I have now had my new Pulsar Tekna 1.6 Dig-T 190 for a month or so now, but I'm beginning to think that I'm not going to be keeping it that long.
As soon as I got it, my wife complained that it was a hard, and uncomfortable ride, and after having now driven it for 500+ miles, I have to agree with her.
Also there is a very annoying high pitched whine/whistle at speed, which I assume is the turbo.
I have had goodness knows how many cars, and a new one every three years since 1989.
Three, Sierras, followed by, five consecutive Mondeo's, then two X-Trails, and two Qashqais, all from new. Without doubt, the Pulsar is the most uncomfortable ride I have ever experienced.
When I decided to buy a Pulsar sized car, it was a toss up between it, the Ford Focus, and the Seat Leon. Because I had been very happy with my Nissan vehicles (2 X-Trail and 2 Qashqai), I decided to stay with Nissan, and bought the Pulsar.
I am now beginning regret my decision, and can't see me keeping the Pulsar for the three years that I normally keep my new cars for.
I have a long journey coming up soon, and I'm not looking forward to it, as I think it's going to be a tiring drive.
Sorry Nissan, not a bad looking car, reasonably well specified, and a lively engine, but a 'bone shaking' ride, and noisy turbo.
Fine for 'boy racers' but not for the motorist that likes performance combined with a comfortable ride.
Never had any complaints with either the X-Trails or Qashqais, even though my last Qashqai, a 1.6 DCI Tekna, had 19" wheels, and low profile tyres, it was a very comfortable, and quiet ride.
Uncomfortable Pulsar
I've not driven any of the cars you list, but I recently did a 400 mile drive, virtually non stop apart from one short coffee break and one pee stop. No problem with discomfort or tiredness at the end of it. I certainly don't find the ride hard or the turbo noisy. Maybe I've been lucky, or you the opposite. I've got the 1.2 petrol N-Connecta. It's possible the diesel is noisier.
I think the 1.2 has softer suspension than the 190 bhp 1.6 petrol, whereas I think Nissan have attempted to create a 'warm hatch' with the 1.6.
Also, I believe you will have 17" wheels with a higher profile tyres, giving a softer ride, whereas the 1.6 Tekna has 18" wheels with low profile tyres.
The hard bumpy ride is visibly evident on my dash cam video, whereas it was completely smooth in the Qashqai.
The Pulsar Dig-T 190 1.6 Tekna is certainly not the mid size family hatch that it's marketed as, but an attempt to create an ST version, without stating that.
When I went to test drive the Pulsar, the dealership only had a 1.2 Tekna, which of course had the 17" wheels with the higher profile tyres.
This was a comfortable ride, but after my 1.6 DCI Qashqai, I found the 1.2 engine lacking in performance, so ordered the 1.6.
As far as the performance goes, I have no complaint with the performance of the 190 bhp 1.6 engine. When the turbo kicks in, it is plenty lively, but it would be nice if they had muffled the high pitch whine, that is very audible inside the car.
Also, I believe you will have 17" wheels with a higher profile tyres, giving a softer ride, whereas the 1.6 Tekna has 18" wheels with low profile tyres.
The hard bumpy ride is visibly evident on my dash cam video, whereas it was completely smooth in the Qashqai.
The Pulsar Dig-T 190 1.6 Tekna is certainly not the mid size family hatch that it's marketed as, but an attempt to create an ST version, without stating that.
When I went to test drive the Pulsar, the dealership only had a 1.2 Tekna, which of course had the 17" wheels with the higher profile tyres.
This was a comfortable ride, but after my 1.6 DCI Qashqai, I found the 1.2 engine lacking in performance, so ordered the 1.6.
As far as the performance goes, I have no complaint with the performance of the 190 bhp 1.6 engine. When the turbo kicks in, it is plenty lively, but it would be nice if they had muffled the high pitch whine, that is very audible inside the car.
-
nottmsteve
- Posts: 152
- Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 4:35 pm
- Location: East Midlands
I've found, in my 6 days of ownership, that lowering the driver's seat a tad more than "feels right" makes a difference.
2017 1.2 Pulsar Tekna
2017 1.2 Micra Acenta
2017 1.2 Micra Acenta
I did a test drive in the 1.6 turbo, hunted out a couple of speed bumps for real world driving. This car comes with 18" alloys as standard I believe. The suspension is lowered and stiffer and I realised I couldn't live with this car. In the end I bought the 1.5 Tekna with the 18" wheels. Ride was still quite hard, but the speed bumps (same test circuit) were more doable, if you know what I mean.
I plan to change the tyres once these have worn out, going for say, 225/50. Will be harder to kerb the alloys, and also give a more supple ride. Might be worth trying this?
I plan to change the tyres once these have worn out, going for say, 225/50. Will be harder to kerb the alloys, and also give a more supple ride. Might be worth trying this?
I never keep a car long enough to wear out the tyres, or have an MoT, so changing the tyres is not a real option for me.
Nissan don't state in their advertising that the I.6 Tekna is more of an ST/GT version, than the mid size family hatch that the Pulsar is marketed as.
Since I moved over to Nissan in 2006, having bought five new Nissans since then, I had until now, only good things to say about Nissan. The Pulsar Tekna Dig-T 190 (1.6) has been an expensive disappointment, so it is now likely that the next new car will see me move away from Nissan.
Ford, and Peugeot are up front, and honest with their Focus and 308 models. With Ford it's the ST models for those that want the sporty appeal of the hard ride, and the GT models with Peugeot.
Nissan should have labelled the Dig-T 190 accordingly, so that customers know what they are buying.
As I said earlier, the dealership only had the 1.2 Tekna as their demo model, and don't remember it being a hard ride when I drove it. All I noticed was its lack lustre performance, and hence ordering the 1.6 variant. The dealer never said that it would be a very different ride in terms of comfort.
If you want sporty handling, and a lively engine, then the 1.6 Pulsar Tekna, will not disappoint, but if you want comfort and performance combined, then don't buy the Dig-T 190 Pulsar.
Great for the 'boy racers', but not the family man.
BTW, my son has the 2.5L, 300 bhp Focus RS, which is for the real 'petrol head', as opposed to the 'boy racer', and is like riding on solid tyres, but it is his enthusiasts toy, that does less than 3000 miles per year. His family car is a comfortable 1.6 DCI Qashqai Tekna.
Nissan don't state in their advertising that the I.6 Tekna is more of an ST/GT version, than the mid size family hatch that the Pulsar is marketed as.
Since I moved over to Nissan in 2006, having bought five new Nissans since then, I had until now, only good things to say about Nissan. The Pulsar Tekna Dig-T 190 (1.6) has been an expensive disappointment, so it is now likely that the next new car will see me move away from Nissan.
Ford, and Peugeot are up front, and honest with their Focus and 308 models. With Ford it's the ST models for those that want the sporty appeal of the hard ride, and the GT models with Peugeot.
Nissan should have labelled the Dig-T 190 accordingly, so that customers know what they are buying.
As I said earlier, the dealership only had the 1.2 Tekna as their demo model, and don't remember it being a hard ride when I drove it. All I noticed was its lack lustre performance, and hence ordering the 1.6 variant. The dealer never said that it would be a very different ride in terms of comfort.
If you want sporty handling, and a lively engine, then the 1.6 Pulsar Tekna, will not disappoint, but if you want comfort and performance combined, then don't buy the Dig-T 190 Pulsar.
Great for the 'boy racers', but not the family man.
BTW, my son has the 2.5L, 300 bhp Focus RS, which is for the real 'petrol head', as opposed to the 'boy racer', and is like riding on solid tyres, but it is his enthusiasts toy, that does less than 3000 miles per year. His family car is a comfortable 1.6 DCI Qashqai Tekna.
-
Metalmickey
- Posts: 167
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2016 8:55 pm
agree the ride can be firm, some people drop down to 17"wheels.
no issues with overall comfort and I came from 05reg mazda 6 where the suspension was great but the car underpowered.
loads of room in the 1.6, no problems with turbo noise and don't consider it a 'boy race' car, just nice to have that bit extra power when needed.
surprised you didn't test drive the 1.6 before buying.
suppose everyone has different perspective of what a car drives like depending on what driven before.
no issues with overall comfort and I came from 05reg mazda 6 where the suspension was great but the car underpowered.
loads of room in the 1.6, no problems with turbo noise and don't consider it a 'boy race' car, just nice to have that bit extra power when needed.
surprised you didn't test drive the 1.6 before buying.
suppose everyone has different perspective of what a car drives like depending on what driven before.
Overall comfort is fine, it's just not a comfortable ride, and you feel every blip, undulation, and bump in the road.
Something I have never experienced before in any of the cars I have owned over decades.
As I said the footage from my dash cam, shows just what a hard ride the car is, and I'm getting earache from the wife, about going from a comfortable car like the Qashqai, to one that shakes your dinner up and down (lol).
The dealership didn't, have a 1.6 Tekna as a demo, only the 1.2. With no information coming from either the dealer, the Nissan brochure, or website, to say that there was any difference in terms of the suspension between the 1.2 and 1.6 variants, I assumed that I was buying the same car, but with a more powerful engine.
I had the 1.2 demo out for a good hour's test drive, and apart from the lack of power, it was a nice drive, so I was happy to go ahead and order the 1.6 in the belief that the ride would be the same, but with more poke from the engine.
Buying a new set of wheels, and tyres, is most definitely not an option.
For me, buying the Pulsar 1.6 Tekna, was an expensive mistake, which I won't repeat. My X-Trails and Qashqais were superb in all respects.
Had the Pulsar been a comfortable ride, and without the annoying turbo whine/whistle, I would have been happy with the car.
I will speak to the dealership to see if the turbo noise is inherent, or can be sorted.
Something I have never experienced before in any of the cars I have owned over decades.
As I said the footage from my dash cam, shows just what a hard ride the car is, and I'm getting earache from the wife, about going from a comfortable car like the Qashqai, to one that shakes your dinner up and down (lol).
The dealership didn't, have a 1.6 Tekna as a demo, only the 1.2. With no information coming from either the dealer, the Nissan brochure, or website, to say that there was any difference in terms of the suspension between the 1.2 and 1.6 variants, I assumed that I was buying the same car, but with a more powerful engine.
I had the 1.2 demo out for a good hour's test drive, and apart from the lack of power, it was a nice drive, so I was happy to go ahead and order the 1.6 in the belief that the ride would be the same, but with more poke from the engine.
Buying a new set of wheels, and tyres, is most definitely not an option.
For me, buying the Pulsar 1.6 Tekna, was an expensive mistake, which I won't repeat. My X-Trails and Qashqais were superb in all respects.
Had the Pulsar been a comfortable ride, and without the annoying turbo whine/whistle, I would have been happy with the car.
I will speak to the dealership to see if the turbo noise is inherent, or can be sorted.
I have to say I have a lot of sympathy with Dave. Back in the olden days of the Primera, I test drove a different engine size to the one I was getting, and accepted that the performance wouldn't be the same. I did expect the ride, level of finish and comfort etc to be the same though. When I was looking at the possibility of getting a Pulsar, I saw a 1.6 advertised but didn't know, and there was nothing to indicate, that it was really totally different vehicle to the 1.2. The 1.6 is much more of a 'hot hatch' performance vehicle than the 1.2, with all the other changes which go along with that, not just a larger engine.
It would be very helpful to prospective buyers, if Nissan were to make this clear in their advertising, but they don't.
Even the dealership didn't appear to be aware of the suspension difference between the 1.2 and 1.6, or if they were, they weren't saying. All they said was that, as expected, it was a more powerful, and better performing engine in the 1.6.
If they had badged it as an ST or GTi version, which it clearly is, the customer would be aware of what he or she was buying. Instead, in their "wisdom", Nissan market the Pulsar range as a mid sized family hatch, with various engine options. I have had goodness knows how many 'family cars', and the 1.6 Pulsar Tekna is certainly not one of them.
Roomy, well appointed, and lively, but a real 'bone shaker'.
All my kids have 'flown the nest', but if I still had young children riding in the back of the car, I'm sure they would get quite travel sick on a lengthy journey.
Yes, I know that with hindsight, I should have travelled to find a dealership with a 1.6 Tekna demonstrator, but I had been buying my Nissans from my local dealer since 2006, and there was no advice, or anything to suggest the 1.6 Tekna, was any different to the 1.2, apart from the engine and wheel size.
As until now, a loyal Nissan customer who buys a new car every three years, I am very disappointed that they have chosen not to advertise the 1.6 Pulsar Tekna for what it is, a "hot hatch", with the updated suspension (hard ride) that goes with it.
Even the dealership didn't appear to be aware of the suspension difference between the 1.2 and 1.6, or if they were, they weren't saying. All they said was that, as expected, it was a more powerful, and better performing engine in the 1.6.
If they had badged it as an ST or GTi version, which it clearly is, the customer would be aware of what he or she was buying. Instead, in their "wisdom", Nissan market the Pulsar range as a mid sized family hatch, with various engine options. I have had goodness knows how many 'family cars', and the 1.6 Pulsar Tekna is certainly not one of them.
Roomy, well appointed, and lively, but a real 'bone shaker'.
All my kids have 'flown the nest', but if I still had young children riding in the back of the car, I'm sure they would get quite travel sick on a lengthy journey.
Yes, I know that with hindsight, I should have travelled to find a dealership with a 1.6 Tekna demonstrator, but I had been buying my Nissans from my local dealer since 2006, and there was no advice, or anything to suggest the 1.6 Tekna, was any different to the 1.2, apart from the engine and wheel size.
As until now, a loyal Nissan customer who buys a new car every three years, I am very disappointed that they have chosen not to advertise the 1.6 Pulsar Tekna for what it is, a "hot hatch", with the updated suspension (hard ride) that goes with it.
