[car fanatics]

Car Fanatics
Photo: Copyright 2012 Vic Handa / Car Fanatics Forum
June 12, 2012
By: Michael Stuart

Prologue

Right up front, I have to say that I'm not a truck guy. I have two reasons for this. First, I live in an urban area and have no need for the utility these vehicles provide. If I ever need to do landscaping, moving or something like home renovations, I can rent one. Second, I've never liked the way trucks ride - 'tall, tippy and shuddery' is my general option and no truck I've driven has ever changed this.

In some ways, this may make me a better reviewer of these vehicles in general, since I have no preconceived notions of how they should be, and no allegiance to any brand or model of truck. Where I haven't been able to test it to it's full capabilities, I've asked for input from others who are in the know and have put these comments on the main thread for your review.

Introduction

The Frontier received its last major upgrade in 2005. The particular model tested here is the top rung of the lineup and lists in the high $30,000 to low $40,000 range in Canadian pricing. The little brother Frontier outsold its big brother, the Titan, by a rate of 5,480 to 2,166 in May of 2012. This may be because it is so capable for a small truck, that there is no need to opt for anything larger.

Exterior

This is a pretty good looking truck, particularly in this shade of blue. It has lots of chrome on the exterior which blings it out pretty nicely, though if put to heavy use I wonder how well it will age. It is very large, weighing in at around 4,600 lbs and takes up a good amount of real estate. It would be interesting to park one of these side by side with a Titan to see where the differences in dimensions are. For a small truck, it's really not small at all.

Interior

Here is the area where the most significant update is needed. Initially, I found the seats to be comfortable for short trips, but when I had a few 1+ hour trips to do, I found the lumbar adjustment to be too strong even at the lowest setting and it was really digging into my back. The lumbar lever is on the right side of the seat and I had it set back as far as it could go. This is a personal thing, since I've had people say they love the seats in a certain car/truck, and other people say they hate them for the very same car/truck.

The plastics were of good, durable quality, but there was too much 'sea of grey' in this model. A bit of contrast would help. The stereo is a Rockford Fosgate 380 watt system with excellent sound, but had no USB port for an ipod so I was back to popping in my CD's for the week.

The rear seat has a very harsh 90 degree angle to it, you won't make any friends by having them ride in the back, but they did fold up to allow space for your stuff and also offered a small hidden storage space.

Performance

The SL tested here came equipped with the 4.0 litre VQ engine. Its payload capacity is listed on the Nissan website as 1,096 lbs and its towing capacity is 6,100 lbs. Again, very capable and up to the task of hauling/towing some pretty large items. The engine is rated at 261 hp and 281 lbs/ft of torque. The torque peak is reached fairly high in the rpm band however, at 4,000 rpm and I found it could actually feel fairly weak if you were caught out in the wrong gear and low rpm. With that 4,600 lbs to move around it has its work cut out for it. For pure straight line performance and general around town driving, it was strong and smooth but could get rowdy when you really stomped on it. The power delivery was a bit lumpy, as I could feel the 'continuously variable valve timing' changing as the rpms rose. It certainly comes on very strong where it hits the peak torque.

The 5 speed automatic transmission worked very well, with smooth shifts and good ratios for relaxed highway cruising but I did find it very reluctant to downshift at lower speeds when you needed to merge into faster traffic. You really needed to dig into that throttle to get it to respond.

Digging into that throttle, and presumably using the 4WD settings, will cost you dearly in fuel. I was very gentle with this thing through the entire week, and the best I managed was 14.8 litres/100 km, which is below 16 MPG. Those using this for a daily driver who don't need to use the bed all the time would be very wise to get a cover for it to help with the aerodynamics.

Steering is very slow and it has a Titanic turning circle. Be prepared for that if you have to navigate tight spaces.

The brakes were very strong and felt completely capable of stopping the rig with a heavy load. The ride was composed with no brake dive and very little body roll, but I did find that it shuddered over larger bumps and could really side step on you when crossing railway tracks or hitting uneven pavement bumps. The suspension setup for trucks must be very difficult to calibrate given there is so little weight over the rear wheels when the bed is empty. Overall, they've done a good job here as it's especially nice to drive on the highway.

Something I found odd about this one was the bed liner. I don't know what material it is, but it's not a smooth plastic, and the downside there is that the birds will be using it as their canvass. No amount of rain seemed to wash out the stains and I can't imagine it being easy to clean even with soap and water.

Conclusion

Considering the age of this truck since its last update, I really have to commend Nissan for doing a great job. This truck is attractive, very capable and offers a smooth and pleasant driving experience.

In terms of mechanicals, Nissan may be wise to consider offering a V8 and 6 speed transmission for the next go round. When looking at the competition, I noted that the GMC Canyon/Chevy Colorado twins can be had with the 5.3 litre V8. My thinking is that offering this combo would yield both stronger and smoother performance than the 4.0, while a 6 speed could allow it to yield as good or even better fuel economy. While you could argue that this would hurt the Titan's sales, I'd have to say the Frontier is already doing that by outselling it more than 2 to 1 in its current format. Offering more mechanical options would could expand their sales rather than cannibalize from the Titan. I'm also wondering if the 2.5 4 cylinder option should be dropped as I can't imagine how it would manage with this much weight.

The interior needs to at least allow for the option of things like a USB port for the stereo and a navigation system. It also needs to offer a bit more contrast and some better quality material for the headliner. The front seats, as mentioned, need some work and I'm sure they could adjust the angle of the rear seats - give up a bit of foot/leg room to allow for a more comfortable setup.

This truck is a strong contender in its class, and with a solid refresh, could well dominate the segment.

[G8mike]

Well done on the pics Vic!:2thumbsup:

[Scout]

Quote:Something I found odd about this one was the bed liner. I don't know what material it is, but it's not a smooth plastic, and the downside there is that the birds will be using it as their canvass.

The spray in bed liners do have thousands of tiny pits that can trap dirt and other small stuff, but that's not really a concern. They are worth it for the protection they give. Another nice thing about them is when you do put something in the bed of the truck it tends to not slide around back there on those liners.

[G8mike]

Scout;211902 Wrote:

Quote:Something I found odd about this one was the bed liner. I don't know what material it is, but it's not a smooth plastic, and the downside there is that the birds will be using it as their canvass.

The spray in bed liners do have thousands of tiny pits that can trap dirt and other small stuff, but that's not really a concern. They are worth it for the protection they give. Another nice thing about them is when you do put something in the bed of the truck it tends to not slide around back there on those liners.

Makes sense.

[vhanda]

G8mike;211893 Wrote:Well done on the pics Vic!:2thumbsup:

Thanks man, they turned out to be decent. :OHYEAH!:

[G8mike]

How the heck did I miss this one:


'The third-generation Dakota was discontinued in 2011, with the last one coming off the assembly line on August 23, 2011, ending the truck's 25 year run.[2] According to Sergio Marchionne, the CEO of Chrysler Group, the Dakota will probably not be replaced by a similar vehicle, mostly due to declining popularity of light trucks on the North American market (see Ford Ranger for similar outcome).[2]'

I knew about the Ranger, but didn't even realize that Dodge had given up on this market. So that leaves Toyota Tacoma, Nissan Frontier, Chevy Colorado/GMC Canyon and.....who else?

[docCarter]

All the midsize pick ups are in major need for a revamp. They all need small displacement, turbocharged engines to give them the sort of fuel economy to justify themselves over a fullsize pickup.

[G8mike]

And here I am advocating in the opposite direction.

I can't see turbo 4 bangers working in these things - too much weight. To get any kind of performance out of them (and hauling capability) I think a 4 could well turn in worse economy than an 8 with DoD.

[docCarter]

Interesting.

So the these trucks seem to have no purpose. If they can't be much more efficient than the fullsizers.

[G8mike]

docCarter;212391 Wrote:Interesting.

So the these trucks seem to have no purpose. If they can't be much more efficient than the fullsizers.

It really is an oddball segment. The only dimensions they really seem to be smaller in is weight and width. As I mentioned the Raptor is the same length (or very close) to the Frontier. The Frontier weighs in at over 4,600 lbs - that's alot, but the Titan is just over 5,000, so we're talking less than 10% difference.

Personally, I'd go for a full size if I was in the market and it appears that many others are making the same decision.

[Thed]

G8mike;212390 Wrote:And here I am advocating in the opposite direction.

I can't see turbo 4 bangers working in these things - too much weight. To get any kind of performance out of them (and hauling capability) I think a 4 could well turn in worse economy than an 8 with DoD.

You have no idea how light a compact pickup can be do you? My Ranger weighed 2975 lbs when it rolled off the showroom floor. Keep in mind I have a cast iron block and head with cast iron TTBs. With the right materials a newer, safer truck can reach these numbers yet again. A turbo four would do great in my truck, hence why it'll be turbocharged in a few years.

[G8mike]

Thed;212405 Wrote:

G8mike;212390 Wrote:And here I am advocating in the opposite direction.

I can't see turbo 4 bangers working in these things - too much weight. To get any kind of performance out of them (and hauling capability) I think a 4 could well turn in worse economy than an 8 with DoD.

You have no idea how light a compact pickup can be do you? My Ranger weighed 2975 lbs when it rolled off the showroom floor. Keep in mind I have a cast iron block and head with cast iron TTBs. With the right materials a newer, safer truck can reach these numbers yet again. A turbo four would do great in my truck, hence why it'll be turbocharged in a few years.

What are its towing and hauling specs?

[MOPAR74]

G8mike;212382 Wrote:How the heck did I miss this one:


'The third-generation Dakota was discontinued in 2011, with the last one coming off the assembly line on August 23, 2011, ending the truck's 25 year run.[2] According to Sergio Marchionne, the CEO of Chrysler Group, the Dakota will probably not be replaced by a similar vehicle, mostly due to declining popularity of light trucks on the North American market (see Ford Ranger for similar outcome).[2]'

I knew about the Ranger, but didn't even realize that Dodge had given up on this market. So that leaves Toyota Tacoma, Nissan Frontier, Chevy Colorado/GMC Canyon and.....who else?

Its all in what Sergio said, "the Dakota will probably not be replaced by a similar vehicle"


What im hearing is there will be a small "truck" offered from Dodge or Ram, and will most likely be based on a current platform being used, probably a minivan based small truck... its got a couple years til its supposed to come out though

[Thed]

G8mike;212420 Wrote:

Thed;212405 Wrote:

G8mike;212390 Wrote:And here I am advocating in the opposite direction.

I can't see turbo 4 bangers working in these things - too much weight. To get any kind of performance out of them (and hauling capability) I think a 4 could well turn in worse economy than an 8 with DoD.

You have no idea how light a compact pickup can be do you? My Ranger weighed 2975 lbs when it rolled off the showroom floor. Keep in mind I have a cast iron block and head with cast iron TTBs. With the right materials a newer, safer truck can reach these numbers yet again. A turbo four would do great in my truck, hence why it'll be turbocharged in a few years.

What are its towing and hauling specs?

The four banger manual is roughly 1000/1000 and the auto was 1000/3000 payload/towing. The V6 was 1000/3000 for the manual and 2000/5-6000 for the auto.

But there are people that put 3000 lbs of payload on these little four banger Rangers all the time and they just ask for more.