The VQ (4.0 V6) is a monster engine well deserved of its reputation. The 6spd lets me image that I’m in a much sportier vehicle than traction (reality) allows. The suspension is up for some aggressive manoevering though the OEM BFG tires are garbage and are a letdown with the rest of the package. It’s quiet inside the cab and I happily take the truck for some long drives as it’s comfortable and eats up the highway miles with ease.

Comparing to the XE (2.5L I4): the VQ stomps it everywhere. The XE could due with some additional torque or an extra cog in the transmission to give it a little more pep. It’s not as though I didn’t like driving it but back-to-back it’s not a fair fight.

Fuel consumption on the VQ isn’t all that bad w/ the 6spd. Highway I’ve seen better than 24mpg (US) territory though winter city driving drives that figure down quickly (16-18mpg due to the A/C being on with the defrost). Even hauling motorcycles in the back through the mountains of KY: I could still hold 24mpg pretty steady and it’s not until you get ~1000lbs or more in the back that you really notice the weight.

It’s a typical Nissan manual transmission: clutch releases at the top of its travel with a fairly abrupt engagement – I prefer this arrangement than softer clutches found in many other vehicles. It’s a nice sporty shift though the throw could be much shorter as it’s quite a reach for shorter drivers (like my wife) to get into 5th gear.

Yes, as far as a truck goes, value-wise a full-sized model would be better, but a lot of us need something of a mix between a car and a truck. The Frontier is just great on that score. It rides a hell of a lot better than a Tacoma. You don’t have to climb into the cab, as you do with a Taco or the full-sizes. My 78-yr-old mother-in-law with an artificial hip can get into the front. For a truck it handles curves incredibly well and has comfortable drive, almost as good as my wife’s 2003 TL.

It really is funny how I test drove a number of full-sized and mid-sized pickups, but this one just…FELT…right. I can’t put my finger on it, but after about a block on a back road, I found myself saying, “Yeah, this is what I need.”

Then you have the bed. As someone else noted, the tie down tracks are great. I’ve secured all sorts of stuff with them. BTW, the plastic bins Williams mentions that are under the rear seat can be easily removed, so the back becomes a nice cargo area.

The back seat is small, but it’s perfect for kids. It’s incredibly easy sticking my three-year-old in his car seat.

All in all, this is the best vehicle I’ve had for what I need, and I’ve had quite a few full-sized trucks and cars. I’m not saying that it’s the car for everyone, but if you’re looking for a truck, definitely give this one a drive. That it’s priced a few grand less than the Taco should be more than enough incentive.

On a completely superficial note, it’s sort of funny how the profile of the Frontier Crewcab with the short bed resembles the Toyota Hiluxes I see on the BBC.

The Frontier is currently selling in fewer numbers than the Ranger, Colorado and Tacoma.

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2009/07/june-2009-top-10-truck-sales.html

I blame it on the base engine. It’s a great truck with a lot of good points, but 152 hp isn’t going to cut it in a 3700 pound vehicle. I calculated hp-to-weight ratings and it’s got a worse lb-hp ratio than the Ranger four. And with automatic it barely struggles 19 mpg overall- barely two mpg higher than the much nicer but more thirsty V6.

I’ve been promised help from my mother when I go out to buy my second vehicle in 2011. Because I’m not interested in the next-gen versions of these vehicles (I don’t feel like putting up with first-year reliability issues) I’m looking at the current models. And only at the four-cylinder versions for the fuel economy. If Nissan doesn’t give the base four at least ten or twenty more horsepower and pound-feet of torque by 2010 I may just end up picking up a super-cheap base Ranger early to take advantage of the heavy rebates they’ve got right now.

I’m seeing a lot of sentiment here for a return to the pickups of old which were little more than motorized wheelbarrows. Sorry, never happen, they’d cost too much to get through the hoops it takes to sell a new vehicle in this over-regulated country. Go find a 67-69 Chevy short narrow box truck; there were plenty of these with sixes and three-speeds. There was nothing simpler to keep running or easier to drive, and you could probably restore one for what a new Ranger costs.

Folks tend to forget that trucks more often than not are purchased as male enhancement. To buy a small truck is seen, fair or not, as equivalent to admitting to a small package.

The Ranger in its current form can really only be compared from 1998 on. To say that today’s Ranger is similar to 1993-97 one is to overlook that since 1993 the Ranger has a new frame, new engines, new transmission, new front suspension, new steering, new brakes, and a new interior.

Otherwise, I guess it is comparable.

The model tested here is slightly ridiculous. I looked at one the other day and couldn’t believe how big it was.

The Mahindra is more of what I want, except by all sources it will only come to the US with an automatic trans. Ugh. And speaking of which, finding any “compact” truck with a standard is impossible unless you want the most basic strippo model. I don’t want all the bling but I don’t want the rubber-mat special either.

Believe it or not, they build houses and have farms and do landscaping in other countries, too, and they don’t all have, need, or desire oversized trucks with which to do it.

From what I recall, the Nissan 240SX shared the entire Driveline with the Nissan Compact Pick Up of the day (I think that was pre-Frontier).

They had said that, but I thought they had reconsidered. Googling tells me the St. Paul plant is still on the chopping block for 2011.

The thing is, this is going to be an important segment for many more years – perhaps increasingly important as gas continues to climb in price.

Ranger sales are up 8.8% for June ‘09 compared to June ‘08.

If the discussion is of BOF pickups, the Ridegeline doens’t fit. It’s basically a unit-body AWD Pilot with the roof over the cargo area chopped off.

That makes a very comfortable, roomy truck when it comes to the passengers but not so great for cargo. It has a 5-foot bed which drastically limits what you can carry with the tailgate up (with it down it extends to about 6.5 feet).

The “in bed” trunk they like to tout is a great idea – until you have the bed loaded with bags of mulch and need to get something out of that trunk (like, maybe, the spare tire).

No doubt it fills a niche in the truck market for people who who want something fancy that’ll carry 5 passengers but occasionally need to carry stuff that’s too messy/stinky/tall to fit in the back of a SUV. However, the small bed and relatively high price keep it from being a serious competitor in the small/midsize pickup market.

The lesson from these reviews (I remember a similar line of complaints about the TTAC review of the Tacoma) is that if you want economy and value in a compact truck then keep it compact! Get the regular cab, or maybe the extended cab and only choose the four-cylinder engine. If you want or need more than that, including 4WD, don’t waste your time with the Frontier/Tacoma/Colorado/Ranger end of the lot. You’ll get a better deal and more for your money with a full size truck.

Toyota and Nissan make 1/2-tons too. No wannabes there. Or are the “big boys” actually a group of fat guys you know who only like domestics and shun anyone who owns something else?

A romping 1600 cc of poke-alongness but on flat land without a heavy load it accelerated fine.

Basic and reliable, just a shame it did not have today’s reliable fuel injection so as to avoid intricate carburetors and their quirks.

Better yet was the 1978 Toyota Hilux with the awesome 20R motorvator. Reliable as heck but mine had the rare auto tranny. Hurt the mpg but that tranny was reliable and rugged.

Pulled a trailer with around 6,000 of metal upon it. Surprised how quickly it accelerated to 50 mph but fear and common sense had me stop at 50 mph.

Both were reliable solid trucks but am glad I did not have to drive in the salt/rust belt with them.

Very basic vehicles that could conceivably be sold for 10K bucks or so today, perhaps a bit more, and still provide a profit to the manufacturer.

Of course, those early trucks did not try to emulate a decked-out upscale car.

Might be time for a devolution.

Toss out all the fluff and stuff and offer the masses a basic conveyance.

Cross platform interchange would also be nice. The 20R engine was in the Celica and pick-up and the Corona, I believe. Stuff such as that helps keep costs down along with long-term cost of ownership when repair parts are needed.

The Ridgeline is expensive (starts at around 28K before incentives), recommends premium fuel for towing applications, and has developed a reputation for not holding together well when used hard in work truck applications. Other than that, it is comfortable, reliable when not pushed too hard, and is one of the nicest pickups to have as a daily driver car substitute.

Mahandria is close to this small truck ideal size and price point. Unfortunately Depression 2.0 has delayed their entry into the US market. Right now Ford more or less has this market to itself with the base 2WD, 5 speed Ranger. For $3k more you can get a stripper F-150 with a V-6.

My father has a 2005 4WD four door frontier. I second the observations about weak fuel economy and poor turning radius. I’ve driven class 8 tractors with better wheel cut than the Frontier. In mostly city commuting it has fuel economy in the low teens.

You’re in luck. Ford makes a compact PU they call the Ranger. It’s BOF, and priced at just over $16K (XL model) The engine is just a little larger than you want, at 2.3L, but it has class leading MPGs. The power is a bit less than your specification at 143hp. 5spd manual is the base tranny. You can have a choice of 6′ or 7′ beds. As far as I know, it’s the only compact truck offering a 7′ bed option.

IMO the Ranger gets slammed too much. It’s a pity that Ford has neglected it all these years, but it’s still a basically sound compact PU platform. It needs to have a styling refresh, (because my ‘98 looks modern – or the new Rangers look like ’98s, take your pick) but Ford doesn’t need to throw it away and start over like GM did when they replaced their S-10 with their Colorado. Refresh and improve.

Somewhere in their word wide operations, I’d imagine Ford has a nice I4 diesel that they could start dropping in the Ranger.

But I digress, we were talking about the Frontier.

That was a great concept for a Pick Up. I’d rather have a 2.5L I4 with a 5 Speed Manual in a Truck with a true 8ft Bed than any of these current ‘Compact’ Pick Ups.