Truck Thursday: Nissan Developing New Titan, Going "Back To The Basics" With Compact Pickups

by Edward Niedermeyer

Published: January 14th, 2010

truck thursday nissan developing new titan going back to the basics with compact

About a year ago, Nissan’s response to nose-diving truck sales betrayed some serious ambivalence about chasing the profitable-yet-dangerous segment. Its first plan was to rebadge the new Ram, but that deal has fallen apart in the wake of Chrysler’s shotgun wedding to Fiat. At a loss for options, Nissan canceled the Quest, QX56 and Armada and started tooling up its Canton plant to produce commercial vehicles. It looked like Nissan’s days in the truck market were over. Now, USA Today reports that Nissan is developing a new full-sized pickup (and SUV) after all. By itself. Who’d have thunk it?

Why is Nissan getting back into a full-sized truck segment that it couldn’t even milk 20k units out of last year? Other than sheer desire to be a full-line manufacturer, there aren’t a lot of good rationalizations. On the compact pickup front, however, Nissan seems to have a better idea of what it wants and how it will get it.

Pickuptrucks.com spoke to Nissan product planning VP Larry Dominique about Nissan’s compact pickup goals, and got the following heartening quote for their trouble:

What we want to do with the compact truck market is go back to the basics of what it used to be. If you talk to the compact truck buyers, it’s not why they originally bought these things. They wanted a cheap, get-me-done truck and that doesn’t exist. If you go outside this country, we sell our old small trucks in high volumes because people want a cheap truck with a one-ton payload. We think if we can get that equation back in line — and that’s a big if – we think there’s clearly a market opportunity….

It wouldn’t be as small as our old Hardbody pickups. People like the space of the crew cab. But can the vehicle be three inches narrower than today? Can it shrink the second row by an inch and the front row by an inch and still satisfy customers? But I want to get better fuel economy and I want a lower price point. I don’t think we need 265 horsepower. The customer isn’t telling us they need all of that capacity. We need to work to define what we need to deliver to the customer.

With a brace of low-cost cars planned for the US and a utilitarian approach to compact pickups, Nissan is clearly trying to position itself as America’s recession brand. It’s not a strategy without its risks, especially with Chinese and Indian automakers set to invade over the next several years. Whether Nissan’s pre-emptive strike against the newcomers, offering low-cost products with a trusted brand name and less third-world stigma, pays off remains to be seen. But at least they’re planning on addressing one of America’s most neglected segments, the compact pickup, with a properly utilitarian attitude.

#CompactPickups #Datsun #Frontier #Nissan #PickupTrucks #Titan #Trucks

Edward Niedermeyer

More by Edward Niedermeyer

Comments

Join the conversation

2 of 25 comments

Dmrdano on Jan 15, 2010

A standard cab with a 6 foot box would meet the needs of so many carpenters, plumbers, electricians, handimen (or women), etc. that currently are being force-fed the rediculous Transit Connect (Taurus with a big trunk and ludicrous price). Add a topper and you have a perfect vehicle. I would go with a standard cab but with long seat travel. That way the big drivers can get in and us smaller folk can put some stuff behind the seat. 4WD option is not optional (northern MN); it must be available or forget the whole thing, but make it reasonably inexpensive and you will sell a lot of units.

Like Reply
Banger on Jan 15, 2010
Pete Zaitcev: I thought about getting a Ranger, but then I looked seriously and thought I must be mad. Got RAV4 instead. 24 to 26 mpg in everyday driving, safety, comfort. Its only downside is, no low gear, so it hates steep inclines (I had to experience the ignonimity of being towed by a Tacoma uphill once). Every other feature is much better than Ranger’s. When I need to bring gravel, I take a trailer. Everything else, I drop inside on a tarp. And all for $25,650 in cash. Small truck? Madness, I say. Granted I’ve read about farmers in Ohio clamoring for really small trucks, for the cost of ownership and mileage. But they were looking at completely trashy Chinese “trucks”, not what Nissan can legally sell." The Ranger wasn't right for you. But that doesn't mean to buy one is akin to madness. I need no trailer to haul gravel or mulch. As I said, I didn't buy this truck as a nice vehicle to take the family to dinner in. I bought it to work, hauling things we couldn't or wouldn't haul in our Sentra. In 2007, for a then-one-year old truck with 15,000 miles on the odometer, I paid $10,000 cash for it with a totaled '94 Nissan Hardbody (~$800) for trade allowance. If it's necessary for you to spend an extra $15,000 or so to get a vehicle with the right balance of passenger space, nice features and utility for your needs, that's fine. But I didn't need nice, I needed tough. Tough is something the Ranger has in spades-- not to mention it's easier to service in every way than even my relatively simple Nissan truck used to be. My point being this: There is a market out here for these trucks. It's not just farmers-- in fact, I'd be surprised if very many farmers were in this market. Most of those guys need full-size capability, enough so to at least justify a six-cylinder full-size. (And by the way, none of the farmers I know would dare look at a Chinese or Indian truck-- that's just downright blasphemous in farm country!) But those of us who don't have the luxury of having a commuter vehicle through the week and a pickup for the weekends' light hauling desire a few things: 1. Decent fuel mileage (my Ranger gets, at its worst with lots of city driving, about 26 mpg. On my frequent highway commute with little town driving, I've averaged 30 to 32 real-world mpg.) 2. Cheap to buy, cheap to maintain (I've had my truck three years-- and it was paid-off in only half that time, thanks to its low price. Meanwhile, I can do oil changes with factory-recommended Motorcraft oil and filter for less than $20 and about 30 minutes of my time.) 3. Reasonable interior comfort combined with ruggedness (My Ranger's rubber floor is a blessing, after years of forever-dirty carpet floors. And the vinyl seats are tough, with a near-leather quality that has impressed many who have ridden with me. It's quite comfortable on my 50-mile daily commute, reasonably quiet, and has a good HVAC system that is simple to operate.) If Nissan can match the Ranger (and, to a lesser extent, the outgoing Colorado/Canyon) in those three areas of concern, they'll attract quite a few interested buyers. The biggest obstacle I see for them right now is price. But they've surprised me with the value proposition of the Versa (decently equipped at around $14,000-$16,000, with more interior space and better fuel mileage than our 2004 Sentra). I think if this truck stickers at less than $15,000 in base form, it'll draw some attention. Who knows, maybe all the parts stores would cross-shop Nissan for their delivery trucks-- a market Ford has had sewn-up for the last several years. I hope you underestimate American truck buyers' desire for thrift. Likewise, it is my sincere hope that neither I nor Nissan has underestimated American truck buyers' egos, long boosted by needlessly enormous, over-capable, artificially low-priced trucks.

Like Reply

Recent Comments

VoGhost Just reminding us all that we have to tolerate dealers (many of whom are billionaires) in the US if we want new legacy ICE vehicles because the dealers pay for the campaigns of local politicians, with our money.
1995 SC I'm still trying to get past the fact that the Red Bull guy is married to a Spice Girl.
Ravenuer Not into F1. Started watching NASCAR back when they raced actual cars. (yeah I'm that old). Not any more. They aren't "stock cars" now. Not even close. Even drag races don't interest me anymore. Races are over in 3 seconds.
Wjtinfwb No confusion on my end, Ghost. The Government has zero role in job creation outside of the legitimate opportunities' created by Government going about it's responsibilities, namely keeping the American people and territory safe from foreign intrusion. Of course, they're failing epically at that but that's a different topic. The American free enterprise system is what enables job creation. Government's role is to stay out of the way of that system, but they seem incapable of doing so. Oil & Gas exploration is just one example. If a National Job Policy is what you're looking for, there are other countries that will be happy to accept your application for residency.
Michael Smith I drive 100-300 miles a day in new BMWs, Mercedes-Benzes, and GM SUVs. Some are already equipped with automatic braking.It's the first thing I turn off when I start the car.I've had experiences where (as the author notes) the system gave false alarms and stabbed the brake pedal, threatening my ability to control the car.Further, every driver encounters situations where, for example, legal following distance must be momentarily compromised in order to avoid a difficult situation. When the system intervenes, it disrupts the driver's plan of action. This can lead to a collision as the driver has to suddenly react not to his surroundings, but to the system.Not only is automatic braking an insult to skilled drivers, it's dangerous to everyone.