Nissan Truck

rayp8893

I've been checking out the Frontier and I have concerns about the quality. The truck bed looks like it was fashioned from scrap left over from the rest of the truck. Why couldn't they just use one solid piece like the others (Ford, Dodge)? Is this supposed to make it stronger? I'm afraid the welded seems will start rusting out in a few years.

The seats seem really hard and the carpeting looks cheap. Forget about the console, it barely holds a few CD's.

Is this an improvement over previous versions, or is it just a bad year?

cncman

road;
what I can share with you is my experience and the others here, I can't think of one problem reported
with the frontiers, I own one and have had it since july, almost 8,000 miles on it now, 0 problems. I also sell nissans and have sold many
frontiers, the only problem I have seen is with the check engine light coming on, most of the time this was due to the customer either filling up while the truck was running or not tightening the gas cap all the way when done, the other times, it was a bad sensor and took about 15 minutes to replace. Also the frontier won the award for highest initial quality from JD power, this means
it was the most problem free truck in it's class.
Sorry you had so much trouble with your nissan before, but it is not typical of the nissan trucks.

ray;
the ford/dodge truck beds are not made of one solid piece, they are bolted together, bolts work loose after time, you can see this when you take an older truck and hit a bump pretty hard going 30-40 mph, it rattles. welds are stronger than bolts, also you don't have bolts sticking out that
might catch something and tear bags or scratch cargo. There is no worry about the seams rusting out, it is more likely that the holes where the bolts are will start to rust. I have heard other folks say that the seats are too hard, I don;t notice it myself, but it does feel firm to me, which I feel gives me more support than a plush
seat with alot of give. I was concerned about seat
comfort last month when I made a 1400 mile trip in my frontier, but I was alot more comfortable than I expected, very little fatigue. I think the frontier is a big improvement, I have never been a truck person, and now I own one, the frontier is what made the decision for me, it is comfortable,
dependable, powerful, versatile and I like the looks of my platinum frontier with the tinted windows. Nissan managed to make the frontier bigger, more powerful, more comfortable, better looking with nicer equipment and kept the price close to the price of the last generation, I would say this is an improvement.

tc14374

I've got two changes coming in my life one being a new baby and the other is needing a new truck. I know the tacoma has a special provision for a child seat to be placed in the rear what about the Nissan will the child seat work in the back. Any info would be much appreciated.

scape2

After truck shopping, I found the Frontier to be much less refined inside as the Ranger/Tacoma and even the S-10. It is small in comparison. The back jumpseats are cramped. Plastics were cheap, seats were very uncomfortable. The price is right though. As for the Ranger bed being bolted together? Not mine, I don't know where you got this info. I test drove them all several times in different package levels. I believe Nissan took a step backwards on this one.

cncman

tc;
could you be more specific please about the child seat question? So far as the tacoma overall, it is the only one that compares with the nissan so far as quality, it would be my second choice. The only thing is that you pay more for a smaller truck with less equipment if you buy the tacoma.

Vince;
I apologize if I missed the newer rangers not having any bolts sticking out in the bed, I do recall bolts in the previous pre-98 models before they "improved" the rangers looks. So far as the
question some have raised about the seat comfort,
I guess it comes down to what you are used to, like I mentioned before, I found the seats very comfortable and supportive on a 1400 mile trip, I was actually impressed that I wasn't more sore and tired than I was. I am used to the Japanese feel
in vehicles, where everything is located etc. If I took a long trip in a ranger or S-10, I wouldn't
feel comfortable at all, I find the seats unsupportive, and I tend to shift my weight too much when cornering in them. So far as the rangers
and S-10' I have been in, I actually find THEM smaller than the frontier! I guess maybe our preferrences can cloud our vision though, but I found the dash on the s-10 intrusive and the rear
console cupholder arrangement in the ranger took up too much room, but I don't think anyone will enjoy riding in the back of any of these trucks!
I do know the frontier has a wider cab inside and more headroom, so I guess you can say that they are all comparable in size. Statements like "cheap and uncomfortable" are a matter of opinion, but if you are used to the domestics way of doing things,
I see how you can form this opinion. What makes the frontier the best overall truck for me is the fact that it does everything you need a compact truck to do better than the rest, a more powerful
4cylinder engine, 143hp vs 119 and 120 in the ranger and s-10, more towing capacity, 3500lbs vs
1300lbs in the ranger a bigger, deeper more versatile bed in the frontier and more standard payload to boot. All of this and a superior build quality, longer warranty and better ride and handling make it the winner in my book, and it still costs less. If you just need a grocery getter and maybe want a little extra flash, and prefer the way domestics handle and feel, then I can see how the ranger or s-10 would be the right choice for you, but if you actually use your truck
for what trucks were made for and want comfort, low maintenace and better quality, then the frontier is the right one for you. Considering all
of this I don't see how anyone can make the statement that nissan took a step back with the frontier, the hardbodies were fantastic, tough little trucks, nissan just made it better and didn't give up anything in return.

tc14374

cnc,
In the rear of a Tacoma it designed for a person to sit facing forward where as all other compact ext. cab truck rear passengers sit facing sideways. I was wondering how a child car seat would work in the Frontier or any other compact truck with the same seating arrangement. I've driven both the Tacoma and Frontier and I have been pretty impressed with both of them however the Frontier is much less expensive.

stanford

The original discussion was about bed construction, not bed attachment. The Ford products do have bolts (from the Ranger to the SD) attaching the bed to the frame, but the overall bed construction is seamless.

As for bolts being weaker than welds -- most of the evidence is against you there I'm afraid. Welded beds are more prone to disengaging from the rails (still damned unlikely) but then again they won't scratch your cargo like the bolts will. For most people, its a moot issue.

cncman

hey tc, I think you just put the child seat in facing sideways, or of course, if it is just one adult and the child seat you can turn off the airbag and have it up front.

stanford,
I agree, now that I think of it, both construction methods probably will last just as long, but I do like not having to worry about bolts tearing anything, I am too cheap to buy a bedliner!

hmergler

I don't believe it is safe to set a child seat up sideways. I think the you are supposed to put child seats in the front in compact pickups...

- The Merg

cncman

hmergler;
not sure about sideways or not, maybe you could elaborate, I don't see any difference, but then again I don't have kids!

cncman

Hey everyone, I realized I never mentioned the accident I was in with my frontier a couple of weeks ago, I was waiting for oncoming traffic to pass when I was trying to turn left, I was stopped
when I heard the awful sound of tires squealing, a kid driving an older toyota truck rearended me, I barely felt it and was wondering if he really hit me at all, we drove over to a parking lot and when
I got out, I started to worry, I saw the front end of his truck and the left headlight area was caved in and the fender was bowed out, I held my breath
and looked at my frontier, I was relieved when I just saw some glass laying on my bumper, and had to look close to see the damage. his nose dove down and hit the right corner of my bumper, it dented the bottom a little bit and pushed the bumper against the side of the truck scraping about a half inch of paint off of the side. It will cost about $500 to get a new bumper and paint the side. But considering the amount of damage to his truck, I was very pleased with the way the frontier did.

rayp8893

I'm glad to hear there are no problems with a welded bed. I like the Platinum Frontier, too. Any preference on the XE with the black fender flares vs the SE with the painted flares. I'm a little practical myself and feel that the black (unpainted) flares and lower bumper will hold up better than the painted ones on the SE.

cncman

hey ray, mine are black, it's a 98, I was actually considering getting my bumper and fender flares painted because I think it really improves the looks, but I do agree with you, I think the painted ones might start showing chips from rocks over time, and these are probably the most likely impact points for road debris, I am not sure, but maybe the ones from the factory are impregnated plastic instead of painted, maybe then they would
hold up better.

hmergler

In reagrds to your question about child safety seats being sideways...

If you place the child safety seat sideways, like in a side facing rear seat, and you are in an accident, the child will be thrusted from the left to the right (or vice versa). From what I've read and heard this is not a situation that you would not want to happen.

I do have my own questions regarding this idea though. If it is more dangerous for a child to be sitting sideways (in a safety seat) when a car is in a front or rear accident, wouldn't they be safer in a broadside accident similar to why a child is safe sitting frontwards? By this theory, the child is not that safe when in a broadside accident while sitting frontwards.

Just my 2c.

- The Merg

cncman

good point merg, I think I read somewhere that you
are more likely to get t-boned than head on anyway
I do believe, however, that you can fit in the child seat facing forward if you move the front seat up more, but then again I don't know if this would be a safe idea either.

hmergler

I don't think you can secure the safety seat correctly if you face it forwards on a side-facing seat. (Figure that one out.)

- The Merg

tc14374

Last Saturday I bought Nissan Frontier SE 4x4 king cab v6 in platinum gold. I actualy picked the truck up last night as the dealer had to go elsewhere to pick up the truck. So far I have only driven the truck home and then back and forth to work today. What can I say besides I love it. It looks great and drives great. The build quality seems to be excellent. I shopped around for weeks and drove numerous trucks to compare. The Nissan is superb and I beat the Tacoma in price by over a thousand bucks and got numerous extras that weren't included with the Tacoma, such as ABS, shift on the fly 4x4, CD, keyless entry, sunroof, bedliner, nerf bars, and fog lamps. Not knocking Toyota, my wife has a Camry that we have been thrilled with but what can I say I am ecstatic about my Frontier.

P.S. we just got a fresh snowfall, can't wait to try out the truck.

cncman

merg, admittedly, I have not fastened many car seats, but looking at my frontier, I think it can be done securely, I just don't know if it would be correct or safe, as there always seems to be some chance of screwing something up even when you do it the right way. BTW, where is the guy that started us rambling on this anyway? Did he buy something yet?

94mx5

Seems to me that an infant car seat should be secured only in a front facing seat. And the car seat should never face sideways. Always front or rear, depending on age and/or size. I don't have children, so I must admit I'm not 100% positive, just what I hear from friends with kids, or from the newsmedia.
Anyway, back to trucks...Maybe you can answer this cncman, or anybody else...Does Nissan have any plans for a full size pickup like the Tundra? We currently own a 97 KC. Like I said, no kids at the moment, but we'd like to start a family in a year or two. i like the utility of a pickup but will need more room in the cab. The new crew cab should solve the indoor space problem, but I wonder if the shortened bed (4 1/2 ft.?) will be to small. A full size pickup would handle both problems.
With Toyota giving it another go, I wondered if Nissan would give it a try also. I know they (Nissan) have several new products coming in the next few years. With the truck market growing, I think Nissan could make a splash here (or at least a dent).

Vic

tc14374

cnc,
yeah I bought something, the Frontier,post#322.

scape2

cncman - you better check your torque ratings for the 2.5, 3.0, 4.0 Ranger before claiming the Frontier to be a more "powerful" truck. The 3.0 Ranger has 192ftlbs of torque vs the 200 on the Frontier V6, the 4.0 Ranger has 225ftlbs at 165hp. The 3.0 Ranger bests the Fontier V6 in 0 60 times. The tow package Ford offers bests the Frontier. You also better read what Edmunds had to say, Motor Trend and Offroad had to say. Cheap plastic, hard seats. Yes, the Frontier is a good price. But at what cost? Frontier better than Ranger, no way.

cncman

Vince, why insist on reading what you want to instead of what I wrote? I said "a more powerful
4 cylinder engine, 143hp vs 119 & 120 in the ranger and s-10" These are numbers, how can you say that it is not true? So far as the v-6' go,
yes you can spend thousands of dollars more to buy the largest v-6 and the expensive towing packages
on the ranger, but by that logic, I could go buy a
cummins TD to put in my frontier and beat the ranger again! If you look at what comes with the truck without shelling out major $$$, the frontier
still wins! even the four cylinder in the frontier
has a higher standard towing capacity and payload than the v-6 rangers! Every point I made earlier
is 100% correct, not opinion, not open to interpretation, but the facts, it seems like the only think you ford guys can complain about is the
dash and the seats, well, surprise, edmunds here
was not too fond of the ranger's looks either.
The people like myself that actually own frontiers, have few if any complaints, the seats in my frontier are very comfortable, I just took a long trip in it and I felt fine, I don't have a problem with the dash, it is laid out right with everything right where I need it, frontier beats ranger? yes in every way!

scape2

cncman - ok, you like your truck I like mine. But, in a truck you look for Torque not Horsepower. Yes the Frontier is less than the Ranger, yes, its standard tow is more. The tow package on the Ranger did not cost that much more to even that category out. The way my Ranger XLT king cab sits now with its 4.0, tow package, off road package it will outperform, your Frontier V6. It has more torque, 25 ftlbs more. The V6 Frontier offers is not that great. Check the facts man. You do however still have the price advantage I agree. I paid about $1800 more for my Ranger loaded than for a comparable Frontier. I use my truck in the Mountains and Deserts of Oregon. It has performed flawlessly. I have already gone up against a friends Tacoma it was even except for his price was about 2K higher than mine. I wish I knew someone with a Frontier V6. By the way why does the Ranger outsell Frontier almost 4 to 1?

cncman

hey Vince;
I did happen to read what motor trend's truck trend had to say about the v-6 frontier, they
liked it better than the ranger's engine, "more refined" they said, and also went on to praise the frontier in comfort, handling, they even praised the dash you complain about. Yes you can pay for more torque in the v-6 ranger, and I do agree with you that torque is important in a truck, that is why I like the fact that the nissan v-6 uses 90% of its torque at 1500rpm, and the full 200ft/lbs at 2800 rpm instead of the 3000 rpm for the ranger. maybe you could check it out for us Vince, but I think you may find the frontier quicker 0-30 than the ranger, based on the torque curve, but I am not sure, just a guess, I am having trouble finding the data for either. Another thing that should enter, (I am sure you will agree) into a decision is operating costs. If you look at intellichoice
which rates vehicles on cost of ownership, the Nissan came out as the best overall value, not the
ranger, it costs less to own in most if not all catagories, insurance, maintenance, repairs, resale value, etc. so not only does the ranger cost more up front, but you lose more money the
longer you keep it. I think you said it best though Vince, I like my truck you like yours,
and that is fine, I am not saying that the Nissan is the perfect truck for anyone, and neither is the ranger, I actually do like a few things about the ranger, if I were interested in the automatic, I would like the 5spd auto, and I like the extra doors, the engines are primitive, but fairly stout, but that just shows you what the japanese
can do, (after all, ford couldn't get their own compact truck right, they needed mazda to do it for them), it does amaze me though, vince, for such a die hard ford fan, why you would drive a
mazda. SO far as your question about more rangers being sold than frontiers, what does that really
mean? I am not sure, but I know it does not necessarily mean it is the best out there, (ford taurus), and I can't see why ranger buyers don't actually buy the mazda b series, you do get a longer warranty and lower price for the same truck. So if you are asking me why someone would buy a more expensive truck that does less, has an
inferior quality, and costs more to own, I am afraid I don't have an answer for you.

scape2

cncman - we can go on and on about this. Ford makes the B-series, its a rebadged Ranger. The 3.0 and 4.0 V6 are Ford not Mazada. Ford just about owns Mazda. Nissan is also going down the tubes. Noone is buying them, why? Nissan needs bailing out my friend. Hope they are still around in the next 5 years. Torque is torque, I have more. Also, at 3000 RPM I am putting out 225ftlbs of torque vs your 200. 0-60 I am quicker. Your interior is terrible, I have heard this from many people. Just had a friend at work pick a Toyota over the Nissan. The plastics quality of the New Frontier is substandard and flimsy. I just went down last night and looked again at the top of the line Frontier. All one color, nice. I just can't understand how you can say the Rangers interior is inferior? Even my side mirrors are more stout. Nissan cut corners to bring the price down, thats the fact jack, and it shows. If the Frontier is such a great truck, better truck why don't I see more of them on the road?

cncman

Man Vince, I just looked back and saw we were the only ones in here for awhile! I do enjoy debating with you though, and I hope the info we put here
helps you others making a decision one way or another. I know it may look like Vince and I would kill each other if we met, but it's just part of being a truck enthusiast and believing in what you
own so there are no hard feelings either way here.
Now, back to the fun!
You are right for once Vince, we can go round and round here. I think it may be a mistake to compare
v-6 4x4 trucks here as most folks buy the four cylinders, except for maybe the ranger, its four banger can't get out of its own way. In this catagory, the frontier wins hands down, better acceleration, more torque, does more work, better warranty and costs less with more standard features. If you do want to continue on the v-6
4x4 lines though, lets look at 4x4 performance,
and utility. Yes, the larger more expensive 4l
ranger six has a whopping 20-25 ft/lbs more torque
(this is the torque range I have seen published out there) at a higher RPM, I concede, but I still
think that the frontier's superior low end torque
makes a difference,yes the 0-60 times for the ranger with the optional 4l engine are quicker by
about .8-1.4 seconds, (again a published range)
but did you ever find the 0-30 figures, I will try
to find those later if you haven't, also the frontier is a heavier, sturdier truck too, this accounts for some of the difference, BTW how does
the 3.3l Nissan engine compare to the 3.0 ford?
Other advantages with the Nissan v-6 4x4 include;
9.3" ground clearance vs 7.4" on ranger, standard
4 wheel ABS, optional on ranger, independant double wishbone front suspension VS ranger's short/long arm front suspension. This is why the frontier 4x4 has a better ride on and off road than the ranger. Full length welded box sectioned
frame rails on the frontier give it a stronger back bone, build quality is better in the Nissan,
that's why the ranger rattles like a diamond back off road, (edmunds review). So you can see, more advantages with the nissan here also. Again it seems like the only thing you can offer to debate
is your opinion about the interior, for every example you give me of someone not liking it, I can give you one for someone who does, all this really says is some like it, some don't. I don't see how you arrive to the conclusion that Nissan cut corners here from that. The frontier is a much improved truck over the great hardbody design, bigger, more powerful, more advanced engine, more standard and optional features, better rigidity,
quieter, more comfortable and so on and so on. I don't see how you can say nissan cut corners after
looking at the facts. OK so someone might not like the way the dash looks, If I told you I would pay you a couple thousand dollars up front and down the road and give you a better guarantee to live with the dash, I think you would get used to it.
So again if you whole argument is based on 20-25
more ft/lbs torque in the top of the line models
and having the opinion of not liking the dash, it seems pretty weak to me. So far as why you don't see as many frontiers on the road as you do rangers, the frontier body style has been around for only a year, When I drive to work, I see more
98-99 frontiers than I do 98-99 rangers, and if you include the hardbody trucks, you can hardly
spit and not hit one, Again, more sales does not
necessarily mean a better product. BTW what about the operating costs Vince? doesn't that mean anything to you?

cncman

sorry everyone, I will try to break up my posts
a little more in the future, I just saw how long mine was and I never could get over those comma splices.

scape2

cncman - good debate. The 2.5 Ranger has 146ft/lbs of torque vs the 154ft/lbs the Nissan Frontier has. An 8 ft/lb difference. The Ranger gets better MPG in its 4cyl form. Why didn't the Nissan Frontier make Edmunds top 20 Hottest trucks? The Ranger did? The Ranger has Independent front suspension for better handling. Ranger 0-60 in 8.3 secs, Frontier 0-60 in 11.2 secs. Roadholding Ranger is .76, Frontier .71. Ranger has more front leg room, seats 5, Frontier seats 4. Frontier basic warranty is 3y/36K, 5yr/unlimited for drivetrain only. Better look what that covers, not a whole lot. And another very important fact the Nissan now is more expensive than the Ranger. Ranger 19,375, Nissan 20,190. Took a non-scientific poll at work with 7 guys at work. They knew nothing of our debate. I asked to Rank the Ranger, Nissan as far as looks only. Six of seven liked the looks of the Ranger better. One said the Nissan looked cheap, and liked the old style better(me too). 2 said the frontend didn't have an aggressive truck look they liked. I know looks are all a personal taste, but 6 of 7 guys all having the same taste?

Lohengrin

A little disagreement is not a bad thing. I've found your little debate very interesting and informative. I've been shopping around for a new 4x4 truck and I've looked at both the Ranger and Frontier. This is my first vehicle, so I don't have any brand loyalties, though I do hail from a family of staunch Jeep owners (alas Comanche is dead). Anyway, here's my take. I found the Frontier more cramped than the Ranger. I know the literature says they both have the same amount of headroom, but I found the Ranger had a lot more. Seems to me the couple extra inches of ground clearance on the Frontier tranlate to exrta head room on the Ranger. I, too, found the Frontier's interior was rather cheap looking compared to the Ranger's. I really liked the Ranger's five speed auto, though in reality, the difference between the drive trains (V6 auto) was negligable to me, because I don't drive that hard. I liked the fact the Frontier had a bigger bed. Both trucks had their strengths and weaknesses, comparitively, but on the whole, I liked the Ranger better and that's probably what I'll end up buying.

cncman

Man, Vince, are we really this boring? well, maybe it will help others like lohengrin here. Good luck with your purchase lohengrin, if you feel the ranger is the best truck for you, then it probably is.

Vince, HMMM... I wonder why a 119 hp engine gets
1mpg better fuel economy than 143 hp. I think it's a good trade off. As to why the frontier didn't make that list, I dunno, especially when they said, "powerful v-6 engine, good ergonomics and spacious interior." And later "provides comfort, practical utility and finally plenty of power when the v-6 is ordered." And then recommended that the readers go check one out.

Yes the ranger does have independant front suspension, but I don't remember saying it had a live axle, The double wishbone independant suspension is superior to a short/long arm suspension.

So far as the 0-60 times, I have seen a wide range
from different sources on both trucks as I am sure you have, I wish there was only one guy that did these 0-60 tests, then they may be consistent. Most of the times I have seen, including here on edmunds, don't mention if it is a auto or stick, I think you may be comparing a stick ranger 0-60 time to an auto frontier 0-60, MT truck trend puts
an auto frontier 0-60 at 11.4 seconds, similar to the time you posted above.

In 98 the frontier only seated 4, 99's have a 60/40 front bench, with a belt for a middle passenger, therefore seating for five. So far as room, the only dimension the ranger's cab is larger than the frontier's is front leg room,
about 8/10ths of an inch, man, I don't know why I don't get cramps, frontier has more head room, hip room, shoulder room, and by more than 8/10ths of an inch,

I am not sure what you mean by not alot covered in
the 5/60 powertrain warranty, but let me look in my manual, ENGINE; cylinder heads and block and all internal parts, rocker covers and oil pan, valve train and front cover, timing chain and tensioner, oil pump, water pump and fuel pump, fuel injectors, intake and exhaust manifolds, flywheel, seals and gaskets, TRANSMISSION and TRANSAXLE; case and all internal parts, torque convertor and convertor housing, automatic transmission control module, transfer case and all internal parts, seals and gaskets, clutch cover and housing and electronic transmission controls.
I could go on to the drivetrain, including housing and internal parts and such, but I think everyone gets the idea, wow it sure took alot of space to mention something Vince calls not alot! So is my book wrong or does Vince think this is not alot?
5yr/60,000 miles on all of this sure beats 3/36.

Vince could you be specific about which trucks you are comparing, equipment wise and such. I think the Frontier is still lower priced. Also where you got that info?

I don't doubt your results in your test, just the method, I tell you what, find 7 more guys up at work, and don't even mention ranger or frontier,
just say, in a truck would you rather have;
119hp or 143 hp?
146ft/lbs or 154?
3 year warranty or 5 year warranty?
rough ride or comfortable ride?
mediocre build quality or the best?
less room or more?
1260 payload or 1400?
1380 towing capacity or 3500?
smaller bed or larger bed?
timing belt or chain?
SOHC engine or DOHC?
higher operating costs or lower?
wider turning radius or smaller?
More money or less money?
Try this one out and let me know how many chose the ranger. I think this demonstrates a good point, if you just look at the facts, there is no way anyone would choose the ranger over the frontier, but if the styling and dash offend you more than the compromises you have to make, including
thousands of dollars more and less work, then I can understand someone's decision, and that's their decision to make and more power to you, me, I happen to like the looks and the dash, and so I
bought the frontier, but mainly for the reasons I
mentioned above.

tc14374

I have had my Frontier one week today. I love it. I sure haven't found any of that flimsy plastic that some folks have found on the inside, the seats are comfortable and the room is fine too.{I'm 6'2"} I'll admit it's not the most powerful truck on the road but the adequate power that it does have is as smooth as silk. I believe that TruckTrend referred to the engine as being as smooth as most luxury cars. But I think that the one word that describes the Frontier best is value. I got alot of truck for my money!

skg

Good debate, folks. I too have been shopping for a new truck and have decided to wait for Nissan to bring out the V6 in the 2x4. I looked very seriously at the Ranger, but decided that the Frontier was a better buy FOR ME. A good friend of mine is a Mercury dealer, and picked up a 2x4 4.0L '98 supercab (love those extra doors) w/5 speed manual transmission. The front seats on the Ranger seem to be a bit narrower than those in the Frontier. The gearing of the Ranger is much lower than that of my 86.5 Hardbody (213,000 miles) (2k rpm = 60 mph, 3k rpm = 60 mph on the Ranger). As much as I like Ford products, I haven't had that kind of luck with a Ford engine.

My son bought his 1st new vehicle about 3 weeks ago - Platnum gold, King Cab, 5 spd, XE 2x4 Frontier (and he loves it). After driving it, I may have to rethink my demand for the V6. I'll just have to do a side-by-side comparision when they come out this summer. I'm still not totally convinced that the 4 cylinder will pull my Boy Scout Troop's trailer, and that is where my need lies.

snasir

For all those people considering purchasing a Frontier please read.

I have a 98 Frontier XE Kingcab with about 7000 miles on it. Its got power package, convenience package,appearance package, bedliner etc. The price I got it at last year was 16077. I thought I got a very good value until I had a need to sell this truck.

I tried to trade this truck in this weekend, and to my horror, the most I was offered was 9500. I have had it advertised in the paper for 12500 and have had no response.

The moral of my story is that if you want to buy a Frontier, you better want to keep it for the long run because there is no resale market for this truck.

lwf

snasir,

Please see post 17. I suspect that all this rhetoric about the possible high resale value of the Frontier is based on its predecessor, the so-called Hardbody which, in my opinion, was a fine vehicle and one that did seem to hold its value well. I know so because I had one, but one test drive in a Frontier convinced me I didn't want any part of this cheapened version of what had been, at one time, an excellent pickup. That's why I bought something else this time.

I certainly hope others will heed your warning.

scape2

cncman - read the postings! resale value not so good afterall? cheap interior too. Even other folks are saying this also. The Ranger handles better than the Frontier. The Frontier skidpad was .71, Ranger .76. Your turning radius is 39.0 compared to my 39.4? not too much different there. 4 tenths of an inch?? You'll need the warranty because of all the shortcuts Nissan took. I got my info From Edmunds and MSN.com. As far as suspension, I guess it is your opinion that independent is inferior, How come my handling numbers on the Ranger are better? acceleration numbers also? The V6 Nissan offers is not that great as far as performance. Once again, I have more torque 225 vs 200 at 3000 rpm in the Ranger. The Rangers wheelbase is larger also 125.7in compared to your 116.1in. I would guess this helps with stablity? Will Nissan be around for you in the next 3-5 years. They are 30billion in debt and are looking for help. If they are so good how did they pull this one off? They messed up cncman, the Frontier is ugly, cheap and is not selling very well. They should have smoothed out the "Hardbody" and improved it. There sales may have been better, I may have even bought one. The Frontier is more than the Ranger with its "new fantastic V6" (ha ha). Check MSN, and Edmunds. Should take the warning lwf gives, sell now! By the way, Toyota was 4 out of seven in choice over the Ranger for looks. Got to go to the Toyota room and do some debating.

scape2

skg - the 3.0 Ranger will pull your scouts troop trailer for about the same price as a 2.4 cyl Nissan. The 3.0 has 192ft/lbs of torque vs the 154ft/lbs the 2.4 offers. This is only 8ftlbs less than the "new, great V6" Nissan offers. It will also get you onto the freeway faster at 8.3 seconds vs the 11.3 the V6 Nissan will take. I know the 4.0 V6 Ford offers will obliterate the 3.3 Nissan offers in every aspect of performance. Test drive, you will see, the Ranger is better.

cncman

Snasir;
sorry you had dealerships try to steal your nice truck from you and you haven't any luck yet on your ad, but this one unfortunate experience can't
be shown to be the norm. A friend of mine had a 98
XE frontier king cab automatic, after 6 months and 6,000 miles later, she decided she was happier with a van, traded it on a quest and got $1,000
less than what she paid for it, it was also sold by the time she had come back to get her license
plates, about a week. Also auction reports on the frontiers have been fairly strong, showing $1500-
$3000 less for 98 models than what the 99's are selling for. (NMAC auction reports in florida. I'll
try to see if there is an online listing somewhere
if anyone wants). So the statement the truck has no resale market seems a little too sweeping for me. Maybe you might want to see what a nissan dealer would buy it from you for or try a different paper or something.

I don't see how anyone can say that just because they don't like the dash and they don't like the styling, that Nissan cheapened the frontier over the hardbodies. You can't get there from here. I don't see how anyone can justify the statement "they cheapened it" when they look at the facts,
they made it bigger, more powerful, larger bed,
more equipment, more comfortable ride, quieter
and so on, you guys simply haven't proven your point, please try again! It would be different
if there was a string of frontier owners that were
complaining about blown head gaskets and failing transmission and the dash falling apart, but posts like SKG's above and my experiences have been the norm, not the exception. Also even if someone could grant that you may be making a valid point,
look at the facts again, Nissan frontier #1 in inital quality, JD power award, I don't see how they could have cheapened it and then get this award. Also if (and it is a big if) you could be shown to have a valid point, this shows, that the ranger did not beat the frontier in quality, so if the frontier was cheapened and the ranger is lower
quality than the frontier, where does that leave the ranger?

LWF; I love how you can pop in here every three months or so when the occassional comment agrees
with your opinion and seems to justify a case you haven't proven yet, where were you for the dozens of other posts that praised their frontier's flawless quality and several thousands of miles
without so much as a hiccup, I don't see you saying, "I guess I was wrong, they are holding up pretty good" How about responding to a few of those for once, in the spirit of fairness.

VINCE:
I love ya man I really do, but I think you do yourself and others a disservice when you manipulate the facts, I really like how when performance is discussed, you only speak of the 4.0 litre ranger v-6, but when price comes up you suddenly switch to the 3.0 litre v-6, why is that Vince? It sure is convenient for you, since you refuse to put up the facts, please allow me.

ranger 4x2 XLT ext-cab MT 2.5l 4cylinder.
15,960 base price
510 destination
$16,470 total MSRP

Frontier XE x-cab MT 2.4l 4cylinder.
13,490 base price
520 destination
949 VTP package
$14,959 total MSRP Nissan advantage, $1511.

ranger xlt 4x4 x-cab 3.0l v-6
19,375 Base price
510 destination
$19,875 total MSRP

Frontier xe 4x4 x-cab 3.3l v-6
18,290 base price
520 destination
949 VTP package
$19,759 total MSRP Nissan advantage $116
and I am being VERY lenient by not adding things
like optional towing packages, sliding rear window
cloth seats etc to the rangers price and also not adding the $675 for the 4.0l v-6 Vince keeps praising. So how again did you come up with your info Vince? Also I do appreciate how you first said the nissan powertrain warranty doesn't cover much, and when I showed exactly how wrong this statement was, you switched your statement to you'll need it because of all of the shortcuts nissan took. Can you justify this statement with
warranty claims or customer experience or any tangible evidence? if not, you might as well not have said it. I have not seen one frontier powertrain failure problem here reported by anyone, but if you would like to see some, check out the ranger forum. Maybe then you would appreciate a 5yr/60,000 mile warranty.

On the suspension point I don't hink I can make this any clearer, The frontier and ranger both have independant front suspension, the double wishbone suspension is superior to the short/long arm configuration. Please take a breath and read
more slowly! Also independant front suspensions
have very little to do with the kind of handling
you keep mentioning, it has more to do with ride comfort, this is part of the reason, that the overwhelming majority of review praise the frontier's smooth ride over the bumpy ranger ride.

Your acceleration numbers are suspect also as I have shown before, please offer facts and sources
of the info as to what models you are comparing. And 4wd or two, auto trans or stick.

Well, since you can't really say much about the
truck other than you don't like the dash and you can buy 20-25 ft lbs torque more in the ranger, (again I like how you conveniently choose the higher number), you choose to attack Nissan, an interesting, but desperate move. If I read your argument right, you are saying that nissan has
financial trouble now and they may just blow away in a couple of years, and you won't be able to get parts for your frontier or something bloody awful like that. This is an absolutely ridiculous thing to say! Look at what happened to chrysler a few years ago. People said the same things about them and look where they are now, Daimler came in and
bought them, but the last time I looked there were
still chrysler dealers around. so even if someone does come in and merge with nissan, do you honestly expect us to believe Nissan will just dissappear? Not hardly, look at the jobs they create. Neither the US or Japan will let this happen. So again I am not sure what you are getting at here, could you please elaborate?

So far as sales, do you even know how many frontiers have been sold Vince, even a guess?
If not you have no basis for your argument. If you want to say that the ranger has sold more than the frontier and is therefore a better truck, your basis is faulty also, the ranger sold more than the mazda trucks right? Are you willing to say the Mazdas are inferior to the fords? And BTW if you need help with your guess on sales figures, it is somewhere in between the sales of the mazdas and the rangers.

So basically Vince's argument is this; because he does not like the style or dash of the frontier,
they cheapened the quality and we should all run for the hills while our frontiers are still running, but he overlooks the better quality ratings, lower maintenance and repair costs and very low percentages of problems with the frontier. Somehow, I just don't follow that logic.

So Vince, how did the survey go today? or were you just too scared to try? And what about the lower
operating costs of the frontier you refuse to address and the higher quality ratings the frontier got that you refuse to address? How about some facts and less opinions and some justifications for your manipulation of the facts? If you can't
do this vince, I'll stop wasting bandwith here trying to hold a logical debate with you and we can move on to something less controversial like religion or politics or something! I was starting to have fun Vince, please don't get desperate now.

cncman

Man, My posts don't look that long when I write them! Glad to hear of your interest in the frontier trucks, good choice, If you read my above posts you will see that Vince's figures are either wrong or suspect, the 4cylinder ranger costs more than the 4cylinder frontier, so I don't know how he got the idea that the 3.0l v-6 is the same price as the four in the frontier. Look at edmunds and see, I guess it depends on exactly how much you want to pull with the truck. The manual transmission frontier will pull 3500 lbs, and you can get 5000 lbs without buying an extra package
with the v-6 automatic. Also will you be climbing any hills while pulling the trailer? If the trailer weighs around 3500lbs and you climb hills, I would recommend the v-6, I think it will do a better job, but if the terrain is realtively flat,
and you like the fuel economy, go with the four.
hope this helps.

geo4w

I've enjoyed the Frontier vs Ranger debates as I am going to buy one of these trucks in the next couple of weeks. I'm heavily leaning towards the frontier now. The old hardbody had a plain slabsided look that didn't appeal to me, but I like the frontier's looks, especially the SE 4x4 with the large fender flares,which I'm interested in. I'd like to hear some comments on how the frontier is a cheapened and less well made version of the hardbody. Real facts please. I have driven most of the other brands of compact trucks in this class during the past month and find the quality and ride of the frontier to be on par with any of them. The "cheap plastic interior" seems to me to be no better or worse than any other, especially the rangers'. The V6 is adequate power to me after having put over 100k on a '88 trooper with no problems. I have put 125k miles each on 2 different full size Broncos, company vehicles ('88 & '94),and found them to be good reliable trucks but both had their share of nagging minor problems. I'm glad not to have had to pay the maintenance costs of these trucks myself. The frontier is about $1400 less than the ranger. It does bother me though that Nissan is having financial problems. I tend to keep vehicles a long time, 10 years or more. A well maintained vehicle will last 15-20 years here in GA.

Lohengrin

Just wanted to jump in here again. The old Nissan pickup needed updating. I agree that the frontier is a better truck than the hardbody it replaced. But, I think Nissan went wrong in the way they packaged it. That's why it isn't selling up to expectations. In fact, I would go so far as to say that Nissan made the same mistake that Chevy was trying to avoid when they redid their full size truck. Hardbody was designed in America for the American market, and it had a loyal following who liked how it looked and the image it exuded, not unlike fans of the C/K. But then Nissan designed their new truck in Japan and it has a completely new look. And fans of the old hardbody say, "Damn, that thing looks like a reject from the South African Army. It can't be as good as the old one." I don't think there is inherantly anything wrong with designing trucks in Japan, but Nissan would have done better to evolve the already popular 'hardbody' look, much like Chevy evolved their new truck, rather than alienating loyal truck-buyers. Second thing is they shouldn't have named it "Frontier". What's "Frontier"? It's a name that means nothing. Since Nissan felt the need to give their pickup a real name, why not call it "Hardbody"? That's what people called it anyway; it's a name that means something. Nissan truck owners identified with that name. Notice Chevy named their new truck "Silverado", a name already associated with the C/K.

Chevy redid their entire truck and made it better, but they were very conscience to not fix what wasn't broke. I think Nissan fixed what wasn't broke, namely, the hardbody image. I think that hurt them in sales. Of course, there is plenty of time to build up a new mistique around the Frontier, and it may happen, but why start all over when they already had something going with the hardbody? It just seems to me that vehicles with an established lineage and image sell better.

scape2

cncman - wow, are you long winded. In your response I see no rebute in the performance area. The 3.0 Ranger still bests the 3.3 Nissan in 0-60. Also the skidpad? this is handling last I remembered. The 3.0 has 8 less pounds of torque than the 3.3. Better in the Ranger. Please tell me where you are getting "all these reviews praising the Nissan Frontier. Ranger also gets praise in Handling from truck magazines along with 4x4 enthusiasts. Please tell me where you got these prices? The fact is the Nissan Frontier is not selling very well. In all fairness I did mention your warranty to the guyes at work. The replies I got were, "The Frontier is still ugly, you can give me a 100K warranty and I still wouldn't buy. "Cheap, is cheap". 6 of 7 guys cncman would not choose the Frontier. Even I was puzzled. JD powers also awarded the Escort #1 in initial quality, does this matter to Honda or Toyota buyers? The 4.0 Ranger, that I have will outperform the 3.3 V6 Nissan offers, no debate on that my friend. How can you compare maintenance cost when the Frontier has only been out for about 2 years? My truck has only had oil changes, and alignment,. Tomorrow I will pick another 7 guys to conduct another non-scientific poll. I get my 0-60 times from Edmunds and MSN. Now I will search for more. The Nissan V6 isn't that great, the figures I am finding are showing this. I won't spell them out agian, look them up.
Nissan messed up, the Frontier is a flop.

cncman

I think you bring up some very good points and you seem to be very sicere and open to possibilities,
I can appreciate that. I have to check to be sure,
but I am pretty sure that the frontier was designed in california, not Japan, the other thing I can't understand, and you touched on this, is you and others say nissan should have just evolved the hardbody bodystyle, but when I read some of the reviews like edmunds they say things like, it looks like the same truck or you probably won't notice much of a difference, there seems to be alot of inconsistency out there about these views,
maybe you could help us on this one. What would you say to statments like these?

Lohengrin

I went back and read those reviews and I don't get it. The hardbody and the frontier are night and day different. Most other reviews I've read comment on this. Sure, the back end hasn't changed much, but hey, it's a pickup. All pickups look the same from the back. The front end is hugely different. The latest iteration of the hardbody had a squared off look. The grill was retangular and the "Nissan" emblem was mounted above the grill. The new truck has a more sloped look. The grill is at an angle to the hood, rather than being sheer vertical like the hardbody. The grill itself looks more trapazoidal and the "Nissan" is right in the middle of it. To me, and most other people, they look nothing alike and I'm not sure why the Edmund's writer thought they looked similar.

cncman

thanks for the input lohengrin; I too am trying to
put all of this together. To break things up, I will put a little of what I want to say here. For those of you interested in reading some more reviews about the frontier, try motor trend's truck trend, (trucktrend.com) or truckworld.com
they say things like, "the seats contribute to an overall carlike level of comfort." and "although not a radical departure from the truck it replaces, the frontier is signifigantly more refined, offering a more compelling value than ever before" and "rugged, decidedly american appearance" and "the handsome exterior belies a tough, rugged full ladder frame" and so on, hardly
flaming reviews, but read them for yourselves. Also edmunds here says, "provides comfort, practical utility and plenty of power, check this one out" but read them for yourselves.

Lohengrin

I'm not sure where I read that the Frontier was designed in Japan, but I'm pretty sure about that. It's definitely built in America, which is what is really important to me. I don't agree that it has a "decidedly american appearance". I think it looks rather foreign. James Healy in USA Today calls it "dreary Third World styling." So, I guess it's in the eye of the beholder. To me, the new styling reminds me of that kid in high school who tried too hard to be cool, but it backfired and nobody liked him. The Frontier tries to look all aerodynamic and cool like other compact trucks, but it just doesn't work for it. They should have stuck with the tought as nails work truck image the hardbody had. They should have pertetuated the "real truck" image (like Chevy) because that's what stirs the hearts of Nissan owners. I still think the Frontier is a good truck and I'm still considering it when I finally buy my truck, but I would definitely have been more drawn to it if it still had that "hardbody" look and feel.

cncman

vince,
I looked at the sites you claim to get your info from, almost nothing you say is consistent with what I found. MSN carpoint, turning radius,
frontier, 4x2 x-cab 36.8 feet, ranger 4x2 x-cab,
42.7 feet, how did you get .4" difference? Also
MT truck trend gave the 4x4 4.0l ranger a 0-60 of
10 seconds, how did you get 8.3? the closest I saw
was 8.9 seconds for the v-6 4x2. Your claim of the 0-60 for the frontier is similar to the trucktrend
0-60 for an automatic, 4x2 4cylinder, (11.4 sec).
They also showed that the 4cylinder frontier automatic 4x2 had better 1/4 mile results than the
4.0l v-6 automatic ranger, 18.2 se[email protected] for the frontier and 18.4sec@73mph for the ranger! How
do you justify this? (Here is the rubuttal for performance you asked for) Again I question your figures for torque, 3.0 vs 3.3, I see 185 vs 200,
a 15 ft/lb difference not the eight you claim. I am getting all of the great reviews from the places I mentioned above, I included a few quotes because
you obviously don't check anything out. I got these prices from edmunds, where did you get yours????? How do you know the frontier is not selling well if you cannot even guess how many have been sold? Are you telling me that you presented the list I posted earlier for your survey and 6 out of seven chose the ranger? I doubt it my friend! For everyone you find that says the frontier is ugly I can find one that says the ranger is ugly, so what have you proven? It looks like my four cylinder out performs your v-6,
so again what are you comparing? I did not compare maintenance costs, intellichoice did, If you would bother to check it out, you would see how they get the data. Or are you afraid of what you will find?

again it comes down to this; if you can't show us what you are comparing and a verifiable source, your data is useless, You were wrong about almost all off the figures including the pricing, how did
you pull that one off? Also you still haven't made your case about the frontier being cheapened. Are you capable of forming an argument here to support your claim, or should we just dismiss it like the rest of what you say? Please let me know how the survey I proposed turned out, please feel free to print it if you want to.
well at least shorter a little bit this time!

cncman

For I think the third time now, I repeat myself. you have made numerous claims that nissan took shortcuts with the frontier, the quality went down, and they cheapened it, either form an argument now, or admit you are wrong, very simple.

The other thing you refuse to do is include my survey in your non-scientific studies. Look at post #335 again, look at the questions, and don't say anything about ranger or frontier, and see how many pick the ranger. Since you probably won't do it, I will conduct the survey tommorow and post the findings later.

cncman

BTW, I forgot, Vince, from the prices listed in your quotes from edmunds on the 3.0 ranger 4x4
vs frontier 3.3l 4x4, it looks like again, you are comparing the 0-60 times of a manual ranger to an automatic frontier, 2.9 second difference, between the auto and manual? doesn't sound too bad to me,
uh I believe this is strike three vince.

Lohengrin;
I really like you input here, you seem very honest
and open, I am not sure I can imagine what third world styling means. Maybe you can help here. If he means tough and rugged like the old toyota land cruisers running around Africa, I don't mind.

scape2

cncman - where does is say auto/standard in the Edmunds review?? The Nissan is also heavier, which would make sense of the 0-60 times. You wanted sales figures my man and I gave them to you. Why are you dragging the Contour into this debate? Need to cause a distraction? The Ranger outsells the Frontier 6 to 1. How can this many people be wrong cncman? I have found more on the Ranger on the net than the Frontier, more groups, more 4x4 groups, more owners. If the Frontier is so doggon superior to the Ranger why aren't people in line to buy one? They aren't selling cncman, I just showed you Feburary sales. What more do you want?? Your facts are twisted also 12.1 percent increase in truck sales, also includes the Pathfinder. I won't even start comparing the Pathfinder to the Explorer, the winner is already known when you look on the street.
Consumer Rating Guide - Rated Ranger as the Best Buy in its class.

Autovantage - "Ranger build quality is solid, interior materials were of better quality than found in other pickups"

Nissan - " Lots of hard plastic in Frontiers interior, But doesn't have a cut rate appearance".

Sales figures are sales figures, They are in black and white, you wanted them, I provided them. Truth hurts.

You need to look again at my sales figures. The V6 XE 5spd is more than a comparable Ranger. Look again my man.

Lohengrin

When the writer wrote "dreary third world styling", he meant it as a complaint. But take it for what it is worth. I mean, when writers complain about a truck's tall step in height, I think of it as a compliment, even though they think it is a detraction. (who wants a low slung 4x4?) I was just trying to point out that while you sighted Edmund's as liking the new styling, I could sight a reference for a reviewer who didn't like it. To be honest, I did that because I don't like the new styling either and felt compelled to refute you on that point. I think I said it before, but my take on styling is that it is in the eye of the beholder. I hate the new styling on the F-150, but most people like it. Conversely, I like the styling on the new Mustang, but most people hate it.

People shouldn't let what other people think influence their decision on what to buy. If I get a Frontier, and no body else likes it, screw them. Vince said it best what he said "I like my truck and you like your truck." Your frontier fits your needs and that's great. It occurs to me you're a Nissan salesman. You got a new truck you love and made a sale too. +2 for you.