The car is crap; the tires were junk at twenty thousand miles, and it's not good in snow. Wish I had my Hummer back.
You guys must be out of your minds. I have 2009 Murano, and 40K miles on it, and the handling and ride is better than Audi or Toyota. I live in Chicago, and we have plenty of snow here, and trust me, the AWD in Murano works very well. Last winter we had 26 inches of snow in one day, and I was the only one driving in my Murano freely in the snow. I was even helping out a poor Audi Q5 owner who was stuck in the snow bank.
I guess the first question I'd ask is, if it were so ugly, why on Earth did you buy it in the first place? I agree they aren't the most beautiful SUV, but you obviously didn't buy it blindfolded.
We tried a Murano before buying our GM SUV in 2003, and were not remotely impressed. The GM just hit 100,000 miles without so much as a brake job.
Modern domestics are much better buys than poor quality imports. It's great to buy a car and not having to do anything but oil changes for 100,000+ miles. I'm too busy to spend my time (or my wife's) taking cars to the shop. That's why we no longer buy anything not made by a domestic car company. With a 100,000 mile warranty, there are zero concerns for a long time.
Of course it's a matter of personal taste, but I agree as well this is a very ugly crossover. It will probably look even worse in a few years when styles change.
Very bland, yet bulbous, ugly design.
A Murano handles better than an Audi? Really? Which one, a 1974 Fox with broken tie-rod ends?
"I was even helping out a poor Audi Q5 owner who was stuck in the snow bank."
Did the owner have proper snow tires on their vehicle?
It looks bizarre at best, and the interior plastics and fit are embarrassing. Not really Nissan's best. And I've driven cars with their CVT, and it sucks. The only good thing is it's got a lot of cargo room for the size. Very overpriced also.
I sold Nissans in the mid-eighties, and actually worked in a Datsun parts department back in 1974.
The company made from very fine automobiles (once they got beyond the rusting out in five years period). It's funny, back then (70s) the powertrains would last forever, but the bodies were rusted through in five years.
Starting with the Pathfinder & Maxima, Nissan prices started creeping up to the point they were competing with vehicles that clearly had a value advantage over the Nissans (not that they were bad vehicles - they weren't - they just began getting pricey very quickly). For example in 1987, the top of the line Pathfinder was the SE, and loaded up it was priced close the the price of a Jeep Grand Wagoneer. Price wise it could not compete with the Cherokees, which had a much more powerful engine in the 4.0 liter inline 6, and two much better 4WD systems.
I worked at a dealership that sold Jeeps, Isuzus & Nissans - of the Cherokees, Isuzu Troopers & Pathfinders - guess which ones flew of the lots & guess which ones sat? But what do I know, I actually owned a Pathfinder SE for 13 years - it wasn't long before I realized I should have went with a Cherokee, but I stuck it out for 13 years nonetheless.
Now, 25 years later it seems Nissan has overestimated the value of some of their vehicles. IMO they would fare better in the marketplace if they went back to their roots and sold pretty reliable and affordable vehicles.
Add another comment
Note: A Comments RSS Feed is available. New comments appear in the Members Area before the main site
Copyright 1997 - 2013 CSDO Media Limited Advertise on this site