# Do You Have a Nissan More than 10 years old ? You are challenging Nissan...read



## Pablo14 (Jan 18, 2003)

An exceutive from Nissan called Mr. Pelata said recently to Autoweek while talking about the future 2005 Nissan Sentra:

http://autoweek.com/search/search_d...647877&record=4

"While durability and quality are ciritical, Pelata says, Nissan needs to be cautious of "overquality." 

"Does it matter if the door handle lasts 10 years or 20?" Pelata says. "No it does not, because the person will not have the car after 10 years." 

If your car has 120,000 miles or more, you are around 12,000 miles per year at least, and that could be 10 years of normal use, easily.

Others like me, used their Sentra for an average of more than 16,600 miles per year. The odometer of my 1993 Nissan Sentra 1.6 lts read 166,649 miles the exact day and hour the car was 10 years old, on Dec. 18 '03.

I think Mr. Pelata's Nissan philosophy was in use since several years ago, maybe since the 80's.

I also think Mr. Pelata is wrong, because what he is doing does not contribute to create a good reputation about reliability among current owners and future owners. No matter if Nissan is forced to do this due to is critical economic situation.

Toyota-Lexus and Honda-Acura will benefit with Nissan's position, and the rest of the vehicle's brands will have room to sell too.

Instead, what Nissan and Mr. Pelata propose would have the negative effect of making Nissan loose followers and potential followers because word of mouth from the owners is a very strong point, better than marketing gimmicks.

I think that for all of the synthetic oil buyers, the message is there:

Nissan is not producing the Sentra in a way it could last more than 10 years.

Is the individual owner who could make that happen, with more than excellent routine maintenance.......meaning more money...

In my experience, my Sentra gave to me 9 years of service with routine maintenance, and the 10 year was with an intermitent erratic idle problem..Not ten years with routine maintenance, but almost 140,000-150,000 miles of service with routine maintenance.

And I want to use my 1993 Nissan Sentra for at least 1 1/2 - 2 years more! 

If it is working well with not so costly repairs, I would like to go up to 
15 years with my 1993 Nissan Sentra, just like the average life of the Volvos of the past, maybe more ! Maybe, until hybrids are well established with feedback from owners....

Sorry Mr. Pelata from Nissan, I don't subscribe to your point of view, as well as probably many others !

The unstable economy and poor job market not only made many of us buy expensive synthetic oil since our cars were new, but we have to think twice before starting to pay again those monthly payments for 3-6 years !

I will remember your comments when I am ready to buy a new car again, Mr. Pelata from Nissan !

Thanks


----------



## a_stupid_box (Nov 16, 2003)

We're capable of making machines that can fly to the moon and back multiple times, undergoing conditions that make ANYTHING a car goes through seem like a walk in the park.

Do you honestly think they can't make a car that won't last longer than any human will live?

If you think Mr. P.'s philosophy is any different than the outlook any car maker has had in the last 50 years you need to wake up. Just as doctors and drug dealers know, the money is in the treatment, not the cure.

If you could pay $100,000 USD for a car that was guaranteed to last as long as you live, half the cars on the road would be that machine -- regardless of mileage or looks. Problem with car dealers is that the average person spends more than $100k on vehicles in their life, so there's no incentive to make something so reliable.


----------



## Pablo14 (Jan 18, 2003)

a_stupid_box said:


> We're capable of making machines that can fly to the moon and back multiple times, undergoing conditions that make ANYTHING a car goes through seem like a walk in the park.
> 
> Do you honestly think they can't make a car that won't last longer than any human will live?
> 
> ...



My point is that Nissan is on a tough spot economically, according to their Nissan Global Web Site, but at the same time they are avoiding things, because they need to save money, that will make their Nissan vehicles 
less reliable.

Is not practical to keep a vehicle for "as long as you live" and I am not talking about that in my message.

I am talking about the 10 years limitation that the executive from Nissan, Mr. Patrick Pelata, says the owners have regarding how much time the owners of a Sentra are going to keep their vehicles.

Not so long ago, Volvo said that the average life of a Volvo was 15 years and I used that as a comparison. A reliable vehicle, with good durability, could easily last 15 years if it is well built,that is why I am taliking about and let me add that I am not talking of a vehicle with limited use, meaning 10,000 miles per year or less. I am talking about vehicles that are used with 15,000 miles per year or more, like my 1993 Sentra has, which means 225,000 miles or more like some of the examples of Nissan we can see here at the Nissan Forums.

There are people who take every precaution of not using their vehicles for things other than the normal use things, so their vehicles always have a low mileage indication in the odometers and they could sell them more easily.

In that case, you will not know how good the vehicle is because you are using it in a limited way, protecting it.

I understand your point, and I agree with you when you suggest that other car makers have the same "philosophy" as Nissan of avoiding what the Nissan's executive called "overquality".

Examples of companies avoiding overquality are GM (Pontiac, Chevrolet, Cadillac, GMC) Ford, Chrysler, Dodge and others, including luxury brands.

My point is that the philosophy of avoiding "overquality" is not going to help vehicle manufacturers, like Nissan, to establish a good reputation among the owners and future owners, like the one Toyota-Lexus and maybe Honda-Acura has.

And as you know, specially Toyota, has a lot of followers because they built reliable vehicles over the years and the owners know it. If you check the main Toyota web site you'll find that Toyota sold their whole production inventory last year, even during times where the other car makers are struggling with too low sales. 

Toyota's reputation for durability and quality wins over the weak reputation of the other brands regarding the quality of their products and that is one of the reasons buyers like you and me might prefer to purchase from Toyota, investing money wisely and at the same time contributing to Toyota's wealth and excellent economic position even these days.

To my point again: if Nissan is going to rebuilt itself in order to sell more vehicles, I don't think avoiding overquality is the answer. Eventually, that will backfire and the owners would make an opinion about the company that no marketing gimmick will change.

Companies like GM spend lots of money in marketing, but the quality of their products is behind according to good publications like Consumer's Reports web site. The same is happening to Nissan with the current Sentra according to Consumer's Reports too.

That "avoiding overquality" philosophy is not the answer to establish a solid position again in sales, and that will have a price eventually, or bad things for the future.

Even more; maybe the 2005 Nissan Sentra will not be better than the 2004 Sentra, and Nissan needs to make the Sentra or any other model which in several markets is the entry level, a hit. 

The Sentra is not a hit in sales, and I think that goes back to 1995, with the 1995-1999 Nissan Sentra B-14 model. Even their Nissan Global Web Site recognized the slow sales of the Sentra.

A detail to notice is that the sales of the 1995-99 Sentra went down, and in 1999 Nissan started their Nissan 180 economic plan to recover and their alliance with Renault....they are in the second stage of Nissan 180 according to them.

I think I make my point more clear now. What Mr. Pelata said is something you can imagine, but when you have a press report that says it, is something you can use as a reference.

Anyway, I think our enthusiasm with Nissan has to be intelligent and informed. 

I am not married with a company and I think is good to know the facts before buying again, specially if we like to keep our vehicles for more than 10 years, 12, 15 years or more. We should know about this executive's opinions.

Other than that, if there are people spending $100,000 in their lifetime in vehicles, which is possible, that statistic would change soon because the economic situation and the low sales point in that direction.

If Nissan wants to sell more vehicles, they should also listen to their customers, not to Mr. Pelata and Carlos Ghosn.

I am sure most Toyota owners don't know who is the Chief Executive Officer from Toyota, or an executive vice-president like Mr. Patrick Pelata.

But, most of the Toyota-Lexus owners know what is really important: their vehicles have the quality and they are happy with them and they will even purchase a Toyota again in the future. That is what Nissan wants for them...

Thanks


----------



## Centurion (Sep 5, 2002)

Well, they sure didn't cut back the quality in 1993. I've had mine since new and it has 156K and it feels like it will go on forever. I'd be shocked if I didn't get at least 300K with the original engine and trans. I expect to do a timing chain guide job at some point, other than that probably nothing else (maybe auto trans). But, look at today's (and presumably tomorrow's) Sentra: many more standard features and blazing performance compared to the GA even in base form and also cheaper in real dollars than what I paid for mine in '93 ($11.5K, list $13.1K). So, even if they did cut back on quality the new Sentras are much more sophisticated than our antiques. That is arguably a good trade-off.


----------



## Pablo14 (Jan 18, 2003)

Centurion said:


> Well, they sure didn't cut back the quality in 1993. I've had mine since new and it has 156K and it feels like it will go on forever. I'd be shocked if I didn't get at least 300K with the original engine and trans. I expect to do a timing chain guide job at some point, other than that probably nothing else (maybe auto trans). But, look at today's (and presumably tomorrow's) Sentra: many more standard features and blazing performance compared to the GA even in base form and also cheaper in real dollars than what I paid for mine in '93 ($11.5K, list $13.1K). So, even if they did cut back on quality the new Sentras are much more sophisticated than our antiques. That is arguably a good trade-off.


 Hello Centurion, nice to read from another owner of a 1993 Sentra on the thread I started.

I agree that the newer 2000-2004 Sentra is more sophisticated and the base price within the US is similar to the one we paid in the past. In other US Territories like Puerto Rico, the price for a 2004 Sentra equipped identically as my 1993 Sentra is $15,539 with a few cents. My dad paid $11,495 for my 1993 Sentra model here in Puerto Rico back in 1993.

My sister owns a 2001 Nissan Sentra GXE and I think is better. I drove it a few times, alone, and it rides better, accelerates better, brakes better, and I found the brake pads lasts a lot in comparison with our 1993 model. 

Even receiving not exactly perfect treatment on the part of my sister, (women's driving style) the car seems to resist the abuse.

But, at the same time I found on my sister's 2001 model a few things that indicates Nissan started their avoiding overquality theory back in 2000.

First, my sister's 2001 Sentra uses 2 drive belts that seems to have a different belt tensioner system. The dealer replaced the 2 belts of my sister's Sentra just to leave it with an horrible belt sound coming for the a/c belt.

I guess the problem is with the belt tensioner of that belt, which as I was told by a mechanic, are more easy to replace, but have a tendency to produce strange noises prematurely.

That old belt noise is not present in my 1993 Sentra, never. Even the belts last more, but I think the dealer replaced my sister's 2001 Sentra belts prematurely. Anyway, I bought for her the a/c belt tensioner for $23.55 at the main local Nissan dealer and we will install it in a few days, hoping to correct the problem just like other people do with their Ford Escorts; replacing the tensioner.

I agree that belt noise is not enough to say the car is worst, but it is evidence that Nissan is using a lower quality and obviously cheap system in the 2000-'04 Sentra, instead of the three belt, trouble-free system of our 1993 model.

There are other indications of "avoiding overquality", like the interior rear view mirror.

The 2000-'04 Sentra uses glue, like GM, for the installation of it, instead of the installing it with a part on the interior roof of the vehicle, like our 1993 model has and more expensive Nissans and Infinitis have.

I think the avoiding overquality theory would be more evident in the next 2005 Nissan Sentra and that is bad news.

Other than that, back in 1992 the technology to make the Sentra like the 2000-'04 Sentra was available. It was probably too expensive back then.
I remember that Honda had the V-TEC back in 1992-1993, even on one of the Civics.

One of the main differences between your Sentra and mine is that the one I own was made in Mexico, in the same Aguas Calientes Plant where all Sentras sold in the Americas are built since the year 2000.

I would like to own a Sentra built in Japan. That would be fine with me.

Thanks


----------



## cronkbogey (May 25, 2003)

Auto manufacturers should avoid using terms like "avoiding overquality". GM and Ford lost over 30% of the US auto market in recent decades because their attention to quality slipped and reliable imports proved a better alternative. Reliable cars continue to bring in profits to dealerships for many years. Many people can cite examples of a parent they know that encourags their child to buy the same safe and reliable make from a dealership that they have. And dealerships have made increased profits from used cars in recent years. A reliable pre-owned Honda Civic that is several years old still sells at a price that brings in profits. Customers who want that "new car feel" trade in their old and reliable model for a new one, and those that cannot afford the new model purchase the pre-owned one. Companies like Mercedes, Honda, and Toyota have practiced this varient of Dr. Ochy's "Z Theory" philosophy successfully for many years. Satisfied customers are loyal customers who want to tell their friends what a great car they have. That's why the dependable Model T or venerable Volkswagen Beatle had such a long run. Selling a high quality, long-lasting vehicle does bring increased revenue.


----------



## Pablo14 (Jan 18, 2003)

cronkbogey said:


> Auto manufacturers should avoid using terms like "avoiding overquality". GM and Ford lost over 30% of the US auto market in recent decades because their attention to quality slipped and reliable imports proved a better alternative. Reliable cars continue to bring in profits to dealerships for many years. Many people can cite examples of a parent they know that encourags their child to buy the same safe and reliable make from a dealership that they have. And dealerships have made increased profits from used cars in recent years. A reliable pre-owned Honda Civic that is several years old still sells at a price that brings in profits. Customers who want that "new car feel" trade in their old and reliable model for a new one, and those that cannot afford the new model purchase the pre-owned one. Companies like Mercedes, Honda, and Toyota have practiced this varient of Dr. Ochy's "Z Theory" philosophy successfully for many years. Satisfied customers are loyal customers who want to tell their friends what a great car they have. That's why the dependable Model T or venerable Volkswagen Beatle had such a long run. Selling a high quality, long-lasting vehicle does bring increased revenue.


 As I said before, I agree with you cronkbogey. I remember when I was a kid, the year 1980. GM came with models like the Citation, Omega, and others that simply were a disaster. Here in Puerto Rico the same dealers were complaining on national tv about the poor quality of those vehicles. It was the year 1980 when GM started with front-wheel drive vehicles.

I was thinking about why the executive from Nissan used that term "avoiding overquality" when that term sounds so bad if you look at it from a customer's perspective, on an interview that will be available on a magazine and online.

A simple answer might be it was use by mistake, or it might simply means that the customer's perspective doesn't matter when you buy one of the cheapest models from Nissan like the Sentra. Is the economic situation and economics what matters more for Nissan.

Anyway, I think that if Nissan does that of "avoiding overquality", making the Sentra a vehicle lasting a maximum of 10 years, then Nissan is making a mistake in the long run with a model like the Sentra which is not in good standing in terms of sales since 1995. It might even represent the end of the model name for a near future.

Is quality what brings back customers and buyers, not "avoiding overquality".

Toyota-Lexus and Honda-Acura will consolidate their lead over the other vehicles companies.

Nissan, listen to your customers; quality, not avoiding overquality, is the answer. If not, you will loose more and more followers and maybe when you try to correct the problem, it might be too late......remember GM in the 80's..what a mess and you can say it continues.

Once, I met a GM salesman who told me that "Cars are for three years. Change it when the warranty is over." And I was looking at a 2003 Chevrolet Venture, which is not too good in quality of the engine and transmission.

Maybe that is what car makers like GM want, but for people who buy, not lease, quality is an essential factor. And, leasing has limitations.

To the purpose of this response, I also think Nissan could do things that saves them money and improve the quality, and at the same time they might increase their profits.

I read many responses here that talk about how good was the SR20DE engine of the Sentra, which was a 2.0 engine. I think must people would agree that engine was better than the GA16DE 1.6 lts, but it was substitute with a new, big bore 2.5 four . I am not saying that engine is not better, but is a fact that the 2.5 lts can't compete with the WRX, STi, or the Lancer Evolution.

Maybe, the SR20DE could have been left with some modifications, instead of making a new replacement only like the big bore 2.5 lts. Maybe there was room for three different engine options for the Sentra.

If you look at the experience, many new models with new engines have a tendency to come with a few bugs, but in 5 years or less the manufacturer decides to upgrade the engine, so that engine is left behind instead of possibly perfecting it.

Nissan is using the 3.5 lts V6 engine in different models, with a few modifications for different models, but it is the same engine. The Nissan Pathfinder, Murano, Quest, 350 Z, Infiniti G 35, Maxima, and the Altima have the 3.5 lts engine called the VQ as an option or as a standard in many cases and that is what I am taliking about. This gives Nissan flexibility to use the same engine, and they have more time to perfect it and at the same time they save money because is the same engine adjusted for different uses.

That 3.5 lts V6 is an engine with lots of miles and years of development in different applications, and Nissan is still using it since several years ago, even in the newer models, but the Sentra doesn't had the same fate. Why Nissan decided to eliminate the 2.0 lts engine, when it proved to be good enough instead of perfecting it more? Others can say that the 2.5 lts engine is the evolution of the 2.0, but at the same time is a different engine, with a different block and cubic capacities, so Nissan had to produce a new one and invest more. Nothing bad with it, is just that I believe a good engine should not be eliminated, but it should be perfected so more quality is available.

Performance enthusiasts will also benefit for higher quality.

I think is tough to make these decisions because Nissan wants to appeal also to the prospective younger buyer, but look at Toyota with the Corolla.

The sales of the Toyota Corolla are strong and they don't have a Corolla to compete with the Sentra Spec-V in terms of performance. Maybe they would come with some kind of Super Corolla soon to compete, from Toyota Racing Development.

Maybe Nissan could save money in other aspects, avoiding those face-lifts they do to their models, and investing in quality. I personally don't like when a company make changes to a model design that looks o.k. Look at Porsche with the 911, and Subaru with the WRX. You can't change too much a winning combination in terms of design.

Obviously, is not easy to lift a company that was close to bankrupcy like Nissan is doing, but I think many people will agree that Nissan does not have room to make too much mistakes with the new 2005 Sentra. It has to be good, in every aspect, because it has the Corolla, the Civic, Lancer, the Mazda 3, the Focus, and others as competitors, and they are trying to hit a home run at every turn...

Thanks.


----------



## muphasta (Aug 12, 2002)

Hey A_Stupid,

They make spacecraft that go to outerspace and back several times. The units that were sent to the moon were single use. I agree w/everything else though, that pertains to that post.


----------



## BikerFry (Jul 31, 2003)

Thought #1: With the reputation the B15 Sentras have, I don't think nissan has to worry one little bit about over-quality. They've got under-quality nailed.

Thought #2: If you build a better mousetrap, the people will buy it. Nissan's thinking too much if they're worried about a 10 year roll-over rate being too high. People research their cars more than any other product and buy the highest quality. If one bought a Nissan and it fell apart within 10 years, they would not buy another Nissan.


----------



## a_stupid_box (Nov 16, 2003)

muphasta said:


> Hey A_Stupid,
> 
> They make spacecraft that go to outerspace and back several times. The units that were sent to the moon were single use. I agree w/everything else though, that pertains to that post.


The landers are single use, though they do come back with the crew. The shuttles that get them to the moon as cargo are reusable. The ratio of distance covered by shuttles to landers is absurd, plus landers don't have to withstand takoff/re-entry conditions (high temperatures, atmospheric pressure, G-forces). And I'm talking about current shuttles, not the 60/70's single-use things.

If you're going to argue an off topic chunk of my post feel free to message me directly with your concerns.

[/off topic]


----------



## cronkbogey (May 25, 2003)

Pablo14, you have a good point concerning the 2.0 engine. That is still a prized engine by enthusiasts and the B13 forum has proven that it could be improved marginally through aftermarket upgrades. Like you said, Nissan could\should have left the 2.0 as an option (i'm ok w\dropping the 1.6!). I'm reminded of the classic 1960's 289 V-8 available on the early mustangs. It was eventually replaced by heavier, more powerful engines. However, this power came at a price as these new engines proved less efficient and reliable. Mustang's downfall in the 1970s stemmed in part from re-designing a classic car to accomodate these chunky engines. Lee Iococa eventually came to this conclusion himself. 

My point is that Nissan's light, efficient, and peppy 2.0 of years past perhaps should have been retained.

I certainly hope Nissan will revert to their "overquality" advocacy and continue to produce fine motor vehicles designed to run for generations. A tradition like theirs would be a terrible thing to waste.


----------



## turbo91ser (Apr 30, 2002)

*Well..........*

Look at all the 510's that are running around. I bought my last 510 in '92, it was a '72 with 42K miles. It was all original from the original owner and all. I still kick myself daily for selling that car a few years later. Nissan needs to continue to build quality cars. I always prefer the older cars personally.


----------



## Spelchy (Jun 24, 1987)

I always buy older cars because they don't usually need computer work and they dont need dealership specific tools. doing things yourself saves way too much money to buy a newer car.


----------



## halfshaft (Nov 2, 2003)

I have made a silent aggrement with myself that I will only buy cars built before 1975, simpily because they are easy to work on, were built with pride and care, and new cars will never again have the carisma and personalilty that old cars do. When you see a 510, do you think, oh just another compact Nissan? No, you think wow, what a cool looking sedan! I understand that the rareness factor sets in, but even with the B13 Sentras verse's the B15'S; there are a hell of a lot of B13's around, but a lot of people I have talked to comment me on my Sentras style and clean lines(granted, I have a 2dr with SE-R spoiler and airdam) They say that current Nissans(with the exeption of the Z and G35) look fat and overstyled, and I would sadly have to agree.


----------



## Will (Jan 2, 2004)

I don't own a Sentra. Just a 92 Hard body. I believe what the Nissan executive is talking about is "planned obsolescence". It's been the American way for years. That's how the Japanese gained a foot hold on the American automotive market to begin with. By not using it in their quality standards. But now that Ford has entered in to Nissans' life. Wellllllll! You do the math.


----------



## 1986.5 SEV6 (Jan 9, 2004)

Pablo14 said:


> "Does it matter if the door handle lasts 10 years or 20?" Pelata says. "No it does not, because the person will not have the car after 10 years."



It has been my practice to by used cars and "run them into the ground," not abuse them, but use them until they are no longer worth anything to me.

I have had my 86 1/2 V6 pick-up for over nine years. I got it in late 94 for $3000 with 165,000 on the engine and trannie. This week I passed 320,000 miles (still original non-rebuilt engine and trannie).

I've gotta be honest I've been thru two starters, one master cylinder, one alternator, one water pump, an air conditioner, and three or four timing belts. The handle on my tailgate broke last year. It was made of plastic and lasted 17 years. The brake light initiator (the part that pushes against the switch) 'crumbled apart' about two years ago. It was also made of plastic and stepped one millions of times before it went (I replaced it with a big metal bolt). I have two cracks in the dash and a rip in the pass side arm rest.

I cannot complain at all about this truck. The thing that went are things that go. The big joke me and my fiance have is that I will buy a newer Nissan truck "just as soon as" this one dies. I was perplexed as to how they could make money whent heir trucks last so long and my fiance reminede me that MOST people DO buy a new vehicle every few years.

What kind of changes are they going to make or are they just assuming that the "buy a new car" trend will continue?


----------



## mycarisaser (May 17, 2003)

I have a 2002 ser and lets just say that Im not happey with the crappy build quality. I have had the precat blow up after the recall, the tranny blow up, the intack manifold powervalve lost a bolt and beat up my motor, and I have many other problems with it (to many to mention)I have had quite a few other(older) nissans and I LOVED THEM but after this car I will never buy a nother nissan again. The qr25de motor is a wimpy peice or crap.Nissan should of kept the sr20de it was built alot better


----------



## Will (Jan 2, 2004)

I had a 86.5 that I drove for 500,000 miles. The body was pretty rough but that2.4 was reliable. Finally the fuel pump'puked' on me and it was,all things considered,time for it to retire. The only other thing I had to do,besides routine maintenance was, replace a throw out bearing. I have the same motor in a 92 hard body with close too 300,000 miles. I have seen the quality slipping for quite a few years. I work for Yamaha(29years) and have seen the same thing. It has been very gradual but sure. I believe the Japanese companies get caught up in the American mind set. GREED


----------



## halfshaft (Nov 2, 2003)

The Jap's are forgetting the one main reason that people buy their cars/trucks in the first place, reliability. Iv'e owned a Toyota 2wd pickup for over 10 years now, and the origional 22r engine has over 250,000 miles on it, and the damned thing has awsome commpression and runs great. I have rockcrawling freinds that have Toyota's, and they get pissed off when something breaks on their trucks. We are so used to the unbelivable reliability, when an engine goes bad before 300,000 miles it's considerd a shitty motor. I belive the Japs are going to be rudely awakened when the public starts to realize they are doing exactly what the domestic companies were doing in the 80's, and you saw where that got the domestic's! Its ironic that the japs are lowering build quality, while GM and the other domestics are begining to build some of the best cars they have ever built. I predict that a major resurgence in The Big Three will be occuring, because as they finally wake up and start building quality cars with cool styling, the japanese cars will decline in quality and styling(have you seen any good looking new Nissan besides the Z and G35?) until they wake up and realize they need to do things like they did in the early 90's(when they built the best cars they ever built) I know if I had to buy a new car, I would take a new Pontiac GTO over anything the Japs were offering(yes, even a Z)!


----------



## LilaRose (Jan 10, 2004)

*Questions about my 1992 Nissan Hardbody Truck*



Will said:


> I don't own a Sentra. Just a 92 Hard body. I believe what the Nissan executive is talking about is "planned obsolescence". It's been the American way for years. That's how the Japanese gained a foot hold on the American automotive market to begin with. By not using it in their quality standards. But now that Ford has entered in to Nissans' life. Wellllllll! You do the math.


Hello, this is my first post to this forum. I am interested in maintenance information for my 1992 Nissan hardbody truck. I have 107,365 miles on it. Other than routine maintenance since I purchased it in Jan. 1992 (had air conditioning added) my "major" repairs have been a new bearing in the air conditioner and a new muffler. I recently took it in for lube/oil change and they looked it over and gave me a list of things needing done. This place is not a Nissan dealership. It is an Exxon station where I have taken the car for years because they have a reputable service department. I took the list/prices to the local Nissan dealership and and asked them what really needed doing on the list. They looked at the underside/engine and gave me their list. Then I asked my friend Matt, who is an expert on several kinds of '50s and '60s cars (that is a different topic!) and he doesn't think I should do any of the items on either list. I would not ask him to work on my car anyway, but I am not confident about some of his answers, and he doesn't want to discuss it further! They are easy questions, and if someone on this forum (or maybe I need to go to a different topic on this forum) is used to the maintenance of the 1992 Nissan hardbody truck, I would appreciate a dialog. Thanks so much-- PS--I plan to keep this vehicle the rest of my life. Had body and new paint done last year, all sorts of new fixups. Runs beautifully!


----------



## cls12vg30 (Oct 21, 2003)

> And I'm talking about current shuttles, not the 60/70's single-use things.


Just to clear things up for you, nobody's been to the moon since the '70s, and no space shuttle has ever gone to the moon. ALL the equipment used to go to the moon was single-use only.

As for Nissan quality, I do think they're slipping. I have little interest in any new car, but I'd think twice before buying a new Sentra, and that article just serves to confirm my suspicions. The main reason I became a Nissan fan in the first place was my first car, an '82 Datsun 200SX that had 225K on it when I sold it. Currently my '88 S12 has 189K. Unless I honestly believe that a car is capable of putting in at least 200,000 miles of reliable service, I will not buy that car. Nissan (and GM, Ford, usually Chrysler, most products of Korea, some products of Europe, OK everybody but Toyota, Honda, and older Nissans) needs to consider customers like me who refuse to subscribe to sloppy engineering.


----------



## jp_malupet (Jan 11, 2004)

I'm abt to resurrect a 92 nissan B12 .. I guess it depends on how you show your love to your car eventhough it's 10yrs old or 20.. I have a 12 year old car man! and i'm trying my best to make a really nice ride out of it...


----------



## blueboost (Jul 25, 2002)

> But now that Ford has entered in to Nissans' life. Wellllllll! You do the math.


please enlighten me as to what the hell your talking about??? Im upset already!!!


----------



## Lietuvis91 (Mar 28, 2003)

well then in that case nissan might just as well call itself the new KIA


----------



## troutman (Apr 5, 2004)

I own a 94 2wd nissan pu.It's the best vehicle I've ever owned and at 49 years young...I've owned a few.Now you guys are telling me that nissan is putting quality on the back burner and turning the burner on low?You really know how to hurt a guy.Since I've owned this truck'I've always felt that I'd look for another nissan when the time comes.If this is true,maybe I'll give a toyota a try.


----------



## Backyard Mech (Aug 3, 2005)

*That's a shame I was hoping to stay a Nissan Man.*

My 92 Sentra is the best car I have ever owned.
I have 160k on it. I need to make some minor repairs as of late.
But the thing is like Methuselah.
It' s sad to see Nissan follow suite.


----------



## necro (Jul 1, 2005)

I currently own a 96 Sentra 200sx se-r, it's almost 10 years old. I couldn't say that I'm happy with it. I'll summarize my experiences with this car below...

The 3rd year after I bought it new, it had electrical problems with the warning lights... I brought the car to the dealership and they told me it was a engine problem, but since it was covered under warranty ... they replaced it.

The alternator gave out in the 5th year while I was on my way to a camping trip. I switched the battery at the same time, the mechanic said that the battery is dying and can't be recharged. So I had to get them both replaced.

The shocks and suspension probably blew somewhere after the 4th year, since I always drove the car hard over bumps and pot holes, thinking to myself "that's what shocks are for". So now I can feel every little bump on the road. I have yet to get them checked out.

Oh, yeah and last year the winshield wiper stopped working at the lowest speed, while medium and high speed still works. Also, the remote car locks seem to drain new batteries FAST... I put in new batteries and over the next few days it would decrease in remote range. Now, I have to shake and bang the remote and hold it really close to the car in order for it to work.

Honestly, I liked my first car much better... it was an 88 Sentra.


----------



## peejay (Nov 14, 2004)

necro said:


> I currently own a 96 Sentra 200sx se-r, it's almost 10 years old. I couldn't say that I'm happy with it. I'll summarize my experiences with this car below...
> (snip)
> Honestly, I liked my first car much better... it was an 88 Sentra.


I like my '90 Sentra (drove it 23k miles since I got it a year ago, the PO drove it 47k in 15 years...) but the automatic transmission is garbage. Specifically, the incredibly massive governor assembly. The problem with this is that it has a lot of inertia, so there is a lot of load on the gears driving it when there is any shock loading to the transmission. The governor's driven gear is made of plastic so that it becomes the sacrifical part instead of the drum in the transmission that drives it.

And how sacrifical it is! Getting stuck in the snow guarantees that the gear will strip out within 50 miles. Even driving down 5 miles of fairly smooth dirt road was enough to kill the governor gear. I have a large pile of apple-cored gears in my toolbox, and I just ordered a half dozen for the winter. I only pay 5 bucks each, and they only take about ten minutes to replace if you have a roll pin punch and a suitable vise to hold the governor while you drive off the old gear and drive on the new, but it is the thought that counts! And it only seems to fail when I am on my way to work, too. They're used to me calling in and saying I'm gonna be late, the governor stripped again and I can't go over 25mph without risking the engine...

Nobody has a car over 10 years? The AVERAGE AGE of a car in the US is almost ten years!


----------



## mary3267 (Apr 12, 2007)

I have a 93 Sentra Classic, that was in a major front end collision about 8 or 9 years ago, wasn't my fault by the way, the other driver was charged with "improper left turn with failure to avoid a collision", instead of completing his turn he sat in my lane to check if the traffic that he was going to turn into was clear......duh! Should have thought of that before you made the turn.......anyhow.......

My point is that although it was in a major front end collision, rebuilt with reconditioned parts, that car has been phenominal. I've only replaced the brakes once, and I only drive in the city. I've had the fuel pump replaced once about 6 or 7 years ago, the thermostat replaced, pads and shoes, rotors..........once. This car is as base as it gets, no air con, no power windows.......less to break down. So even though it was in a major accident it's still better than a GM. As for the comment " avoid over quality" is just an excuse to avoid quality, it's a cop out. Why do the minimum? Why not go the extra mile? As for the GM salesperson who said to get rid of your vehicle when the warranty runs out......bunch of crap. for every person that sells a vehicle after 3 years.....you need a buyer...There are people who like new cars every few years, and those who like older ones and the ones in between. Something for everyone. My mom has been driving a nissan for 20 years, she had a buick skylark that was nothing but problems, my hubby drives a mazda and it's been great too. The reason that foreign automakers have such a foothold in North America is because people aren't happy with the automakers at home, it's pretty simple and yet GM can't seem to figure that out. Somebody comes in and offers you a better product, you take it, then word of mouth spreads and next thing ya know, they're #1.
Build it better and they will come.

Only one strange thing with my car, every now and then maybe once or twice a year, it refuses to change from first gear to second (auto transmission). When I go to drive it again, same day or next day, it's fine.........weird. My car has 160,000 KM


----------



## SPEEDO (Jun 9, 2003)

I have a 86.5 HB (Z24I) and my water pump just started to go out, so I thought I would change all the hoses, thermostat etc.. the bad thing is after I replaced the pump I started pulling the hoses and they were all in great shape! after 20years! Of course I already bought new hoses... o well I guess I have a set of hoses to fall back on....


----------



## headrush (May 20, 2006)

Mr. Pelata is a moron, as are most car execs. They do a good job of pandering to the financially well endowed, but they do a poor job of supplying the masses. They are out of touch with their largest customer base.

Nissan modeled it's company after American car manufacturers (who were king at the time), while Toyota and Honda created their own model. It certianly shows. I own a 92 Sentra. I has a good engine but most everything else is junk.

Give me 7 years as the CEO of Ford, Chevy or Chrysler and I could put them back in the game, providing someone could pay the bills during that 5 years. And I am only an average guy. Durability, reliablity, and repairability are neglected by all. Add $1-2k to the cost of a typical vehicle and everything but the engine and brakes could last 20 years or 350k.

I won't be buying another Nissan, especially after reading Mr. Pelata's comments. I see the same problem at the company I work for. All they care about it having new products and new styles.


----------



## SHIFT_retro (Oct 4, 2007)

I would like to say that I _definitely_ have a Nissan over 10 years old. I drive an '85 Stanza sedan. A 22 year old car with 203,000 miles that has apparently had perfect routine maintenance--a trend I plan on continuing When I removed the valve cover to replace a leaky gasket, I saw that everything underneath it was so clean, it looked almost gold-plated. This is the original engine we're talking about. Everything else on it is just about as clean (although it may have been repainted at some point). An interesting note: every little part on it--even the cigarette lighter--is labeled "Made in Japan."

I tell everyone that this is a testament to Nissan's reliability. I certainly hope that Mr. Pelata's comments are ignored and that Nissan continues to build cars as reliably as they did in the '80s. Take a look at Subaru: on their TV commercials, they say that 90% of their cars built ten years ago are still on the road. And in my area, I believe I've seen enough of them to confirm that statement. This is the stance that every automaker should take. It's not that they _have_ to build them to last forever, since most car owners will sell them after ten years and go buy new ones. However, there will always be people like me who want an old car that's proven its road-worthiness time and again--people that will say "look at how reliable these cars are!" There aren't really enough of these people to affect new car sales, but they more than make up for it by telling other drivers how good their cars are--word of mouth translates into more sales.

By the way, this is my first post... Nissan rocks!


----------



## Unbalanced (Oct 4, 2007)

Considering my original one was an '82, and now im driving a '94 - Theyre both more than 10 years.


----------



## PerogyBoy (Oct 6, 2007)

*my Nissan truck is 20 yrs old!*

Hello

this is my first post here. Today I joined this forum.

I have owned my 1987 Nissan SE V6 2WD pickup truck for 20 years now,
and it has 296,000 Km on it. I've spent very little over its lifetime fixing it.
Yes, it's gotten rusty, but so have I  

Its been reliable, and I've always said that when it's time, I'll buy another
Nissan truck.

Today I bought a barely used (23,000 Km) 2006 Nissan Frontier SE 2DR 4x4

I'm hoping to learn a lot here, and to get 20 years from this "new" Nissan.

Is this an advert for Nissan? perhaps? good news travels fast. I plan on keeping
my 1987 truck for a while yet, but will probably get rid of it eventually.


----------



## Tarkill (Oct 14, 2007)

I'm also one who buys older cars for cheap and uses them until they don't work. Fixing them is way easier, and not to mention the value of a new car drops considerably nowadays. Its a totally different price range once its driven off of the lot.

-Ryan


----------

