Thank you Cthompson, I whole-heartedly agree with everything you said. I do myself like the riveted fender flares, I think it accentuates the exaggerated body lines and gives it a sense of flow on the sides you usually don't see on a truck. It will be in the final production vehcile from everything I have seen, though I doubt we will see those nice wheels they used on it, Nissan has had some pretty good looking alloy wheels on the concept vehicles, but they never seem to make it on the production model.
Just the thought of trying to dig out the wax from dozens of tiny, little holes with a rag and a toothbrush or something makes me wince. I think they could have done some user-friendly design techniques to give the Frontier the rugged look they were after.
Well I guess we would have to see it in person to see if it is a problem or not, has anyone that has seen it up close have an opinion? BTW, why wax fender flares? Just curious
Why not wax fender flares? I do, for the same reasons I wax the rest of the vehicle. Shine, protection, etc. Mine are color keyed though. I guess it wouln't make sense to wax the black plastic kind though.
From the pictures, it looks like they're color-keyed and integrated with the body. I'm not going to pass on waxing a part of the vehicle just because it might be more difficult than another part. Most of the guys on this board, inlcluding myself, seem to be fanatical about their vehicles. So, they take extra steps to maintain them, myself included.
cthompson; actually it will have either the black or body colored ones depending on if it is an XE or SE, I have seen a pic with the black and I like it better than the colored ones, I understand about being fanatic about the vehicle, but would waxing plastic really do anything for it? I just have a hard time picturing that, I mean it doesn't have a clear coat on it, if you look at it it is not shiny, but kind of flat on the ones that are on the frontier now. ALso what is there to protect the flares from? They aren't going to rust. Don't get me wrong I am not trying to talk you out of it, I am just trying to understand what it will help by doing this. Thanks
It protects and extends the life of the paint (if it's the case where the plastic is painted). Wouldn't the truck look silly 5yrs or so from now with just faded fender flares? You'd have to drop at least $500 to have them repainted. But, they probably wouldn't match the rest of the truck then either. So, you're gonna end up with a mismatched truck either way. This would also affect resale value as the truck would look as if it's been in an accident and had some form of repair.
ANybody else seen this new Ford Equator 4 door CC? It's based in the F-150 platform.
I know Nissan also has a SUT (sport utility truck) in the works that looks more like the style of Sporttrac if you ask me. I guess everyone is racing to jump in on this hybrid market, eh?
You wanted this on this board,you are correct for once.Let's try it here.You posted your typical response on the other board and did not address this,which you asked for.Surprise us.Give us something that is relevant. I especially liked your response to cncman about the typical salesman.I have to know,from your mentality what is wrong in what he does and what he posts for opinions or information?He at least has credible information and an honest personal opinion based on personal knowledge and experience.You,are another story. Let me give you an example.cncman explained about the bed construction.He did it quite well.Your response:"I don't know much about the bed makeup, I will have to dig a bit more on this one." This cracks me up.The first thought I had after seeing this was a pizza commercial I heard a few years ago.The line was:Go to freezer,get the box.vince,go to truck,look at bed.It is not nuclear fusion.Don't bump your head.
On to the carry over from the other board.
OK vince, we will try this again.The engine numbers are not relevant to the discussion.That is the only comparison you are apparently able to use.For those of us who purchased the Nissan the engine is adequate for what we want to use the truck for. Your statement about living with the underpowered high tech joke is based on what?What makes this engine a joke and what do you base your statementon.It can't be the numbers alone,could it?
Your statement below: It is obvious to me that all of you know absolutely nothing about HP/Torque curves. Along with how Torque is used and very beneficial in offroading and pulling, towing a vehicle or load.
Where were you in the earlier discussions?I am still waiting for your answer on the torque curve on the Ford in comparison to the Nissan.The curves are numbers on a graph,a measurement.Did you ever consider that maybe there are some people who do not need to pull a load or haul a load and do it with alot of speed.So,what if you can pull the load faster or haul it faster,I will get there in my own time.The off road part your misconception on the subject again shines thru.The application of hp/torque in the off road area is minimal.That will not get you where you want to go.It will only let you go faster.Gearing,suspension and traction matter.Most off roading is done at lower speeds and in lower gears,the torque/hp difference will not show up at these speeds unless you want to throw rooster tails.
vince you stated: As far as suspensions, Please tell me how the Ranger suspension is weak? Please link me to the site showing this. Be a bit more specific. I guess your lack of reading and comprehension skills show through.For you I will say it again.The suspension in your Ranger is designed for ride comfort on the highway.The suspension works great on the highway empty,but to achieve the good ride they had to put a weak spring and shock package in the vehicle.In off road applications the same spring and shock package is a detriment to the vehicles off road capabilities.When you apply your "hp/torque" and the rear wheels spin and try to get traction the suspension loads and releases which is wheel hop.When this happens you leave little puffs in your tracks that those of us with off road suspensions curse because it rattles our vehicles.Your Ranger with the off road package is still not able to compete with the Nissan.That you will need to live with or sink a bunch of money into it to make it half comparable to the Nissan. As far as name calling,I never called you any names.I made some critical observations based on your posts.It is apparent to me that you have no background to be a credible,knowledgeable contributor to our discussion.You are stuck on numbers and have offered nothing to the discussion that shows you know anything about the areas we are discussing.Your posts glaringly show your lack of knowledge and experience about what we are talking about,and your posts show your lack of people skills.You have YET in ANY boards offered anything that contributed to any discussion that you decided to make your presence known.And, you know,it is kind of sad.
Sorry, but I'm afraid I have to call you on some of your statements concerning the superiority of the Frontier's suspension. You stated:
"Your Ranger with the off road package is still not able to compete with the Nissan. That you will need to live with or sink a bunch of money into it to make it half comparable to the Nissan."
Hmmm. It seems the Edmund's road test of the '99 4WD Frontier is not nearly as enthusiastic about the truck's suspension as you are. They write:
"In addition to providing more low-end grunt with a revised transmission ratio, Nissan needs to upgrade the Frontier's suspension for serious off-road duty. Between its stiff spring rate and limited travel, the Frontier's suspension proved too easy to max-out on all but the flattest of surfaces (like dirt roads). When venturing away from the safety of Gilroy's main trails, we quickly found ourselves tilting and swaying over broken wilderness."
Hmmm. Can you spell wheel hop? It seems some people might think the Frontier has the same problem that you accuse the Ranger of possessing. In addition, they also take issue with the tranny gear ratios:
"Unfortunately, under more demanding conditions, such as climbing out of dry river beds or over small and medium rocks, the relatively high transmission gear ratio worked against an otherwise stellar drivetrain. Most of the Frontier's competition comes with a 2.4-2.7 low range gear ratio. The Nissan, however, is saddled with a 2.01 four low ratio, which leaves it straining when off-road conditions move from casual to extreme."
Hmmm. Don't get me wrong. I like the Frontier. I think it is a good product. However, I believe that you massively overstated the advantage that you seem to think the Frontier has over the Ranger in off-roading conditions. If anything, the two trucks appear to be pretty evenly matched...
Thank you for your response.I have not read Edmunds road test.I have a 2000 CC,and have never driven a 99 Frontier so I will have to defer to the review.The things I have read on my CC say that the suspension is improved from the 99 Frontier.My earlier statements about my CC stand.I put my truck in the same terrain as other Ranger pickups and that is the result.My suspension,under load when power was applied stayed down.The Ranger hopped in the same area.Following Rangers down a soft wash I watched consistently their rear wheels jumping up and down whenever they applied power to the rear wheels,and they left little "puffs" in the sand that was not real pleasant to follow. I have not seen the numbers on my 4low ratio,but with a 4.38 rear diff ratio and how the vehicle responds in 4low,it is low enough.I may not be able to creep thru Moab,but I can sure do better than what the reviewer stated on the 99. So,I do not believe I massively overstated the advantage of the Frontier CC over the Ranger in off road situations.My statements are based not on a review,but by actual observation and operation of these vehicles off road.
Well, Xena, that is a good piece of information to keep in mind as a whole, (edmund's review) but since this is comparing the two trucks, a good idea is to look at a review where the writers all drove the same trucks back to back in the same environment and compared them immediately, the only head to head I have seen was a few months ago Open ROad did an off road comparison of the frontier, B4000 and the tacoma, (the Mazda is a ranger clone) And I admit I don't know as much about the Mazdas, maybe I am assuming too much to say they have the same suspension/performance, but I think it is a fair comparison and representative of the ranger. Anyway, I will have to look at the article again, I don't have it with me, but basically the writers comments were the frontier performed off road as well or better than the other two, but did it more comfortably without as much roughness and was better on the road. Honestly I would prefer to leave the 4x4ing comments to Gooba and others that actually off road as I am not at all interested in it, I got my truck for an inexpensive commuter and hauler, I have a 4cylinder XE 4x2, so I have more experience with the catagory of trucks most people buy.
Thanks to both of you for your input. Perhaps there have been some suspension changes between the '99 and '00 Frontiers. Gooba, if you find out what these might be, I'd be interested in finding out. I noticed that you are driving a CC. Any idea if the CC 4WD and the Frontier ex-cab 4WD share the same suspension set-ups? Just wondering. There is a new CC 4WD in the parking lot at work. It is a real eye-catcher. I'll admit that the look of that truck has gradually grown on me. Now, I find it rather appealing... Cncman, if you get a chance, I would like to hear a few details from the comparison article that you mentioned in your previous post. The Tacoma TRD has sort of set the standard (either real or imagined, I'm not sure what to believe anymore) for off-roading in the last few years. If the Frontier is challenging that prowess, then I say kudos to Nissan! Thanks again...
cncman would have better access to some of that info.I do know that the suspension travel is greater in the 2000 and for Nissan to have a better suspension package,they had to change the spring,torsion bar and shock rates.You should read the review here at Edmunds on the CC.It is critical in areas,maybe a little biased but it is one that does point out some things quite well.The truck is not for everybody,but it fills my needs quite well.
not needing to hurt anyones feelings but the ford ranger out performs the nissan in ALL places. Now Im not just bieng predjiduce, look in any consumer guides or go test drive them. Sure there are some guys out there in love with the nissan, but its no joke there are 346% more rangers out there than frontiers, ranger is also the 7th best top selling VEHICLE in america, 5th in Texas. forntier rates 14th and 13th. Also Ranger is the #1 selling compact truck. And the new 4.0L SOHC 205hp V6 is going to Put ranger sells far enouph for CHEVY and DODGE to start using binoculars
I for one did not get my feelings hurt.I do disagree about how the Ranger out performs the Nissan in ALL areas.It does have a larger engine and has better performance on the highway.Other than that,the Nissan is by far a better performer in the off road area. I,for one,do not need a consumer guide to inform me about the truck.I have driven and do maintain these trucks. The sales figures you quoted I will have to say do favor the Ford,but there are alot of factors that go into those sales figures,and not all of them are based on the merits of the vehicle. The statement you make about the new SOHC 4.0L,is a little presumptuous don't you think?Any new motor needs to get some time behind it to get the bugs worked out.So,time will tell whether it is a good addition to the Ford lines of engines.The comparison of this engine to the Chevrolet and Dodge leads one to think you are saying that the 205hp engine will propel the Ranger above the other 2.If that is the case,then you need to look at the engine availability and specs from Chevy and Dodge.If you do that then you will see that the new 4.0L is underpowered compared the the 4.3L available in the Chevy,and the 5.9L available in the Dodge.
I re-read the Edmund's review of the 2000 Frontier CC. Yes, overall they do seem to be a bit critical about certain things. But on a positive note, they do say:
"Otherwise, the Frontier is a champ offroad, with a capable suspension, reasonable approach and departure angles, easy-to-engage 4-Hi mode, and lots of torque down low for scrabbling up steep inclines."
I wish they would have gone into more detail here. Perhaps it would have supported your contention that there have been suspension upgrades to the Frontier between the '99 and '00 models. The Edmund's reviews of the '99 King Cab and '00 Crew Cab do appear to be a bit conflicting on the matter of off-road ability... Call me skeptical, but I haven't quite bought into the notion of the Frontier's superiority to the Ranger off-road. There are certainly no special suspension packages available for the Frontier that I am aware of. Not like the ZR2 for the S-10 or the TRD for the Tacoma. The Frontier does contain the usual standard fare including solid rear axle with leaf springs, H-Frame with 5 cross members, and independent front suspension with torsion and stabilizer bars. I would really like to see some hard evidence in this area that would define the Frontier as being better than the Ranger off-road. Perhaps Cncman's reference to the comparison article will shed some light on this issue...
This engine will be a new addition to the Ranger for 2001. However, the engine itself is not brand new. It originally showed up in the Explorer in '97 or '98 and also resides in the new Sport Track. There was an early problem with a noisy cam tensioner but I believe that has been resolved. Other than that, it has proven itself to be a fine engine. My concern with the new drive-train for the 2001 Ranger would be with new R4 manual tranny. There have been some development problems with it. Hopefully, they have been ironed out... I'm not sure that I would refer to the SOHC 4.0L as underpowered when compared to the 4.3L V6 from GM. The 2WD numbers for this engine are rated as 180HP/240FT-Lbs Torque. 4WD shows 190/250. The Ford SOHC shows 205HP/235FT-Lbs Torque. GM has the Torque advantage, Ford has more HP. The 5.9L in the Dodge is a V8 in a mid-size truck. Every normally aspirated V6 from a compact truck will look underpowered next to it. I'm not sure why that comparison was drawn...
Xena; this is from Open road magazine, I am sorry, but I only have the photocopies I made not the magazine itslef, and the month that is usually printed on the bottom is not there but it was from maybe 4-6 months ago. "the frontier was the most carlike in ride and handling, the quietest and the simplest to drive"
"the frontier has 180 lb-ft of torque available from 1500rpm and pulls close to its 5900 rpm limit, making it considerably more flexible than the competition"
"the new stiffer frame also plays a part, providing the suspension a better platform to work from. The torsion bar A-arm front and leaf sprung rear did not have the high zoot shocks of the toyota, but offered superior ride comfort in all but the fastest blasts, steering is nicely weighted and direct, with excellent return to center that is appreciated off the highway more than on"
"the limited slip differential is quite effective and lightly loaded, so it was the first to induce right foot steering on a dirt road"
one of the writers commented, "in this comparison the Nissan Frontier is my hands-down winner, it is as equally adept at hacking its way through soft riverbed sand and other gnarly stuff as it is cruising on the interstate"
Other opinions say that they fault the Nissan exactly for these reasons, they did not feel like they were driving a truck, but a car, they liked the loud unrefined aspects of the mazda. SOme performance figures; especailly interesting is the braking, 60-0 mazda 191ft nissan 140ft 80-0 mazda 352ft nissan 257ft
In the end they basically said that it just depends on what you like, the toyota was the quickest, but not real good for hauling the mazda won praise for its 4doors the nissan was praised for its comfort and versatility.
THere was a whole lot more I will try to find the magazine so you guys can find it yourself, pretty good stuff.
I stand corrected on the engine being new.I was going by your earlier statement that said new. I can understand your skepticism,but as I pointed out earlier the changes in suspension travel,and spring and shock rates had to occur or the suspension would have been the same.The absence of any special suspension packages is an indicator that Nissan did not need to offer anything to change an already good package. I realize you want hard evidence,but I wonder what you consider hard evidence.If it is something from the mfg then it can be construed as being biased and a sales pitch.If it is something from a road test by some magazine or someone like Edmunds,then you are going to get a wide range of results based on their particular preferences and preconceptions.Their evaluations are no different than mine or anybody elses.Your best hard evidence is to take both vehicles out put them in the same situations and come to your own conclusion.I think that is the only way you are going to get what you are looking for,otherwise you will make your decision based on what someone you do not know says. I brought the 5.9L in because it is available in the Durango SUV as well as the Dakota Quad Cab.The Dakota is not a mid size and is considered in the same class as the Frontier,S10 and Ranger.
I personally don't consider the Dakota to be a compact truck. Have you ever seen one next to a Frontier, Tacoma, Ranger, or S10? They are quite a bit bigger. I believe the market to be broken out as such:
I think that most shoppers would pit the trucks in each aforementioned classes against one another in their class in a purchase decision. I certainly would. But, JMHO.
Well Maybe they need another class, a sub midsized or something, it seems to me that the Dakota is bigger than the ranger/frontier/S10 etc. but smaller than the Tundra, and the Tundra is smaller than the F150/Silverados Wow this is getting to be oversaturation in the truck market don't you think?
I can understand where you are coming from.Yes,I have seen them nad the Dakota does have a size advantage.I personally did not think it was that much bigger.I think the market breaks out a little different than you illustrated.The Dakota came out to compete against the Tacoma,Ranger,Frontier,Mazda,S10 etc.The Tundra,and the reported new Nissan will compete with the full size trucks.The mid size trucks are the Ford F450-F550 class of vehicle. If a new class of truck is designated I believe it will include the CC trucks that are emerging. If Chevrolet answers with a V8 in their S10 I do not see how that will make it a full size truck.You do not have the same capabilities.The change in power plant is all that took place.The GCWR,GVW,and weight does not change much.So,if I understand your position then if I purchase an S10 with a V8 and you purchase a S10 with the V6,then I have a full size truck and you have a compact truck. As you can see there are more factors at work here.
I said that the 2001/2002 S10 is supposed to be bigger (in size, around the same dimensions as the Tundra & Dakota) and offer a V8, just as the Tundra and Dakota.
When I was buying my current truck about 2 years ago, the size of the Dakota was a disadvantage for me. Bigger does not mean better.
The Tundra is closer in dimensions to the Dakota than the full-sized trucks from the Big 3. The Dakota is bigger in size than the compacts (Ranger, Frontier, S10, Tacoma, and clones). Wouldn't that make the Dakota and Tundra "mid-sized" trucks?
Think about it for a minute. They are both bigger than compact trucks and smaller than full-sized trucks. Additionally, their power-train choices are nearly identical with an available V8 as the top engine choice. I see a brand new class forming here, especially if GM upsizes the S10 and Nissan brings in a truck around the same size as a Dakota.
I personally don't care what the manufacturer compares its offerings to. To me it seems that the vehicles that one would shop against one another generally make up the different classes.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "The mid size trucks are the Ford F450-F550 class of vehicle". Those trucks are huge and are primarily used commercially, not as a consumer/commuter type of vehicle.
Your point is well taken.I read your post,and although dimensionally the truck may be bigger,it is still a S10. Albeit a S10 that can do some things the earlier version may not be able to do.To me,it does not make sense for Chevrolet to modify the S10 enough to compete it as a full-size truck.I know,you said mid size.It seems the manufacturers are trying to redefine the compact truck class.This,I am sure is based on what the public has been wanting.Maybe,as cncman has said there will need to be another designation,but it seems that we are trying so hard to make something different and special that we are trying to put them in classes all to themselves. It is not just the manufacturers who compare,it is the reviewers.Look on this site and see the competing models. I agree that one would shop one against the other.When I shopped for my CC,I looked at the Sport Trac,and the Dakota,I considered the F150 a full size truck.When I have compared the non CC trucks in the compact class,the Dakota is one that is always there.Like I said earlier,weight is a main driving factor within the class designations. What I meant with my comment about the F450-F550 being a mid-size class is because these fill a gap in the transition into the heavier truck classes.And it is not just commercial.There are a few winter visitors looking hard at this class of truck for towing their trailers,and I don't know of anyone else better qualified a a commuter. You see,there is already a "mid size" designation and it is not in the perceived compact to full size truck class.It is like when Chevrolet came out with their heavy half tons.They were a hybrid that was not quite a 3/4 ton but it was better than a stock half ton.It still carried the half ton designation.The same for Ford.In 1997 Ford started their super duty.These were heavier 3/4 and 1 ton pickups.The difference? They had a little heavier duty suspension and axle setup than the 1997 regular trucks.You could tell them apart from the new 1997 body style.The super duty kept the old body style.The point is they were still 3/4 and 1 ton pick ups. The current debate is on how to classify the new CC's coming out.Right now I think SUT is leading.
Fair enough. You make some worthwhile observations in entry #389. Perhaps we can agree to disagree on this one. That is not necessarily a bad thing. I will let the issue rest. Thank-you for the healthy debate...
Thanks.I totally agree to disagree with you, and found the debate alot of fun.I learned a few things and the learning is always a good thing.I am sure another subject will come up and hopefully we might share the same view.That would be different.
The 2001/2002 S10 is supposed to be a complete redesign. Keeping the same name does not make it the same truck. Would you say the current Mercury Cougar is anything like its namesake of a few years back?
This all just seems to be a typical manufacturer cycle. A vehicle is introduced. Then, it grows. Then, it's suddenly in the next class up, and the manufacturer introduces a new entry-level model. Just take a look at the likes of the Pontiac Grand Am, BMW 3-series, Mercedes C-class, Ford Explorer, and so many others. The trend is industry wide.
The growth of compact trucks is creating a new class. My '98 Ranger is probably a good 10% bigger all around than the '89 Ranger my father had a few years back. Toyota and Dodge with the Tundra and Dakota have just jumped ahead a bit and stuck their trucks right in the middle of compact trucks and full-size trucks.
I think you may be confusing the Super-Duty Fords (F-250 and F-350) with the F-450/550. The F-450 and F-550 are effectively small semi-trucks. They are HUGE with a few steps up just to get in the cab. They do not have beds, but an open frame to attach various items (3rd wheel, etc...) I was just looking at them in the industrial part of my local Ford dealer lot the other night (not to buy, just curious).
I like to think of the new CC's coming out to be SUV's with wet storage. The only 2 that I like of every single one I've seen would be the Nissan CC and the F-150 SuperCrew.
I agree that the Cougar,T bird,Mustang and other cars have changed.The change does not mean that it changs the models that it competed against nor does it necessarily move the vehicle class. Yes,the changes in the Ranger as well as the other compact trucks has resulted in larger compact trucks.There seems to be a redefinition of the standards for this truck class,but it is still in this class.Let me give you some examples of what I was saying about weight being a main factor in the truck classification.These numbers are based on 2wd std models,1/2 ton series and excludes CC.
Toyota Tacoma curb wt:2580-3280 tow cap: std:3500 max:5000 Tundra curb wt:3795-4402 tow cap: std:5200 max:7200
Chevrolet S10 curb wt:3075-3267 tow cap: std:2000 max:6400 1500 curb wt:3996-4445 tow cap: std:3800 max:9400 Dodge Dakota curb wt:3378-3853 tow cap: std:1850 max:6600 Ram 1500 curb wt:4136-4424 tow cap: std:3500 max:7950
Nissan Frontier curb wt:2999-3847 tow cap: std:3500 max:5000
Ford Ranger curb wt:3068-3156 tow cap: std:1580 max:6060 F150 curb wt:3923-4225 tow cap: std:2000 max:8800 As you can see the weight numbers help break the vehicle class.It seems that the redefinition of the compact truck class is a bigger physical size but still not built to carry or tow what the full size trucks do.Your Ranger,older Nissan pick ups,most all compacts were rated as a 1/2 ton,which in load carrying was equal to the F150,and the rest of the 1/2 ton full size trucks,but these were still and are compact trucks.The max curb weight of the truck and the load and tow capacity will seperate the classes,not body size.So,with this in mind there is no "mid size" between these two classes. I have no confusion over the super duty Fords,maybe I did not explain it well enough.In 1997,Ford changed their body style.They brought out in the full size line a truck that had a sloped front end and deeper bed,as well as a few other changes.The F150 looked the same as the F250 and the F350 with the only difference being heavier suspension and axles and bigger tires and wheels.Ford also decided to introduce their Super Duty trucks.These were also 1997 F250 and F350 trucks.They retained the earlier 1996 and earlier body style.These trucks were built with heavier suspensions and axles then their equivalent 1997 F250 and F350 counterparts.These were considered heavy 3/4 and 1 ton trucks.One difference other than axles and suspension was that you could get these with a diesel if you wanted. Now,about the F450 and F550.Until Ford introduced these 2 trucks there was a gap in capability between the F350 trucks and the F600 trucks.If you needed something with a little more weight capability but did not want a true large truck,you had no options.The F600 had no amenities and was too large for what people needed.There was nothing in between.Ford apparently decided to fill this gap woth these 2 series of trucks.They are physically larger than the F350,but they look similar in appearance.You can get these in extended cabs as well as crew cabs and with regular pick up beds or utility beds or whatever bed you may need.That is why I said the winter visitors are looking at this new series of trucks.That is also why these are considered the "mid size" trucks. i have to agree with you about the new CC's coming out.The F150 is a nice looking truck.If you are talking about the 2001 Nissan then I have to say I am glad I have my 2000.Maybe then new style will grow on people.
I didn't say that the changing cars have moved the classes, but the cars have changed classes themselves.
I understand and agree somewhat about vehicle curb weights being a factor in vehicle classification. But, I personally classify vehicles based on what I'd shop them against.
Do you want a small truck with available 4 or 6 cylinder powerplant? Then, the Frontier, Ranger, S10, and Tacoma seem like likely candidates.
Do you want a slightly larger truck with an available V8? The Dakota and Tundra hit that right on the mark.
Do you need an even bigger truck with available large displacement V8s, V10, diesel engines, and a whole slew of configurations and trim levels? Well, the full-sized trucks from the Big 3 seem to be the ticket.
Do you need a full-size truck with huge trailering & hauling abilities and monsterous engine choices, then the Super-duty trucks would be for you.
From then on up, you're in the commercial area of applications. If you want to call the F450/550 mid-size trucks in the commercial arena, there you go.
BTW, I like the '00 Nissan CC's. I don't think the pictures on freshalloy.com of the 2001 Nissan are representative of what will actually go into production. JMHO
I sure hope you are right,but from whatI am reading from people that went to the auto show and talked with the reps there,the indication was that what you see is what is coming out.
Cncman, folks need to know you are a salesperson for Nissan. $75 upgrade in relation to the 10-19K you may spend for a Ranger is very little money for an upgrade to 1,540lbs. This wheel hop gooba keeps speaking of, I have never had this problem in my Ranger. As far as engines, Ford offers more engines, more powerful engines than Nissan does. And as much as all you Nissan folks keep trying to justify the 3.3 the data is out there and folks are reading it. When comparing 3.3 to 4.0 and now the new 4.0 SOHC, to 3.4, to 4.3 the 3.3 falls flat on its face. I am still trying to find HP/Torque curves for the 3.3 and 4.0. The weather is beautiful here in the NW and I am going to enjoy it! So I'll be back soon with more information. For now, live with your gutless, high tech 3.3's!! Why does the Ranger tow more than the Nissan?
vince,what do you get for he $75 upgrade?I am glad you have not experienced the wheel hop.It only reinforces my position with you,that you either had to beef your suspension from stock,or you have not put your truck thru it's paces off road. When are you going to realize,the engine comparison and the towing comparison has been discussed to death.There are more to these trucks then the engines.But you are true to form as always.It is glaringly apparent that you have no technical knowledge nor experience other then what you read and parrot back onto this board as well as others.I am still waiting for your answers from earlier or do you not understand the concepts?
I've found one thing to be kind of funny on all of these truck boards. It seems that towing capacities and off-road ability seem to be the top 2 areas of discussion.
I'm just imagining everyone off-roading to work while towing 5,000lbs... :oD
Anyways, the weekend has been georgeous. I'm off to the local frozen custard shop in my freshly washed ride.
Yea, just got back from cleaning up the B3000 4WD as well. The weather in Tucson is warming up. Could hit 100 later in the week. On Saturday, took the truck out for a combination road/off-road trip. 125 miles total, 15 of which were 4Hi/4Lo. The darn thing still got 20.7 MPG for the trip. I still need to replace the stock Firestone's with the BFG's. I'll do that at the end of May. Also looking at replacing the stock muffler and adding a Superchip...
That would be a funny picture.I guess that is how vince uses his truck,loaded and towing 5000lbs. xena1a,it may be getting hotter in Tucson,but you are still cooler then my area.I am 240 miles west of you.I head to your area at least twice a year.Real pretty country.I especially like the area around Patagonia.Have you hit the caverns yet? I saw an article in the Republic that showed a nice area around Flag.That would make a nice trip.At least it would be cooler than both our areas.
Anyone notice how quiet and civilized the debate was while vince was hiding? I actually really enjoyed it in here. Well I am putting my frontier through some greulling stop and go city driving wiht some mixed highway passing on the way to school.
I'd go for a Gibson cat-back. I've got a link for great discounts from carparts.com. I bougth my cat-back a few weeks back for 'bout $190 including delivery charges. I'm very pleased with performance and sound too.
240 miles west puts you somewhere in or near the Imperial Valley. Yuma, perhaps? Yikes!!! That being the case, there is nothing I can tell you about hot weather... Yes, Patagonia is nice. In fact, my Saturday off road excursion took me into the Santa Rita mnts. That is just a few miles north of Patagonia... No, I haven't made it to the caverns yet. But I do know an individual at work whose grandparents were the owners of the land on which the caverns reside. He and his immediate family explored those caves for years before they finally made it known to the public...
I guess I might have gotten them a bit confused. They do have the same cab as the Super-Duty's. I've just never seen them used for anything but commercial use. I usually see them at the track set up in a 3rd wheel semi-truck type of configuration being used to haul those 15,000lb multi-car trailers.
I just purchased a 2000 Frontier XE-V6 4X4 a few days ago and the truck is wonderful. I only considered a Ranger for about 2 seconds. There are way too many of them on the road, and I am tired of seeing them all the time. The Frontier's ride is smooth, even smoother than my dad's new Silverado 2500!
Comments
I whole-heartedly agree with everything you said.
I do myself like the riveted fender flares, I think it accentuates the exaggerated body lines and gives it a sense of flow on the sides you usually don't see on a truck. It will be in the final production vehcile from everything I have seen, though I doubt we will see those nice wheels they used on it, Nissan has had some pretty good looking alloy wheels on the concept vehicles, but they never seem to make it on the production model.
Cygnusx1
reasons I wax the rest of the vehicle. Shine, protection, etc. Mine are color keyed though. I guess it wouln't make sense to wax the black plastic kind though.
actually it will have either the black or body colored ones depending on if it is an XE or SE,
I have seen a pic with the black and I like it better than the colored ones, I understand about being fanatic about the vehicle, but would waxing plastic really do anything for it? I just have a hard time picturing that, I mean it doesn't have a clear coat on it, if you look at it it is not shiny, but kind of flat on the ones that are on the frontier now. ALso what is there to protect the flares from? They aren't going to rust. Don't get me wrong I am not trying to talk you out of it, I am just trying to understand what it will help by doing this. Thanks
ANybody else seen this new Ford Equator 4 door CC?
It's based in the F-150 platform.
I know Nissan also has a SUT (sport utility truck)
in the works that looks more like the style of Sporttrac if you ask me. I guess everyone is racing to jump in on this hybrid market, eh?
I especially liked your response to cncman about the typical salesman.I have to know,from your mentality what is wrong in what he does and what he posts for opinions or information?He at least has credible information and an honest personal opinion based on personal knowledge and experience.You,are another story.
Let me give you an example.cncman explained about the bed construction.He did it quite well.Your response:"I don't know much about the bed makeup, I will have to dig a bit more on this one."
This cracks me up.The first thought I had after seeing this was a pizza commercial I heard a few years ago.The line was:Go to freezer,get the box.vince,go to truck,look at bed.It is not nuclear fusion.Don't bump your head.
On to the carry over from the other board.
OK vince, we will try this again.The engine numbers
are not relevant to the discussion.That is the only
comparison you are apparently able to use.For
those of us who purchased the Nissan the engine is
adequate for what we want to use the truck for.
Your statement about living with the underpowered
high tech joke is based on what?What makes this
engine a joke and what do you base your
statementon.It can't be the numbers alone,could it?
Your statement below:
It is obvious to me that all of you know
absolutely nothing about HP/Torque curves. Along
with how Torque is used and very beneficial in
offroading and pulling, towing a vehicle or load.
Where were you in the earlier discussions?I am
still waiting for your answer on the torque curve
on the Ford in comparison to the Nissan.The curves
are numbers on a graph,a measurement.Did you ever
consider that maybe there are some people who do
not need to pull a load or haul a load and do it
with alot of speed.So,what if you can pull the load
faster or haul it faster,I will get there in my
own time.The off road part your misconception on
the subject again shines thru.The application of
hp/torque in the off road area is minimal.That will
not get you where you want to go.It will only let
you go faster.Gearing,suspension and traction
matter.Most off roading is done at lower speeds and
in lower gears,the torque/hp difference will not
show up at these speeds unless you want to throw
rooster tails.
vince you stated:
As far as suspensions, Please tell me how the
Ranger suspension is weak? Please link me to the
site showing this. Be a bit more specific.
I guess your lack of reading and comprehension
skills show through.For you I will say it again.The
suspension in your Ranger is designed for ride
comfort on the highway.The suspension works great
on the highway empty,but to achieve the good ride
they had to put a weak spring and shock package in
the vehicle.In off road applications the same
spring and shock package is a detriment to the
vehicles off road capabilities.When you apply your
"hp/torque" and the rear wheels spin and try to get
traction the suspension loads and releases which
is wheel hop.When this happens you leave little
puffs in your tracks that those of us with off road
suspensions curse because it rattles our
vehicles.Your Ranger with the off road package is
still not able to compete with the Nissan.That you
will need to live with or sink a bunch of money
into it to make it half comparable to the Nissan.
As far as name calling,I never called you any
names.I made some critical observations based on
your posts.It is apparent to me that you have no
background to be a credible,knowledgeable
contributor to our discussion.You are stuck on
numbers and have offered nothing to the discussion
that shows you know anything about the areas we are
discussing.Your posts glaringly show your lack of
knowledge and experience about what we are talking
about,and your posts show your lack of people
skills.You have YET in ANY boards offered anything
that contributed to any discussion that you decided
to make your presence known.And, you know,it is
kind of sad.
"Your Ranger with the off road package is still not able to compete with the Nissan. That you will need to live with or sink a bunch of money into it to make it half comparable to the Nissan."
Hmmm. It seems the Edmund's road test of the '99
4WD Frontier is not nearly as enthusiastic about the truck's suspension as you are. They write:
"In addition to providing more low-end grunt with a revised transmission ratio, Nissan needs to upgrade the Frontier's suspension for serious off-road duty. Between its stiff spring rate and limited travel, the Frontier's suspension proved too easy to max-out on all but the flattest of surfaces (like dirt roads). When venturing away from the safety of Gilroy's main trails, we quickly found ourselves tilting and swaying over broken wilderness."
Hmmm. Can you spell wheel hop? It seems some people might think the Frontier has the same problem that you accuse the Ranger of possessing. In addition, they also take issue with the tranny gear ratios:
"Unfortunately, under more demanding conditions, such as climbing out of dry river beds or over small and medium rocks, the relatively high transmission gear ratio worked against an otherwise stellar drivetrain. Most of the Frontier's competition comes with a 2.4-2.7 low range gear ratio. The Nissan, however, is saddled with a 2.01 four low ratio, which leaves it straining when off-road conditions move from casual to extreme."
Hmmm. Don't get me wrong. I like the Frontier. I think it is a good product. However, I believe that you massively overstated the advantage that you seem to think the Frontier has over the Ranger in off-roading conditions. If anything, the two trucks appear to be pretty evenly matched...
I have not seen the numbers on my 4low ratio,but with a 4.38 rear diff ratio and how the vehicle responds in 4low,it is low enough.I may not be able to creep thru Moab,but I can sure do better than what the reviewer stated on the 99.
So,I do not believe I massively overstated the advantage of the Frontier CC over the Ranger in off road situations.My statements are based not on a review,but by actual observation and operation of these vehicles off road.
Cncman, if you get a chance, I would like to hear a few details from the comparison article that you mentioned in your previous post. The Tacoma TRD has sort of set the standard (either real or imagined, I'm not sure what to believe anymore) for off-roading in the last few years. If the Frontier is challenging that prowess, then I say kudos to Nissan! Thanks again...
I,for one,do not need a consumer guide to inform me about the truck.I have driven and do maintain these trucks.
The sales figures you quoted I will have to say do favor the Ford,but there are alot of factors that go into those sales figures,and not all of them are based on the merits of the vehicle.
The statement you make about the new SOHC 4.0L,is a little presumptuous don't you think?Any new motor needs to get some time behind it to get the bugs worked out.So,time will tell whether it is a good addition to the Ford lines of engines.The comparison of this engine to the Chevrolet and Dodge leads one to think you are saying that the 205hp engine will propel the Ranger above the other 2.If that is the case,then you need to look at the engine availability and specs from Chevy and Dodge.If you do that then you will see that the new 4.0L is underpowered compared the the 4.3L available in the Chevy,and the 5.9L available in the Dodge.
"Otherwise, the Frontier is a champ offroad, with a capable suspension, reasonable approach and departure angles, easy-to-engage 4-Hi mode, and lots of torque down low for scrabbling up steep inclines."
I wish they would have gone into more detail here. Perhaps it would have supported your contention that there have been suspension upgrades to the Frontier between the '99 and '00 models. The Edmund's reviews of the '99 King Cab and '00 Crew Cab do appear to be a bit conflicting on the matter of off-road ability...
Call me skeptical, but I haven't quite bought into the notion of the Frontier's superiority to the Ranger off-road. There are certainly no special suspension packages available for the Frontier that I am aware of. Not like the ZR2 for the S-10 or the TRD for the Tacoma. The Frontier does contain the usual standard fare including solid rear axle with leaf springs, H-Frame with 5 cross members, and independent front suspension with torsion and stabilizer bars. I would really like to see some hard evidence in this area that would define the Frontier as being better than the Ranger off-road. Perhaps Cncman's reference to the comparison article will shed some light on this issue...
I'm not sure that I would refer to the SOHC 4.0L as underpowered when compared to the 4.3L V6 from GM. The 2WD numbers for this engine are rated as 180HP/240FT-Lbs Torque. 4WD shows 190/250. The Ford SOHC shows 205HP/235FT-Lbs Torque. GM has the Torque advantage, Ford has more HP.
The 5.9L in the Dodge is a V8 in a mid-size truck.
Every normally aspirated V6 from a compact truck will look underpowered next to it. I'm not sure why that comparison was drawn...
this is from Open road magazine, I am sorry, but I only have the photocopies I made not the magazine itslef, and the month that is usually printed on the bottom is not there but it was from maybe 4-6 months ago.
"the frontier was the most carlike in ride and handling, the quietest and the simplest to drive"
"the frontier has 180 lb-ft of torque available from 1500rpm and pulls close to its 5900 rpm limit, making it considerably more flexible than the competition"
"the new stiffer frame also plays a part, providing the suspension a better platform to work from. The torsion bar A-arm front and leaf sprung rear did not have the high zoot shocks of the toyota, but offered superior ride comfort in all but the fastest blasts, steering is nicely weighted and direct, with excellent return to center that is appreciated off the highway more than on"
"the limited slip differential is quite effective and lightly loaded, so it was the first to induce right foot steering on a dirt road"
one of the writers commented,
"in this comparison the Nissan Frontier is my hands-down winner, it is as equally adept at hacking its way through soft riverbed sand and other gnarly stuff as it is cruising on the interstate"
Other opinions say that they fault the Nissan exactly for these reasons, they did not feel like they were driving a truck, but a car, they liked the loud unrefined aspects of the mazda.
SOme performance figures;
especailly interesting is the braking,
60-0 mazda 191ft nissan 140ft
80-0 mazda 352ft nissan 257ft
interior noise
idle mazda 49dba nissan 43dba
max 1st gear mazda 79dba nissan 70dba
70moh mazda 74dba nissan 72dba
In the end they basically said that it just depends on what you like, the toyota was the quickest, but not real good for hauling the mazda won praise for its 4doors the nissan was praised for its comfort and versatility.
THere was a whole lot more I will try to find the magazine so you guys can find it yourself, pretty good stuff.
I can understand your skepticism,but as I pointed out earlier the changes in suspension travel,and spring and shock rates had to occur or the suspension would have been the same.The absence of any special suspension packages is an indicator that Nissan did not need to offer anything to change an already good package.
I realize you want hard evidence,but I wonder what you consider hard evidence.If it is something from the mfg then it can be construed as being biased and a sales pitch.If it is something from a road test by some magazine or someone like Edmunds,then you are going to get a wide range of results based on their particular preferences and preconceptions.Their evaluations are no different than mine or anybody elses.Your best hard evidence is to take both vehicles out put them in the same situations and come to your own conclusion.I think that is the only way you are going to get what you are looking for,otherwise you will make your decision based on what someone you do not know says.
I brought the 5.9L in because it is available in the Durango SUV as well as the Dakota Quad Cab.The Dakota is not a mid size and is considered in the same class as the Frontier,S10 and Ranger.
Compact:
Frontier
Ranger/Mazda B-series (clones)
S10/Hombre (clones)
Tacoma
Midsize:
Tundra
Dakota
Full-size:
F-series
Silverado/Sierra
Ram
Jumbo:
Superduty trucks
I think that most shoppers would pit the trucks in each aforementioned classes against one another in their class in a purchase decision. I certainly would. But, JMHO.
If a new class of truck is designated I believe it will include the CC trucks that are emerging.
If Chevrolet answers with a V8 in their S10 I do not see how that will make it a full size truck.You do not have the same capabilities.The change in power plant is all that took place.The GCWR,GVW,and weight does not change much.So,if I understand your position then if I purchase an S10 with a V8 and you purchase a S10 with the V6,then I have a full size truck and you have a compact truck. As you can see there are more factors at work here.
I said that the 2001/2002 S10 is supposed to be bigger (in size, around the same dimensions as the Tundra & Dakota) and offer a V8, just as the Tundra and Dakota.
When I was buying my current truck about 2 years ago, the size of the Dakota was a disadvantage for me. Bigger does not mean better.
The Tundra is closer in dimensions to the Dakota than the full-sized trucks from the Big 3. The Dakota is bigger in size than the compacts (Ranger, Frontier, S10, Tacoma, and clones). Wouldn't that make the Dakota and Tundra "mid-sized" trucks?
Think about it for a minute. They are both bigger than compact trucks and smaller than full-sized trucks. Additionally, their power-train choices are nearly identical with an available V8 as the top engine choice. I see a brand new class forming here, especially if GM upsizes the S10 and Nissan brings in a truck around the same size as a Dakota.
I personally don't care what the manufacturer compares its offerings to. To me it seems that the vehicles that one would shop against one another generally make up the different classes.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "The mid size trucks are the Ford F450-F550 class of vehicle". Those trucks are huge and are primarily used commercially, not as a consumer/commuter type of vehicle.
It is not just the manufacturers who compare,it is the reviewers.Look on this site and see the competing models.
I agree that one would shop one against the other.When I shopped for my CC,I looked at the Sport Trac,and the Dakota,I considered the F150 a full size truck.When I have compared the non CC trucks in the compact class,the Dakota is one that is always there.Like I said earlier,weight is a main driving factor within the class designations.
What I meant with my comment about the F450-F550 being a mid-size class is because these fill a gap in the transition into the heavier truck classes.And it is not just commercial.There are a few winter visitors looking hard at this class of truck for towing their trailers,and I don't know of anyone else better qualified a a commuter.
You see,there is already a "mid size" designation and it is not in the perceived compact to full size truck class.It is like when Chevrolet came out with their heavy half tons.They were a hybrid that was not quite a 3/4 ton but it was better than a stock half ton.It still carried the half ton designation.The same for Ford.In 1997 Ford started their super duty.These were heavier 3/4 and 1 ton pickups.The difference? They had a little heavier duty suspension and axle setup than the 1997 regular trucks.You could tell them apart from the new 1997 body style.The super duty kept the old body style.The point is they were still 3/4 and 1 ton pick ups.
The current debate is on how to classify the new CC's coming out.Right now I think SUT is leading.
This all just seems to be a typical manufacturer cycle. A vehicle is introduced. Then, it grows. Then, it's suddenly in the next class up, and the manufacturer introduces a new entry-level model. Just take a look at the likes of the Pontiac Grand Am, BMW 3-series, Mercedes C-class, Ford Explorer, and so many others. The trend is industry wide.
The growth of compact trucks is creating a new class. My '98 Ranger is probably a good 10% bigger all around than the '89 Ranger my father had a few years back. Toyota and Dodge with the Tundra and Dakota have just jumped ahead a bit and stuck their trucks right in the middle of compact trucks and full-size trucks.
I think you may be confusing the Super-Duty Fords (F-250 and F-350) with the F-450/550. The F-450 and F-550 are effectively small semi-trucks. They are HUGE with a few steps up just to get in the cab. They do not have beds, but an open frame to attach various items (3rd wheel, etc...) I was just looking at them in the industrial part of my local Ford dealer lot the other night (not to buy, just curious).
I like to think of the new CC's coming out to be SUV's with wet storage. The only 2 that I like of every single one I've seen would be the Nissan CC and the F-150 SuperCrew.
Yes,the changes in the Ranger as well as the other compact trucks has resulted in larger compact trucks.There seems to be a redefinition of the standards for this truck class,but it is still in this class.Let me give you some examples of what I was saying about weight being a main factor in the truck classification.These numbers are based on 2wd std models,1/2 ton series and excludes CC.
Toyota Tacoma curb wt:2580-3280
tow cap: std:3500 max:5000
Tundra curb wt:3795-4402
tow cap: std:5200 max:7200
Chevrolet S10 curb wt:3075-3267
tow cap: std:2000 max:6400
1500 curb wt:3996-4445
tow cap: std:3800 max:9400
Dodge Dakota curb wt:3378-3853
tow cap: std:1850 max:6600
Ram 1500 curb wt:4136-4424
tow cap: std:3500 max:7950
Nissan Frontier curb wt:2999-3847
tow cap: std:3500 max:5000
Ford Ranger curb wt:3068-3156
tow cap: std:1580 max:6060
F150 curb wt:3923-4225
tow cap: std:2000 max:8800
As you can see the weight numbers help break the vehicle class.It seems that the redefinition of the compact truck class is a bigger physical size but still not built to carry or tow what the full size trucks do.Your Ranger,older Nissan pick ups,most all compacts were rated as a 1/2 ton,which in load carrying was equal to the F150,and the rest of the 1/2 ton full size trucks,but these were still and are compact trucks.The max curb weight of the truck and the load and tow capacity will seperate the classes,not body size.So,with this in mind there is no "mid size" between these two classes.
I have no confusion over the super duty Fords,maybe I did not explain it well enough.In 1997,Ford changed their body style.They brought out in the full size line a truck that had a sloped front end and deeper bed,as well as a few other changes.The F150 looked the same as the F250 and the F350 with the only difference being heavier suspension and axles and bigger tires and wheels.Ford also decided to introduce their Super Duty trucks.These were also 1997 F250 and F350 trucks.They retained the earlier 1996 and earlier body style.These trucks were built with heavier suspensions and axles then their equivalent 1997 F250 and F350 counterparts.These were considered heavy 3/4 and 1 ton trucks.One difference other than axles and suspension was that you could get these with a diesel if you wanted.
Now,about the F450 and F550.Until Ford introduced these 2 trucks there was a gap in capability between the F350 trucks and the F600 trucks.If you needed something with a little more weight capability but did not want a true large truck,you had no options.The F600 had no amenities and was too large for what people needed.There was nothing in between.Ford apparently decided to fill this gap woth these 2 series of trucks.They are physically larger than the F350,but they look similar in appearance.You can get these in extended cabs as well as crew cabs and with regular pick up beds or utility beds or whatever bed you may need.That is why I said the winter visitors are looking at this new series of trucks.That is also why these are considered the "mid size" trucks.
i have to agree with you about the new CC's coming out.The F150 is a nice looking truck.If you are talking about the 2001 Nissan then I have to say I am glad I have my 2000.Maybe then new style will grow on people.
I understand and agree somewhat about vehicle curb weights being a factor in vehicle classification. But, I personally classify vehicles based on what I'd shop them against.
Do you want a small truck with available 4 or 6 cylinder powerplant? Then, the Frontier, Ranger, S10, and Tacoma seem like likely candidates.
Do you want a slightly larger truck with an available V8? The Dakota and Tundra hit that right on the mark.
Do you need an even bigger truck with available large displacement V8s, V10, diesel engines, and a whole slew of configurations and trim levels? Well, the full-sized trucks from the Big 3 seem to be the ticket.
Do you need a full-size truck with huge trailering & hauling abilities and monsterous engine choices, then the Super-duty trucks would be for you.
From then on up, you're in the commercial area of applications. If you want to call the F450/550 mid-size trucks in the commercial arena, there you go.
http://www.kinglandford.com/ford/main/fseriesf450550.htm
Later
-C
This wheel hop gooba keeps speaking of, I have never had this problem in my Ranger. As far as engines, Ford offers more engines, more powerful engines than Nissan does. And as much as all you Nissan folks keep trying to justify the 3.3 the data is out there and folks are reading it. When comparing 3.3 to 4.0 and now the new 4.0 SOHC, to 3.4, to 4.3 the 3.3 falls flat on its face. I am still trying to find HP/Torque curves for the 3.3 and 4.0. The weather is beautiful here in the NW and I am going to enjoy it! So I'll be back soon with more information. For now, live with your gutless, high tech 3.3's!! Why does the Ranger tow more than the Nissan?
When are you going to realize,the engine comparison and the towing comparison has been discussed to death.There are more to these trucks then the engines.But you are true to form as always.It is glaringly apparent that you have no technical knowledge nor experience other then what you read and parrot back onto this board as well as others.I am still waiting for your answers from earlier or do you not understand the concepts?
I'm just imagining everyone off-roading to work while towing 5,000lbs... :oD
Anyways, the weekend has been georgeous. I'm off to the local frozen custard shop in my freshly washed ride.
Later,
-C
xena1a,it may be getting hotter in Tucson,but you are still cooler then my area.I am 240 miles west of you.I head to your area at least twice a year.Real pretty country.I especially like the area around Patagonia.Have you hit the caverns yet?
I saw an article in the Republic that showed a nice area around Flag.That would make a nice trip.At least it would be cooler than both our areas.
Later,
-C
Yes, Patagonia is nice. In fact, my Saturday off road excursion took me into the Santa Rita mnts.
That is just a few miles north of Patagonia...
No, I haven't made it to the caverns yet. But I do know an individual at work whose grandparents were the owners of the land on which the caverns reside. He and his immediate family explored those caves for years before they finally made it known to the public...
Thanks for the suggestion. I'll check into that...
-C