Frontier vs Ranger - II
This topic is a continuation of Topic 853....
Frontier vs Ranger. Please continue these
discussions here. Thanks!
Front Porch Philosopher
SUV, Pickups, & Aftermarket and Accessories Host
Frontier vs Ranger. Please continue these
discussions here. Thanks!
Front Porch Philosopher
SUV, Pickups, & Aftermarket and Accessories Host
Tagged:
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
The safety issue has not been swept under the carpet.They tested a 2000 Ranger and a 1999 Frontier.Also,they did not test the CC.
As far as the normally aspirated engine question,you are asking the wrong people.I do not believe anybody on this board works in the upper levels of Nissan's engineering department who would be the people to answer that question.Besides,WHO CARES.
The JD Powers results show that BOTH Nissan and Ford has some improving to do.Sure,the Ranger fared a little better than the Frontier.Just remember where ir finished and the Ranger numbers.You can't be proud of that.
And remember back a few months ago - I posted the survey results where Ranger owners ranked their own trucks quote "WORSE THAN AVERAGE" Yikes! Can you believe it? The only two trucks that ranked "ABOVE AVERAGE" were Toyota and yup, Nissan. Can you imagine ranking your own truck WORSE THAN AVERAGE on a survey? LoL. That's a Ranger owner for ya!
Makes me wonder about how I don't seem to have any complaints about my truck, but Vince has to tell me how bad my truck is even though he doesn't own one. If I wanted a ranger I would have bought one. I'm glad that you don't work for Ford's marketing, because you would be one big insult to Ford. (Ex. Ford is better than Nissan, buy Ford Today!)
Oh, and it is typical that we sweep the safety issues under the carpet, which did not even occur. You can't even address one issue we bring up to you. You just respond with....
"Ford has more torque than nissan, look at this site to see the specs. LOL. I am cool, look at me, I am the only Ranger owner who rates his truck perfect above everything else."
How about answering the supercharge question for the ford V8. Is it a bandaid? I'm sure you will answer no. Everytime the blueoval news site is brought up, you just ignore it, because it shows all the crap that goes on at Ford. Show a site that does the same for Nissan in a 5th of the volume in one place! I'm sure if we had a Ranger vs F150, you would do just the same that you did here. I guess we should just give up, you are just so big bad and powerful and always have to be the arrogant Mr Right.
Ranger – Popular four wheel drive supercab model with the 3.0L V6, accompanied with huge package savings discounts and terrific Ford Credit – Red Carpet Lease programs, have left many dealers bone dry. The Ranger has been America's top selling compact truck for 13 years in a row.
Why don't you look at Edmunds used truck values and see how the two trucks(Frontier and Ranger)compare in value. I know, I know... don't tell us if equiped the same...the frontier is HIGHER in value, Now who's laughing! hahaha. Oh one more thing I called my insurance agent and you're right there is a difference...the ranger was higher $15 more for every six months! You should do better research. Here let me put in "skim read" form:
Vince, compare ranger(XLT 1999)to lowest xe 1987 Nissan Hardbody compare values, brag to everyone ranger values, insurance rates higher for ranger because they must be worth more-higher theft because everybody wants one, don't read posted sources all the way through but, use them as proof or evedience to show unclear point. Ford rules and so does the comsumer even if they hate their ranger.
Ford 3.9L V8 252hp 267ft/lbs
Nissan 3.5 V6 250hp 240ft/lbs
Just wondering...
The 3.5L V6 offered in the Pathfinder is the most powerful of Nissan's engines here in North America. And, I don't see other countries getting beefier pushers with us power hungries here in the states.
(1) They've fallen far behind their competitors in power.
(2) They need a competitive offering even if most people buy less powerful offerings anyways. Your flagship can't be a dingy.
(3) They're too strapped for cash to put the 3.5L V6 in the Frontier with all of the additional R&D, production capacity, and higher costs.
(4) The [temporary] solution is to slap on a supercharger. Much less R&D. No worries about production capacity. They can now keep up with the bunch.
I got hammered for bringing in other engines, I wonder why noone is saying anyting to cygnusx??
I am staying with Ranger vs Frontier, not Pathfinder or Maxima, or .....
Sorry folks your bubble has been officially burst. Enjoy your underpowered, severly under torqued, high tech 3.3! LOL..... Ranger stomps Frontier!!
Let's talk about behind the competition: Where's the four door ranger? Current 4.0L putting out 160hp? Ranger frame construction/design? You're right nissan is far, far behind the competition when it comes to consumer complaints! If anything, I think that the supercharger(temporary as it may be) is a fad item just like that useless step-side bed that ford and chevy put on their compacts. And as for the competition I've owned a '94 s-10 and had to replace that auto that was mated to the awe mighty of small truck engines and I can't tell you how many times I've been stranded in the woods in friends rangers & bronco II's- mostly due to tranny failures. But anyway, the comp. can have all the power they want but if it isn't dependable it ain't worth a @#*& ! But not to worry since you work for Nissan(R&D dept. I'm sure, since you drive the competition's product)you guys already know that many of us are ecstatic with what you guys have built and we thank you
I didn't want to bring this up but I feel I must. This Sunday my joke of an engine with it's meager little 170hp and sputtering, struggling 200ft lbs. of torque coincidentally had to hook to a 1998 Ranger with a.... that's right a 4.0L! He needed help pulling his boat out of the water. I hooked to his boat and pulled his boat out. I won't go into long boring details here but my point is...awe I don't have to spell it out I'm sure you get it.
Ok, I'm sure by now you think that things weren't equal as to why he couldn't pull it out but, I could right?
Why can't Nissan make a normally aspirated 3.3 to
compete with Ford/Toyota/Chevy?
That is a different qestion then why are they putting a supercharger their engine.Did it ever occur that maybe it might have something to do with marketing the vehicle?Offering a factory supercharger rings of days gone by.The Gt350 Shelby's and more recently the Thunderbird Supercoupe on their 3.8L V6.It may not be ALL power related.The T bird is a good example of that.
vince I say again YOUR PERSONAL Ranger is underpowered.You have less hp than my Frontier.
AGAIN YOU CHOOSE TO IGNORE THE QUESTIONS ASKED.Why is that.Are they too difficult for you to understand?
You said that JD powers rated the Ranger higher.That is correct,but it was not that much higher and again you can't be that proud of the rating.The performance aspect you got from Edmunds.If you read a little further in their site,those ratings are SUBJECTIVE,not OBJECTIVE.It is based on the opinions of people who have no stake in the ratings.They have a base criteria,and we do not know their motivations for their ratings.
This last post from you vince shows that you are all mouth with no substance nor idea on what you are talking about.By ignoring the questions and comments you just show your ignorance on the subject or that your position is indefensible when confronted with contradicting facts or substance on the other side of the debate.
The current 4.0 is better suited to truck applications than the 3.3 currently offered from Nissan. The cammer 4L will be the same when you compare it to SC 3.3 when they both arrive this summer. Plus, you won't have to worry about the added stress of a forced induction system accelerating engine wear and tear. Has Nissan used a supercharger in a truck application before?
Frame/construction design? Hmmm... I'm not quite sure what you mean. Body on frame construction is a necessity for ANY truck. Unit-body construction is not strong enough in truck applications and will bend and flex like Jell-O when used to haul, tow, and off-road.
If I had a nickel for all of the posts that sound like "my friend's so and so is always in the shop and breaking down, but my so and so has had no problems for the last 625,000 miles and will last forever"... I see them on every board for every make.
Also, I don't work for Nissan R&D. But, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out Nissan's motives. All you need is a little bit of common sense.
As for your friend with the boat, he either
(1) has a huge boat and needs a bigger truck with V8 power
(2) needs 4wd or a LSD as he isn't getting the traction he needs on a slippery boat ramp
Why didn't you just offer to pull it out for him?
As for step/flare-sides, they're styling cues like the fins of the '50s and the spoilers seen today. If you like them, you buy them. If you don't like them, you don't buy them. I don't quite see what's your beef here. Are you upset that Ford (and Chevy) are offering their prospective buyers different choices?
The 3.9L V8 is NOT supercharged. In naturally aspirated form, it produces more power than Nissan's most powerful engine offering, which is the 3.5L V6 in the Pathfinder.
You consider an engine that produces more power than ANY current engine offering from Nissan to be "weak"?
Ford is also adding the supercharger to keep up with the competition, which is the likes of the 5-Series BMW, GS 300/400, A6, S-Type, etc... All of the competitors to the LS (the home of the 3.9L V8) have 300hp V8 offerings.
Why incur added expenses in R&D, production, and EPA certification to put one of Ford's more powerful V8s in the LS, when you can just pull the supercharger out of the Jaguar parts bin? The 3.9L V8 is closely related to the V8s offered in the Jags.
I did pull his boat out, because he couldn't. Let me explain. On some ramps they have a lip at the end so you don't back down too far. Well this guy backed over that lip and he has a tandem axle trailer so this lip of concrete got wedged between the axles. His 4-wheel drive would not work for whatever reason it wasn't engaging. So we unhooked his truck and hooked mine to the trailer and I pulled it out no problem in two wheel drive!
As for my friend's rangers I only brought those up because I was THERE this wasn't hearsay.
Talking about design, I believe it was cncman that brought it up, look under truck. C-channel or tube frame? I never mentioned uni-body.
That's right the step-side is styling... a fad. Something for appeal to set the trucks apart from the norm. Here I was relating the supercharger in that I see it for those guys that add performance stuff to their trucks like k&n air filters, exhausts, manifolds and so on kind of a fad or trend. In my opinion, I like the supercharger better than turbo no matter who makes it, instant power, no lag. I don't think that Nissan or anybody else for that matter has ever put a supercharger in their compact trucks, but then again Nissan is kind of known for doing 'firsts' in the compact truck arena.
please read more carefully:
Ford Motor Company IS ADDING A SUPERCHARGER TO THE 3.9 V8.
Why can't Ford build a normally aspirated V8? Why are they going to "bandaid" it with a supercharger?
In NATURALLY ASPIRATED form (this means no supercharger or turbo), Ford's 3.9L V8 produces more power, both in torque and horsepower, than ANY single engine that Nissan currently produces.
You consider this to be a "weak" engine.
Assuming that you drive a 3.3L Frontier. Exactly how "weak" would you consider your engine with 82 less horsepower and 67ft/lbs of torque?
To answer your question, Ford can and does build many naturally aspirated V8's. How about the just the 3 different naturally aspirated V8s offered in the Mustang alone? What about the F-Series trucks or Lincoln's?
If you're wondering why they're supercharging the 3.9L V8 offered in the LS, check out post #23. It seems that you've skipped right over it as you keep asking the same questions.
BTW, it seems that you can't/won't answer questions posed to you. I wonder why...
It sounds more as if the guy didn't know how to operate his truck & trailer. It's a good thing you happened along or else his truck would probably be in the drink.
I'm not sure what type of frame construction my truck has. It sounded as if you were talking about frame vs. unibody. I'm not really sure of the merits of c-channel vs tube frame construction.
Yes, yes, we've all heard the break-down stories. Most of my friends and family drive "domestic" vehicles. There have been a couple that had some problems, but the vast majority have been extremely reliable. My own personal experience shows quite a different tale than all of the stories posted to these boards by "import" owners.
BTW, I'm not knocking "imports" or any other vehicle. I buy whatever gives me the best value. Well, at least until I can save up for that M5 :oD
In it's "naturally aspirated form" the 3.9 V8 produces more hp tourque than the Nissan 3.3 V6. Ok. So then WHY is it being bandaided? No one can answer this? So I'll go ahead and answer it and say maybe it's because it's a weak engine and Ford feels in needs more ooomph. I mean, why else? After all that's why Nissan is "bandaiding" their 3.3, right?
Also, the main reason you give seems highly subjective to me. "To compete with..." is a stab in the dark. I think it has more to do with meeting green standards than anything else. But never the less, what you're saying is that it's ok for Ford to add a supercharger (just because they're Ford), but all of a sudden when Nissan adds one it's a "bandaid" fix to a weak engine? Please.
And yes, if a 3.9 V8 can only slightly out perform a 3.3 V6 - I'd say it's a weak engine. Just my .02.
If my numbers are right you're saying that the 3.9L naturally puts out 252hp and 267 ft/lbs of torque right? If so, how can you possibly make the statement:
"Ford's 3.9L V8 produces more power, both in torque and horsepower, than ANY single engine that Nissan currently produces."?
Because the 4.1L V-8 that Nissan produces for the Infinity Q 45 produces 266hp and 278 ft/lbs of torque. This engine is currently produced, so I don't know how you can say this.
I don't know what the guys story was..just that the hubs weren't engaging eventhough his 4 wheel light was on, whatever.
I've always heard that the tube frame construction is stronger, but I didn't buy the Nissan for that reason. In fact, it wasn't even part of my buying decision. I'm with you on the uni-body, I think it has no place in truck design.
First, I was talking about the 3.5L V6 offered in the Pathfinder. This engine is DIFFERENT than the 3.3L V6 offered in the Frontier.
Second, you seem to be the one absolutely obsessed about bandaids. I never said it was a bad thing for Nissan to add a supercharger (or Ford for that matter either). I said that the 3.5L V6 out of the Pathfinder would be more desireable.
Third, with 82 more hp and 67 more ft/lbs of torque, the 3.9L V8 will not only "slightly" outperform the 3.3L V6. It will massively outperform it. If you consider this to be a "weak" engine, then you must feel like you've got a hamster on a wheel under your hood.
Fourth, refer to all of my prior posts for the same questions you keep asking again and again.
I didn't even think to look at Infiniti. I about forgot they were still making cars. I never see them around these parts.
Alright, Ford's bottom of the barrel V8 is bested by the Q's V8.
Is that the only Nissan/Infiniti V8 available?
I said it was a cheaper way for Nissan to keep up with its competitors. I, like most people, enjoy having more power whatever I may be driving.
The 3.5L V6 out of the Pathfinder would be a great engine in the truck. It's just probably not cost effective for Nissan to put it in the Frontier at this time.
My only concern when using a supercharger would be wear and tear. Forced induction creates a lot of added stress on an engine. If the engine is not properly set up inside and out, it's not gonna last very long.
I have no idea what Nissan has done with the 3.3L for the supercharged application. Isn't this their first supercharged engine? Isn't this their first supercharged engine in a truck? Has this engine been supercharged in other applications? Can the tranny and the rest of the truck handle this type of power? What have they done to set up the engine to handle forced induction? And lots of other questions come to mind. It's not such a bad idea to use a little common sense and ask some questions. This is NOT some simple, little bolt-on modification.
It seems that all vehicles these days have upped their redesign time. BTW, I believe the 2001 Ranger will be either its 5th or 6th redesign since its introduction in '83. But, I guess it depends on what you consider a redesign to be.
The frame construction never entered my purchase decision either.
It doesn't sound like too much of a problem as long as they keep the boost around 6psi or less. There's probably some significant intake plumbing work involved too. Intake, exhaust, tranny, and computer control modifications would be the absolute minimum.
There is some really good info on forced induction on Ranger Power Sports. Here's the link:
http://www.rangerpowersports.com/mods/performance/superchargers.shtml
As for the 3.9L V8, to me, and this is just my opinion, the increase in hp and torque is is only slightly better seeing as we're talking about a V8. When I say it is weak, I should have preceeded it by saying for a V8 I think I think it is weak. I would expect a V8 to massively outdistance V6. Maybe "weak" is not the right term. I would just expect it to have "more".
Anyway, sorry if things got a little mixed up. Like I said, I was just addressing this whole silly "bandaid" notion about the supercharger.
Onto a completely different subject: If you significantly increase tire size, how large can you go before you would need to have your spedometer recalibrated? I guess there are two schools of thought on this one. One is to not worry about it and the other is that if you decide to add beefy 31's or bigger that you definitely need to have the spedo checked.
What I am curious about is all of the different engines.Why do we have to have so many?As an example GM has a 4.3L V6 and a 4.3L V8.Ford 3.9L V8,3.8L V6:4.2L V6,etc.I can remember when it was pretty simple,and the CID difference was big enough to warrant changing the engine out.
Instead of using the supercharged OHV 4L, Ford dropped in the 5L OHV V8 (for those with heavy towing duties) and developed the SOHC (Cammer) 4L with the newer-school OHC design. I'd look for the OHV 4L to be dropped altogether from the Ranger and Explorer lines in the next year or two.
I wouldn't necessarily say that the 3.9L was weak for a V8 if you take its displacement into account. Hell, it's putting out 25 more ponies of the 5L Mustangs from just a few years back.
I'd almost opt to believe the supercharger is more for low-end torque. It's putting out a relatively low 267ft/lbs at a pretty lofty 4300rpm. For a larger car like the LS, I've heard that it's a bit sluggish off the line.
In any case, I would LOVE to have the 3.9 in my truck. I'd get tons more power and better gas mileage to boot. I'd probably have to do some mods to get that torque band a bit lower in the rpm range, tho.
I think I'll stick with the more reasonable mods for now. I'm just planning on adding a Superchip to my truck, which is already decked out with a Gibson cat-back and a KKM Tru-Rev kit. Just those first two mods made a big difference. Beyond those, the mods cost more for smaller gains. Plus, I've still got my car to tinker with...
Just make sure that you've got low enough gearing for a tire swap. I put bigger tires on my Blazer, and it was a complete dog because the gearing was too tall. The odometer registered 95 miles on a 125 mile trip too. So, it was off by a pretty fair margin. Sorry, but I can't remember the sizes anymore.
gooba:
I can't quite figure it out either. You'd think that Ford/GM could make a simple line of V8s to power all of their cars & trucks. You'd think that 4 or maybe even 3 could do the trick with just some slight tuning between models.
Also, I saw a huge 8 foot by 10 foot picture of the new s-10 4 door crew cab. Looks exactly like a Blazer, but with the open bed in back. Still has that downward curved hood. The little brochure about it didn't sound like it was going to have much off road capability other than you have the option of slightly larger tires. I think they're going for the family market. It was all geared towards mom/dad/junior and the family dog going out to the beach for a day. Nowhere did it say anything that the Chevy off-road package would be offered. I wonder why they'd leave out the off-roaders?
I didn't mean not to answer your question. I don't know if that is the only V-8 offered by Nissan, I think it is. I'm not much on the history of Nissan/Datsun but to my limited knowledge it's the only one that I know of.
Another engine more powerful than the 3.9 would be the twin turbo V6 in the Z. As far as I can tell, the V8 in the Q is Nissan's only V8. They'll definately have to have one if they choose to build a full-sized (or mid-sized) truck.
Cthompson,
good to see you in here again, I have always respected your opinions, at least you looked at and drove and considered a frontier before you bought your ford. And you don;t seem to have a particular bias. I think you may have missed the point that was being brought up about the ford V8 with the supercharger, that was because Vince was being particulary hypocritical, when Nissan puts a supercharger on their V6, it is a bandaid, when ford does it, he has no comment, I think that was the point there. Actually Nissan has alot of experience with superchargers/turbos, Steve millen has supercharged just about everything with a Nissan name plate, he even got a 200sx to keep up with a 911 turbo!, he supercharged the pathfinder,
and the maxima,also Nissan has done alot overseas, the frontier in Europe has a turbo diesel, as well as the silvia. Besides, Nissan is backing up the supercharger with a 5yr/60,000 mile warranty, Ford doesn't believe in their normally aspirated engines past 36,000 miles.
Vince;
thanks for the JD power posts, did you look at everything or just point out what you wanted? Can you explain to us why if you go from the top of the list you see 4 Nissan/infiniti products before you see 1 ford/lincoln/mercury product? Or why if you go from the bottom of the list, you see 3 fords, the excursion, windstar and contour before you see 1 Nissan? And why does JD still rate Nissan above the industry average and Ford below?
In 98 the frontier won highest in inital quality in the same test, how many times has ranger won it? Everyone moved up this year and that is great,
oops, well except for Ford's Jaguar division it had the biggest one year drop in quality in history, but I guess somehow you missed this too huh? And I love how you can point out how the Ranger eeked out the Frontier in this test, but what would you say about the maxima and taurus you were bragging about before? let's see the maxima was #23, the taurus, 82! quite a difference, so if you want to brag about the small difference in this survey, you have to accept how terrible Ford did as a whole and how poorly the other fords scored against Nissan, well which is it? And when you were scanning over Nissan's financial reports how did you possibly miss that Nissan's operating profit was 82.6 billion yen ($757.8 million) when analists were predicting 30-40 BY? I guess you just did not read the whole article right? As far as Edmunds opinions on the ranger and frontiers you mentioned, I am actually surprised they scored the frontier as high as they did, Edmunds is notorious for bashing Nissan. BTW you said it was a 98 frontier V6, the V6 did not come out until 99 you idiot, at least get your sources right. But regardless, they still scored the frontier higher than the ranger in reliability, and they also said, the frontier provides, comfort, practical utility and finally PLENTY OF POWER WHEN THE V6 IS ORDERED, be sure to check this one out. Does not sound like a bad review to me. As far as the performance, I gues they did not test these with a load in the bed like I did, or tried a turning radius, like I did, or notice that the ranger took 100 feet more to stop than the frontier. These are performance figures I am intersted in, I gues I should go over the safety thing again for you because you still have no comprehension of what is going on, teh frontier and ranger had similar front and side passenger and driver ratings, the only part the frontier did signifigantly worse on is the offset, and the injury rating were the same on both. Also this was not done after the improvements and new models in the 2000 MY.
Couple of other minor notes, I don't remember who mentioned it, but someone said they liked the innovations int he sport trac, like waterproof seat covers, actually this is one of the many things Ford copied from Nissan, they have been an option on the Xterra since it came out. And actually Nissan has commited to making a full size truck, with a V10 option, you can read about it at freshalloy.com.
I hope Nissan's full-size is bigger than Toyota's. I looked at the Toyota Tundra and wasn't that impressed with it's size compared to the Silverado or the F-150. What I would really consider in five years would be a 3/4 ton Japanese pickup with a diesel! Probabally never happen though, so I'll wait for the F250SD
Fact is the Ranger RATES ABOVE the Frontier both at EDMUNDS and at JD powers. This is a Ranger vs Frontier room. I like how the Nissan group loves to bring in other engines, cars, trucks, ect... when they know the Frontier is a joke... Like I said I have proven the Ranger is safer, better performer, better quality...
The 3.3 is a joke, joke, joke. The supercharger is a bandaid. A normally aspirated 3.3 is going to get killed out there. Ford 4.0 SOHC 205hp and 240ft/lbs of torque, Toyota Tacoma 190HP and 220ft/lbs of torque, Chevy 3.4 200HP and 250ft/lbs of torque, Nissan 170hp and 200ft/lbs of torque! LOL!!! Just take your medicine, Nissan Frontier just doesn't make the mark...
And you idiot, I did mention a 99 V6 XE 4x4!! in the Edmunds comparison, it scores a 6.0 vs the Ranger perforamance rating of a 7.3, read next time. Please link me to the 100ft stopping distance issue, I have yet to find where it says this...
Vince's Super Smart Post #4
>Please take a trip over to the used
>car/truck page here at Edmunds look under a 1998
>2DR XLT 4wd Ext cab stepside SB
> Reliablity - 8.7
> Performance - 7.2
> comfort - 7.3
>Now, take a trip over to a 1998 2 Dr xe 4wd ex >cab
>SB Frontier:
> Reliability - 8.9
> Performance - 6.0
> comforte 7.3.
>READ THIS, PlEASE, Nissan finishes only .2 >ahead of RAnger and performance is a joke!!! LOL.
>OK, your going to say "it wasn't the 3.3" Now go
>to a 1998 2 Dr XE V6 4wd XE ext cab SB. >Peformance
>is still a 6.0!! LOL, HA, HA, Enjoy your severly
>underpowered high tech jokes boys!! >Ranger rules!!