2013 Altima vs Accord vs Others

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
326
Location
Massachusetts
Hi All,

I got some good insight in my last thread about my Corolla, so I AM going to see if I can get it fixed first, but otherwise, I've reached a comfort in getting a new car, if needed.

I'm primarily debating a 2013 Altima 2.5SV w/Nav and convenience vs Accord I4 EX-L w/Nav.

The Accord will cost me $15,700 after trade, whereas the Altima will only cost me $11,800 after my trade (makes sense, as the sticker is about $4k more for the Accord).

The differences I can see are not that big of a deal:
Accord has Blind spot camera, leather, heated seats, power passenger seat, memory seats over the Altima

What is the reliability difference between these two brands? I'm a bit worried about CVT reliability, but for gas reasons, I don't want to go 6-cyl (and insurance reasons, and more money for the car, etc...).

I do not want a Hyundai or Kia, nor do I want a domestic 4 cyl, so the only other option is the Camry, which doesn't seem to get well-reviewed in comparison.

Once again I appreciate any insight anyone can give, you all have been tremendously helpful, especially because there is so much I don't quite know.

I'm looking for a car with the niceties, and reliability, as I want a comfortable car I can take care of, and will last me for 8-10 years.
 
But, but...
Originally Posted By: smc733
I PROMISE this will be the last thread about this I will post.


lol.gif



Seriously though, have you driven them both? Does any one of them "speak" to you more than the other? Reliability aside, you need to find a car that you will truly enjoy driving. Otherwise, you'll be back here in 2 years trying to ditch it just like you're trying to ditch that Corolla right now.

Both cars have CVT, don't they, so I would expect reliability to be similar, although I think Nissan has been playing the CVT game a bit longer than Honda, so maybe they have more experience there, but I wouldn't bet my life on it.

As far as price difference, if you spread it over 8-10 years of ownership, it's fairly meaningless, IMO.
 
I would skip the plastic leather and other junk that will just break in a few years. Id go either model, MT, more basic setup, and base it upon a real test drive, not just around the block.
 
Ive driven a 3.5 altima and 4cyl accord. I just liked the way accord handled, a lil better interior and just the overall comfort. If i had to choose one of the two I would pick the accord, better all around car IMO.
 
The Altima is a very nice car and I prefer it over the Accord. However, I say that with a bias. See my signature.

In 2008 I was going back and forth between the Altima Coupe and Accord Coupe. I chose the Altima and have been very happy with my decision. The 2.5-liter QR25DE matched with the CVT is a nice combination. The CVT takes a little getting used to, but you'll then enjoy how smooth it is. Just stay away from the forums where the overwhelming minority talk about its problems because it'll just plant negative thoughts in your head. Nissan wouldn't have extended the CVT warranty to 10 years / 120K miles if they were truly that problematic. It would cost them too much money.
 
Originally Posted By: bourne
Test drive a 2014 Mazda 6i Touring w/ Tech Package before making your decision.


THIS!
A real slushbox is better than a CVT anyday IMO
 
Hi All,

So I am really mostly interested in things like the auto-dimming rear-view mirror, power seats, and navigation, as far as niceties go. (I could care less about leather or push-button start).

I cannot do a M/T, I got rid of my RSX a year and a half ago because of the traffic I sit in.

As far as the CVT driving experience, it felt OK on both cars. (I preferred the soft ride of the Altima to the Accord, but I also preferred the sharp Handling of the Accord to the Altima).

Perhaps I should give the Camry XLE a second look, for the sake of it being a 6spd auto? Or maybe the SE w/Nav to get better handling. From my visit to the Toyota dealer a few weeks ago, the Camry equipped with the things I'd like falls somewhere between the two in price (around $14k), but it has about 7 less HP.
 
Originally Posted By: surfstar
A real slushbox is better than a CVT anyday IMO

Why exactly? Have you ever owned a vehicle with a CVT? What support your opinion?

I'm not saying CVTs are better. I'm not saying your not entitled to an opinion. I'm just trying to draw fact out of an otherwise unsupported opinion.
 
I just bought the Altima 2.5 SL. Nice ride and convenience. The CVT is very smooth. I haven't had it but a few weeks but am impressed so far. Researched it on Edmunds and they offered a $750 Visa card to be redeemed after you've made your deal with proof of purchase.
 
Originally Posted By: barlowc
The Altima is a very nice car and I prefer it over the Accord. However, I say that with a bias. See my signature.

In 2008 I was going back and forth between the Altima Coupe and Accord Coupe. I chose the Altima and have been very happy with my decision. The 2.5-liter QR25DE matched with the CVT is a nice combination. The CVT takes a little getting used to, but you'll then enjoy how smooth it is. Just stay away from the forums where the overwhelming minority talk about its problems because it'll just plant negative thoughts in your head. Nissan wouldn't have extended the CVT warranty to 10 years / 120K miles if they were truly that problematic. It would cost them too much money.


Nissan extended the warranty previously due to excessive failures early on.

That being said a 2008 Altima vs 2008 Accord is not meaningful comparison as both models have been fully redesigned and are not similiar to their previous generation except in nameplate.

Both vehicles IMHO will give 8-10 service easy. I think the Accord will be an easier sell in that time period. The Nissan is not that popular around here but I am seeing a lot of new Accords around.

You are not interested in Accord manual transmission but is my appeal of the car coupled to decent handling. My wife has a narrow list on next cars due to manual transmission requirement.
 
My Ford Five Hundred AWD has the CVT and it works well once you get used to it . You get the feeling at first that the engine and tranny are disconnected but in time you get used to it .
My Ford gives excellent milage with the CVT , while cruising at 100km (60mph) it is only running at 1600 RPM .
 
I would probably go with the Altima especially with that price difference but probably would anyway. But I'd consider a Mazda6. I know you said you don't want a domestic, but what would it hurt to look at a Malibu if you ahven;t already? You might find you like it if you value a nice and quiet ride.
 
I was looking at the Altima SV Myself It wasn't a bad car I just couldn't get uses to the CVT Transmission So I end up buying a Toyota Camry instead But otherwise if you can get used to the cvt transmission It's a sharp car.
 
Nissan is a bit more proven in the CVT arena than Honda is at this point. Honda's past history with CVTs has been less than stellar, so who knows how these will pan out. Since it is their volume model, I doubt they would screw it up.

However, for the amount of money you would spend on an Accord EX-L I4, I would get a base Camry Hybrid XLE.
 
So...

Not feeling great based on the experiences some are talking about with the CVT...

I may go take another look to see what can be done on the XLE Camry I4 w/Nav. (I'd love the V6, but that may be costly).

Overall, I'm not very happy with the choices out there, compared to the more conventional options available just a few years ago. I'm kind of off put on domestic 4 cyls, which is why I'm leery of GM/Ford's offerings (both of which no longer have V6 options).

The Chrysler 200 keeps popping up as a terrific value (3.6L V6/6spd auto), but EVERYONE tells me to steer clear. Aside from pretty bad blind spots, I didn't find it to be a bad driving car at all. For the savings over everyone else, I can easily afford the extra gas, as well as the Chrysler-backed Maxcare warranty.

Thanks for the input thusfar everyone.
 
Speaking to a branch manager at the local Enterprise rent a car he said he has seen a few Nissan tranny failures -to my SHOCK- he said the Chevy Malibu has been of the least troublesome cars they rent period.

I thought it was interesting because he sees the cars in high volumes...Not just one guy barking loud about a single car (AKA, every web forum dedicated to a Model/Brand out there)

FYI Enterprise not rent Honda.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
base it upon a real test drive, not just around the block.


^^This. Keep it for a weekend.
 
Which one has the best stereo?

No, wait that is how you chose your first used clunker while still in high-school.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seriously, the CVT scares me with any vehicle. My brother and his wife had a Murano and the CVT went while it was under warranty. They asked how much would it have cost to get it repaired if it was out of warranty. The answer they got back was you really don't want to know. I know the Murano was the bigest vehicle sold to the public with a CVT, and even in the few years since the first Muranos were sold with CVTs there probably have been things learned about CVTs and improvements made. Still they are very costly items.

Many of these cars now days are not something you would want to purchase new and keep for a decade or more. One of my brothers bought a 89 Olds 88 new. He finally gave up on keeping it running and drove it to the bone yard just shy of 200K miles late last year.

While I think of a Accord as being a higher quality car than the last versions of Olds before they shut down, still the last Olds made would have been a better car to keep for two decades compared to a vehicle with high maintenance cost items like a CVT. Heck even if that CVT were to last for 200 K miles, have you looked at the suggested maintenance intervals for fluid (and maybe filter, I don't know about the filter), and the cost to have those maintenance done. CVT fluid alone is very expensive. Something they don't tally up and list with the sale price, probably because it would scare away half the people who would buy it.

I don't know (and maybe even the dealers don't know) if a CVT now days is something you would want to have on a vehicle you plan to drive for many years after the factory warranty has expired.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top