Jc1986.carter
Active member
Wouldn’t a new Nissan Frontier fill that role pretty easily? It has a rock solid 4.0lt v6, a d44 in the rear and is readily available for much less than a new Toyota, ford, or Chevy.
2019 Ford Ranger Taking Orders
- Thread starter erstwild
- Start date
jadmt
ignore button user
I know some people love them but I would not own a Nissan frontier, some people like them but I don't like how they look and have to like how something looks first and foremost.
Clutch
<---Pass
I don't mind the current Frontiers...the interiors do feel like they are made from recycled soda bottles though.
The new one (if we ever get it) isn't all the bad.
Interior looks much better too.
I think the older Nissan 4x4's had a mildly bad reputation (I'm obviously talking about the North American market). Some issues with transmissions, front axles on the IFS trucks as well as an issue where radiator fluid mixed in with transmission fluid (SMOD).
But to their credit, Nissan corrected a lot of those issues as they popped up. The last version of the Xterra (before they discontinued it) was pretty decent IMO. The recent Titan and Titan XD, while nothing extraordinary, certainly are a step up for Nissan in terms of build quality and capability.
If all these improvements are indicative of what the next Frontier will be like, I'd definitely consider one, especially if it has an optional 2.8l Cummins (there are rumors of Nissan testing a prototype diesel Frontier).
Last edited:
plainjaneFJC
Deplorable
The 5 liter cummins is a disappointment, I would pass on the 2.8 if its anything like the 5 liter.
Depends on who you ask. The owners that tow and haul a bit seem to like that engine, even though its not necessarily more efficient than the 3/4 options. I've seen more than a few Cummins 5.0l's in my neck of the woods, not as much as I see diesel Ram's and Ford's, but Nissan's sales will never be comparable to the 3/4 ton OEM's.
It's a heavy and powerful engine in a heavy platform...mpg will be what it is. If you buy that truck expecting to get the same mpg as the Ram 1500 ecodiesel, yes, you'll be disappointed. I don't think Nissan was trying to compete with the 1/2 ton category of trucks.
As for the 2.8l Cummins, if that engine is anything like the 2.8l Duramax, I think it will be a hit in the Frontier. In terms of weight and engine output, it's well suited to a midsized truck or Jeep IMHO.
Clutch
<---Pass
Yeah, I was hoping the 5.0 would of been a good middle ground, middle of the road power, without being over kill like you get int he 3/4-1 tons...with returning decent mpg's. Mileage has been so-so...coupled with 3/4-1 Ton prices...might as well get a 3/4-1 Ton at that point.
Real curious what the power numbers and mileage is going to be with the Ranger. Guessing 285HP/305 TQ range (specs of the Lincoln MKC) and 25 mpg HWY with that 10 speed tranny...might be the goldie-locks of trucks.
Last edited:
Jc1986.carter
Active member
The 2.3 eco boost has changed the mind of some old school mustang fans. They say the power is pretty quick to turn on and there is limited turbo lag. The ten speed should be a decent pairing too. The issues that the focus
Rs had seem have been fixed also.
Rs had seem have been fixed also.
Tex68w
Beach Bum
I see the diesel Titan as a 5/8-ton class truck, it's kind of out there in a league of its own. That said, it's very inefficient and I find it to be quite ugly, they can't give them way in my AO and I have seen dealers marking them down $15K off sticker and they still sit on the lot.
Martinjmpr
Wiffleball Batter
I've owned 2 Rangers (a 1999 Supercab XLT, 3.0 and a 1996 Mazda B2300 which was just a rebadged Ranger) and they were perfectly fine for what they were. Both of mine were 2wd/manual trans so I didn't have the occasionally problematic electric 4wd switch. I was on a lot of Ranger forums back then and the biggest complaint that the 4wd Ranger guys had was piss-poor fuel economy (in the 13 - 15 MPG range) My '99 2wd Supercab, 3.0 V6 on 235/75/15 tires (one size larger than stock) could get about 26 on the highway. My '96 4 cyl routinely got 25 in the city and could get over 30 on the highway.
They were definitely built to a "price point" and not fancy in any way (although the same could be said about the S-10 and Dakota) but they both served me just fine with zero problems. The 1996 B2300 was my "daily driver" for 3 years. Bought it for $2k, drove it for 3 years and sold it for $2200. It was a regular cab, short bed and the only "luxury" it had was AC (which could turn the tiny cab into a freezer in about 60 seconds on even the hottest day!)
DaveInDenver
Middle Income Semi-Redneck
Back then a base model really meant it was a basic vehicle. I think the market has lost a reference. Back in the 1990s Toyota trucks were not fancy either, very basic plastic dashboards and vinyl seats. Now a base model looks a lot like a highly optioned truck back then. The SR level Tacoma has power windows, power locks, cloth seats. Just having carpet was a luxury for chrissakes.
Martinjmpr
Wiffleball Batter
For sure, my 1985 Toyota 4x4 (Hilux although nobody used the term back then - it was printed on the invoice, though) had a thin, cheap vinyl seat and no radio. I can't remember if it was an SR-5 model or not. I don't think it was, because it had the carbureted 22r engine (I think the SR-5's got the 22re fuel injected engine.) I eventually put in a Kraco stereo from K-mart!
DaveInDenver
Middle Income Semi-Redneck
Wouldn't have been SR5 with vinyl bench and no radio in 1985. That would have cloth bucket seats and at least an AM/FM stereo. It could have been a 22R in any case, the EFI was still an option in 1985 and not even all SR5 got them. I think it would have had to been at least an XtraCab (your probably wasn't I'm guessing to have it as an option. The 22R remained the base engine until I think 1988, although by then all 4x4 had EFI so only the very, very base 2WD, regular cab would likely still be 22R.
Todd780
OverCamper
Just curious where you read that. I own an F-150 so I wanted to read what Ford said. I did some googling but came up empty.