Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Toyota Tacoma vs Nissan Frontier



  • bosawxbosawx Posts: 2
    I recently test drove the Taco (V6,6sp,4x4,Access Cab, TRD Off-Road) and the Front (V6,6sp,4x4,King Cab, Nismo Off-Road). I even parked them side-by-side, which made the salesmen laugh.

    This is what I thought (pro vs con):

    2005 Front
    Pros: sweet engine, regular gas, 4-disc brakes, 350Z gearbox, boxed frame, steel bed, 4 leaf springs, price$$$.
    Cons: bland interior, no rear leg room, departure angle for off-roading.

    2005 Taco
    Pros: good looks, sweet interior, rear leg room, 400W outlet, departure angle, headlights, payload, body height, front-seat ergonomics.
    Cons: engine ticks on driver side, premium gas, 3 leaf springs, plastic bed, clunky shifting to reverse, price$$$.

    Both trucks are worthy vehichles. The Front has a better frame, engine, brakes, and gearbox. The Taco has better looks, interior, and seats. Since the engine and frame make the truck, the Front has the mechanical advantage.

    I will wait until the 2006 models come out before I lay my money down. Nissan and especially Toyota need some time to iron out the problems.
  • boarhogboarhog Posts: 7
    SS580, you are correct, however disk brakes are superior for several reasons:

    1. They cool much more quickly due to their open design.
    2. They are much less susceptible to dirt and crud getting into them (especially good for off roading).
    3.They have fewer moving parts.

    Drum brakes are fine, but I prefer disk brakes. Toyota makes fine trucks too, for the money, I think I got more value with the Nissan.

    Do a search on the Internet comparing the braking system.
    Scott M
  • centralcalcentralcal Posts: 215
    I think you hit the nail on the head. Perfect analysis IMHO.
  • dreasdaddreasdad Posts: 276
    I read the owners manaul on the Tacoma and it says that only reg unleaded is required not premium, who is telling people that super is required? 87 octane is listed as the required
  • coveredicoveredi Posts: 20
    Well, in the Tacoma info I got from Toyota, it specifically calls for Premium, but only in the X-Runner and Double Cab configurations. It's the same engine (V-6) as the other body styles, so why they ask for this is beyond me.

    I made my truck choice based upon driving both, and finding that while they were both great trucks, one of them was considerable less expensive for the options I wanted...
  • dreasdaddreasdad Posts: 276
    but does it say required or recommended? my doctor recommends that I only eat low fat foods but I run fine on french fries and burritoes
  • centralcalcentralcal Posts: 215
    But, how long can you keep at you peak perfomance on fries and burritoes? Eventually it wears on your engine and your perfomance may suffer:)
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 8,391
    They run on 87. But, I read several posts on the the '05 Tacoma forum where owners experienced pinging on 87 and higher octane helped. It may be dependent upon the driving style of the owner as to which octane is preferred and how the engine performs on that octane overall.
  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    As long as you are not climbing Mt. Everest, regular unld should be just fine. Higher octane is needed for the higher elevations, though -- read it in my manual.
  • coveredicoveredi Posts: 20
    The literature I have from the dealer (The big red '05 Tacoma brochure) lists "Required Fuel"

    Regular Unleaded for Reg Cab 4x2, Prerunner and 4x4.

    Regular Unleaded for Access Cab 4x2, Prerunner and 4x4

    Premium Unleaded for Access Cab X-runner, Double Cab Prerunner and 4x4, both short and long bed.

    Like I said, it makes no sense, since the Access Cab 4x2, Prerunner and 4x4 all have the same V-6 as the others.
  • coveredicoveredi Posts: 20
    Higher octane for higher elevations? I assumed you used lower octane at higher elevations. Where I live (Around St. Louis, approx 500 ft above sea level) minimum octane rating is 87. When I've gone out west, where the elevation is about 2000 to 6000 ft above sea level, the minimum octane level starts dropping to 85.5.

    I always thought that the elevation and the octane rating was linked in this way, but if the manual says otherwise, now I'm really confused!
  • Yeah, that quote from the manual has me scratching my head, too.

    I live at 7350' altitude and buy most of my gasoline at about 1500' to 2000' lower. What the gas stations label Regular here is 85 octane; Midgrade is 87; and Premium is 89 to 91 (varies).

    The widely-cited excuse, errr I mean reason, given for these lowered octane numbers is that lower atmospheric pressure means our 85 is equivalent to 87 at sea level, in terms of preventing knocking/pinging.

    However, my experience with multiple vehicles over 17+ years of living here is that I get better gas mileage using 87 octane instead of 85. And no knocking.

    Perhaps the Tacoma manual is trying to CYA Toyota's @ss by spec'ing higher octane for higher elevations (i.e., make everybody stick to at least 87 octane to avoid knocking/pinging problems). I notice that the higher octane is only for the heavier Double Cab models. If it has to do with the extra 200 lbs of weight (or whatever), then that would mean hauling cargo or towing in the other models would also require the higher octane gas.

    Do the Double Cab models come with taller axle ratios (lower numbers) than the Regular or Access Cabs?

    Or it could simply be a mistake in the manual.
  • I looked in the big red Tacoma brochure.

    X-Runner axle is 3.13 but Double Cab long and short beds have 3.73.

    I wonder if Toyota assumes that the DC trucks will carry 4 to 5 adults in them; more weight to haul (compared with other cabs)---->more strain on engine, so specify Premium gas. ?????????
  • tgrossotgrosso Posts: 4
    I just checked the Toyota Web Site. It calls for regular gas. But for optimum "performance", use premium. Was also at the dealer yesterday. They have a sticker on the dash,"87".
  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    My sincerest apologies guys. My previous comment was only a joke that was referenced to a previous comment made by a certain member back towards the beginning of this topic. Sorry for the confusion -- no such thing is said in my manual. I must be more careful.
  • centralcalcentralcal Posts: 215
    I thought it was funny, but also you started an interesting discussion all the same. I wonder what would happen if it rained way up there on Everest:)
  • saddaddysaddaddy Posts: 566
    only tacoma drivers would actually be able to tell you.
  • leob1leob1 Posts: 153
    That comment was hilarious, but its true.
Sign In or Register to comment.