Once upon a time, Americans didn't drive around in Kleenex-mobiles designed to be dis-car-dead after an obligatory three to four years. OK, they actually fell apart in that time. But the thrill of the new– what came to be known as planned obsolescence– wasn't always the industry's main selling point. A lot of folks bought the Model T or an early Buick because the cars were built to last. Outside of pickup trucks, I can't remember the last time I saw a car company advertising the longevity and mechanical quality of their products. Sure, there's some noise about "precision engineering" and "legendary reliability" (e.g. the new, more epically epic Toyota Sequoia). But when was the first/last time you heard a manufacturer claim that "our cars are built to last?" Well then, I guess it's time to rethink Nissan. The Japanese automaker has decided to tout the durability of its cars– especially the Altima– in TV ads and on the web. They're talking quality testing and "years of durability." Yes, an upgraded warranty would have placed currency in their oral cavity, but I think it's fantastic that Nissan is actually suggesting that you buy a car for more than 20 minutes. In these days of tanking vehicle sales, how long before someone nabs Patek Phillipe's strapline (so to speak): choose once, choose wisely?
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
Yes, I agree and I like the new line but warranty always walks the walk.
Good. I’m glad to hear that someone has decided to emphasize durability and longevity of CARS. People may actually start keeping cars longer now.
I agree with Velvetsmack; companies should put their money where there mouth intake manifold is and offer longer warranties. I think 5 years/60,000 miles bumper to bumper and 10 years/100,000 miles powertrain would be nice.
I’m driving a 17 year old truck I bought new, so for me longevity is just about the strongest selling point there is.
My Dad, on the other hand, bought and sold cars constantly and seemed to like the thrill. I like the dependability of a well-made vehicle (and I HATE dealers).
John
I am surprised it has taken this long for a car manufacturer to deal with this publicly. Those of us who don’t lease their vehicles and keep them for a while look at longevity as a major deciding factor in the purchasing process. Even if you lease your vehicle, the higher residual value that longevity should bring means more competitive lease payments
In an ideal world, manufacturers would at least OFFER a basic car that was assembled with high-longevity (max MTBF/MTBO times) parts.
The problem is that something like that would probably make an Altima cost upwards $30k+, which would then tank in the market as people scoff.
Mercedes from the 1970s and 80s were like this, to a degree, but I can’t think of anyone else who has tried it. I’d like to see: “Our cars don’t have all the bells and whistles, and they cost 30% more than the competition, but they’ll last 5x as long!”
In the early ’60s, Volvo used to advertise their cars as “tough” and if memory serves, they said that the average Volvo lasted 11 years in frigid Sweden (so think how much longer it could go in the milder USA). Even the convex lines in the styling of the p544 and the 122S/Amazon were touted as a way to make the thing tougher.
I think Volvo print ads back in the 70’s were the last ones I recall that touted durability. I don’t think those 70’s era Volvos had very long warranties to back that up, though, did they? (I’m serious – I didn’t buy one – perhaps someone can remember…)
It makes sense. Whenever the economy starts slowing, or sinking, take your pick, people get a lot more concerned about how to stretch their dollars. Considering Nissan has lagged Toyota in having a reputation for quality, it’s a smart move for them to launch a campaign emphasizing their durability.
Re: Volvo
I remember seeing ads in the late 90s that featured the 500k and million-mile Volvos from the 50s and 60s (notably, the grille ornaments that marked these milestones). I wonder what happened to that message…
Advertising is not what makes people keep cars longer. Economic common sense for some people, hard times for the others, the escalation of new car prices as well as actual real advances in durability are the main factors. Doesn’t Nissan still trail Toyota and Honda significantly in most JD Powers surveys as well as Consumer Reports?
Nissan’s reliability is all over the map lately, with some of their products being way, way, way down in the CR ratings of such (in Land Rover territory).
blautens–1975 Volvo 242 here: 1 year warranty.
# ash78–“I remember seeing ads in the late 90s that featured the 500k and million-mile Volvos from the 50s and 60s (notably, the grille ornaments that marked these milestones). I wonder what happened to that message…” Ford happened.
So chryslers pretty open lifetime powertrain isn’t worth anything? I mean even if they are making junk they are saying its on them to fix at 300k miles (if they aren’t chaptered by then).
Look…
I agree that putting your warranty where your mouth is, thats the telltale truth.
Enough about the advertising.
IF you truly believe what you are advertising…
Damn it, give it to me in a warranty.
Or its just more PR crap.
Volvo still does the “High Mileage Club” badges.
http://www.volvocars.com/us/footer/about/Pages/highmilage.aspx
There’s an entire generation that has no desire to maintain any vehicle. That Nissan touts long term durability and the demographics of its target buyers are not interested in maintaining and durability. The message falls on non receptive folks.
Modern vehicles infested with electronics, long term durability has a different meaning and resonance than the older purely mechanical vehicles that were easy to repair and maintain.
Even Maytag no longer advertises its repair man.
All the surveys seem to say that Nissans aren’t durable compared to Toyota and Honda, which also have higher resale value. I guess it makes sense to advertise the durability of the product, however, especially in a time of economic uncertainty.
I like it. I’m tired of advertising trying to out quirk or out style the competition. I’m not sure if it will be successful, but I’m happy to see a different message going out.
Frantz :
The problem there is that it’s a hollow claim since it’s for the powertrain only and no one knows how long Chrysler will be around to honor the warranty.
Subaru has a series of ads that tout their longevity — to the point that they prominently display a 300k, clapped-out multicolor Forester being led off to “subaru heaven”.
Mid eighties Toyota ran a series of adds touting real customers and their vehicles that had some multiple of 100k miles on them on tv and in print. Interestingly a lot of the vehicles (mostly pickups) they showed were not in perfect condition, they were obviously well used.
Three years after I bought a new Nissan, I started getting letters from the dealer every couple of months, telling me to “trade in now, to avoid costly repairs.” Why would they think that telling me that my three year old car was about to start breaking down, would make me want to buy another Nissan? I would bet that this was dealer driven and didn’t come from Nissan, but seemed to be an ill thought out marketing strategy.
tulsa_97sr5 :
May 6th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Mid eighties Toyota ran a series of adds touting real customers and their vehicles that had some multiple of 100k miles on them on tv and in print. Interestingly a lot of the vehicles (mostly pickups) they showed were not in perfect condition, they were obviously well used.
They should do that again. I’m sure there has to be a lot of 1984-ish Toyota pickups or Corollas with a million miles on them out there somewhere.
It would be best to add a long warranty to it when you do that campaign, and Toyota’s warranty is still the industry standard 3 years/36k bumper to bumper, 5 years/60k powertrain, with Hyundrai/Kia, GM, and Chrysler all offering significantly longer ones. Of course, Toyota has better-than-average reliability, so their costs to extending the warranty would be cheaper than the companies that already have.
I think Toyota has been growing so fast that they haven’t seen the need to extend their warranty, even though they could do so with little fiscal pain. But their sales are down so far this year, like pretty much everybody else (although not as much as the Detroit 3). Now would be the time to do such a gimmick.
My Volvo celebrates it’s 24th birthday next month. It came with a 1-year warranty.
Volvo had a nice high mileage program that gave nice brass-plated grille badges every 100k. Ford/Volvo changed that to *decals*. I guess the beancounters found the badges too costly.
It has always been my opinion that someone looking for a car with good overall durability and lifespan should turn to the fleet-queens, such as the Panther-platform Fords. Size and grunt are important to those cars and their users (taxi, limo, police), but fleet purchasers always keep their eye on the bottom line, and the manufacturers build to that expectation. Of course, with fuel prices at historic highs, and the Panthers being only middling in terms of economy, all things considered (better than SUVs, worse than Camcords, but rather roomy on the inside at least), the cost function doesn’t work out as well as it used to.
My family has owned a succession of Panther platform cars over the years, and as long as you are willing to make the periodic repair, you can get those things past 15 years / 175,000 miles without too much trouble. Spares are fairly ubiquitous, which helps when you are looking to fix or replace something.
Even Maytag no longer advertises its repair man.
Yes, they do.
I don’t think those 70’s era Volvos had very long warranties to back that up, though, did they? (I’m serious – I didn’t buy one – perhaps someone can remember…)
Nothing had a very long warranty in that time. My dad bought a Chevy pickup in 1980 that had a 12 month/12,000 mile warranty.
Doesn’t Nissan still trail Toyota and Honda significantly in most JD Powers surveys as well as Consumer Reports?
According to the 2007 J.D. Power and Associates Vehicle Dependability Study (three year old cars), Honda had 169 problems per 100 cars, Toyota had 178, and Nissan had 274. That’s 1.69 problems per car for Honda, 1.78 PPC for Toyota, and 2.74 PPC for Nissan.
So, after three years, Nissan had about one more problem per car than Honda or Toyota. Doesn’t seem like much of a difference to me. Also, there is no indication as to the nature of the problem.
According to the 2007 Initial Quality Study, Honda had 1.08 PPC, Toyota had 1.12 PPC, and Nissan had 1.32 PPC. Remember that these numbers now include design in the rankings as well. So, if a person doesn’t like the cupholders, that is considered a quality problem.
In the IQS, the difference between the highest ranked (0.91 PPC for Porsche) and the lowest ranked (1.70 PPC for Land Rover) is about 0.8 PPC. In the VDS, the difference between first (1.45 PPC for Buick) and last (3.98 PPC for Land Rover) is about 2.5 PPC.
That’s why I don’t put much stock in J.D. Power or Consumer Reports. What they show is such a small difference that I don’t think they mean much. Also, at least in the case of C.R., the questions are, at best, ambiguous. The survey I got from C.R. asked if I had any “major problems”.
The problem is that “major” is not defined. I remember a few years ago when Hummer took a huge hit in the J.D. Power IQS. Later, it was reported that half of the reported problems were poor fuel mileage, and a significant percentage were related to noise and rough ride. Those aren’t quality issues, those are buying a huge-ass brick issues.
Considering how many people buy Camcords based solely on reliability, this is a smart move on Nissan’s part. The Altima is now a better car (if you like driving) than its Camcord competition, but the only way it can grow its sales further is if people believe the long-term reliability is par with the Camcord. I think the rationale behind a lot of people’s purchases right now are “I’m not sure about the economic future, so I can’t have a car that’s saddling me in debt with costly repairs 5 years from now.”
Texasag03, it depends on what that “1 extra” problem is. If its a Nissan truck with the weak, never-should-have-been-used-in-the-first-place Dana 44 axle, then I would not be happy. That axle is clearly undersized for the Titan which is why so many fail when used as designed/advertised, like towing or working. This rear is adequate for a Frontier, not a Titan.
When I was a kid I remember an ad for the 1972 Ford LTD in which they said they hoped that owners would drive their cars to the then upcoming U.S. Bicentennial celebrations in Washington, D.C.
(Hey, it was only 4 years, but it was FORD after all and 4 years is something.)
Texasag03, it depends on what that “1 extra” problem is. If its a Nissan truck with the weak, never-should-have-been-used-in-the-first-place Dana 44 axle, then I would not be happy.
You are correct, but that is the problem. No one knows how they define “major problems” or even “problems”.
Yes it does matter what that problem is.
If it happens to be a Nissan CVT transmission you will find that they are not repairable. Replacement I understand runs $5-6,000 dollars. If it fails at 4 years that might be about what the vehicle is worth.
CVTs have so far proved to be more reliable than I ever expected, considering their chequered history going back to the DAF from Holland.
However, ‘volvo’ is quite right, they cannot be repaired and have to be replaced. Therefore I believe that in the long run, Nissans’ dedication to CVTs will come back to bite them. Especially if the vehicle was used for towing anything heavy.
Also Volvos were said to last for 11 years in Sweden, because they use very little salt on their roads. Just like middle Canada, they use sand, since brine (salt&water) freezes at an unacceptably “high” temperature.
Advertising is often used to “correct” public perception of a corporation’s weaknesses. In other words, look at the attribute they’re touting and you’ll have a big clue about what their products are lacking in.
“According to the 2007 J.D. Power and Associates Vehicle Dependability Study (three year old cars), Honda had 169 problems per 100 cars, Toyota had 178, and Nissan had 274. That’s 1.69 problems per car for Honda, 1.78 PPC for Toyota, and 2.74 PPC for Nissan.”
According to the exact same survey Chrysler has 249 problems per 100 cars, Dodge 236, and Jeep 219. So let’s see if I got this, Mopar scores higher in reliability than Nissan, has a longer warranty (powertrain, but the bumper to bumper I believe is equal to Toyota’s), but their warranty (didn’t someone here say a warranty is putting your money where your mouth is?) is a cruel joke, a trick played on the hapless buying public. Funny that. But for Nissan it’s “Well, I think this is good for them to advertise the durability of their products, consumers are just not aware of how good they are…” Uh, apparently not that good, and that’s why there is no warranty.
By the way the CVT used in the Caliber/Compass/ Patriot is Nissans’. So if you criticise it (and I think it does deserve some criticim) you are critixising Nissan.
Two points. I recall reading about the new 2.4 litre four cylinder Hyundai (and Kia) engines which were to be introduced in 2006, I think it was in Automotive News or possibly an SAE article.
Hyundai specifically designed the engines to have at least a 300,000 mile lifespan. The engineers indicated that it would be “about” 3 years before the engines were fully built to spec, blaming some suppliers for not being able to turn out the exact specifications until then.
Second. If anyone wants to get a reciprocating engine vehicle to last 300,000 miles, you need to know this little “dirty secret” that the auto industry does not want you to know. To help reduce their costs (and enable drivetrains to pass 100,000 emission durability tests) they’ve strong-armed (like a pretzel) the oil industry (via the SAE) to remove most of the ZDDP (just say “zinc” phosphorous) from the motor oils of today, and the US government was in collusion with them too. This is DISASTEROUS for engines, especially old (pre-1985) flat tappet engines. One solution is to use oil with ZDDP (well ‘duh’) but it is hard to come by. One such oil is diesel AND gasoline rated Shell Rotella T, which can be found (with difficulty) in SAE 10W-30 or (easily found) in SAE 15W-40. It is CJ-4 (diesel low emission system) rated “then” SL (gasoline) rated, which means it may (in fact MUST) contain ZDDP. Diesel engines cannot last more than about 5 minutes without ZDDP in the motor oil. ZDDP, suspended in very small quantieis in the motor oil, forms a sacrificial barrier on high-load friction surfaces (i.e. camshafts and bearings). Another solution is to add back the ZDDP by buying ZDDP additive. It’s available from http://www.eastwood.com (an antiques car parts and resources supplier). Just search “ZDDP” on their website. It’s about $10 extra per oil change.
BTW, I do NOT work for either Shell or Eastwood. This information stems from research I’ve been doing at work, and I can’t tell you any more than that. Sorry. Either you believe me or you don’t; no skin off my nose.
I’m switching my cars to Shell Rotella T.
I agree with NBK-Boston. My 11 year old panther just turned 116k. And I still have confidence in it. Performed great over a 600 mile trip last weekend. Except for the plastic intake manifold, no problems. Despite all of the lousy press, they still sell enough of them to continue to build them. Ford ought to find a few of the 400k miles plus owners (including cabbies) and base a similar advertising campaign on them!
I have to say… I am suprised about no one mentioning the major problems that is ruining Nissan’s Altima,betwwen the years 2002-2006 Altima owners have been reporting excessive oil consumption, head gaskets failing, coolant loses, and pre catylitic failures, other than those major problems…not bad for a car made in Tenessee.. But sad considering these failures were occuring between 50k-100k miles…pretty sad for the “1 of the top 10 engines ever designed” I’ve been real lucky..mine is still going, it’s at 114k.
I think the oil consumption / coolant / precat failures / and head gasket issue is all tied in with a bad catalytic converter design that caused particles to be sucked into the engine. This was corrected (hopefully?) with the 2005 refresh. I have no idea if that’s been the case, or if the engine modifications to the 2007 model has changed this. It’s one of those unfortunate flaws like Ford’s cheapo Taurus transmissions and the worthless automatic Acura stuck in an earlier model TL. Nissan has been making a lot of strides forward in build quality and assembly, so let’s hope long term reliability has done the same.