Nissan Frontier Crew Cab vs Ford Explorer Sport Trac - II

steve234

I am curious about using the Windstar transmission as a negative on the ST. Since the Windstar is FWD, there is no way that its transmission is involved with the ST. I would also like to point out that if you look at any vehicle brand, the biggest ongoing complaint is that (brand here) has crappy transmissions. Automatics are the most complex piece of equipment on a vehicle and therefore the most likely headache. Considering the complexities of the units, its amazing how few problems any manufacturer has. An interesting story is when Rolls Royce decided to build anautomatic, they dissected a GM Hydromatic with the intent of improving the design. The first one they built would not work. In appling RR fit and finish, they had smoothed and polished the clutches. Goes to show, only God is perfect.

PS cynusx1, you may have gotten a lemon, but at least Ford took it back. No manufacturer will take a vehicle back unless they have no other recourse. To expect perfection in every vehicle is absurd (see above). Childish slams belong in a kiddy forum with vince8.

fordsporttrac

Well I wouldn't be as worried about the Bed Ya know pounds per Sq inch and all that. (Ever see a water bed supported by paper cups?)

Big question is how much does a grand piano weigh. The biggest Grand Piano I could find on the internet is 9' 1" long
http://www.kawaius.com/gs100.htm
and weighs 1133 lbs.

The rear springs rated at 3200lbs so thats ok.

The box total load is 2200 max so thats ok

The GVWR is 5880 and grandma is not in Denver so forget the 2% per 1000' altitude reduction so thats ok.

The max payload (whatever that is) is 1460. So I guess I can Take the Piano, Me, My Wife and the Baby plus 80lbs of luggage.

The tie down hooks are rated at 770 lbs each there are 8 of those so thats ok.

The tailgate is rated at 800 lbs so thats ok.

The cargo cage is rated at ??100 lbs of force??
That ones a tough call. You may have me there.

But technically speaking we only said "Grand Piano" so http://www.kawaius.com/rx2.htm is a Grand Piano that is 5' 10" and weighs 662 lbs.

I think this is the one grandma has anyway.

keanec

I don't think we are trying to say the tranny in the Windstar is the same as in the ST. If you check the other discussions, you will find that Ford hasn't been the top tranny manufacturer there is. We were referring to the Windstar because FordST had mentioned that it had lots of problems in '95 but they had fixed them - so I am assuming that he deduced that Ford had got over their "tranny" problems. I disagreed because I don't think Ford has got over the problems from the '95 Windstar as per all the posts in the Windstar discussions. Also, if you peruse the Explorer discussions, you will also find mentions of tranny problems there. Yes, they are complicated, but you know what? I have never had a single solitary tranny problem in ANY car/truck/SUV I haved owned over the last 20 years. Yes I did have two Ford Taurus's ('89 & '91) with know problems.Check Phil Edmunston's Lemonaid guide and you will see he mentions Ford Transmission problems on more than just one Ford product.

Also, while you are checking out that site, you will see that the one Ford "buy-back" mentioned above is one of many for Ford.

Again I am not saying the ST will give tranny problems, only time will tell, I was just responding to FordST's answer to a query by a prospective CC or ST buyer who had specifically heard somewhere else about Ford's tranny problems!

FordST - Excellent comeback about the Grand!!!

That is where the Windstar came up.

gooba

I am sure it will carry the load.I know the rating is there.My concern is with the composite material that the bed is made from.Putting a load in there like that may put a crack in the bed.I take it your calculations on psi was with the legs removed and the piano's weight completely and evenly supported throughout the load and the bed.

mahimahi

keanec,
This is by no means sticking up for or defending Ford's transmission issue. Like I said I have never owned a Ford. Those that I have personally known that have haven't problems with their trannies but rather other stuff such as the A/C lines leaking something the Ranger and escorts and the F-150's were known for. But I have had three trucks and use two Z-71's regularly. My trucks were a Samuri(manual) which I traded for a '81 Toyota SR5 4x4 Longbed(yes I made out on the deal )with a manual,my last truck was the '94 S-10 with an auto transmission. Both of the manuals input shaft (bearing carriers)went and chewed up gears, just replaced necessary parts- both of those trucks had 150K + miles. My S-10 had 38K miles on it when the transmission had to be replaced, that's right 2K out of warranty! Both of the Z-71's 95 models are both working on their second transmissions and the one is about to need it's third. I really don't know about Ford but, if there's an automaker that can't build a transmission(today- or at least in the past 10 years) Cheverolet has to take that award. I remember back in during the period('88-'91) when I owned an '87 Z-24 people all the time kept asking me which number transmission I was on(I never had any problems with it) because apparently in the GM models(cavalier, J2000, Grand Am, Berretta, Cimmeron, I forgot the olds model) that bolted to the 2.8L it was horrible. I know that Chevy built the infamous TH-350 and TH-400 but their newer transmissions have been horrible. I see all these topics on here with these die-hard chevy fans giving Tundra owners hell saying that toyota can't build trucks blah, blah, blah...I say what about your trannies!

keanec

Sorry, I don't know have any clue about GM's. The only GM I owned was a '97 Saturn, and I sold it with 30000 miles on it. I haven't even perused any of the conferences that talk about GMs. So, if they have tranny problems, I don't know. I have been told by a chrysler service advisor that they have tranny problems. Maybe it is like Steve said. I am sure the Japanese have some problems, but you sure don't hear about it as much.

By the way; I figure you get 150k miles out of a tranny, you are doing well and age; not poor quality is killing it.

scape2

OH yeah! I'm back! What is this crap about the ST not being able to go offroad?? Have you picked up the latest edition of Truck Trend? There is a great comparison, and they do take the ST OFFROAD! And it does just fine, goes everywher the CC goes, and even better! LOL! READ, READ, READ the article....
Ok, I don't own one, but I have driven both on test drives... The CC backseat is a joke, read any review. Noway can someone 6feet sit back there when someone 6feet is driving, this is a joke right? Your fooling yourself. With the frontseat all the way back you have very little room...Yes, I'm here, reading your antiFord rhetoric.. Truth is Ford did its homework on the ST and you Nissan fans don't like it.. By the way enjoy the bandaid on your weak 3.3.... LOL...

ricpr

Well I am getting closer to purchase and have finally driven all three trucks in this class on the same day. here are my thoughs:

Best Looking:Nissan

Best Interior:ST

Best Driving:Dakota/ST

Best Option:V8 on the Dakota

Roomiest Interior:Dodge

Most Comfy Backseat:ST

Best Ergonomics:Dodge

Best Value:Nissan (Good Price!)

Best Deal:Dodge (Little bit more than Nissan, V8)

I noticed that there is still debate about the back seats. Both Dodge and Ford have seats that fold. I bet Nissan will eventually, but I doubt that comfort will be addressed. The back seat of the Dodge and Ford are good for long trips and rival car comfort. I had quite a time getting my 8.5 size shoe into the back of the Nissan without bumping into the front seat rail. The Dodge with all the goods is about 23000 in Texas and the Nissan is about 21000. I think Ford thinks highly of the ST. I noticed that the SuperCrew price was talked about some. The dealers in Tx are now advertising the SuperCrew at 24000 with the XLT package and the 4.6L V8. The dealerships in my area have an abundace of them. For 26000 one can upgrade to the 5.4L, CD, bed liner, etc. I still think that the prices of the Dodge and ST are too close to the SuperCrew and hope for a price drop. I have been seeing a lot of the SuperCrews, some Dodge and Nissans and hardly any ST's. I believe that many people are upgrading to the SuperCrew with the 4.6L V8 because of proximity in price and no change in gas mileage.

keanec

Good review. I liked the way you broke down the catagories. Really can't argue about any of the points; especially since I have never driven the Dodge, and have only looked at it briefly.

The only thing I can suggest that you are missing is a reliability and resale cat.

Why do so many people opt to purchase Hondas, Toyotas, and Nissans when, to be honest, the japanese car companies always are behind in most of your stated catagories (looks excepted sometimes)? Reliability and resale/value. (IMHO) They generally make vehicles that are reliable and of high quality. This reflects in a sustained good resale value; Not just on "hot" must have vehicles. I am not just looking at any individual vehicle, but overall that's my opinion.

I think if you add those two factors into your review, it might push the Nissan over the Dodge. Unfortunately, and there are those that will argue, Chrysler does not have a reputation for quality, reliability, and resale (IMHO).

I think that the Ford ST would also jump ahead of the Dodge because of the same reason.

I am not trying to start anything, I am just giving some of my opinions/reasons for sticking with the Nissan.

By the way, I was in a town of 5000 people that is about an hour from where I live on Saturday.

Ford STs - zero (they have a big Ford dealer with 3 on the lot)

Dodge Dakota 4x4 crew - 4 (in less than an hour)

Nissan CC - zero (mine excepted)

gooba

There you go again vince,the ONE article and it is gospel.There are 3 others out there that show that the ST is NOT a good off road vehicle.As fordsporttrac said,the reviews do not mean anything.I agree with that sentiment.I hold his opinion on the ST alot higher then anything printed by ANYBODY,because he owns one,and puts it through its paces in different everyday situations.
In fact I believe that he would disagree with your statement about the off road abilities.

gooba

vince,you said:
By the way enjoy the bandaid
on your weak 3.3.... LOL...
Same song AGAIN?The addition of the supercharger will help.The GREAT thing is that WITHOUT the supercharger,the "weak 3.3" STILL has MORE POWER AND TORQUE then YOUR PERSONAL RANGER............
LOL LOL LOL

wdoyle9752

No Vince has more torque, He's so talented, I'm sure he has done something to his own truck like put a bandaid SC on his engine or maybe he even bolted a Ford 5.0 V8 in. I've seen a few ranger owners be forced to put them in because they felt like they didn't have enought power (not saying that they don't have enought power, but Vince can take anyway he wants).

fordsporttrac

You said;
As fordsporttrac said, the reviews do not mean anything.
=================================

Nope never said, that no how no way. I think several hundred messages ago I made the comment you need to look at the source of the articles before you judge and verify they make equal comparisons.

You also said;
In fact I believe that he (fordsporttrac) would disagree with your statement about the off road abilities.
==================================

First, What I said was Because of the ST's lower ground clearance and long wheel base the CC should be a better off road vehicle. The ST is fine for light off roading.

That doesn't mean a dirt parking lot!

My concern is (and I have not tested it) that the ST will hit bottom more often on tall humps that are shorter than the wheel base. Where the CC having a taller ground clearance and shorter wheel base would cross more of them. IMHO, When major off roading, ground clearance is everything.

Second, I would point out that its not Vince's statement it was Truck Trend's statement. And until I read the article I reserve comment.

gooba

First,I have to apologize,you are correct that you did not make the comments about the reviews.It turns out to be someone else.

You said:
That doesn't mean a dirt parking lot!
I never said nor alluded to a parking lot.

You said:

Second, I would point out that its not Vince's
statement it was Truck Trend's statement. And until
I read the article I reserve comment.

Let me refresh the statement by vince:

There is a
great comparison, and they do take the ST OFFROAD!
And it does just fine, goes everywher the CC goes,
and even better! LOL!

After reading that I guess I better go read the article because I just have to see in their article a sentence in a review as vince stated.I can't see how Truck Trend would print a statement like that.

In reference to the off road capabilities you did state:

#431 of 506: Off Roading (fordsporttrac) Fri 09 Jun '00 (10:55 AM)

Cant make too much of an off roader out of the ST.
Its got a Long wheel base and average ground
clearance. Just itching to be hung up on some mole
hill. :-)

This does fall in with your statement about ground clearance,but does go against vince's statement.IMHO.

cygnusx1

Steve 234: Call me a kid then, but I could never see taking an ST anywhere but the pavement. And no, my Ranger wasn't my only "lemon" experience with Ford. I've owned plenty and could never recommend any Ford product to anybody. Just my .02. And c'mon, can you really see an ST off roading in the mountains somewhere? Please.

cygnusx1

A review from pickuptruck.com

While the truck operated well on most sections of the trails, the driver and spotters had to compensate at times for the Sport Trac's limited approach and departure angles and with only 8-inches of ground clearance, and a foot longer than a regular Explorer, the Sport Trac doesn't make for an ideal off-road companion on steep or deeply rutted trails.

While the Sport Trac's 4-wheel drive off-road characteristics leave something to be desired, it's clear that Ford's targeted SUV-owning consumers, of whom 95% stick to the paved roads, will appreciate the extra utility pickup truck owner have known all along.

mahimahi

Vince8,
Normally I say you should be able to voice your opinion but referring to my post about me sitting in the back of MY Crew Cab...you shouldn't because you are clueless! I know, I know your just JELOUS because somebody can actually sit in the back of OUR trucks and you couldn't wait for Ford's dragging foot! I have to request that you not post anything that you don't know about such as the seating of a truck you claim you have driven. By the way driving it with the closed mind that you have did you expect to have some sort of revelation or something? Can you actually believe that those of us on this topic think that you drove it objectively(this means unbiased)? I'm so glad that I don't have a Ranger that has a 4.0L that has a meager 160hp, how embarassing I guess if I were you I'd be pissed off too and dealing with buyer's remorse just like you! hahaha to you, sucker!

fordsporttrac,
RE:
"Second, I would point out that its not Vince's
statement it was Truck Trend's statement. And until I read the article I reserve comment."

In fact, it is Vince8's interpetation of the article not what the article says. See he should be following the "IMHO" rule all agreed to but he doesn't and causes 'junk' to pile up on this topic.

gooba

What you forgot to do was say that Truck trend or Edmunds.or Carpoint sat in the back seat and found it sufficient. :-).When I test drove my CC the salesman came along and he sat in the rear seat.He was around 6'0 or 6,2,and he was riding comfortably back there until we went "boonie bouncing" to check the 4wd and exercise the suspension.Needless to say he got to know the headliner and roof quite intimately.I enjoyed it but I doubt he will sit back there again.

fordsporttrac

You and I said:
That doesn't mean a dirt parking lot!
I never said nor alluded to a parking lot.


Yea sorry I should have specified that comment was directed at cygnusx1.

fordsporttrac

cygnusx1 said;


the Sport Trac doesn't make for an ideal off-road companion on steep or deeply rutted trails.
==============================

Although I haven't done any testing, in theory, (because of the measurements) I agree with that statement. But I wish to point out I have always said the ST is is for light off roading and the article says "steep or deeply rutted trails".

cygnusx1 it does not say dirt parking lots. It does say "the truck operated well on most sections of the trails,"

You can't design a Truck to be best off road and best on road. Seems to me Ford hit the mark they wanted.

mahimahi

You're right I should have said that My salesman wanted to ride in the back too but I wouldn't let him so I did with him driving. But frankly I really didn't care if was comfortable because I would be doing the driving(and I don't have any children), more curious than anything and to my surprise it's alot more comfortable than it looks. See I looked at the full-size trucks that were extended cabs and the suicide doors were idiotic to me. Because if your in a parking lot and next to other cars and have both doors open, with a shopping cart or baby troller, you can get wedged in there with nowhere to go. This happened to me when I borrowed a friend's F-150.

But, I see what your saying about the headroom in the back. The rear seat is neat because unlike a car, it's set up in a 'stadium' style seating(it's a little higher than the front seats. They should have raised the roofline like the Xterra's.

steve234

I have owned or operated several GM products, plus I worked for a GM dealer. I personally would never own one because of my experience with them. That said, I would not get on a forum and go making blanket statements that they are junk. If they were all junk, people would not buy so many of them. Granted the country is full of fools, just look at the last two presidential elections. Without knowing the details, which I am not interested in, I do not know if you just had bad luck, a bad dealer or they see you coming.
I said nothing about off-roading any of the vehicles and could care less about 4wheeling. I 4wheeled for the military in the mountains of Korea and the bayous of LA and got my fill of it. To spent $20+ on a vehicle and take it boondawging is not my concept of fun. If I want to do that, I would find an old junker that I would not care about body damage or if it sets for a few months. Everybody buys what suites them. To insult a person's choice of vehicles is insulting their intelligence among other things. I find interesting the honest comparison of models. XXXX are crap is indicative of the contents of that person's head.

On the transmissions, my experience is that they all have problems. My brother-in-law loved the Datsuns he had, but said the automatics were junk. He may have just had bad luck or they could have had problems. He now owns a F150 and an Explorer now (traded the Nissan car for the Explorer). I think that GM may have the distinction of the best and the worse. The TH200 was by far the worst automatic I have heard about and the report on the new Allison truck transmission is so good that they report that Dodge is going to put it in the Ram diesels.

mahimahi

Is your last post meant for me? If it is I never said I was going on another forum and make blanket statements further more, I agree with you that all companies(auto) either have had or will have a 'bad' auto tranny. I've heard the same thing about the Allison transmission. But if you worked at Chevy dealership then you know the particular transmission that I'm referring to( the ones used in the '91-'97) on the full sized 1/2 tons. I will make the statement that they were bad and used in any condition other than going back and forth to work they would most likely fail and even then there's a good chance they would fail. Despite any problems that I may have had it wouldn't stop me from buying a Chevy the only reason that I didn't consider it when I looked at the F-250 SD was I hate Chevy's diesel( IMHO weak and bandaid of a diesel)but I hear they are going with an Isuzu engine that might intrigue me in a few years.

mahimahi

I just finished reading the edmunds reviews on both of these vehicles. Wow, I couldn't believe what I was reading seems that Edmunds likes SUV's funny how their tune changed after the S/T came out. When they did the evaluation on the Crew Cab they didn't really care for the idea of a 4-door pickup. They even compared a stripped down Chevy 2-wheel drive pickup to a fully loaded Nissan Crew Cab's price, meaning you could get the Chevy for about $1K more, WHATEVER! Eventhough both vehicles have small cargo areas...Nissans got laughed at and compared to carrying plants and such while the author boasted about the room that the S/T has. If I'm not mistaken the S/T is smaller, whatever. My point is what a major biased review. I always respected Edmunds to a degree but after reading that seeing them kick several people off of their topics...Well, let's just say I'm glad I don't use car magazines to base my buying decissions. Anybody that thinks that they(magazine authors) aren't biased you're sorely mistaken.

gooba

I am still wondering if you can make a statement such as: But I wish to point out I have always
said the ST is is for light off roading and the
article says "steep or deeply rutted trails".
And also:
You can't design a Truck to be best off road and
best on road. Seems to me Ford hit the mark they
wanted.

After you said this,how can you not disagree with vince's statement.In fact,how could you agree with the article,if it did allude to the ST being equal to or superior to the CC in off road capabilities?You can't,not with your previous statements about ground clearance.

The sad part is that your response to my earlier post,was something that I was not surprised to see.I actually hoped that you would have responded differently,and would actually say something to vince about a statement that was contrary to what you have been saying.Instead,you chose to avoid and ignore.I expected better from you,and had respect for your opinions and statements,even if I did not always agree.

ziggy18

It seems whenever a magazine or web site has anything to say that doesn't support your beliefs, they're biased.

As a "Truck", the CC has a spacious rear seat although it has 7" less leg room than ST, see NADA link). Also for a truck the cargo area is small even though it's 4" longer than the ST's cargo area. Note: the ST reclaims some bed volume with it's increased depth of 2.6" over the CC.

As an "SUT" the ST has a standard rear seat area & larger than average cargo area.
http://www2.nadaguides.com

As you Nissan guys have pointed out when it suited you, they are classified differently. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

As for bias, you have suggested that "Truck Trend" (Motor Trend) & Edmunds are both biased against Nissan for various reasons.

How then did the CC's brother, the Xterra win Motor Trend's SUV of the year award?
MT August 1999 tested the Xterra against the Jeep Cherokee Sport & gave the win to the Xterra disspite the facts supporting the Jeep:

- More power & torque
- Better acceleration at all measured intervals
- Better braking distances
- Better Lateral acceleration & slalom speed
- Better fuel economy
- Better ground Clearance & approach angles

All this in the Jeep's favor & they gave the nod to the Xterra for subjective reasons such as ride quality. I'm not disputing MT's preference but it sure doesn't look like a bias against Nissan.

mahimahi

The point to my last post wasn't to say that they are wrong in saying that the Ford is better than the Nissan because they don't. Rather if you read the two articles they absolutely slam the Nissan and the idea of a 4-door pickup by some of the finer points of the article. Now with the S/T article they talk about the room in the bed and how great of an idea this is blah blah. Maybe it was because the Nissan was out and the media was skeptical of the idea but reading that article they never gave it a chance. So now if you read the articles and as they test the new Toyota and GM's that are comming out it will really make the Nissan look really a poor choice. I really don't have a problem with somebody's opinion or saying that Nissan is the worst vehicle on the road...I don't care, I don't work for Nissan, none of my family does, I don't own any of their stock but I expected Edmund's to be objective of the foor door p/u that's all. Nowhere on this topic or the other one do you see me say that Ford sucks, why because I don't feel that way. What sucks today may be awesome tommorrow...you never know...unless you're hardheaded.

Show me where I said the truck trend is biased. What I said or meant was that I don't put much credablity to a car magazine testing trucks. trucks IMHO aren't driven like sport cars and aren't supposed to be swerving between cones, skidpads, timed 0-60 and all that other B/S. As far as driving performance I'll test that on the roads that I drive myself. The magazines that I would read would be the offroad magazines, boat magazines and trailer mags(Trailer Life). To me these folks are more truck specialists and have a better sense of truck feel not car feel. If I were buying a car those mags might be fine.

Maybe I should expect the earlier articles written about the Nissan to sound biased or treated like the Guinnea Pig...that's what you get for being the first one on the block. In fact, I'll go on a limb here and say that I am actualy diappointed in Nissan's 2001 model.

cygnusx1

I'm just wondering what "light off-roading"?
To me, it means going the same place a standard car go. All I was saying (and mildy poking fun at) is that the sporttrac isn't mean for off road use, despite the fact it has 4WD. So I'm confused as to why anyone would buy it to be honest. Because it looks cool?

And I will try and keep my Ford comments to a minimum in the future. I don't belive Nissan or any other company is better than all the rest. I just think Ford is down there with Dodge/Chrysler
products when it comes to reliability. I've owned them and never had any luck with one of them in terms of reliability.

fordsporttrac

In response to the first paragraph of post 230. My comments were directed at cygnusx1. He was of the opinion that a ST was only good for dirt parking lots. But the article he himself posted said otherwise so I was attempting to show that although I say light off roading I in no way mean a parking lot.

In response to the rest of post 230, I think my statement of "Waiting until I read the article" was fair. How could I comment on something I haven't read.

I still feel that the CC would be the better off road vehicle but Vince made references to the article and it would not be right for me to make comments without reading it first. Once I read the article I will comment.

fordsporttrac

You Said;
All I was saying is that the sporttrac isn't mean for off road use, despite the fact it has 4WD. So I'm confused as to why anyone would buy it to be honest.
===========================

But you contradict your self with the article you yourself posted.

scape2

Gooba, you are greatly mistaken about HP and Torque of the 3.3 vs the present 4.0. The 3.3 has 170HP and 200ft/lbs of torque at 3100rpms, the Ranger 4.0 has 160HP and 225ft/lbs of torque at 2700rpms. Try again..... and the new SOHC 4.0, well you know the story... It will trounce your Frontier/Xterra whatever... That is why Nissan is putting the bandaid on... Supercharger.. to compete with Toyota/Ford/Chevy/Dodge..
Why is it when an article or writer or test doesn't favor a Nissan its "bias" but when an article favors a Nissan its right on? or when an article or writer or test doesn't like a Ford its "right on" with the Nissan crowd?? Hm.....
As far as interior room. Nissan has gotten hammered about its backseat room/comfort right from the start.. Take your medicine.. Its small back there..
Please read the Truck Trend article. They take both the CC and ST offroad along with loading them up... The ST fares much better, rides better and handles the load better... So much for your truck frame theory. Ford did its homework and passes with an A+....
Ok, I'm ready now for more Ford bashing...

keanec

With respect to your comment/quote "As an "SUT" the ST has a standard rear seat area & larger than average cargo area."

Without reading the link I am wondering if you or somebody else could enlighten me to what an average SUT is? As of today, I only know of three -the ST, CC, and Dodge. Now since the rear seat is a "standard" size in the ST (the Dodge the biggest, the CC the smallest, how can the rear cargo area be above average when it is the smallest of the three? I know the Dodge has the biggest bed (l x w), and the CC is approx 56"x60". Does the ST have a bigger bed than that?? I am sorry but I don't have access to the ST's dimensions. By the way, since these vehicles don't come standard with a hard top (tonneau), why in the world would anybody measure or care of their cargo capacity by volume instead of area? Why would you call it a SUTruck if you can't put cargo in over 2' in height? 2"+ wall height in the cargo bed is a useless measure unless all SUT came with fixed hard covers. In fact, a lower height can sometimes be desirable for ease of loading unloading the front of the cargo area

Also, I noticed this link also said the rear leg room is 7" bigger than the CC. Is this true? FordST and I measured and we found it bigger, but not by 7"; maybe we measured wrong? I don't know but I am curious as to whether these "facts" are true or not. If they are, I wasn't aware.

gooba

vince,you are correct on the torque number.I still have more HP then YOUR Ranger.If my 3.3l is weak then YOUR PERSONAL 4.0l has to be pathetic.
You need to take your medicine vince.Alot of this is reacting to the stuff you put out.
Bottom line vince,I like my CC,and it performed better then the Ranger or ST IMHO.The room is quite adequate and I feel very safe.

mahimahi

Vince8,
Call it what it really is and stop trying to get support from the Ford owners that actually own one of these vehicles. Your rhetorical statements/questions (I call junk, because there's never closure to your posts) never go anywhere, never prove anything. Can you participate in a manner where you can offer something? We all know the facts...the S/T is bigger so is the Dodge. We all know that Renault has a share of Nissan. We all know the S/T's motor produces more HP and Torque(which isn't the only factor to towing). We all know that Ford sells more vehicles than Nissan. This is all researchable information that anybody can do, if they care. But what or how are you helping this topic. Yeah this is a comparission topic, but the comparission is real world between owners and how they use these vehicles. Look at some of the past posts asking for some actual differences from the owners. I don't even mind your opinion(it would be nice if you qualified that it was your opinion)if you ever provided it but it's as rare as an elbino elephant! I also have a feeling that we get less participants because of the lashing that you throw out. So can you help make this an informative topic or not? Can you respond to questions with your own logic and reasoning, not the three magazinie's or internet site's that you like so, is it possible? You must have the ablity to be able to think on your own...you said you've been to Japan you probably drive to work by yourself of course, this is only speculation until you can actually respond otherwise. .

steve234

I was not even thinking about you with my comments. As far as the GM automatics are concerned, I have a little knowledge of them, but my GM experience is pre 1975.

mahimahi

Steve234,
The reason I asked you or I thought it might have was because of my reference to GM in my post #210.

Hows your S/T doing? Is yours one that didn't get the paint on the bottom of the doors. I'm still baffled how they missed that. I'm sure somebody got fired for that.

Keanec,
I was thinking about what you asked, how the S/T would look like w/a cap, maybe like an Explorer Sport with foor doors? (not being a smart [non-permissible content removed]) Every now and again, I see a Sport or Sport trac in my rearview mirror and don't know which it is. Does anybody know if they have the foor door out with the new body style?

210delray

...has been delayed till after Jan. 1, '01, from what I read in Automotive News.

ziggy18

My adversarial tone would be that we are indeed adversarys, worthy ones I hope.

Interesting that you counter my provoking but not name calling post with innuendo about my "type" & "brains". What does my "type" have to do with this discussion?

Note: A taller tailgate IS "longer" when folded down. Where's the confusion?

TaTa

mahimahi

I wouldn't consider the Nissan Crew Cab a SUT just like I wouldn't consider the F-250 SD Crew Cab or Chevrolet/GMC 2500 Crew Cab a SUT. I know that the magazines have labeled them(Nissan CC and Ford S/T) SUT's from time to time. But to me the only SUT out right now would be the Ford Explorer Sport Trac. Why? Because it is based off of a sports utility platform. All the rest are based off of a pick up truck platform.
As far as head room in the rear of the two(CC & ST) there's less than an inch between them(Edmunds).

gooba

You said:
Keep in mind that the additional 2.6" of bed
height of the ST translates into 2.6" of
additional
Bed length when the tailgate & cargo cage are
flipped open. In this configuration, the ST gives
up a whopping 1.5" in bed length to the CC &
maintains 2.6" more bed depth & 7" more rear leg
room.

You are correct that the taller tailgate is longer when folded down.But your statement that the ST gives up 1.5" in bed length with the tailgate down indicates that the ST has a deeper shorter bed.So in essence the CC has a longer bed in the same configuration.
If you took my statement about "type" to heart and looked at it as an insult,then I think you have probably read it right.The relevance of your "type" to this discussion is that you want to provoke someone else to start an argument on your behalf and report back to you.Pretty ballsy.Your lack of response to my post in answer shows that you really did not want the information,just the confrontation.
Argument by proxy.What next?

seahorse2

Hey all I am really up set-- love my truck though--Son is ecstatic with my old full size Bronco 4x4 ( had only been in 4 wheel drive once in 10 years) Got a great price on a Nissan CC- $200 plus under dealer invoice- even came with full tank of gas- ( pretty Ok considering $1.90+ here)-only two wheel drive but then I really use 4 wheel a lot!!! Bought it with 141/144 miles..came home tonight, pulled into garage out of fog and steam- no over heating lights- husband trained me well to watch gages ( He is not here right now so can't ask him)- antifreeze is all over the hood, engine, garage floor (thank goodness cold in San Francisco today and no sun, lots of fog and mist when I came home - so didn't notice mist from hood!!!)-- Ck'd under hood to find cause of steam---No radiator cap--ck'd all over engine with flashlights... Truck has 350+ miles -no radiator cap--and one big MESS...Question..I remember from working for my husband and he owned a truck wrecking yard-- antifreeze (10 years ago)was corrosive and nasty--I personally think it fell off today (picked up truck mid afternoon Tuesday in Oakland)--I think that the cap was not tightened...- also I haven't been under the hood-- still on over a half tank of gas from dealer's fill up....Help-- Cause tomorrow I could be the wicked witch from the north when I talk to the dealer....NoT his fault, but having had employees, who have a bad day or are just human like the boss... but bottom line is ---I now have brand new truck in garage-- can't, shouldn't and won't drive it. I also have antifreeze everywhere--must clean garage tomorrow- I have 3 nephews who live here- one with two legs and two with four, not good for four legged nephews-- only way to back yard is through garage! SERIOUSLY-- HOW SERIOUS IS THE ANTIFREEZE ALL OVER THE UNDERSIDE OF THE HOOD, ENGINE, HOSES ETC????
Thanks alot
Seahorse2

keanec

Okay - Mahimahi gave a good definition of a SUT. And he is right - Only the ST is built on a SUV platform - SO why would some org. say the ST has an average box length if it is the only one. How about the above average rear seat room???? Gotta trust that org. for their reviews. That's like telling a fourarmed person that your arms are long for a four armed person! (assuming there are no other four armed persons).

Now Ziggy - you didn't some out and exactly tell me the length x width of the ST, you came up with a round about way of justifying that by buying options and lowering the tailgate, you could make it almost as long. That's like telling a car owner that if you modify the trunk in a Camary by opening it up and adding a cage you would almost have as much room as a Grand Marquis; well almost like saying that. What about width? What I was getting at is that the ST (when somebody posts the width x length I will know for sure) has less cargo AREA than the CC. I don't buy your arguement how the cargo volume is an important measurement. It might be a measurement, but it is not as relevant as Area; IMHO.

As to your camping gear needing volume; HOW? I can't put any camping gear that extends above the sides? AREA is important for camping gear. I can pile it way above the sides - and I do almost every 2nd weekend of the year (including fall and winter). Mulch? better be light; it also might be the only thing you can put in the back right up to the top of the sides and not damage your suspension. Put a load of gravel or sand or soil and level it out and you probably are overloading your vehicle; at least i would surmise. somebody like FordST might have more info on weights/volume and can give us some insight. Even if he does, how often do people with these small "truck-like" vehicles load up with mulch/gravel etc..?

As to the size of the rear seats - whether the Dodge or ST is bigger I don't know, I do know the CC is the smallest, but I was just questioning the 7" of legroom that was posted. IMHO, it seems to be inaccurate. I could be wrong and that is why I asked others if they have tried measuring it.

keanec

I feel sorry for you! I don't know for sure if the coolant is corrosive. It probably is long-term but it can be cleaned up before doing any damage. If it happened to me, I think I would have the dealer send over a person to do the cleaning!! A good dealer would!

Hopefully for you, that is not a sign of things to come!!

mahimahi

I'm sorry that something like that happened. Hpoefully you've already called the dealer. You'r e probably right the mech. who checks all the vehicles that come into the dealer didn't tighten the cap. What I would do would be back the truck out of the garage wet the whole front end off with water. Pop the hood put the cap on(if you can't find it cover the fill hole of the radiator- preferably w/a lint free rag) wet with water(this will dilute the degreaser overspray)the entire engine area. If you have a degreaser like Castrol super clean or what ever you use on the wheels of your trucks - be very careful most degreasers are not good with painted surfaces always keep the painted surfaces wet with water. Spray on the infected area(of the engine compartment-not the hood or outside of the truck!) with the degreaser and use a wet rag to go over the areas the best you can. Better than that if you don't have a degreaser or can't get one use Dawn dishwater soap, mix it in a bucket with water or put it in a spray bottle this method will be safer too. At the very least rinse the entire front area off with water from the top to bottom. The only areas that could really see any damage would be any pained surfaces. The hoses and wires should be fine. They might end up with slight discoloration or white spots on them but they should be fine. But definately take some polariods if you can and show the dealer, that's ridiculous.

fordsporttrac

Don't worry about the antifreeze. Your truck was made within the last few years and all newer antifreeze is biodegradable. Just flush everything in your garage with water and don't eat it. I suggest you make the dealer flush your engine compartment out.

fordsporttrac

ST CC
Front Headroom: 39.4 in. 39.3 in.
Front Leg Room: 42.2 in. 41.4 in.
Rear Headroom: 38.9 in. 37.8 in.
Rear Leg Room: 37.8 in. 30.7 in.
Maximum Payload: 1240 lbs. 1200 lbs.
Maximum Towing: 5100 lbs. 5000 lbs.
Length: 205.9 in. 193.1 in.
Width: 71.8 in. 71.9 in.
Wheelbase: 125.9 in. 116.1 in.
EPA Mileage Est: 15/19 mpg 15/19 mpg
Cargo bed length: 50.0 in. 54.7 in.
Cargo bed width: 51.4 in. 59.8 in.
Cargo bed height: 19.7 in. 17.1 in.
Cargo bed w/cage: 72.6 in. 74.0 in.
Cargo Bed Volume: 29.6 cf. ?
Max Cargo Cap: 33.0 cf. ?
Ground Clearance: 6.7 in. 8.9 in.

In reviewing all these stats some things are obvious to me. First The CC's bed is bigger (substantially wider) than the ST's. The ST has substantially more room in the passenger area.

The CC bed is 4" longer but when both have the cage extended the CC is only 2" longer. However the CC bed is 8.4" wider.

All Data gathered from Ford, Nissan, Edmunds and CarPoint WEB sites.

To me the CC absolutely wins the BED Size and the ST absolutely wins the Interior space.

mahimahi

Well put fordsporttrac. I guess I could go out on a limb and say that the S/T is more comfotable probably has a better ride(don't remember it didn't really matter to me...I was comming out of an Acura Legend) and the truck aspect is better applied to the CC.

I saw a few posts back(way back) some of you were talking about the 'ride' of the two vehicles. Don't forget about the seats. I think they play an important part of the way a vehicle rides. IMHO Ford hands down has always(even in the Escort)had the most comfortable seats that any vehicle I've ever sat in. Whether or not the seat has plated a part in it or not I've never ridden in Ford that rode rough. In fact the roughest vehicle I ever rode in was my '81 Toyota 4x4...hehehe. We all know why too, because of the stright axle and leaf springs up front. Another benefit that the S/T has that will help it's ride is the wheelbase. The longer the better.

steve234

Don't own a S/T. I was looking over the market a few months ago and found some interesting points being made when everyone wasn't going ballistic over something dumb vince8 or someone else said. My 01 quad cab is thumbing a ride on a passing freight car, hopefully to get here within a couple of weeks. Personally, the discussion of the bigger bed is like discussing who is the bigger midget. If you can't get all you need to haul in it, it is too small and if you can, who cares about bigger. What is interesting is the potential of the plastic bed. This is an idea which makes sense to me and I hope it works well enough that all PUs find it practical to use them. I also expect to see more of the back seat becoming part of the bed ala Chevy Avalance. It sometimes amaze me when I remember the three options available on trucks were a/c, radio and automatics.

mahimahi

Steve234,
I appologize I thought you had a S/T. Hopefully you'll be enjoying your QC soon. I like your concept about the bed...it's how I feel about the rear seat. If everybody can't fit then they should drive I heard that the new SUT that Nissan's comming out with is supposed to have that same design(I think I heard that n this topic by someone). I read an article about the avalance and wonder if I was comming home with something in the back and it was open and it started to rain(very easy in Florida we get quick down pours here).

quest199

hi i have a ST that has 1900 mile and whenever it rains water get in the headliner i took it to one dealer and they had for 3 days and told me that it is design problem and they couldnt fix it
they recomend me to the dealer that i bought from
so i took it in on the 7-10-00 and on 7-21-00 i got it back it and the dam thing still leaks.
the dealer did verify that it was leaking. as a matter of fact thay find several place where it was leaking from and that they ordered alot of parts and say
it was fix but i know it was not because i call them and ask them y is it taking so long and the next day they say it was fix. so if anyone out there that have this problem with their sport trac leaking please email me and let me know what your dealer did to fix or anyone that see any posting on email me thanx bmw97@mediaone.net