Cnet's review of the altima coupe

[mcheddadi]

Well Cnet basically killed all sportiness in the Altima coupe for anyone who trusts them...

It's funny how Nissan decided to give them a 2.5s instead of the sportier 3.5SE to review...Cnet's people were pretty hyped about the sporty appearance of the car and they reviewed it like it was the 3.5SE... which is a sure way of being disappointed:

"Our test car was equipped with the baseline 2.5-liter four-cylinder engine mated to the standard six-speed manual transmission for which we were eternally grateful: had our loaner come with the optional $500 continuously variable transmission (CVT), we suspect we could have kissed all hopes of a sporty ride goodbye."

...and later in the review they just assumed the 3.5SE was the same car with just more horsepower:

" [...] but for those who feel like an extra 100 horsepower, the coupe is also available with Nissan's flagship 3.5-liter V-6. Based on our driving experience in the 2007 Nissan Maxima 3.5 SE , we're not sure of the utility of the bigger engine in the front-wheel drive coupe, particularly seeing as we regularly managed to inadvertently spin the wheels off the line with the smaller engine."

Hello?! Nissan only gave the 3.5SE the Traction Control System (TCS), 17" Aluminum-alloy wheels, Sport-tuned suspension with retuned front stuts and thicker front (24.2 mm) stabilizer bar and the optional Vehicle Dynamic Control (VDC). The Altima coupe 3.5SE's new D platform almost completely negates torque steer and the 2007 Nissan Maxima 3.5 SE doesn't even has the same platform.

All in all, it's a pretty disappointing review, since a lot of people are going the think that the Altima coupe is an all show and no substance car... get a 3.5SE for Christs sake if you want to review the "sport" side of it. Idiots

http://reviews.cnet.com/coupe-...?ar=o
Modified by mcheddadi at 10:24 AM 9/15/2007

[SHIFT_2.5S]

I agree. The 2.5S is more of a city commuter/cruising car while the 3.5SE is where you get the 'sports' car feeling. The fact that they didn't even mention all of the additional options that the 3.5SE has pretty much shows just how useless their review really is. As long as we know that our cars are great, critics don't matter.

[Meder]

I have test drove many 2.5 and 3.5s. The ride is 100% different. There is no sporty ride at all in the 2.5 imo. The 3.5 is a whole new car. There are many other reviews of the a/c that are great. I would not worry about one bad review.

It seems like they wanted the car to be something that its not, and well, thats simply not the way the 2.5 was made. I dont know about you guys, but when I test drove the coupe, I knew this was the car I wanted. There was no doubt. From toyota, honda, mitsu, suburu, mazda, ford, and finally nissan, there was no comparison. No one else came close to the style and ride nissan gave me.
Modified by Meder at 1:52 AM 9/16/2007

[SHIFT_2.5S]

There is no sporty ride at all in the 2.5 imo.

I don't think you're quite right there. Then again, there aren't many cars with a 2.5L engine that are made for pure sportiness, save the EVO and STi. For the price of a Altima 3.5SE, you had many better options for a real sports car.

[Meder]

The evo and sti are quite a bit more expensive than the altima. So are all other comparable cars. I paid 23,900 for my 3.5 and a base sti is 33k. One of the cars that will actually out perform the altima is the mustang. I can not think of any other car in its class besides the mustang.

No one said the altima was a hardcore sports car nor did I say I was looking for one. The 3.5 is by far the sportiest car in its class and range save the mustang. I would love to know which car is sportier and will out perform the a/c. Mazda speed 6, lancer, accord coupe, eclipse, ion redline, none of these cars come close to the coupes sporty ride and performance.

We know, your 2.5 is the best, you've made it clear many many times in my short stay here. I felt the altima was a good mix of performance and luxury in my price range. I guess I could have got the lexus is350, which destroys the G35, a/c, and Z in both performance and luxury. I cannot afford a lexus is350, which is why I have the altima. IMO, the 2.5 drives more like my camry than a sporty car. Again, thats how I feel, of course you may feel different. There is no need to justify your 2.5. No one here has ever questioned you on your purchase. We all have our reasons for the car we picked.

Modified by Meder at 1:52 AM 9/16/2007
Modified by Meder at 1:56 AM 9/16/2007

[mcheddadi]

The evo and sti are quite a bit more expensive than the altima. So are all other comparable cars. I paid 23,900 for my 3.5 and a base sti is 33k. One of the cars that will actually out perform the altima is the mustang. I can not think of any other car in its class besides the mustang.

No one said the altima was a hardcore sports car nor did I say I was looking for one. The 3.5 is by far the sportiest car in its class and range save the mustang. I would love to know which car is sportier and will out perform the a/c. Mazda speed 6, lancer, accord coupe, eclipse, ion redline, none of these cars come close to the coupes sporty ride and performance.

We know, your 2.5 is the best, you've made it clear many many times in my short stay here. I felt the altima was a good mix of performance and luxury in my price range. I guess I could have got the lexus is350, which destroys the G35, a/c, and Z in both performance and luxury. I cannot afford a lexus is350, which is why I have the altima. IMO, the 2.5 drives more like my camry than a sporty car. Again, thats how I feel, of course you may feel different. There is no need to justify your 2.5. No one here has ever questioned you on your purchase. We all have our reasons for the car we picked.

Couldn't have said it better myself! (really... I'm french and my english isn't all that good )

But...to me, there is only ONE car that could be compared to the 3.5SE Altima Coupe in terms of sportiness. Everybody here knows that I'm the biggest A/C fan there is lol, but before I was looking at the Altima Coupe, the only option for me was the MazdaSpeed3. Starting at 22,935$ for 263hp and able to come within about four seconds of the Nurburgring lap record, posting a time of 8 minutes 39.66 seconds around the circuit. http://www.autoblog.com/2007/0...-ring/

In the end, I choose the Altima Coupe because of the luxury it had, the NATURALLY aspired V6 (no turbo lag for me, thxyou very much!) and the GORGEOUS styling.

I don't think you can compare a RWD mustang with a FWD Altima coupe. In my eyes, the ONLY competitor to the Altima Coupe is the MazdaSpeed3. But the MS3's look and design is yawn inducing

Here's what the mazdaspeed3 looks like (It's an old wallpaper I made when I was interrested by it):

And just to compare, here's the 3.5SE Altima Coupe :
Modified by mcheddadi at 10:52 AM 9/16/2007

[pcpower]

I really enjoy me 3.5 ... it's a combination of sport and style, great power w/ the manual transmission. But I do miss having a turbo-charged engine... most 200+ HP turbo cars would likely be a lot faster off the line than the 3.5 (speaking from experience).

Then again, a Nissan just wouldn't feel right with a turbo, it's more of a raw power type of car.

[mcheddadi]

I really enjoy me 3.5 ... it's a combination of sport and style, great power w/ the manual transmission. But I do miss having a turbo-charged engine... most 200+ HP turbo cars would likely be a lot faster off the line than the 3.5 (speaking from experience).

Then again, a Nissan just wouldn't feel right with a turbo, it's more of a raw power type of car.

faster off the line?... not really, they'd be faster only if the power loading ratio is lower than the car and if the turbo was a small one that'd give lots of low end torque.

[Meder]

Mazda speed 3 is running about the same times as the coupe and seems like a nice car overall. The coupe seemed to handle better and really liked turning compared to the mazda.

Most i4 turbo engines found in vw, the redline, ss cobalt, and so on are still lagging behind the coupe in times. Some do come close though. Many of these cars do compete with the coupe, but the coupe is still ahead. Turbo lag is new to me, and maybe thats why I was turned off of the cobolt and redline.

Either way, the a/c still beats these car by quite a bit based off of many diffrent sites and my own test drives. The coupe on average seems to be about a half a second fastest than most of its class, with turbo or not. Half a second is quite a bit in todays world. By comparison, the g35 is a 5.5 second car, the Z a 5.3, the coupe a 5.7. The numbers the coupe is putting out are great compared to many cars over its class. The coupe could compete with these cars just fine with some simple bolt on mods.

The other side of the coupe is its luxury. We get heated seats, mirrors, sunroof, push start, intel key, and many many other things all for a pretty nice price. I believe the mustag gets cruise and leather. There is a reason you are getting that kind of performance for the price, you get nothing else. So, for me, the coupe destroy nearly everything on the market today. \

edit - I am not sure if the turbo charged cars in the coupes class are fastest off the line or not. I do know that the coupe beats them all in 0-60 by quite a bit. It seems to be like the bigger factor off the line would be torque, which the couple does have its share of. More than most import cars at least...

[MinisterofDOOM]

I'm getting really fed-up with fork-tongued reviews like that C-net one.In one sentence they're whining about how the transmission isn't sporty-feeling enough. Then in the next they're telling you how the 3.5 doesn't seem necessary and the 2.5 is more than enough.

This isn't the first new Altima review I've read/heard that talks about the 3.5 being unnecessary or excessive, either. I don't understand it. The QR doesn't even BEGIN to compare with the VQ. Even if it wasn't for the massive power and torque differences, the VQ is still a better engine in every way. The move to the VQ is more than just a power upgrade. Any car reviewer worth the ink they write with would know that. The rest should stick to blindly praising Hondas.

[pcpower]

I'm not sure about 'turbo lag' but it sounds like it is no fun... haha. I guess it depends on the car, as I didn't experience turbo lag in my previous gti.

As I used to own a 4 cylinder turbo GTI, and had upgraded the ECU with some crazy software to give it a good 40-50 extra HP... With the already impressive low-end torque of the car, you could literally feel the g-force (you know, you get pushed back in your seat type of deal) from 0-60 if really stepping on it.

I don't really sense that from the Altima Coupe, however, when you get up to 60+ mph the coupe keepings pushing, where as a low-end torque turbo car might then experience the lag.

[Dexion]

If you got the CVT Coupe then you probably won't feel that "thrown back in your seat" feeling. Also a GTI with +50hp is probably faster than the coupe because of its lighter weight. Torque means nothing at 60+mph its all power from there on. Remember torque is what accelerates you and after that power takes over.

[tsigoloeg]

Torque means nothing at 60+mph its all power from there on. Remember torque is what accelerates you and after that power takes over.

This couldn't be further from the truth. These terms are not separate. They are related. Torque is what moves a mass via overcoming resistance, always, and power is the rate at which that same force moves said mass. Acceleration is a function of force/mass, and more precisely proportional to force/(mass x velocity). And to be even more precise, it is related to the force at a given engine rpm multiplied by the transmission multiplied by the differential and divided by the tire size. Anyway, it certainly is not "one then the other." Torque ALWAYS means something.

[shift_mikey]

If you got the CVT Coupe then you probably won't feel that "thrown back in your seat" feeling.

You've never driven a CVT, have you? Imagine that "Thrown back in your seat" feeling without that "shifting" feeling. Thats what the CVT drives like.

Also a GTI with +50hp is probably faster than the coupe because of its lighter weight. Torque means nothing at 60+mph its all power from there on. Remember torque is what accelerates you and after that power takes over

I'll assume that by "power" you mean horsepower. Did you know that horsepower is calculated as follows HP = (TQ * RPM) / 5252TQ= 100RPM = 5000(100 * 5000) / 5252 = 95HP

Now give 100 ft-lbs more TQ

TQ = 200RPM = 5000(200 * 5000) / 5252 = 190HP

Get it?

We could sit here and argue who's faster then who for the rest of our lives. Without proof its just speculation. there are TOO many things to factor into it. Gear ratio is among the biggest, effeciency of drive train, aerodynamics, weight, HP, RPM range, etc. One may get a GENERAL idea of how a car will feel by knowing weight/HP, but you can't claim that a 200HP car is faster then a 160HP car. I should know! my old 160HP SI used to hang with 200HP RSX-S' with NO problem!