| ikalinin3 |
i went to the locel dealer, and test drove the 2009 murano LE. overall, it was NICE!!! BUT...
the front visibilty SUCKS!! the windshield looks MUCH smaller than my 06, the front side pillars are HUGE and cover a lot of visibility..
The dash is NICE... center counsel is great too.. i didnt like the heated seats buttons ALL THE WAY DOWN THERE!!! i like the same level counsel in the previous gen.
it feels smaller than the 06 too.
the toys are GREAT! power liftgate, heater rear seats, VERY comfortable leather seats.
the LE i grove was $40,100.. WOOOOW!!! thats A LOT!!!
but yeah, overall, its def a high class interior. exterior is OK, the rear is kinda ugly w/ the rear lights sticking out.. the exhaust tips are FREAKIN awesome though.. :)
well, there you go.. my review! :) |
|
|
| rtking |
I just posted in the other thread about the '09 MO. I agree with your assessment - I felt the new MO felt smaller inside. I generally like the gauge cluster, but I think I would miss the ability to put things on the dash of the MO.
Certain switchgear is too low on the dash which I didn't like. I also wasn't keen that the center console is smaller - I doubt that a Macbook would fit in that space now. (Not that I can fit a Macbook in mine as I have the factory DVD player.) And, as I mentioned in the other thread, the center stack comes down and rubs against my right knee. I noticed that my '04 has a knick-knack tray under the radio which left the center console area open and airy.
Bob |
|
|
| TheGymKid |
I test drove the Mo this weekend too... but it wasn't the LE model which might be the reason I wasn't impressed.
It did feel smaller when looking into the trunk... so since we all felt that way, I bet you it is. Next time I'll bring a tape measure to be sure.
Why did they remove that dash?? It is awesome having all that flat room to put things down on. My GPS sits great on there, and with the two holes on each side, things dont slide across the dash.
The center console? Why? Why get rid of something that is so great. All those different openings for change, cell and drinks with the rubber hole up at the top allows me to put soooo much down... the new Mo... not so much.
Some changes I did like... the wippers are now not covered by the hood which is AWESOME when it snows and ice's up.... much easier to clean and I'm sure change them too.
The instrument cluster... alot nicer. I also noticed it's part of the dash now. It doesn't look like it is connected by 2 bolts any longer. But still, there is orange in there... get away from that orange and go for Maxima colors... white at night and black during the day... that dash was great, I loved it.
I loved the new lines on the Murano too, the hood dips, the roof has waves towards the back of it, the side has lines " that makes it look like it is moving" when it is standing still. Great job with those changes.
I also like the new LE rims, but haven't seen those in person yet.
The drive.... well, I didn't drive the LE Model, but I felt very little difference then driving my current Murano.
I would have liked to seen the color monitor on the LE, but the dealer only had the bottom model with the orange screen like my color Murano.
Also, they said they are looking to sell it. I said it's the only one you have for people to test drive... they didn't care, sell sell sell. |
|
|
| shelland |
quote:
But still, there is orange in there... get away from that orange and go for Maxima colors...
Maybe I'm in the minority, but I love the orange instrument panel. :D |
|
|
| jwaters943 |
No offense, but they got rid of the flat dash because it's U-G-L-Y. Every professional review of the Murano agrees the new dash layout is much more aesthetically pleasing.
Besides, placing a bunch of junk on your dash is something I would expect to see in an old beater, not a new $30-40k vehicle. On top of that, it's really not a good idea, safety-wise. Can you tell I really don't like clutter? ;)
Just my $0.02, don't flame me too bad. |
|
|
| TheGymKid |
quote:
Originally posted by jwaters943
No offense, but they got rid of the flat dash because it's U-G-L-Y. Every professional review of the Murano agrees the new dash layout is much more aesthetically pleasing.
Besides, placing a bunch of junk on your dash is something I would expect to see in an old beater, not a new $30-40k vehicle. On top of that, it's really not a good idea, safety-wise. Can you tell I really don't like clutter? ;)
Just my $0.02, don't flame me too bad.
:9: jwaters943
All valid points. But I really like it... it's nothing like other cars where things slide right off. Not that I need to defend, but I don't 'keep' stuff up there. but if I put something down (cell phone, map, my magellan, a piece of paper, my work ID card), it stays until I pick it up before I get of the car. I suppose it is good for collecting things up there too for those that like that old junker (on the inside) look :cool: |
|
|
| zebelkhan |
quote:
Originally posted by shelland
Maybe I'm in the minority, but I love the orange instrument panel. :D
That makes two of us.....:claphead: |
|
|
| Stu |
I looked at one briefly, yesterday, when I stopped at the dealership for an oil change.
The interior did look about the same size as a Rogue. It did look a a bit more refined than the 1st gen Mo, but I can't say it was better. |
|
|
| jwaters943 |
Nissan Rogue:
Interior (inches)
Head room (without moonroof/with moonroof) front 40.4/39.3
Head room (without moonroof/with moonroof) rear 38.3/37.6
Leg room front 42.5
Leg room rear 35.3
Hip room front 53.1
Hip room rear 51.2
Shoulder room front 55.9
Shoulder room rear 53.6
Cargo volume behind 2nd row: 28.9 cu ft
Maximum cargo volume: 57.9 cu ft
2009 Nissan Murano:
Interior (inches)
Head room (without moonroof/with moonroof) front 40.1/39.4
Head room (without moonroof/with moonroof) rear 38.3/38.1
Leg room front 43.6
Leg room rear 36.3
Hip room front 54.8
Hip room rear 55.4
Shoulder room front 59.6
Shoulder room rear 58.7
Cargo volume behind 2nd row: 31.8 cu ft
Maximum cargo volume: 64.5 cu ft
Cargo dimensions (length x width x height)
29.6 x 54.7 x 32.5
2007 Nissan Murano:
Interior (inches)
Head room (without moonroof/with moonroof) front 40.7/39.2
Head room (without moonroof/with moonroof) rear 39.7/39.2
Leg room front 43.4
Leg room rear 36.1
Hip room front 56.2
Hip room rear 56.6
Shoulder room front 59.6
Shoulder room rear 59.1
Cargo volume behind 2nd row: 32.6 cu ft
Maximum cargo volume: 81.6 cu ft
The biggest, and most shocking difference I can see is maximum cargo space. |
|
|
| hfelknor |
"Room" doesn't work that way.
If a car is 1/4" too small in an important dimension, say leg room, then the car is too small.
OTOH if it is bigger than you need in all directions, it is big.
Comparing using atomic numbers does not show this.
What I am saying is the Rogue could be just tooooo small in some folks' opinion.
The Murano could be spacious......all based on these atomic numbers that seem so similar.
Homer |
|
|
| EasyRider |
Test drove one today.
I will add that the visibility is poor... both front(fat pillars take up lots of room) and rear. It will take a bit to get used to.
My only other complaint would be the steering felt too light.
Other then that, it's a pretty sweet ride.
Platinum Graphite + black interior is the color combo to get on this baby. |
|
|
| mgthe3 |
Was at the #tealer getting my first oil change yesterday:
MANY new Muranos there, I'd say about 50.
I smiled as I drove past them on the way out... still like the first gen appearance better than the second.
;) |
|
|
| jwaters943 |
Wow, 50, really?!?
My dealership has gotten 3 in so far (1 was presold). Granted, my city isn't nearly as large as the Atlanta Metro area, but still. That's a lot of new Murano's for 1 dealership to have considering the first ones started arriving at dealerships approx. 10 days ago. |
|
|
| romagjack |
quote:
Originally posted by mgthe3
MANY new Muranos there, I'd say about 50.
;)
I checked the Nissan site for '09 inventory at the Atlanta area dealers and 6 was the most I could find at any one dealer. Are you sure they weren't Rogues? I'm ready to purchase an LE with Nav and would drive to Atlanta for a good deal. |
|
|
| hfelknor |
quote:
Originally posted by romagjack
I checked the Nissan site for '09 inventory at the Atlanta area dealers and 6 was the most I could find at any one dealer. Are you sure they weren't Rogues? I'm ready to purchase an LE with Nav and would drive to Atlanta for a good deal.
That would be the final indignity of the new design.
Not all dealers keep their web sites current.
Call 'em or Email 'em.
Homer |
|
|
| njjoe |
quote:
Originally posted by romagjack
I checked the Nissan site for '09 inventory at the Atlanta area dealers and 6 was the most I could find at any one dealer. Are you sure they weren't Rogues?
Very good point.
When I stopped by my dealership two weeks ago to make a service appointment (defective radio) I went looking in the back lot for 2009 MOs. From the distance I thought I saw about a dozen, then as I walked out to take a closer look I realized they were Rogues. Boy, did that knock me for a loop.
Up until this year the MO had no peers. It had a unique look, both inside and out. It never would be confused with another car. Even Mr. Magoo would be able to find it in a sea of clones.
The 2009 is a beautiful car and will bring it's many new owners great satisfaction, but it is not the groundbreaking design that the 2003 MO was. It is an exercise in design conformity as evidenced by it's smaller sibling, the Rogue. Let's hope next year they don't bring out a 7-seat bigger sibling.
-njjoe |
|
|
| SUNSPOT |
quote:
Originally posted by shelland
Maybe I'm in the minority, but I love the orange instrument panel. :D
Add MY name to that list!!! |
|
|
| mgthe3 |
quote:
Originally posted by romagjack
I checked the Nissan site for '09 inventory at the Atlanta area dealers and 6 was the most I could find at any one dealer. Are you sure they weren't Rogues? I'm ready to purchase an LE with Nav and would drive to Atlanta for a good deal.
They were Muranos.
You can believe me or not. :)
Gwinnett Place Nissan, the largest dealer in the southeast. |
|
|
| romagjack |
| Thanks, I will call them. I am ready to purchase and LE w/Nav. |
|
|
| romagjack |
| I called the dealer to see if I could get a deal on light colored LE with Nav.The internet salesguy said he had 15 Muranos in stock and a "bunch"coming in but none met my criteria. He was willing to try and find one for me but that would be an extra charge. He didn't seem too willing to be aggressive in pricing like the other dealers I spoke with. He did offer Bluebook pricing on my trade - other dealers go by the Blackbook which is much less. |
|
|
| Musky300 |
Stopped by a dealership today and saw my first 2009 Muranos in person. They (Ed Martin - Indianapolis) had 3. One loaded Black SL in the showroom, and then two more outside...one White, the other Merlot/Red. I believe they were both SL's (one may have been a S).
I will say that they look better in person...but still are very unique. The lines and face/grill flow together very well. I checked out the showroom one and the inside...very nice.
When I start to get serious, maybe this summer, I will start to test drive them and really get to know them. I will be looking for a "no options" LE though.
One thing I did notice...from the inside, the rear and rear side visibility seemed pretty poor. Not sure if this is a trait of earlier Murano's, or just the fact that the SUV I'm coming from has good sight lines...but not a huge deal. |
|
|
| samwlee |
I also test drove an 09 LE. Quirk Nissan in MA had 9: 1 LE some SL's and the rest S'....
The sales guy was very persistent in terms of selling me one of them, but I kept telling him I wasn't ready to sign anything today...
They kept giving me numbers, but I don't have any invoice info to go on.. what I did get was .00285 MF for the lease, and $500 over invoice on the vehicle..
My impressions of the LE: Nice vehicle... love the 20" rims, but I didn't care for the heated rear seats, IPOD interface in lieu of an AUX input, power rear seat backs and the walnut trim. It's 3K more than the SL..
Other impressions: backup camera is very nice, power rear hatch is great, and the color screen is so much nicer than my 04 SL. The ride is the same (impressed that the 20" was not stiff at all), and the steering was very light. I do like the new front end.
Now dislikes: Less space on the dash (ie for my GPS), most buttons for VDC, Power liftgate, etc are situated too low on the dash, rear seats don't really fold flat, and the moonroof, while impressive with two windows and power shades, doesn't open up anymore than my 04, which many of us complained about. At least they don't put the wind deflector on as std equipment.
What I want is an SL with Premium, Tech, Leather and Moonroof. But they lacked one with all that and the colors. |
|
|
| samwlee |
So I read on autoblog.com where the 18 cu ft went in the 2009 Murano:
Behind the second row of seats is just less than 32 cubic feet of cargo space, which is 1 cubic foot less than the 2007 model. But fold the back seat flat and the 2009's cargo space doubles to 64 cu. feet. That sounds great until you realize that the 2007 model had a relatively cavernous 82 cubic feet with the back seat folded down. So where did all those cubes go? Haslam tells us the extra cargo space was sacrificed on the altar of attractive exterior design. That dramatically-sloping rear hatch severely cut into the vertical space of the rear and took 18 cubic feet with it.
The article goes on to say that most Murano buyers won't be carrying that much cargo, but still.. all that size and a X5-sized rear? |
|
|
| qs933 |
quote:
Originally posted by samwlee
The article goes on to say that most Murano buyers won't be carrying that much cargo, but still.. all that size and a X5-sized rear?
I guess they had to make a compromise -- either square off the back to maximize cargo space (and maybe even fit a third row like the similarly-sized Highlander), or keep the sloped rear.
For the Murano's target market, I'd say they made the right decision. |
|
|
| fitc |
quote:
Originally posted by samwlee
So I read on autoblog.com where the 18 cu ft went in the 2009 Murano:
Behind the second row of seats is just less than 32 cubic feet of cargo space, which is 1 cubic foot less than the 2007 model. But fold the back seat flat and the 2009's cargo space doubles to 64 cu. feet. That sounds great until you realize that the 2007 model had a relatively cavernous 82 cubic feet with the back seat folded down. So where did all those cubes go? Haslam tells us the extra cargo space was sacrificed on the altar of attractive exterior design. That dramatically-sloping rear hatch severely cut into the vertical space of the rear and took 18 cubic feet with it.
The article goes on to say that most Murano buyers won't be carrying that much cargo, but still.. all that size and a X5-sized rear?
I read the same article, and according to his explanation, with the seats up, it's almost the same cargo space, ~1 cu ft less.
It is when you fold the rear seats down that you lose 17-18 cu ft of cargo space. So how does the shape/design of the rear hatch have anything to do with it?
On top of that, the interior passenger volumes are almost the same on the 1st Gen and the 09, 109.9 (2003) vs. 108.8.
So it's roughly the same values for passenger volumes, roughly the same for cargo. But once you flip the seats down, you lose 17 cu ft. of cargo. Seems to me the seats do not fold flat and take quite a bit of cargo space.
It doesn't make sense to me.
_fitc_ |
|
|
| jbb3y |
| the old numbers are misleading due to the higher roof line relative to the floor on the 2009. The measured volume of the 09 includes the higher roof, look at the dimensions and sit in the 2 back to back. The rouge has a better seat shape and headroom situation in the back than the 2009. The 03-07 is the roomiest non-full-size suv across the back hands down. Try putting an defensive line in an 07 vs and 09; just watch to see if the door closes (it didn't in my experiment with some of my friends who played football). |
|
|
| DMordarski |
| Im a tall guy 6'7" I looked at just about every SUV or Car (had a 03 maxima loved that too) and the 1st Gen Murano is hudge on the inside, there is no other midsize that compares, When I went to the dealer to get a rear wiper installed, I sat in the new Mo with the idea I was going for a test ride, however as soon Has I moved the seat back and got In, wasn't even worth the ride... The new Bose and nav and 20s are really awsome highlights tho |
|
|
| SUNSPOT |
quote:
Originally posted by DMordarski
Im a tall guy 6'7" I looked at just about every SUV or Car (had a 03 maxima loved that too) and the 1st Gen Murano is hudge on the inside, there is no other midsize that compares, When I went to the dealer to get a rear wiper installed, I sat in the new Mo with the idea I was going for a test ride, however as soon Has I moved the seat back and got In, wasn't even worth the ride... The new Bose and nav and 20s are really awsome highlights tho
My hubby is 6'7", also. He LOVES my new MO for the head and leg room. The seats are comfortable for him (as well as the back seats).
Up until this time, trucks were about the only vehicle that fit his proportions. Not that we were looking at the '09. We are pretty happy with our (not a year old yet) '07 Mo. |
|
|
| theeduc8tor |
So, I've read that several individuals that are driving the Murano because they it is large and roomy. My partner is 6'2" and his son is getting bigger every year. I however, am a typical Texan, lean and un-tall! Is the driver seating much better in the '09? Versatility of tilt/telescoping steering column, pedals, etc.? Are the side bolsters(?) a little larger to keep me from sliding around on the seat?
I might have to buy a car seat for adults! |
|
|
| Eric L. |
quote:
Originally posted by fitc
I read the same article, and according to his explanation, with the seats up, it's almost the same cargo space, ~1 cu ft less.
It is when you fold the rear seats down that you lose 17-18 cu ft of cargo space. So how does the shape/design of the rear hatch have anything to do with it?
On top of that, the interior passenger volumes are almost the same on the 1st Gen and the 09, 109.9 (2003) vs. 108.8.
So it's roughly the same values for passenger volumes, roughly the same for cargo. But once you flip the seats down, you lose 17 cu ft. of cargo. Seems to me the seats do not fold flat and take quite a bit of cargo space.
It doesn't make sense to me.
_fitc_
Actually this makes perfect sense. Passenger volume is the measurement of front and back seat space, not including cargo volume. When they measure cargo volume behind the rear seats, they load the cargo up to height of the rear seatbacks, since this is the safest height you can load stuff and not have it fall into the passenger compartment if you brake suddenly.
If the rear hatch is indeed more raked than the previous Murano (hard to tell), then you will lose cargo volume with the seats folded since in that case you stack stuff as high as the front seatbacks, at which point the rear hatch/window comes into play. So, I think it does add up.
In another thread, it is clear the rear seat does fold down flat like the old Murano, and this opens up as much *extra* space as folding down the seats in a 1st gen MO. Its just less behind the rear seat space when you factor in the rear hatch (which is no longer bulging out like the old MO). |
|
|
| fitc |
quote:
Originally posted by Eric L.
Actually this makes perfect sense. Passenger volume is the measurement of front and back seat space, not including cargo volume. When they measure cargo volume behind the rear seats, they load the cargo up to height of the rear seatbacks, since this is the safest height you can load stuff and not have it fall into the passenger compartment if you brake suddenly.
If the rear hatch is indeed more raked than the previous Murano (hard to tell), then you will lose cargo volume with the seats folded since in that case you stack stuff as high as the front seatbacks, at which point the rear hatch/window comes into play. So, I think it does add up.
In another thread, it is clear the rear seat does fold down flat like the old Murano, and this opens up as much *extra* space as folding down the seats in a 1st gen MO. Its just less behind the rear seat space when you factor in the rear hatch (which is no longer bulging out like the old MO).
With all due respect, this makes even less sense than before, and you have now confounded me even more...: )
The rear hatch is attached to the roof way *past* the rear seats, and the height of the front and rear seats is the same. So whatever I could fit behind the 2nd row with the seats up should be the same as what I can fit behind the folded down rear seat, PLUS the extra space released by folding down the 2nd row seats.
The last paragraph of you e-mail agrees with my statement and contradicts your earlier comments.
I tried to visualize what you were saying, and came up with this diagram...
http://www.nissanmurano.org/photopo...&papass=&sort=1
What am I doing wrong? Sounds like I'm the only one who doesn't get it... :)
Respectfully,
_fitc_ |
|
|
| Eric L. |
Here is the way I see it. Apparently the behind second row space is almost the same as the previous Murano. Yet when the seat is folded, the 2nd gen has less cargo room than the 1st gen. The article mentioned above says it is because of the rake of the rear hatch. If this rake does not factor in when the rear seat is up, but does when the rear seat is down, then that means cargo room is not measured stacked up to the roof when the rear seat is folded up, but is when the rear seat is down.
I did not see an attachment in your reply below. It is not my intention to argue, I am just trying to interpret how the rear hatch can affect cargo volume.
Edit: ok now i see the diagram. Maybe they measure the cargo stacked up to the roof only when the rear seat is folded, such that the rear hatch rake is now factored in. 15 cu feet is a lot of space to lose though. Maybe the overall cargo area height is reduced?
quote:
Originally posted by fitc
With all due respect, this makes even less sense than before, and you have now confounded me even more...: )
The rear hatch is attached to the roof way *past* the rear seats, and the height of the front and rear seats is the same. So whatever I could fit behind the 2nd row with the seats up should be the same as what I can fit behind the folded down rear seat, PLUS the extra space released by folding down the 2nd row seats.
The last paragraph of you e-mail agrees with my statement and contradicts your earlier comments.
I tried to visualize what you were saying, and came up with this diagram...
What am I doing wrong?
Respectfully,
_fitc_
|
|
|
| fitc |
quote:
Originally posted by Eric L.
Edit: ok now i see the diagram. Maybe they measure the cargo stacked up to the roof only when the rear seat is folded, such that the rear hatch rake is now factored in. 15 cu feet is a lot of space to lose though. Maybe the overall cargo area height is reduced?
Yes, that would make sense. Additionally, the cross-section of the 2nd Gen Mo is more tapered towards the top, so that would mean even less "total cargo space" compared to the 1st Gen if they stacked cargo all the way to the roof.
It is entirely possible that the Total Cargo Space for the 1st Gen was calculated differently as well. Apparently, there is no rule as to how it should be done, and manufacturers get creative in that department.
15-17 cu ft is your mid-size refrigerator, that's why I questioned those numbers. I was merely trying to understand how it all worked out.
I enjoyed my 2003, and am pretty happy with the 2009 now.
_fitc_ |
|
|
| Eric L. |
quote:
Originally posted by fitc
Yes, that would make sense. Additionally, the cross-section of the 2nd Gen Mo is more tapered towards the top, so that would mean even less "total cargo space" compared to the 1st Gen if they stacked cargo all the way to the roof.
It is entirely possible that the Total Cargo Space for the 1st Gen was calculated differently as well. Apparently, there is no rule as to how it should be done, and manufacturers get creative in that department.
15-17 cu ft is your mid-size refrigerator, that's why I questioned those numbers. I was merely trying to understand how it all worked out.
I enjoyed my 2003, and am pretty happy with the 2009 now.
_fitc_
I guess in the end most people do not stack their cargo the roof anyways, so practically 1st and 2nd gen cargo volumes *for what people use of it* is probably pretty similar. |
|
|
| fitc |
quote:
Originally posted by Eric L.
I guess in the end most people do not stack their cargo the roof anyways, so practically 1st and 2nd gen cargo volumes *for what people use of it* is probably pretty similar.
Exactly! That's the way I see it as well - the total cargo volume looks about the same to me, for both vehicles. Marketing-wise, it appears that the 2nd Gen MO is at a disadvantage; but in all practicality, it is not the case...
_fitc_ |
|
|
|
