Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
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
A bigger concern I have is all four of my hard mud-flaps have broken off-roading. Flexible rubber flaps like Tacoma would be better.
If I may digress for a moment: spent a half-day yesterday test-driving a Ridgeline, including some soft-roading sections. Ridgeline lived up to the magazine reviews: great ride, soft on power, doesn't have the mechanicals to off-road beyond dirt trails and mild hills. The kicker was a little "test hill" near my house with about a 35-40 degree grade. Tried climbing it in the Ridgeline. First pass in normal-AWD, made it about half-way up, then slid back down with the front-end rotating around; ended up sliding downhill at a 45-degree angle. For a moment thought I was going to be paying for a rollover in a new vehicle, but survived. Second pass with VTM-4 lock engaged: made it up the hill using nearly full throttle, a little slippage along the way but generally in control. Tried the same hill later in the evening with my 05 Frontier NISMO CC. In 4x4 high made the hill with no slippage and about one-third to one-half throttle. In 4x4 low, even less throttle (of-course), and also tried stopping and restarting part way up the hill: still no slippage whatsoever. For fun I then went down the hill with HDC engaged: amazing how I could let off the brake and watch the truck crawl down this hill in total control. Bottom line for me is I'll take the Frontier's slightly more truckish ride, better power, and incredible off-road ability over the Ridgeline's car-like ride, "adequate" power, and soft-road ability.
Right now, I have a transmission that have popped out of second gear 3 times on washboard...roads that my 1989 Honda Civic (208K miles) has been on. Dealership is telling me they will replace the tranny under warranty.
Other than the fender flares, I can't believe how responsive that engine is and it goes anywhere...so far....including one place I won't go back to.
Thanks for the response...was wondering if anyone else was getting the rash.
It is not the easiest stuff to apply, and my job isn't "professional," but it looks fine, and it protects well against chips. I was getting quite a few small chips on the rocker panels and rear flares before this.
I also applied herculiner to the bed under my drop-in liner. I already had some worn off paint under there from hauling rock and landscaping stones, among other things. I had this herculiner on my old Tacoma under the drop in. I see it as cheap insurance.
Thanks for the info on the Ridgeline test drive.
Sorry, but that's the way I feel...my first and last Nissan.
If you read posts for just about any truck/vehicle in the forums you will find similar complaints unfortunately.
Just wanted you to have some more info.
Ken
So is this why manufacturers in the recent years were adding more and more rubber/plastic overfenders/lower side panels/rocker panels to absorb the wear and tear? Yet, it the last year or so, I have seen the manufacturers reverting back to metal. Is this because all those plastic/rubber additions are actually adding entry points for salt in Northern states? In Colorado...give me rubber and plastic. Maybe I should have spent over 2K for a new tranny/clutch...AGAIN for the 3rd time on the Ranger even though the truck was worth less than 2K. Yes...I know how to drive a standard transmission. My '89 Honda Civic is on it's second clutch...I got 170,000 on the first one....and I drive it hard. Maybe a new offered color for autos should be primer gray.
Hey, I'm upset, but think that you are enlightening me and others to new standards(?) that is eating our money. I appreciate your input.
Ken
Are they truly water based, or simply low VOC? Low VOC products can be substandard, as well.
I have some factory touchup paint for some new cars, and it is definitely NOT water based.
That said, water based products in woodworking, as in the pro versions, not the crap at home centers, has come an awful long way. Some of them outperform the old lacquer and petroleum based products by a large margin. The good ones are E-X-P-E-N-S-I-V-E!!!
From my understanding, while the application process itself may differ between manufacturers, the material itself and use of it is pretty similar.
Hope this helps.
Ken
Last Tuesday, I had a rented floor sander (industrial quality) do a dance around the bed during an emergency move. A corner of the sander hit the side of the bed with enough force to move the truck, and break some machined metal parts on the machine. The machine was sitting on a rubber bed mat, which caused the unsecured machine to barrell roll, not slide into the side of the bed.
The extent of the bed damage is a dime sized, triangular dent, with a very small tear in the corner. The impact easily would have put a serious dent or crease in a steel bed, and definitely would have started a rust spot.
The damage would easily be cosmetically repaired with black tinted epoxy, but I probably won't bother. I've drilled some accessory mounting holes in my bed, and the fibers that are mixed into the bed material seem like they will add a lot of strength.
81 Trekker
,
Ken
The higher the octane, the better the performance you will get out of your engine.
Using 89 octane for one year @ 18k miles: $90 extra
Using premium for one year @ 18k miles: $180 extra
The look on a Frontier owner's face after you just smoked 'em on the highway: Priceless :P
Tacoma will hopefully improve and get the early production bugs out. I'd rather be on the road than in the shop. If you got a "good" one, then you're luckier than most 05 Tacoma owners. With the exception of Motor Trend, who liked Tacoma's many bed, cab, and engine configurations, every press review has picked Ridgeline #1, provided you don't go off-road, Frontier a close second, and Tacoma third. It's interesting how the lowest rated truck (Colorado) sells the most, followed by Tacoma and Dakota. The highest rated trucks (Ridgeline and Frontier) sell the least. Go figure.
Tacoma's back seat gymnastics, drum brakes, and low hanging central exhaust turned me off. Failure to go in and out of 4wd on a test drive knocked it from the running.
BUT....read my previous posts about how Nissan actually built a body that does not belong on the road. Maybe with petroleum based paints it would fair better, but they still need to protect the overfenders (and running boards)...they knew it was inadequate.
I see all this "mine is better than yours" stuff. Who cares, we're all in the same boat trying to get our money's worth I've always considered Toyota and Nissan trucks the best ones fighting it out. Now, with all I'm reading, seems to be deciding which is the worse of two lessers....kind of like a presidential election. Seems both have issues. Maybe these two manufacturers need to be Avis and "try harder".
Where we do agree, for what ever the reason, is " That was the worst decision I ever made."
200 miles of it dirt from mild, to scratchin the boulders , heres what I can say,
was I was verry impressed with the ground clearance , and would have to repeat what another person here said, that the truck is verry nimble, and responsive, ditto . ditttttttoooo. and the most impressive thing about it is the
horsies, something about the engine and the pedal its like either u wanna go stop or go faster, touch that pedal , and its now or not, like theres no coasting wherever the pedal is thats where ur goin .... Hmmmmmmmmmm.. the rest is personal preferences and the almighty dollar..........................
(Toyota-Nissan) I do think the New Frontier has more interior space especially in the Crew Cab rear seats , but I would say to any prospective buyer, try the Nismo, at least go drive one /////,
and then go from there, as far as how many doors ,and how long the box...more personal preferences that greatly affect the ride and space,towing , fuel economy , requirements for your needs, ETC
I thought. if the only thing people could find to complain about is the rock nicks on the flare fenders - which is the only thing that distinguishes the New Frontier from the rest! as far as asthetics !, then well darn!, but Im not surprised being an ex dealership mechanic, as no matter what.... we always find something to complain about , and want sumthin for nothin , I m really impressed with my New Frontier , especially after owning the same truck in an O3 and all the things that annoyed me about it are all fixed, Id bet if a person picked the same
compatible trucks as far as engine, weight, and creature comforts ?!?!?! . that most will choose the Nissan. particularly when slapped in the face with Toyotas higher price tag . tooooooooooooooo muucccccccccccchhhhhhhhh Hiiigher !!!!
for what U get, for Your hard earned Buck ! but only time will tell , I guess im just one whoos made the leap away from that Bloated Overpriced American
well I cant Say it but U kno what J word Im thinkin > still proud to be an American , Just damned embarrased sometimes , I know Id be happy with a Taco too, just glad I made the leap.......................................
Looks aside, I chose the Frontier over Tacoma for many other reasons than just looks. Even though the Tacoma rear seat is bigger on paper, the actual legroom is less when the front seat is adjusted for my 6-1 frame. Rear-seat folding options are better in the Frontier, too. If you rarely fold the rear seat, that won't matter to you, but I am always hauling stuff in the rear seat so the Frontier's quick-fold without removing the headrests like Tacoma is a big plus.
The kicker for me is off-road capability. The Tacoma has a higher body, but lower chassis. The Tacoma central exhaust crossmember is the low point, and would be damaged in hard off-roading. The Tacoma's I test drove had "bugs" trying to shift in and out of 4wd (and other quality problems, too), but every Frontier I tried was flawless. Most magazines pick the Frontier's driving feel over Tacoma's, but I thought they both felt about the same and drive great. A Ridgeline drives better than any other truck in every press comparison, and I agree. But the Ridgeline has limited off-road and towing ability compared to Tacoma and Frontier.
Any of these three would be a great choice. I'm an off-roader, so the off-road performance, lack of quality bugs, and rear-seat flexibility led me to the Frontier, and I haven't regretted it.
My next truck will be whoever comes out with a hybrid model that delivers mileage in the mid-20's with hp in the high-200's or better. Honda, Nissan, and Toyota: are you listening?
Out of curiousity, what color is your Frontier...?
I have a customer..owns 3 Sabb/Volvo dealerships (has a huge farm too)..know what he drives??................Tacoma!! I took his advise! Any one who drives one of these "New" designs of either vehicle will be impressed...Again, I'd would've been happy drivin' the Nissan too.. just not AS happy!!! Yeah, and the guy in the new Beamer I blew off wasn't happy!!(nothin like a 6 speed) All in how you break 'em in and drive 'em! Hey Now!!
The only thing that a higher octane rated gas does is resist early detonation. The higher the rating the more resistance it has.
I don't see how my statement was "only partially correct". You are bringing up a whole different topic. Talking about valve timing is completely different from fuel octanes. I think everyone agrees that VVT is great for gas mileage and getting the most out of the newer engines. This was my point:
"The octane rating of gasoline tells you how much the fuel can be compressed before it spontaneously ignites. When gas ignites by compression rather than because of the spark from the spark plug, it causes knocking in the engine. Knocking can damage an engine, so it is not something you want to have happening. Lower-octane gas (like "regular" 87-octane gasoline) can handle the least amount of compression before igniting.
The compression ratio of your engine determines the octane rating of the gas you must use in the car. One way to increase the horsepower of an engine of a given displacement is to increase its compression ratio. So a "high-performance engine" has a higher compression ratio and requires higher-octane fuel. The advantage of a high compression ratio is that it gives your engine a higher horsepower rating for a given engine weight -- that is what makes the engine "high performance." The disadvantage is that the gasoline for your engine costs more. "
Isn't the internet fun? :surprise:
What site are you referring to?
As for the complaints I've read, none of them have shown up after 1200 miles....fine power, very quiet, no wind noise, ticking, groaning or growling....no vibrations....goes into and out of 4WD without complaint...runs fine on 89 octane, no pains felt at fill up. I think it rides firmer than the Frontier, but dampens the bumps quickly, and really excels off road..great hill climber! It will take a better truck than the Frontier to make me go back. If there is such a thing as a Nissan traitor, sign me up and give me my bumper sticker.
As far as I can remember from early this morning the only point I was trying to make was that the vast majority of standard vehicles will see zero performance gains from running anything over 87 octane exactly like the reply to me from boone88rr stated. Like I said, it was late (early) and I was obviously tired and not comprehending things properly. No more posting after 12AM for me.
For the record I now own a '05 Tacoma V6 and have no qualms with having to use 91+ octane when I feel like getting on it hard. Day-to-day I will be using either 87 or 89 depending on what mileage compared one to the other looks like after a few thousand miles.
When buying I looked heavily at both the Tacoma and Frontier and up until actually contacting dealerships for info they were neck and neck. Frontier had better HP/TQ numbers and the cost was around 1500$ less comparably configured. The Frontier had a DIN style stereo mount making for a easier replacement and had options for upgraded sound including XM, Sirius and MP3 capabilities. The Frontier also had better stock equipment without having to add option packages. The Tacoma had much better interior and exterior quality and looks (personal opinion), slightly more room in the back bench area and wife approval. The Tacoma had better availability from what I could find on dealer websites with the options I wanted in this area of the country. The Toyota had the expected reliability I have experienced in several other Toyota vehicles owned by myself, family and friends (not to bag on Nissan, I also had a '86 720 Nissan pickup that ran well into the 180,000mi area, was traded in due to no A/C and several minor problems that would have totaled 3-4000$ to repair). The Toyota had slightly better historical resale.
The final clincher that split the 50-50 in my mind was the response from Toyota dealerships in this area versus Nissan. Several of the Toyota dealerships responded to the e-mails I sent out that specified exactly what I wanted in a Tacoma with EXACT configuration sheets, including VIN, stock numbers and price offers of vehicles available at the dealer or on the ground and shipping to the state that matched or were close to what I wanted. The only responses I got from all of the Nissan dealers, keeping in mind that I sent them exact specs of what I wanted in a Frontier, same as the Toyota dealers, were requests to call them to discuss what options I wanted and to come down and look at what they had. That was unacceptable to me as I had already provided them with that information and didn't want to deal with any high pressure phone or in person sales techniques. I had already made up my mind on what I wanted from both vehicles, I just wanted prices and contact info should I wish to speak with them. Toyota in this area did that for me several times over. Nissan in the Phoenix, AZ Metro area fell extremely short in that respect.
Let me just ask you. What rpm range are you usually driving in? 5000? 4000? I'm guessing it's probably around the 3000 range or lower, mostly for the sake of gas mileage. But do let me know what range you're usually driving in, consider me interested. Let's go to the charts:
Dyno test: Difference in HP using regular and premium fuel
Now you're still going to tell me that the Frontier doesn't benefit from premium gas? If anything this chart proves my point. In the range of 3500 to 3750 rpms (it's a shame he didn't get any readings lower) the horsepower range is anywhere from 10 to 25 hp difference between using 87 and 93. That's a pretty big difference to me. I'm guessing it is to a lot of people on this board who are quick to point out that same difference in HP between the Frontier and the Tacoma.
Like I said before, driving at 5600 rpms gets the max horses out of your truck but I'm sure you don't do that. When you're running at 4000 rpms or higher the octane doesn't matter because it doesn't get a chance to combust early, that's probably all that chart is good at showing. I don't even use premium, I use 89 in my Tacoma. But I think it's absolutely ridiculous that you think a higher octane will have no advantages in your Frontier. I guess I'm still not convinced.
Next truck I'm looking for is with some sort of hybrid/VCM that will deliver mileage in the mid-20's along with about 300 hp. Toyota's upcoming Tundra replacement looks interesting, too.
http://www.jackphelps.com/frontier/dyno2.htm
"You can see the results on the graphs below--allowing for the machine's margin of error, there was almost no difference in the two. The test conducted with premium fuel showed 219 horsepower and 229 ft/lbs torque, both numbers actually slightly below the numbers posted on 87-octane fuel. There were some gains in the lower RPM ranges, but peak power numbers were essentially the same. I have been very careful to keep possible variables at a minimum, so I am at a loss to explain why there was no increase in performance with the premium fuel. Even accounting for margin of error on the dyno machine itself the differences would have been small, certainly not enough to justify paying for the more expensive premium fuel. You may draw your own conclusions from this test, but mine are clear; my truck runs very well on 87-octane fuel and no better on the high-priced stuff. With gas prices high and getting higher I'm only too happy to fill 'er up with regular, thank you."
thanks
boone88rr.
As a final note...I got my Leer R100 camper shell on Friday 7/29. Total cost of 1500 with the Yakama rails. The inside liner and fold down sliding window were free since it was a new releaase. Damn good looking topper and excellent color match...except the topper doesn't have matching chips...
For all those wanting toppers...
http://www.leer.com/advancenotice.html
Advantages of each:
Tacoma:
pluses:
10 more hp, very smooth ride for a truck, carbon fiber bed, lots of extras on the 4 cyls on the lot (only two though), maybe a bit more room in the back.
negatives:
Base 4 cyl has silly looking wheels. The truck body is styled well for pre-runner/4x4 kit, but the small, plain wheels on the base model look like an after- thought. A bit pricey, although well equipped.
Fronty:
pluses:
Price was roughly $2K better with rebate in July,
base vehicle looks very good. Ride good but stiff.
Side airbags an option. Others have complained about the hard plastic interior, but I actually prefer the "less busy" interior of the Fronty to the Taco.
Four wheel disc brakes. More base models on the lot than the Taco.
negatives: Side airbags about impossible to find. Extras limited on 4 cyl, no power windows, locks. This is my biggest complaint about the Fronty. Rated mileage a few mpg less than the Taco, maybe due to higher profile.
Basically, the apparent bit of extra power in the Taco didn't really matter to me. The overall quality I felt was similar, so the choice was 1) more goodies at a higher price for the Taco, or 2) better looks at a lower price w/o some amenities I would have liked on the Fronty. I chose #2 and have been happy so far.
Nissan needs to make more options available on the 4 cyl models, as I think a significant fraction of "small" PU buyers don't need 265 hp. It also wouldn't hurt to squeeze a few more hp out of the 4 cyl, but this might be tough to do w/o hurting the gas mileage.