Nissan Frontier Crew Cab VS Ford Explorer Sport Trac

cygnusx1 · April 2000

you posted the following figures about yor CC

>I was going to give you some figures that I did >on my C.C. today. No load, 1 person, 3/4 tank of
>fuel, flat road. 60 mph....3300 > 65 mph....3500 rpm
70 mph....3700 rpm
>These were all with the O/D on with it
>off you can add 1000 rpms to those numbers.

Dude, sounds to me like you're revving awfully high. I periodically check my KC auto 4x4 and at 60 I'm dead on at 2500. At 70 I'm maybe
at 2800. Also, this has been discussed a lot
on a few Frontier boards and most everbody (KC and CC owners say their RPM's are at about
what I posted. Your numbers look pretty high
to me. I don't think at any speed I've ever even
reached 3000 rpms. I'd check that out.

mahimahi · April 2000

cygnusx1,

You're right those numbers are high, I corrected myself last night. Sorry, I was in a hurry to leave work those numbers are with the O/D off. they should be a 1000 less with the O/D on. Again, sorry.

scape2 · April 2000

Tons of questions, putdowns and name calling going on in here and expecially towards me!
First, the 3.5 is brand new this year and ONLY avialable in the Pathfinder. The was to compete against the V8 engines offered by Ford and Dodge.
The 3.3 is a joke as much as you want to justify its puny 170HP and 200ft/lbs of torque its a joke in the compact truck market. Why do you think Nissan is putting a supercharger on it????? And to say the 3.3 has more punch than the new 4.0 SOHC shows me how stupid some folks are.
The Toyota Tacoma has 220 ft/lbs of torque too and is rated at 5K lbs. But so is the Sport Trac!
These trucks may be rated at 5K but how well will they PULL it up a 7% grade?? Torque matters and plays a huge role in how well a truck will PULL a load. Now quit trying to scatter the facts. FAct is the 3.3 offers 200ft/lbs of torque and 170HP, FAct is the 4.0 offers 160HP and 225ft/lbs of torque, fact is the 3.0 offers 152HP and 192ft/lbs of torque. FAct is the 4.0 offers 205HP and 240ft/lbs of torque. FAct are facts and live with them, Sorry all of you bought the least powerful top of the line V6 available in the compact truck market, now live with it.
As far as real world experience, I own a Ford Ranger XLT 4x4 4.0 5spd 3.73 offroad, towpkg, loaded stepside supercab and tow quite often. This is my second Ranger. I live in Oregon and visit the Cascade Ranger quite often also and know plenty about offroading. I also have pics to prove it if you want those too!

cncman · April 2000

VInce why should everyone compare their engine to yours considering the smallest percentages of rangers have the 4.0l engine in it? What does it matter how much money you can spend to get an extra 25ft/lbs of torque if hardly anyone is buying it? the most numerous engine in a ranger is the 4cylinder the most numerous V6 is the 3.0l. If there is such a small difference in the cost between the 3.0l and the 4.0l why doesn't Ford just make the 4.0l the only V6 in the ranger for the masses instead of putting the weakest V6 out there as standard? BTW we really have been missing you in the ranger/frontier debate, what are you scared of?

keanec · April 2000

You just don't get it! You keep saying the 3.3l is a lousy engine yet you print FActs that say it produces better HP & Torque per litre than your Ford 4.0 Here it is in your words!

"FAct is the 4.0 offers 160HP and 225ft/lbs of
torque,"

Now we know the 3.3 litre Nissan has 170HP - 10 HP more, and we know the Nissan has 200 ftlbs of torque - 25 less than the Ford. the Ford is .7 of a litre bigger than the 3.3 Nissan - That is 21.2% bigger. BUT THE HP IS 6% less and the torque is ONLY 12.5% more!!

Now I am assuming you don't have the SOHC 4.0 litre because you didn't mention it. You actually think these numbers show the Nissan 3.3l is a joke?? Does anyone else in this discussion thinks so? I don't! If the 4.0l Ford engine was to match the output then it should be rated at least at 206 HP and 243 ftlbs - it isn't - but wait, aren't those numbers close to the vaunted SOHC Ford 4.0?

So, when Ford puts their new engine (remember the ST is a 2001) in the Ranger, Nissan is adding HP and Torque to its engine for the 2001 model year; which makes it have the most powerful engine in its class.

Vince8, if you don't see these numbers then I give up. Your mind is closed.

fordsporttrac · April 2000

Here is what the ST Owners Manual says.

Max GCWR 4354kg or 9600lbs
Trailer Weight Range 0-2313kg or 0-5100lbs
Max Frontal Area of Trailer 4.64m sq or 50ft sq

Engine
245 Cubic Inches
Compression 9.7:1

From the Dealer Letter Dated 8-23-99,
(The Dam thing conflicts with itself)

Page 5 Says
HP
203 HP @ 5000 RPM
Torque
238 Ft Lbs @ 3000 RPM

Page 8 Says
HP
206 HP @ 5000 RPM
Torque
238 Ft Lbs @ 4000 RPM

Brochure Says
HP
205 HP @ 5000
Torque
240 Ft Lbs @ 4000 RPM

Some Additional Text from the Letter some may be interested in;

To minimize lost production, Job #1 for these vehicles has been pulled ahead from the
original date of January 31, 2000. However, production will ramp up slowly in December
and January, so product availability will be limited in the 1 st quarter of 2000. By Federal
law, shipment of 2001 model year vehicles can begin no earlier than January 2, 2000.

Please note sample ordering specifications and the recommended model mix is detailed on the Marketing and Sales Strategy Page of each Ordering Guide. Remember, taking the time to carefully plan your vehicle orders early can give you a big advantage in successfully launching the new model year.

2001 Explorer Sport
"Sporty, Fun, Confident"
Marketing and Sales Strategy Summary*

Product Positioning
The Explorer Sport is a sporty, adventurous SUV that puts you in control. Its bold, athletic styling reflects an active lifestyle and a personality that is youthful and confident. It looks cool, is fun to drive, and has a great reputation for durability and reliability.

Brand Promise
The Explorer Sport provides the freedom to go anywhere and do anything with confidence and a youthful spirit of adventure.

OVERVIEW
The Explorer family grows and changes for the 2001 model year, with the addition of the all-new Explorer Sport Trac. The Explorer Sport Trac combines the comfort and convenience of an SUV with the added utility of a flexible open cargo area for "one vehicle does it all" versatility. Its rugged, athletic styling is shared with the new 2-door Explorer Sport for 2001. The 2001 Sport Trac also feature a redesigned interior with unique design cues and materials. With these all-new products in the Explorer family for 2001, Explorer is more rugged, versatile, and confident than ever. The Explorer Sport Trac delivers RUGGED VERSATILITY and ADVENTURE like no other vehicle.

keanec · April 2000

Doesn't mention anything about being like a truck at all. They are probably trying todownplay that because of the size of the box and they don't want to take away Ranger buyers. I wonder if Ford is going to put four doors in the Ranger?

keanec · April 2000

So what happen to your CC yesterday?

It doesn't look like Ford can figure out what its specs are if you look at FordST's post. All we safely are going to know is it has approx. 205 hp and 238 ft/lbs at between 3000-4000 rpm.

gooba · April 2000

vince,I can see you are still true to form and you have not disappointed me.Let us see if you are able to put your thoughts together better than the grade school caliber posts you have managed so far.
You state that the 3.3L is a joke.What do you base this statement on?You can't be so ignorant that you would base it on hp/torque numbers alone,could you?
The next part of your rambling about towing and hp/torque numbers must mean that the higher the hp/torque numbers the better the vehicle is.The best vehicle is one with the highest hp/torque numbers and towing capacity.I ask you,what does it mean?Alot of us did not buy in this class to get a tow vehicle,only you would be the one to try and make your vehicle tow something it was not designed to.
I got a news flash for you vince owning 2 Rangers and towing quite often gives you NO EXPERIENCE or CREDIBILITY in this discussion.It shows me that you are only able to tow with under powered vehicles and have not experienced the wide variety of vehicles that are available.As far as off road the hp/torque numbers mean nothing.If you believe they do then you are as ignorant as you make yourself out to be,and your lack of off road experience shows.
Your Ranger is eqipped with a WEAK do you understand WEAK suspension.Unless you do something to beef your suspension your wheels WILL hop.That is FACT.You need to live with the fact that your Ranger is a POOR excuse for an off road vehicle unless you BAND AID it.Your off road experience should tell you that one major key to off road performance is the suspension.Nissan has a good off road package stock,Ford leaves alot to be desired. After owning 2 Rangers hopefully you are intelligent enough to insure that you have someone there to pull you out or at least have a Hi-lift jack to get you out.

gooba · April 2000

fordsporttrac that was some good information you posted.I found it informative.I think that at this point in our discussions about these vehicles we should be past the importance of the engine spec numbers comparison.The Ford has a higher hp/torque rating then the Nissan.We should all agree to that.What we need to do is carry the discussion where we started to go. comparison of the 2 vehicles in other aspects and how they perform.We have a unique opportunity to get into a true comparison of these 2 vehicles from people who own them and put them through their paces everyday.This is where we will find the merits or shortcomings on these vehicles,not from somebody who rates them and has no vested interest in the vehicle.We,the owners are the best people to discuss this.
So,we started on tow capacity of these vehicles.Disregarding the engine because I think that has been hashed enough (number wise) what do you consider important characteristics for the vehicle to have to tow something where you feel safe towing it?Why?

mahimahi · April 2000

Vince8,

You are one sad, sad case. I've been noticing that you pull these numbers and phrases out of various articles or writings and are littering the different topics. My favorite part about you is after you post something and somebody responds or challenges you to support your post, you run or disappear to another topic for awhile. But I guess that's because you probably don't have any real experience. If you don't like the name calling or Heat, then PROVE yourself on ANY of the various topics. Stop throwing little jabs, leaving the discussion and come back to throw some more jabs. Finish what you started. I think you just need to end your whole opinion on towing you're not on the same level as the rest of us.

fordsporttrac,

Thanks for the info. I've been trying to pull that off of Ford's "owner connection" website, but I was having trouble pulling it up. Wonder why there is a difference between pg.5 and pg.8?
I noticed that Ford is marketing it as a SUV(even though we all know that it is), I wondered why they decided to do the 4-door/bed explorer instead of the 4-door ranger? I guess it smart because they get to get a jump into that market first rather than compete right away. I also think that being a SUV it would be able to fetch
a higher price tag(retail). Just some thoughts.

keanec,

Yeah I agree with you on the S/T numbers. I picked up my C.C. today at 6pm. The service manager told me that they recharged my battery and everything was fine. They did that first thing this morning and kept it all day to see if there were any electrical problems but there weren't. It drove home fine. So who knows. I'm just glad I got it back, I look for excuses to leave work just so I can drive it!

gooba,

I think you hit the nail on the head!

mahimahi · April 2000

Gooba,

I liked the towing aspect better in a pickup(not necessarily the power). I seriously considered the S/T...I still can't take my eyes off of one when I see it. But, I like all of these little 4-door trucks. Now I know that I probably tow more than you guys and I'm very picky about about my vehicles and how they perform. I tow about 100 miles round trip sometimes three times a month. The pickup design seems to handle the cross-winds, heavier tongue weight(which is common among single axle trailers) and usually having a longer wheelbase(I know the C.C. is shorter)helps. Now my input here is not out of a book, but rather towing experiences with different vehicles. I wanted to let you guys know that I never said that a SUV could't tow or that it wasn't designed to tow but rather the pickup is a better design for towing. Most of my customers pickup(get it, hehehe)their new boats in a SUV! I didn't need a full-size and quite frankly my C.C. tows my demo just as good as our silverado work truck with respects to swaying, bed sag(which is minimal on either truck) and ramp pulling.

cncman · April 2000

Well even if some folks don't see the CC and Sport trac as competitors, Nissan thinks so and will be sending me soon a publication on how they stack up and the strengths/weakneses of each, I would be happy to share when I get it, I still would reallylike to drive one, I keep calling my friend at the Ford dealer, but they are still waiting for more to come in.

gooba · April 2000

I am glad to see the last few posts.This is why I enjoyed this board.
cncman,I would be quite interested in seeing the contents of the publication.It will add a different aspect to our discussion.
mahimahi,I agree with what you are saying.I think that when you consider a vehicle to purchase you look at what you will ask that vehicle to do each day and what you would ask the vehicle to do in the extreme.The answers you apply to these different situations will determine your ultimate vehicle selection.I believe that if your requirements changed where you needed to tow something heavier and more often over longer distances through hilly terrain and time was a factor,the CC would probably not be the vehicle of choice.
When I look at a vehicle with the aspect of towing,I look at a few things to compare with others.The wheel base of the vehicle to begin with.mahimahi I agree that the wheel base will help give you a stable tow platform.I look at vehicle weight.The heavier the vehicle the more weight you can tow.That way you don't have the trailer whipping you around.I look at the rear differential and rear suspension.How does the differential stand up to the extra stress I amy call on it and how much will the rear suspension give.The transmission is probably the weakest link in the whole package.How does it stand up to the extra weight,if it is an auto,is the cooler big enough and do I have room for a bigger cooler?The manual transmission's weak part is the clutch.What is the clutch diameter and is the clutch design a borg and beck or a diaphram design.I also look at the brakes.The type and size of the brakes.forsporttrac does yours have rear drum or rear discs?
These are just things I consider when I look at a vehicle.I know there are others but I just wanted to get this started.

scape2 · April 2000

OK, one more time. The 3.3 is the weakest top of the line V6 offered in the Frontier. I understand the engine displacement issue. But it seems you don't want to understand mine. This is Nissans newest and best engine that can be had in a Frontier. When comparing top of the line V6 engines, Nissan falls flat on its face. Toyota 3.4 is 190HP/220ft/lbs of torque, Chevy 4.3 is 190HP/245ft/lbs of torque, Ford 4.0 is 160HP/225ft/lbs of torque (Soon to arrive 4.0 SOHC has 205HP and 240ft/lbs of torque). The 3.5 will not be available in the Frontier. The Supercharger for the Nissan 3.3 will only be available with certain models. And WITH the supercharger HP and Torque numbers will be close to the Ford 4.0 SOHC. Why can't Nissan get the HP/Torque out of the 3.3 WITHOUT the supercharger??? Its a bandaid thats why.
Just live with your underpowered, high tech joke!!
As far as my experience with trucks.
It is obvious to me that all of you know absolutely nothing about HP/Torque curves. Along with how Torque is used and very beneficial in offroading and pulling, towing a vehicle or load.
As far as suspensions, Please tell me how the Ranger suspension is weak? Please link me to the site showing this. Be a bit more specific.
Usually when folks resort to name calling it means they are wrong and don't want to admit it.
As far as not being over in the Frontier vs Ranger room, I have a life other than Edmunds. I will pop back believe me.
The rivets are ugly too on the new 2001 Nissan. Wrong move on Nissans part. As far as a comparison of how the Sport Trac compares to the Nissan CC from Nissan, Hmmmm.... can we say bias?

scoot99 · April 2000

Fordsporttrac, You are welcome for the link I gave you on the other message board. Well anyway, If you noticed what I JUST noticed, is that the first page or so is for the new 2001 Ford Explorer Sport, not the Sport Trac, this is why the numbers could be different. Also, the rest of the newsletter is on the Sport Trac. For everyone else to take a look at it I suggest you look at this site here is my post from the other message board.

>Okay, a while back i remembered seeing an adobe
>acrobat file that published all of the info on >the sport trac that the dealers got, well doing a
>search for the money factor on the sport trac
>(which by the way if anyone knows would help!!!) >I found the site again!!! here is a link to the >whole info that the dealers got on the sport >trac!
>
>http://www.immelmotors.com/pdf/Exp_SportTrac.pdf
>
>the site i got the link from is:
>
>http://www.immelmotors.com/sporttrac.htm
>
>then go down to the specs link

keanec · April 2000

Is it just me or is Vince8 on drugs?? He keeps going on about how Ford's biggest engine is the 4.0l with 160 hp. then he says HP is important for off road/towing. BUT, the Puny 3.3l Nissan has 170 hp does it not? Is the SOHC Ford available now in a Ranger? If not, it looks like Ford, not Nissan is pulling up last place. Chevy and Toyota have the highest HP.

Now Mr. Outdoors with the Ranger, post some of those torque/HP curves you have been bragging you know all about. Tell the rest of us exactly what HP is used for and what Torque is used for in your words. Then we will all be enlightned to Vince-ism. Then ask your self why Nissan isn't worried about putting a bigger engine in the Frontier. It is probably because many Frontier drivers are happy with the power from the 3.3. I am; is anyone else?

By the way, I assume the reason why the supercharger is only going to be availabe in some models is because Nissan will be targeting the Off-road truck guys; guys who like to play in the mud! It probably isn't for guys like me who use the vehicle as a light tow machine and family car.

cygnusx1 · April 2000

I'm happy as a clam with the 3.3. I and I just unloaded 4.3 S-10 a while ago so I was used to the bigger engine. I really so no diff other than "off the line" quickness - which is not really ncessary in a pick-up anyway.

I really don't think the supercharger will do jack except in extreme off road cases. For the off-roading I do I sure don't need it.

scoot99 · April 2000

I am sorry fordsporttrac, I just reread the file, I was very wrong about the hp numbers being different between the two, sorry for that. The only thing I think I was right on was that page 2, was for the Sport, and the HP ratings are 204.

fordsporttrac · April 2000

gooba,

you asked;
>what do you consider important characteristics
>for the vehicle to have to tow something where
>you feel safe towing it?Why?

Thing that concerns me the most is quick stops and how much my trailer (without brakes) pushes the vehicle. I hope the long wheel base on the ST helps.

Second most important is towing long distances through mountains. With my old 4Runner I would be lucky if I could hold 60MPH on the up hill runs. I will not be making my long run with my ST till june.

I need to wait for some better weather and do some towing with the ST before I make futher comments.

gooba · April 2000

OK vince,let's try this again.The engine numbers are not relevant to the discussion.That is the only comparison you are apparently able to use.For those of us who purchased the Nissan the engine is adequate for what we want to use the truck for.
Your statement about living with the underpowered high tech joke is based on what?What makes this engine a joke and what do you base your statementon.It can't be the numbers alone,could it?
Your statement below:
It is obvious to me that all of you know
absolutely nothing about HP/Torque curves. Along
with how Torque is used and very beneficial in
offroading and pulling, towing a vehicle or load.

Where were you in the earlier discussions?I am still waiting for your answer on the torque curve on the Ford in comparison to the Nissan.The curves are numbers on a graph,a measurement.Did you ever consider that maybe there are some people who do not need to pull a load or haul a load and do it with alot of speed.So,what if you can pull the load faster or haul it faster,I will get there in my own time.The off road part your misconception on the subject again shines thru.The application of hp/torque in the off road area is minimal.That will not get you where you want to go.It will only let you go faster.Gearing,suspension and traction matter.Most off roading is done at lower speeds and in lower gears,the torque/hp difference will not show up at these speeds unless you want to throw rooster tails.

vince you stated:
As far as suspensions, Please tell me how the
Ranger suspension is weak? Please link me to the
site showing this. Be a bit more specific.
I guess your lack of reading and comprehension skills show through.For you I will say it again.The suspension in your Ranger is designed for ride comfort on the highway.The suspension works great on the highway empty,but to achieve the good ride they had to put a weak spring and shock package in the vehicle.In off road applications the same spring and shock package is a detriment to the vehicles off road capabilities.When you apply your "hp/torque" and the rear wheels spin and try to get traction the suspension loads and releases which is wheel hop.When this happens you leave little puffs in your tracks that those of us with off road suspensions curse because it rattles our vehicles.Your Ranger with the off road package is still not able to compete with the Nissan.That you will need to live with or sink a bunch of money into it to make it half comparable to the Nissan.
As far as name calling,I never called you any names.I made some critical observations based on your posts.It is apparent to me that you have no background to be a credible,knowledgeable contributor to our discussion.You are stuck on numbers and have offered nothing to the discussion that shows you know anything about the areas we are discussing.Your posts glaringly show your lack of knowledge and experience about what we are talking about,and your posts show your lack of people skills.You have YET in ANY boards offered anything that contributed to any discussion that you decided to make your presence known.And, you know,it is kind of sad.

fordsporttrac · April 2000

scoot99,

you said,
>fordsporttrac, You are welcome for the link I >gave you on the other message board.

I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding your post. You published something in a public forum. Sorry if you feel I was trying to take credit for your post. I can't track every post to every thread. I simply said;

>From the Dealer Letter Dated 8-23-99,

I thought the letter I downloaded was from an earlier post from this thread. So to correct my previous post.... I should have said;

From the Dealer Letter (that scoot99 posted in the 2001 Ford Explorer Sport Trac thread) Dated 8-23-99,

cncman · April 2000

Vince, glad to see you are a little fired up my friend, but no need to get emotional, this is just a debate on vehicles, not life and death. Of course the publication by Nissan is biased, DUH! but there is no such thing as an unbiased opinion, whether it comes from Nissan, Ford, Edmunds consumer reports or you or me. But the facts will remain the same, which will give us an empirical, logical basis for an intelligent debate, something we have yet to see you participate in.

I do have some more info to add to the remarks about the ranger weak suspension, though Gooba did very well. The frontier has 1.4" wider front track width and 2" wider rear than the ranger. Independant double wishbone torsion bar front suspension is superior to the short/long arm coil spring ranger front suspension for a better ride and handling, the torsion bar is only available on ranger 4x4's. The frontier has a load sensitive braking valve for better braking with a load, nothing similar available on the ranger. The frame of course has alot to do with suspension and what we are talking about, the frontier has a variable thickness welded ladder frame with full length box sectioned frame rails, the ranger has partial box sectioned frame rails that stop at the front of the cab and c sectioned for the remainder. A truck, of course needs a strong frame, also the more solid the frame, the more rigidity, and less NVH you have. The ranger also has its rear leaf springs mounted to offset brackets, where the frontier's are attatched in line with the frame transmitting cargo weight directly to the springs instead of the brackets. This is one of the reasons why the payload for the 4cylinder frontier is 1400lbs, more than any 4cylinder or V6 ranger which is 1260lbs. (of course you can buy additional packages for $$$ to match the frontier) Well, just a few tidbits to maybe get us started on a more rational debate, and I will admit, I don't if all of these things are the same for the sport trac as the ranger, hopefully they made some improvements, but from what I understand, it is the same frame/suspension.

fordsporttrac · April 2000

Some basic information about towing.

http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/goss/goss1716.html

fordsporttrac · April 2000

Motor Week Review

http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt1909a.html

fordsporttrac · April 2000

Some independant reviews. Not real helpful but interesting.

ST Review
http://www.usatoday.com/money/consumer/autos/mareview/mauto518.htm

CC Review
http://www.usatoday.com/money/consumer/autos/mareview/mauto482.htm

mahimahi · April 2000

Ok, I since I screwed up my post with the numbers I posted earlier I did it again, same load same bridge(flat) but this time with a 1/4 tank of gas.
Here they are: 60mph......2200rpm
65mph......2400rpm
70mph......2600rpm
75mph......2800rpm
80mph......3000rpm

This time I wrote it down and I'm not in a hurry to post it. Again guys sorry about that. Anyway this weekend I'm going to Miami and I'm going to test the 'tailgate down' theory. With my other two trucks I actually got a little worse mpg. with the tailgate down. It's funny this truck is really starting to loosen up, I can tell a difference. I've got 4300 miles on it and I bought it March 6th. I'm getting about 17.5 mpg with mid-grade fuel. I'll switch to premium fuel next tank because the temp. here is reaching about 85F. This weekend will be the first road trip for my C.C. So I'll check the mpg on my way back with the tailgate up for a fair comparison to my city mpg.
It's funny because the last truck I had was the SS S-10 with the 195hp Vortec, that truck would outright haul-[non-permissible content removed](it sucked off-road though...hehe) My point here is the last I was used to alot of power. So when I first got this truck I noticed that it seemed very torquey(if that's word)but not fast in the responsive sense...but now I've noticed(of course not overnight)how this little truck it getting very responsive, so far I am very, very happy with the 3.3L.

fordsporttrac,

I was wondering if you've had a chance to get some speed specs on your sport trac. I'd like to see the differences I think it would interresting.

I am also interrested in the numbers that the rest of you are getting with your vehicles, if you have any. I think my next test will be the fuel economy while towing...that's kind of an oxymoron right?

fordsporttrac · April 2000

From the following link,
http://www.usatoday.com/money/consumer/autos/mareview/mauto513.htm

Sport Trac is a sport-utility first, a pickup second, opposite the trend. Nissan's Frontier Crew Cab and Dodge's Dakota Quad Cab are unapologetically pickups first, plainer and cruder than Sport Trac.
--------------------------

Yuck, According to the industry we're called SUTs
sport utility trucks :-(

See
http://www.usatoday.com/money/consumer/autos/mauto602.htm
--------------------------
And for the person who asked why Ford used the Explorer instead of the Ranger for the ST model here is what USA Today says;

"Ford originally looked at SportTrac as a (version of) Ranger (compact pickup), but saw that it could get more profits as an Explorer."

Ohh well Its always profits. :-(
--------------------------

Here is what USA Today says about the Frontier's 3.3 V-6. Sorry CC Owners its USA Todays Words Not Mine;

The V-6 injects much-needed power. It's smooth in most light-duty circumstances. Sadly, the V-6 remains underpowered in demanding driving.

A long afternoon wandering home to Virginia from Manhattan in a preproduction '99 Frontier began nicely. The truck moved smoothly and easily across Midtown to the West Side Highway and out through the Holland Tunnel. The elevated perch that comes with four-wheel drive was perfect for seeing around ubiquitous New York cabs. The V-6 was snappy enough for frantic-tourist lane changes.

But on the hills of New Jersey and, especially, the climbs of Pennsylvania, Frontier's automatic transmission shifted clear down to second gear to keep up with traffic. The engine, not especially
sweet-sounding for starters, roared unpalatably as the truck seemed to struggle up even mild grades. That's a surprise because the V-6 is tuned to provide much of its power at engine speeds typical of high-gear highway cruising.

Sure, it's a pickup and not a luxury car. But drive a Ford Ranger V-6 with five-speed automatic or a Chevrolet S10 with high-output 4.3-liter V-6 and you quickly see how gutsy a compact pickup can
be.
--------------------------

fordsporttrac · April 2000

mahimahi,

you asked;
>I was wondering if you've had a chance to get >some speed specs on your sport trac. I'd like to >see the differences I think it would
>interresting.

Funny you should ask. Just talked my way out of a speeding ticket trying to get the numbers. Actually I was talking on the phone and not watching my speed. I haven't gotten use to how the truck feels at higher speeds yet so I didn't realize I was speeding when I passed the radar.

Anyway, I'll get the numbers tonight on a faster moving hwy. :-)

fordsporttrac · April 2000

Sorry for the WOB but I thought this was funny.

From the following. http://www.usatoday.com/money/consumer/autos/mauto623.htm

Ok now Fords making bullet proof SUTs
Ford Equator SUT, A bigger badder CC/ST,

The suspension is designed to move much
farther up and down on bumps, like an off-road racing truck, to swallow huge holes and hills without tossing the passengers like a dinner salad. And the lower body panels are Kevlar, which is literally bulletproof and virtually
indestructible at the hands of other invasive items. Door bottoms are high, for fording streams without flooding the interior.

fordsporttrac · April 2000

More Independant reviews.
---------------------------
For the CC the following is from;
http://www.citizenstandard.com/extramile/99xm/xm1025.htm

The EPA numbers are quite good, with 15 city and 19 highway the average from Frontier's 19.4-gallon fuel tank. In the future, we hope Nissan adds more ponies to the V-6, closing the gap on the more
powerful GM and Ford engines.

The Identical report is also on;
http://www.autowire.net/1999-64.html
---------------------------

Just basic review stuff but here are the links.

For the ST
http://www.motortrend.com/april00/ford_sporttrac/ford_sporttrac_f.html

For the CC
http://www.motortrend.com//oct99/frontier/1.html

gooba · April 2000

Fordsporttrac,I found the links quite interesting.I am not so worried about the USA Today article.It is true.All it means to me is that you will be at the top sooner than me and can have a cold soda waiting.I want to enjoy the scenery especially after seeing all of this desert.

fordsporttrac · April 2000

These stats are from the TEC Data Pages of the motortrend links. The * indicates the better stat.

Acceleration 0 - 60 MPH

CC - 9.2 Sec
ST - 8.5 Sec*

Standing Quater Mile.

CC - 17.2 Sec @ 78.7 MPH
ST - 16.6 Sec @ 83.0 MPH*

Braking 60 - 0 MPH

CC - 129 Feet
ST - 121 Feet*

Fuel Economy Hwy/cty

CC - 16/19
ST - 16/20*

Speed through 600 ft Slalom, MPH

CC - 58.4 MPH*
ST - 54.8 MPH

fordsporttrac · April 2000

gooba,

If you take too long I'm gona drink all that cold soda.

fordsporttrac · April 2000

mahimahi,

I think I last raised you a pinched hand trying to adjust the drivers seat with the door closed. According to USA Today you can raise me back a
knee-whacking handbrake. ;-)

gooba · April 2000

Fordsporttrac,if you drink all the soda,I will make sure I take long enough for the soda to run it's course and you could star in funniest videos

mahimahi · April 2000

Nice info, I enjoyed reading the articles. I sense a little skepticism in the author's writings about the new breed of 4-door trucks. Maybe he didn't know haw the public was going to accept them. anyway the articles were informative. I'm glad you didn't get a ticket, the officer probably just stopped you to get a closer look at your Sport-Trac

. I was going to make a comment here but I think I will just keep it to myself. Anyway, it was me that was wondering why they used the Explorer platform first in post# 332...I guess I was right about the price, that's ok it just means that it will be worth more if you sell it or trade it in, right?

I don't know about the hill thing because as you guys know I live in Florida. The closest thing we have to hills are overpasses or bridges. But I think I will go over the Skyway Bridge on my way to Miami this weekend just to see how it does, I know this bridge gives my father's 1999 4.0L Cherokee problems. I can't wait to challenge the bridge by towing across it, just to see how my truck does...I should have done that in my test drive,huh? I hope it does ok. I'll cross my fingers, 'cause this bridge isn't kind to those that tow across it, it's pretty steep.

Yes, yes the famous Japanese pickup truck parking brake. With this truck I haven't had any problems but that's because I used to own a Toyota 4x4, which I used to wack my knee on, so I was prepared for this one. I will say that I was surprised to see that they are still using this style. I don't really care for it but I'm used to it. It gives my girlfriend problems when I pull it out too hard(the brake...get your minds out of the gutter). I can see where those that haven't had this kind of brake could hate it though.

But I would like to raise you my dry cleaning bill(mostly my fault for not paying attention), from sliding my pantlegs against the step bars when I get out of the truck...hehehe.

gooba · April 2000

mahimahi,good luck on your trip.I know that a few of us will be waiting for news on how the trip went.You know,your comment about the parking brake brought something to mind.You see,I never noticed it.It was just something that I did not pay attention to.I grew up with that style in the CJ2A Jeeps I started with and my 84 Nissan had the same brake.I find it harder to leave it on.I mean in comparison with the traditional pedal that you would not see normally.it is kind of hard to ignore that rod pulled back and hitting you when you get in and settle in.So,maybe it is a good thing.

mahimahi · April 2000

gooba,

Thanks, I'll take notes on my trip for you guys(my girlfriend will think I'm crazy, but she doesn't understand..hehehe).

I was looking at the brake(handle) last night after I posted my response and again on my way to work this morning. It's nowhere near my my knee, but I also noticed that I almost have the seat all the way back(I'm 6'1")so this puts my knee further back. I don't know just some thoughts. Now my Toyota on the other hand, was a real knee-bruiser

. Gooba, you're right it is hard to leave it on.

scape2 · April 2000

Cncman, spoken like a true salesman. You however don't mention the amount of $$ needed to boost the Ranger to a payload of 1,540lbs! I will though, its a $75 package available and it is package 20T for the RAnger. The price advantage of the Nissan has also gone bye, bye. I proved this to you in previous posts by giving you both dealership names and prices.
As far as suspension the Ranger does come with front torsion bars/springs along with a rear stablizer bar on its 4x4's where it would be used most. Along with a front skidplate now! Do Nissan 4x4's come with ABS standard?
I don't know much about the bed makeup, I will have to dig a bit more on this one. Cncman does have the advantage of having information readily available, he is after all a salesman.
If we want to debat the Ranger vs Frontier lets move to the Ranger vs Frontier room.

mahimahi · April 2000

Vince8,

Yes the frontier comes with ABS. Wonder where you were headed with that. Don't tell me though, your point is diffused.

cncman · April 2000

Vince, what does that mean anyway, "spoken like a true salesman" THe facts are the facts, live with them, Ford makes you pay extra to get close to the performance of the Nissan, no matter if it is $75 or $750, you still have to pay for it. No you did not prove that the price advantage is gone, all you proved is that people in your area are willing to pay more for a Nissan than a Ford, so how does that help you? And why is it you imply what I am saying here can't be trusted because I am a salesman, but you offer ad prices which everyone knows there is always a catch to from a dealership and all of the sudden it is gospel? Are you saying a torsion bar does not help with a 4x2? I am glad to see ford finally catching up again with putting skidplates on the ranger, but you still can't get them on the 4x2. And yes VInce actually 4 wheel ABS with a Gsensor is standard on 4x4's and all V6 frontiers, desert runners, crew cab 4x2 or 4x4's.
Vince you don't have to look up the information on the construction, just look under your truck! This started because SOMEONE wanted proof that the frontier had a better suspension, why ask for proof if you are going to complain when it is posted? This was to compare the ST suspension to the CC suspension, which I am glad to see from one of the reviews posted before, Ford made some mods to the ST suspension to compensate for the weakness, but it still seems like the suspension scared them a bit. I would be happy to go over this more in the frontier/ranger board, if you would ever show up!

fordsporttrac · April 2000

One thing I did notice about the USA Today articles is he didn't pull any punches on either vehicle. He pointed out good and bad about both. And although he didn't sound convinced about the style, his observations were accurate on the ST except for the cup holder comment. There is NO hinged, flip over, cup holder in my ST.

How were his observations on the CC?

gooba · April 2000

Yeah,I would have to agree with you about the reviews.I think the review was fair but maybe not as critical as others I read on the CC.I have to disagree with the review on the aesthetics of the tubular roof rack and running boards.I think it is a waste of good metal.The roof rack is only rated to carry up to 125lbs,andI read that they are noisy.I think it detracts from the lines of the vehicle.

foos57 · May 2000

I test drove the ST, the frontier CC and the Dodge Quadcab this last weekend. The ST had the flip over cup holder and the frontier handling was very heavy feeling. My 87 Suburban has a lighter touch on the steering than the frontier CC. Thoroughly enjoyed the ST ride.

fordsporttrac · May 2000

foos57,

Did the ST you drove have the center console with the soft sided bag? Mine has fixed console and my cup holders do not flip. Except the rear seat cup holder flips down.

Do you know did the ST you tested have the payload package?

fordsporttrac · May 2000

Anyone else getting Slooow performance from Edmunds lately?

mahimahi · May 2000

foos57,
Heavy feeling? Maybe a stiffer touch but I wouldn't consider it a heavy feel. I like the stiffer feel of the steering,, it's kind of sporty.

fordsporttrac,
I'm getting slow performance too. I couldn't log on earlier.

danny25 · May 2000

I went to look at the Sport Tracs the other day and noticed that flip over cup holder. It was on the ones with that removable bag. I don't see the point for that flip over cup holder. If you flip it upside down you only have one cup holder, if you just leave it up you'll have two.

fordsporttrac · May 2000

Jezz its even slower today. It took 3 or 4 minutes just to paint the topics list.

I still haven't gotten the RPM stats. I can only talk my way out of so many tickets so I need to wait till I get on a fast moving Hwy.

Nissan Frontier Crew Cab VS Ford Explorer Sport Trac

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles