Frontier vs Ranger - III

meredithmeredith Member Posts: 575
edited March 2014 in Nissan
This topic is a corrected continuation of Topic
1932 (and later 2267)....


Frontier vs Ranger - II. Please continue these
discussions here. Thanks!

Front Porch Philosopher
SUV, Pickups, & Aftermarket and Accessories Host
«13

Comments

  • obyoneobyone Member Posts: 7,841
    was getting kinda confusing...
  • wdoyle9752wdoyle9752 Member Posts: 73
    Most people probably buy the 4cyl Ranger because there is usually some kind of incentive. I know GM likes to get rid of their 4cyl trucks by given frequent incentives. If this is the case then the 3.0 upgrade going to cost alot more than $300 depending on the deal.
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    Gooba, you whine too much..
    Don't start getting down on me for the backlash you guys started! Between the 4 of you all I heard from the start is Ford bad, Ford garbage, Ford junk crap. I just showed you different and you guys didn't like it.
    And about the 3.0 option.. WRONG once again.. Its about a 300 dollar upgrade.. Yes, I will give you that the 2.4 will whip up on a 2.5... But Nissan only offers 2 engines, Ford 3..... If you look at the stats of the 2.5 vs the 3.0 MPG is only about a 1 to 2 MPG difference...
  • goobagooba Member Posts: 391
    vince posted once again on the boards:

    Here we go! Someone totally new enters the board
    and the Nissan crew jumps all over them. Truth
    hurts huh boys! LOL!! The Frontier is whimpy!
    Your kidding yourself with the 4K tow, you making
    me laugh along with anyone else who tows... Do the
    math yourself.... 170HP 200ft/lbs of torque
    4K boat + people + gear + trailer... would make it
    closer to 5K total... 200ft/lbs doesn't pull 5K
    lbs easily my friend, nice try though.....


    Gooba, you whine too much..
    Don't start getting down on me for the backlash
    you guys started! Between the 4 of you all I heard
    from the start is Ford bad, Ford garbage, Ford
    junk crap. I just showed you different and you
    guys didn't like it.
    And about the 3.0 option.. WRONG once again.. Its
    about a 300 dollar upgrade.. Yes, I will give you
    that the 2.4 will whip up on a 2.5... But Nissan
    only offers 2 engines, Ford 3..... If you look at
    the stats of the 2.5 vs the 3.0 MPG is only about a
    1 to 2 MPG difference...


    Gooba, nice paste.. you have no life? Frontier in
    the shop? YOu have proved to one other person you
    know NOTHING about offroading.. Your lame bud..Now
    enjoy your bottom of the food chain Frontier..LOL!
    Spoog, lies, lies, lies.. We have gone over these
    issues over and over again in the Ranger vs Toyota
    Room. Ranger does come with skidplates, Ranger does
    have a limited slip too.. The TRD has a useless
    locker.. Can only engage it in 4low and at under
    5mph per the manual, and when not engaged its an
    OPEN Axle, pretty expensive option you may use
    about 3% of your total driving time. The rest of
    your TRD is Bilsteins and springs.. You got taken
    bud.. Enjoy that sticker..


    Lockers don't help you in icy or snowy conditions.
    You want a limited slip diff. Lockers are more
    for straight away acceleration and not good for
    corners or turning. A limited slip has a clutch
    mechanism where one wheel slips and causes the
    clutch to engage the other tire. Locker is when
    both wheels spin at the same rpm at the same time
    constantly. Lockers are usually found on the folks
    who do some serious rock climbing or snorkling or
    serious offroading. Stats show that over 90% of
    4x4's don't even see gravel! I think for you a
    locker would be way over kill..

    Pattern continues.
  • cncmancncman Member Posts: 487
    CT;
    Actually, there are several other things we talk about, like, larger bed, better warranty, better ride, quieter ride more features for less money, more available features, I don't think you can look at alot of these posts in here as typical of most of the posters, look at how the discussion goes when Vince gets shut down and hides out, we go on about all kinds of topics and it is actually nice to be in here.

    Vince exactly how did you show us different? Everything still says the frontier is more reliable. ALso there are three engines, you keep conveniently forgetting that all Nissan engines now have mroe hp and more torque than all ranger engines, Nissan's 2.4l has more hp&more torque than the ranger 2.5l, Nissan's 3.3l has more hp and torque than the ranger 3.0l and the 3.3lSC has more HP&torque than the ranger 4.0l, just shows me you know nothing about trucks, trucks need torque remember? Torque is what matters I seem to recall someone saying. And if the the consumer rules and that is why they choose the ranger, then why is Ford well below the industry average in customer satisfaction? You just can't stand the fact that not only do the Nissan owners in here enjoy their trucks and are happy with them, but the fact that they chose them over the ranger and know all about them just must really get under your skin huh? I see you still refuse to discuss the suspension and braking, so I guess you admit the frontier is superior here too, so let's do a tally again.
    Vince already admits the frontier 4 cylinder is superior to the ranger 4 cylinder, Vince says that torque is what you need, now all the Nissans have more torque than all the rangers, so advantage here too to the frontier. Vince has been kind enough to show us all the data that shows the frontier to be more reliable, advantage to the frontier. Vince says the ranger is safer (based on old data), but can't explain why the injury rates are the same for both, So I guess this is maybe a draw, we already know the frontier has lower maintenance, longer warranty, lower costs of ownership, bigger bed, more standard and optional equipment. So what am I missing here? The only thing you have left is that the ranger sells more than the frontier, well I am sure that kraft macaroni and cheese sells more than velveeta shells and cheese, but I'll still go with the velveeta. Enjoy your weak, no torque, bottom of the line bandaided ford engine!
  • cncmancncman Member Posts: 487
    Almost forgot, Vince, since you know so much about towing, what do you tow with your ranger? what is your tongue weight, what is you gross weight? What kind of hitch do you use? How often do you tow? What kind of terrain do you tow over? The guys that posted about the frontier towing have actually towed with it, how many times have you towed with a frontier? I have pulled over 3,000# with my four cylinder and when I am at the boat launches, I see alot of old hardbody Nissan 4 cylinders pulling boats too.
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    "larger bed"

    Comparing what to what? Do you have any factual data for comparison, like a LB Ranger vs. a LB Frontier? You are the one and only person I have ever heard in my life to be concerned about the bed capacity in these two trucks. In general, someone so concerned with bed volume would be driving a full-size truck (something Nissan has yet to produce).


    "better warranty"

    Yep. Same 3yr/36K bumper to bumper but extends the "powertrain warranty" to 5yr/60K. I guess if I really felt the need, I'd take 500 out of my 1500 refund (which Nissan doesn't offer) and extend the bumper to bumper warranty to 6yr/100K.


    "better ride"
    Sorry. This is subjective. Better is what Joe Bob Testdriver prefers.


    "quieter ride"
    Yep. The Ranger has more wind noise, and the crappy Firestones are noisy. I've heard that Ford is switching to Michelin next year.


    "more features for less money"
    Nah. I can go out and get a comparably equipped Ranger for less cash outlay than a Frontier. I'll get rebates, and I'll get financing that's like paying no interest at all.


    "more available features"
    What is available on the Nissan that isn't on the Ranger (besides a quad cab, where you can just go buy a Sport Trac)? I can't think of a significant option. Does the Frontier have a dual-media stereo, a 5-speed automatic transmission, pulse lock vacuum hubs, cold weather pkg, a flexible fuel engine, a flareside box, a tremor sub/amp system, standard 4-wheel ABS on all trims, an in-dash 6 disk CD changer?


    There is nice conversation in here once in a while. Lately, it's been pretty dumb, tho.
  • eharri3eharri3 Member Posts: 640
    I sense there may be a strong inferiority complex at the source of this everpresent need other truck owners feel to compare their rigs to the Ranger and to bash Ford at every chance.
  • mmcbride1mmcbride1 Member Posts: 861
    I'm not defending either one, but it has definitely gone both ways...
  • cygnusx1cygnusx1 Member Posts: 290
    Flexible fuel engine?? CT, you can't really be serious about calling that a plus for the Ranger. It's caused major problems for Ford lately (at least from what I've heard and read). Maybe it's worked out by now tho.

    As for Ford bashing, eh,call it what you want. When a company sells me a heap and I have to take them to arbitration and they're forced to buy it back from me - I'm really not going to go out of my way to praise them. Refusing to fix known problems, telling me, "Uh, all Rangers are supposed to do that," etc. The only good thing they did was deliver my check and tow my Ranger away on the day they said they would.
  • cncmancncman Member Posts: 487
    CT;
    Nissan does not offer a LB, both the ranger SB and LB are more shallow, narrower with less distance between the wheelwells. Here's the data on that;
    max width= frontier-59.8" Ranger-52.00"
    width between wheel wells= frontier-41.7" ranger-40.4"
    I don't have the length of a ranger LB, but the regular bed is 71.8" the frontier is 77.4"

    CT; A bed is what makes a truck a truck, put a roof over it, it is an suv etc. I don't see why I don't have the right to want to be able to use a truck for its designed purpose. This means less trips back and forth, also I have bought some furniture that went back there that just barely squeezed between the wheel wells, it would not have fit in the ranger bed. I do alot of carrying stuff around and so does my dad, he has alot of rental property and is always borrowing my truck to haul equipment and wood and appliances etc. So, just because you don't put anything of size back there doesn't mean that I don't.

    Actually CT; Nissan is offering $1,000 rebate AND 3.9% financing right now, so I don't see what you mean about the cash outlay, (Although like I said before lack of other competing Nissan dealers in your area is why the dealer was pricing it so high for you when you went to look). All deals are going to be different according to the buyer and the dealer. I think the best way to compare is to get the two comparably equipped, figure out invoice, subtract any rebates/incentives and figure out what maybe a $500 deal is, the frontier comes out ahead.

    Maybe I should clarify "better ride" I mean less bouncy at highway speeds, takes the bumps better etc. I think if you drive one after the other you can see the difference.

    On Equipment,
    You can't get a sunroof or step rails from the factory in a ranger for one thing, or adjustable head rests, or a bed extender or roof rack. 4W ABS is optional on ranger, comes with all V6 Nissans, as well as a standard torsion bar suspension on ALL models. No load sensing brake valve on a ranger either. Not exactly sure what dual media is, but the Frontier you can get an auto load in dash 6 disc that does not use a magazine, along with RDS, and CD&Cassette. I don't believe Ford is using that flexible fuel 3.0l anymore are they? 5 speed auto is a gimmick, and you can only get it on the top of the line ranger.
    I prefer a mechanical lever 4x4 action than a vacuum operated one, more reliable and positive confirmation. Nissan does not offer a stepside, it is a work truck, I do wonder how it would do if they offered one though, but I have never had anyone ask me for one. Also look at what kind of stereo is standard equipment with both,
    frontier,
    60watt am/fm cassette
    optional 100 watt CD/Cass with 4 speakers
    ranger
    24 watt am/fm No Cassette!!
    24 watt am/fm CD optional,
    80 watt am/fm CD optional,

    Well, On a lighter note, I broke 100 on the course yesterday! I know that isn't great, but not bad for the 5th time I have played in 10 years right!? Real challenge next week though, going to lake Houston they say it is really long with alot of places to get wet. Didn't you say you were going a couple of weeks back?
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    I never really said that the FFV was a big plus, just that it was available.

    :^D


    But, there's something to be said for a truck being able to run on corn juice (ethanol). Yummy!
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    The Ranger longbed is a foot longer than the shortbed, so I guess that would put it at 83.8" vs. the Frontier's 77.4"?

    I know that its utility is the original essence of a truck. There's not enough of a difference between bed volumes to make a difference. How about we bet pinkslips that you can't load more stuff in your truck and haul it someplace than I can?

    That is the first time I ever heard of Nissan offering a rebate (and good financing to boot). I guess they want to move those '00s before the redesigned '01s come in force. I financed my truck for 3.9% for 60 months AND received a grand in incentives. My dad financed an Explorer for .9% and received some rebates too.

    However, I've found the actual prices for a Frontier to be at least a grand higher for the Nissan here in IL.



    If you want to compare invoice less incentives, it's difficult at best. The trucks leapfrog each other in equipment/prices. You just can't get a Frontier and a Ranger equipped exactly alike. I've tried before, but it just doesn't work. It seems like one of the trucks always gets equipped with more stuff than you want skewing the comparo.
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    So you mean the ride is more floaty and soft? I hate that. I prefer a firm ride, or I get motion sickness.
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    "You can't get a sunroof or step rails from the
    factory in a ranger for one thing, or adjustable
    head rests, or a bed extender or roof rack. 4W ABS
    is optional on ranger, comes with all V6 Nissans,
    as well as a standard torsion bar suspension on ALL models."

    You can get step rails on the Ranger. Also, I believe there's a DIO bed extender (but who'd really need one with a 7' bed?) I guess I can see its use in the tiny bed of a CC. 4W ABS is STANDARD on ALL '01 Rangers regardless of trim level or whether or not you get a V6. There was wide praise when Ford switched from the torsion bars to the IFS.
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    "5 speed auto is a gimmick, and you can only get it on the top of the line ranger."

    How could you possibly call it a "gimmick"? Do you not use one of the gears on your 5-speed manual tranny because that gear is a "gimmick"?

    As for limited options, Ford comes nowhere near Nissan.
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    For componentry the Ranger has:

    1 AM/FM
    2 AM/FM/Cass
    3 AM/FM/CD
    4 AM/FM/CD/Cass (in dash, dual media, RDS)
    5 AM/FM/Changer (6-chgr, in dash, RDS, no cartdg)

    It also has a factory option tremor amplifier/subwoofer setup for ext-cabs with an external amp and a custom-built down-firing sub in the ext-cab.
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    "I prefer a mechanical lever 4x4 action than a
    vacuum operated one, more reliable and positive
    confirmation"

    The pulse vacuum hubs have proved extremely reliable. I haven't heard of a single failure, yet. A 4x4 or 4x4low light on the dash and a thud is confirmation enough for me. You can also switch into 4hi up to 70mph.

    BTW, I thought you drove a little 4cyl 2wd truck?
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    Congrats on the game. I've yet to break 100, as I've only started golfing the last couple of years.

    I think I shot 130 or so.

    I did win the longest drive contest out of the 50 or so guys from my company. I think it was estimated around 300 yards.

    I'm more power than finesse. Gots to keep practicing. Maybe this Sunday.
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    Not trying to be an instigator with all of the posts or anything. I thought I'd just break 'em up to make them easier to read and see my points.

    -C
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    I love my truck!
  • goobagooba Member Posts: 391
    vince,where is the torque curve on your Ranger? Why have you not provided it?
  • goobagooba Member Posts: 391
    I am one that prefers the lever on my 4wd also.The vacuum pulse may be reliable with no problems,but there is a greater possibility of that failing,and it usually fails at the wrong time and place.I also prefer manual hubs,because of the firmer engagement and the ability to withstand the power better then the automatics.
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    I can understand that. As I don't do any serious off-roading, I enjoy the simplicity of the switch. And, my wife drives the truck a fair amount. It's just piece of mind that it's easy for her to engage 4wd if she needs it and not have to worry about her damaging the truck.

    For '01, Ford is adding a premium off-road package to the Ranger. It includes 31" tires, Bilstein shocks, and a manual lever transfer case.

    So, I guess you've got a choice of either one for '01. But, I think the premium off-road package Ranger isn't due to be released for a few months.
  • cygnusx1cygnusx1 Member Posts: 290
    Have you read/seen the specs on the new Harley Davison Editon of the F-150? There's a review of it at pickuptruck.com right now. I read an article in the paper last week on it. Not that I'd buy it or anything, but what a mean truck!
  • cygnusx1cygnusx1 Member Posts: 290
    Go to pickuptruck.com, click on GMC and then when that page comes up go to the upper right and check out the GMC Terradyne. It has a bed that slides out like drawer. Kinda weird, but interesting.
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    I checked one out in the showroom of my local dealer. It was a really nice truck. The interior was georgeous.

    Only too bad that it costs more than a Lightning and only comes with the "regular" 5.4L Triton and not the 375hp 450ft/lbs S/C monster Lightning motor.

    It's just a gimmick, but a really nice one at that.
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    Here I am again! Bad Vince for liking your Ranger, or better yet, Anyone who likes their Ranger, better not say so!
    Cncman, you have got to be kidding me, you honestly believe that Nissan offers more options, along with more truck packages on their Frontier than on the RAnger!!?? You are a very misinformed salesman, like most of them out there. Nissan in no way gives more options, or truck combinations than Ford can.. keep wishing..
    As I have said over and over again, I am done posting links, reviews, data that you always just shoot down anyway. Anything I post or link won't matter anyway..
    I have NEVER had any problems with my vacuum locking hubs, in mud, or at temperatures freezing or below, or temps of 100 or above.. the vacuum hubs are proving to be very reliable..
    About HP/Torque again... You just don't get it, Nissan needed a bandaid to match the NORMALLY, I will say again NORMALLY aspirated engines in this class. Ford didn't need a supercharger, And I will say it again, If the 4.0 SOHC were supercharged it would absolutely stomp the 3.3 S/C.
    As far as the 2HP and 2ft/lbs of torque/HP advantage Nissan claims over the 4.0 SOHC, it sure doesn't show in the 0-60 times. the 0-60 times of the Nissan 3.3 S/C are 9.9, per Truck Trends August issue..LOL!! Nice try...
  • mahimahimahimahi Member Posts: 497
    These topics are really slow. I guess we all have insulted each other to death ;) But check this out guys. I set up a storage site for us on this page similiar to the one I did on the Sport trac vs. Frontier topic. Right now I posted an article on the 2001 Frontier and another article on the 2001 Ranger. Both articles are from the Nov. issue of Truckin'. Just go to www.driveway.com Our username(member name) is: rangerfrontspace the password is: realpickups

    I thought this would be cool to post articles, not necessarily to prove any point but, rather to just share info that might not be online. Plus I would think it might be cool to see some of the rides that you guys have. Kind of exchange photos show the mods or even those us that might have completely stock trucks. Because, aside from all the 'ragging' we do against each other, we all belong to the unique class of pickup truck ownership...no matter what brand of truck each of us has, we all at least have that in common :)
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    That sounds like a good idea. I'll have to get out the digital camera and take some pics of my truck.
  • goobagooba Member Posts: 391
    vince,why are you comparing a 4.0L to a 3.3L?That is not really a fair comparison.The 3.3L compared to the 3.0L is closer.Also,all this stuff about under powered,and under torque 3.3L Nissans that you spout to us,you in turn on NUMEROUS occasions
    have recommended and touted the virtues of your friend's 3.0L.This engine has less hp/torque then the Nissan. I find this ironic.

    You have also touted the greatness of the 4.0L SOHC engine.How much better it is.What is funny is you have stated:
    Trucks need torque not HP!! These overhead cam
    engines are nice and high tech but take a close
    look at the HP/Torque curves. The Torque is there
    much quicker with a pushrod engine rather than the
    multivalvers, overheadcammers that need time to
    wind up!
    Last I checked this engine has an overhead cam.Which is it?Or is it OK because it is a Ford?

    Now,for the torque stuff you have been bringing up.In our earlier discussion you said:

    This is why they have HP/Torque curves.. dumb....
    Torque = moment of intertia x angular
    acceleration. A resultant torque applied to a
    rigid body will always result in an angular
    acceleration that is directly proportional to the
    applied torque and inversely proportional to the
    body's moment of inertia.
    Now, you said yourself "Horsepower is = F*D/T
    Where the HELL do you think F comes from?? It comes
    from the INITIAL TORQUE applied doof!! You have to
    have some sort of FORCE to intailly push the truck
    into motion!! YOU also said that RPM's play a role
    in the HP and Torque game, correct once again. Yet
    you fail to mention that the Ranger reaches it
    PEAK torque before Your [email protected]! Which truck is
    using its HP more effeciently?? Nice try, go back
    to Physics... :-}

    Remember that?Well,we all know that hp is a calculated number based on the torque reading as you so clearly stated earlier.With htis in mind you posted:

    First I spent the time reinstalling the old Ford
    OE assembly and air filter and removing the chip.
    It dyno'd at 161HP. I reinstalled the K&N air
    charger kit and the chip and it dyno'd at 184HP!
    So, I hate to tell you that aftermarket parts do
    help. If you are mechanic you above anyone should
    know allowing your engine to breath easier will
    increase HP. And the chip adjusts your timing and
    fuel mixture. As I have explained though, you have
    to run premium 92 octane with the chip.

    AND

    If you are looking for more performance out of
    your 3.0 try a K&N air charger kit and a chip. I
    put these on my 4.0 and noticed a difference.
    Also dyno'd it and increased HP on the 4.0 to 184

    After reading these posts that you made,there is NO REASON for you to not have the torque curve on your truck.You cannot get the hp readings without the torque reading.Which part are you lying about?

    You said nice try.You are not even close.
    LO.................L BWAAAAHHHHHHAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!
  • cncmancncman Member Posts: 487
    Vince said;
    "As I have said over and over again, I am done
    posting links, reviews, data that you always just
    shoot down anyway. Anything I post or link won't
    matter anyway.."
    So what you are saying is that you are not going to post anything else because you cannot effectively support the information you provide and participate in an intelligent debate. Well, why stop there? All you do is try to stir up trouble, spread misinformation, and try to convince others that if tey don't own a ford then they are idiots, well, I am sure we are all sorry for disagreeing with you.

    you like your truck and that is fine, I never faulted you for what you like, and have never criticized CT for liking his ranger, but of course he can intelligently support his opinions and that deserves some respect.

    "If the 4.0 SOHC were supercharged it would absolutely stomp the 3.3 S/C."

    Well I would hope so! This is liek saying that if I put a 911 turbo flat 6 in my frontier I would stomp your ranger, doesn't look like either is going to happen, so what is your point? Or are you saying that ford is planning on "bandaiding" the 4.0 now that Nissan has more hp and more torque?
    2hp and 2ft/lbs? The Nissan SC has 210hp and 246ft/lbs are you saying the ranger 4.0l has 208/244? That is different from what I have read.
    I love how you use the slowest recorded time for a 4100lb automatic 4x4 CREW CAB to compare to the ranger, 0-60 for the crew cab have been 9.5-9.9, which is in line with the 0-60 for the sporttrac. Very comparable times for comparable vehicles. Mahi posted info from another magazine in the CC Vs ST forum about how the SC was quicker than the S10 extreme, I don't know much about that truck, but I understand it has more hp and torque than either the SC or the ranger. So I really don't see a problem here.

    I see you still ignore the towing questions about what you tow what kind of hitch you have, how often do you tow, what is the trailer weight, tongue weight etc. This shows that as usual you are talking about things you have no experience with. Still no comment on the terrible ranger braking? Well business as usual.

    CT;
    On the ride, actually it is not a soft floaty ride, you can still feel that it is a truck, just firm and smooth at highway speeds, and the tail doesn't wag when you hit a pothole or big bump.

    On the warranty issue, it is not as much an issue of what it would cost to get an equal warranty, but how well does the manufacturer believe in its own product. You have to admit, it looks pretty sad that ford/chevy are still only offering 36,000 mile warranties.

    Well, I guess I am not doing too bad then, if you have been trying for that long, of course my driving distance with my driver is very inconsistent, I take alot of mulligans there, so I usually just use a 3 wood, I can find the sweet spot a little easier there. Keep working at it, Gary Player is working on a new course here in Houston, how about $.25 a hole?????
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    Ford corrected the back end of the Ranger in '98. It no longer has those sideways jumps when you hit that big pothole. There's a big difference between my '95 and my '98 Ranger. Handling is much improved.

    Nissan offers that same 3yr/36K bumper to bumper as everyone else. They just extend the powertrain to 5yr/60K. I'd love to see someone get some work done on the "powertrain" during that extended period. They'd probably find it doesn't include much at all. Just ask some VW owners what's included on their 10yr/100K "powertrain" warranty. In my opinion, if it isn't bumper to bumper, it isn't much.

    If Nissan has so much faith in their trucks, why don't they have a bumper to bumper 5yr/60K mile warranty? Then, you'd actually have something worthwhile.
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    I can count the number of times I've been out on the golf course on 2 hands. I've improved a bit since my first feable attempt. It took me a while to get rid of the slice. I'm pretty inconsistent, but I can usually get some good distance on the ball. I spend many a night at the driving range with a bucket.

    If that's .25 it sounds like a deal. If that's $25, holy crap! I spend $12 to walk 9 at my local golf course.
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    Goob, don't know where your getting your 0-60 numbers for the Sport Trac but they are from 8.3 to 8.7 from what I read around the net. And to quote a source, find the April 2000 issue of Truck Trend, they have 8.5 0-60 for the Sport Trac with the SOHC 4.0 or go to www.trucktrend.com..
    Why is it ok for Nissan to S/C an engine but not Ford? Actually Ford is going to S/C the 4.0 SOHC and call it the Adrenalin!! Where is Nissans supersport truck?? OK, I have had enough name calling and truck trashing. I am going to call it quits until one of you Nissan boys decides to throw first punch..
  • mahimahimahimahi Member Posts: 497
    That's one thing the Japanese manufacturers haven't done...is sport trucks. Probably because until a few years ago thier V-6's have sucked! :) They didn't have the torque(not being a smart *ss)or hp to be sporty. What a most import owners used to do was lower them, to compensate for a lack of torque and hp that way they could handle(corners) without slowing down maybe have an edge on a vehicle w/more power(just an observation on what some of my friends did a few years ago). My understanding is the 2wd V-6 Taco is pretty fast..but damn ugly IMHO.

    The Truckin' article tested the 2001 Desert Runner SC and it posted times of 10.82sec w/the Auto! Are you guys sure that the tests you guys read are with the Auto?

    Oh, go to the 'war' site and read my post# 233 I posted the "shootout" article. Just follow the links.
  • goobagooba Member Posts: 391
    vince,please recheck,I have not posted any 0-60 times on any of the vehicles.
  • cncmancncman Member Posts: 487
    CT;
    Just FYI, here is a list of what is covered by the powertrain coverage, you can make your own decision if it is not much.

    ENGINE;
    Cylinder heads and block and all internal parts, rocker covers and oil pan, valve train and front cover, timing chain and tensioner,oil pump, water pump and fuel pump, fuel injectors, intake and exhaust manifolds, supercharger, flywheel seals and gaskets.

    TRANSMISSION AND TRANSAXLE;
    Case and all internal parts, torque converter and converter housing, automatic transmission control module, transfer case and all internal parts, seals and gaskets, clutch cover and housing, and electronic transmission controls.

    DRIVETRAIN;
    drive shafts, final drive housing and all internal parts, propellor shafts, universal joints, bearings, seals and gaskets.

    Also the warranty is transferrable, the longer warranties like the one for VW only go with the original owner, they know most folks trade every 3-4 years, so they aren't taking much of a risk there.

    Yea, that was 25 cents, I am not that good or that rich!
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    VW's warranty is nontransferable? What a rip!

    From everything I've ever seen about limited warranties, they're just that. Limited.

    I'd guess it to all come down to the dealership's service department. They'll either step up and honor it or stick it to ya by saying "that specific part is not covered" or "that is a normal wear item" or "that was caused by neglect" or "you didn't service your truck here on a normal basis" or whatever else they'll come up with.

    I guess I'm just jaded when I heard "I'll cover it, except..."

    It seems that most of the time it's that "except" part.
  • cygnusx1cygnusx1 Member Posts: 290
    CT - it amazes me the things service departments will come up with in order to no honor your warranty. It's almost like a warranty isn't even worth having sometimes. To add to your excuse list above, the ones I hate are "All [insert your model here] do that. They're supposed to do that." Man, I've heard that one so many times from a lot of different dealerships. One way I got around that answer was when I replied with, "Well, that wasn't posted on the sticker whan I bought it, and nowhere in the owner's manual does it say it's 'normal' so tell me why you didn't point this 'normal' problem out when I bought it." After that, they made me an appointment and fixed it.
  • cncmancncman Member Posts: 487
    OK, here's an idea, we all know what we like about our trucks, let's see if we can list what we don't like, and I am sure everyone here would change something about their truck if they could.
    I'll start, just for a reminder, I have a 98 frontier king cab 4cylinder 5spd 4x2.

    1. Digital odometer, at first I thought I would like that it has 2 trip odometers, but I haven't used but one and you have to turn the truck on to get the miles off of it.

    2.fabric patterns, the cloth feels good, and is durable, but I have no idea how they pick out the odd patterns for them, I wish it was just one color. the 01 XE is alot better now.

    3.Nylon steering stops, if you have suspension travel with the steering wheel locked to the left or the right you can sometimes get a groan, scared the hell out of me the first time it happened.

    4.I wish the drivers seat slid forward when you pull the handle like the passenger seat does for access to the back.

    5. I would like to see a 3rd or fourth door option on the kling cabs like the fords and the chevys.

    6. Nissan should make a 6 in the 4x2 that sits as high as the 4cylinder like they used to.

    well anyone else?
  • cygnusx1cygnusx1 Member Posts: 290
    CNCMAN - I pretty much love everything about my truck. Really. As for your #6 above, they do. It's called a Desert Runner. It's a V6, 4x2. It's the same as the 4x4 except with no 4wd. verything else is the same.
  • volfyvolfy Member Posts: 274
    cncman, what a refreshing idea! I've always been following up on these X vs. Y threads, but the my-truck-is-better-than-yours bit gets droning after a while.

    I drive essentially the same truck as your and I agree with most of what you mentioned, with a strong echo on 5 and 6. BTW cygnusx1, I think cncman meant a v6 4x2 with regular ride height. Not everybody wants the stance of a 4x4 (the DR rides on 4x4 chassis).

    Here are my notes:

    1. I love the 2 trip odometers! I always use one for miles between fillups for mpg calculation. So I really need the other for use as trip odometer.

    2. I wish the Japanese car makers would all do their seatback folding like the Germans cars - separate controls for seatback angle adjustment and folding. I hate having to readjust the seatback angle every time I flip the seat.

    3. Lockable tailgate. Standard in the '01s. Doesn't help me, but nice work, Nissan.

    4. Hydraulic valve lifters. If I had to choose between cam chain vs. belt and hydraulic vs. solid lifters, I would rather change cam belts than adjust bucket shims any day. Too bad Nissan went the other way on the 2.4L I4.

    5. Get rid of that RF-noisy fuel pump! The Frontier is no better than Fords in this regard. I'm having a heck of a time filtering out that fuel pump whine from my ham radios.

    Ahhh... it sure feels good to speak your mind without the ego getting in the way. Next?
  • volfyvolfy Member Posts: 274
    6. Sliding moonroof shade/cover. The removeable one in my Frontier is a pain in the butt, and takes up room in the precious little extended cab space when removed. A sliding moonroof would be nicer, too, than the current pop-up one.
  • goobagooba Member Posts: 391
    I like my 2 trip meters.I use the first for my mileage calculations and the second for my service interval.

    I would have liked to have had a folddown rear seat in my CC.I also would have liked a double sliding rear window.A power plug in the bed would have been nice,as well as a locking tailgate.

    The biggest thing I did not like was all of the packaged options.I really hated having to take other stuff in order to get the stuff I really wanted.I also did not like it when the packages changed later.
  • cygnusx1cygnusx1 Member Posts: 290
    See, I actually like the packaged options. Made it easier (for me anyway) to get extra stuff at no cost. I got them to take the charge for my power package off. It was rough, and they didn't give in until I got up basially headed towards the door. But anyway, Ilike how they have 3 nice neat packages to choose from. I thinkit's easier then nickel and diming on every little added option.

    Ok, one thing I would change, I wish my side mirrors could be turned outwards a little more. Weird thing to notice, but I sometimes have to move my head and scan the side view mirror to check traffic. I like being able to just look over real quick without leaning to look into the mirror. Hard to explain, but it would help if they could be angled outwards more.
  • cncmancncman Member Posts: 487
    CYG;
    yea I was talking about the normal ride heighth, I know about the DR.

    Volfy;
    Actually, the 2.4l does have hydraulic lifters, and they do not require valve adjustment unless you are taking the head off for another reason, so I much prefer the chain.
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    Here's a few things I'd like to change about my Ranger.


    1. Bigger tires on the 4x4 (side wall heigth, not wheel diameter). It pales in comparison to the agressive stances of other 4x4s.

    2. Non-porous fender flares. Try getting the wax out of those damn things. I've been thinking of changing them now that they have colored fender flares. I can get them at cost from my uncle's body shop.

    3. Theft-proof sliding rear window. My Ranger is easier to break into than one of those locks that come with your luggage.

    4. Better carpeting. It doesn't seem very stain resistant, especially the lighter colors. Gotta shampoo often to keep truck new looking.

    5. Spare tire crank! I hate that thing. Use a bolt with a swing down mechanism. I've already gotten the jack handle stuck in that thing once.

    6. Slushbox programming. I've never really liked auto trannies. They never quite do what you want. I'm hoping the Superchip after warranty expiration will alleviate its indecision.

    7. Better mpg. I know my 4L, auto, 4x4, 3.73s is just about the worst at mpg for Rangers. I'd take the 3.9L V8 out of the Lincoln anyday for both better performance and economy. If I'm paying the milage penalty, at least make performance really worth it and not just mediocre.

    That's about all I can think of for now. I guess there's always room for improvement.

    When are they gonna make the Rangers with an internal combustion hydrogen engine and a separate hydrogen powered fuel cell to provide all electrical, heating, and cooling duties?
  • volfyvolfy Member Posts: 274
    cncman, I thought Nissan's current DOHC 2.4L I4 had hydraulic lifters too when I first bought the truck. After all, there was no mention of valve clearance anywhere in the maintenance schedule booklet.

    Then I bought the factory service manual for my truck - 1999 Frontier equipped with the 2.4L KA engine. In the engine mechanical section, there is a section on valve clearance adjustment. And, yes, the engine diagrams clearly show the 2.4L to have shim-over-bucket type solid lifters. The book even has a table of available shim thicknesses. However, even the maintenance schedules in the same service manual does not list valve clearance check as a maintenance requirement at all.

    Needless to say, I am somewhat confused. I know it has solid lifters, but I don't know how often to check it. My guess is that the factory engineers consider it a "only if required" item, so I'm gonna go by listening to the engine. Maybe you can pull a few strings and check into this. Since I've now moved to the Houston area, I wouldn't mind bringing the service manual to show you in person.
  • cncmancncman Member Posts: 487
    Volfy;
    I did not know you were in Houston now! If you need anything let me know, Hmmm, I double checked with my service guy yesterday before I posted, he told me hydraulic and no required maintenance and he has been with Nissan for 20 years, we do have the shop manuals, so I will check it out tomorrow.
    But I have never seen an altima or frontier that needed a valve adjustment.
This discussion has been closed.