Why Nissan quality is so much behind Honda and Toyota

how can i trust your opinion to be non-biased with a username like that?

its not like Honda is stellar these days and Toyota has very little technology to start with...
but I had Nissans and didn't like them.

Honda isn’t that reliable either with their shitty 1.5T engine

Because they were partly owned by euro automaker

European automakers have poor quality especially Renault which owns a sizable portion of Nissan

ilovetoyota wrote: ↑ First, Nissan's car fuel economy is quite a joke

My daughters 2015 Sentra averages 6.2L / 100km mixed city / highway. Low 5's with straight highway driving.

Under Ghosn and Renault, they cut costs, development, prices, and pursued volume. It saved the company from bankruptcy, but now we're seeing the aftereffects. They're in serious danger with a recession looming ahead. Why buy a Nissan (or even an Infiniti) when the Koreans exist?

Btw, I never got the impression that their reliability is horrid. The quality of materials and hardware is cheaper than competitors, but reliaiblity-wise they've been ok, now that their CVTs have been improved.

Chucko3210 wrote: ↑ My daughters 2015 Sentra averages 6.2L / 100km mixed city / highway. Low 5's with straight highway driving.

Ya, as does my 2014, which has had zero issues in the first 100k kms.

I also own a 10 year old Armada with 200k kms, that still runs and drives great.

I've owned a few Nissans and never had major issues with them. All were stick though from ZX300, 300Z, Sentra Spec V and Altima. Some features may have been lagging or not up to date as Honda or Toyota but the cars were solid.


Plus this thread sucks! Major downvotes!!!

actually Nissan had issues in late 90s already, they cut corners back in the day.
Came up with nice VQ engine design but cut a lot of thins (flagship sedan with solid beam rear suspension for example)

I had two and no problems whatsoever.

My 2008 Altima Coupe 3.5SE the alternator had to be replaced. my 2015 though written off had no issues.

The only negative I heard and experienced was with my Father's 2010 Rogue and other 4 cylinder in general. My coworker was forced to sell his daughter's Versa and wife's Altima.

I would actually buy the 370Z if it wasn't out of my budget so I settled for the 2017 Honda Civic hatchback Sport Touring.

Nissan is a hit and miss, a buddy complains about his Maxima having random issues he keeps having to repair.

There is no one single answer to this old question but to keep it simple Honda and Toyota are larger companies with more R&D behind them, but even with them not all of their cars are solid...they get their reputation from their staple SKUs that are slow to change thus are mostly mature proven designs and when they change they run into issues the first model year run if the changes are too dramatic.
Look at all the transmission failures Honda had between 2000-2010 and they handled the recalls so poorly that I would never get their products, they refused to cover all of them so lots of folk paid 4k+ to repair their mistakes.
Toyota has recalls as well and for being one of the largest companies it still outsources some cars to others like BMW and Subaru, the new Supra BMW just recalled for faulty welds.
Even some of Toyota's past designs were lack luster as well.

With that said, statistically a Toyota/Lexus will give you the least chance of failures if you stick to one of their staple lines (Corolla, Camry, Avalon, etc.) because they hardly change them between model years.

Possum77 wrote: ↑ its not like Honda is stellar these days and Toyota has very little technology to start with...
but I had Nissans and didn't like them.

Not only is Japan excellent at building cars but they are now also good at Rugby.

Honda ahead of Nissan isn’t saying much LMFAOOOOO

athanato wrote: ↑ Nissan is a hit and miss, a buddy complains about his Maxima having random issues he keeps having to repair.

There is no one single answer to this old question but to keep it simple Honda and Toyota are larger companies with more R&D behind them, but even with them not all of their cars are solid...they get their reputation from their staple SKUs that are slow to change thus are mostly mature proven designs and when they change they run into issues the first model year run if the changes are too dramatic.
Look at all the transmission failures Honda had between 2000-2010 and they handled the recalls so poorly that I would never get their products, they refused to cover all of them so lots of folk paid 4k+ to repair their mistakes.
Toyota has recalls as well and for being one of the largest companies it still outsources some cars to others like BMW and Subaru, the new Supra BMW just recalled for faulty welds.
Even some of Toyota's past designs were lack luster as well.

Nissan is much larger than Honda. Even before the Renault merger

Nissans are mechanically bad, I have said that for years. But the Nissan Murano will blow any like-car from any manufacturer out of the water. Even Toyota's RAV4 is not a great car as the Nissan Murano V6 3.5.

every car manufacturer has good and bad, just buy what you like who cares what people say

MusicBox wrote: ↑ Nissans are mechanically bad, I have said that for years. But the Nissan Murano will blow any like-car from any manufacturer out of the water. Even Toyota's RAV4 is not a great car as the Nissan Murano V6 3.5.

It's funny, most people don't openly advertise being wrong for years.

Nissan's are seemingly mid pack in most reliability studies which seems far from "mechanically bad".

MusicBox wrote: ↑ Nissans are mechanically bad, I have said that for years. But the Nissan Murano will blow any like-car from any manufacturer out of the water. Even Toyota's RAV4 is not a great car as the Nissan Murano V6 3.5.

Murano as a mid-size should be compared to a Highlander rather than Rav4? It would be Rav4 vs. Rogue?

Anyways, I find the Murano decent as a highway cruiser with comfy seats, good fuel economy (~7.5l/100km) and power, but it's rather thirsty in town.

I'm a bit scared of the CVT reliability long-term, so I don't intend to keep beyond the lease ($355/m, 39 months)

rugerty100 wrote: ↑ Murano as a mid-size should be compared to a Highlander rather than Rav4? It would be Rav4 vs. Rogue?

Anyways, I find the Murano decent as a highway cruiser with comfy seats, good fuel economy (~7.5l/100km) and power, but it's rather thirsty in town.

I'm a bit scared of the CVT reliability long-term, so I don't intend to keep beyond the lease ($355/m, 39 months)

The Pathfinder and the Highlander are a direct comparison. Both are cramped 7 seaters. Murano is 5 seats.

I would say the Venza is the closest compatible Toyota to the Murano. V6, good seating, hatch back, etc.