By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
I owned a 74 Datsun truck for a few years back in my youth and it was a good truck.It got backed into and I found out how thin steel could be made.Japan makes there vehicles out of the thinest metal on the plant.Thats one of the ways to get good gas mileage.But its like the soda can you drink from,when its empty it goes in the garbage.
I bought a 83 Toyota 4X4 new and I still own it.Its ben good to me. It lives in El Salvador C.A. now. I travel there in the winter to surf the uncrowded surf spots.When it lived here in the states it traveled the winter roads between Reno and the ski resorts around Lake Tahoe and Truckee.I've always had a season ski pass some place.Salt was not very nice to that Toyota.It's getting up around 195,000 miles on it now.I'm not going to go through It's list of things gone bad but there is a list.
I have a family now and my daughter and wife will not be riding in vehicles made with the thinest metal on the plant.The U.S. makes some cars like that now too,but my family will not be riding in a vehicle such as that.It's my opinion and my experience that tell me this and that aint no bull.
Have you looked at the Nissans/Toyotas built in the last 10 years? I don't know about back then, but now the metal is just as thick as the domestics, if that is your only concern you should
check them out again. Although the domestics have done alot to improve, they still are not up to the imports, see what used cars consumer reports recommends and which ones they say to avoid, most of your domestics are still under the industry average while the imports are above.
Five years later we finally get them hear in the U.S. Again I'm giving a CC Nissian a good hard look and I'm looking to buy!The Camery needed replacing and the Nissian looked like a good choice. Talked with two dealers and it looked like we were going to spend around $22,000 plus.Trucks from Japan all use the same basic templet,they just change the sheet metal and the components. Each make has its own way of building the trucks but their final product is about the same.The CC Nissian I looked at to buy here wasn't much different than the 80 something CC Nissian I gave the going over in El Salvador 5 years ago.This last winter I saw lots of the newer CC's down in El Salvador,but down there they offer striped down versions and oil burners also two tone paint.The 74 Datsun,the 83 Toyota,the 79 Toyota that is parked in my yard as I type(its on deck to go to El Salvador)and the CC Nissian that I almost bought they all have the same feel light weight but solid and tight. They haven't changed much over the years other then adding more stuff(carpet,cloth seats,big stereos,gagets,V6's,bigger tires you all know)the doors are still very light the B-pillers minimal. They are what they are .They are good at what they are. Is the metal thicker? I don't think so,but I haven't measured so its just my opinion and the way it feels to me,its the same.
I get Consumer Reports.I see how the domestics fair against the imports,and imports get good report cards most of the time.That keeps everybody busy improving their products. I've purchased domestics the last two times and I wouldn't change a thing. Gob bless our country and may we always have that choice.
fair enough, good luck in your hunt and god bless the Nissan plant in Tennesse too.
I think both Ford & Nissan are going to go in different directions - Nissan more truck like -
Ford more SUV like and upscale.
===============================
I think you should read the article posted in #263. Seems Nissan is doing a 180 in their style and marketing. I do not disagree with that statement but it sounds like Nissan is trying to widen their market.
Although you say the ST's bed is small the key thing any pickup needs to do is carry 4x8 sheets of plywood. And the ST can do just that. An extra 8" of width is not going to help/hinder that. But I do concede the ST bed is smaller.
As far as "WET space" Ford does say if you add the tonneau cover it becomes "Dry locked Storage" Not until the 2001 CC when they add the lock to the tailgate is that possible.
Also to support Vince the same article in #263 bad mouths the 3.3 engine. They do speak well of the new Supercharger but it sounds like that will only be on the 4x4's. Most of the articles that I've read continue to bad mouth the 3.3 engine as under powered. The deck is too loaded against the engine. I can't see a conspiracy in all the publishers against the same engine.
The same article also complains of high wind noise and supercharger wine in the 2001 CC and the $1200-$1400 more for the supercharger is closing the price gap on the ST.
My guess is when the 2001 CC is out with the supercharger we'll be able to do a more apples to apples comparison. Some one just has to buy one. :-)
As to the "Dry Lockable Storage" unfortunatley you are incorrect when you say NIssan can't do that until 2001. Mine is "dry Lockable Storage" right now. I even had the option of a hard cover like yours whichs locks the back; but I choose the high cap instead for reasons I previously give. I was even able to have my cap included on the invoice of the dealer when it was an aftermarket cap from another city.
As to the engine - your point is correct. People perceive the engine to be to small and this makes the CC underpowered and all of them can't be wrong. Nissan should just add the 240hp Pathfinder engine as an option and stop all the critics. As I have said before though, it is not that I disagree with the trade mags, it is that I don't find it to be underpowered for my needs. I pulled my 4500lb trailer 160 miles over the weekend and I only slowed down on the hills 5-8mph. On the straights I was going 58-60mph and I slowed to 50-55mph on hills (didn't use overdrive at all). This seems to be on par with others in the campsite using different vehicles and trailers. My in-laws F150 slows even more and his 5th wheel is close to the same weight. So my point is that what they say isn't wrong, but it doesn't matter to me because my needs are different than those that have the "I feel the need for speed" attitude; or they live in a different traffic zone than I do where passing and power come into play more often.
As to Vince's comments, you might want to reconsider your comments about agreeing with him. None of the trade mags say the 3.3 is a bad engine (like Vince does), in fact what they say is that it isn't a big enough engine for the CC. That is completely different than Vince's ramblings about it being a useless engine. Put it in a different vehicle and it is a great engine (my point all along that the engine is a good engine with fine #'s for it's displacement). Yes, the ST's engine is bigger and stronger. But is it a better engine? Only time will tell once it has been tested over the years. I still remember when GM put their new V-6 (3.?) in the new small sized Blazer's and everybody raved; that is until they figured out that it was a useless engine and couldn't pull the Blazer up a hill! The mags also raved but then my old 4 cyl. Isuzu truck out pulled the Blazers.
Nissan will drop the ball if they don't cave in and put the new Pathfinder engine in the CC.
My biggest concern about the Engine has to be the gas mileage. With it being smaller, shouldn't I get better mileage than the ST; which I don't.
As an aside, I used almost 7/8 of a tank to go that 160 miles - ouch on the pocketbook!!
I can't believe you would possibly agree with Vince8 or say that the article supports him. Please quote where they say that the 3.3L is a joke because I didn't see it. He's someone that's on his on 'plane' I can't believe that someone with half a brain could even understand him. Maybe we should start doing what he does and refer to his comments as though they are all of yours...like he does! Do you want us to take his comments as all of yours? Because anytime somebody makes a comment about Ford he ASSUMES that all of feel that way or made the comment.
The s/c is one of the disappointments that I have with the 2001 CC. I'm not sold on a s/c in a 4x4, maybe the 2wd street truck. No matter what testing goes on... with the forced air in offroad conditions I think there will be problems in the long run. You guys out west and in the southwest know what I'm talking about, all that dust on the trails and we have tons of water when we go offroad here in FL. I really think that they should offer the current 3.3L (which has plenty of real-world power) and as an option on the SE's the new 3.5L. I don't see how going to a s/c is any less $, which is what your saying if you believe it's "bandaid". You still have to strengthen the mounts, tranny, u-joints and so forth. Just like you would if you're putting in the 3.5L Don't use the excuse that the engine cost more to produce because how much more does it cost to make than the 3.3L-this engines price is already built into the truck's price and besides they aren't making the s/c themselves so there's a middleman in there somewhere. Plus it didn't increase the price of the Pathfinder out of site. By selling it in the P/U's they could even spread the R&D costs between the two lines, it's what Ford's doing, right? No wonder they need financial help
As for the sarcasm of the magazine's being biased, I think you guys are smart enough to figure out what I was saying. Simply put they ragged on the four door truck design, because they say it took away everything a truck was but when the SUT Ford Sporttrac showed up all of a sudden it was a great idea to have a truck with four doors.
"The engine is anonymous".
Which by any definition is the same thing.
I as keanec pointed out am not questioning the reliability of the 3.3 only the match to the CC.
As far as $$$ what I mean is the CC has a large price advantage of about 5K over the ST. I'm now wondering what the new options (1.2K+ for supercharger) and any other price increases for the 2001 CC will do to that advantage. It also sounds like the changes will make more of an apples to apples comparison in the future.
keanac
Yup Im sure about the 4x8 sheets it fits fine. Measurements are inside dimensions. Tailgate opens the full width of the bed.
Out of curiosity how do you lock the bed with the tonneau if the tailgate doesn't lock. Or is that a after market lock? Or do they have to open the tonneau to open the tailgate?
As to the width, thats good. I have never really looked close enough to see if the ST's tailgate is close enough.
I have to agree with Mahimahi that it doesn't sound like a good idea to put the SC on the engine if you use it as a off road vehicle a lot. Although, maybe Nissan has engineered a way around that problem.
You know, I am not sure how valid this is anymore, but in the old days, the "experts" and mags and others always complained Japanese imports were for the most part, underpowered; especially the trucks (remember Toyota's first full size?) as compared to the domestics. Maybe this "tool time" Tim Allen mentality is still around with the "experts"? Don't shoot me down too hard, it's just a thought. Bigger & stronger is not always needed or better.
Ok, This is "NOT" my words and in no way do I
support the name calling that keeps going back and
forth... although the article did not use the word
"Joke" they did say;
"The engine is anonymous".
The article said:
We drove pre-production standard and supercharged V6 Frontier Crew Cabs around San Diego on surface streets, the highway and a short off-road stretch.
The engine is anonymous. Full of sound and fury as you stomp on the pedal it signifies little power, like when it comes time to enter a freeway onramp. It gets a little harder to accelerate at speeds above 70mph.
That was the standard 3.3L.
The article then stated:
The extra 40 horsepower and 45 foot pounds of torque power provided by the supercharger over the non-supercharged engine is immediately apparent. Just
stepping on the gas you feel lots more power than the standard V6 and mashing the accelerator brings
satisfaction to the enthusiast's soul.
You also mentioned the noise of the SC.The article said:
The whine of the Eaton supercharger was prominently heard if you opened the throttle wide open and stayed that way until you reached cruising speed. Appealing to the younger crowd that Nissan is going after with the SC, daily commuters might find the high pitched whine a little tiresome over the long term, but as long as you don't stomp down too hard, you don't even know the supercharger exists.
I think that is a little different then what you had said.It is there but mainly at WOT.
I saw some good news for the Nissan crowd. Nissan is plowing $1B in the US truck plant. I was surprised since they have had financial problems, but they are going to triple(?) the plant size and bring out a new line of high tech v6 and v8 engines. The v8 is to be for there new full size PU. The article also stated that Nissan was going to concentrate on the bare bones trucks, expecting to catch those who cannot afford to invest in a loaded SUV/SUT/PU. It is an interesting strategy and may have potential.
As far as the noise, I think the statements
daily commuters might find the high pitched whine (from the supercharger) a little tiresome over the long term
and
On the highway at speeds over 70mph there was significant wind noise in the cabin, especially in the back seat.
Qualifies my statement of;
The same article also complains of high wind noise
and supercharger whine in the 2001 CC.
As far as your comments on the Supercharged model I already said;
They do speak well of the new Supercharger
And sorry I do not know the acronym WOT. Maybe if you tell me what WOT is I'll understand comments better.
They did speak of the high wind noise,but,your statement of the supercharger whine makes it appear that it is as prevalent as the wind noise.
WOT is wide open throttle,which if you looked at the article it said you could hear it if you opened the throttle wide open and kept it there.
The other misconception is that it will only be in the 4x4.The article dispels that myth and shows the models it will be available in,both 4x2 and 4x4.
As to the conversation where the Nissan owners think the Mags have changed their opinions since they first reviewed the CC; well they probably have! There are NKOTB (new kids on the block) and it almost forces the "so-called experts" to change they view of the segment in general. So , we have to expect that they will probably look at 4 door trucks in a different light now that they are forced to and have gotten used to the idea.
Nissan is getting the cash injection from Renault also for its plant upgrades and expansions.
Ford raised the bar as far as the 4door truck market is concerned with quality/funcionality/ and performance that the consumer demands. Now Nissan has to react. GM is coming out with the Avalanche and it too will once again raise the bar for what consumers expect.
The supercharger will only be available on certain lines of 4x4 Frontiers, not all Frontiers. This is a bandaid so Nissan would not be left behind in the HP wars... There are rumors around the net that Nissan may feel the pressure and start seriously looking into the 3.5 Frontier option...
The supercharger will only be available on certain
lines of 4x4 Frontiers, not all Frontiers.
The article at pickuptruck.com said:
The supercharged engine will be available in four "SC" badged models - 4x2 Desert Runner SC, 4x4 King Cab SC, 4x2 Crew Cab SC and 4x4 Crew Cab SC.
Last I knew 4x2 meant 2 wheel drive.
By the way - HP wars???? That is exactly what I was saying in an earlier posts - Tim the Toolman syndrome!!!
For people who would like to buy the CC, I agree it would be nice to have the 3.5l 240hp engine. For those of us who have the 3.3l - we are happy with what we have. If any other Nissan owner disagrees, I am sure ethey will post a reply.
"The supercharged engine will be available in four "SC" badged models - 4x2 Desert Runner SC, 4x4 King Cab SC, 4x2 Crew Cab SC and 4x4 Crew Cab SC."
Now the kicker is will you be able to admit you were wrong? I sure you can't admit, you'll just say how Frontier owners don't admit they are wrong?
FYI (cncman) it looks like you might have a boost in sales with the 2001. I read an article that said (for Vinces sake)"Nissan raised the Bar!" with respect to the 2001 CC SC. They say not only did they add "much needed power" they went beyond what the competitors offer in performance. It also said that Nissan has tuned the suspension greatly on the SC models as well as add some finishing touches on the interior. I think the name of the Mag was Autoweekly? or something like that - it has a picture of a yellow CC on the front. Another mag that reviewed the 2001 SC said that Nissan imroved their already hearty 200lb of torque, or something to that effect. In the second mag they also did an article on the ST that was really favourable. The front of that mag showed the new GN Avalanche and mentioned they tested 4 new 4 door trucks.
Now before anybody cuts this apart, I was just a chapters browsing quickly and I didn't buy or even read the whole articles. I just noticed the articles were favourble to the new CC SC; they didn't trash any other vehicles.
I have never really looked at the back of the ST so I don't know if it looks strange like that.
And I'm going to hear things like, "Its Fords percentage rates" Nope, Nissan as had special financing for just as long as Ford, "Its the buy American fever" This is a joke. Americans are some of the pickest buyers on this earth. Ford is still around for a reason, the consumer makes the choice....
1) Past performance does not necessarily indicate future performance.
2) Comparing a Nissan Frontier to a Ford Ranger does not represent a reasonable comparison to all fords as you imply.
3) With two New vehicles, how can you possibly make such "definite" statements of fact reguarding reliability? If so, do you have any clairvoyant stock tips to share?
IMHO you're logic of stating your opinion as a fact is an error in judgement.
I think you were right cncman,and the best solution is to ignore vince.He does a good job of ignoring us,especially if he is wrong.
fordsporttrac,you should jump in here somewhere.
Your statements 1 and 3 makes sense.So,we take and throw out ALL references to past reliability of BOTH vehicles and start from scratch.Your reasoning that cncman is wrong at least equally applies to vince also.
Now your statement 2,I agree with also.The comparison should not be made.The Ranger should not even be mentioned on this board.Only the Crew Cab and the Sporttrac.So all references to the Ranger and the regular Frontier needs to be disregarded.Good points ziggy18.
"1) Past performance does not necessarily indicate
future performance"
"...does not necessarily..." is true but also can be substituted with "... can indicate" without really changing the statment. Anybody who doesn't look at a company's past quality (performance) is very naive. History DOES repeat itself. If a company has made bad products in the past, it will probably make bad products in the future; that is what reputation is all about. A company makes good products over the long haul and it aquires a good reputation. So, even if it does screw up and make a bad product, the chances are it will do it less than a company that has a bad rep. It takes a long time for a company (car or other)to PROVE it has changed its performance. So, if Nissan has a better rep for quality/performance in the past, I would use this as one indicator of it's future products. My point is, even though they say Hyundai has improved it's quality, I won't be buying one anytime soon.
"3) With two New vehicles, how can you possibly make such "definite" statements of fact reguarding reliability? If so, do you have any clairvoyant stock tips to share?"
Definite? no. Probably? yes. Both these "new vehicles" are not from new companies and they both share many parts with other vehicles from the same company. Good stock brokers are not clairvoyant, they base their decisions on companys' past performance and educated guesses. So, looking at Ford and Nissan's past performances and using educated guesses, it would follow that the Nissan CC would probably be more reliable. BUT as in all things, that could be wrong - only 5 years or so will tell.
"2) Comparing a Nissan Frontier to a Ford Ranger
does not represent a reasonable comparison to all fords as you imply." Yes you are right!! Let's add the Windstar vs the Quest and the Contour vs Altima, the Maxima vs the Taurus/Sable, the Pathfinder vs the Explorer and the Sentra vs the Escort? Get the point? ALL of these Nissan vehicles are top quality! Can we say that about the Windstar? the Escort? the Taurus? the Explorer? (the Explorer could go either way)
enough said
I, personally, think that Ford & Nissan as a whole should be used in this discussion because 1. THEY MAKE these "new" products. I think this makes them relevant to the discussion. 2. both these products are derived from other products (Explorer and Frontier) it can be relevant to use those two vehicle lines as indicators. 3. Many people who are buying the CC vs the ST, or vice versa, ARE using this as a reason for purchasing. A couple of posts from yesterday indicated they purchased CCs BECAUSE of the price and the RELIABILITY of Nissan (I also purchased because of these two reasons).
Maybe it isn't fair to use just on product to compare the company's reliability (ie. just using the Windstar), but when you use all the vehicles I posted earlier the trend becomes both apparant and relevant to this discussion. IMHO, I think it would be damaging to the credibility of this topic if we didn't compare all the aspects of the two vehicles which includes the companies that manufacture them; including their past track record of quality, design, reliability, service and support.
As far as strange I'm not sure what you mean, it looks fine to me but next time I go to my friends I'll take a close look at it.
Why? Because comparably equipped, the CC was $4000 cheaper.
===========================
I understand your point! ..... But not until the 2001 CC can you "truly" compare the two. By the time you add the supercharger and other items they will be ALLOT closer in price.
If this blanket statement you made was true then all the auto companies would offer 100,000 mile warranties!
I will give you that most vehicles will give you 100,000+ miles, I won't give you trouble free (or cost free either). There are differences. I guess JD Powers and others like them might as well close their doors because there is no difference in quality/reliability of different vehicles? (slight sarcasm, sorry).
I stand 100% behind my reasons for discussing this issue, it isn't Ford bashing, or Japan vs American or such; it is just my personal views why I think Nissan makes a more reliable vehicle than Ford; but since you and Fordst (and probably others) don't want to here it, I won't mention it again.
So far as all new vehicles trouble free with very little difference, check this out.
http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/engaged/edmund.cgi?c=SUV&f=0&t=2571
Fordst: looks like it isn't just on the"new" Sporttrac ford is having problems. This post came off of cncman's link:
"I also told the dealer that the doors were not painted on the bottom and I found out that this was "normal" at Explorers."