"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
Last edited by Pablo14 : Dec 25th, 2003 at 07:42 PM.
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.
__________________
Mods?... feh, I'm still on the repairs...
'91 Nissan NX 2000
I know jack about cars. But I can fix things. Cars happen to be things.
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.
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
Last edited by Pablo14 : Dec 26th, 2003 at 07:00 AM.
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.
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
Last edited by Pablo14 : Dec 28th, 2003 at 11:57 AM.
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.
__________________
ONWARD TO VICTORY!...or at least survival.
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.
Last edited by Pablo14 : Dec 29th, 2003 at 11:13 AM.
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.
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.
__________________
Is this forum still full of n00bs learning that you can't boost your daily driver on a part time retail income?
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]
__________________
Mods?... feh, I'm still on the repairs...
'91 Nissan NX 2000
I know jack about cars. But I can fix things. Cars happen to be things.
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.
__________________
ONWARD TO VICTORY!...or at least survival.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Do You Have a Nissan More than 10 years old ? You are challenging Nissan...read
Linear Mode
