Top Safety Pick

2018 Nissan Altima

midsize car / 4-door sedan

Award applies only to vehicles with specific headlights

2018 Nissan Altima 4-door sedan
2017 Nissan Altima shown

Crashworthiness

Rating overview
Small overlap front: driver-side
Small overlap front: passenger-side
Moderate overlap front
Side
Roof strength
Head restraints & seats

Crash avoidance & mitigation

Headlights (varies by trim/option)
Front crash prevention
Standard system
Superior

Child seat anchors

LATCH ease of use

Other available safety features

  • Optional daytime running lights
  • Optional blind spot detection

Key

  • G
    Good
  • A
    Acceptable
  • M
    Marginal
  • P
    Poor
  • Superior
  • Advanced
  • Basic

Some ratings use a scale of Poor to Good. Others range from Basic to Superior.

Small overlap front: driver-side

Rating applies to 2016-18 models

Tested vehicle: 2016 Nissan Altima 2.5 S 4-door
The Nissan Altima was redesigned for the 2013 model year. Beginning with 2016 models, the front-end structure was strengthened and the junction of the door sill, hinge pillar, and footwell was reinforced to improve occupant protection in small overlap frontal crashes.

Overall evaluation
Structure and safety cage
Injury measures
Head/neck
Chest
Hip/thigh
Lower leg/foot
Restraints and dummy kinematics

Action shot taken during the driver-side small overlap frontal crash test.

The dummy's position in relation to the door frame, steering wheel, and instrument panel after the crash test indicates that the driver's survival space was maintained well.

The driver's space was maintained well, and risk of injuries to the dummy's legs and feet was low.

The frontal and side curtain airbags worked well together to keep the head from coming close to any stiff structure or outside objects that could cause injury.

Small overlap front: passenger-side

Rating applies to 2016-18 models

Tested vehicle: 2017 Nissan Altima 2.5 S 4-door
The Nissan Altima was redesigned for the 2013 model year. Beginning with 2016 models, the front-end structure was strengthened and the junction of the door sill, hinge pillar, and footwell was reinforced to improve occupant protection in small overlap frontal crashes.

Overall evaluation
Structure and safety cage
Passenger injury measures
Head/neck
Chest
Hip/thigh
Lower leg/foot
Passenger restraints and dummy kinematics
Driver injury measures
Head/neck
Chest
Hip/thigh
Lower leg/foot
Driver restraints and dummy kinematics

Action shot taken during the passenger-side small overlap frontal crash test.

The dummy's position in relation to the door frame and dashboard after the crash test indicates that the passenger’s survival space was maintained well.

Forces on the right lower leg were high enough to indicate a significant risk of injury.

The frontal and side curtain airbags worked well together to keep the passenger dummy’s head from coming close to any stiff structure or outside objects that could cause injury.

Moderate overlap front

Rating applies to 2013-18 models

Tested vehicle: 2013 Nissan Altima 2.5 S 4-door

The Nissan Altima was redesigned for the 2013 model year. Two moderate overlap frontal tests of the Altima were conducted, one by the Institute and the other by Nissan as part of frontal crash test verification. Ratings are based on both tests, but the vehicle specifications shown below are based on the Institute’s test.

Overall evaluation
Structure and safety cage
Injury measures
Head/neck
Chest
Leg/foot, left
Leg/foot, right
Restraints and dummy kinematics

Action shot taken during the Institute's moderate overlap frontal crash test.

The dummy's position in relation to the steering wheel and instrument panel after the crash test indicates that the driver's survival space was maintained well (Institute test car shown).

Dummy movement was well controlled. During rebound, the dummy's head hit only the head restraint in each test, as indicated by smeared greasepaint in the Institute's test.

Intrusion into the driver's space was minimal in both tests, and all leg and foot injury measures were low.

Side

Rating applies to 2013-18 models

Tested vehicle: 2013 Nissan Altima 2.5 SV 4-door with standard front and rear head curtain airbags and standard front seat-mounted torso airbags

The Nissan Altima was redesigned for the 2013 model year. Side ratings are assigned by the Institute based on a test conducted by Nissan as part of side crash test verification.

Overall evaluation
Structure and safety cage
Driver injury measures
Head/neck
Torso
Pelvis/leg
Head protection
Rear passenger injury measures
Head/neck
Torso
Pelvis/leg
Head protection

Roof strength

Rating applies to 2013-18 models

Tested vehicle: 2013 Nissan Altima 2.5 S 4-door

Overall evaluation
Curb weight 3,115 lbs
Peak force 16,485 lbs
Strength-to-weight ratio 5.29

Head restraints & seats

Rating applies to 2013-18 models

Seat type: Power cloth seats

Overall evaluation
Dynamic rating
Seat/head restraint geometry

Front crash prevention

System details

  • Standard Forward Emergency Braking

Applies to 2018 models

Overall evaluation

  • This system meets the requirements for forward collision warning.
  • In the 12 mph IIHS test, this vehicle avoided a collision.
  • In the 25 mph IIHS test, impact speed was reduced by 10 mph.
Superior
Superior

How front crash prevention is evaluated

Headlights

Ratings are given for 2 different headlight variations available on this vehicle.

Trim level(s)

  • 2.5 SR trim equipped with LED appearance package
  • 2.5 SL trim equipped with Technology package
  • 3.5 SR trim
  • 3.5 SL trim
  • SR Midnight Edition trim
Low-beam headlight type LED projector
High-beam headlight type Halogen reflector
Curve-adaptive? No
High-beam assist? No
Overall rating

Low beams
On the straightaway, visibility was good on the right side of the road and fair on the left side. On curves, visibility was good on the gradual right curve, fair on the sharp right and sharp left curves, and inadequate on the gradual left curve.

The low beams created some glare.

High beams
On the straightaway, visibility was good on the right side of the road and inadequate on the left side. On curves, visibility was fair on both right curves and inadequate on both left curves.

Trim level(s)

  • 2.5 trim
  • 2.5S trim
  • 2.5 SR trim
  • 2.5 SV trim
  • 2.5 SL trim
Low-beam headlight type Halogen projector
High-beam headlight type Halogen reflector
Curve-adaptive? No
High-beam assist? No
Overall rating

Low beams
On the straightaway, visibility was fair on the right side of the road and inadequate on the left side. On curves, visibility was inadequate in all 4 tests.

The low beams never exceeded glare limits.

High beams
On the straightaway, visibility was fair on the right side of the road and inadequate on the left side. On curves, visibility was inadequate in all 4 tests.

How headlights are evaluated

Child seat anchors

Applies to 2016-18 models

Overall evaluation
Vehicle trim S
Seat type cloth

This vehicle has 2 rear seating positions with complete child seat attachment (LATCH) hardware.

It has 1 additional seating position with a tether anchor only.

1 2 3
G Good
A Acceptable
M Marginal
P Poor
Seating positions that rely on borrowed lower anchors or have only a tether anchor available are not rated.
thether anchor symbol
Tether anchor
lower anchor symbol
Lower anchors
shared lower achors symbol
Lower anchor(s) can be borrowed from adjacent positions(s)
No hardware available

Details by seating position

1
Tether anchor
easy-to-find location
no other hardware could be confused for anchor
Lower anchors
too deep in seat
too much force needed to attach
easy to maneuver around anchors
2
Tether anchor
easy-to-find location
no other hardware could be confused for anchor
Lower anchors
none available
3
Tether anchor
easy-to-find location
no other hardware could be confused for anchor
Lower anchors
too deep in seat
not too much force needed to attach
easy to maneuver around anchors

Applies to 2016-18 models

Overall evaluation
Vehicle trim SL
Seat type leather

This vehicle has 2 rear seating positions with complete child seat attachment (LATCH) hardware.

It has 1 additional seating position with a tether anchor only.

1 2 3
G Good
A Acceptable
M Marginal
P Poor
Seating positions that rely on borrowed lower anchors or have only a tether anchor available are not rated.
thether anchor symbol
Tether anchor
lower anchor symbol
Lower anchors
shared lower achors symbol
Lower anchor(s) can be borrowed from adjacent positions(s)
No hardware available

Details by seating position

1
Tether anchor
easy-to-find location
no other hardware could be confused for anchor
Lower anchors
too deep in seat
not too much force needed to attach
easy to maneuver around anchors
2
Tether anchor
easy-to-find location
no other hardware could be confused for anchor
Lower anchors
none available
3
Tether anchor
easy-to-find location
no other hardware could be confused for anchor
Lower anchors
too deep in seat
not too much force needed to attach
easy to maneuver around anchors

How child seat anchors are evaluated