Last post on Jul 13, 2009 at 7:09 AM
You are in the Nissan Altima
What is this discussion about?
Nissan Altima, Toyota Camry, Sedan
#23 of 50 2007 Nissan Altima 2.5S is a Hands Down Winner!
Sep 02, 2007 (4:56 pm)
My 4cyl. 2007 Altima purchased about two weeks ago was about $200 less than my comparably equipped (automatic) 2003 Altima 2.5S. That summarizes exactly how I feel about
this car. In a word: WOW! The redesign is excellent inside
and outside -- firmness of seating notwithstanding. Sportier
than Toyota Camry and without the acceleration issues many
consumers have ascribed to Camry. What's not to like about the 2007 2.5S Altima? The updated styling, automotive technology (CVT transmission), and affordable financing
options available through Nissan are all -- first rate!
I won't bash the competition, however, I 'm not aware of a better car anywhere for a working man's price.
#24 of 50 Re: 2007 Nissan Altima 2.5S is a Hands Down Winner! [refined]
Sep 02, 2007 (5:23 pm)
You forgot to mention the Ikey
#25 of 50 Re: A dire decision, Please help. Altima vs Camry [victrolajazz]
Mar 25, 2008 (9:12 am)
My wife and I thought th Camry interior was too plain. Like a Buick. No personality. We loved the leather interior on the 2.5SL and a test drive confirmed that the steering feel was better, and the power from the 2.5 was far superior to Toyotas now dated 2.4L which is way behind the curve in the HP wars. The Altima has 175HP and more improtant 180ft-lbs... there's power everywhere. The Accord makes 190HP now, but it's towing along almost 300lbs more than the Altima and makes less power at low RPM's where it's used most. Accord has a bigger backseat, but smaller trunk.
Basically, more power, better EPA ratings, smaller dimensions, bigger trunk and huge gas tank. Nissan also had better deals than Toyota.
We had 4 adults in out Altima last weekend and there weren't any complaints. Performance wise, you didn't even notice the weight. That CVT and 2.5L combination is sweet. Why bother with a V6.
To another poster... check you manual, but premium is only recommended in the V6 for best performance, but I don't think it's required. The engine will altimatically retard the timing to compensate for the fuel your using. You'll may lose 2-3% in mileage and about 30 peak horsepower but not much if any loss at low RPM's in normal driving.... but premium costs about 10% more than regular.
I have hte same issue wiht my BMW motorcyle. I usually just use premium since it gets 40+mpg anyway, but I can use regular and take a 5-10HP hit.
#26 of 50 Altima or Camry
Mar 26, 2008 (8:17 am)
I had a 2007 Camry, V6, I had problems so I went to a 2007 Altima SE V6, I thought the car was as good as the Camry, especially the CVT but I found the ride and Torque steer a problem. The Altima SE rides like a buckboard (an old wagon), but I know alot of people like the road feel, but I did not, in a cold climate and bad roads it sucked in that department. But if you want to feel the road that's the car, I bought a 2008 Camry, and I love the ride. The SE radio was better, blue tooth better, leather seats harder, and head room a bit more than the Camry, both cars great. But for me it's the Camry.
#27 of 50 Re: Altima or Camry [carguy65]
Mar 26, 2008 (2:27 pm)
You should have test drove the 3.5 SL then, softer ride than the SE which has the sport tuned suspension.
#28 of 50 Re: Altima or Camry [carguy65]
Mar 27, 2008 (10:24 am)
I'm suprised you didn't notice the stiffer ride in the SE when you test drove it. Yes, the SL has a softer ride. Torque steer is a fact of life with a torquey V6 and expecially with the responsive CVT. A conventional automatic gives you time to anticipate the steering wheel jerking a little, with CVT, the power is there immediately without waiting for a double, tripple or even a possible quadruple downshift as in the Camry.
#29 of 50 Altima or Camry
Jun 04, 2008 (7:22 pm)
When I was searching for a new car, I wanted something sporty, fun to drive, but good on gas. I had an '02 Toyota Solara that I adored. It was fun IMO, but the power in the 4-cyl was lacking compared to some more modern cars.
The first car I tested was an '08 Camry SE 4-cyl. I expected a car that was a lot like my Mom's '05 Camry LE 4-cyl; easy to drive, light, reliable, and considering what I'd heard about the SE version of the new Camry, it needed to be a fun car to drive. However, I was not impressed during my test drive. The engine felt underpowered, the wheel felt heavy, the features were lacking, and while it had cool gauges, the overall fit and finish in the car was severely lacking compared to my Solara. Don't get me wrong, it was clean, but a lot of stuff in the car felt "flimsy" to the touch.
Next, I went and test drove an '08 Accord EX 4-cyl, and boy was that nice. The engine was powerful, steering was light, response was great, and ride comfort was top notch. However, I hated the center stack, and the final price was about $1000 more than the Camry, and the EX I tested didn't even include leather, while the Camry SE I tested did. However, I loved how the Accord drove.
I didn't even think about the Altima until later, and I was put off by the thought of driving a car with a "rubbery" CVT. I finally decided it was worth a test drive, so I went and drove a 2.5 SL sedan... I was totally blown away! The car was quick, nimble, responsive, pleasing to look at, clean, and comfortable. It was an absolute blast to drive too! I've never had that much fun in a car before... and this was only the 4-cyl Sedan. The Ikey and CVT were the best bits about the car as well... neither of these features were on the Camry or Accord I was looking at. The leather is firm but comfortable, and the interior is very clean and functional. The Accord is a little more roomy and nicer on the inside, but the Altima was far more "user friendly" with its stereo and climate control.
A few weeks later, I bit the bullet and bought a loaded 2008 Altima 2.5 SL w/ connection pkg. and haven't regretted it one bit. It has been so much fun to drive, and the gas mileage has been supurb... 25-26mpg almost all city driving.
I will concede that if you want straight up comfort and ride manners, the Camry XLE is a much better choice as it has several more "luxury" options, but bear in mind, you pay for those options. I couldn't see myself using that stuff, and I value a responsive ride over numb comfort, so I chose the Altima. You need to test drive the Altima to know what I'm talking about... Its responsive, but the Altima also smooths over bumps and potholes much easier than my old Solara did. It's also a lot more fun to drive. I'm not sure how Nissan did it, but the Altima is the clear winner in my books.
#30 of 50 Premium vs. Regular[motoguy128]
Jun 06, 2008 (10:23 am)
premium is only recommended in the V6 for best performance, but I don't think it's required. The engine will altimatically retard the timing to compensate for the fuel your using. You'll may lose 2-3% in mileage and about 30 peak horsepower but not much if any loss at low RPM's in normal driving.
I'd be surprised if the hp hit is as much as 13hp, much less 30hp!
Our Odyssey van (a 2000 model) had a 3.5L which asked for premium to make 210hp and 229lb-ft of torque. On regular, it made 205hp and 217lb-ft. Really not noticeable.
Can an Altima owner tell us the numbers?
#31 of 50 Re: Premium vs. Regular[motoguy128] [thegraduate]
Jun 06, 2008 (5:04 pm)
Since the advent of EFI and non-resonant knock/ping sensors ignition timing is no longer the first choice to combat engine knock/ping. The engine control ECU uses the crankshaft position to "time" the occurance of knock/ping to see if ignition is too early. In the case of low octane fuel the usual result is a slight enrichment of the A/F mixture to alleviate knock/ping, or maybe even a downshift if enrichment does do..
#32 of 50 I've talked about this at petrozero
Jun 10, 2008 (1:14 pm)
On my 96 Infiniti I-30 (same as Nissan Maxima) when running on 87 octane, I get a check engine light with knock sensor code. This causes the computer to inject much more fuel than with higher octane blends, which I can attest significantly decreases my mpg. For example, with 87 octane I get about 275 miles range. With 93 octane I get close to 400 miles out of a tank. Big difference.
I've commented on this extensively at the PetroZero forums,