"Interesting that some of the highest-rated, reliable vehicle makers have dealer networks that are infamous, overall, for less-than-satisfactory treatment of their customers."
Gee, maybe people should switch to GM so they can have some of the lowest-rated, least reliable vehicles AND crappy customer service!
Check out the "readers' stories" and their GMC customer service nightmares. You're ludicrous if you think GMC shines when compared to Toyota...especially considering that long-term tests revealed GMC trucks required more trips to the dealer for service than ANY OTHER MAKE EDMUNDS TESTED...EVER!!!
seeking buyback. I'm not. In fact I had helped him gather some of the info for him to post. Now let's talk about the 4 and 6 cyl motors and Toyota's excellent customer service after the sale...read on....
Toyota provides sludge packing customer service after the sale. Talk about denial. Seems GM could learn a thing or two from Toyota....who says all sludge issues are the customer's fault....
is informative to ANYBODY remotely curious about GMC's crappy products AND crappy customer service.
No manufacturer is perfect, Toyota included. I have much more confidence Toyota will resolve the engine sludge issue than GMC will resolve its knocking engines (in production since at least 1999, right?) and problematic Allison transmissions.
You're right that GMC could learn a thing or two from Toyota - heck, GMC could learn VOLUMES from Toyota when it comes to building quality vehicles...
I never said anything about Toyota treating you well after sale. If CR = (the consumer) says they suck......they must suck. Why is it you believe this particular statement from CR but not their recommendations on which vehicles are the most reliable. Re: CR's recommendation of the Packard Bell computer....what issue was it in? I'd like to read it to see how you're skewing the information.
You've missed my point. I could careless how Toyota treats their customers as I don't own one. My point was simply that a Toyota ownership experience may not be what you might expect.
Regarding the Packard Bell computer, it was in an issue in '95. The reason I remember it so well was that I had read the article and almost bought one at the now defunct Computer City. Fortunate for me, I had talked to a couple of independent stores that recommended that I not buy it. Needless to say, I haven't bought another issue since.
I've owned three Toyotas and I can't say I was treated any better or worse than the Chevy, Ford, Nissan, Dodge, Mazda, Mercedes or Acura people. The one who stands above all is Lexus. They bust their butt to make you happy. I can see why they're ranked number 1 in after sales service and satisfaction. I'll pull out the CR issue on the Packard Bell computer and see what their recommendation was based on.
I can understand your taking CR's recommendations with a grain of salt. Like I said before, they didn't like my Tacoma because it rode too rough for them. Duh, it's a 4x4 compact truck, what do they expect?
But aside from their recommendations, their compiled data on vehicle reliability is non-biased and accurate information a consumer would find useful. They even compile information for different model years and break down the reliability ratings on the vehicle's different systems, such as electrical, brakes, suspension, engine, etc. When you look at the Chevys, there's nothing but big black smudges, meaning poor reliability, as compared to Toyota and Honda, which is all red circles, meaning good reliability. That's all fine and dandy you choose to ignore anything CR has to say. Kind of like that saying "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink." But it sure cost you ($30K lemon), didn't it?
If you look at the truck board here at Edmunds, you'll find the Chevys seem to dominate the others in terms of poor reliability, problems, and disgruntled owners. Edmunds ranked their Sierra as the most problematic vehicle they ever tested. CR rated the Chevys as used vehicles to avoid and slammed them in the reliability ratings. You and many others on this board even admitted to owning Chevy lemons.
Yea, I'm the same way..I have a Nissan Frontier Crew Cab and CR rated it last of the small crew cabs b/c of "rough ride". But you have to take it with a grain of salt, the ride isn't that bad(actually great for a truck compared to American trucks of 10 years ago)and the backseat is very usable. Never had any problems with it, and it gets stared at wherever I go. I love it! Anyway, I wonder if there are die hard domestic car fans out there who actually think US designed cars are better in any way than imports(Japanese and European)? The old argument used to be that they're cheaper, but that's not the case anymore. A newer argument is that alot of Japanese cars are built in the US, so it doesn't matter....but it's all in the design of the car, not the build. They're all built by robotic machines anyway. Just go sit in a Ford Taurus vs. a Volkeswagen Passat for instance, you're in a whole different classier world. As far as trucks go, the Tundra did get the government's highest ever crash test scores and Toyota's are rated the most reliable brand in the world, not just by Consumer Reports. I don't know about the Toyota dealerships treating anybody worse than others, my brother got a Camry last month and everyone was so nice. It probably depends more on what actual dealership you go to. I did have a really bad experience at a Ford dealership in NC last year, the saleswoman said that it was her "money making" day(Saturday during a sale) and if I didn't want to buy the car, then don't bother test driving it. I had the bit*h written up.
"As far as trucks go, the Tundra did get the government's highest ever crash test scores"
Nope, the F150 scored the highest in tests by the government or feds if you will.
As for how a truck looks, well, that's subjective. The people "staring" at your truck could be for reasons other than how "well" it looks. I've owned a Nissan hardbody since '91 and I just couldn't bring myself to buying one of these new ones simply because of how they "look".
As to post 112 how is it that the Mazda gets less complaints than the Ranger, when they are the same truck with different skin? Is it because less Mazda's are sold, so therefore less complaints? How can this data be correct????
Whats more interesting is that Mazda sells a whole lot less B-series than Ford sells Rangers. In fact, there's less B-series sold than Tacomas. If B-series is same as Ranger, why would that be? Can anyone explain?
what are you asking? why b-series don't sell as many as tacomas? if so, its because there are hardly any mazda dealers around, and if so, they rarely have any trucks. the mazda b4000 is actually probably the truck to get if you wanted the ranger facade, 4.0 engine and off-road pkg. (they have their own fx4 version at mazda, same components and all), the mazda has a 3 year/50000 mile bumper to bumper warranty, and is a little cheaper than ford. and the rarity of the b4000 would be the kicker.
I hardly doubt that. There's plenty in my area. Given the sales numbers, B-series sold around 1/10th of Rangers. For a truck that is a Ranger with duct tape over the Ford logo, thats pretty pathetic. The main point is this: assuming that sales numbers mean something, there is more to the "Ranger is the best because it's a bestseller" story. You have a truck that is essentially Ranger, with a foreign name brand, that is sold cheaper and with a little longer warranty, that sells 1/10th of the Ford volume. It seems that brand names play a large role, not the truck itself.
yep, according to the government. how often do you crash your truck into a brick wall with only half the front making contact? never. and even head on collisions are just that, head on. not corner to corner. this is why auto manufacturers and the gov't. itself give no merit to the iihs. they're just there to give themselves clout to charge people higher premiums. anyone can take a truck and mangle it by crashing it into a wall all cockeyed, why dont you show the nhtsa's testing results. the one that puts tundra in last place, along with the other tin can, tacoma.
I guess I'm the minority here because I've been in an offset headon crash (Pathfinder slid across the lanes, hit my old car in front drivers corner, at about 45 deg. angle). He had a head-on collision, I had an offset crash. So I guess it's ok for people to say "Well....AS LONG AS you don't hit anyone with just one corner, this is the safest car you can be in". What kind of safety is that?
have to remember, that that brick wall they use DOES NOT MOVE. another car however, is going to give. unless it's a darn semi, nothing in the real world will duplicate the iihs's crash tests.
True, the wall does not give in. This would also be a case when you run your vehicle into something respectably bigger. Best example is a VW bug having a collision with a Lincoln Navigator. Given the mass ratios, LN could very well be a brick wall. I may be wrong, but a majority of accidents I've seen had cars smash only one side of the front. The only ways a vehicle could have a true head-on collision (hitting with at least more than 75% of the bumper length) would be: 1. rear-end 2. t-bone. 3. 2 cars going in opposite directions. and given that the driver would not take any evasive maneuvers except slamming on the brakes. How often does this happen? I'm not knocking on the feds safety tests. I'm saying that there's more to the story than just what the feds test.
might get less complaints because their buyers don't tend to be as hard on them. How can one say this without sounding biased? When I got my B series truck and contacted my insurance guy he said that I get a break on the truck because not as many kids, his words not mine, buy them. Insurance companies look at the total number of accidents involving a vehicle and base some of their prices on that. More than likely younger buyers treat their vehicles a bit harder than most so they would experience more problems than one that is a bit more careful with their vehicle.
Agreed I would have loved to see an offset impact test between a Navigator and a Taco. The Navigatior would actually be like a moving wall. 6000# of it smacking the front of a Taco. Bet it would change the Taco's rating.....
I would love to see an off-set impact test between a Toyota Landcruiser and a Chevy S-10. The Landcruiser would actually be like a moving wall. 6000# of it smacking the front of the S-10. Bet that would change the S-10's already low, low rating...
"Which small truck is best for light duty" and then we get all the regulars on here arguing the same old stuff...
Landcruiser? F150? Are they small trucks?
Let me quote the IIHS site on the different crash tests (IIHS vs NHTSA).
"Full-width and offset tests complement each other."... "The bottom line is that full-width tests are especially demanding of restraints but less demanding of structure, while the reverse is true in offsets."
Who is to say which type of accident you are gonna get in? Same person who's gonna give me next weeks lottery numbers?
The most crashes I've seen are either the result of a car turning across incoming traffic, running a red light, or rear ending someone during a sudden stop. The IIHS test, to me, is similair to driving a car and hitting brick wall, corner of a building, or maybe a parked SUV.
But I've seen a Dodge Ram crash through 2 wooden poles and 1 signal light pole. The truck's front bumper was pretty close to the firewall, but the driver(and cab) had nary a scratch on it. IIHS.org give the early Dodge Ram(pre 98) very poor scores.
You will most likely see a trend towards the Ranger and the Tacoma. Both are good trucks and both have great aftermarket support. People that buy trucks are not all brain dead so they just buy the first thing they see. They may be even more savvy about what they are looking for than cars buyers. So if everyone is gravitating towards these two trucks they just might be the better choices. If you don't care about those things then just get what looks best to you. People tend to keep trucks longer than cars so there is no reason not to assume that most trucks will last anyone as long as they wish to keep it. I would get what is easiest to find parts for, after market or otherwise. Ranger or Toyota would be my suggestion. If you are looking for a mid sized truck Dodge is about your only option but then the Tundra is just barely a full sized truck, but we shouldn't go there.
Hey guys - I need some stats regarding the Tacoma vs. Nissan Frontier extended cabs. I'm a first time truck buyer as a second car. Need something to cart things from Home Depot, etc and to drive on the weekends. Which one is more reliable, better handling for the money? I appreciate any insight and feedback. Thanks.
If you scroll up to the start of this thread you'll see that nissan wins by an overwhelming majority.It even got my vote and at the time I owned a trouble free 6 year old Tacoma with 105k miles on it.
Nissan makes a great truck, no question about it. If you can deal with the new bodystyle, the only concern I would have is the engines. The 6 cylinder is pretty anemic. Yes, you can get it with a supercharger which will help, but it also means having to buy high octane fuel. Whatever you decide on, make sure to take plenty of test drives.
There are 3 problems that I know of about Nissan: 1. Body style....they may be 20 years ahead of their time, but this is today, and their trucks look ridiculous. 2. 210hp supercharged V6 is a joke. I think 2.7L I4 that Toyota puts in 4x4 Tacomas with an Alpine supercharger is rated pretty close to that. Nissan has not redesigned their V6 for Frontier in a long time, and they are paying for it right now by being the laughing stock of trucks. Not to mention that supercharger cuts engine life in half. On top of that, you'll get gas milage of a V8 with premium gas. Of course, you don't have to get a S/C model....then you'll just be stuck with a 170hp V6. Pretty powerless for a V6. 3. Frontiers come with bodylift installed at the factory. Thats pretty bad....
when a s/c is installed on a tacoma, its the greatest thing since sliced bread (how else can they surpass torque and horsepower on the ranger). BUT- when one comes equipped-FROM THE FACTORY, and not put on by some doodaa at the local toyota dealer, it cuts engine life in half? SCORPIO- last time i checked, toyota did NOT put in any supercharged engines in their tacomas. only way you can get this is with a dealer install.
scorpio says the toyota 4cyl. with a s/c puts out like 210 horse? ive never even heard of "alpine" superchargers. and why breathe on a 4cyl. when a V6 is available for less money? can someone explain this one?
he also says the frontier's 3.3 is old and underpowered. but lets take a look. it puts out 200 lb/ft of torque. 20lb/ft less than tacoma's larger by a teensy weensy 3.4. BUT, when debating power and torque between the ranger and tacoma, he says the 25 lb/ft of torque (difference-220 for tacoma, 245 for ranger)separating tacoma from ranger is nothing to be concerned about, and to top it off, he says the 17 horse advantage ranger has in power is nothing either. well, these are both the same differences separating frontier from tacoma. (except for 3 horses)
maybe scorpio's comments regarding the nissan as being underpowered are relevant when comparing it to the ranger's SOHC 4.0 with 207 horsepower and 245 lb/ft of torque. but id put it right there with the toyota. it is closer to the tacoma in power and torque than the tacoma is to the ranger.
i recently had the privilege to test drive an Xterra 4x4 with the 3.3 n/a. i have to admit i was use to my ultra powerful SOHC 4.0 207 horse powerplant i had in my 2001 ranger, and wasn't expecting much. but, to my surprise this thing was downright quick for only having 170 horses. i was very surprised and impressed. i wouldn't have traded my 4.0 for it, but nonetheless it was better than i was expecting.
the good thing about the 3.3 is that it develops like 90% of its torque at very low rpms. something the wimpy 3.4 can't brag about doing. of course scorpio will diss the nissan, he doesn't like it cuz he has a toyota and is very shallow (young). but the bottom line is that this truck is way ahead of its time, it is extremely solid, is the only compact that comes with a true lever actuated 4x4 system (except for the new FX4 ranger, its not electric either), if you look at its suspension components and a toyota's, you'll see the nissan is a lot beefier in a arms and the liking. it also is the ONLY compact with a FULLY-BOXED frame from front to back. the 3.3 will go foreverrrrrrrr, and it is very smooth. it doesn't get very good mileage ive heard, but that's just what ive read.
it is very tightly built and offers probably more stuff on any truck for probably less than any other truck. with the right tires, it could be a very capable truck.
oh yeah, they do not come with factory body lifts either. say what???
scorpio's "problems" are all his opinions. can we start a list of problems for tacomas? if the frontier is such a "joke" and the "laughing stock" of trucks, why do they hold their value better than any other compact? dont believe me, just go spec identical ones at kbb.com. nissan has the highest resale value. hmmmm.
Look who's back again. TRD charger also cuts the engine life in half, I'm not denying that. I guess everything has to be spelled out for you, bundy...some things just go without saying. Again, don't bring the "oh, it's not factory, it's dealer" story....all cars/trucks are assembled in 3 points: factory, distribution port and dealer. Whats your point? Warranty is the same.
Alpine chargers: made for I4 engine. Why did I mention them? Just an additional point about how weak 3.3L V6 is, and what kind of a joke it is with a charger.
True, there's the power difference between Frontier and Taco as there's between Taco and Ranger. There's a certain point where a V6 loses all of its' appeal, and it's when it starts approaching the powerband of an I4.
I diss Nissan because I don't agree with their choice of direction for Frontier. I don't agree that slapping a charger on an already old engine would do the trick so they can keep up with competition. In a year Toyota will put out a new 3.7L V6 and a V8 (hopefully) for a Tacoma. Ford will do the same, Dodge is already offering V8s for Dakota....Nissan will again be left with a big powr gap. Slapping a supercharger on the engine and marketing the hell out of it is not the right way to go. There's also a matter of exterior design. I may be young, but I know what I want. Have you decided what you were going to buy yet, bundy? How many times have you changed your mind, and justified your intermediate choice to us on how "it" is better than Tacoma? I'd have to check on bodylift, that's just what I've read, but you can definitely believe the gas milage.
Right, and a Nissan charger that takes a 3.3L V6 from 170 to 210hp is not rice. Tbunder made it about Tacoma. I didn't mention anything about it in the original post.
wouldn't i make it about tacoma? that's the truck you're basing your opinions off of and comparing the nissan to, am i wrong?
everything i said is correct, am i wrong? that 3.3 may be old, but you need to go drive it before you run it down like you do. and what makes the factory installed s/c so bad? it offers more horsepower and torque than any stock tacoma. end of story. sure, they could have gotten more power out of it, but they realize that the n/a 3.3 isn't capable (without some high costs) of putting out high power, so they slapped on a s/c. what's so bad with that? high octane gas? most vehicles produced these days with an ounce of hi-po parts on them requires premium.
and last time i checked, the 3.3 is way ahead of any I-4 in power and torque, am i wrong? that's a good one to compare it to. the 3.3 has 20 more horse, and like 50 more lb/ft of torque than toyota's own I-4.
my point isn't to brag about the nissan, although they do deserve some bragging, cuz im open minded and i know they're good trucks. i just want others to know that they're not crap like you say. everyone knows that toyota makes a good truck, but i think others need to know that nissan is just as capable with a set of tires. that's all.
"and what makes the factory installed s/c so bad? it offers more horsepower and torque than any stock tacoma". For the n-th time: what difference does it make whether TRD charger is installed at the factory, or at the dealer. The warranty is the same. Those who want the charger certainly know how to get it. Here's straight from a guy with the charger: if you have it installed at the dealership, then it is fully covered for the remainder of the powertrain warranty. If you install it yourself, it is covered till the remainder of p-train warranty OR 1 year/12K miles, whichever comes sooner. So as you see, it's a win-win situation either way. So once again: what is the difference between factory-installed and dealer-installed, if you can order them at the same time, have it covered under full warranty? As far as high-oct gas goes: I just find it extremely disturbing that you have a truck that is drinking 15-17mpg of premium gas and ONLY pulls 210hp. For a charged engine, that's really weak. One could probably find a V8 and swap it into the Frontier for less than the charger and gas costs associated with it, have the same gas milage and gobs more of tq and hp. Maybe they are capable, maybe they are not. I can't say, I haven't seen one offroad yet. As far as "with a set of tires" goes....that's your answer to everything, isn't it? "If Ranger had better tires, it'd have won this, won that, ruled there". Remember.....Tacoma rules on stock tires.
if you bought a mustang svt, a cobra if you will- would you want your local ford dealer to make it into the cobra, or have it built to spec straight out of the factory?
ordering a saleen mustang? again, wouldn't you rather have the people who know what they're doing and do it everyday make it into the saleen, or some guy who worries about nothing more than to get off on time and go home and watch baseball?
dealer installed and factory installed ARE NOT THE SAME BUD. sorry, but you're wrongo on this one. and again, who needs 260 horse in a little truck? don't you think that if nissan really wanted to, they could have gotten a lot more power out of that s/c'd 3.3? of course, but they knew the ranger was tops on power, so to match that is all they need to do. and correct me if im wrong, but if you put a TRD s/c on your tacoma, you can't tell me you wouldn't use premium fuel. that would be downright ignorant wouldn't it? and yes, my tire argument is repetitive, but you can't say it isn't the truth. manufacturers are putting the crappiest tires on their vehicles they can these days. even your BFG's are crap if you really look at them. the only trucks to come with really good tires on them are the FX4 and ZR2. these are both BFG a/t's and are LT rated. also, LT rated tires are an option on all full-size ford trucks. i bet that isn't one of those options you repeatedly brag about toyota offering.
you continue to brag about the "dealer installed" s/c toyota offers. big deal. it still isn't factory and therefore not original. shoot, you don't even have one. i applaud nissan for offering something different.
Tbunder, it's a bolt-on part. The guys at the dealership don't "make" the s/c. plus they're both warrantied, so who the f*** cares?? honestly, this has to be the dumbest argument I've seen yet at Edmunds.
On a lighter note, what did you think of the Xterra? I've always liked it, and I wish Nissan would have kept the styling of the Frontier more in line with the X. If I was in the market for an SUV right now, I think I'd take a good hard look at the Xterra. great price point too.
Comments
Gee, maybe people should switch to GM so they can have some of the lowest-rated, least reliable vehicles AND crappy customer service!
http://agmlemon.freeservers.com/
Check out the "readers' stories" and their GMC customer service nightmares. You're ludicrous if you think GMC shines when compared to Toyota...especially considering that long-term tests revealed GMC trucks required more trips to the dealer for service than ANY OTHER MAKE EDMUNDS TESTED...EVER!!!
Just curious - since this thread is about small trucks and light duty, why aren't you telling us how great the Chevy S-10 is?
Hehe, don't want to go there, do you? Can't blame you!
cblake2 "Engine Sludge? (Discussion Re-Opened)" Jan 5, 2001 6:13pm
No manufacturer is perfect, Toyota included. I have much more confidence Toyota will resolve the engine sludge issue than GMC will resolve its knocking engines (in production since at least 1999, right?) and problematic Allison transmissions.
You're right that GMC could learn a thing or two from Toyota - heck, GMC could learn VOLUMES from Toyota when it comes to building quality vehicles...
Re: CR's recommendation of the Packard Bell computer....what issue was it in? I'd like to read it to see how you're skewing the information.
Regarding the Packard Bell computer, it was in an issue in '95. The reason I remember it so well was that I had read the article and almost bought one at the now defunct Computer City. Fortunate for me, I had talked to a couple of independent stores that recommended that I not buy it. Needless to say, I haven't bought another issue since.
But aside from their recommendations, their compiled data on vehicle reliability is non-biased and accurate information a consumer would find useful. They even compile information for different model years and break down the reliability ratings on the vehicle's different systems, such as electrical, brakes, suspension, engine, etc. When you look at the Chevys, there's nothing but big black smudges, meaning poor reliability, as compared to Toyota and Honda, which is all red circles, meaning good reliability. That's all fine and dandy you choose to ignore anything CR has to say. Kind of like that saying "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink." But it sure cost you ($30K lemon), didn't it?
If you look at the truck board here at Edmunds, you'll find the Chevys seem to dominate the others in terms of poor reliability, problems, and disgruntled owners. Edmunds ranked their Sierra as the most problematic vehicle they ever tested. CR rated the Chevys as used vehicles to avoid and slammed them in the reliability ratings. You and many others on this board even admitted to owning Chevy lemons.
But hey, go Chevy, right?
To stay on topic: It also gives a lot of reviews on all the small-light duty trucks.
http://www.carreview.com/pscAutomobiles/Trucks/PLS_1541_913crx.aspx
I don't know about the Toyota dealerships treating anybody worse than others, my brother got a Camry last month and everyone was so nice. It probably depends more on what actual dealership you go to. I did have a really bad experience at a Ford dealership in NC last year, the saleswoman said that it was her "money making" day(Saturday during a sale) and if I didn't want to buy the car, then don't bother test driving it. I had the bit*h written up.
Nope, the F150 scored the highest in tests by the government or feds if you will.
As for how a truck looks, well, that's subjective. The people "staring" at your truck could be for reasons other than how "well" it looks. I've owned a Nissan hardbody since '91 and I just couldn't bring myself to buying one of these new ones simply because of how they "look".
Given the sales numbers, B-series sold around 1/10th of Rangers. For a truck that is a Ranger with duct tape over the Ford logo, thats pretty pathetic.
The main point is this: assuming that sales numbers mean something, there is more to the "Ranger is the best because it's a bestseller" story. You have a truck that is essentially Ranger, with a foreign name brand, that is sold cheaper and with a little longer warranty, that sells 1/10th of the Ford volume. It seems that brand names play a large role, not the truck itself.
I looks like it just came out of a trash compactor. Good Luck on this one!
So I guess it's ok for people to say "Well....AS LONG AS you don't hit anyone with just one corner, this is the safest car you can be in". What kind of safety is that?
I may be wrong, but a majority of accidents I've seen had cars smash only one side of the front. The only ways a vehicle could have a true head-on collision (hitting with at least more than 75% of the bumper length) would be:
1. rear-end
2. t-bone.
3. 2 cars going in opposite directions.
and given that the driver would not take any evasive maneuvers except slamming on the brakes.
How often does this happen?
I'm not knocking on the feds safety tests. I'm saying that there's more to the story than just what the feds test.
Landcruiser? F150? Are they small trucks?
Let me quote the IIHS site on the different crash tests (IIHS vs NHTSA).
"Full-width and offset tests complement each other."... "The bottom line is that full-width tests are especially demanding of restraints but less demanding of structure, while the reverse is true in offsets."
Who is to say which type of accident you are gonna get in? Same person who's gonna give me next weeks lottery numbers?
The most crashes I've seen are either the result of a car turning across incoming traffic, running a red light, or rear ending someone during a sudden stop. The IIHS test, to me, is similair to driving a car and hitting brick wall, corner of a building, or maybe a parked SUV.
But I've seen a Dodge Ram crash through 2 wooden poles and 1 signal light pole. The truck's front bumper was pretty close to the firewall, but the driver(and cab) had nary a scratch on it. IIHS.org give the early Dodge Ram(pre 98) very poor scores.
Landcruiser would become a brick wall.
Maybe most crashes are full width. I was "lucky" enough to get into an offset crash. Got my car totalled by a Pathfinder.
The voice of truth and reason.!
Tacoma ones ?
kip
My only criticism of the Frontier is that the weight/power ratio is a bit high in the 4cyl.
Tacoma may be a bit overpriced and I've read some criticism of its comfort on longer trips.
The two are probably equally reliable.
Maybe some changes in the next year or two will help us make our decisions. Good hunting!
1. Body style....they may be 20 years ahead of their time, but this is today, and their trucks look ridiculous.
2. 210hp supercharged V6 is a joke. I think 2.7L I4 that Toyota puts in 4x4 Tacomas with an Alpine supercharger is rated pretty close to that. Nissan has not redesigned their V6 for Frontier in a long time, and they are paying for it right now by being the laughing stock of trucks. Not to mention that supercharger cuts engine life in half. On top of that, you'll get gas milage of a V8 with premium gas.
Of course, you don't have to get a S/C model....then you'll just be stuck with a 170hp V6. Pretty powerless for a V6.
3. Frontiers come with bodylift installed at the factory. Thats pretty bad....
scorpio says the toyota 4cyl. with a s/c puts out like 210 horse? ive never even heard of "alpine" superchargers. and why breathe on a 4cyl. when a V6 is available for less money? can someone explain this one?
he also says the frontier's 3.3 is old and underpowered. but lets take a look. it puts out 200 lb/ft of torque. 20lb/ft less than tacoma's larger by a teensy weensy 3.4. BUT, when debating power and torque between the ranger and tacoma, he says the 25 lb/ft of torque (difference-220 for tacoma, 245 for ranger)separating tacoma from ranger is nothing to be concerned about, and to top it off, he says the 17 horse advantage ranger has in power is nothing either. well, these are both the same differences separating frontier from tacoma. (except for 3 horses)
maybe scorpio's comments regarding the nissan as being underpowered are relevant when comparing it to the ranger's SOHC 4.0 with 207 horsepower and 245 lb/ft of torque. but id put it right there with the toyota. it is closer to the tacoma in power and torque than the tacoma is to the ranger.
i recently had the privilege to test drive an Xterra 4x4 with the 3.3 n/a. i have to admit i was use to my ultra powerful SOHC 4.0 207 horse powerplant i had in my 2001 ranger, and wasn't expecting much. but, to my surprise this thing was downright quick for only having 170 horses. i was very surprised and impressed. i wouldn't have traded my 4.0 for it, but nonetheless it was better than i was expecting.
the good thing about the 3.3 is that it develops like 90% of its torque at very low rpms. something the wimpy 3.4 can't brag about doing. of course scorpio will diss the nissan, he doesn't like it cuz he has a toyota and is very shallow (young). but the bottom line is that this truck is way ahead of its time, it is extremely solid, is the only compact that comes with a true lever actuated 4x4 system (except for the new FX4 ranger, its not electric either), if you look at its suspension components and a toyota's, you'll see the nissan is a lot beefier in a arms and the liking. it also is the ONLY compact with a FULLY-BOXED frame from front to back. the 3.3 will go foreverrrrrrrr, and it is very smooth. it doesn't get very good mileage ive heard, but that's just what ive read.
it is very tightly built and offers probably more stuff on any truck for probably less than any other truck. with the right tires, it could be a very capable truck.
oh yeah, they do not come with factory body lifts either. say what???
scorpio's "problems" are all his opinions. can we start a list of problems for tacomas? if the frontier is such a "joke" and the "laughing stock" of trucks, why do they hold their value better than any other compact? dont believe me, just go spec identical ones at kbb.com. nissan has the highest resale value. hmmmm.
TRD charger also cuts the engine life in half, I'm not denying that. I guess everything has to be spelled out for you, bundy...some things just go without saying. Again, don't bring the "oh, it's not factory, it's dealer" story....all cars/trucks are assembled in 3 points: factory, distribution port and dealer. Whats your point? Warranty is the same.
Alpine chargers: made for I4 engine. Why did I mention them? Just an additional point about how weak 3.3L V6 is, and what kind of a joke it is with a charger.
True, there's the power difference between Frontier and Taco as there's between Taco and Ranger. There's a certain point where a V6 loses all of its' appeal, and it's when it starts approaching the powerband of an I4.
I diss Nissan because I don't agree with their choice of direction for Frontier. I don't agree that slapping a charger on an already old engine would do the trick so they can keep up with competition. In a year Toyota will put out a new 3.7L V6 and a V8 (hopefully) for a Tacoma. Ford will do the same, Dodge is already offering V8s for Dakota....Nissan will again be left with a big powr gap. Slapping a supercharger on the engine and marketing the hell out of it is not the right way to go. There's also a matter of exterior design.
I may be young, but I know what I want. Have you decided what you were going to buy yet, bundy? How many times have you changed your mind, and justified your intermediate choice to us on how "it" is better than Tacoma?
I'd have to check on bodylift, that's just what I've read, but you can definitely believe the gas milage.
Alpine I-4 superchargers? How rice is that.
Tbunder made it about Tacoma. I didn't mention anything about it in the original post.
everything i said is correct, am i wrong? that 3.3 may be old, but you need to go drive it before you run it down like you do. and what makes the factory installed s/c so bad? it offers more horsepower and torque than any stock tacoma. end of story. sure, they could have gotten more power out of it, but they realize that the n/a 3.3 isn't capable (without some high costs) of putting out high power, so they slapped on a s/c. what's so bad with that? high octane gas? most vehicles produced these days with an ounce of hi-po parts on them requires premium.
and last time i checked, the 3.3 is way ahead of any I-4 in power and torque, am i wrong? that's a good one to compare it to. the 3.3 has 20 more horse, and like 50 more lb/ft of torque than toyota's own I-4.
my point isn't to brag about the nissan, although they do deserve some bragging, cuz im open minded and i know they're good trucks. i just want others to know that they're not crap like you say. everyone knows that toyota makes a good truck, but i think others need to know that nissan is just as capable with a set of tires. that's all.
So as you see, it's a win-win situation either way.
So once again: what is the difference between factory-installed and dealer-installed, if you can order them at the same time, have it covered under full warranty?
As far as high-oct gas goes: I just find it extremely disturbing that you have a truck that is drinking 15-17mpg of premium gas and ONLY pulls 210hp. For a charged engine, that's really weak. One could probably find a V8 and swap it into the Frontier for less than the charger and gas costs associated with it, have the same gas milage and gobs more of tq and hp.
Maybe they are capable, maybe they are not. I can't say, I haven't seen one offroad yet. As far as "with a set of tires" goes....that's your answer to everything, isn't it? "If Ranger had better tires, it'd have won this, won that, ruled there". Remember.....Tacoma rules on stock tires.
ordering a saleen mustang? again, wouldn't you rather have the people who know what they're doing and do it everyday make it into the saleen, or some guy who worries about nothing more than to get off on time and go home and watch baseball?
dealer installed and factory installed ARE NOT THE SAME BUD. sorry, but you're wrongo on this one. and again, who needs 260 horse in a little truck? don't you think that if nissan really wanted to, they could have gotten a lot more power out of that s/c'd 3.3? of course, but they knew the ranger was tops on power, so to match that is all they need to do. and correct me if im wrong, but if you put a TRD s/c on your tacoma, you can't tell me you wouldn't use premium fuel. that would be downright ignorant wouldn't it?
and yes, my tire argument is repetitive, but you can't say it isn't the truth. manufacturers are putting the crappiest tires on their vehicles they can these days. even your BFG's are crap if you really look at them. the only trucks to come with really good tires on them are the FX4 and ZR2. these are both BFG a/t's and are LT rated. also, LT rated tires are an option on all full-size ford trucks. i bet that isn't one of those options you repeatedly brag about toyota offering.
you continue to brag about the "dealer installed" s/c toyota offers. big deal. it still isn't factory and therefore not original. shoot, you don't even have one. i applaud nissan for offering something different.
On a lighter note, what did you think of the Xterra? I've always liked it, and I wish Nissan would have kept the styling of the Frontier more in line with the X. If I was in the market for an SUV right now, I think I'd take a good hard look at the Xterra. great price point too.