M/T: Nissan Altima vs Chevy Blazer

Non-repair car talk
Post Reply
kevm14
Posts: 15813
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:28 pm

M/T: Nissan Altima vs Chevy Blazer

Post by kevm14 »

https://www.motortrend.com/cars/chevrol ... F5D7A929EE

In the quarterfinals, the Altima beat out the Camry. I didn't read it. So the Altima was pitted against the Blazer, which is weird. They concluded that there is a reason midsize crossovers are replacing sedans. Especially when the crossover is actually good.
Clearly, the biggest difference between the Altima and Blazer is their design philosophies. It's hard to overlook the inherent packaging advantages of a midsize crossover compared to a midsize sedan, but the Altima puts up a good fight. Its trunk opening is wide, and the trunk itself is deep; two massive hockey bags, for example, would fit next to each other—but the lack of a center pass-through for sticks could be seen as a flaw the Altima and many sedans have. The Nissan's rear seats do fold forward, but that obviously reduces how many passengers you can carry. The sedan's biggest advantage here is its low step-in height, making it easier for children to climb in by themselves.
You used to be able to rely on sedans out-driving crossovers and SUVs, but after driving the Nissan back to back with the Chevy, we might be witnessing a changing of that guard. Sure, both were comfortable, quiet, and plenty powerful at city speeds and on the highway, but they differentiated themselves on the proving center's winding road. The Blazer handles surprisingly well for a front-drive-based crossover. Its chassis is buttoned down and refined, and steering is light and accurate—it was at least equally as engaging (and likely faster) than the Altima on the winding track.

Maybe that's meaningless to most buyers, but those same dynamic qualities that make the Blazer such a performer on the winding track also make it better in emergency lane change scenarios. In simulated emergency situations, the Chevy was rock solid and drama free, its electronics working unobtrusively to keep all four tires grounded and the nose pointed in the right direction, helping the Blazer clear the test without so much as brushing a cone. With all-wheel drive manually engaged (it's permanently "on" in nearly every other CUV), the Blazer is even more stable. The Altima, on the other hand, was easily upset in our emergency tests. Its chassis is less composed and its electronic stability systems less sophisticated, making it harder to control compared to the Blazer.
At the end of our bout of dissimilar training, one insight became abundantly clear: There's a reason American families have been abandoning sedans for crossovers, and that reason isn't necessarily styling or ride height. As the Chevy Blazer proves, midsize crossovers are incredibly versatile—serving as a one-size-fits-all magic bullet for an average family—and they can be both better to drive and more engaging than a comparable sedan.
FWIW, the Blazer runs 14.7 sec @ 95.5 mph. It is 4,274 lbs.
The Altima SR turbo runs 14.5 sec @ 98.9 mph. It is 3,416 lbs. They have the same 0-60. The Altima also stops better, has a higher skidpad and runs the figure 8 faster. But as they said, numbers aren't everything and it sounds like they actually preferred driving the 850 lb heavier Blazer. I think that speaks to how good the Blazer is because nothing about any of what I just mentioned is an advantage to the Blazer that would translate to better anything.
bill25
Posts: 2583
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 2:20 pm

Re: M/T: Nissan Altima vs Chevy Blazer

Post by bill25 »

n the quarterfinals, the Altima beat out the Camry.
Oh… On what planet did that happen? There must be a huge difference between a magazine Altima and a rental Altima because the last rental Altima made me swear off Nissan for life.

I don't doubt that the Blazer is better than the Altima. With similar driving characteristics and an extra 850 lbs, it is hard to tell if the Blazer is really good, to be that much bigger and more useful, or if the Altima is a massive failure to barely keep up with a vehicle with a higher center of gravity and extra 850 lbs.
bill25
Posts: 2583
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 2:20 pm

Re: M/T: Nissan Altima vs Chevy Blazer

Post by bill25 »

I wouldn't think the Camaro was good if the Escalade had the same 0-60 and was only off by .2 in the quarter.

Um... maybe I should check the Escalade's stats... LOL
bill25
Posts: 2583
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 2:20 pm

Re: M/T: Nissan Altima vs Chevy Blazer

Post by bill25 »

C/D TEST RESULTS FOR:
2016 Cadillac Escalade Platinum
Zero to 60 mph: 5.8 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 14.3 sec @ 98 mph

2016 Camaro:
PERFORMANCE (C/D EST):
Zero to 60 mph: 4.3 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 12.5 sec

And everything was ok with the world... LOL
bill25
Posts: 2583
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 2:20 pm

Re: M/T: Nissan Altima vs Chevy Blazer

Post by bill25 »

Interestingly, the Blazer's acceleration stats are very close to the Escalade.
kevm14
Posts: 15813
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:28 pm

Re: M/T: Nissan Altima vs Chevy Blazer

Post by kevm14 »

bill25 wrote:
n the quarterfinals, the Altima beat out the Camry.
Oh… On what planet did that happen? There must be a huge difference between a magazine Altima and a rental Altima because the last rental Altima made me swear off Nissan for life.

I don't doubt that the Blazer is better than the Altima. With similar driving characteristics and an extra 850 lbs, it is hard to tell if the Blazer is really good, to be that much bigger and more useful, or if the Altima is a massive failure to barely keep up with a vehicle with a higher center of gravity and extra 850 lbs.
https://www.motortrend.com/cars/nissan/ ... on-review/

It was Altima SR vs Camry XLE. Neither of which is really "rental car trim" except in some rare circumstances where the OEM decides to pump some higher trim models into fleets for some reasons.
Our two picks to represent sedans, the 2019 Nissan Altima SR VC-Turbo and 2019 Toyota Camry XLE V6, both debuted within the past two years and are among the best-selling four-doors on the market. (We'll call the Accord, an MT favorite, a victim of playing in a strong conference; only so many Hondas could make the field.)
Sounding better already.
The average consumer might mistake an Altima for a Camry, but from inside there's a night-and-day difference. The Camry's cabin is decidedly noncommittal. It goes through the motions; everything you expect is there, from an infotainment system to leather and metal accents. But there's nothing that outright makes you feel proud about your purchase. The materials are down-the-middle average—neither nice enough nor bad enough to notice. The back-seat package is big enough for adults, but the rear doors' narrow opening makes fitting a car seat a pain.

The Altima takes the opposite approach. The material quality isn't much different, but the Nissan's design is much more effective. That distinctive V-shaped grille motif carries over into a neat metallic accent on the dash, and the orange stitching and faux carbon weave are neat textural elements that liven up the cabin. The Altima's seats are more comfortable, too, and as an added bonus, the back doors open up nearly 90 degrees, making it a snap to install a car seat. Ergonomics are well thought out, and all the controls are intuitive and within reach.
Mostly better here, too, except for some CVT nonsense. And the thing is, the 8-speed auto on the Camry does not sound particularly good. And what's funny as you could probably replace "Camry" with "RAV4" and you'd agree with everything regarding yours (except the power part). Must be a Toyota thing.
The two also have decidedly different driving dynamics. Calling the Altima "sporty" is probably a stretch, but it's certainly more fun to drive. Its oddball variable-compression engine—a 2.0-liter turbo-four with 248 hp and 280 lb-ft of torque—works as advertised, providing V-6-like performance with four-cylinder efficiency. The engine's torquey power delivery and snarl can be addicting, but its CVT can be erratic. Sometimes it's all-conference player; others it's a nervous walk-on that doesn't want to leave the bench. The Nissan was also the better handler of the two.

The Altima surprised us, but the Camry drives exactly as advertised. In other words, you'll get where you're going but forget how you got there. Toyota's 301-hp 3.5-liter V-6 is the most memorable part of the Camry; it has plenty of power and sounds sweet when accelerating, but its eight-speed automatic is unresponsive and poorly tuned. Its ride and handling balance isn't impressive; the Toyota tends to feel sloppy while cornering, as if it were tuned on a NASCAR oval. The Camry also exhibits more body roll through bends and more motion from bumps.
In conclusion, it wasn't even close.
We expected some of the early rounds to be close competitions with buzzer-beating finishes. This one, however, was no nail-biter. The Nissan Altima is the better family sedan by a long shot. The Toyota Camry gives you nothing more than what you ask and nothing less. Its wallflower styling hides an unremarkable cabin that's fit for taxiing an expectant mother to the hospital but lacking the roomy back seat for bringing the new baby home.

If the Camry is a car that assumes no real position in the world, the Nissan Altima is a sedan that takes a stance—you might not like what it's saying, but at least it's saying something. It certainly wants to be seen as pseudo-sporty, and it generally succeeds in that goal. It's engaging enough to make its driver feel something during another boring commute to the office, yet it offers premium appointments, comfortable seats, and plenty of space for the family.
The Camry was a lot more expensive than the Altima, too. And heavier. And the same or worse performing. Less fuel efficient...

Their length, width and height are almost identical.

LENGTH x WIDTH x HEIGHT
Camry: 192.1 x 72.4 x 56.9 in
Altima: 192.9 x 72.9 x 57.4 in

0-60 MPH
Camry: 6.0 sec
Altima: 6.1 sec

QUARTER MILE (FWIW these are almost as fast as the Escalade specs you posted)
Camry: 14.6 sec @ 98.4 mph
Altima: 14.5 sec @ 98.9 mph

BRAKING, 60-0 MPH
Camry: 125 ft
Altima: 119 ft

LATERAL ACCELERATION
Camry: 0.80 g (avg)
Altima: 0.89 g (avg)

MT FIGURE EIGHT
Camry: 27.1 sec @ 0.64 g (avg)
Altima: 26.5 sec @ 0.68 g (avg)

EPA CITY/HWY/COMB FUEL ECON (Altima shows more of an advantage on the city rating which makes a lot of sense)
Camry: 22/33/26 mpg
Altima: 25/34/29 mpg

So there you go. That happened. It would appear that Camry < Altima < Blazer.
Adam
Posts: 2269
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 9:50 pm

Re: M/T: Nissan Altima vs Chevy Blazer

Post by Adam »

All of these vehicles outperform all the 80's 'performance' cars I've ever owned. Progress?
Adam
Posts: 2269
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 9:50 pm

Re: M/T: Nissan Altima vs Chevy Blazer

Post by Adam »

Or at least close. C&D tested the 94 Impala SS and got 0.86 lateral G's. They also tested braking from 70 mph rather than 60, so it's hard to compare (179').
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a1 ... nted-test/

I can't find any of the older G/F stuff without looking harder, but here is the Supercharged Monte which I believe outperformed the 80's version:
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a1 ... road-test/
Post Reply