| beaum |
My wife and I are looking for a new car. Two new boys are forcing our hand. I can't drive the car when we put both of their car seats into either of our cars. The driver's seat is too far forward. My knees just can't handle it. So we're looking for an SUV. So far the Mo fit the bill the best. Most of the SUVs just don't give me enough leg room with a car seat right behind me. We've test driven the following:
Honda Pilot (third row forces front seats forward)
Acura MDX (same thing)
Buick Ranier (my head hit the roof)
Volvo XC90 (I was packed in, did like it though)
Jeep Grand Cherokee (head was close to the roof)
Jeep Commander (I liked it, I fit well. Gas mileage and parking scared the wife)
Murano
So on to the questions...
2005 or 2006? Looks like the bluetooth phone integration is in the 2006? If you search the 2006 manual PDF for bluetooth, its mentioned in the index. Anything else worthwhile on the 2006?
Any major flaws with the 2005?
Do you think the transimission problems have been resolved with the 2005 or 2006?
Extended warranty or not? How much does it cost?
We'll probably purchase from Mossy Nissan in San Diego. Any complaints or things I should look out for with them?
Anything I should ask for when purchasing the vehicle?
Anything else I should know?
Finally, would you buy one again?
Thanks. This board seems great. I'll be giving up my Saab 93ss. There is bunch of great guys at http://www.saabcentral.com if you're looking for a Saab forum. |
|
|
| JeffC |
The CVT causes sluggish acceleration, the wipers are really pathetic in a snow storm and the AWD isn't much better than FWD.
If I had it to do over I'd spend a little more and get an Acura MDX.
Good Luck.
Jeff |
|
|
| beaum |
quote:
Originally posted by JeffC
The CVT causes sluggish acceleration, the wipers are really pathetic in a snow storm and the AWD isn't much better than FWD.
If I had it to do over I'd spend a little more and get an Acura MDX.
Good Luck.
Jeff
Problem is, I dont fit in an MDX. It hardly rains here in San Diego....
I'd fit in the MDX if we didnt have the car seats. We're going to get the SE if we get one. |
|
|
| CP-Mike |
quote:
The CVT causes sluggish acceleration
Although with two little ones in tow, I'd think that aggressive acceleration is not one of his top priorities...or at least I hope not. There is the Ds option as well if you're really concerned (makes the engine run at higher revs = faster acceleration).
I'd definitely buy a MO again. But make sure you get all the goodies that you REALLY want when you buy the car. I think that goes for any car, not just the MO. But if I had to do it again, I'd make sure it had the xenon headlamps. They make a huge difference. Thankfully they're not too hard to install yourself (even someone of my limited mechanical/electrical experience was able to pull it off thanks to the excellent directions by MO in TO), but why mess with that if you can get them installed at the factory.
Anyway, before you go to the dealer, familiarize yourself with the different options/packages and prerequisites, and find out exactly what you want. For example, to get VDC (stability control) you have to get the exorbitant Touring Package. Don't let the salesman confuse you with the different packages/options, as they quickly add up.
But I guess that's one of the good things about the MO. You can get a pretty well-equipped base model, or add a few things to make your own "mid" model, or go all-out and get a pretty complete luxury package, and it's only limited by your budget.
Oh, I wouldn't recommend getting chrome wheels from the factory. If you want them later, you can get them pretty reasonably on eBay, or go aftermarket.
But yeah, if you do get a Murano, watch out for those rogue snowstorms in San Diego! :2: |
|
|
| beaum |
quote:
Originally posted by CP-Mike
Although with two little ones in tow, I'd think that aggressive acceleration is not one of his top priorities...or at least I hope not. There is the Ds option as well if you're really concerned (makes the engine run at higher revs = faster acceleration).
I'd definitely buy a MO again. But make sure you get all the goodies that you REALLY want when you buy the car. I think that goes for any car, not just the MO. But if I had to do it again, I'd make sure it had the xenon headlamps.
But yeah, if you do get a Murano, watch out for those rogue snowstorms in San Diego! :2:
I'll definately be getting xenon headlamps. I've got them in my Saab now. The view is awesome. I'd probably get most of the options, with the exception of the DVD system. That system seems pretty goofy coming out of the center console like that. If my kids are anything like my brother and I, that thing will get ripped out during the first big fight in the back seat. Need your weapons...
Do you think the dealer will haggle over an early 2006? |
|
|
| CP-Mike |
quote:
Do you think the dealer will haggle over an early 2006?
For sure. They're going to pull out all the BS. "It's brand-new, top-of-the-line, they added features XYZ, they fixed this and that, the new wheels are painstakingly hand-crafted by cloistered nuns..." etc.
quote:
I'd probably get most of the options
If you roll like that, definitely go for the '06. Its always nice to have the latest and greatest, especially if you don't want to have any regrets. When I bought mine, I cheaped out. I went with a used '04 SL (it only had 1000 miles on it) just because I could get it for less than a new '05 S. But I ended up spending a bunch of money and time after I bought it putting in the xenons and an OEM tow hitch, and I've still got a few more upgrades to make. I wish I had NAV and the rear backup camera, but there's no way I can add those even if I wanted to.
Anyway, my point is I'm glad you're going all-out with the options. |
|
|
| GripperDon |
Actually I did, 2004 to 2005
G |
|
|
| jaak |
| Another one? Sure, if I could find better service, and I'd skip the AWD this time around as I don't believe the transfer case is up to the task. |
|
|
| GMTURBO43 |
I think the Murano $ for $ is the best option available. If I had to buy another SUV I would buy a Murano. I just need (okay, want) something faster and a larger aftermarket that consists of more than cosmetic upgrades.
All in all we've been very happy with it. |
|
|
| Mr3Putt |
Short answer: I'd buy a Murano again in a heartbeat.
For your needs, the interior seating alone is worth the price of admission. I'm 6'2", this is one of the only cars I've driven where the drivers seat is not slammed all the way back. Rear seat room is terrific, I consistently haul around my golf foursome on the weekend, my one buddy quit smoking and blew up like a tick, 50 pounds later, still no complaints.
Personally, I like the looks, the handling, the awd, the mpg, the lights, the stereo, the comfort, most everything...
I would disagree with the poster who thinks the handling of the MDX is far superior than the Mo. I've driven them both, the MDX is a fine SUV, but a sporty handler it's not.
As far as the AWD performance, I live in the snow belt and frequent my place "in the mountains" all winter long. Snow handling has never been an issue.
The $20 upgrade to winter blades eliminates the wiper problems.
There is no "perfect" anything.
Good luck. |
|
|
| rtking |
I had my 2003 Murano rear-ended 3 weeks after I bought it in September 2003. No problems other than 3 month repair time. (No parts were available in the US at that time since it was so new.) 1 week after I got it out of the shop, so rogue landscaping truck ran a red light and T-Boned the Murano at well over 40 mph. It totalled the Murano, but I walked away without a scratch.
Since that time, I went through a few cars but I always wanted another Murano. Now that I'm married and we want to start a family, I needed the room (like you) and my A4 just didn't have the back seat room for a baby seat. So after looking at many SUVs (most of which were on your list) I am still drawn to the MO. So this Saturday, my wife and I will fly to Northern California and take delivery of a used 2004 Murano SL that's fully loaded including navigation, DVD and towing package and has only 20K miles. :D
Bob K. |
|
|
| hfelknor |
"Do you think the transimission problems have been resolved with the 2005 or 2006?"
I have a 2003.
Would you tell me about the transmission problems?
BTW, I would buy another one.
I had 6 problems in the first 6 months. None related to the transmission, BTW. Haven't had any problems since then.
The 04 was better.
The 05 was better yet.
The 06 will likely be great.
Homer |
|
|
| JeffC |
In addition:
1. Drive train vibration due to very low cruising RPM.
2. AWD Lock cuts out at 6 mph.
3. Rear washer/wiper ineffective.
4. Warped DS mirror.
5. Door and window rattles.
6. Front license plate bracket too small - plate bends.
7. Turn signal not loud enough.
8. Roof rack cross bars not adjustable.
9. Front windshield washers - poor coverage.
10. Right side wiper has insufficient tension to clean window.
11. Linear power steering.
12. No timer for seat heaters.
13. Sunroof too small.
14. Poor radio reception.
15. Cigarette lighter power off when you leave the car.
16. General NVH problems.
17. Roof rack cross bars cause wind noise.
18. Thin paint.
19. Fly-by-wire gas pedal is too sensitive.
20. Brightness of dash and console lights poorly balanced.
21. Nissan service departments are terrible.
22. Weak CVT is very very expensive.
23. Etc., etc.
Otherwise it's a damn nice design.
The above are all nits, but they add up to some really curious design and engineering, at best. I actually like driving it most of the time, but I wouldn't buy another one. I'll keep it a few more years and then try the MDX or a newer CUV, before the CVT costs me $6000.
JeffC |
|
|
| HuskyFan |
quote:
Originally posted by JeffC
In addition:
1. Drive train vibration due to very low cruising RPM.
3. Rear washer/wiper ineffective.
4. Warped DS mirror.
5. Door and window rattles.
6. Front license plate bracket too small - plate bends.
7. Turn signal not loud enough.
9. Front windshield washers - poor coverage.
10. Right side wiper has insufficient tension to clean window.
13. Sunroof too small.
14. Poor radio reception.
17. Roof rack cross bars cause wind noise.
18. Thin paint.
19. Fly-by-wire gas pedal is too sensitive.
20. Brightness of dash and console lights poorly balanced.
21. Nissan service departments are terrible.
22. Weak CVT is very very expensive.
JeffC
I have none of the above problems on my 2005 SE except I agree on item 20. If you drive into a wall the license plate will bend on most cars.
I agree with the comments in the following article I found in another thread.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106...73a2021,00.html |
|
|
| Eric L. |
I am not aware of any transmission issues with the Murano's CVT, even going back to the 2003 year.
As for issues I've had:
1) Alternator died (but handled by eventual recall)
2) Windows rattle
3) Sunvisor clips not secure
4) Less than advertised fuel economy (expected)
5) Driver seat creaks (repaired via TSB)
However as far as the Murano goes, it holds an edge against all competing crossovers int he following categories:
1) Smoothest powertrain (CVT is unbeatable)
2) "Sporty" handling (better than Pilot, Highlander, RX330, etc... anyways)
3) Roomy interior not compromised by useless 3rd row
4) Standard HID headlights on SE model (most other crossovers don't offer it, or have it as an expensive option)
5) Standard side curtains (again, optional on some others) |
|
|
| TexInFla |
I've got a 2003 Murano, and I've been planning on trading it in on a 2006 Murano in the Spring. So, absolutely, I'd buy one again! :) I've had almost no problems with this vehicle, which I find amazing given that 2003 was its first production year. I just had my alternator replaced under the recall, and fortunately, I didn't have to experience an alternator failure.
The only thing that is making me reconsider my plans to buy another Murano is the quality (or lack thereof) of the service department for the only Nissan dealership in my city. Even though they just achieved "Owner First" status a few months ago, I've had considerable trouble with their service department. The next closest Nissan dealership is 45 miles away, and that particular dealership has an unacceptable rating from the Better Business Bureau. It's sad, because I have never enjoyed owning and driving a car as much as I have the Murano. My experience with the service department for the alternator repair wasn't quite as bad as my previous experiences, and I dealt with a new Service Advisor who seemed pretty competent....and the dealership itself is under new ownership....so I'm hoping this means that they'll be shaping things up. Anyway, I would suggest that you carefully check out the dealership near you before taking the plunge and make sure that they're folks you can work well with. |
|
|
| zebelkhan |
If anyone thinks that any car is going to be perfect and without problems, then I have one acre of ocean front land in the best part of the moon for sale, cheap!
Why not join the forums for the "perfect" cars and find out what problems they really have. I am sure you will find quite a few who think they have a piece of junk.
For your requirements, I highly recommend the MO. Except for inconsistant Nissan service (which I think they are working on) I think this a great cross over. Personally I have not had any major issues with my MO and would buy another one in a heart beat. But don'y take it from me, see what the majority of MO owners are saying.
On the other hand...please don't buy a MO! It has become way too popular and I see too many of them on the road these days, which takes away from the "uniqueness" of mine......:4: |
|
|
| njjoe |
I am a relatively new member to the MO community. In fact I have been reviewing this forum longer than I have actually owned my MO.
The MO is a great car. It is not a perfect car by any measure, but it is a very well-designed and assembled automobile. In my opinion the MO is not worth the sticker price, but it is a decent value if you can get it for near dealer invoice.
After-sales support is a real problem affecting the Nissan community. The vast majority of the forum membership appear to be unsatisfied with their respective service departments. Check the posts and you will see very little praise directed at the service personnel.
I love owning and driving my Mo but am dreading the day when I need to deal with my service department.
Good Luck!!
-njjoe |
|
|
| JeffC |
There is only 1 (maybe 2) point that I listed that has not been mentioned on this BB by other owners.
This is a very good vehicle, especially for a warm weather climate like San Diego, but it could be a bit of a drag if you drive it up to Tahoe and get in a snow storm.
There are a lot of very good CUV's out there. This is one of them, despite its quirks.
Opinions vary.
JeffC |
|
|
| dmako |
Buy again.
So many things to love, so many to hate.
The Mo by far fits large and tall people. There are so many choices for a vehicle but simple don't fit me comfortably. The Mo fits like a glove.
Usability, great has lots of room, rear seats fold flat with the front seats all the way back (see how many cars/SUVs do not).
Gas mileage not bad over 20 MPG. With a nice large gas tank.
Handling, not bad.
The hate,
Squeaks and rattles.
Then more squeaks and rattles.
Cheap plastic interior and cheap paint.
Dealerships (service) terrible, I have been to three so far and they all suc&.
I'm eyeing an X3/5 but price and gas mileage, and size are questionable.
Perhaps an FX but if I would to spend that much and end up with the same build quality and service for all that money!
MDX naw, Odyssey van with an SUV body, I have no need for a third row of seats.
Would I do it again, probably not.
My 2-cents. |
|
|
| SugarRushMurano |
quote:
Originally posted by beaum
Honda Pilot (third row forces front seats forward)
Acura RSX (same thing)
Buick Ranier (my head hit the roof)
Volvo XC90 (I was packed in, did like it though)
Jeep Grand Cherokee (head was close to the roof)
Jeep Commander (I liked it, I fit well. Gas mileage and parking scared the wife)
Morano
I just received my recent consumer reports auto magazine.
The forecasted reliability of Jeep Grand Cherokee and volvo xc90 are 'worse than average'. I dont think you should go with them.
Acura MDX (the RSX is the sport coupe) is a good choice, as good as the murano. |
|
|
| njjoe |
beaum-
I am assuming from your initial post that you are tall. If that is the case you may have some problems with the MO.
I am 6' 3" and fit in the MO nicely. However, I was unable to get the leather interior because that would require the sunroof package and the sunroof cuts off 1.5" of the front headroom. When I sat in a sunroof-equipped MO with the seat in the lowest position my hair brushed up against the headliner. I had about a 1/4" of clearance between my head and car. (The salesman claimed the sunroof did not affect the headroom and hinted he could have the service department lower the seat for me. When I pointed out the headroom differences were published in the sales literature he acted surprised.)
The extra inch and a half makes all the difference in comfort, but I still miss the leather.
Good Luck.
-njjoe |
|
|
| Eric L. |
| I'm 6'2" and with the seat adjusted high, I have a little clearance between my hair and the roof (I have the sunroof). I think even with the sunroof, if I adjusted the power seat correctly (it has a height adjustment for the bottom cushion) I could be 6'5" and still fit comfortably in the Murano. But then I have long legs, so thats just my take. Maybe other folks who are 6' who have long torsos may disagree. |
|
|
| beaum |
quote:
Originally posted by hfelknor
"Do you think the transimission problems have been resolved with the 2005 or 2006?"
I have a 2003.
Would you tell me about the transmission problems?
BTW, I would buy another one.
I had 6 problems in the first 6 months. None related to the transmission, BTW. Haven't had any problems since then.
The 04 was better.
The 05 was better yet.
The 06 will likely be great.
Homer
I've read about problems with the transmission on this site. |
|
|
| Eric L. |
quote:
Originally posted by beaum
I've read about problems with the transmission on this site.
I've only read perhaps 2 or 3 accounts of where the CVT failed and required a full replacement. This is out of thousands of members here. I wouldn't consider it a problem area based on those numbers.
However, it is true that the CVT costs more than a normal automatic to replace. One would hope that 5 years down the line, when the powertrain warranty expires, the CVT would be cheaper to manufacture and cheaper to replace. |
|
|
| beaum |
quote:
Originally posted by zebelkhan
If anyone thinks that any car is going to be perfect and without problems, then I have one acre of ocean front land in the best part of the moon for sale, cheap!
I agree. I've had my share of problems with my Saab, but I still really enjoyed it. The fuel pump went out on me once while going around a corner. The car died a second time. "Reprogramming" the shift points took care of that problem. Its truly a rattle trap.
I'd probably get another one if they offered an AWD version with the V6 and I didn't have two kids and I wasn't 6'2". My wife has a Volvo S60 that I really like, but its under powered. The S60R looks awesome. Again if I didn't have two kids. :) |
|
|
| beaum |
quote:
Originally posted by SugarRushMurano
I just received my recent consumer reports auto magazine.
The forecasted reliability of Jeep Grand Cherokee and volvo xc90 are 'worse than average'. I dont think you should go with them.
Acura MDX (the RSX is the sport coupe) is a good choice, as good as the murano.
Doh! Sorry about that. I'll edit my post. |
|
|
| beaum |
quote:
Originally posted by njjoe
beaum-
I am assuming from your initial post that you are tall. If that is the case you may have some problems with the MO.
I am 6' 3" and fit in the MO nicely.
Good Luck.
-njjoe
Fortunately, I'm only 6'2". :) |
|
|
| beaum |
quote:
Originally posted by beaum
Doh! Sorry about that. I'll edit my post.
And I spelled Murano, Morano. That's fixed too. I think we're going to go with a 2006. Just need to wait for one.
Can anyone confirm the bluetooth phone option?
Has anyone purchased a car through Costco? Thoughts? |
|
|
| JeffC |
I haven't read about many CVT failures, but the scuttlebutt has it that the fragile nature of the CVT is the reason that the AWD Lock was changed to cut out at 6 MPH, initial acceleration is sluggish, towing capacity is low and engine horsepower is limited. I really like the Murano's smooth acceleration, but I'd gladly trade the CVT for better AWD, better acceleration and higher towing capacity.
Someone mentioned the Ds option as a solution for sluggish acceleration. I consider Ds another example of Nissan's strange execution of a good design concept. If it worked like other car's Overdrive Off switch and bumped RPM's by something like 1500, it would be great. The problem is that you can't drive around in Ds because the RPMs are way too high. As is, it is only good for initial acceleration. Why not just use Low?
I went for the MO in 2005 because it was more sporty than most. Now that I am familiar with it, I'd be willing to trade the sportiness for better design and engineering in the noted areas.
Opinions vary.
JeffC |
|
|
| Eric L. |
quote:
Originally posted by beaum
And I spelled Murano, Morano. That's fixed too. I think we're going to go with a 2006. Just need to wait for one.
Can anyone confirm the bluetooth phone option?
Has anyone purchased a car through Costco? Thoughts?
Costco usually negotiates a price similar to the prices car brokers get, but its a price usually a bit higher than what you can get if you rolled up your sleeves and emailed all your locals and had them compete with the best price. It depends how much work you want to do to get the best price. |
|
|
| HuskyFan |
quote:
Originally posted by JeffC
I haven't read about many CVT failures, but the scuttlebutt has it that the fragile nature of the CVT is the reason that the AWD Lock was changed to cut out at 6 MPH, initial acceleration is sluggish, towing capacity is low and engine horsepower is limited. I
JeffC
245 hp is more than most of the competition had in 2003. Towing capacity of 3500 lbs is standard and as good as or better than most of the crossover SUV's. The AWD lock is meant to be used for getting started when needed. The AWD works automatically at any speed if front wheel slippage occurs.
Driving with AWD locked on dry roads can cause major damage as it would with the older 4wd subarus, pathfinders, etc because there isn't a center differential to allow for different rotation front and rear when turning. I believe the AWD lock feature disengages a 6mph to protect the drivetrain from the above dry road condition. |
|
|
| JeffC |
Husky,
245 hp is relatively high, even for 2006, but it feels sluggish because of the CVT. At 200 hp other CUV's feel at least as responsive as the Murano. If the CVT was stronger it could be programmed to accelerate better, or the full hp potential of the VQ could be used. If the Murano had a regular trans, 245 hp might be plenty.
Despite the rated towing capacity I would not feel comfortable towing 3500 lbs on a regular basis, especially considering the apparent fragility of the CVT, problems getting warranty work approved through Nissan's terrible service departments and the cost of CVT replacement .
So you are saying that even with a regular trans this type of AWD system tends to break if engaged on dry roads? That doesn't say much for the Murano's AWD system, but I'll stop blaming the CVT for the way the Murano handles packed snow. I'll blame the AWD system. It's not much better than a FWD and could be much improved if AWD Lock was not so limited, or if the AWD were programmed to stay engaged for 5 or 10 seconds at a crack.
I'll add a new point to my list: Fragile AWD has no center differential.
So here is the new list:
1. Mediocre initial quality (warped brakes, pwr steer leak).
2. Front windshield wipers/defroster ineffective in snow.
3. Front wipers - can’t lift to clear snow.
4. Front windshield washers - poor coverage.
5. Right side wiper insufficient tension to clean window.
6. Rear washer/wiper ineffective.
7. AWD ineffective in packed snow.
8. Fragile AWD has no center differential.
9. AWD Lock cuts out at 6 mph.
10. No limited slip differential.
11. CVT is very very expensive.
12. CVT apparently too weak for rated 3500# towing capacity.
13. Initial acceleration limited due to weak CVT.
14. Ds rpm’s are too high to be useful.
15. Drive train vibration due to very low cruising RPM.
16. Too much NVH.
17. RR door and window rattles.
18. Driver’s door rattles.
19. Nearly silent turn signal.
20. Linear power steering.
21. Fly-by-wire gas pedal is too sensitive.
22. No timer for seat heaters.
23. Roof rack cross bars not adjustable.
24. Roof rack cross bars cause wind noise.
25. Sunroof too small.
26. Cigarette lighter power off when you leave the car.
27. Thin paint.
28. Brightness of dash and console lights poorly balanced.
29. Warped DS mirror.
30. Poor radio reception.
31. Front license plate bracket too small – carwash bends plate.
32. Unique tire size – no good alternatives.
33. Nissan service departments are terrible.
34. Nissan NA doesn’t care.
I know, I'm just too picky ;)
SHIFT_incomprehensible
SHIFT_unacceptable
SHIFT_to acura :4: |
|
|
| jaak |
quote:
Originally posted by JeffC
I haven't read about many CVT failures, but the scuttlebutt has it that the fragile nature of the CVT is the reason that the AWD Lock was changed to cut out at 6 MPH, initial acceleration is sluggish, towing capacity is low and engine horsepower is limited. I really like the Murano's smooth acceleration, but I'd gladly trade the CVT for better AWD, better acceleration and higher towing capacity.
The AWD lock was changed, because of the transfer case being under engineered for the task. Unfortunately, when it gets damaged, it seems that it damages the CVT so the thing leaks.
Mine's leaking and they've got another CVT on order to resolve the problem, after changing the transfer case. The CVT still works fine.
Initial acceleration is limited to ensure there is no high torque condition applied to the CVT, which is not an issue in normal driving. Once you're rolling, the acceleration is great and in fact deceiving, as the CVT is so smooth you don't realise how good it is.
But I can understand the desire for more acceleration. I'm even considering a Magnum SRT8 as my next vehicle. (And a new Murano) |
|
|
| shappy0869 |
quote:
Originally posted by Eric L.
I've only read perhaps 2 or 3 accounts of where the CVT failed and required a full replacement. This is out of thousands of members here. I wouldn't consider it a problem area based on those numbers.
However, it is true that the CVT costs more than a normal automatic to replace. One would hope that 5 years down the line, when the powertrain warranty expires, the CVT would be cheaper to manufacture and cheaper to replace.
I had to have the CVT replaced on my A4. Had it not been covered under warranty, the bill would have been about $13K for parts and labor!!! :eek: |
|
|
| TexInFla |
I guess it's all a matter of what you're used to and what you expect. I haven't felt that the initial acceleration of the Murano is sluggish. In fact, I find it more than adequate. Then again, I'm not trying to race a Corvette in the next lane. ;)
Also, I wouldn't necessarily call the CVT "fragile." If it were truly fragile, then there would be many more failures than we know about. It does have some limitations, though, and it takes a little time to get used to.
As far as Bluetooth is concerned, I haven't seen anything to confirm that the 2006 Muranos will have Bluetooth enabled. However, I believe that the Murano's cousin, the 2006 Infiniti FX 35/45, will have Bluetooth capability. |
|
|
| 818Guy |
quote:
Originally posted by beaum
2005 or 2006? Looks like the bluetooth phone integration is in the 2006? If you search the 2006 manual PDF for bluetooth, its mentioned in the index. Anything else worthwhile on the 2006?
As a fellow So Cal member as well, if you are serious about the Murano, now would be a REALLY good time to buy a 2005. Dealerships in the Los Angeles area are offering deals $500 below invoice on the 2005 Muranos on their lot. But that's the catch, they may not have what you really want.
I'm also in the market soon. The Murano is one of the front runners. My concern is reading the posts about city fuel economy and how low it seems (15-18 mpg). I'm currently driving a 2004 RX-8 and average 18 mpg with mixed driving. City is probably around 15-17 mpg. :(
I also believe the 2006 SE Muranos come standard with a rear camera. Can anyone else confirm this? |
|
|
| Eric L. |
Both 2006 SL and SE have standard rear view camera I believe.
quote:
Originally posted by 818Guy
As a fellow So Cal member as well, if you are serious about the Murano, now would be a REALLY good time to buy a 2005. Dealerships in the Los Angeles area are offering deals $500 below invoice on the 2005 Muranos on their lot. But that's the catch, they may not have what you really want.
I'm also in the market soon. The Murano is one of the front runners. My concern is reading the posts about city fuel economy and how low it seems (15-18 mpg). I'm currently driving a 2004 RX-8 and average 18 mpg with mixed driving. City is probably around 15-17 mpg. :(
I also believe the 2006 SE Muranos come standard with a rear camera. Can anyone else confirm this?
|
|
|
| 818Guy |
quote:
Originally posted by JeffC
So here is the new list:
19. Nearly silent turn signal.
You're not kidding when you say you're picky. ;) |
|
|
| CopperKat |
quote:
Originally posted by 818Guy
As a fellow So Cal member as well, if you are serious about the Murano, now would be a REALLY good time to buy a 2005. Dealerships in the Los Angeles area are offering deals $500 below invoice on the 2005 Muranos on their lot. But that's the catch, they may not have what you really want.
There's also a $1000 rebate available for a 2005. |
|
|
| mgthe3 |
818
I get 20.2 mpg on mixed mainly city driving and drive very aggressively. It did take about 10k miles to get it broken in to that mileage. Up till then it was 19.1. |
|
|
| bob1 |
Other than fighting about my tires due to a bent front end fitting from the factory, I must say the MO has performed well and I'd really have to find something else with character. Right now another MO would surely be in the running as not much else is getting my attention.
BTW GRIP, if you add a few more options, we may find a buyer for you! If not, we are always happy to have you around here.
Bob1 |
|
|
| beaum |
quote:
Originally posted by TexInFla
As far as Bluetooth is concerned, I haven't seen anything to confirm that the 2006 Muranos will have Bluetooth enabled. However, I believe that the Murano's cousin, the 2006 Infiniti FX 35/45, will have Bluetooth capability.
The 2006 manual that was posted earlier mentions bluetooth in the manual index. The page that is referenced doesn't exist in the PDF though. Which is a bit weird. |
|
|
| hfelknor |
" The page that is referenced doesn't exist in the PDF though. Which is a bit weird."
Not for Nissan.
Ask some here about whether or not the 2003 was
a- advertised with SAT
b- Partially wired for SAT
c-Came with a sticker that said that SAT wouldn't work
d- actually supported SAT quite well
The only way to be sure is to wait a couple of weeks and see for yourself.
Homer |
|
|
| jaak |
My guess is that it doesn't work, because they want the Infiniti's to have the edge on the Nissans. This all deliberate and planned. Even the 2003 SL display has the icons for a phone connection.
Did someone say the 2003's don't support SAT? ;) |
|
|
|
