Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Toyota Tacoma vs Nissan Frontier
This discussion has been closed.
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Fuel Data
TACOMA FRONTIER
Fuel Tank Capacity 21 gal. 21.1 gal.
Fuel Type regular unleaded regular unleaded
Thanks up front for any knowledge or experience.
For the '05 Frontier NISMO with Kingcab, 6-spd manual transmission, 4.0L V6, and 4WD, using regular gas:
EPA estimates are
17 city
21 highway
which match my own mileage with this truck, including a fiberglass topper and Class III hitch. This is not "the best" that Frontiers get, either. Owners of other 4.0L V6 4x4 Frontiers (but with taller rear axle ratios) have posted 22 mpg, and 4x2 owners have posted 24 mpg, at other websites. All in U.S. gallons. I record my mileage at each fill-up and calculate the old-fashioned way, plus I record what the computer estimate says. The computer on the Frontier is very good, within 0.5 mpg of the actual.
Contrary to popular notion, I have never found that adding a topper increases gas mileage, in any of the four trucks I've owned. But it hasn't hurt, either.
If the Frontier is a gas pig, so is every other midsized truck out there.
I would have to disagree with you on your comparison. I drove both before I bought and I
really did not see much difference in the ride of the two. I have an LE KC 4X2 which does ride nicer than the Nismo I drove.
As far as looks it is purely a matter of personal taste and carries no weight beyond your own personal taste. I prefer the Frontier
and I would hardly call it a dated look. My
preference for the Frontier looks does not make it a better looking truck than the Tacoma.
I paid several thousand less for my Frontier than the Tacoma comparably equipped and my truck has the Utili-Trac system in it.
I did like the lighter tailgate on the Tacoma
and since I do not carry a load on the tailgate there should not have been any issues with the lighter tailgate for my use.
I think that both trucks are nice and where one is better than the other it is by a very small margin, certainly not enough to keep me from buying either truck. Two very well engineered trucks that should give their owners
a lot of fun reliable miles.
OkieScot
To me, Frontier is more comfortable. I have to agree with Edmunds Tough Truck Shootout observations on the Tacoma
Awkward Behind the Wheel
The Tacoma's most noticeable problem is the seating position. You sit high on a flat seat with the steering wheel practically in your lap. You can make adjustments all you want but it never feels natural.
With less front hip-, leg- and shoulder room, the Tacoma is also more cramped inside than the Frontier. There's more rear-seat room in the Frontier, too,
The Frontier has much nicer seats in the NISMO.
The Frontier rides smoother than the Tacoma. Tacoma is bouncy and jarring compared to the Frontier and the steering is twitchy.
And as far as handling, the Frontier handles better than the Tacoma.
Neither Tacoma could keep up with the Frontier LE as it posted the fastest slalom run of all the trucks at 59.9 mph.
Tacoma is faster in a straight line (91 Octane Unleaded recommended fuel for Tacoma) , throw in some curves and it can't keep up with the Frontier.
Deck rail is inferior to Utili-Track. Utili-Track has two tracks in the floor, one on the front bulkhead and two on the bedsides.
Frontier NISMO has more ground clearance than TRD Tacoma.
Did I mention that Frontier is quieter inside and more comfortable than Tacoma? It is.
Edmunds reviewers think so too - "It's (Frontier) quieter inside than the Tacoma, has more comfortable seats and better-placed cupholders.".
Who cares about cupholders? :sick:
I wouldn't be towing the trailer that often. Probably just on vacation trips.
The Tacoma's most noticeable problem is the seating position. You sit high on a flat seat with the steering wheel practically in your lap."
Interesting...
Consumer Reports called the Tacoma seat "too low".
This thread is pointless. It continues to be people trying to justify an opinion or a purchase.
I had the Tacoma and was very disappointed that noone told me at the time that Toyota recommended 'premium.' There should have been a warning on the sticker stating 'WARNING, premium recommended' to inform the buyer!...since noone else will say anything to inform the buyer. The difference between buying reg vs premium isn't much on one fillup, but 20 cents more per gallon for a few years is significant.
Oh, if you compare these two trucks with the 4 cyl engines, I think the Tacoma is the winner (but not in looks). Why isn't that kind of comparison ever done?! All we see are V6 comparisons when buying a 4 cyl makes more sense than ever.
As for the premium, I knew before I bought that it was suggested, although I don't know where I got the info. Probably from research before buying. But as 99.99% owners know, it is not required or even suggested by them. I used it once to see if there was a difference. No diff.
Same here. 9500 miles and 14 months.
I can't see a difference.
:confuse:
Perhaps due to the high compression ratio 10:0:1
From reading other Toyota and Tacoma specific formus it appears that as many or more owners of the 4.0 use Regular as use Premium. Quite a few people using 89 Octane i/o recommended 91 Octane. Only a few complaints of reduced performance and knocking. I did notice that reported mpg was typically 18 and 19 mpg range with a few 16, 17 and 20+ mpg reports.
Its all really just a numbers game anyhow. The V6 Tacoma has more than enough power and practically no one would notice (most drivers say they don't) the slight drop from using high octane to using low. If you're pulling a heavy load, choose premium.
May have something to do with squeezing a little more power out of their vehicles with the new HP test which most of the others manufactures have not chosen to adopt yet. Gotta compete with the competition on an uneven playing field. Maybe when the others step up to the plate, Toyota can go back to regular fuel. They probably know what kind of numbers they would get with the new test, having not switched yet.
A warning that the company recommends premium for maximum power? Maybe a note on the window sticker, but warnings are for stuff that can result in injury or death if not followed. Not too many deaths attributed to using regular instead of premium. And as I said in another post, I am getting 23 MPG using 85.5 octane in the mountains with no problem. Maybe if I was pulling a large trailer, the 91 would come in handy, but 5 minutes worth of research prior to purchase told me that. I wasn't going to spend close to 30K on something without doing SOME research.
quote from Motorweek long term test. 18.8 mpg is darn good, though it is not 23 mpg that some have claimed.
I have 14 months of mileage data calculated the old-fashioned way that also show more than 20 mpg highway for the Frontier 4WD 6-spd. That's not just a one-time high reading but consistent performance over 14 months. And I *live* in the mountains. Actually in what people here (Colorado) call "foothills", 7350 ft elevation. The "real" mountains reach 14K and yes, some of them can be driven up.
BTW, a towing guide I picked up notes that normally-aspirated engines lose something like 3% power per 1,000 ft of elevation rise. It does not matter for the light trailer I routinely tow but it's something to consider for anybody wanting to tow a heavy trailer in the high mountains.
But there ARE 2WD Frontier owners who've reported similar mileage to yours on highway runs.
I hate to be the first, but doing a headcheck
to the left when I am trying to change lanes is a definite blind spot for me on my '05 LE KC. Maybe it is not so bad in the CC's. This is one of the few things that I don't like about my Frontier, but for me the good definitely out weighs the bad.
I love my Frontier.
OkieScot
On my truck the traction control IS ABLS, which keys off the ABS. It is not a limited-slip differential.
I wouldn't worry about "what" it is as long as it's working. You could ask a Nissan tech, though, just out of curiosity.
Mine's only come on a few times; this truck has better traction in 2WD than others I've driven.
That is a good idea, I'll look into that.
OkieScot
OkieScot
OkieScot
It is difficult to do a controlled test on city streets so there could be a small gain, but there are so many factors/situations that come up in a street drive that it would be hard to tell if the change was due to an add on or just because the traffic situation changed.
I primarily got my tonneau so that I can lock
the bed of my truck. A very nice feature for my situation.
OkieScot
The roads up here vary from multi lane divided near Anchorage to narrow winding two lane. They are also never complete, you always run into road construction where they are making improvements. Mountain passes have up to 8% grades that I had to shift down to fifth to maintain speed. I've heard people mention bottoming their suspension, have you ever felt your suspension top out? You'll do that getting airborne over an unexpected frost heave.
I'm very pleased with that result since the truck has only 11,000 miles so far. All the vehicles I've owned have not reached their peak economy until 60,000 to 70,000 miles.
I thought everything about the Tacoma was better, especially the interior.