Are you currently struggling to find an affordable car that you want? A reporter would like to talk to you about your experience with car shopping; please reach out to [email protected] for more information.

Toyota Tacoma vs Nissan Frontier



  • ironmoironmo Member Posts: 7
    In my opinion, acceleration matters, period. Too many occasions that are safer with faster acceleration. Acceleration times may vary according to who is driving. It's obvious, when the times flip flop between different tests.

    The Tacoma felt faster and more nimble to me with about 450lbs less weight. I am well suited for it's 6speed, while others may not be. Saw it's 5Auto rated faster than it's 6sp, is it? Depends on who's driving.
  • centralcalcentralcal Member Posts: 215
    I would think the professional drivers who they are timing for these tests know how to use a stick. I think reaction time is more important than accelation. If acceleration was important to keep you out of accidents, your insurance would be cheaper if you car was fast, probably quite the opposit. There is a reason that drinking and driving is bad, it reduces your reaction time (along with judgement), not the acceleration of your truck.
  • ironmoironmo Member Posts: 7
    I think both the Tacoma and Frontier 6 speeds in 4.0L form are fast enough to blow the doors off most 4 cyl and many 6 cyl sports cars. So can many full size trucks/Suv's....Titan, Armada, Jeep Cherokee, Durango hemi. I think sports cars are slowing falling out of style to many people because of all the negatives.

    Over the years I have seen varying acceleration times from the 'testers' on most models. After breakin, the times usually get faster.

    These 6 speeds in the right hands are pure magic. I test drove both these trucks without a salesman and was quite impressed with both brands.

    I feel sorry for people in the autos. I love my Tacoma 6 speed, it brings a smile to my face every time.
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaMember Posts: 15,085
    It is too bad that the choice of the MT is so limited - especially in the Frontier. Apparently, the thought by the manufacturer is that if you want a double cab with some ammenities, you must not want the "inconvenience" of rowing your own gears.
    2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250
  • leob1leob1 Member Posts: 153
    Sounds tedious and like a hassle when described as "rowing through the gears." I like to refer to the hand action on the stick as 'stroking through the gears'. Just because there are 6 speeds doesn't mean a person goes through each one. People seem to forget that its easy to skip as many as 2 gears in these trucks. Not so easy in a 4 cyl.

    I remember seeing a Frontier SE DC 4x4 with a 6 speed recently. Thought that option was available on all models.
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaMember Posts: 15,085
    I thought it was available on the NISMO too, but the MT double-cab stops with the SE. After that, you can get a MT in a NISMO 4x4 KC, but anything else NISMO or LE is an auto. Maybe next model year they will expand the MT offerings. If I were to buy one of these trucks, I would not want to pay an extra 1,000 for a transmission I do not need (or even want).
    2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250
  • canadian_tacocanadian_taco Member Posts: 8
    I have recently test driven both the NISMO King Cab 4x4 A/T and TRD Offroad 4x4 Acess Cab A/T. I have an interest in buying either.

    I admit there are pros and cons of both.

    Taco: has excellent interior and comfort
    not excited about the bed (yet, might need some convincing) & 5 to 10 less HP on regular gas.
    -exterior noise was significantly louder once vehicle was started, interior noise just OK
    -back seats more practical with storage
    -toyota seems to be more prestigious than nissan when it somes to the truck dept.

    Fronty: has a smooth ride and more power but a piss poor interior design....seems very plastic and cheap. back seats suck!
    -very quiet start up and quiet ride

    To me both trucks look great and handled well on road. (rugged canadian roads)
    APR is lower on nissan 3.8%, 5.4% toyota
    (canadian rates)

    -prices are similar

    I guess from my list I am slightly leaning towards a toy, but really liked the power of the nissan,

    I have been reading the forums and worried about problems I may encounter with the toyota (ie squeaks and leaks and such)
    I havent heard of many problems about nissans (yet)

    Not sure who is the true leader in sales this year (if there are numbers published yet) or if I should wait till the fall for the '06's to come out

    I am trying to get the best prices as well.
    Best for Toyota so far is $34150 (without taxes)
    =$39259 incl taxes, minus 1000....grand tally =38k and change? (any other canadian out there in ontario get a better deal)

    Anyone have any nissan prices? 39k and change is best so far.

    any reccomendations for my future investment?

  • obsoletedrumsobsoletedrums Member Posts: 1
    Take a 4 wheel disc truck and give it a good stop from say 50 MPH. Notice the lack of the nose dive and that big kickback missing at the very last part of the stop? Now do the same on an obsolete drum equipped truck. The nose dives a lot more and as you are almost at a complete stop the truck kicks back from the drums. (The big springs to pull the shoes back from the drum cause this.) Most people overcome this 'kick' by letting off the brake at the last moment. If you have never driven a 4 wheel disc car or truck, check it out! You don't have to put up with that kick at the last stopping moment!

    After 46,000 miles on my 2002 Chevy I traded it in with about 40% remaining on the original brake linings. Unheard of pad life for a GM pickup before 4 wheel disc was put on in 1999 model year trucks. Before 1999 it's like 12,000 miles per pad change!

    GM brought back or still use the obsolete drum technology on the 2005 "light duty" pickups. The Hybrid and Heavy Duty models do not suffer this problem.

    GM's excuse? Put 17" tires for bigger brake surface area over the 16" tire size on the 4 wheel disc models and use the "hardly used" rear brakes thought. GM claims it stops quicker (than the 16" 4 wheel disc system). So? It would stop just as quick if not quicker with 4 wheel 17" discs! When you feel the above drum kickback, suddenly you don't care how little they are used. it's no longer an issue! Then when you do put a trailer on the truck it isn't the time to find out the 'hardly used' means it… As you wait for them to turn the now warped drums at the dealer!
    You can't justify obsolete drum technology no matter how big you make the front disc brakes! So with the excessive brake dive, drum kickback, excessive pedal travel from the drum adjustor slack, and poor overall brake performance compared to a 4-wheel disc design of the same size my money is on the 4 wheel disc. Maybe the "Bean counters" at the car and truck manufactures will catch on when 4 wheel disc units outsell obsolete drum technology! Ford trucks still have 4 wheel disc, as do some other manufactures listed in this posting. It's something to think about when you are looking at the window sticker.
  • ironmoironmo Member Posts: 7
    Apparently Toyota has justified the rear drums by saying they have a "tandem booster." Wow, impressive huh. It must mean something good, but I have no idea what. Without Toyota further explaining it, they look cheap. They need further explain those rear drums with these comparisons going on. "Ten inch" and "tandem boosters" doesn't really cut it.

    The tests of braking performance indicate that the Tacoma is at the top of it's class despite the drums. I would rather have discs, but oh well. Maybe someone will total an X-Runner and I can get a deal on them. Guaranteed, the next Tacoma will probably have rear discs...
  • leob1leob1 Member Posts: 153
    The braking tests indicate the Tacoma has excellent braking under that particular test condition. I think these braking tests should go a little further to note differences that arise under harder and repeated braking conditions with some payloads to indicate any sinificant differences. We can only speculate until someone does it. That would tell us all about whether drums are justified or not.
  • jsmith5jsmith5 Member Posts: 12
    Gotta say your viewpoint is refreshing. I came to this board looking to find useful info on both the Tacoma and the Frontier. What I got mainly from the Toyota side was anything but useful. Sort of a strange religious thing going on. There doesn't seem to be any die hard Nissan lovers, just objective folks making a prudent decision.
    I commute to work about 50 miles and see some hills on the way. Sighting a Toyota on these hills sends up red flags in my mind as they generally slow, which makes me wonder how they got such a following. No matter I guess, they did as evidenced here on this board. I have a camry that has needed some work, so I know they are not bullet proof. (?)
    Thanks for your input.
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaMember Posts: 15,085
    Here is my best possible "apples to oranges" comparison of a 4-disc system to a 4-drum system. And, I think it works well because when you want to isolate the pros/cons of an apple as compared to an orange, it is better to have an apple and an orange than an apange and an orple...

    '96 Subaru Legacy Outback Wagon (4-disc) loaded at it's meager 900# (cargo/passenger) capacity vs. '69 Chevrolet C20 (3/4 ton) 2wd pickup loaded at 2000# cargo/passenger - I think this is below rated capacity, but I would have to dig a little to confirm. Under these conditions, 60-0 brake fade (this is not to say it stops as quickly as without the added weight) on the 4-disc vehicle is minimal (not noticable) while the drums exhibit significant fade to the point that 'pumping' to slow heat buildup is necessary/preferable. Unloaded (with only a driver at 180#), neither vehicle's brakes fade significantly and both exhibit consistent stopping ability throughout the 60-0 range.

    Granted, this is an extreme example because rarely would you (if competent) slow the loaded C20 60-0 primarily on brakes unless in an emergency. But, then again, an emergency is when brakes are most critical.

    Personally, I would prefer a 4 disc system on a truck because I use trucks to work at, near, or over their capacity fairly often and the better the brakes perform under these conditions, the safer it is for everyone on the roadway. With how 80-90% of Tacoma / Frontier owners use their trucks, this shortcoming of rear drums will probably never be noticed or impact roadway safety.

    The point here is not that one is absolutely better or more justified than the other. I am simply saying that, based on my observations, drums exhibit fade faster than discs because they do not shed heat as quickly.
    2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250
  • asaasa Member Posts: 359
    I drove my last Toyota truck for 18 years and was a huge Toyota fan until several years ago. I longed to replace it with a Double Cab w/manual transmission, but until 2005 Toyota never offered the combination. Now that Toyota has finally done it, I am saddened by the new Tacoma's large size and *potential* premium gas requirement (Toyota's website notes this potential under a header of LEGAL DISCLAIMER. Nice.).

    My garage isn't huge. Frontier is 2-1/2" shorter and almost 2" narrower, which is of great benefit and it's absolutely happy doing all things with 87 Octane. I'm after a truck I can live with and for my needs, Fronty fits my wallet and garage better than Tacoma.

    Tacoma's a great truck, but Frontier wins the comparison at our house.

  • caltacocaltaco Member Posts: 8
    I sent a note off to Motor Trend questioning their 0-60 listed time of 8.7 seconds for the 2005 Tacoma V6. They mentioned it was a typo and should be 7.4 seconds and that they would correct. Haven't seen the change in the recent issue though.
  • matt30matt30 Member Posts: 27

    Heres a good link explaing the difference between the two type of braking systems.

    And about nose dive, I drive a Chevy silverado (disk brakes all around) and the thing dives juut as much as a rear. Drums do not have less braking force, that's important to know. However Drum brakes are more likly to fade after long term use
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaMember Posts: 15,085
    Great article. Thanks for the link, Matt. After reading it, it helps reinforce my previous thoughts on the subject.
    2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250
  • rephluxrephlux Member Posts: 1
    Just got a 2005 Tacoma access v6 prerunner. Asa, the manual states it can use 87 octane, or higher for improved performance. 91 is NOT required, and IMO performance is good with 87... I have no plans on spending the extra $8/tank here in taxifornia.
  • kapelusprimekapelusprime Member Posts: 8
    Just got me a new 05 Taco reg cab 4X4 with 2.7L. Only have 385miles on her,
    I do have to agree with the rear window visablity, It is poor. I solved it with a mini fish eye in the corner of the side mirrior of the driver side. I did drive both the new Frontier and Tacoma ; I have to say being biest toward neither the nissan reg cab i tested was a sloppy handling truck, compared to to taco i bought. The taco is bigger and sits higher, but corners like it's on rails. as for the power aspect I felt they were an even match. The cab on the taco is after all a cab of a truck unlike the cheap tinny feel of the nissan. The nissan looks cool and the Toyota looks Beefy. I'm 6ft 2 and I just sold my 2nd Ranger, I wanted to try some thing new. I liked many things about the ranger but it was a bit cramped. I liked the look and features on both the toyota an nissan, thus why I test drove both. I bought the Toyota because of the reputation that Toyota has and the fact that i wanted more of a truck this time like my old F-150 gave me, but with better gas mileage and better resale ok and more quality built in. The nissan has got a great little truck, but that is the problem. It's a little truck and for a little truck you should have car like visablity and car like power take offs' but it has a very uncar like ablity to handel well i.e. very sloppy in turns and a mushy rear end. Fit and finish, it didn't even come close to the Toyota, The nissan has plenty of plastic as well, just because it's painted or crome plated dose'nt make it any stronger. If you like the car/truck look, nissan is your next buy and a good one. I wanted a truck that operated like a truck and was hardy and roomy in side Thats why I took the Tacoma.
    P.S. Thank you Upstate Toyota of Batavia N.Y. you guys gave me an awsome deal and top market for my ranger
  • mtpktsmtpkts Member Posts: 3
    My GSR got stole (purchased prefamily) and now I got a Taco. I tried them all and liked the Taco best. I like the mech lsd, the handling is almost as good as my GSR... tires could use some work and has more understeer due to the length of the LB. The sport package made ALL the difference. I do get frequency match on the the freeway which roughens the ride at speed. This is an issue in SoCal. The Fronty couldn't come close to matching the handling of the TRD Sport even in the LB config.

    500+ miles and not a single issue. Hopefully it'll match my Acura GSR which had $100k w/o issue.
  • asaasa Member Posts: 359
    Thanks for the word on the 87 Octane rephlux. If the Tacoma is happy with the 87, I'd not spend the money on 91 either. Thanks again for the reply.

  • bosawxbosawx Member Posts: 2
    I have to disagree with the praise for the Taco's manual 6-speed. I drove the Taco and the Fronty with the 4.0L 6sp MT and thought the Fronty's 350Z shifter/gearbox smoked the clunky, hard-to-use Taco 6sp. There was no comparison.
  • dheidtdheidt Member Posts: 8
    Are you sure you didn't test drive an 04 Frontier? They don't make a reg cab 05.
  • agentmatrixagentmatrix Member Posts: 15
    My wife and I have owned both Nissan (80's sentra, late 80's Maxima, '95 300ZX, '96 240SX, '01 Sentra) and Toyota vehicles (91' and '05 Camrys, '93 4-Runner and '99 4-Runner Limited, '01 Sienna XLE, '02 Rav-4 AWD). I have had good experience with all of them. The '01 Sentra had a TSB service done. The Sienna had loose speakers and jammed automatic sliding door. The Rav-4 had issues with the oxygen sensor that had to be replaced twice. So both Nissan and Toyota, in my opinion, make high quality vehicles but some will have issues.

    Yesterday, I test drove a Frontier CC 4x4 AT. Today, I test drove the Tacoma DC 4x4 AT. A friend joined me on both trips as a passenger. After test driving both vehicles, we both came to the same conclusion: we both preferred the Frontier.

    What I like about the Frontier:
    - quiet cabin (engine, wind and road noise are quite dampened...almost like a mid-level quality sedan feeling)
    - throttle and brake response was very good.
    - the fact that I can switch on 4-wheel drive as long as I'm driving below 50MPH.
    - front passenger seat fold down flat, rear seats is configured for 60/40 folding and folds up along back of cabin
    - the two Utili-tracks on the truck's bed
    - heavier lift gate (compared to Toyota's) that is also lock-able

    What I dislike about the Frontier:
    - lower rear end height
    - low rear-view mirror placement
    - drivetrain not coated (I checked the Frontier but didn't get a chance to check the Tacoma)

    What I like about the Tacoma:
    - handling feels a little more refined than Frontier
    - angled rear-seats
    - 400W/100W inverter option in truck's bed
    - storage pockets along sides of truck's bed

    What I dislike about the Tacoma:
    - noisy cabin (road noise, wind noise, engine rev noise) all come thru
    - throttle and brake response seemed soft/delayed
    - lack of adjustments of driver seat
    - low rear-view mirror placement
    - 4x4 operation requires me to stop the truck (according to salesman)
    - there were two different 4x4 indicator lights (green & red) with the red keep flashing during the whole time I was test driving it (and the salesman really didn't know why it was doing it or what it's indicating)
    - poor visibility looking forward due to the raised hood
    - poor visibility looking rearward due to headrest on rear seats

    Price wise, I'm getting an offer of $24,900 for a base LE, where as the Toyota dealer wanted $500 below MSRP for the configured vehicle I test drove. Seems like I can get a lot more bang for the buck w/ the Frontier. Thus, I am in the process of getting more quotes for the Frontier as I'll be buying it instead of the Tacoma.
  • 88toylc88toylc Member Posts: 53
    I certainly can understand your choice. Nevertheless, I should point out that your Taco test was disadvantaged by having an idiot salesman. You can switch into four wheel drive in the Taco at speeds of at least 50 mph (I don't have my manual in front of me, but I believe it may be up to 60 mph). Also, I have no idea what was going on with the four wheel drive indicator lights -- sounds very strange and probably associated with incorrect operating instructions from your salesman. My experience with the four wheel drive has been excellent and exactly as described in the owners manual instructions.

    I certainly agree with your assessment of relative noise levels and relative handling feel. Fortunately for me, and it probably reflects my body configuration, the front seats in the Tacoma fit like a glove without further adjustment. Hope you enjoy your Frontier.
  • pb2themaxpb2themax Member Posts: 471
    Yeah, you can go into 4 wheel High while you're driving under 62 mph I think. You only have to stop if you want to put it into 4 Lo. I think all trucks work like this. I don't know of any stock truck that can go into 4 Lo without stopping and putting it in Neutral.

    I like the interior of the Tacoma much better. Super comfortable seats, and high quality trim on the dash and doors. Plus I think the exterior of the Tacoma is more appealing and aggressive. And I don't notice much road noise, but I have the TRD sport which has quieter tires than the TRD Off Road. The only thing I would change on the 05 Taco is: add power seats, leather, and a sunroof.
  • brodeyobrodeyo Member Posts: 26
    I have a 05 tacoma (4x4,dbl cab, sport pkg). The good things: power, comfortable, size, looks. The only bad thing I have to complain about is the engine noise while driving. The ticking of the fule injectors is driving me crazy.... Though it's only noticable with windows down.... It sounds as if I have a baseball card in my bicycle spokes while driving near a wall or large object. Seriously, that's my only negative feedback. I truly can't comment on the Frontier. As far as Nissan is concerned, I have an 02 Altima (v6)...very fast, but cheap on interior...not to mention the entire engine had to be replaced at 38K miles....and they couldn't explain why... As a result, I decided to go with Toyota instead of Nissan when looking at midsized trucks.. Although, my Altima issue was the only issue of it's kind ever reported at the time. It could have just been a 1 in a Million chance that they would have produced a bad engine.
  • midnightsunmidnightsun Member Posts: 92
    The Frontier was sloppy handling? I had the exact opposite impression: the Tacoma was vague and wander-y; the Frontier solid, predictable, precise, and had the best road feel. I live where any drive from/to home requires miles of winding canyon climbing/descending on narrow 2-lane. I have had my Frontier 3 weeks and every time I drive it I am impressed by how this 4x4 truck does NOT have the body lean, wallowing, or any of the other tall-heavy-truck driving characteristics. The '05 Tacoma was very disappointing to me, after the good handling of my '92 truck. And it wasn't just the handling I didn't care for. Since I posted my full review back on Jan. 27, I won't repeat it here, but suffice it to say that the Frontier (which I did not expect to prefer) outshone the Tacoma (which I went to test drive automatically assuming I'd buy a Toyota).

    Toyota is coasting on its reputation, IMO. It's still a nice truck, just not as nice as the religious fanatics claim.

    I don't know how you can denigrate plastic when the Tacoma's inner bed IS plastic, while the Frontier's is full steel. There have been several posts about major accessories not being made for Tacoma's bed, just little "non-truck" things like tool boxes, contractor racks, and slide-in campers.
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaMember Posts: 15,085
    For interiors, it all has to do with perception of fit/finish. Plastic, in general, is perceived as cheap even though it can be and often is more durable than other materials used for the same purpose and subjected to similar conditions. I say "can be" simply because the term "plastic" is so general; there are endless grades to plastics - it is an industry, not a single product.

    Composite (fiber-reinforced plastic) as a bed material is not inferior to steel (but that does not necessarily mean the Tacoma's composite bed is not inferior - it all depends on how it was manufactured). Again, I think the argument here is more a perception problem than a true lack of functionality. Steel, though, will likely hold up better to outright abuse (such as dropping/throwing heavy objects from distance), at least on the short term, than will composite because it will bend and tear rather than break.
    2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250
  • cat9cat9 Member Posts: 2
    Help! I did lots of research, then test drove both yesterday. Although different, they both seemed comparable. I read through this forum, and am more confused than ever.

    Have there been any factory or testing updates since this debate began on either truck? Examples: Safety tests? Noise tests? Was the premium fuel question ever resolved? Are additional options that one truck had (such as leather & heated seats) now available on both? Thanks for any help people can offer.
  • matt30matt30 Member Posts: 27

    Cool video I found.

    Tacoma can be run without premium, however there is a ticking sound of the motor retarding the compression cycle to accomodate the lower grade fuel.

    Safety test has been done on base model 2wd tacoma- 5 stars
    Also one for frontier but I'm not sure what the rating was- it wasn't bad.

    "Have there been any factory or testing updates since this debate began on either truck?"

    There are a few enthuisits sites, they waver back and forth.

    It comes down to personal choice, styling, comfort.
  • centralcalcentralcal Member Posts: 215
    someone posted some very nice pics of the taco with leather and sunroof, both aftermarket. Don't know how much they cost, but not heated seats, heated mirrors and some other stuff you get with the LE Frontier (homelink, power seats, satelite radio, mp3 capable CD player). There are pluses and minuses to each, I think just go with the one that feels like it fits you better. It looks like a lot of the early Taco issues are getting fixed, Frontier hasn't had too much in the way of problems so both are looking like very good choices. Seems like most magazines pick the Taco (a lot based on previous experience), but a few are picking the Frontier. You may also want to look at the Ridgeline, interesting truck that is getting pretty good reviews as well.
  • metuxmetux Member Posts: 2
    I went with the Nismo for the the styling. Sold my 2000 Tacoma for one.
  • kapelusprimekapelusprime Member Posts: 8
    I own one in Black sand pearl
  • leob1leob1 Member Posts: 153
    Saw the change on the shelf recently.
  • leob1leob1 Member Posts: 153
    I wasn't aware of this until recently, but people interested in extra handling in a Tacoma should consider the TRD sport which comes with the front sway bar for improved handling they say. I opted for the Off Road and am very satisfied with all the handling scenerios I've put it through. It's nice to have a reasonably fast truck that can move quickly on or off road and has good clearance. Kind of reminds me of wearing a good pair of all terrain shoes.
  • dheidtdheidt Member Posts: 8
    You own a 2005 Frontier REGULAR cab???? Was this custom made for you? The only cab configurations Nissan is making for us normal folks is the King cab and Crew cab.
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaMember Posts: 15,085
    Perhaps you should go back and reread kapelusprime's post:

    "Just got me a new 05 Taco reg cab 4X4 with 2.7L."
    2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250
  • dheidtdheidt Member Posts: 8
    This is from the original post from kapelusprime...

    "I did drive both the new Frontier and Tacoma ; I have to say being biest toward neither the nissan reg cab i tested was a sloppy handling truck, compared to to taco i bought."

    He said he test drove a Nissan Frontier Reg cab and commented on the sloppy handling. This statement needs further explanation do to the fact the new Frontier is not made in a Regular cab.
  • matt30matt30 Member Posts: 27
    The some reasons why I choose Tacoma over Fronty, (mainly because of my off-reaod needs)

    -The tacoma sits higher off the ground
    -Tacoma has better apprach and deparutre angles
    -Progressive rate springs on the tacoma
    -Tacomas lighter
    -Tacoma's engine has a smoother powerflow (Fronty is toruqy and quick off the line which is why some poeple like it better, not good offroad when you need slow crawl speeds)
    -Shorter turing circle
    -I didn't want a crome bumper
    -I can fit a winch and farelane inside the bumper of the Tacoma, but not in the fronty
    -Creture comfort (leather, moonroof, electric seats controls) come second to capablility
    -Fronty only has one tow hook on the front on the right side, I could undersantd if it was in the middle but its not. (why nissan?)
    -Tacoma's rated to tow more by about 300lbs
    -Fronty's drive componets are not coated, Tacoma has the black poweder coat all over.

    I realize these aren't the things most people look for in a truck but its the reason I chose the Taco over the Fronty.
  • kapelusprimekapelusprime Member Posts: 8
    :shades: First off let me say, I love my new 05 Tacoma Reg cab 4X4 2.7L. This don't mean all the guys and gals who are Nissan lovers on this forum have too.
    Yes I've test driven both in 05 extended cab Frontiers, Thank you for my editing error who ever you are! As well as extended cab Tacomas' I like a reg cab because I don't have kids and all reg cabs no matter what the make TEND to handle better that extended cabs, I.E. body roll, cornering, power to weight and the like. Okay before I get 100 threads back saying "it's a truck not a sports car" or "not all makes handle better" :mad: Stop right there. I thought the frontier was sloppy around the corners compared to the Tacoma, and when compared to the Tacoma reg cab, the frontier extended cab's suspension design showed it's need to offer a reg cab. Yes the frontier is designed to get better handling at high speed in a straight line, but then you may get into the "it's a truck not a sports car" argument that Involved the before said Tacoma. I did like the frontier price, I liked the other bells a whistles offered on the frontier as well. The base motor on the nissan 4X4 was great, If your into paying round about $50 to $60 a week in gas! If you are, than the edge is given to Nissan, How ever the Toyota has variable cam that is controlled by a computer. I would think the aftermarket industry may soon help, The power hungry Toyota owner gain an edge. The nissan is a great looking truck, but in my opinion so is the Toyota. I was not too crazy about the composite bed, but the biggest thing i haul is me an my camping gear. You could Rhino coat if you looking to get some more strength in the bed, most people do that any way when they are going to put regular heavy loads in even a steel bed! As for time tested reliability of either vehical the only way to know that is, WAIT they just redesigned these vehicals' so any thing about which will be better in the long run is pure OPINION!!!!! For me I wanted a 4X4 with higher resale and reliability that the Chevy's, Ford's and Mopars I've been driving for years. I liked the fuel consumption of a 4 banger ,Toyota lets me decide if i want that in a 4X4 option, @ $2.30 a gallon that V6 is cool but I have a V8 in my 69 Buick. So affordable driving is a plus in Buffalo NY, where a 4X4 in the winter is nice and the daily drive 4 banger lets me keep some money for other things. Toyota and Nissan build great vehicals, I think being a mechanic for the last 14 years, gives one an apreatation for good design and innovation, I.E. composite truck bed/no rot. hell if i wanted a work truck I'd of got a one ton. I liked that fact the Toyota fit my needs and me a 6ft3in 225 lbs amiture power lift er, buy the way if your built like me the Nissan falls a little short and i do mean short, you'll need the moon roof.
  • whitepipewhitepipe Member Posts: 2
    It sounds like the salesman that took you for a test drive in the Tacoma hasnt bothered to read the manual. 4x4 operation can be turned on or off from h2 to h4 or vice versa anytime under 60mph.

    The red flashing 4x4 indicator means its not engaged or has malfunctioned.

    Im assuming your under fairly short not being able to see over the hood and the rear seats.

    Noisy cabin?? were you driving the 2005?

    I own one and could compare the road noise to a volvo or lexus.
  • centralcalcentralcal Member Posts: 215
    You must be very lucky if your 05 Taco is that quiet. Most people comment on both engine and wind noise in the 05. The Frontier is much quieter and I would still not compare it to a Lexus or Volvo.
  • cat9cat9 Member Posts: 2
    For those of you who have 2005 2wd double cabs, what city and highway mileage are you actually getting? Please also include what grade gas you're using.
  • dcblydcbly Member Posts: 6
    Take a look at the comparison test of 4 door compact trucks.

    1. Honda

    2. Nissan

    3. Toyota

    4. Dodge

    5. Chevy/GMC

    Darren in Bakersfield
  • arcpassarcpass Member Posts: 53
    I looked and feel that the test was lopsided. The Tacoma they tested was the double cab long bed. The testers didn't like the fact that it couldn't be thrown around corners & wasn't any fun to drive. If they tested the short bed model, then the test would be a good comparison. I posted this info on another Tacoma forum and they were several responses that the manufacturers (Honda) paid Car & Driver money to rate their Ridgeline #1. Is this correct or just internet speculation with no basis in fact?
  • centralcalcentralcal Member Posts: 215
    You could say that about "Truck of the Year". Also, the ridgeline wasn't in Motor Trend and the Frontier was an access cab, not a CC like all the other models. If you are looking for a magazine to make you feel better about your purchase, Nissan, Toyota and Honda have all been named to the top of a major magazine. Test drive all three, one will fit you better than the others. All the models have pro's and con's. It is nice that there is actually some real movement in this segment of the market. The 06 models will be interesting to see how everyone responds.
  • kapelusprimekapelusprime Member Posts: 8
    Centralcal, I could not agree with you more!!!!!
    As for the magazine getting paid for a comparison, I say NO WAY would a business ever do some thing so unethical!!!!! Hint, Hint, Wink, Wink.

    Check and see see how many times a vehical brand is advertised in the particular mag. and you might , I say might see a pattern!!!
  • tiger10tiger10 Member Posts: 46
    I am surprised that you would even consider comparing Taco to the underperforming Nissan trucks(except the Titan).
  • arcpassarcpass Member Posts: 53
    I am surprised that you would even consider comparing Taco to the underperforming Nissan trucks(except the Titan).

    tiger10: I could not agree with you more!!!!!
  • centralcalcentralcal Member Posts: 215
    I am not sure what you mean by underpeforming. Could you give an example? I sure wasn't impressed with the Taco, so I would like to hear what you think the downside of the Frontier is in comparison, that is what this forum is about (or did you even test drive one)?
This discussion has been closed.