2.5SV to 3.5SL - Page 2 - Nissan Forums : Nissan Forum
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #16  
Old 11-10-2012, 11:09 AM
dbc dbc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 391
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Thanks: 8
Thanked 101 Times in 77 Posts
iTrader: 0 reviews
I havent driven the new Accord with the cvt yet. I've been watching the reviews and user comments and they look favorable. Years ago I owned a Civic HF with a cvt and really enjoyed it. Honda has lots of cvt experience but only a few of them have been brought to the US.

I have examined the new Accord carefully - liked its lower cowl and larger windows. It has excellent visibility and the open, airy feel I love. The assembly quality looked similar to Altimas - mostly good with a few minor fit/finish issues. I'm not liking the interior as much as Altima. Personal preference, but I don't care for the cloth in either the LX or EX, and the EX-L leather just doesn't look as upscale as Altima SL. Notice that the Altima leather is fully french seamed with double stitching while some of the Accords is folded over single seam?

Personal preference again, but I far prefer the conventional single binnacle instrument cluster and large conventional, brighty lit dials in the Altima. The Accords grafted-on second bin with the large screen looks awkward to me. I also dislike the "multi layer" effect of the speedo, tach and instruments in the Accord. Honda used to do nice, clean, simple well laid out panels like the Altima's!

I'm going to try to drive an Accord soon. Anyone here driven one yet?

Last edited by dbc; 11-10-2012 at 12:00 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to dbc For This Useful Post:
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #17  
Old 11-10-2012, 08:48 PM
Wallybear Wallybear is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 99
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Thanks: 3
Thanked 60 Times in 37 Posts
iTrader: 0 reviews
Well, alrighty then...

Quote:
Originally Posted by dbc View Post
Several incorrect assumptions above.

I certainly didn't have "buyers remorse" nor did I trade the car at the same dealership.

I currently own and drive 4 other cars and frequently trade cars. Some I keep for several years and some several months. I enjoy driving different cars and am fortunate enough to be able to fund this "hobby" and trade when something comes along that interests me.

The recommended "longer test drive" would be irrelevant to my purchase decision. In a sense, some of my cars are just a long test drive anyway.
Hey, my apologies if I've rubbed you or anyone the wrong way with my earlier posting. In all honesty, I can say that I didn't make any assumptions about you at all. My mistake was in quoting your posting because I was not intending to be addressing my comments to you or your situation. For that mistake, I apologize.

What I was trying to do here was to offer some comments/facts that might help or interest those who aren't fortunate enough to "frequently trade cars." Clearly, someone who is, as you said you were, "fortunate enough to be able to fund this particular 'hobby'", would already know or would care little about my comments. But believe it or not, there are many people who do have buyers remorse and there are countless people who do buy without so much as going on a test drive (or making any other comparisons). Sadly, it's those kinds of buyers who are considered to be the "pigeons" in this business. My intent in posting that long explanation (which took me over an hour to write and polish) was to try to help perhaps one pigeon fly away happy after all. My remarks were directed at people who might be asking, "What if I made a mistake...what if I want to swap cars really soon...what might be my options?"

I can say with absolute confidence that the comments I posted earlier are true in the business which I've been involved in for 41 years. If the information I provided doesn't apply to your situation, that's fine. As I hope I've made clear now, I wasn't talking about people in your situation. I will say this however: people who can do what you do (typically) don't give a hoot about the kind of advice or background information I offered. But then again, dealers just love to see them come walking into the showroom because there are so many ways to pay the bills with the help of such "fortunate" people.

If someone out there ever has anything nice to say about the input I offer here, I'd like to hear it. Of course I know that forums like this one are peopled by all sorts of people. Oddly (and sadly to me at least), the "middle-ground" sort of people (some of whom are those "pigeons" I mentioned) are the least likely to say anything. My hope was that they would read and somehow benefit.

Again, I hope this posting helps/interests someone out there. If it doesn't, then I apologize in advance. But I will point out that you didn't have to pay me for my advice. I offered it for free and with a smile.

Peace.

Last edited by Wallybear; 11-10-2012 at 08:55 PM.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Wallybear For This Useful Post:
  #18  
Old 11-10-2012, 09:59 PM
acesk8er acesk8er is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 352
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Thanks: 0
Thanked 48 Times in 34 Posts
iTrader: 0 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by dbc View Post
I'm going to try to drive an Accord soon. Anyone here driven one yet?
I have driven both of the new Accords. The CVT in the I4 is very responsive and stealthy until you try a highway passing maneuver, at which point it roars in protest very much like the Altima's. The V6 delivers where the I4 can't and I did not notice the VCM in my short test drive.

Other miscellaneous impressions...

- The two dashboard screens are one too many - Honda should have combined all of the display functionality into the larger one.
- The passenger side camera is nice but I feel that it would be more useful on the driver's side.
- The driver's side mirror has a built-in convex wide angle "Expanded View" on its far outer edge, which I found to be distracting.
- The seats are very comfortable, no more exaggerated lumbar support.
- The rear seat backs should have been in a 60/40 split configuration with a way release and fold them down from inside the cabin.

Last edited by acesk8er; 11-11-2012 at 12:57 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to acesk8er For This Useful Post:
  #19  
Old 11-10-2012, 10:34 PM
dbc dbc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 391
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Thanks: 8
Thanked 101 Times in 77 Posts
iTrader: 0 reviews
Wallybear: no apologies necessary. You didn't offend me in any way. And I enjoy reading your posts. Keep 'em coming!

100% with you, acesk8er, on the reasonable amount of lumbar in the Accords seats. The adjustsble lumbar on the SL Altima was an important factor in my decision to upgrade. I found the fixed lumbar to be just a little too much for my comfort.

Many folks are upset with the one piece folding setback in the Accord - this is taking cost cutting too far.
  #20  
Old 11-10-2012, 11:20 PM
dbc dbc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 391
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Thanks: 8
Thanked 101 Times in 77 Posts
iTrader: 0 reviews
Here's a link to the second page of an article on the dyno results of the I4/cvt Accord:

The Temple of VTEC - Honda and Acura Enthusiasts Online - Articles - Jeff, do you have the HP vs. mph chart of the 2012/2011 Civic Si?: Video, Conclusions

The Accord is just about as quick as the 2.5 Altima.

The write up confirms what I've been saying all along - its faster when operating as a pure cvt rather than stepping thru the fake "gears".

It's strange to me that the enthusiasts still prefer paddle shifters and gears over the proven superior performance of a transmission that can, when called upon, hold the engine at the absolute best rpm for maximum performance. Or hold the engine in the rpm range for absolute best fuel economy. And, best of all, do BOTH!
  #21  
Old 11-11-2012, 02:14 PM
LMK5 LMK5 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 448
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Thanks: 36
Thanked 24 Times in 20 Posts
iTrader: 0 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wallybear View Post
If someone out there ever has anything nice to say about the input I offer here, I'd like to hear it. Of course I know that forums like this one are peopled by all sorts of people. Oddly (and sadly to me at least), the "middle-ground" sort of people (some of whom are those "pigeons" I mentioned) are the least likely to say anything. My hope was that they would read and somehow benefit.

Again, I hope this posting helps/interests someone out there. If it doesn't, then I apologize in advance. But I will point out that you didn't have to pay me for my advice. I offered it for free and with a smile.

Peace.
Wallybear, I have found your posts extremely useful and informative. Keep them coming.
  #22  
Old 11-11-2012, 05:46 PM
fishbone's Avatar
fishbone fishbone is offline
LOL AWD
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,337
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Thanks: 6
Thanked 16 Times in 12 Posts
iTrader: 0 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by dbc View Post
Here's a link to the second page of an article on the dyno results of the I4/cvt Accord:

The Temple of VTEC - Honda and Acura Enthusiasts Online - Articles - Jeff, do you have the HP vs. mph chart of the 2012/2011 Civic Si?: Video, Conclusions

The Accord is just about as quick as the 2.5 Altima.

The write up confirms what I've been saying all along - its faster when operating as a pure cvt rather than stepping thru the fake "gears".

It's strange to me that the enthusiasts still prefer paddle shifters and gears over the proven superior performance of a transmission that can, when called upon, hold the engine at the absolute best rpm for maximum performance. Or hold the engine in the rpm range for absolute best fuel economy. And, best of all, do BOTH!
This is one of those discussions which will never die.
The comparison above was made to the same car, CVT vs "fake gears" mode. Pin a CVT against a traditional tranny in another car and it may be another story.
All that article seem to suggest is that the fake gears in a CVT suck.
From anecdotal experience a 5EAT Altima fared better than a CVT-powered V6 Altima, despite the fact that said CVT had a bump in power. In other words a 5EAT Altima put up a better fight, stock for stock.
While the CVT has the advantage on paper, it makes you wonder why "the big boys" at all the lux brands don't implement it on their sports sedans and instead opt on adding gears and making the trannies faster, where performance is a key ingredient.
Sweeping the rpm band is better than keeping the engine dead-set at a certain point and making it so that the transmission lets the car "catch up" as it accelerates. In addition, the CVT starts to really lack when you have to modulate throttle in a spirited manner. Therefore it should be no surprise to you enthusiasts still prefer paddle shifters. The proof is in the pudding.

Now on the topic at hand, 2.5 vs 3.5 are completely different beasts. I've owned VQ and could own nothing else from Nissan, regardless on what car it would be stuffed into. Altima, Quest, the Infiniti marque, etc.

My snail eats rice

synthetic oil drained every 500 miles cause I'm rich | uranium-core sparkplugs | McRae sticker 10hp edition | titanium piston springs | Motul syn blinker fluid | timing advanced 6* Celsius | SE-R tail lights | trunk mount intercooler | oil catchcan with exhaust dumpvalve (see smoke in sigpic) | CLICK to see my turbo

Last edited by fishbone; 11-11-2012 at 06:00 PM.
  #23  
Old 11-16-2012, 04:29 PM
dbc dbc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 391
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Thanks: 8
Thanked 101 Times in 77 Posts
iTrader: 0 reviews
First 1600 miles my 3.5 has averaged about 28 mpg. My previous 2.5 was doing about 33 mpg. My driving doesn't include heavy city traffic and has a good deal of rural highways at 55-65 mph.

About 5.7 gallons more per month for 1000 miles. It's a price I'll willingly pay for the big increase in power and additional refinement of the six. On the other hand, the 2.5 is perfectly adequate to power the car. What do you think?
  #24  
Old 11-16-2012, 04:48 PM
PrDm PrDm is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 269
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Thanks: 27
Thanked 23 Times in 21 Posts
iTrader: 0 reviews
My "Gas Penalty" for running the 3.5 instead of the 2.5 runs almost double yours at $4/gallon. A premium I anticipated and happily pay.

2013 3.5 SL. DOB: 8/13/12
  #25  
Old 11-16-2012, 06:33 PM
dbc dbc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 391
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Thanks: 8
Thanked 101 Times in 77 Posts
iTrader: 0 reviews
[QUOTE=fishbone;4305837......
Sweeping the rpm band is better than keeping the engine dead-set at a certain point and making it so that the transmission lets the car "catch up" as it accelerates. .[/QUOTE]

Absolutely incorrect. "sweeping the rpm band" results in less average power delivered and slower acceleration. You may like the feel of it better but it's not "better".
  #26  
Old 11-16-2012, 09:30 PM
fishbone's Avatar
fishbone fishbone is offline
LOL AWD
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,337
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Thanks: 6
Thanked 16 Times in 12 Posts
iTrader: 0 reviews
Can you then explain the rest of my comment?
What if peak power is delivered differently, such as a flat torque curve from 1800 to redline, or peak torque/power under 3k etc?
If you have a good argument for automatics in performance cars I am all ears

My snail eats rice

synthetic oil drained every 500 miles cause I'm rich | uranium-core sparkplugs | McRae sticker 10hp edition | titanium piston springs | Motul syn blinker fluid | timing advanced 6* Celsius | SE-R tail lights | trunk mount intercooler | oil catchcan with exhaust dumpvalve (see smoke in sigpic) | CLICK to see my turbo
  #27  
Old 11-16-2012, 10:28 PM
dbc dbc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 391
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Thanks: 8
Thanked 101 Times in 77 Posts
iTrader: 0 reviews
6,7,8, and now 9 speed automatics are showing up everywhere. The extra ratios allow the engine to operate in the narrow rpm band that provides best performance and/or best efficiency. Enthusiasts seem to welcome these, but when you provide a near- infinite number of ratios in a CVT they begin to complain. I don't get this disconnect.
Sure, the CVT feels and sounds unlike what we're used to - and that really seems to be the issue.

I certainly agree with you, fishbone, that the VQ engine is a sweetheart. Even though it's getting a little old, it's easy to see why it was on the Ward's 10 best engine list for so long. It transforms an Altima into a competitive sport sedan.

We've strayed from the original purpose of this thread - and it's mostly my fault - sorry.
  #28  
Old 11-17-2012, 07:10 PM
fishbone's Avatar
fishbone fishbone is offline
LOL AWD
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,337
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Thanks: 6
Thanked 16 Times in 12 Posts
iTrader: 0 reviews
The reason CVTs work for cars in this class is because the CVT does quite well for going from point A to point B and for the occasional passing or pedal to the floor.
However, when it comes to spirited driving where modulating the throttle, letting off and then getting right into it etc, traditional gears work better.
So in a scenario like that a traditional auto is a better match for performance oriented sedans especially in the premium class. Can you picture an SLR with a CVT?
Another thing to consider is that there are no significant differences in terms of either mpg or acceleration times between Altima/Maxima and the competitors in the class.
So ultimately it comes down to the fact that CVT or not it is a matter of preference.
When it comes to spirited driving, gears work better.
I'm sure you will point out that a CVT also comes with simulated gears mode.
This only goes to prove my point.
And he fact that a CVT will perform worse in gears mode doesn't speak to traditional autos; it simply means simulated gears on a CVT are not ideal.
CVT continues to suffer of the same problem every other traditional auto out there: it is not as effective transferring power from the engine to the wheels as a MT or other advanced auto transmissions because it still has a slushtastic torque converter.

Conclusion being CVT is just another option and despite the superiority in daily driving in terms of comfort, it is not the end all be all and falls short in certain aspects.

Despite this reality, this debate will continue on.
Contrary to your statement there is no "proven performance". If anything, the numbers are telling us the CVT is marginally better at best.

My snail eats rice

synthetic oil drained every 500 miles cause I'm rich | uranium-core sparkplugs | McRae sticker 10hp edition | titanium piston springs | Motul syn blinker fluid | timing advanced 6* Celsius | SE-R tail lights | trunk mount intercooler | oil catchcan with exhaust dumpvalve (see smoke in sigpic) | CLICK to see my turbo

Last edited by fishbone; 11-17-2012 at 07:27 PM.
  #29  
Old 11-19-2012, 07:15 PM
pnetmac pnetmac is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Smyrna, TN
Posts: 9
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Thanks: 1
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
iTrader: 0 reviews
Traded my 2.5S for a 3.5S on Saturday.

Since I became increasingly unhappy with the NVH of the 2.5 engine and CVT, I decided to take the hit and trade cars this weekend. I took an extended test drive of both city and highway miles and I must say that all the issues I had with the 2.5 are now eliminated by the 3.5. If I could take off one of my legs and kick my ass for not driving the 3.5 before I bought the 2.5, I would.

I did take the advice of dbc and paid attention to the ride difference during my 25 mile test ride and it was not a deal breaker. In fact, I didn't notice that much more noise from the larger tires. I think mainly due to greatly reduced or should I say almost non-existent drive train noise of the 3.5. The only difference I have noticed during my first 120 miles is that I do feel bumps more but that is not unexpected for a car with lower profile tires and a stiffer suspension. Also, the steering on the 3.5 feels more weighted although I believe both the 2.5 and 3.5 use the same electric/hydraulic hybrid setup. On the 2.5 the steering felt lighter but at the cost of wandering more on the highway.

As others have stated, the 2.5 and 3.5 are completely different animals. Seems to me that after driving and now owning both, Nissan designed the new Altima for the 3.5 and then dropped in the 2.5 to get high fuel economy numbers. The 3.5 driving experience is refined and upscale but the 2.5 is not.
The Following User Says Thank You to pnetmac For This Useful Post:
  #30  
Old 11-19-2012, 10:22 PM
dbc dbc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 391
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Thanks: 8
Thanked 101 Times in 77 Posts
iTrader: 0 reviews
Agree completely, pnetmac, with your assessment of the two cars. I've now gotten over 2000 miles on my new 3.5 SL and I'm very satisfied with it.

I believe that many people will be completely happy with the 2.5 - its very efficient and completely adequate. But some will want more than that. And for them, the 3.5 is an easy choice.

The 3.5 does seem to be a little more stable, especially at highway (and above) speeds. Probably due to the stiffer suspension and wider, low profile tires. But you do pay a slight penalty in ride quality. That bothered me a lot at first but a little less over time.

The 3.5 makes so much more power and torque - gives the car the effortless feel of some premium cars - very satisfying. It's worth the approx 20% higher fuel consumption to me. But may not be to others.
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Nissan Forums : Nissan Forum > Nissanclub.com Nissan - Infiniti Enthusiast Forums > NISSAN ALTIMA FORUMS > *NEW* 2013+ NISSAN ALTIMA Forum > 2013+ Nissan Altima Discussion (2.5 & 3.5)

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Nissan Forums : Nissan Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.


<

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome