(first posted 7/12/2016) The 1990s were not good times for the Japanese economy, so much so that it is referred to as “The Lost Decade” in retrospect. How this translated to Japan’s auto industry was that cars developed during this period were by and large less sophisticated in their design and engineering, making use of either existing or cheaper components to keep costs down, and featuring blander styling in order to broaden their appeal. As the smallest of Japan’s Big Three automakers, these effects were felt harder by none other than Nissan, and glaringly evident in cars such as this 1999 Altima.
The original Altima debuted in 1992 as a 1993 model, replacing the aging Stanza as Nissan’s sub-Maxima sedan. Throwing away the Stanza’s very angular, economy-car styling for elegant, graceful curves, the first generation Altima in many ways looked like a junior Infiniti J30; an understandable observation as both vehicles were designed at Nissan’s California design studio under Doug Wilson.
The first generation (1993-1997) Altima was a successful model in its own right, selling some 700,000 units over its five-year production and becoming Nissan’s best-selling car. Introduced amidst a very rocky period which Nissan was suffering record losses in the billions, the Altima was a key vehicle in restoring the automaker to profitability by 1997.
The original Altima drew praise for its high level of fit-and-finish and many available options including head-up display. Yet compared to its main rivals, the Honda Accord and Toyota Camry, the Nissan Altima was an also-ran. Noticeably smaller in size and lacking an available V6 engine, the “premium” Altima was further hindered by the fact that it was priced right in line with these chief rivals. As a result, sales were significantly less by as much as several hundred thousand units annually.
Within Nissan’s lineup, the Altima’s size and price disparity was not unique. Unlike Honda and Toyota, which featured somewhat more clearly-defined compact (Civic-Corolla) and mid-sized sedans (Accord-Camry), Nissan was in an a more unusual predicament. While its “mid-sized” Altima was placed squarely between the Civic-Corolla and Accord-Camry in size, it was priced like the larger duo.
Meanwhile, the Maxima, which was sized almost exactly like the Accord and Camry, was priced higher due to its somewhat more premium aspirations, something confused even further by the introduction of the rebadged Infiniti I30 in 1995. Only the smaller fourth generation Sentra that was released for 1995 was directly in line with the Civic and Corolla in terms of size and price.
Despite the Altima’s shortcomings, ongoing financial troubles gave the Nissan no choice but to proceed with a conservative update of the original, as opposed to the from-scratch redesign that the Altima really needed in order to succeed, an update it would have to wait for until its third generation.
Sharing the original’s basic shape, sheetmetal was in fact all new, though in most opinions not for the better. Trading the previous generation’s sensual curves for a slightly more upright styling, the second generation Altima double downed on dull looks for the ultimate appliance appearance. Quite honestly, the 1998 Altima could very take the prize as the most forgettable design of the 1990s.
Underneath, the Altima rode on an unchanged 103.1-inch wheelbase. In light of this, engineers stiffened the platform by some 20-percent, allowing for a wider track. Although width was up by 2 inches and overall length by 3, both passenger and cargo volumes were unchanged at 94 cubic feet and 14 cubic feet, respectably. Predictably, these measurements, as well as hip-, leg- and shoulder-room were all less than that of the Accord and Camry, both of which had grown further in size for the 1998 and 1997 model years, respectively.
Powertrain was unchanged from before, in the form of a 2.4L inline-4 mated to either a 4-speed automatic or 5-speed manual. With dual overhead camshafts and four valves per cylinder, this engine made 150 horsepower (155 for 2000-2001) and 154 lb-ft torque, and was capable of getting the stick-shift Altima from zero to sixty in about 8.5 seconds.
Suspension was also largely unchanged from the previous generation Altima. As with its predecessor, 1998 Altimas featured a four-wheel independent suspension with front and rear anti-roll bars, power rack-and-pinion steering, and standard front disc/rear drum brakes. Four-wheel disc anti-lock brakes were available.
Like the exterior, the second generation Altima’s interior could best be described as dumbed down. Forgoing its predecessor’s elegant, Infiniti looks for a more economy car appearance, the new Altima’s interior was a mishmash of shapes and angles (much like the exterior) and plastics that were noticeably cheaper looking.
As with before, Nissan continued putting faux woodgrain trim in even the base XE trim, something competitors typically reserved for only their highest trim levels. Although now instead of a tasteful horizontal strip spanning the whole width of the dash, woodgrain was considerably tackier in the form of a single piece of molded plastic surrounding the center stack.
On the plus side, the 1998 Altima represented a higher value than its predecessor, with base prices for most trims starting at around $1,000 less than 1997. A top-of-the-line Altima GLE with plush leather seats and door panels, 8-way power adjustable driver’s seat, remote keyless entry, and CD player was priced under $20,000.
Contemporary reviews were mixed. The more positive ones complemented the car’s quietness, nimble handling, and its peppy four-cylinder engine. They also applauded overall value and evolutionary approach when it came to retaining the previous Altima’s appealing virtues that made it a hit with buyers.
Alternatively, the more negative ones predictably called out the Altima along these same lines for its failure to offer anything new or noteworthy over the outgoing generation. Criticism was also dealt to the Altima for its lackluster exterior styling and retrograde interior.
In the end, “mixed” is just what the second generation Nissan Altima was. It was a car that retained many of its predecessor’s positive qualities, yet one that failed to build or improve upon any of its glaring shortcomings. Trading the first generation Altima’s elegant design for ultra-anonymous style inside and out, the second generation Altima got lost in an ever-growing sea of competition.
Sales held on at steady levels, right around the previous generation’s average of 150,000 units annually, a respectable number, but one less impressive considering the Accord and Camry each were selling over 375,000 units annually during this period. It should also be noted that Nissan was selling almost as many of the larger and more expensive Maxima during these years as the Altima.
Lasting only four years, the second generation Altima’s failure to improve and impress was not in vain, as thanks to steadier cash flow, Nissan would role out a much more competitive third generation Altima for the 2002 model year. Built on an entirely-new platform, the 2002 Altima was a major visual improvement inside and out, offering clean and contemporary styling, while exhibiting a greater degree of athleticism both in appearance and performance.
More importantly, the third generation Altima finally boasted truly mid-sized dimensions and an available V6 that was among the most powerful in its class. Now truly competitive for the first time in its history, Altima sales immediately shot up, and have remained at high levels ever since. In fact, at 333,398 units, the Altima was the third-best selling midsize sedan in America in 2015, behind only the Accord and Camry. As for this second generation Altima, numerous examples still can be seen still on the roads, if one should care to actually take notice of its extremely anonymous appearance.
Related Reading:
The 1993 Altima was based on the Japanese U13 Nissan Bluebird, launched for 1992, which I think ended up being the root of its also-ran status. I get the impression Nissan was caught off-guard by Toyota launching a distinct, bigger U.S.-market Camry and allowing the similarly sized U.S.-market Cressida to expire. The Bluebird was very close in size to the JDM V30 Camry/Vista and probably reasonably competitive — I don’t have any JDM sales figures for either — but it was significantly shorter and narrower than the VCV10 U.S. Camry/Scepter and didn’t have a six.
The dilemma for Nissan at that point was that the Maxima was a much better seller in the U.S. than the final Toyota Cressida had been, so displacing or cannibalizing Maxima sales in favor of a bigger but probably less profitable Altima was risky. That’s what Nissan finally did for 2002, which did end up raising the question, “Why does the Maxima still exist, again?” (something they’ve only recently managed to address). So, it’s not hard to see why they were reticent to do it in the ’90s, particularly given the company’s financial problems at that time. I’m guessing the Maxima was one of the most profitable, if not the most profitable cars U.S. Nissan dealers had. (The 300ZX was probably more profitable on a unit basis, but Nissan unfortunately didn’t sell that many of them.)
(I kind of wish Nissan had based the U13 Altima on the Bluebird ARX ‘hardtop’ version, which was better looking than the sedan, but that’s another matter.)
In this generation’s favor, around the time the second-generation Altima came out, I was working with a bunch of actuaries and noticed that a substantial percentage of them drove Altimas of the then-current vintage. I never asked, but I always figured that spoke highly of the Altima’s overall cost of ownership. Being actuaries, you have to assume they did the math!
I thought I recognised the first gen car, sold in Australia as the Bluebird complete with a version/option of the head-up display that required a special windshield; it cost something like four times the normal price to replace.
Then Nissan abandoned the midsize segment until the current car, which they sell very few of.
Brendan you are spot on except I think the design has a few unfortunate areas that would make it ugly if it wasn’t so bland overall.
You see more of the current one in V8 Supercar racing (true!) than you do on the streets. Nissan has been weak in this part of the market for so long, most people probably don’t even consider them.
I remember when the Altima was introduced to that series was just after I discovered V8 Supercar racing broadcast in the states. Holden vs Ford V8s in production based(in outward appearance at least) V8 cars? Where has this motorsport been all my life! I recorded and watched every single race. Then, a few months later, I start seeing RWD V8 Altimas, and my heart sank, realizing right then and there a sport I briefly loved has turned into an Australian version of Nascar or Funnycar racing, where production chassis and powertrains are so inept for the purpose they need to be adapted to qualify in a matter that bears absolutely zero familiarity to what the production car is. Only a matter of time before the bodies don’t even resemble what their racing too ; – (
Hey, at least they were using V8 engines from their respective marques! The Volvos used modified versions of the transverse Yamaha V8 used in the S80/XC90, and the Altimas used the VK56DE from the Titan/Armada! That alone made V8 Supercars worth it for me, though now that Mercedes, Volvo, Nissan, and Holden have gone it’s completely died anyway.
Toyota released the bigger Camry albeit only in New Zealand in 90/91 Nissan would have noticed, it became the world model in 92 after beta testing in this market and after extensive modification mechanically.
Nice write up Brendan. The big thing that got sales going with the Altima, was the performance of the four engine. At 150 horsepower, it simply outgunned the other small/ midsize such as the 118hp 626 or the 125hp Contour. This also made it much more suited to the automatics that by the nineties were almost universal on these.
The debate on these was more whether they should have just offered the four cylinder in the Maxima, and skipped these small bodied midsize entirely. I come out negative on that. To get the price down enough would have also required moving Maxima assembly to the USA. To dilute the Maxima when it was at it’s best would have not been worth a few extra units.
When the 02s Altimas came around larger and with a optional V6, we see how this reduced the Maxima to an also ran. A product mix that increased Altima sales at the cost of Maxima sales could not have been good for Nissan.
Nathaniel Bowditch, a self-taught genius who wrote the “bible” of maritime navigation still in use after two centuries (though by now much-revised), became the head actuary at an insurance firm in Salem & did so well at it he could afford to turn down offers for chairs at Harvard & other colleges.
I think they did ultimately move Maxima production to Tennessee, but in the end, the Maxima’s market role was sacrificed with the upgrade of the Altima.
This generation of Altima answers the question of what a Chevy Corsica would be if it was made by the Japanese.
Heavier, more expensive, fake wood and missing a V6.
Yes, the Japanese would have executed it better, charged more and would have omitted the V6 option due to better I4s, but it’s very much the same sort concept – tweener midsize/compact transportation appliance.
I get it that you disagree with the comparison though. C’est la vie.
It would have been interesting had both cars continued in the smaller size. Remember in 1997 the Corsica was replaced by a much heavier Malibu that shared that bloated look with little extra space that characterized so many nineties cars. Many of the issues of early eighties cars were fixed but I think Brendan is on to something about his lost decade idea.
The Altima was a well executed car. One thing that I forgot to mention was the standard low profile 15 inch wheels that added a much sportier feel. Such wheels were optional on the Corsica, but it was a not common option.
This generation Altima really is an under rated car. I remember when at a Nissan dealership from ’05-08 how durable and trouble free they are. I never cared for it’s droopy look, especially at the rear. They were very quick in the stick shift versions for the day.
Agree the ’02 up is a much nicer looking car, but the interior really took a step downward in quality. The 4 cylinder engines sometimes had oil consumption problems, and a one point new cars were pulled from the lot to have their engines replaced. (around 2004/05). but the quality in the earlier versions was really very good. One of these earlier versions in well kept condition would make a great budget low repair driver.
I always thought of the 1997 Malibu as a knockoff of the 1993-1997 Altima – an example of the classic GM “build a better mousetrap” problem.
Why some of us love our boring Asian Appliances!
In 2005, I came into a bit of money, and decided it was time to replace my daily-driver –
a beat-up, rusty, no-longer-able-to-pass-smog, $500 ’84 Honda Accord.
Since I swore off shopping for new cars many years earlier, something used, even boring, but reliable and economical, yet large, comfortable and roomy enough to handle my almost-monthly 400-mile round-trips to Virginia Beach was needed.
So I started looking at mid-90s 4 cylinder Accord, Altima, and Camry.
Consumer Reports rated the Accord and Camry tops for reliability, but the Altima consistently rated better than average too. I test drove examples of all three, and the winner (no surprise) was the Camry. However, the Accord and Camry had a major liability – prices for used ones were outrageous. Typical private-party pricing was 5-7K, with dealers charging 10K plus. Now I DID have 10K to play with. But the other tipping-point was cost of maintenance, and both Accord and Camry engines used timing belts – a major consideration when used-car shopping, as often the sellers have no clue if or when the timing belt was ever changed. The ultimate winner, a ’98 Altima GX had a timing chain, 134,000 miles, and was found on a local Volvo dealer’s used car lot, priced at $3900, with a good engine & tranny, and cold AC.The car needed belts, stabilizer-links, a CV-boot, and a rear wheel bearing. I got it for $3400, and did the work myself. In 11 years, outside normal wear & maintenance items, (waterpump, brakes, tires, exhaust) the car has only needed a windshield (not the car’s fault) a mass airflow sensor and an AC compressor clutch. Now, with nearly 200K on the clock, it just completed it’s fifth trip to Virginia Beach so far this year, with engine, tranny and AC strong as ever.
Yes it may be boring and anonymous, but I’d rather see boring in my driveway, than some of today’s hideous attempts to make cars look exciting. Last year I treated it to a trunk spoiler and upgraded to Gen 2.5 headlamps, so it’s now less boring.
It is less roomy and refined than a late 90s Accord or Camry. The third generation Altimas fixed all that, and prices for used ones shot up. Today, if you can find a decent one, the second (and first) generation Altimas can be great low-budget used cars.
Happy Motoring, Mark
Mark, you hit on some crucial points here. Nissan was YEARS ahead of the curve in rolling out timing chains on OHC motors compared to other Japanese manufacturers. They may have been slightly downmarket on style and material finishes compared to Honda and Toyota, but that made them significantly cheaper in the secondary market. As you mentioned, they give up little to nothing in reliability to Honda/Toyota. Finally, a significant number of them were built with manual transmissions. To me, all of those factors help make up for their awkward smallish size, which is actually quite good for 4, and how often do people try to fit three adults in a back seat anymore anyway?
You mean like Jaguar was by using chain driven DOHC in the 50s,
Belts are lighter quieter and more accurate and simple easy and cheap to replace unlike chains when the begin to stretch.
I understand that chain technology was not new, but Nissan was one of the few manufacturers using them in OHC car motors in the 90s. I agree that belts are quiet and generally accurate, but although the belt itself may be cheap, paying someone else to replace it is anything but. Our ’03 Civic cost $700 to change the timing belt. The timing chain in my Altima is still in fine shape after 210k, at which point a timing belt engine would’ve required at least two changes. To me that is a win, and considering that the overwhelming majority of current engines use timing chains, it appears that I am not alone in that sentiment.
+1 and a very big reason I picked up a 98 a few years back. 250 000 kms on the original chain and still running fine. I have heard you want to change the oil at 3000 miles to keep it happy where as you can run the oil longer in belt type engines. But I am more than happy to change the oil a bit sooner as opposed to taking it in for a belt replacement every 100k or so like the competition…
Belt change intervals vary my car has 100,000 mile change intervals and on a petrol car a belt change is around $250 locally its a simple job.
It’s true that these were anonymous, I know that I never paid attention to them in the slightest. They were an odd size and seemed a notch down from the Toyonda twins in reliability. Their value proposition as used cars probably explains why these remain common in poorer inner city neighborhoods. Folks without much money to spend usually have a good handle on what is cheaper to own and run.
The first and second generation were some of the most popular cars in my late 90s high school parking lot. Parents probably saw them as a good used or new buy, driving which their newly-licensed offspring would not attract undue attention, would be safe, and wouldn’t get into too much trouble. The Cutlass Supreme 4-door sedan of the late 90s. A lot of them were in that 90s green color, or beige. They were accompanied by a fair number of second generation Taurii and VW Jettas.
For me, now, it’s a shock to realize either model is that old. But come to think of it, I suppose I have seen more of them in poorer neighborhoods lately.
It is sad that the 93-97 Altima was considered an also ran. I liked the looks and styling.
I also find it ironic that the 93-97 Altima was an also ran to the Toyota Camry and Honda Accord which were themselves “also rans” to the 92-96 Ford Taurus. The 92-96 Camry is still (at least in my mind) the best Camry that was made and it still could not sit at spot one in the sales chart/
The distinction is that the VCV10 1992–1996 Camry was a transitional model for Toyota in sales as well as size. The interesting thing about it is that its U.S. sales increased every single year of its run, starting at about 285K and ending at more than 357K. That’s fairly unusual — the final year of a model run is typically the weakest in terms of sales because some buyers swing to models that have been more recently refreshed or wait for the next generation, but wasn’t the case here. The VCV20, which wasn’t as good a car in various respects, then was able to build on that momentum to cross the 400K mark.
Great write-up, Brendan – and one that hits home for me. One of these replaced a ’92 Olds Cutlass Ciera in my parents’ garage. While I was happy they had purchased some more “youthful” than what they traded in for it, I actually missed the Ciera a little bit.
Nothing was particularly awful about it, and it got good gas mileage, but I didn’t care for the styling – especially the rear third, with the angles and shapes of that awkward rear quarter panel, and that “sore thumb” rear bumper with that oddly inset spot for the license plate.
It was a good enough car, though, to be replaced by another Altima seven years later.
Brendan, thanks for the trip down memory lane.
I think the passenger compartment of the Altima was a bit more capacious than 94 cubic inches! But all kidding aside, a fine encomium to an ubiquitous 90’s ride now all but forgotten.
Brendan, Nice write up on a car that was mostly under my radar until the spectacular 2002 edition and the V6 option which in my mind made the Maxima almost a redundant and expensive option.
In August 2010 I was looking for a 4 cylinder used Japanese car for my son Will and concentrated on dealer trade ins by hopefully elderly couples. I knew I’d pay more, but I wanted something “proven and safe” and not thrashed. An Altima would have been on my list, but I found a 4 cyl Accord first. The 2002 Accords were my favorite designs in all of Honda history and that may have played a part in the decision but it proved to be a good car.
I would have also chosen an Altima, but would have paused for concern if it had the V6.
Well researched and detailed article.
I always thought the rear styling on these was terrible with that drooping trunk lid and taillights. Not as awful as the 2000 Sentra, but still very unappealing and awkward. Never really understood what look/theme the designers were “going for”. Meanwhile the front fascia and side profile just look like a 1998-2002 Accord that took too much Xanax. These make the concurrent generation of Camry look almost sexy with its ultra thin taillights and more aggressive front end.
The 2002 Altima is notable as it was the first to usher in the “Tall Era” of sedans (along with the ’02 Camry), which is still the design theme 15 years later. It made everything else look a decade old overnight, and that 250HP V6 was an absolute MONSTER at the time. I really think midsize sedan development plateaued with this generation – basic styling is the same as today, the Camry is on the same basic platform and all three use similar/unchanged powertrains introduced in ’02-’03. It makes me wonder what the next “era” will be in design, and when it will finally start.
Max, look at some pictures of the 48-54 Hudson and you’ll see a modern iteration of it in the 02 Altima. I love that design.
The 02 still looks good and as far as I am concerned, peak Altima styling after the original. Nothing since has come close, IMHO.
I spent quite a bit of time in a first gen Altima, which was part of the fleet of work cars at an old job. I found it to be surprisingly pleasant – comfortable, quiet, and upscale feeling with the leather interior. Although its relative smaller size probably did hurt sales, I suspect for many it was “right” sized, a goldilocks car neither too small nor too big. Lots of folks don’t like driving large cars.
I especially liked the exterior looks of the gen 3 upon debut, however, the interior was awful. Unfortunately, that’s a trend that has continued with the Altima.
Nice retrospective on a car this is still quite common on the streets here but very invisible too. As you said, they had some good qualities; performance was better than the competition. And they have turned out to be very reliable, hence the numbers still going strong. A good cheap used car for the long haul.
Brendan, thank you for writing what I have always thought about the 2nd Gen Altima. I never see one of this without thinking: after the almost perfect 93, why did they go backward?
I still resent them for taking a great design and screwing it up.
Test drove one with a friend of mine on a used car lot, a late model at the time. If the 92 Camry was a “fat” car, the Altima was the definition of a “thin” car. Everything was well assembled, but the whole of it seemed flimsy, just “thin”.
Sort of like Motor Trend described the 69 AMC Rebel “AMC’s bread and butter car, but thinly sliced and lightly spread”.
As for the Corsica comparison, the size disparity was even greater than with the Altima: it was within an inch in length of the Cavalier.
And then along came the bloated Malibu… “The Car You Knew America Could Build”.
I have never owned one of these rounded-off Altimas but bought a brand-spanking-new 1990 Stanza XE 5 speed and really enjoyed it. I felt like it was sportier than a comparable Honda or Toyota, and cost a little less. The big 4 cylinder ran really strong compared to the competition too. As a young driver, it was handy that the car was SO anonymous…a charcoal gray Stanza is practically invisible to the boys in blue. Unfortunately it was destroyed in a collision when it was 9 months old…last Nissan I’ve owned.
Great article, Brendan! I’m glad to see the second (with a shout-out to the first) generation Altima getting a full CC at last. As some may remember, I’ve had a ’95 for many years now; in fact, ten years this month. I think these are some of the most underappreciated cars out there. As I noted in my reply to Mark D. above, they have very strong inherent virtues like a timing chain, decently finished materials with impeccable fit, outstanding reliability and great value in the secondary market. To me, their shortfalls come from their narrow width, small trunk opening and pass-thru only trunk access to the interior.
I used to have a Somerset and a Corsica, so I was used to the size. I would say that these were the ultimate expression of that size, and also somewhat reminiscent of my dad’s former ’90 Accord. To be honest, I was really hoping for a 92-96 Camry when I bought mine, but they were easily going for 3x the $1500 I paid for mine, and finding one with a mandatory (for me) stick with cruise, PW and PL was harder than winning the lottery.
Having paid for a timing belt on a Civic and a Prizm (Corolla), the chain was a huge plus in my book. The body, aside from a questionable quarter panel repair and chalky paint, was perfect when I bought it from the original owner. While the Michigan tinworm has taken its toll on the quarter panels, the interior is basically mint and it still runs and drives perfect. The doors close nicer than my dad’s LS430 did. Although I parked it in January in favor of a 01 Suzuki Grand Vitara, it pains me to think of selling it because they’re so hard to come by anymore.
While I agree that they would’ve been more competitive had they been a more conventional size, I strongly disagree with the preference for the third (2002) generation. To me, those cars signaled the downfall of Nissan, much like the 97 Camry did for Toyota. The exterior styling looked overwrought and gaudy, the interior was bottom-dollar, the QR25DE I4 self destructed in a criminal fashion, the VQ35DE V6 set new standards for torque steer, and the turning radius was only slightly smaller than a freighter. Nissan is starting to come back around (my wife drives a 2010 Sentra), but they still fall short of their high water mark, which imo was the first and second generation Altima and the fourth generation Maxima.
I’m 100% with you in your last paragraph, I thought the tall bulbous styling of the 2002 was atrocious, I did then I still do now. Definitely a harbinger for sedans on the market today, and that is anything but a compliment.
Brendan,
You mentioned that Nissan is the smallest of Japan’s Big Three automakers (Toyota, Nissan, and Honda). Correct me if I’m wrong, but Nissan, at least in Japan and globally, is traditionally the No. 2 Japanese vehicle manufacturer after Toyota. In the USA however, Nissan does tend to trail Honda, which has a larger market share in the US.
Not just sales either, it’s worth noting that their reliability, resale value, and reputation among the public is also a distant third in the United States. Nissan is effectively the Chrysler of Japanese brands. Overall they are still a bit better than the domestic makes (certain models like the ’93-’97 Altima are surprisingly robust), but I know a TON of Toyota/Honda diehards who never even consider Nissan because they just don’t have the same reputation. It’s not that they’re “bad” necessarily, they’re just off people’s radar.
Nissans mostly just sell because they’re “Japanese” and most models are a little sportier and cheaper when new than equivalent Toyota/Honda models.
You’re right about Nissan’s size and Japanese market position — longtime No. 2, behind Toyota.
I was referring to overall sales of Honda, Toyota, and Nissan in the U.S. at this time. My apologies for being unclear.
I bought a new first-gen Altima, a loaded 1996 GLE in Super Black with light grey leather upholstery, similar to the one on the revolving platform in the 1993 commercial posted by Brendan. As you can see from the window sticker, it was was tricked out to almost $7,000 more than the advertised beginning price in the commercial. As Brendan notes, the first-gen models were generously equipped – my 96 GLE had automatic A/C and cornering lights(!) as standard equipment, and the interior was rather plush for that level of car.
When the car was stolen in 1998 (with all of 16,000 miles on the odo), I was not impressed with the awkward restyle (the elegant looks were gone and I agree with others that the rear was downright ugly) of the successor. Gone were features such as cornering lights (those were removed from Maxima as well) and automatic A/C. I ended up buying a new loaded 99 Maxima GLE, a very nice car with lots of features but even then lacking ABS as standard equipment. Nissan was definitely cost cutting. Though both cars were nicely assembled, the Maxima, built at the Oppama plant in Japan, was more carefully built than the Altima, from the Smyrna, Tennessee facility.
These Altimas were rugged cars and plenty of examples of the first- and second-gen remain on the roads here in SoCal, having covered hundreds of thousands of miles.
Brendan, as usual, an insightful article on an important segment of cars of that era.
I really liked the first Altima, specially the SE model with its spoiler and unique polished version of the aluminum wheels. When the second gen arrived in 1997 I was very disappointed with its appearance both inside and out, it seemed to betray the design language of the first completely. Even today I consider the second generation Altima one of the worst redesigns of a nameplate.
Hello CC’ers –
LONG-time lurker, first time commenter – I found this ’98 Altima sales video about two years ago thanks to TestDriveJunkie dot com – thought it would be appropriate to share:
https://youtu.be/Tey0iDFiO2g
In addition to showcasing the car and all its late ’90s Nissan attributes, it does a great job showing off the central coast of CA – one of my favorite relaxing drives, as well as stars Ralph Garman of KROQ/Kevin & Bean and Family Guy fame. (Also has a subtle ‘slipped past Nissan’s censors’ joke at about 4:31).
Paul – you’ve created a die-hard CC’er in me thanks to the content and quality of your site and the team you’ve assembled – thanks for all your hard work!
P.S. – Well researched and written article, Brendan – great work!
+1
Thank you!
I didn’t set out to find the most beautiful car. Just one that was reliable, economical, and didn’t cost extra because of the name. Yes, the trunk looks chopped and droopy, but the trunk spoiler I added last year really improves the appearance, and now I can gauge the rear of the car while backing-up, as the spoiler is visible through the back window. Otherwise, the overall styling has grown on me, especially with the ugly new designs I see on the road today.
For whom it matters, the 2000 Gen 2.5 facelift added the cornering lights. I installed a like-new set from the salvage-yard in my 98, as my original headlights looked cheap, and the aged plastic covers had clouded so badly I couldn’t drive at night. My ’98 wasn’t wired for the cornering lamps, so I opted to install amber bulbs and relocate the parking/turn-signals from near the grille, to the corner location, which makes those signals much more visible from the side.
As for comparing my Altima to a Camry, five years ago, I was given a free 4-cylinder ’96 Camry LE sedan. The car came from the original owners, with 138K on the odometer, and a $3000 repair estimate to pass inspection. At the time, the AC had quit on the Altima and I had been thinking about selling it and buying a 2003-4 something. It only cost me about $700 to make the Camry legal and roadworthy, so I decided to hang on to the Altima as my back-up. So for awhile the Camry became my primary transport. like the Altima, the Camry had a good engine & tranny, and cold AC. The Camry was also bigger, with more comfortable seats and a better ride. But the aged, soft suspension made emergency handling scary, and bottoming over slight-humps and when leaving driveways became routine. So I installed a pair of used Camry wagon springs in the rear – something I highly recommend for any older Camry sedan. It now rides and handles much more like the Altima.
Other differences – The ’96 Camry four has 125 hp vs the Altima’s 150.
The Camry has 14″ tires vs 15″ on the Altima ( Only V6 Camrys of that generatioin came with 15″ tires.)
Aftermarket parts are more widely availible for the Camry. But the quality & performance of replacement motor-mounts doesn’t match the expensive oil-filled factory Toyota mounts.
Admittedly, my Camry had a hard life, spent mostly as a city commuter-car. So it needed a steering-rack & tie-rods (a 5-day winter job in my driveway!) window regulator, master window-switch, radiator, timing belt, water-pump, and a harmonic balancer. Plus my suspension upgrade.
As I kept the Nissan for back-up, and got the Toyota free, I’m not complaining. But it belies Toyota’s usual reliability reputation.
Another minor gripe – the mid ’90s Toyota pull-out cupholders are flimsy pieces of crap!
The Gen 4 Camrys got solid cupholders between the front seats, like my Altima.
After my Camry became my primary vehicle, I was able to fix the Altima’s AC, replace the cracked exhaust flex-pipe, leaky water-pump and broken windshield. Today, my Camry has become due for some serious maintenance and new tires, and the Altima has now resumed it’s place as my primary vehicle!
Happy Motoring, Mark
I saw many of the same locations shown in that video, from my ’71 Audi wagon, during my cross-country road-trip to California in 1982. Now THAT was an adventure!
My ’98 GXE has the keyless entry-security system, multifunction sunroof/map-light package, and Clarion 6-speaker CD-Cassette Audio like the one in the Video. Good thing too, as the base radio had CD-only, and these CD players are usually DOA after 10 years or so. My cassette still works well and I have a lot of tapes. Mine didn’t come with the factory alloy wheels seen in the video. But I found 3 of those – cheap ($25 each) last month at the Virginia Beach Pick-N-Pull, and hope to find #4 before my next set of tires.
Happy Motoring, Mark
1st and 2nd gen Altimas are die hard beaters now. While most other 90’s cars are scrap, still see a few chugging along.
I had a ’97 for 2 years and miss it, but only drawback was the MPG. 21 average city/hiway. Too low for todays compact market.
I picked up a 98 se with a 5 speed manual disk brakes on the back and rear spoiler. It doesn’t look droopy like the ones in the photos. It was one of the only mid sized sedans I could find with a stick when I was on the hunt for a new to me car. I don’t mind the generic 90’s bubble car look that seems to make me invisible to the local constabulary. It was at least a $1000 cheaper than equivalent Hondas or Toyotas. I really like not having to change the timing belt as it has a chain. Parts are cheap and it hasn’t needed many other than normal wear items for a nearly 20 year old car. Coming from a diesel Jetta it seems like a fast and quiet car. My only rear complaint is that for a 4 cylinder it could be more fuel efficient. But as my mechanic used to say speed costs, how much do you want to pay.
Good article I was wondering if it was old and classic enough to get a write up.
Well that’s one Nissan that wasn’t available new here in New Zealand (or as a used JDM import), and considering its dowdy looks, I’m not disappointed.
Mind you, the gen1 Altima’s base, the U13 Bluebird, got similarly bland when replaced by the U14 Bluebird:
Okay, here’s something fun I just stumbled across. It’s the Yulon EQ7200-II, which features the gen1 Altima centre body with gen2 Altima front and rear panels…! Apparently it’s based on the Chinese market Bluebird built by Dongfeng.
Nice that might explain how I was able to pick up a $55 Cdn made in China lower control arm. I like it when the Chinese keep producing old cars like my previous Jetta as it means a good supply of new parts. Although the quality can sometimes be lacking…
That certainly makes all three remaining western Rover 75 owners happy….
What years was this offered?
Not sure, I haven’t had time for further research. It’s quite possibly still being made!
Being perceived as less desireable can be a good thing.
Aside from possibly being invisible to the local constabulary, one other advantage to the Gen 1 and 2 Altimas, is they never made the top-ten stolen cars list!
Happy Motoring, Mark
Being able to outrun the irate owner would be a prerequisite for stealing a car and the kinda leave the U13 Bluebird Altima off that list, At work I watch multitudes of cars overtake me the vehicles I drive attract speeding tickets above 94 kmh so to be legal I cruise below that, several times Ive seen a Bluebird poke its nose out from behind my trailer to overtake and struggle with it on uphill passing lanes twice Ive even just pulled away from them just maintaining my speed 0 – 60 might be a big deal for some people but in the real world 40 – 70 is where its really at and U13s and many other Japanese cars from the 90s arent good in that area of ability.
That really explains their praise for a peppy engine here.
I’m not sure the first Altima restored Nissan to profitability by 1997, just two years later the company entered the alliance with Renault to stay afloat. The Sentra was competitive with Civic and Corolla with the 1991 generation (SE-R, IRS) but lost its way with the introduction of the 1995 model.
I believe the original Altima had a price advantage over Camry and Accord, it certainly did on a transaction price basis.
The 2002 model fixed everything and sales shot way up as you mentioned. The price also rose and was higher than Camry on a TP basis. That new platform not only fixed the size issue but also made the Altima a much better performer than Accord and Camry. The car handled great with its new multi-link independent rear suspension and I believe one magazine clocked a sub six second 0-60 with the huge 3.5L V6, a first in that segment. The design was a knock out at the time, still is. The interior was a little rough but that got fixed with the facelift.
Thank you for writing about an auto phantom, so common most people never look at it twice. An incredibly forgettable car.
For what they lacked in style and personality, they made up for it reliability.
I had one, a 2001 GLE. My brother bought it in 2001 for his wife. She preferred to drive his pickup instead, so he drove the Altima. He hated it. He had to wrap the parking brake handle in foam to keep it from gauging his knee.
But it was reliable. While not quite as many miles as his 1997 GMC Sierra 1500 (original engine died at 371k), it did last until 280k when it developed a stalling and subsequent run-ability issue. He bought a Ford Fusion and parked the Altima.
I ended up getting it off of him, and a new distributor fixed the issue. A sub-$100 repair. Unlike Camry or Accord of the era, the Altimas 2.4L used a timing chain. That saved a lot of money over my brother’s ownership. I sold it for little-of-nothing to a single mother. I bet it’s still running.
The 2002 Altima was more competitive in every way. But the quality and reliability took a nose dive and hasn’t recovered since.
I also had a 2001 GLE. Purchased new and driven for about 160k mi. and 10 years. I was a bit sad when I passed it to my stepson who was sorely in need of a car. He put another 60k on it over several years with much neglect. It was a fine road car with decent handling and was rattle free.
The only major repair was the inevitable blown intake manifold gasket on the 2.4. An excruciatingly difficult job on the Altima. About $1000 and up in the day. Many independent garages would refuse to do a second one. Said to be the result of a poorly placed EGR valve on the engine’s conversion from RWD to FWD use in the Altima. I made it to 140k mi. before it happened. Most saw it from 60k to 100k. Other than that, one rear hub/bearing, a radiator and two O2 sensors. I always used premium fuel at the dealer’s recommendation. The Nissans had wide parameter knock sensors that rewarded premium on fuel mileage.
There were a number of hints of degraded quality compared to a couple of early 90’s Sentra SE-R’s I had owned. Gone were the built-in bubble balancers in the headlight buckets, etc. Without actually owning one, I would agree that reliability went way down beginning with the 2002 model. Imploding upstream catalytic converters taking out the engine being one of them.