The fourth generation North American Quest details were released today, here is the press release:

http://nissannews.com/newsrelease.do?id=2096&mid=

It mentions only the 3.5 L engine with CVT. I really like the looks, and the new features sound interesting. The big question is if quality and reliability will be top priorities like they claim, fuel economy number and what the pricing will be. I'm going to guess pricing will be slightly less than the Honda Odyssey, and on par with the Toyota Sienna. I'm not expecting fuel efficiency to be too impressive since they didn't mention it once in the whole press release, so to me that means "average" economy on par with Toyota but probably not as good as Honda.

LOVE it.

I don't think we'll see it with a 2.5 in the US. If we do, dumb move on NNA's part.

I too love the looks, just a little disappointed on the efficiency side of things. Buyers will be hard pressed to accept a CVT if it doesn't at least meet the efficiency of the Toyota and Honda competition, while at the same time offering less horsepower.

I googled some more press details and Nissan is estimating 16city, 24 hwy efficiency, compared to 18/24 for Toytoa and 19/28 for Honda (although Honda is priced very high). Also, the Nissa VQ 3.5 is only rated at 235 hp whereas Toyota makes 248 and Honda 266 hp. When competition is tight, this could be a deciding factor, and throw in the CVT vs. the conventional 6-speeds of the competition and Nissan may really have to rely on the sweet styling and upscale comfort to make a go of this.

I'm not a big minivan fan, but with a second kid on the way it might be something I'll be considering in the next couple years, personally I'd still favor the Nissan if the price is right.

It looks like you have the specs for the 2009 Quest Nissans site claims 253 HP

You are right, thanks for the correction. From Nissan's site: "3.5-litre DOHC V6 with 253 horsepower and 236 lb-ft of torque". That sounds a little more reasonable!

I personally are shopping for another minivan. Currentyly own a MY02 Odyssey. But the new Ody's design just doesn't strike me. Leaning on the Toyota Sienna, not bad looking (at least better than the new Ody), reliable and quality product until I found out about the new Nissan Quest. I would never thought I would consider the Nissan Quest because the current model (and previous out) really is horrible. Toyota has 'Alphard' in Japan and Nissan has 'Elgrand'. Both are the models I love to drive (sat in an Alphard before and loved it). Both are very popular models (Alphard seems to be more popular in Asia). Too bad Toyota somehow doesn't want to ship their Alphard into NA. Now Nissan created the new Quest based largely on its sister Elgrand. The front end (and the rear end) of the NA version seems mellower than the Japanese Elgrand. But the interior looks very similiar in both version. It's very boxy (which I'm fine w/ it) and seems larger than the Ody and the Sienna. Interior quality looks top notch while exterior is nice (would be better again if it's more 'aggressive'). Would seriously consider the new Quest when it arrives the show room soon.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtvjHezj ... re=related[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lnu4o7Ny ... re=related[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwJvpmeQ ... re=related[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwxWvl42 ... re=related[/youtube]

This Elgrand is no longer a minivan, I guess the Quest was big, but this thing is a full size van. Looks nice but I prefer The Quest.

I rummaged through one this morning, and it is very nice. The pictures don't do it justice.

Looks like a great van but damn that thing is expensive!! In Canada you're looking at $40,000 for a middle trim package and it can approach high $40's at the top end. I think Nissan missed an opportunity to grab more market share by providing a great van at a reasonable price like Dodge - the Caravan is significantly cheaper and provides the same dimensions, features, smart design and is almost as efficient. Nissan is marginally more efficient but not enough to justify thousands more.

Don't get me wrong I think the Quest will do quite well probably by stealing some market from the pricey Honda and Toyota, but Dodge is going to continue to dominate this race, no question about it.

I really wish Nissan would have offered a 4-cylinder engine with lots of options and lower price. Toyota offers the 4-cylinder and it's gotten really good reviews, however you can't get one loaded without going with the V6.

If Nissan could have offered a good 4-cylinder, and cut the overall weight of the van by reducing the dimensions slightly, resulting in a excellent performing 4-cylinder powertrain they would have made a huge impact. There is a huge market for a slightly smaller, highly efficient and reasonably priced van that is currently not exploited. The Mazda 5 is close, but it's a little too small, and all other minivans are too big - Nissan should have slotted right in between these two extremes with the perfect size van. A van just slighly smaller than the Caravan would have been perfect and sold millions - the smaller size would enable a smaller powertrain, lower sticker price, better/more fun driving dynamics without sacrificing much if any utility.

Too bad Nissan missed the mark on this one, but like I said they'll still do ok as it seems to be a really nice vehicle.

kerrton wrote:I think Nissan missed an opportunity to grab more market share by providing a great van at a reasonable price like Dodge - the Caravan is significantly cheaper and provides the same dimensions, features, smart design and is almost as efficient. Nissan is marginally more efficient but not enough to justify thousands more.

I don't know if the Caravan's the best target to be setting. The Caravan sells cheap because it IS cheap. Particularly inside, it is strikingly cheaper feeling than Japanese offerings. I think Nissan's better taking the Toyota route here, and targeting buyers looking for a van with some class. Especially with Kia in the cheap-van market now.
The Caravan also comes with some abominable engine options across the board. Both engine options are variants of Chrysler's aging, crude, inefficient pushrod V6. Next to any other V6 currently in production, it feels about as smooth as nails in a blender and about as powerful as 3 or maybe 4 hamsters on a wheel. Torque is too little, too late, and fuel economy downright sucks. These engines will mercifully be replaced by a much more modern 3.6 liter starting with the 2011 model year (which bizarrely still isn't at dealers).

kerrton wrote:I really wish Nissan would have offered a 4-cylinder engine with lots of options and lower price. Toyota offers the 4-cylinder and it's gotten really good reviews, however you can't get one loaded without going with the V6.

According to Nissan's websites (Canada and USA) there is no 4-cylinder model--all Quests are VQ-powered. Which makes sense. Minivans have just gotten too heavy; pulling around 4400 lb with less than 200 ft-lb is a recipe for terrible fuel economy and terrible performance. I actually find it astounding that Toyota still offers a 4-cylinder option. It's a HUGE 4, too (2.7 liter). I'd be interested to see how many base model Odysseys Toyota actually sells.

Honda doesn't offer a V6, and even Chrysler dropped their 4-banger from the lineup this generation (though considering their base V6's performance, you can consider it among the 4s for comparison purposes).

If I'm mistaken, though, and Nissan's selling QR-powered Quests, I think that's a HUGE mistake. The QR's a turd, and putting it in the Quest is just going to kill entry-model sales. No one wants a QR when they can get a 2GR or J35 in competing models.

You need to check Nissan web site it is a VQ35DE engine, it would make no sense bringin g a different model here when all the others V^'s in Nissans line up are VQ's. Also I think the 4 cylinder would be a mistake in a minivan. Only wish nissan would offer it with the old 3.0 VQ engine as it put out 223 HP back in 2002 in the Maxima.

MinisterofDOOM wrote: I don't know if the Caravan's the best target to be setting. The Caravan sells cheap because it IS cheap. Particularly inside, it is strikingly cheaper feeling than Japanese offerings. I think Nissan's better taking the Toyota route here, and targeting buyers looking for a van with some class..

Good point, I agree Nissan should not compromise on quality, although it appears that the 2011+ Caravan will be vastly superior in powertrain and interior quality, with an even lower starting MSRP than outgoing models. As a buyer, that is what I want: great quality at a great price, I want a quality van that isn't going to cost me $40k to $50k.

MinisterofDOOM wrote:According to Nissan's websites (Canada and USA) there is no 4-cylinder model--all Quests are VQ-powered. Which makes sense. Minivans have just gotten too heavy; pulling around 4400 lb with less than 200 ft-lb is a recipe for terrible fuel economy and terrible performance. I actually find it astounding that Toyota still offers a 4-cylinder option. It's a HUGE 4, too (2.7 liter). I'd be interested to see how many base model Odysseys Toyota actually sells.

I agree that minivans have gotten too large and heavy for 4-cylinder power to be a viable option, but that is what I'm saying is the problem with Nissan's new Quest - it's too big! I disagree that a 4-cylinder is a bad idea for a minivan, it is exactly what millions of people want, but to accomplish this Nissan needed to seriously cut weight off of the Quest, starting by reducing the dimensions and overall size of the vehicle. Like I said in my previous post, if they would've gone with a smart efficient design positioned right between the small Mazda 5 and oversized Sienna, Caravan, they would've had a winner, I'm sure of it. Myself and my friends are all 30-something with 2 to 3 kids, and this is what we all want and need, an affordable people mover, not just affordable purchase price but affordable to fuel and maintain. I'm not a demographic expert but from personal experience I'm sure there are millions in NA who need this too.

The mid-sized van would be small enough to grab market share from small Mazda 5 minvan AND from the larger vans because it would be sized "just right", allowing for an efficient 4-cylinder and still accomodating 7 passengers and gear. It's about optimizing the size, and more specifically power to weight ratio to allow for an effective 4-cylinder.

MinisterofDOOM wrote:If I'm mistaken, though, and Nissan's selling QR-powered Quests, I think that's a HUGE mistake. The QR's a turd, and putting it in the Quest is just going to kill entry-model sales. No one wants a QR when they can get a 2GR or J35 in competing models.

Why do you say the QR is a turd? I have the QR2.5 in my Rogue and other than valve train noise in extreme cold it is a fabulous engine, lots of low end torque for a 4-cylinder and amazing efficiency. Now that's my impression of the QR in my 3100 lb Rogue, slap this into a 4500 lb van and I'm sure it would be terrible.

If you want a smaller Van than buy a SUV. The Quest is no smaller or bigger than the Honda or Toyoya van and that is the market Nissan is trying to compete in. And I to have a Rogue and the 2.5 is just a tad to small for the AWD Rogue in my opinion. As soon as you push it over 100 KPH it sucks gas like there is no end to it. And before you say it the speed limit in the states is usally 70 to 75 MPH on the freeways.

I dont' want an SUV, I want a mid-size van (you know, sliding doors, 3 rows of seats) and so do millions of other people. If Nissan wanted to compete better with the full-size Toyota and Honda vans, they would have created a new class of van - "mid-size".

Vans are great but they are currently either too big (Sienna, Caravan) or too small (Mazda 5). If the Quest were sized right in between these two you'd get reduced weight to the point where a 4-cylinder would be perfect, excellent efficiency (which is the BIG drawback of current large vans that suck the fuel and are hard on the environment), and still enough room for 7 passengers with the practical sliding doors, and a lower price so that people can actually afford to purchase one of these things.

Not only would Nissan steal lots of market share from Toyota, Honda, Dodge and Mazda vans, they would steal market share from other demographics such as families with economy sedans and mid-size crossovers who could benefit from a van but didn't want to drive around in a massive monstrosity Sienna (a house on wheels), suffer poor fuel economy and higher environmental impacts, and a lot of these people could never hope to afford one of these full-size vans anyway because the prices are astonomical.

The affordable, efficient and highly practical mid-sized Quest would be a 1-2-3 unbeatable punch and dominate from a new class of vehicle, but instead they will do ok in probably 4th place in an established "giant minivan" market.

There must be somebody who agrees with this logic?

MILLIONS would buy, it your nuts, they don't even have a market for millions of mini vans

Absoluetly they do, not in the North American market alone but if you include Europe and Japan and the rest of Asia they absolutely do have a market potential in the millions.

kerrton wrote:I agree that minivans have gotten too large and heavy for 4-cylinder power to be a viable option, but that is what I'm saying is the problem with Nissan's new Quest - it's too big! I disagree that a 4-cylinder is a bad idea for a minivan, it is exactly what millions of people want, but to accomplish this Nissan needed to seriously cut weight off of the Quest, starting by reducing the dimensions and overall size of the vehicle. Like I said in my previous post, if they would've gone with a smart efficient design positioned right between the small Mazda 5 and oversized Sienna, Caravan, they would've had a winner, I'm sure of it. Myself and my friends are all 30-something with 2 to 3 kids, and this is what we all want and need, an affordable people mover, not just affordable purchase price but affordable to fuel and maintain. I'm not a demographic expert but from personal experience I'm sure there are millions in NA who need this too.

The mid-sized van would be small enough to grab market share from small Mazda 5 minvan AND from the larger vans because it would be sized "just right", allowing for an efficient 4-cylinder and still accomodating 7 passengers and gear. It's about optimizing the size, and more specifically power to weight ratio to allow for an effective 4-cylinder.

I dunno...I don't disagree with your point at all. But it goes back to what I said earlier in this thread about there being so many more options for people looking for cars with the space of a minivan in something that's not a truck. I think if I were an automaker I'd rather build a small 3-row crossover rather than a Mazda 5-class Minivan. Despite having 3 rows of seats, the 5 only seats one more passenger than the Rogue. And the interesting thing is that due to the seating arrangement, the Rogue actually seats more and holds more cargo simultaneously. If you want to seat 5 people in the 5, you need all 3 rows, which leaves you with no cargo space (the third row is only a few inches from the liftgate). Fold down the third row in the 5, and you get 30% more cargo space than the Rogue, but you can only seat 4 passsengers. So the Rogue ends up being the more versatile car (arguably, I guess).

If I were Nissan and I wanted a slice of the 5's pie, Id consider a stretched Rogue with another row of seats. With a straighter liftgate and maybe 3 or 4 inches of stretch, you could have a third row on par with the Mazda 5, but end up with seating for 7 vs 6. Call it the Rogue Touring.

kerrton wrote:Why do you say the QR is a turd? I have the QR2.5 in my Rogue and other than valve train noise in extreme cold it is a fabulous engine, lots of low end torque for a 4-cylinder and amazing efficiency. Now that's my impression of the QR in my 3100 lb Rogue, slap this into a 4500 lb van and I'm sure it would be terrible.

Today's QR isn't as bad as the earlier iterations (and a lot has changed, admittedly) but it still isn't on par with modern engines from other automakers. Even the Americans are making smoother more reliable fours right now. But early models had major reliability problems, including severe oil consumption issues and a habit of ingesting throttlebody screws and self-destructing. It left a bad taste in a lot of mouths and despite those issues being resolved, it still isn't the most refined four on the road. The KA wasn't silky smooth either (and sounded like a wet fart) but at least it was rock-solid and easy to maintain.

I also think the MR and HR are both superior engines technology- and refinement-wise. So, despite my usual preference of normally aspirated engines over forced induction, I'd like to see Nissan replacing the QR25 with an MR20DDT or even an MR20VDT. I think that would be particularly well-suited to smaller, lighter vehicles (including my imaginary Rogue Touring, or your proposed smaller Nissan minivan) and would also be popular with younger buyers in a base-model Altima and Sentra SE-R.

But, as far as the big new Quest goes, I don't think ANY Nissan four is a good option. The sideways VQ (the rear-drive VQ has evolved on a very different path from the front-drive variant) is so good at producing low-end torque that it's just foolish to look anywhere else for power in a car weighing in at much more than 3000lb.

Good points, and good discussion!

I'm digging the idea of a "Touring stretched Rogue" with a more refined 4-cylinder.....