly. Not Honda's Suzuki Aerio exterior treatment.
I do care about more than quality and I value a vehicles overall character, which is why I got a Lexus. It looks awesome, performs well (for an SUV, it turns so tightly you'd be hard-pressed to believe you weren't in a sedan), has resale value on par with the Germans and exudes luxury. Much of that luxury also lies in its quality, as any Lexus owner can say.
But have you actually sat in an Altima or Chevy recently? When the Altima came out I wanted to see how far Nissan had come. I could hardly believe what I saw in that car - the tinny doors, the sagging roof, the rough and cheap plastics, the grotesque plastic wood applique (which the dealer was putting on as forced-options at the time), the way the console was so cheaply constructed.
What was interesting was that the Maxima in comparison was an improvement in all these areas. Also interesting was that the dealership had a used 99 Accord in the lot and one could immediately sense the overall difference between it and the new Altima. The quality gap was quite big between the new Altima and old Accord, and growing bigger with the 03 Accord.
I do agree that there are many factors to consider but quality is a big one in many people's minds. If you intend to keep the car for longer than the warranty period, that's an even more important consideration.
When my friend was in the market for a car, I advised him to get an Accord. Instead he was moved by the Altima's newness and looks and got a 2.5 (not the 3.5 for budgetary reasons). Since then he's grown tired of the interior (he's going to swap out the peeling plastic wood for after-market trim), has paid deductibles for repairing the tailights because the bumpers could not take a bump, has been in for service too often because of precisely what Wardlaw was actually lauding - the urgency of the car when it steps off the line. He finds it almost dangerous. And not to mention the brakes not doing their job in the rain. The Honda-bashers can bash all they like, but I find Altima-owners to be in a poor position to do so.
Comments
Sedan:
From certain angles, it looks nice BUT, it's the other views that I can't get used to.
From the side it looks like a balloon, from the front it looks like a cheap Civic & from the rear it looks like a Saturn.
Coupe:
A lot better but I still think it looks like a balloon. Something is just not right. Could side molding help?
I think I will wait for the TSX... Now that one looks great (so far).
Check out the official news link from American Honda: http://www.hondanews.com/. This contains official information and loads of photos from American Honda. I particularly like the Side Airbag curtain. I'm getting in line for my EX V-6 Sedan.
But since Baker used to be a designer at SATURN, what can one expect? And that is why you see the "Saturnized tail-lights" on the 2003 Accord.
IMHO Honda would be better off if they shopped for designers at Daimler-Chrysler, VW or even Ford!!
Relative to the previous Accord, the steering wheel has been tilted towards the driver by four degrees, and raised 20 mm. The steering column is now aligned ideally with the driver's body, instead of being slightly offset laterally.
I really think the new interior looks great, especially in black or grey...
What's this facination with Cheetas lately? Nissan claims that the Cheeta was the inspiration for the upcomming Infiniti FX45 crossover SUV...
I agree with the critisim of the front clip. It does look down market from the Civic. Of course, so does the current car. The back also has too much previous generation Camry and Saturn L-Series. Overall, its livable but not great...
th83, there vehicles are built in Germany, sounds like your mom got one built during Oktoberfest. But really, my wife has a 2k passat and it has been nothing but excellent, drives as good as the day we purchased and has 41k on it. We were comparing the camry vs accord and decided to give the passat a test drive. SOLD! The passat was $3k more, but we were glad to pay it. Our lease is near it's end, contemplating again on what to buy. Will give all three a test drive again. cheers!
And who cares about advertising? I sure enjoy VW commercials but a smart person doesn't buy from advertising alone, especially something as expensive as a car. Like the old Honda ads say, Hondas sell themselves. Advertising is just something to keep the brand image alive in the public eye. The product itself has to be good. And the Accord IS good.
03 Accord/03 Mazda6(Sedan)
Length: 189.5/186.8
Width: 71.5/70.1
Height: 57.1/56.7
Wheelbase: 107.9/105.3
F-Head Room: 38.3/38.7
F- Shoulder: 56.9/56.1
F-Leg: 42.6/42.3
R-Head Room: 36.8/37.1
R-Shoulder: 56.1/54.9
R- Leg Room: 36.8/36.5
Trunk: 14.0/15.2
The two are actually pretty close in size. The Mazda6 has been getting great reviews from the European press for its driving dynamics and quality materials and assembly.
I'm not buying for a while, so I have plenty of time to contemplate matters related to the Accord, TSX, and Mazda6. I like the interior of the new Accord better, and have more confidence in Honda's reliability. The Mazda6 may be an interesting out-of-the-box alternative, however.
I agree that the real wild card here may be the Mazda 6. It has class leading styling, the interior looks great, and the early reports make it sound like it will have refinement that's competitive with the best in class, unlike the Altima. I'll be looking at a 2004, and it'll most likely be between the Accord EX V6 and the Mazda 6 V6. The Altima? Not a chance.
http://www.mazdausa.com/mazda6_minisite/gallery/zoom11.html
From this angle, it looks a lot like a Chevy Cavalier....eeeewwwww!!!!
From some angles, I see a strong resemblence to a Cavalier, as I said. From others, it looks a lot like an Olds Achieva. Not exactly my idea of style trendsetters, those. Mazda's photographers apparently wield no magic themselves.
I guess with all of these cars, the pictures only take you so far.
On the other hand, according to the forthcoming review in Car & Driver, the editor is reported to have written that the Accord now qualifies as a sports sedan. Go figure.
Some disappointments, however, in the new Accord:
No trip computer
No skid control
No Xenons
No trunk hinges outside the trunk
No cassette deck (for books on tape)
Nonetheless, the Accord has certainly leapfrogged the Camry, and Toyota will have to give the Camry away next year when it goes up against the new Accord.
Auto-dimming mirror
Wider tires
~alpha
ickes_mobile "Acura TSX" Jul 30, 2002 12:31pm
Like someone mentioned, the Accord's 0-60 time for the V-6 matches the Altima's FWIW (who really needs that kind of acceleration anyway?). The urgency factor is definitely there, but to Honda's advantage. A friend of mine has an Altima (2.5 however), and he said the initial launch is very jarring. I think this adds to the feel of a fast car, but is not a good thing in slow traffic. I think Honda had this in mind for the Accord - most people will not be wanting a car that kicks everytime they start from a stop light. It's not comfortable for the passengers either.
Thanks,
Ron B.
~alpha
post scipt- the picture from the link in the following post has to be the WORST picture/angle of the Accord yet. completely hideous. seriously, I'd be shocked if that design grows on me. (ugly hubcaps to boot!)
OK, I'm being facetious, but this picture:
http://www.canadiandriver.com/news/02images/03_accord_2.jpg
makes me think that this big car came from Buick or Oldsmobile. I guess that's what happens when you take the project leadership away from the Japanese and give it to an ex-Saturn guy.
And what's with Wardlaw's comment about a frown? Was he standing on his head?
What's unfortunate is that along the way, the Accord seems to have lost it's youthful look; the '86-'90, and '94-'97 models were very attractive. The new one really looks too big and in the same class as Avalon.
This is not a question about whether people will buy. Honda will sell tons of them, but in my opinion, they are making the same mistake that Toyota is now trying to correct. This car will appeal more to the mature baby boomer.
Love my new Altima SE (yes, I really own one), the engine sounds and runs great, and yes it even started with an 1/8 of a tank of gas this morning.
The opinions that I expressed are based on an afternoon of driving an Altima 3.5 SE. Definitely a hoot to drive, but other aspects of the experience (ride, refinement and particularly interior quality) fell significantly short, IMO.
But if you want to match reviews, I'm game. Regarding refinement and interior quality, here's a quote from a review in Consumer Guide:
"Obvious cost cutting has cabin rife with low-budget plastic, and tinny clang of trunk lid and exterior panels disappoints. Altima frustrates here, where Accord, Passat, Camry shine."
Regarding engine coarseness, from the same review:
"But Altima's 4 cyl is noisier and somewhat coarser than its rivals."
and
"Growling 4-cyl engine intrudes in rapid acceleration."
This is significant because this is likely to be the big seller in the Altima, with its relatively high horsepower. To be fair, the same review praised the V6 for smoothness.
As for hard ride, here's a quote from Car and Driver:
"Out on the road, the ride is extremely firm, overdamped for family use in our judgment."
More on refinement, from the same review:
"The front doors make a low-rent sound when slammed."
And the best one is one I can't find, unfortunately. It was in a recent issue of either Automobile or Road and Track, and it includes a hilarious editorial where the editor rips Nissan a new one for the abysmally cheap interior in the Altima. I believe he said that a Kia Rio would put it to shame, or something like that.
I could go on and on, but the point is clear. These quotes back my statements about the Altima. They're just opinions, as were my statements. They don't make me right, no more than the Edmunds review makes me wrong or makes you right. But clearly I'm not the only person to have these opinions about the Altima.
And if you looked around, I'm sure you could find reviews with opinions that differ from the ones I cited. Again, they'd be just opinions... they wouldn't make me wrong, not would they make you right.
Now I see that you are an Altima owner (who'da thunk?)... so just how tranparent (sic) is your wrap?
At least Honda and Toyota know how to give their customers reliable cars be they appliance-like or not.
Even if I were in the market for a family sedan and wanted something different, I'd still go with the Mazda6 (sight unseen) before wasting my cash on the Altima. Quality counts.
In my opinion one should also strongly consider price, looks, performance, re-sale, features and many other things. I am certainly not bashing anything, this new Accord looks good to me. All I'm saying is quality should not be that big a factor because the difference in problems per hundred between the first and the fifth best car is not great.
i know i'd smash that gas pedal and smoke the other car, and then with a retarded expression on my face, i'd holler "sucka !!!"
get the idea?
don't fit in garage anymore. In another 5 years,
family sedans will be in the same category,
as garage size is not increasing in proportion with the aerage footprint of family sedans
(Accord, Camry etc.)
Another side effect of this is these vehicles are
looking bloated and ugly.
No wonder European/global versions of the same
vehicles look a lot more attractive. Look at
Euro Accord (the one that will be introduced to
America as accura) or Mazda-6, which is same
vehicle designed for worldwide sales.
Am I the only one noticing this corelation ??
If this trend continues, I am better of buying
2007 Civic/Corolla than 2007 Accord/Camry.
btw-I'm not a HUGE Altima fan, but its a good car, and even if it doesnt have an HP advantage now, its got a whole lot more torque than the Honda, and Nissan can obviously boost the output of the 3.5 easily if they felt like it. Who's to say that a 350Z inspired 280hp Altima GTR or some crap won't show up next year? Hell, there is going to be a 165 hp Sentra LE for 2003, so why not?
Regardless of the interior, its obvious that if pure performance in your 25K family sedan is of paramount, the Altima is the choice. It wouldnt be for my family, but its obviously popular enough of a trade off, given the amount of Altis on the road.
~alpha
I also like C&D as a reliable source of information and opinion. I also agree with the critique of their tests with unequal equipment levels. Its has more to do with what the manufactures send them and they always say up front that they don't include such factors in the final evaluation. Yet the "more features" factor always seems to creep into their evaluation anyway. Like the oft mentioned $25K sedan comparo a few years ago where the Passat was a $29K car and they raved about the leather, features, V-6 and autobox transmission. Of course, you can't buy a V-6 equipped Passat with all those features for 25K!
True, nothing beats Toyota for sheer silence on the road, plus reliability, fit and finish, etc. But in adopting features that are common mainly to luxury and near-luxury cars, the high end Accord seems to have pushed the envelope beyond the Camry. Toyota will have to answer.
And Nissan can add 10-45HP whenever they want to their 3.5L V6. Honda won't because they will lose their cherished ULEV rating.
Nissan's "cheap interior" (you want cheap, look at Pontiac Grand Am/Prix, now THAT'S CHEAP!), can be fixed quickly. Not Honda's Suzuki Aerio exterior treatment.
But have you actually sat in an Altima or Chevy recently? When the Altima came out I wanted to see how far Nissan had come. I could hardly believe what I saw in that car - the tinny doors, the sagging roof, the rough and cheap plastics, the grotesque plastic wood applique (which the dealer was putting on as forced-options at the time), the way the console was so cheaply constructed.
What was interesting was that the Maxima in comparison was an improvement in all these areas. Also interesting was that the dealership had a used 99 Accord in the lot and one could immediately sense the overall difference between it and the new Altima. The quality gap was quite big between the new Altima and old Accord, and growing bigger with the 03 Accord.
I do agree that there are many factors to consider but quality is a big one in many people's minds. If you intend to keep the car for longer than the warranty period, that's an even more important consideration.
When my friend was in the market for a car, I advised him to get an Accord. Instead he was moved by the Altima's newness and looks and got a 2.5 (not the 3.5 for budgetary reasons). Since then he's grown tired of the interior (he's going to swap out the peeling plastic wood for after-market trim), has paid deductibles for repairing the tailights because the bumpers could not take a bump, has been in for service too often because of precisely what Wardlaw was actually lauding - the urgency of the car when it steps off the line. He finds it almost dangerous. And not to mention the brakes not doing their job in the rain. The Honda-bashers can bash all they like, but I find Altima-owners to be in a poor position to do so.