Last week’s post on the Ford Tempo brought up a long running debate: why disparage a car not made with enthusiasts in mind?
If a car does its job of transporting owners from point A to point B as promised, who are we, as “car people,” to criticize it? It’s certainly a valid question, one which I often find myself having difficulty answering. Thankfully this car, posted to the Cohort by triborough, helps me respond much more decisively.
A high quality interpretation of a “car built for people who don’t care about cars,” the second generation Nissan Sentra (sixth generation Sunny) debuted in 1987 wearing unfashionably boxy styling, accompanied by the equally conservative 1987 Stanza.
If I may be so bold, it’s cars like these which destroyed Nissan’s standing in the American market. As we know, flagging fortunes resulted in a takeover by Renault, but just as today, the company’s product line-up was wildly inconsistent, with high-tech, well developed sports cars and high end sedans sold alongside profoundly unambitious, dull cars in the heart of the market.
But this isn’t a story about Nissan, per se. There are many successful cars which were designed with the assumption that shoppers in the lower to middle end of the market would be undiscerning. More than being cynical or disdainful, it’s a defeatist approach to car design, conducted with the expectation that the products delivered to dealers won’t be first in any category.
Did such an approach sell Sentras and Tempos by the boatload? Sure. But it helps explain why that Nissan had to be rescued, and why Ford doesn’t sell anything named Tempo today. In the case of both the Ford and the Nissan, succession by the polished Contour and sporty 1991 Sentra implied their makers’ awareness of a bruised reputation, but a failure to move these new models without substantial discounting revealed the extent of the damage done to their nameplates.
So the next time the question is posed as to why it’s necessary that a mainstream model meet standards owners themselves would never demand, consider the example of the Sentra and the Tempo. For better or worse, the car market is highly image conscious, and when shelling out five figures, most buyers want to get their hands on something with an enviable reputation, even when it takes them a long time to get hip.
Very well stated. Have you considered offering a course for auto executives?
WRT the Sentra, I always thought it was odd that Nissan moved from a rounded not-quite-jellybean look in the first generation to this angular design, just as every other car company was doing the opposite.
My wife had a first gen Sentra when we met – her first new car – and it was very good, reliable basic transportation.
A friend bought one of these in 87 or 88. A stripper – vinyl seats, no A/C, no radio and of course now power windows. He just needed transportation. He kept it until he could afford something nicer – which turned out to be an Accord.
I never drove it – but was a passenger several times – it had a very tinny feeling, especially when you closed the doors.
And I distinctly remember being stuck in traffic on the GSP on a hot summer’s day in that thing – torture.
I couldn’t agree more. The 80s and 90s saw a decided shift in market position for the US automakers–it would be rare, and still is, largely, for a Big 3 product to be priced in parity with Japanese or European metal. (For various reasons, Nissan, Mazda, and the smallest Toyota often play in the cut-rate field as well.)
But the reason you cite, recent poor/dated product in the market, is a huge driver of this. It makes even a person who hates cars expect worse than usual depreciation or ownership cost for that automaker’s new model. So cold rationality (“Honda retains value”) combines with the perception or reality of a nicer driving/riding experience to reinforce both the higher price of the preferred car, and the absence of market power for the maker of the “car for people who don’t care about cars.”
In some ways, what I just said is only a very boring, abstract version of Paul’s history of GM’s decline. But it is ruinous for an automaker to make stuff that’s “kind of like a ___, but cheaper.” That’s not a niche market, it’s economic and operational failure.
This is a good explanation. With Ford, I think the big problem with the Tempo, and, to lesser extent, the first North American Escort, was that it allowed those cars to remain on the market for far too long. The bugs were eventually worked out of them, but, by that point, they were stale.
If Ford had adopted the Toyota/Honda product cadence – a complete makeover every four or five years that addressed the weaknesses while building on the strengths – those nameplates would still be with us today.
The problems were that Ford made whole sale changed across the board for no real reason except for the sake of change. Ford dropped the tempo after 1994 even though the last year of the Tempo still sold over 100,000 units and brought in the Contour, classified it as a small midsize car and priced it too high so that naturally the Contour was not going to sell as many cars as the old Tempo and also only lasted 5 years on the market . Instead they should have kept the Tempo in production for another year or two and did some more research regarding the Contour
Another example is the Taurus. From 1986 to 1995 the Taurus was one of the best selling cars in the USA. From 92-95 the Taurus was the best, knocking Camry down. In 1992 alone the Taurus sold over 400,000 units. Even the last year of the 2nd generation the car sold very well. There was no need to replace it at that time BUT Ford replaced with the ass ugly 96-99 model and lost the best selling car tag to Camry.
Then there was the 1997 Escort, Ford changed it to a round Taurus looking car and it did not sell as well as the 91-96 boxy models.
Ford made a change just to make a change.
Over at GM in 1996 the best selling cars were the Cutlass Ciera and Buick Century. 2 cars that arrived on the scene in 1982. Refreshes were next to non existent but the cars still sold over 100,000 units in the last year of that style
Those high sales #’s for Tempo and Taurus were inflated by fleet sales. Many 1990’s Tempos went straight to rental lots, and then to high risk credit buyers, then to bone yards when 6 years old. They were dull and made the term ‘rental car’ derogatory. Keeping them in fleets a few more years would have hurt Ford’s image even more.
The Contour wasn’t hampered by the Tempo. It was hampered by a cramped interior, and if I remember right, it was priced on the high side of the market.
If the Tempo had been designed with some more passion or at least comprehensively updated before the Contour, it would have had a solid reputation to build off of. The Accord was also small for its class, but that didn’t hurt it in the same way.
But as Leon points out above, the Tempo was still selling reasonably well in its final year. The Contour’s failure had nothing to do with the Tempo in my opinion. It was a good car but too small and too expensive for its target market.
Chrysler has shown on many occasions that people have short memories if you give them something desirable.
Also it didn’t helped Ford then Chrysler released its “cloud cars”; Dodge Stratus, Chrysler Cirrus and Plymouth Breeze at the same time as the Countour/Mystique and had stoled the show.
I have always loved angular 3-box designs !
And hated those softy jellybean ones, with frontlights the size of DDDD-cups !
If a car does its job of transporting owners from point A to point B as promised, who are we, as “car people,” to criticize it? It’s certainly a valid question, one which I often find myself having difficulty answering.
A better question, it seems to take little effort to make a car better than mediocre, so why not do it? Consider the 90s vintage Civics. A line that Consumer Reports and the tuner crowd both swoon over, and it sold in huge numbers. It was moderatly priced, reliable and economical, looked nice, rode quietly for a small car, and could be tweaked and tuned like crazy.
as an owner of 95 Altima with 308k miles(as of today)&still running on original engine&trans(AUTO)I will have to disagree with some folks who call nissans from 80s&90s garbage.i have owned mine since 2000&by far it has been the most reliable car I have ever had.
Well for the record, I think Nissans of that vintage were cars of superb quality. My point was that Nissan designed the lower end cars in a way that prevented them from standing out. The Maxima always had a lot of power and gadgets, but the Sentra and Stanza (the 89-92 excepted) were always rather unremarkable and I feel that hurt Nissan when cars like the G20, the Altima and 91 Sentra came around.
+1 on the quality thing. I had a 1983 280C that was superbly put together.
You are spot on, Perry. Like the Corolla and Civic, the Sentras were high quality cars….but unlike the others they had invisible design.
Although not a car, my ’88 Nissan truck, visibly unoffensive, was high quality and served me well for 13 years. Nissans of those years had their mechanical act together….
Very valid question. Thinks got a bit heated in a previous post about ‘people who don’t care about cars.’ My brother and sister shared a mid 80s Ford Laser that simply refused to die. Neither of them are car people, but they both look back fondly on this car.
FWIW, rule number one in marketing is that word of mouth is by far the strongest way to advertise. With the rise of CR (and ‘Choice’ in oz), I think there has never been an easier time to check up on that toaster you’re considering purchasing. And I think a lot of ‘average’ punters are taking advantage of this.
This generation Sentra was unfortunately the last offered in slantback wagon form, part of what at launch was a truly gargantuan lineup – two- and four-door sedans, the wagon (in FWD and AWD models), boxy Golflike three-door hatch (the first to be culled in the sedan-crazed late ’80s) and hatchback coupe.
That’s nothing — you should see the ’70s and ’80s Toyota Corolla/Sprinter lineup…
I once owned a Tempo. Actually it’s Mercury sibling, the Topaz. Not at all reliable and not what we chose to travel in after it left us stranded in Dodge City. We chose a considerably older LTC after that and were not let down again. I have been a Nissan fan forever and just gave away my 87 300k+ mile hardbody. I cannot think of the Tempo and any Nissan at the same time.
I have owned several different types of cars over the past 55 years or so. Some you would lust for and some you would view with contempt. I was living within different paradigms each time I bought a different car. I no longer want to drive fast if not cruising on the freeway. We are on our second Nissan cube and about the only thing on either of our cubes that I don’t like is the CVT on the second one. Even so, it is an excellent people mover. If CC is around in 20 years, my current car is the one you will be discussing.
These cars are probably not designed for you. Please do not badmouth.
Thinking back to both the Sentra and Stanza of this generation, weren’t they takeoffs of an equally squared off Maxima? Which I seem to remember sold fairly well for its size and price range at the time?
I do remember reading a review of one or the other where it was stated quite openly that the car was a scaled down copy of the Maxima.
The Stanza bored me. I believe it was the last time they called this sized model a Stanza. The Sentra, for some reason, always looked very attractive to me, especially in the two-door version. I always wondered what one of them would look like mildly riced-out.
Maxima had gadgets and power. I challenge anyone to find as good of a V6 at that time–excluding Alfas, of course–and in SE trim, was somewhat sporty.
Buick 3800 Pre Series I (came out in 1988) or the older Buick 3.8l SFI in FWD guise. There is a reason the Buick V6 and its derivatives made the pages of Wards best.
And the Maxima SE carried that sporty ability all the way through until the 2004 model. We strongly considered an ’98 SE but my wife really wanted a Volvo. I was pushing the SE since I had essentially the same motor in my truck and it was awesome.
Alas it was her car, so we got the Volvo and 5 years of frequent dealer visits.
Woulda, coulda, shoulda.
I also have a soft spot for the Sentra’s styling in this generation and was disappointed that it didn’t have more suds.
The interesting thing is that in Japan, Nissan had a sporty version of this generation Sunny with a 1.6-liter injected twin-cam engine (CA15DE) and 120 PS JIS (I think net, but I wouldn’t swear to it), stiff suspension, four-wheel discs and so forth. So, the question wasn’t so much “Should they have made it interesting” but rather “Were they right not to try importing the interesting version?”
Yes, I am sure the Stanza was intended to be a takeoff of the second gen Maxima, which had that unique razor straight beltline and was considered a pretty good looking car. I was in a Nissan showroom before the Stanza was available, and the salesman already was trying to sell me on it based on its visual similarity. But when it was released it looked like a watered down, instead of scaled down, version of the Maxima… its styling seemed to advertise what it wasn’t (a Maxima) rather than what it was in its own right.
They actually had two more generations of “Stanza”, but you could be forgiven for thinking otherwise, though for different reasons. The ’90-’92 model looked more or less like a slightly rounded, equally drab version of the previous one (maybe it was just a facelift? – Wikipedia describes it as “evolved slightly”).
The Altima was initially called the “Stanza Altima”; the “Stanza” badge disappeared after 1993.
It’s a really beautiful car !!!
My criticism of the Tempaz was not so much that it was an appliance car, it was a poorly thought out, badly designed car. Seemingly using leftover parts and pieces to create a car that excelled at little but was markedly subpar at most things. A stretched Escort floorpan, 2/3’s of a Falcon motor (already 20+ years old at the time), weak suspension parts and horrible ergonomics. This was not a recipe for success, nor should it have been on the market for so long the way it existed.
One can complain about other mfrs cars that are long in the tooth (GM J-body, W-body, Mopar K cars & variations, Panthers, etc…), but those were substantially updated throughout their long runs. The best the Tempaz got was really good face lift in the late 80’s, not much else.
I don’t doubt for a minute folks like Leon and others received good service from their cars. I had two Yugos that were good little runners for me, but when I tell people that, they laugh out loud. Granted there’s a certain stereotype surrounding those cars, but as others have pointed out, there’s a kernel of truth in stereotypes.
I believe this is where the disconnect happens. There are all kinds of conceptions about what a car should do for it’s driver, even if it is mundane shit like commuting to work every morning. But reading other people’s bad experiences, particularly when they mirrored mine so closely, I believe the Tempaz gets the reputation it deserves.
WRT to that model Sentra, one of my coworkers from years ago in my carpool had one. It was very much like the car in the pix, a stripper model he used for the punishing 34 mile commute every day. It was the appliance car for sure, but it had a certain sturdiness that I came to appreciate. But with 4 big (~200 lbs each of us) guys in the thing, sparkling performance was not going to happen.
It seems to me that there’s a certain myth about Japanese cars, that just because it’s a Japanese nameplate that the car will be well designed. After having retailed cars for a while and just my own experiences, I’ve observed that every car company has a vehicle that speaks to their core competencies. In the US, big cars were our currency in trade. Now it’s pickup trucks and CUV’s. At one time the Japanese made great small cars, but it seems to have shifted to the mid sizers.
I find a number of current small cars from Japanese mfrs just “meh”, and in some cases awful. I spent some time in a new Honda Civic coupe at the local auto show last week. This was a rather low-level car, not really the best idea IMO for the Honda folks to use at a car show. But what really struck me was the fact that car could have been the 2014 Chevy Cobalt. Wafer thin plastic wheel covers on steel wheels, a vinyl interior with more blanks than I imagined, it just screamed “cheap” or “stripper” to me. The Toyota display had a Yaris that definitely invited the word ouch, as it was devoid of almost anything nice. The same thing at the xB display. Ugh.
At least the Subaru, Kia and Hyundai folks had decent cars to display. Kia had the uplevel version of their smallest car, which was really nice. It was substantially more money than the stripper Civic, but I think I could swing the payments if I had to. Which is to my point, the Accords and the Camrys are very nice, but Japan, Inc. has ceded the small car ground to the Koreans. We think the Japanese are good at small cars, but I think the Koreans may have taken the high ground in that respect.
To my eye, Nissan has always had a dissonant chord going on with it’s smaller cars. Some were good, but many others are just weird and odd. With all due respect to Lee Wilcox, I understand what he’s saying. I should, I’ve owned three Pontiac Azteks…
Everyone, every company has their core competencies. These Sentras were good little appliance cars. They filled that role well.
I think an additional factor is that the markets have shifted quite a bit. In the ’80s heyday of the Japanese automakers, C-segment cars like this or the Civic and Corolla were the automakers’ domestic mainstays and a big chunk of their export business. Those models weren’t always inspiring, but they had to be well executed and good value because if they weren’t, the companies’ market share was going to take it directly on the chin.
By the late ’90s, not only were those companies shorter on cash, domestic buyers were less interested in basic C-segment sedans, European buyers wanted MPVs and hatchbacks, and business in the U.S. centered on the bigger D-segment (Camry/Accord) cars. So, the C-segment models have become progressively more marginalized and some companies are now looking at C-segment-sized sedans as being mostly for “developing” markets where people have less money and are not as picky. Hence, those cars have lots of cost-cutting and signs of being a placeholder more than a priority.
Obviously, this isn’t contradicting your point, but I do think it’s as much about where the money is as core competencies.
2 of my closest buddies had Sentra coupes from this era. They always reminded me of the contemporary BMW 3-series coupes in a knockoff kind of way. Freddy’s car was bought new and while it was reliable as a stone, we always gave him crap for the fact that he had as much $$ in the stereo setup as the entire car and yet he was still rolling on those clunky wire spoke hubcaps for like 3 years before popping for 5-stars! Dwight bought his when it was like 3 or 4 years old…it had a lot of miles on it but it was pristine. Turns out the timing chain should’ve been changed 20K miles before he bought it, and it stretched enough to dig a hole in the cover. We had to carry a quart of oil everywhere, and even after 6 times trying to weld it up, it was never right.
Both cars were 5 speed manuals. They were very lightweight (if a bit tinny feeling), well made yet sparse inside, held the road decent enough and while acceleration was scarce, the top end wasn’t bad at all for the times. Compared to the ’89 Cavallier coupe with 2.0L and 3 speed slusher that D traded for it, these cars would FLY.
In 4 door trim, these were nothing more than a mom’s car. In 2 door trim they looked decent enough for kids our age at the time–17-21. I always liked the understated, clean styling of the coupes. If theyd have had just a little more pizazz and the SE-R had come out then, this could’ve been a next-gen 510. And yet, the overall formula is WAY more sound than the crappy bargain bin sedans now, with no performance either, same old lame styling and only a mix of electronic doo dads to woo a prospective buyer.
Oh, and there was a hatchback version too: http://www.edmunds.com/nissan/sentra/1990/tmv-appraise.html?sub=hatchback
These are a bit rarer. Sportier looking for sure, but as I remember they didn’t really have anything to up the ante under the hood.
I’m currently leasing a 2013 Sentra, and I can tell you, not much has changed.
The only reason I got it is to get me through the rest of college. My old C70 is turning into a bit of a project car, and I just need a good reliable DD for my last couple years of college.
But dang do I wish I’d shopped around a bit. There is absolutely nothing about it that is competitive in the compact sedan market. NOTHING. It would’ve been a perfectly adequate 2003 model car, not 2013. It’s slow, noisy, uncomfortable, the CVT is garbage, and it doesn’t drive very nice. I suppose it does the A to B thing perfectly fine, but that just doesn’t cut it anymore.
With cars like the Fiesta, Mazda 3, heck, even the Korean offerings, being good enough just doesn’t cut it anymore. Toyota is in the same position with the Corolla. No innovation at all.
Good heavens, my high school girlfriend had one of those contraptions, I have no idea what year, maybe an 87. A stripper (the car, not her) red notchback with vinyl seats and a stick. Needless to say my 73 Grand Prix made for an more comfortable back seat experience so we spent more time in it than the Sentra.
As for cars-for-non-car-people, pride in car ownership has changed after the Greatest Generation. To them, a new car was a sign of pride and that you made it, hence the emphasis on style on cars of the 50s, 60s and early 70s, government regulations notwithstanding. Probably from the later generation baby boomers and on, the vast majority don’t feel the same way about cars since the feeling of a child having to do better than their parents began to fade and the cars themselves lost their flair and substance and became more appliance-like in the age of electronic vehicles and government regulations.
My father was born in the early 1940s so he was either the very end of the greatest generation or the very beginning of the boomers and he could care less about cars but still he was proud of his Ramblers and Valiants. He worked hard for them and I think they are a source of pride that he, as a man, could provide transportation for his family. I look at guys my age driving CamCords and they could care less about their cars or what they represent, they trade them in every 3 or 4 years and just expect them to start every morning. Its a different world.
Damn, I was hoping it was her.
A significant factor in a lot of new car ownership is the limited number of choice available for company cars.
Plus, when you finance to buy, you’re always thinking of resale. That certainly puts a dampener on Krazy Kolourings.
At least in northern New England, until the early ’80s it was expected that cars would need to be repainted every three years or so until beater status, with a 10-year-old car pretty much used up. Now 15-year-old cars sport their original paint. That may have something to do with the chromatic conservatism as well.
Your father was not in The Greatest Generation, and was not a Baby Boomer. He was in The Silent Generation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Generation
Ma che! My dad was born around the same time. Definitely nothing silent about him.
IMO the greatest generation is a moniker dreamed up fairly recently. They were born during the hard times of the depression and endured WW2. I probably first heard that name used by Tom Brokaw who, like me, was not a part of it.
You cannot have a boom in babies without dads. They were gone. In 1945 they returned and there was a baby boom born in 46 on. I was born in 43 and was just called a war baby. I don’t think there were enough for a generation. That’s ok too. Being neither great nor silent “hey you” has always been enough of a label.
If you are like me you can call me most anything. Just don’t call me late to eat.
Most post-WW2 but pre-Brokaw materials called them the “G.I. Generation”.
Sometimes it takes a couple of tries before a generation name “sticks”; Millenials were known as “echo Boomers” at first and then “Generation Y” before finally getting a non-snowclone name, but no other generation was rebranded so late in life as the G.I.s/Greatest were.
It seems to be the political pundits that get the final say, which is why there are so many candidate-names for the generation born since the early ’00s, the first of which won’t start to come of voting age until after the turn of the next decade.
I can’t answer for all my peeps (tail end of the boomers), but I love car design and think there are some very distinct designs going these days. As a car buyer (and I keep my stuff for 10+ years…), I appreciate that there is no longer annual design changes, but rather ‘refreshings’ midway through the model cycle. And I think evolutionary design change will age much better that sudden paradigm shift (Sonata; Fusion).
While I can’t distinguish exact years anymore (“65 Impala! ’70 Mustang!”), I’m still quick on the draw as to make, model, and generation from half a block away – headlights or tail lights.
Is there still a point to the Maxima? The Altima keeps getting more refined and larger each new generation. I was just in a 2013 Altima and with its leather seats and other doo dads, if you did not look at the name plate you might be forgiven for thinking Maxima. I think the Maxima is at the same point now in 2014 that the Toyota Cressida was in 1992, where it reached a point where it was pointless to offer it any longer due to Toyota coming out with the Lexus brand and the Lexus ES. Nissan is at that point where they should be dropping the Maxima and positioning the top of the line Altima as the top car in the Nissan lineup and pushing those customers that would have bought the Maxima towards the Infiniti M series(such as Toyota did with the demographic that would have bought the Cressida)
There is supposed to be another generation of Maxima, though it’s unclear how Nissan will keep it relevant. It’s been sad to see the Maxima fall.
I think the only way for MAXIMA to survive is if NISSAN turn it into rear wheel drive or all wheel drive.a four door version of Z with RWD.that would bring a lot of former customers back.
You’re describing the Infiniti G…err, Q50.
Nissan has always had the cheapest cars around and were famous for toughness. These things are all over SE Asia, dealing with the worst roads you can imagine. They are simple, solid units that are really easy to fix. For example, the thermostat is mounted in an easy to open unit bolted directly to the head. The water pump or alternators can be swapped in minutes. I remember loads to these things on the road in the 1980’s and most lived rather rough and neglected lives. They were way better that anything Hyundai at the time. They are still making the old Sentra in Mexico where it is called the Tsuru and is used as a taxi all over the place.
Even today, I think the 2014 Sentra is horrible but I am seeing them on the road around here.
What I do not get is how no one has mentioned the fact this Nissan drove all the way from California to New York. Usually vehicles that drive that far are much newer.
Sentras arent any good eh, coulda fooled me I have one, a 93 ZXE Wagon 1.5 DOHC carbed engine,5 speed,air, steer, power windows, alarm, remote central locking, at least one dent in every panel 345,000kms racked up reach in and turn the key it just goes, uses no oil or other fluids reliable as the sun it goes when ever I need it, it tows my trailer easier than the Minx, I actually thought they were quite good cars.
These things were regarded as “tin cans” – and that term was from a co-worker who bought one brand new in the early 1980s!
Trouble is, tin-can or not – along with most other Japanese cars of that era, they ran forever and ran very well, much to my chagrin.
I respected them all.
When I was born, my dad had an ’87 Stanza and my mom had an ’88 Sentra 2-door. I don’t remember much about the Stanza (it was silver, and he traded it on a ’94 Taurus when I was pretty young) but I grew up in that Sentra until I was about 11 years old.
Mom and Dad were in a rough spot financially and she needed a car. They test-drove everything that was cheap and compact. She remembers driving a VW Fox, says the Civic was impossible to negotiate on price as everyone knew it was the car to have in the segment. Anyway, the Sentra was what she hated the least out of the “compact stripper penalty box” class.
Hers was bright red. Four-speed manual with no tach, so she shifted by sound. Gray vinyl seats (that you’d stick to in the summer), manual locks/windows, no passenger side mirror. It did have A/C and a cassette player. She claims to have argued with the salesman because she refused to take the car home with exposed steelies. He finally relented and threw hubcaps from another Sentra onto the red car and they drove it home at 2 AM.
I know it was pretty slow. We sold it after moving to a new home where highway travel was much more necessary. The Sentra felt pretty stressed above 60 or so, and the speed limit was 65. No idea what kind of mileage it had on it, but we sold it for a grand or two to a construction worker.
None of us really ever liked the car. It was “fine” in that it was wheels and it was pretty reliable. It was, however, hit by a snowplow on three separate occasions while parked in our old neighborhood. How he missed all the beige and silver cars and hit the red one, I don’t know. I remember getting an ’01ish Focus as a rental car when the Sentra was in for its last rear-end repair and thinking how nice the Focus was in comparison. Small cars have come a long way.
Mom replaced the Sentra with an ’01 Escape (loaded) that she liked far, far better. Thankfully, they were able to dig themselves out of the financial rut and are living much more comfortably now. But still, it begs the question – if I were in the same boat today, in 2014, and had to pick from the cheapest new cars, would I end up in something that was as relatively miserable to drive? Among the Fiesta, Mazda2, Accent, Rio, Fit, and Yaris… no, not at all.
The Honda Fit, at least in Sport trim, is actually a blast to drive. Ask me how I know. 🙂
Seconded. Or the Rio. But truthfully, you could get a lower level Cruze for $17k these days…that’s quite a value….
I don’t agree with the idea this Sentra contributed to Nissan’s diminished market standing. I was in college and grad school when these were on the market. A lot of my friends drove Sentras like these along with the Tercel EZ hatchbacks and coupes. Base Toyota and Nissan Hardbody pickups were also popular. They were incredibly budget friendly for Generation Xers at that time. $7000 in 1987 could buy a decent variety of simple, cheap cars that were reasonably stylish and cool. Using a Consumer Price Index (CPI) calculator, $7000 in 1987 that translates to around $14,300 in today’s dollars. There aren’t many options at that price today.
Nissan really missed the boat by not developing cars that were aspirational for follow up purchases. A Sentra to a Maxima is a huge leap. Nissan has had huge holes in their lineups since the 80s.
The problem with these image-wise for Nissan was that the vast majority were sold in base trim like the silver car in Perry’s article. The 87-90 Sentra was a huge selling car that made countless negative impressions in traffic because of things like those black, unpainted bumpers. Most of these Sentras were bright red which made them hard to miss. The lines were good though and the car seemed durable enough.
Eric, I do agree with you that this Sentra was very popular and it definitely did not contribute to Nissan’s diminshed market standing. For $7000 you got a reliable car that got good gas mileage and was halfway decent looking. I had a friend buy one in 1989 – she paid $7500 for it brand new and had it until well over 200k miles with hardly any repairs.
As far as Nissan having huge holes in their lineups, I totally disagree. The original Altima was and has been the step up from the Sentra for someone who could not afford the Maxima. I sold Nissans in the 1990’s and Altimas always sold like hotcakes. Nissan had a very affordable lease program on them. They were priced fairly, looked like a mini Infiniti, and were reliable plus very well equipped – a really good deal for the money. I think the Altima has recently turned itself into what the Maxima used to be. Great performance and looks at a reasonable price. Nissan found that the American public liked the fact that the Altima was available in a 6-cylinder, looked sporty, and was a nice size vehicle for their dollar. Why would one mess with that?
So where is the spot in the lineup for the Maxima now? GONE.
But how many of these value lease deals led to ongoing purchases of Nissan products over the long term? I don’t see many late model Altimas on the road, and I live in a very import friendly city (Seattle).
Last year the Altima was the third best sellng mid size behind Camry and Accord with 247000 units.
.
Golly they’re all over the place here in Houston.
The street are crawling with new Altimas in LA too, I see more of them than new Accords.
The ’87 Sentra generation still sold well, and the 1991-94 has a cult following.
However, the 1995 Sentra really is what is meant by ‘falling behind’. It mimiced the Tempo and sold poorly, along with the 1998 Altimas. This is when Nissan lost money and had to get bailed out, not in the late 80’s.
The ’95 Sentra was a return to dull looks, but dynamically, I wasn’t all that bad. Certainly better than the Corolla, for instance, and with one of the better base power plants. It just looked dull, which of course, is part of the problem, but I feel like the ’95 Maxima and Sentra didn’t get their due respect. I feel like cars like this ’87 Sentra explain why that was the case.
Nissan has a long history of ups and downs. The ’87 Sentra and Stanza represented a low point, I would agree, but it wasn’t right from these mediocre cars and into the hands of Renault.
They staged a comeback in the late 80s with the B13 Sentra (including the classic SE-R grade), ’89 Maxima 4DSC, 240SX, Z32 300ZX and Infiniti G20. A low followed by a high.
Then, for some reason, they slide back down with offerings like the B14 Sentra, 2nd gen G20 and so on.
That backwards step sounds familiar. IIRC the Datto 1600 (510) with IRS was replaced with the 180B (810) with a live rear (except the SSS).
Yup, just like there’s Good GM and Bad GM, there’s Interesting Nissan and Dull Nissan.
What I think a lot of folks forget is that this generation of Sentra had a lot of versions to choose from. They had the following:
1. Station Wagon
2. Coupe
3. 3 door hatch back
4. Sedan
5. Sport Coupe
Which was more styles then most models had. I think Nissan tried to make this version of Sentra a winner. After this generation the next generation was offered only in sedan and coupe and the following generation was only offered in sedan as the coupe was split off to become the 200SX
The Sport Coupe was actually a nice driving car(a friend in high school owned one)
Count me in with the folks who think this Sentra was a decent car. We had an ’88 Sentra that my brother was the primary driver of for a number of years. It was bought around the time I got my license. I had plenty of friends with Sentras or whose parents had Sentras. They were well screwed together, comfortable, and drove well. They were slow, but everything was slow in the ’80s. I don’t remember anyone thinking this car was outdated, boring, or a rattletrap. Try a Cavalier or an Aries for that.
Cars got so much better starting around 1989, including Nissan’s own Maxima, that I think we forget what we had to work with in the rest of the ’80s.
Back in its day, the 1987 Sentra didnt get bad reviews, only that it was slow. But, then so was the ’87 Civic and Corolla. As ‘doctorz’ post above says, Sentras in the 80’s were selling well, and had a good rep.
This article is off the mark, I think, about Nissan in the 80’s.