Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncements
Discussion Groups
By Brand
BMWChevroletDodgeFordGMHondaLexusMercedes-BenzNissanPeugeotToyotaVolkswagenOther Brands
By Topic
4x4 CarsRVsDrivingMaintenance & RepairCar AudioCollectible Cars
Country Specific
Australian ForumsUK Forums
ArticlesAuto InsuranceBuyingCars & TechnologyMaintenanceMiscellaneousSafety
DMV Resources
Related Topics
MotorcyclesBoatsMore Topics ...

Car Forum / Nissan / Nissan Cars / December 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

toyota vs nissan

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Gully Foyle - 26 Nov 2006 08:39 GMT
Hello, All!
I know it may sound  strange, but i have a question about subj.
May be there are some people out there who have some experience with both
Nissan and Toyota?
I am so tired of my Nissan max 02 and thinking to replace it with RX. Is it
worth the money? I only would do it if Lexus is not that much trouble and
their reliability is what Toyota and all those consumer reports claim. My
Max is only 5 years old but it already started falling apart. I looked at
the bottom it's all rusty , i just don't believe it will survive another
couple of years. So if anyone can advise, how much is it possible to compare
?
Thanks
D.
JimV - 26 Nov 2006 15:46 GMT
> Hello, All!
> I know it may sound  strange, but i have a question about subj.
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> Thanks
> D.

You're posting in a Nissan group. I imagine most people here will tell
you the Max is a well built car. I have an '01 in New England (lots of
salt and snow) with 113K on it. It's never been in the shop. Sometimes
you just get a bad one I guess. You could get a bad troublesome Lexus too.
Djavdet - 27 Nov 2006 01:32 GMT
Hi JimV

> You're posting in a Nissan group. I imagine most people here will tell you
> the Max is a well built car. I have an '01 in New England (lots of salt
> and snow) with 113K on it. It's never been in the shop. Sometimes you just
> get a bad one I guess. You could get a bad troublesome Lexus too.

Yeah, i live in NE(NH) too and have been in the shop numerous times already.
Driver's window motor broke, muffler broke(rusted), middle pipe broke, now
leak in coolant tank somewhere. EVAP tank replaced 'cause EVAP valve was
broken... duh! the car is 02 74K miles only!
Even if i got bad one, i'm just scared to buy another nissan...
D
mike w - 26 Nov 2006 21:36 GMT
It all depends on what you want from the car. I see them both as great
cars, but Toyota sacrifices a lot of performance and sportiness
(handling, performance features) for reliability. Nissan makes the
opposite sacrifice. The Max is quite reliable, much more so than the
typical competing American cars (and way more enjoyable to drive), but
not as reliable as Toyota. And, given that the Max has quite a few
intricate, technological features (Nissan doesn't do things the simple
way) there are more things to break, and when they do, they can be
expensive to fix.

-mike w

> Hello, All!
> I know it may sound  strange, but i have a question about subj.
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> Thanks
> D.
C. E. White - 27 Nov 2006 13:27 GMT
Signature

Regards,

Ed White
http://home.mindspring.com/~ed_white/ - my automotive opinions
http://home.mindspring.com/~ed_white/id7.html - my oil filter comparison

> It all depends on what you want from the car. I see them both as great
> cars, but Toyota sacrifices a lot of performance and sportiness (handling,
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> technological features (Nissan doesn't do things the simple way) there are
> more things to break, and when they do, they can be expensive to fix.

Why do you say that a Maxima is much more reliable than the typical American
car? The JD Powers long term reliability study doesn't support this
conclusion at all. My families and close friends experience doesn't support
it either. If anything, the exact opposite is true. I currently have a 2006
Nissan Frontier. In 9 months it has been back to the dealer 4 times. Nothing
major, but still inconvenient. My father owned Ford Rangers from the early
80 until today. All of his Rangers combined were not back to the dealer 4
times. I just bought my Mom's 7 year old Grand Marquis to use as a commuter
car. It has never been back to the dealer. It has never needed a single
repair of any kind. My Son has a 2006 Mustang. So far, zero problems. My
younger sister has a 6 years old Escape. She has needed two repairs - a
coolant level sensor handled under warranty and a cruise control cable that
I installed ($12). Over the past 10 years I owned two Ford Expedition that I
drove for a total of 240,000 miles. I had a few problems (1 power window, 1
alternator, a couple of recalls) but they were mostly trouble free. The list
could go on. The worst vehicle I ever owned was a Toyota Cressida. I also
owned a Datsun Z car. It was not as bad as the Cressida, but it was worse
than any Ford I ever owned.

But back to your original question - If you trust the JD Powers
Dependability Study, then yes Toyotas are more reliable than Nissans. In the
2006 Study three year old  Toyotas were found to have 179 problems per 100
vehicles (1.79 problems per vehicle on average) and three year old Nissans
were found to have 242 problems per 100 vehicles (2.42 problems per vehicle
on average). So, the average Nissan owner can expect to have 0.63 more
problems per vehicle than the average Toyota owner. This study was based on
a survey of owners of 2003 vehicles in 2006 (i.e., they were surveying three
year old cars). See
http://www.jdpower.com/global/press-releases/pressrelease.asp?StudyID=1160
(the 2005 study is at
http://www.jdpower.com/global/press-releases/pressrelease.asp?StudyID=996 ).

In terms of initial quality, Toyota and Nissan were even closer. Toyota had
106 problems per 100 cars (1.06 per car on average) and Nissan had 121
problems per 100 cars (1.21 per car average). Not much difference there. See
http://www.jdpower.com/global/press-releases/pressrelease.asp?StudyID=1132 .

Ed
mike w - 29 Nov 2006 01:08 GMT
I base my opinion on experience repairing cars. I worked as a tech for
about 10 years, and did mostly chassis stuff - brakes, steering and
suspension, and alignment. I consistently found American cars to be
pretty much train wrecks by 75K miles - many need complete brakes,
struts, maybe some steering parts, ball joints, and there are oil leaks
and drivability issues; they are just high maintenance cars. Those that
say "I've never done a thing to it!" often mean just that - they don't
bother to have it inspected, or don't know what to look for in an
inspection.
Toyotas, Nissans and Hondas are different. You see them with over 100K
on them with all original chassis mechanicals - struts are still as
tight as ever, steering still precise. Put it on the alignment machine
for the first time in its 8 years on the road, and it really doesn't
need any adjustment but the toe angle.
I haven't even gotten to my perception of the poor and cheap fit and
finish of American cars. They are chunky where they should be sleek,
flimsy where they need to be strong. Door panels break, headliners fall
down, rearview mirrors fall off, electric windows stop working. Just
stuff that doesn't happen to decent Japanse cars until much later, if at
all.
And anyone notice this one: change the oil regularly in an American car,
and every 3K miles, the oil is black as could be, and thin as you drain
it - totally broken down. Do the same in a Japanese car, and after 3K
miles, the oil still appears somewhat clear, and drains like its still oil.
But, in the end, just an opinion. Thanks for reading it!

-mike w
Ed White - 29 Nov 2006 15:59 GMT
> And anyone notice this one: change the oil regularly in an American car,
> and every 3K miles, the oil is black as could be, and thin as you drain
> it - totally broken down. Do the same in a Japanese car, and after 3K
> miles, the oil still appears somewhat clear, and drains like its still oil.
> But, in the end, just an opinion. Thanks for reading it!

Hmmm...well in the last month I have changed the oil in 3 Japanese
vehicles, 1 American vehicle, and 2 farm tractors. The Japanese vehicle
were my SO's 2007 Toyota RAV4 (not quite 3000 miles on the oil), my
2006 Nissan Frontier (about 5000 miles on the oil), and my Sister's
1998 Honda Civic (about 7500 miles on the oil). Not one had "somewhat
clear oil." They were all as black as night. I sent the Frontier's oil
off for analysis, and it came back as being in good condition. The only
new car I've owned recently that seemed to not turn the oil black was
my 2003 Saturn Vue. I also changed the oil in my Grand Marquis last
weekend. It wasn't particualrly black, but I wouldn't claim it was
"somewhat clear either."  I owned a 2001 Mustang with the 4.6L V-8 and
it would turn the oil black  allmost instantly. I used to worry about
this, but after sending the oil off for analysis, it always came back
as being OK. It was interesting to compared oil analysis between the
Frontier and the Vue. The Vue had an oil life monitor that adjusted the
oil change interval based on certain parameters. I never trusted it. I
once let the car go to 7000 miles and the monitor never said I needed
to change the oil. When I changed the oil, I sent it off for analysis.
I was using Mobil 1 5W30. The lab claimed the oil was in good condition
and suggested that it was good for at least aother 3000 miles. For the
Nissan Frontier, I sent off an analysis of oil that had been in use for
just less than 5000 miles. This was also Mobil 1 5W30. The analysis
showed the oil to be in acceptable condition, but the indication was
that I had changed it at about the correct interval. I believer the
biggest difference between the two engines was the filter. The Vue
engine used a cartridge type filter of a decent size. The Frontier's
filter is tiny (but well made). I have to believe the Vue's filter was
doing a better job of removing contaminants.

Ed
Newsgroup User - 29 Nov 2006 02:48 GMT
"I currently have a 2006 Nissan Frontier. In 9 months it has been back
to the dealer 4 times. Nothing major, but still inconvenient. My father
 owned Ford Rangers from the early 80 until today. All of his Rangers
combined were not back to the dealer 4 times."

I wouldn't use that as an example of long term quality.  My Infiniti has
been back to the dealer 4-5 times since I got it in Jan '04.  All minor
stuff too.  However in contrast to Ford, the Infiniti dealer fixes
things on the first shot.  Unlike the Ford dealer who is "No Problem Found".

And they really have not done anything to the Rangers since the 80's, so
it better be a reliable truck! :)

"younger sister has a 6 years old Escape. She has needed two repairs - a
coolant level sensor handled under warranty and a cruise control cable
that I installed ($12)."

Better luck than my wife's '03 which at 48k has been to the dealer a
couple times.  Most recently it has a starting issue when it's cold
outside and you use it, let it sit for 2 hours or so.  It will sputter
and then maybe start.  Been to Ford 2x and "No problem found".  Seems
like an old choke that needs adjustment.

" Over the past 10 years I owned two Ford Expedition that I drove for a
total of 240,000 miles. I had a few problems (1 power window, 1
alternator, a couple of recalls) but they were mostly trouble free."

You had better experiences than me - I used to be a Ford guy ('86
Mustang, '87 Escort, '97 Mustang, '00 Explorer)....  The Explorer was a
POS from day one.  Back to the dealer frequently.  At 58k it decided to
eat the transmission (mind you I changed fluid @ 30k, never towed or off
roaded), by 65k the engine was making some weird noises (despite Mobil1
and 5k oil changes) which were common on the SOHC.  I do take care of my
cars and hoped that Explorer would last.  However that was what drove me
to Infiniti.  At 50k, my G35 is tighter than any Ford I owned at that
mileage.  I truly expect this car to be a 200k car.
Newsgroup User - 29 Nov 2006 02:49 GMT
"I currently have a 2006 Nissan Frontier. In 9 months it has been back
to the dealer 4 times. Nothing major, but still inconvenient. My father
 owned Ford Rangers from the early 80 until today. All of his Rangers
combined were not back to the dealer 4 times."

I wouldn't use that as an example of long term quality.  My Infiniti has
been back to the dealer 4-5 times since I got it in Jan '04.  All minor
stuff too.  However in contrast to Ford, the Infiniti dealer fixes
things on the first shot.  Unlike the Ford dealer who is "No Problem Found".

And they really have not done anything to the Rangers since the 80's, so
it better be a reliable truck! :)

"younger sister has a 6 years old Escape. She has needed two repairs - a
coolant level sensor handled under warranty and a cruise control cable
that I installed ($12)."

Better luck than my wife's '03 which at 48k has been to the dealer a
couple times.  Most recently it has a starting issue when it's cold
outside and you use it, let it sit for 2 hours or so.  It will sputter
and then maybe start.  Been to Ford 2x and "No problem found".  Seems
like an old choke that needs adjustment.

" Over the past 10 years I owned two Ford Expedition that I drove for a
total of 240,000 miles. I had a few problems (1 power window, 1
alternator, a couple of recalls) but they were mostly trouble free."

You had better experiences than me - I used to be a Ford guy ('86
Mustang, '87 Escort, '97 Mustang, '00 Explorer)....  The Explorer was a
POS from day one.  Back to the dealer frequently.  At 58k it decided to
eat the transmission (mind you I changed fluid @ 30k, never towed or off
roaded), by 65k the engine was making some weird noises (despite Mobil1
and 5k oil changes) which were common on the SOHC.  I do take care of my
cars and hoped that Explorer would last.  However that was what drove me
to Infiniti.  At 50k, my G35 is tighter than any Ford I owned at that
mileage.  I truly expect this car to be a 200k car.
codifus@optonline.net - 30 Nov 2006 00:07 GMT
> It all depends on what you want from the car. I see them both as great
> cars, but Toyota sacrifices a lot of performance and sportiness
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> -mike w

While I agree with your comparison between Toyota and Nissan in terms
of sportiness(Camry SE Sport? puh-leease:)) Of course, a Camry V6 or
Avalon will blow the doors of most anything on the road now, but still,
they're image is off, so to speak. Like an accountant on steroids:)

I do find your comment about intricate technological features odd.
Comparing Nissan to who? Toyota, Honda? I think they're all at the same
level of intricate technology. Just wondering.

CD
mike w - 30 Nov 2006 01:16 GMT
My reference to intricate features is just an impression, not a direct
comparison. It just seems that Nissan is quicker to slap on things like
variable intake runners and stuff like that. My 90 GXE appeared to be
ridiculously complex under the hood - the cooling system is an octopus
of aluminum tubes and housings, and half a dozen heater and bypass
hoses. And, anyone check out the heater temperature control system? The
slider controls some sort of duty-cycled solenoid that controls vacuum
flow to the heater control valve. That is an overelegant design that
works great, but is doomed to fail in such a way that requires either an
expert or someone with a lot of time on their hands to diagnose. Looking
at a Camry of the same vintage reveals simplicity - lots of room around
the engine; neat, tidy and simple. Just an impression. Sometimes makes
me long for any one of the several Datsun Zs I've owned, and maybe could
still work on...

-mike w

>>It all depends on what you want from the car. I see them both as great
>>cars, but Toyota sacrifices a lot of performance and sportiness
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
> CD
codifus@optonline.net - 01 Dec 2006 12:38 GMT
> My reference to intricate features is just an impression, not a direct
> comparison. It just seems that Nissan is quicker to slap on things like
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> -mike w

I got the same impression . . in reverse!:) I used to own a 87 Toyota
supra turbo and found all these little hoses on the car that I thought
made things un-necessarily complex. I compared to to my later 98 Nisaan
Maxima wwhose engine I found to be sophisticated but still easy to work
on and relatively easy to understand.

CD
Peter Hill - 26 Nov 2006 22:24 GMT
>Hello, All!
>I know it may sound  strange, but i have a question about subj.
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>Thanks
>D.

Get a Diesel Toyota pickup.  They are the favoured vehicle for all war
zone militia and terrorists for good reason.  Top Gear TV in UK put
one on top of a 15 story building and them blew the building out from
under it.  With a new battery, patch on fuel tank and plastic
temporary windscreen it drove away.  Petrol engine one would just
explode and burn.
--
Peter Hill
Spamtrap reply domain as per NNTP-Posting-Host in header
Can of worms - what every fisherman wants.
Can of worms - what every PC owner gets!
Djavdet - 27 Nov 2006 01:41 GMT
> Get a Diesel Toyota pickup.  They are the favoured vehicle for all war
> zone militia and terrorists for good reason.  Top Gear TV in UK put
> one on top of a 15 story building and them blew the building out from
> under it.  With a new battery, patch on fuel tank and plastic
> temporary windscreen it drove away.  Petrol engine one would just
> explode and burn.

:-) Heh, if i wanted one of those diesels i'd be driving russian BTR-90.
Not only reliable but also fun to drive. besides not every direct stinger's
shot can get it.
http://www.milrus.com/sv/btr90/img/img8.shtml
D
Robert Klemme - 27 Nov 2006 10:26 GMT
> Get a Diesel Toyota pickup.  They are the favoured vehicle for all war
> zone militia and terrorists for good reason.  Top Gear TV in UK put
> one on top of a 15 story building and them blew the building out from
> under it.  With a new battery, patch on fuel tank and plastic
> temporary windscreen it drove away.  Petrol engine one would just
> explode and burn.

Amazing!  I just watched it on youtube - Wow!

Btw, I really envy the UK for *this* programme - Top Gear is just great!

Kind regards

    robert
C. E. White - 27 Nov 2006 13:31 GMT
> Get a Diesel Toyota pickup.  They are the favoured vehicle for all war
> zone militia and terrorists for good reason.  Top Gear TV in UK put
> one on top of a 15 story building and them blew the building out from
> under it.  With a new battery, patch on fuel tank and plastic
> temporary windscreen it drove away.  Petrol engine one would just
> explode and burn.

I saw that episode. It was totally silly. They did a lot of stupid things to
the truck, but I'll wager any other vehicle could have been made to run with
the proper off camera repairs. And although it "drove" away, even Top Gear
admitted the frame was broken in two.

A local farmer had one of the Toyota diesel trucks. He still loves to talk
about how great it was. He just usually doesn't mention that he rebuilt the
engine once, the transmission twice and that the bed rotted out in less than
10 years. Yeah, a really great truck.

And at least for now, Toyota doesn't sell diesels in the US.

Ed
Rich - 27 Nov 2006 13:38 GMT
> Hello, All!
> I know it may sound  strange, but i have a question about subj.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> worth the money? I only would do it if Lexus is not that much trouble and
> their reliability is what Toyota and all those consumer reports claim. My

To each his own, but they don't call Toyotas "Japanese Buicks" for nothing.

> Max is only 5 years old but it already started falling apart. I looked at
> the bottom it's all rusty , i just don't believe it will survive another
> couple of years. So if anyone can advise, how much is it possible to
> compare

The underbody of a car isn't going to stay rust-free unless you keep it in
the garage and never drive it in the snow.  It's just not possible.  I have
an '03 that is about to celebrate its 4th birthday on the road, and with the
exception of a string of crappy Bose head units, it's been perfect (FWIW I
live in the Michigan "rust belt").

Most of the rust you're seeing is simply "surface rust", and won't affect
anything.  Sure, some components such as the exhaust will need to be
replaced sooner or later, but that's normal.

Sounds to me like you're trying to justify the purchase of a new car, and
hey, that's cool.  Just don't knock Nissan for something that ALL cars do.
max@dontspam.me - 01 Dec 2006 12:01 GMT
>> Hello, All!
>> I know it may sound  strange, but i have a question about subj.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
>To each his own, but they don't call Toyotas "Japanese Buicks" for nothing.

..??? What does that mean?  I have never, ever heard anyone use that
term before.  Who is "they"?

>> Max is only 5 years old but it already started falling apart. I looked at
>> the bottom it's all rusty , i just don't believe it will survive another
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>exception of a string of crappy Bose head units, it's been perfect (FWIW I
>live in the Michigan "rust belt").

...I disagree about the underbody rusting.  That was true in older
vehicles but it just isn't so with modern cars. The underbodies are
not only undercoated at the factories but also use specially treated
metals that resist rusting for that very reason.  After 10 years?
Maybe some rusting, but that's going to be from areas around the
fender wells or other areas subject to deep rock chips.  

And, if what you say is true, there wouldn't be any car in the "rust
belt" that would sellable after a few short years.  Are you telling me
that nobody sells used cars there that aren't piles of rust?

>Most of the rust you're seeing is simply "surface rust", and won't affect
>anything.  Sure, some components such as the exhaust will need to be
>replaced sooner or later, but that's normal.

.."surface rust" is rust.  If left untreated, it'll eat away at the
metal like any other rust condition.  A lot of times, surface rust is
the *last* indication of internal rust eating it's way out.  Ask
anyone who's owned any older model 240/260/280z's.  I had two '76
Nissan 280z's and, although they were great cars to drive, the frames
were notorious for rusting from the inside out.  And by the time they
started showing on the surface, it was WAY too late to do anything
about it but retrofit an aftermarket subframe.

>Sounds to me like you're trying to justify the purchase of a new car, and
>hey, that's cool.  Just don't knock Nissan for something that ALL cars do.

..agreed!
Rich - 01 Dec 2006 14:26 GMT
>>To each his own, but they don't call Toyotas "Japanese Buicks" for
>>nothing.
>>
> ..??? What does that mean?  I have never, ever heard anyone use that
> term before.  Who is "they"?

Various people both IRL and automotive forums I visit.  It's not a
derogatory term, BTW, it just makes reference to the soft, Buick-y ride that
most Toyotas/Lexii have.

> And, if what you say is true, there wouldn't be any car in the "rust
> belt" that would sellable after a few short years.  Are you telling me
> that nobody sells used cars there that aren't piles of rust?

Well, it is true that cars owned and used in northern states have lower
resale than ones in southern states, with the exception of 4WD vehicles.  I
didn't mean to give you the idea that the "rust" you see on the underbodies
of cars is fatal, in some cases it's not rust at all.  See below.

> .."surface rust" is rust.  If left untreated, it'll eat away at the
> metal like any other rust condition.  A lot of times, surface rust is

Now technically, when metal oxidizes you get rust.  I'm no engineer, but
I've read that some of those components are made so that they rust to a
certain degree (i.e. "surface rust") by design.  This is so the resulting
layer (e.g. aluminum oxide) actually protects the metal beneath, preserving
the integrity of the part itself.

You'd have to ask someone who actually knows what the hell they're talking
about if you want more detail.  I'd kind of like to know myself why
component mfgs do this.
Codifus - 10 Dec 2006 14:59 GMT
> Now technically, when metal oxidizes you get rust.  I'm no engineer, but
> I've read that some of those components are made so that they rust to a
> certain degree (i.e. "surface rust") by design.  This is so the resulting
> layer (e.g. aluminum oxide) actually protects the metal beneath, preserving
> the integrity of the part itself.

That what they do with airplanes which have their entire body made out
of aluminum. It doesn't apply to cars, unless its an Audi A8;)
The most aluminum you usually see in a car is in the engine block.

CD
John Henderson - 10 Dec 2006 19:48 GMT
>> Now technically, when metal oxidizes you get rust.  I'm no
>> engineer, but I've read that some of those components are
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> Audi A8;) The most aluminum you usually see in a car is in the
> engine block.

Agreed.

A surface coating of aluminium oxide (Al2O3) is reasonably
impervious to air and moisture, protecting the metal underneath
from further oxidation.

The situation with iron/steel is very different.  Iron oxidizes
in air to ferric oxide (Fe2O3, rust), which is porous, and
gives no protection at all.

John
Chuck Tribolet - 10 Dec 2006 22:51 GMT
Depends on the steel.  Corten (sp?) steel rusts a little, then no more.

>>> Now technically, when metal oxidizes you get rust.  I'm no
>>> engineer, but I've read that some of those components are
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
> John
John Henderson - 10 Dec 2006 23:33 GMT
> Depends on the steel.  Corten (sp?) steel rusts a little, then
> no more.

On my understanding, this surface discoloration of Corten steel
is not rust.  Stainless steel likewise does not rust.

John
Chuck Tribolet - 11 Dec 2006 02:26 GMT
Sure looks like rust anyway.  We used to have a building in Maryland built of Corten.  It was known
in the company as "The Rusty Bucket".

Chuck Tribolet

>> Depends on the steel.  Corten (sp?) steel rusts a little, then
>> no more.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> John
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.