By on April 11, 2016

2016 Nissan Titan XD exterior with empty trailer, Image: © 2016 Alex L. Dykes/The Truth About Cars

Japanese car companies have been trying to break into the American full-sized pickup market for decades. Despite Japanese trucks having a sterling reputation for dependability and reliability internationally, ‘Muricans are a different bunch. Not even Ford’s switch to “European-style” twin-turbo engines and aluminum bodies could stop the freight train that is the F-Series sales chart.

On the opposite end of that sales chart is the last-place Titan. Nissan sold just 12,140 Titans last year, 1/10th of Toyota’s own meager volume and 1/65th of Ford’s truck sales.

Rather than picking up its marbles and going home, Nissan thought outside the box and came up with a novel idea. Why not “right-size” a 3/4 ton truck and sell it for a little more than your average 1/2 ton? With the Detroit Three engaged in serious towing and payload wars, the heavy-duty pickup segment looks more like a Freightliner convention.

That’s where the diesel Titan XD comes in.

Let’s cover what the Titan XD isn’t first.

This is not a truck that sits exactly in the middle of the 1/2 and 3/4 ton segments. Instead, Nissan cherry picks aspects from each segment to create the XD. The result is a truck with 1/2-ton towing and payload numbers, yet the towing feel of a 3/4 ton truck. It has the curb weight and diesel engine of a 3/4 ton, yet it rides on the highway like a 1/2 ton. Are you confused yet? Just wait.

Instead of using a small diesel V6 like we see in the RAM 1500 EcoDiesel or the long-rumored F-150 diesel, Nissan teamed up with Cummins to snag its new V8. With a starting price of $41,485, that makes the XD the least expensive way to get big V8 torque in your new tow rig.

2016 Nissan Titan XD 5.0L Cummins Turbo Diesel Engine, Image: © 2016 Alex L. Dykes/The Truth About Cars

When it comes to industrial engines, “new” is a relative term. In truth, the Titan’s 5.0-liter turbodiesel V8 isn’t new and that’s just how 3/4-ton shoppers like it. Cummins basically took its ISV5.0 school bus engine and removed the variable geometry single turbo. In its place, Cummins put in a new twin sequential turbo system that it calls “2-stage, 4-mode”.

At low revs, the smaller diameter turbo feeds into the larger turbo to reduce lag and increase boost pressure. At high revs, this is no longer efficient, so a valve body is used to remove the small turbo from the equation. The same valve body can also act as a wastegate under maximum boost or to restrict exhaust flow when greater engine braking is required.

Turbocharger from Titan XD Cummins diesel, Image: Nissan

The new twin-turbo setup allows the engine to deliver 310 horsepower at 3,200 rpm and 555 lbs-ft of torque at a low 1,600 rpm. While that pales in comparison to the 900 lbs-ft you can get out of a modern RAM 3500, the new V8 engine yields the same power and torque figures we saw in the RAM 3500 just 12 years ago.

Harnessing the engine’s torque is a new Aisin six-speed automatic dubbed A466ND. In case you were wondering, the transmission isn’t new either. Inside an entirely new housing (without a PTO) sits the same basic transmission found in the aforementioned RAM 3500 with 900 lbs-ft. This is not a light-duty transmission by any means. Also overrated is the rear axle, which was pilfered from the one-ton Nissan NV3500 van and fitted with a tweaked gear set.

2016 Nissan Titan XD towing Alex's Jaguar, Image: © 2016 Alex L. Dykes/The Truth About Cars

To complete the picture for our mechanically minded readers, the curb weight of our 4×4 Platinum Reserve model was 7,480 pounds. No, that’s not a typo. Yes, that is some 2,500 pounds more than an F-150 SuperCrew Lariat. With a GVWR over 8,500 pounds, this means the Titan XD is exempt from pesky EPA fuel economy estimates.

Sound like a 3/4-ton truck? You bet. What happened to the 5/8-ton part? That’s complicated.

As I said before, Nissan didn’t really straddle the line as much as they cherry picked things from the 1/2-ton and 3/4-ton segments and mashed them all into the same truck. We get a fully boxed 3/4-ton frame, 1-ton rear axle, 1-ton transmission, and a school bus diesel engine. Nissan mated the heavy-duty parts to a suspension tuned like a 1/2-ton suspension and steers the whole thing around with a recirculating ball steering rack like you see in the F-350.

The XD rides very differently from the F-250, Silverado 2500 or RAM 2500, largely because of Nissan’s choice to limit payload to just over 2,000 pounds maximum. That allowed them to have a softer rear suspension that makes the XD more livable on your daily commute or on rough roads with an empty bed. On the downside, this choice means that the payload rating is actually 33-percent less than the maximum configurable on an F-150.

No, the hilarity of a 1/2-ton truck that can cart around one and a half tons in the bed is not lost on me.

2016 Nissan Titan XD towing Alex's Jaguar, Image: © 2016 Alex L. Dykes/The Truth About Cars

During the week I was testing the XD, my Jaguar needed to visit the shop for substantial work. (This is a tale for another time). Because of a series of comedic mix-ups with the shop and my location in the boonies, I ended up towing the Jag for 250 miles and the experience was illuminating. Although the XD rides more like a 1/2-ton truck, it tows like a 3/4 ton truck. My Jag is 4,000 pounds dry and the trailer is just over 2,500 pounds. The resulting 6,700-pound combo is within the tow range of nearly every 1/2 ton truck and my Saab 9-7x Aero (which is typically tasked with towing the kitty to the vet). Living in the woods, owning a 2000s-era supercharged Jaguar and living in a house we literally built ourselves, I am no stranger to towing.

I’m also no stranger to trailer sway. When towing with a conventional car trailer, it’s often difficult or impossible to get the weight balanced in an ideal way and still have the car properly situated. Toss in a tow vehicle like my 9-7x with a svelte 4,700-pound curb weight and a compact 113-inch wheelbase and there’s no way around the obvious: sometimes it feels like the trailer is driving the tow vehicle, not the other way around. This same feeling to varying degrees happens in a 1/2-ton truck between 6,000 and 10,000 pounds. Connect the trailer to a 7,500 pound truck with a 151.6-inch wheelbase and you hardly notice its existence. That’s what the XD is all about.

Tow ratings aside, the way the Titan XD drives while a trailer is attached is exactly the same as the 3/4-ton trucks from the Detroit Three. No, I’m not kidding. This is the XD’s raison d’être. The XD was built to tow. The Aisin six-speed transmission’s internals were designed for nearly twice the torque we see in the Nissan, the rear axle was designed for nearly 20-percent more weight than Nissan rates it for, the diesel engine has the heat rejection requirements of a commercial truck and Nissan even tosses in a steering rack like GM uses in its 1-ton trucks. This means that not only will the Titan XD haul around 7,000+ pounds without batting an eye, it should hold up to daily heavy towing in a way that the 1/2 ton trucks just won’t.

2016 Nissan Titan XD fender badge, Image: © 2016 Alex L. Dykes/The Truth About Cars

So if it was “built to tow,” why is the tow rating “so low”? 

That’s a complicated question, but one that I am often asked. First off, 12,312 pounds isn’t low. Second, increasing the payload and towing numbers would have made the ride harsher and the truck more expensive. That’s a bad combo when you’re aiming for “white space.” Perhaps more importantly, at least 26-percent of truck shoppers live in a state where you can’t tow that much anyway.

Towing and diesel torque are the modern truck owner’s bragging lines. Trouble is, most states restrict what you can tow with your regular, old Class C license. California is the clearest, so we’ll use that as an example. You can’t conventionally tow, gooseneck tow, or 5th-wheel tow a trailer with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds with a standard Class C license. Period. Want to pull a 10,001-pound conventional trailer? You’ll need a Class A license. Towing a gooseneck or 5th wheel between 10,001 and 15,000 pounds, however, requires a simple Class C endorsement.

The rules are even more strict if you’re a commercial operator as you can end up falling under DOT jurisdiction when your GCWR crests 10,000 pounds. Since the GVWR in the XD ranges from 8,800-9,000 pounds, a Titan with a teardrop camping trailer could push you over the limit. For the majority of truck shoppers, even those that tow on a regular basis, going over a 10,000-pound tow rating isn’t going to matter much.

2016 Nissan Titan XD Driving, Image: © 2016 Alex L. Dykes/The Truth About Cars

Now let’s get back to Frankenstein’s monster. If you were hoping that the XD’s “smaller” diesel engine would result in epic fuel economy, you’ll be disappointed. This is another area where the XD falls on the 3/4-ton side of the segment. Our week-long average over 750 miles was just under 16 mpg, a near tie with the diesel Ford, GM or Chrysler trucks. The obvious reason is that the XD weighs about the same and is essentially the same size.

In addition to towing and payload, pricing is where the Titan differentiates itself from the other 3/4-ton trucks. If all you want is a truck with a big diesel engine and a big cab, the Titan is thousands less expensive. Versus a comparably equipped F-250 or Silverado, the Titan XD will be at least $5,500 less expensive. On the RAM side, a RAM 2500 configured comparably to the Titan XD S will be $9,000 more expensive. By the time you get to “well equipped” or top-end trims, the Nissan is around $10,000 less than comparable American diesel trucks. Except for the 1500 Ecodiesel. Ram’s baby diesel offering is $1,500 less than the Nissan.

2016 Nissan Titan XD exterior front, Image: © 2016 Alex L. Dykes/The Truth About Cars

Nissan certainly succeeded at its mission of creating a different kind of truck. However, there are a few more considerations. Because of Nissan’s low volume, the XD has few variations compared to the competition. There is just one cab size, one bed length and one engine at this time. Nissan has announced that the new 5.7-liter gasoline V8 will join the XD, but it won’t come with the heavy-duty Aisin transmission. This lack of variation significantly limits the competition cross-shops.

This lack of variation means that if you just want a 3/4-ton diesel experience, a RAM 2500 Tradesman with the more powerful Cummins will be just $2,200 more expensive. It wouldn’t be a four-door cab or be as well equipped as the Titan, but it won’t be much more expensive either.

For the bulk of 3/4-ton shoppers and even may 1-ton shoppers, the Titan XD will truly be the “right-sized option.” Because of licensing laws and the reality that few folks actually tow 20,000-pound trailers, the Titan XD’s towing and payload limits shouldn’t be a problem. Yet the heavy-duty engine, transmission, and frame bode well for longevity.

Of course, at the other end of the spectrum, Nissan has stiff competition from the RAM 1500 diesel. For my modest towing needs, the 9,200 pound towing limit of the RAM is just fine. The eight-speed automatic may not be as durable, but it does allow the RAM to be notably quicker to 60, and nearly twice as efficient when commuting with an empty bed. It may get pushed around more than the Titan, but it makes a better daily driver.

Nissan provided the vehicle, insurance and one tank of diesel for this review.

Specifications as tested

0-30 mph: 4.0 seconds

0-60 mph: 9.1 seconds

1/4 mile: 19.95 seconds @ 85 mph

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

117 Comments on “2016 Nissan Titan XD – Towing with the 5/8-Ton Truck...”


  • avatar
    JimZ

    “Towing and diesel torque are the modern truck owner’s bragging lines.”

    turbocharging gets you torque. “diesel” doesn’t have so much to do with it.

    • 0 avatar
      mason

      While turbocharging is part of the equation the high compression diesel engine is absolutely the other part.

      Show me any other engine that can easily lay down a 3:1 torque to horsepower ratio.

      • 0 avatar
        JimZ

        oh, so now “torque to horsepower ratio” is somehow important? It’s amusing to see how people will contort themselves to try to cling to the “diesel=torque” myth. a turbo gas engine is capable of just as much torque and way, way more horsepower. diesels just suck at making horsepower.

        • 0 avatar
          sportyaccordy

          OK then, why aren’t there 5L 550HP twin turbo gas trucks available for purchase?

        • 0 avatar
          mason

          As usual your logic is everything but. Diesels don’t need to make horsepower to make torque you wit. That’s why they can survive many times longer than SI gasoline engines and do more work in the process. Diesel produces and maintains more torque at lower rpm. For a gas engine to pull a 100k lb load it would have to be in the 1000 HP range and would have to rev at 2 to 3 times that of a diesel just to stay in its power range. It’s got way more to do with just fuel economy, although that is another perk.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            before you spend too much time insulting my intelligence, you might want to step back and realize that torque is a static force. It does no work in and of itself. the engine’s horsepower tells you how much work it can do. the torque curve tells you how you’ll need to gear it to do that work.

          • 0 avatar
            mason

            Horsepower = (Torque x Engine Speed)/5252.

            Torque is a very relevant part of the equation when discussing what it takes to get a load moving AND keep it moving.

        • 0 avatar
          dal20402

          More precisely, diesels suck at revving. Horsepower is just torque x revs, and you can get similar torque out of turbocharged diesel and gas engines, but with a wider rev range on the gas versions.

      • 0 avatar
        TR4

        JimZ is right on the money. For a good analysis on this see (misleading title):

        http://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/cc-tech-why-diesel-engines-intrinsically-make-more-torque-and-power-than-gas-engines/

        The Hall-Scott gas engine in the article has a torque:horsepower ratio > 3:1.

        I’ll note that engines perceived as “high torque” are better described as “low horsepower”.

      • 0 avatar
        dal20402

        A high “torque to horsepower ratio” just means your engine doesn’t rev very high. Which is fine. But it’s not like some magic source of wisdom.

        Horsepower = torque * revs * constant.

        • 0 avatar
          mason

          You guys should all pool your resources and build a gas powered engine to sell to the HD manufacturers. Since you could build them cheaper than a diesel engine, you’ll have a gold mine.

          Or, more likely, you’ll end up broke on your ass because they won’t hold a candle performance wise or longevity wise. Real world experience refutes all your supposed bookworm logic.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            “…You guys should all pool your resources and build a gas powered engine to sell to the HD manufacturers. Since you could build them cheaper than a diesel engine, you’ll have a gold mine…”

            With turbo charging a V10 or 6.4 Hemi, who knows? I know they get the job done in current, naturally aspirated form. They have to rev more and do drink more fuel, but with a true cost analysis, diesel versions of Ram and Ford medium duty trucks, fall behind gasoline versions. That’s really the bottom line, not racing to the top of the hill to see who’s fastest. Especially not in commercial HD trucks.

            And we don’t know the long term longevity of current diesels, nor how much more lubricating cetane will be removed in the future from diesel fuel. All the additives and diesel fuel conditioners aren’t exactly cheap.

            But you never want to put yourself into a position where you’re faced with the rebuild of a diesel engine. A set of injectors alone, around $3,000.

          • 0 avatar
            mason

            My comment was in reference to the HD segment, as in class VII and up. Obviously gasoline engines have existed in the pickup segment since their inception.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Class 7 and 8 trucks are a different story. Yeah no doubt they require explosive power and never mind engine-braking, that only big diesels can deliver.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            you mean like how FCA just switched all of their 18-wheeler transport fleet to f***ing spark-ignited natural gas engines?

            @DenverMike, diesels have no inherent engine braking (due to the lack of a throttle) unless they’re fitted with either an exhaust brake (a throttle plate in the turbo downpipe) or a compression-release brake (“Jake Brake”.)

          • 0 avatar
            mason

            Yep, the same engines that share over 85% of their hard parts with diesel engines. And guess what, they still produce less power and return worse fuel mileage. Drivers hate them because throttle response is crap due to the distance the fuel/air mixture has to travel from the throttle plate to combustion and mechanics hate them because service requirements have increased. The ONLY saving grace is the low fuel prices, and once the price aligns with demand natural gas engines will once again have the same popularity they did 20 years ago. CNG/LPG fueled engines have ZERO performance advantages over diesel.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            mason, if you’re just going to pull s**t out of your a$$ I’m not interested.

          • 0 avatar
            mason

            It’s called real world experience ass hat. You know, the difference between being involved hands on and reading about it on the internet.

  • avatar
    Drzhivago138

    Personally, I’d rather have an HDPP F-150. Too bad they stopped making the 7-lug wheels, though.

    Note that the XD’s GVWR puts it juuust above the cutoff for certain MPG and other regs. Methinks we may see more of this in the future.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      @Drzhivago138 – Agreed. I buy pickups because of the versatility related to cargo. I’m much more interested in what goes into the box than what I tow behind it. Ram had said the average 1/2 ton buyer tows no more than 5k and GM said the HD buyer tows no more than 10k. That would indicate that Nissan is targeting the “light duty” 3/4 ton buyer.
      The problem with a 1,500 – 2,000 cargo rating is the fact that tongue weight or pin weight sucks up cargo ratings. TFL truck did a test with a gooseneck trailer and had to deliberately load the trailer tail heavy and legally could carry only 2 occupants.

      The Titan XD may be overbuilt for its ratings but then again any 3/4 ton used for similar towing is also overbuilt.

      Nissan is targeting the buyer that wants a diesel pickup but 99% of the time doesn’t really need one hence the down-rated tow/haul specs yielding a better empty ride.

      Personally, the pickups I have owned have rarely ever been totally empty. If I want the extra headaches of a diesel engine I’ll easily put up with a ride penalty for a more capable 3/4 HD truck.

      • 0 avatar
        Drzhivago138

        Actually, I’d be more interested in the Heavy-Duty Payload Package because (semi-ironically) the provisions made to give it maximum payload (heavier springs, thicker frame, etc.) also give it a towing capacity matching or possibly even exceeding the Max Trailer Tow Package. When we had our ’98 F-250 LD, it was used more for towing than hauling (esp. since the bed was 6.5′), and I’d do the same with my dream pickup: towing my equally-nonexistent dream camper. Or maybe I’d actually use the payload to its full-capacity, and get a slide-in to recreate Steinbeck’s Travels with Charley.

      • 0 avatar
        stuki

        The XD is almost purpose built for the fairly large (by diesel pickup standards) market of retired RVers with a fifth wheel in the 9-12000lb range. They tow relatively heavy for long distance, don’t share car enthusiasts fascination with redlining from dawn ’til dusk, and aren’t particularly interested in being blown off the highway midway through the Dakotas, despite their sail of a 5er. But then they get to a destination, unhook, and use their truck as a stand alone vehicle for anywhere from a few days to an entire season.

        It’s a sizable market, and one with some money to spare. With EPA regs making all half tons lighter (a la F150), hence more prone to trailer wagging the truck; competition in dually space making HDs ever more like class 8 rigs; and more and more boomers retiring; the space Nissan is angling for, either is, or will become, a very reasonable place to be. Don’t be surprised if the Big3 splits their SRW and Dually, or 3/4 vs 1 ton, drivelines and chassis over time either. 1000 ft-lb and enough radiator to cool an office building in Phoenix, isn’t really the optimal way to spec any SRW 2500.

        I’m bummed out it’s maxed out at 1200lb on the bumper, but supposedly “noone” bumper tows that much anymore, as all the bigger RVs are 5ers now. And bigger horse trailers are goosenecks. While the softer, 1/2 ton plush, suspension makes more weight on the bumper less than ideal.

  • avatar
    indi500fan

    With Nissan’s low N. American volume in trucks and all purchased driveline components, the profit numbers have to be tough on this one. But they were smart to copy Ford styling. If nothing else, it gives their execs some macho company rigs to tool around Nashville.

  • avatar
    balreadysaid

    I’m really interested in the regular cab 8 foot bed models of the xd. Gas with 7 speed has to be good. Diesel plain Jane reg cab diesel with a lift might be a good all around work truck if there is good space behind the seat.

  • avatar
    ajla

    *Crosses Jaguar XJ off potential future purchase list*

    • 0 avatar
      CoreyDL

      That generation is a tough cookie in terms of reliability. You’re better off with one a bit older/simpler, without supercharging.

      06-07, or the older ones from 00-03 (X308) post-Nikasil. 28 will be here shortly to fix me facts if they’re off.

      • 0 avatar
        Jagboi

        I would regard the 04-09 XJ’s as the ones to buy. Generally, they have had excellent reliability, S/C or not. The S/C cars have a Mercedes transmission, N/A is a 6 speed ZF.

        I specifically would not buy a 2000-03 X308 because of the 5 speed ZF trans, they have a high failure rate unless the fluid is changed, and ZF designed it as “sealed for life”. It’s difficult to change the fluid, and it’s a special fluid at something like $40/litre. If you do get a 00-03 make sure the timing chain tensioners are the latest type and the water pump has been replaced. originals were a plastic impeller and can separate from the shaft. Later ones were metal.

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          Tell me more. I had always wanted an X308 and now I’m hearing some technical details which I’ve never heard.

          • 0 avatar
            Jagboi

            The first generation 4.0 V8’s had problems with timing chain tensioners. Originally they were plastic, the later versions were metal. Those metal ones need to be retrofitted otherwise the engine is a time bomb. All 4.2’s have the metal tensioners, it’s only the 4.0’s that are a problem. Similarly, the 4.0’s used plastic water pump impellers, an updated version is metal. Ditto thermostat housings.

            Once that is fixed, there are no major problems with the X308, outside of the trans, so if you like the styling get one with those things done, or budget to have them done. Lots written about it on various Jag forums.

            The supercharged cars used a different trans, it’s only the N/A cars that are troublesome. BMW used the same trans and has similar issues. The fluid can be changed, needs to be Esso LT71141 fluid (or equal). Since there is no dipstick, you need a computer connection to tell you when it’s full and has to be in a specific temp range to do it. A good Jaguar independent should be able to do it no problem.

            I personally prefer the X350, as it still has the classic XJ style, but has aluminium body and the 4.2. Only reasonably common failures I have heard of is some of the air suspension parts (leaks down overnight), but they are not expensive to fix.

        • 0 avatar
          CoreyDL

          I always read many accounts of fit and finish issues on the first year or two of the X350, can we shave 04-05 off of there?

          PS. It’s so ignorant to “seal for life” anything with a fluid that wears. Grr.

    • 0 avatar
      dukeisduke

      What’s the current per ton price for scrap aluminum, anyway?

  • avatar
    zip89105

    16mpg including towing is excellent. Nissan definitely has a winner.

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    I like it more than expected, especially that interior.

    RAM’s 3.0 Fiat-sourced Ecodiesel has had significant reliability issues, which should be considered.

    It’s tough to go wrong with a Cummins.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      FCA is gonna FCA, but Nissan is basically the Japanese version of Dodge/Ram so I wouldn’t feel much more confidence even with the Cummins logo on the engine.

      If you want or need a diesel it’s probably better to go with GM or Ford and if you have moderate tow/haul needs and can live with a gas engine going with Toyota, GM, or Ford.

      • 0 avatar
        Kyree S. Williams

        “Nissan is basically the Japanese version of Dodge/Ram”

        Sort of. But Nissan’s reliability is much stronger than FCA.

        • 0 avatar
          CoreyDL

          This truck sounds fairly overbuilt, which can only be a good thing for the used car buyers which inhabit this place.

          It’s interesting they’re actually making a new 5.7 petrol (VR-Series, presumably), which means the larger Infiniti offerings will have this for another few years.

        • 0 avatar
          danio3834

          “Sort of. But Nissan’s reliability is much stronger than FCA.”

          No it’s not. Not in this department.

          • 0 avatar
            TOTitan

            I bought a Titan when they first came out in 04. 12 years and 140,000 miles later it has never had a malfunction or breakdown of any kind. I have upgraded the front brakes to the 14″ rotors that came out on the 08 Titan and added air bags to the rear suspension. The AC is still cold, the engine uses zero oil between 10K oil changes, and there are very few rattles. Compared to the typical 12 yr old truck from the domestic cos it has held up much better IMHO

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            Bring facts, Danio.

        • 0 avatar
          mason

          ” But Nissan’s reliability is much stronger than FCA”

          What’s amusing about this statement is that RAM is the only manufacturer that has a million mile club. I suppose everyone’s take on “reliability” is different.

          • 0 avatar
            tresmonos

            most of the B&B’s baseline resides in the low volume disasters of FCA. Everyone skews their data to their agenda.

          • 0 avatar
            Sigivald

            I would not trust *any* light-duty truck to make it to a million miles without such substantial work as to make “reliability” irrelevant.

            (My ’07 F250 is super reliable … now that it’s on a Jasper engine rather than the stock 5.4, after the stock 5.4 blew up.

            It could totally make a million miles!

            As you can see, I’m not a Ford partisan here.)

          • 0 avatar
            mason

            Well, God bless you if you put more faith in Jasper anything over Fords engineering. Jasper is the Walmart of the reman world. They rely on high volume to offset high warranty claims.

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            I’m guessing that no “million mile” Rams were built by FCA. You’re probably talking about stuff 20+ years old.

            If people have enough faith to spend cash on FCA products, then go for it. But, I’m not going for a spin on that Roulette wheel again.

          • 0 avatar
            tresmonos

            Mason, I work with an engineer from their Indiana facility. From the limited amount of brain picking I’ve done with him it seems like their GM transmission line was fairly robust.

            Sigivald, I’m a ‘ford apologist’ and I even think the 5.4L blows.

          • 0 avatar
            mason

            Obviously it takes many years to accumulate anything close to a million miles. The point is, if you can put together an effective and reliable running gear the TCO MAY just be low enough to sway people into keeping their trucks on the road rather than spending $50k+ on a new one. So far Dodge/RAM has been successful in that where Ford and GM have failed.

            And FYI, the heart of RAM trucks have essentially gone unchanged since 07.5. Maybe some trim and infotainment crap, along with a much improved emissions and a true MD auto trans, other than that they are much the same. This is one area that FCA has left largely alone.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            The 6.2L is such an improvement over the 5.4L. I say Ford should Boss V8 all the things!

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            They’re million mile Dodge trucks, not Rams. They’re tons more collectible than other older, pre emissions Ford and Chevy diesels. But what they’re really “collecting” is the Cummins, much more so than the truck it came wrapped in.

            There’s a reason Cummins diesels are popular conversions for Fords and Chevys. Except a Dodge truck converted to a Ford 7.3 or Power Stroke or Chevy 6.2 diesel, would be a rare bird indeed.

            But love an older diesel truck and keep it on the road long enough, the miles just keep on racking up. There’s just more to love about older Dodge trucks, vs all other, as long as there’s an older Cummins under the hood.

            Point is you may not want the 2017 Ram/Cummins, 300,000+ miles from now. Or any current truck.

          • 0 avatar
            mason

            I own both and disagree. I love the simplicity of my 98 but my 13 is better built and stronger in every way.

            The 6.7 is more capable and will last every bit as long as the 5.9 regardless of Internet myth. I know of several high mileage trucks in my area alone. They’re real work horses.

            The 68RFE and the Aisin are light years ahead of the 47RE. You would be lucky to get 100k out of a factory 47RE, the 68 and Aisin are consistently doubling and tripling that mileage behind 1.5 times the torque. Not to mention more gears, better shift logic, and an exhaust brake.

            The AAM axles are a better design than the Dana axles. The 9.25 has a high pinion with reverse cut gears. A reverse cut high pinion gear in the front is stronger for a couple reasons, the biggest is that the pinion head is pulled into the ring gear under load. The Dana 60 is exact opposite.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Simplicity makes you money, complexity costs you money. That plus emissions that all but spoil the fun. We can only speculate what (costs) owners of newer trucks with put up with, on the way to a million miles.

            Million mile engines may be a thing of the past anyway. Lack of diesel fuel lubricity could be a huge factor. One needed rebuild of the diesel engine and you may walk away. With gasoline engines in heavy duty pickups, you know they’ll be cheap to rebuild, once or twice, if you insist on a million miles.

            You can push anything to a million miles, if it doesn’t drive you crazy or spend way more than its worth along the way. 1st you have to love the thing.

          • 0 avatar
            mason

            All I can tell you is people are still making money with them. A thousand dollar DPF every couple hundred thousand miles isn’t a deal breaker like a lot of guys make it out to be. Especially when the service intervals have literally doubled
            Oil from 7500 miles to 15k and fuel filters at 30k. Transmission service intervals have also doubled. Just those things alone add up into the thousands over the course of even a half a million miles. Then you factor in big money parts like diffs and transmissions that are lasting longer between rebuilds than they were 20 years ago.

            Truck maintenance is the least of most guys worries that hotshot anyhow. The cost of insurance and registration have gone through the roof. Keeps already slim profit margins at a minimum.

          • 0 avatar

            I don’t know of any million mile 6.7’s yet but there are plenty at half a million and lots at 300,000 (I see em for sale all the time). The 6.7 has issues with emission equipment from time to time but overall they seem pretty good. My neighbor is a service manager at a heavy truck dealer about 2011 he was going nut fixing DPF and EGR problems on almost new trucks (less then 100k miles) It has since gotten better but he still ends up fixing alot of them. He says the basic engines still seem fine and has seen several with lots of miles but they were more expensive to get there then they used to be.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al From 'Murica

        Look, I love me some Fords. I own a 2.7 ecoboost F150 and absolutely love it. But “Diesel Reliability” and Ford do not go hand in hand. I have heard the current crop is OK, but those 6.0 Powerstroke have turned a generation of buyers off like the GM 350 Diesel. They were terrible and truck buyers, especially diesel buyers have long memories. Having said that my neighbor pulls a giant 5th wheel with a 6.7 King Ranch that is a great truck. My 2.7 has no issue with my 5000 pound rig though.

    • 0 avatar
      87 Morgan

      SCE to AUX

      What are the issues with the 3.0 you are referencing? (no sarcasm, genuine curiosity)

      I have not heard of any major concerns, definitely talked to a lot of folks who have one and sing nothing but praises.

      As a former cummins dodge owner. I NEVER should have sold the truck. Of the vehicles I have owned, which is a lot, that I mourn the sale of that rig. Which was six years ago…

      • 0 avatar
        mason

        The 3.0 VM is a pretty stout platform. It’s been proven in Europe in commercial and civilian form, the emissions hardware in the US is a little more complex but all in all its done very well in the Ram.

        I think the biggest problem on this site is that people tend to correlate it with Fiat products and it automatically gets a bad rap. Case in point, it was mentioned above “the Fiat sourced 3.0”. Fiat has nothing to do with the design or manufacturing of this engine. VM Motori builds them.

      • 0 avatar

        The motor itself seems fine but some of the US emissions and programming seem to have issues on early models I don’t have the links with me but a bunch of guys on one of the Ram or Dodge forums had issues at less then 30k miles. Most of the newest ones don’t seem to have issues and those that have gotten past 30k seem to be good. So it may just be some early model issues but we will need to wait and see.

      • 0 avatar
        SCE to AUX

        @87 Morgan:

        Case #1:
        My friend’s 2014 3.0 Ecodiesel visited the shop 8 times in 12 months, including once when it was flat-bedded for a non-start situation. The dealer was unable to reliably fix it. He had a plethora of fuel system and sensor issues, and finally traded it for a Tacoma.

        Case #2:
        Edmunds’ long-term tester had its entire fuel replaced:
        http://www.edmunds.com/ram/1500/2014/long-term-road-test/2014-ram-1500-ecodiesel-back-in-service.html
        But they still liked the vehicle.

        I stand corrected on the “Fiat-sourced” comment.

        • 0 avatar
          JimZ

          wow. two whole examples condemn the entire vehicle.

          when I had a 2000 Ram 2500 with the Cummins, I had to limp it into the the dealer twice, once when it fell on its face with a failed MAP sensor, and once when the transfer and injection pump needed replacement.

          what a piece of junk.

          /s

          • 0 avatar

            I agree it’s a wait and see but there have been issues.
            http://www.ramforum.com/f38/2015_ecodiesel_problems-59006/
            http://www.dieselramforum.com/forum/ram-1500-ecodiesel-general-discussion/

            Hopefully it has been fixed because it would fit my needs well when I buy used in a few years.

  • avatar
    golden2husky

    Well, this answers a question most truck buyers don’t ask. The “more is always better” is very much a mindset of truck buyers, and sadly, most Americans as well. So, from that perspective this is a tough sell. Add the traditional brand loyalty in the truck market and it’s tougher still. So who does that leave? Well, it leaves those that value right sizing. Too bad for Nissan that there are not too many truck buyers with a copy of Consumer Reports rolled up under their arm.

    • 0 avatar
      tresmonos

      “Yeah, it’s too bad most truck buyers don’t value CR’s take on infotainment, masked Japanese OEM ‘recalls’ and how that skews randomized survey data that drives reliability ratings.”

      -The Best and Brightest

      • 0 avatar
        JimZ

        nevermind how the “road testing” side of Consumer Reports will rave about a vehicle, then the “survey” side will tell you not to buy it because it’s a piece of junk.

        CR should stop trying to be a car mag and stick to ranking toasters.

  • avatar
    CoreyDL

    “(This is a tale for another time)”

    You keep promising that but never do it!

  • avatar
    CoreyDL

    -sometimes it feels like the trailer is driving the tow vehicle, not the other way around.-

    “When the caravan begins to dictate the direction of travel, you have a snake.”

    “No. You have a crash.”

  • avatar
    Sobro

    We’re looking at buying a fifth wheeler after retirement in a few years, probably in the 30 foot range, so maybe the Nissan could tow it. This truck with its proven driveline might be in the running. Our plan is to stay for weeks at a time in one location, and driving an F-250, et al, to sightsee would definitely be less comfortable than something sprung a little softer.

    • 0 avatar
      87 Morgan

      You have touched on the ‘rub’. Which is more cost effective and/or liveable?

      Tow your living quarters with a large truck: conceivably you have to buy both the tow rig and the camper.

      or

      Buy a motorhome (gasser to keep the cost down) and an enclosed trailer that fits your car and some gear. Kinda like towing your garage or storage shed.

      When you are at your destination you drive comfortably and not in some bro-dozer truck. Mo’ho stays parked until it is time to go home. Both will guzzle fuel, gasser mo’ho or your 3/4 ton pulling a 5th wheel, so the mpg argument is out the window IMHO

      • 0 avatar
        tjh8402

        My parent’s love their motorhome. Its 36 ft, has a 300 hp caterpillar engine, and gets around 9 mpg no matter what they do with it. They tow their cars behind it (currently a 500C) which makes getting around at their destination easy and the 500C is their (cheap, affordable) daily driver when home.

        • 0 avatar
          mason

          A motorhomes biggest advantage is it is legal for passengers to roam about the back, stretch their legs, use the rest room, etc. Doing so in a 5th wheel is legal in a handful of states but in most it is not.

          Aside from that I believe it is more about personal preference. You can buy a comparably equipped and sized 5th wheel or TT for significantly less than a motorhome, so as long as one has a use/need for a truck it is generally a cheaper route with less maintenance. Motorhomes are nice but the bigger units can be a real PIA to manuever, especially with a trailer hooked to the back. If you get into the pushers maintenance really becomes a chore, although most that can afford them pawn any wrenching off on a mechanic. My aunt and uncle own one with an 8.3 Cummins and I have been roped into enough PM work to be happy to own a 5th wheel. Different strokes for different folks.

          • 0 avatar
            tjh8402

            @mason – you brought up an excellent point and one I didn’t think about. That is another reason my parents love the motorhome. They take groups of family and friends with them even on day trips, and the motorhome is a great, comfortable way to do it, especially since most of their group is getting older (going from 50’s to 80’s). My parents went with a simple car dolley, so it’s very easy to unhook. maintenance has been pricey (batteries and tires are killers), but they have found a couple of trustworthy handymen and even their independent auto mechanic who all do good work for a fair price for them.

            The depreciation is a killer though. I think they paid $150k (give or take a few $10k) for theirs less than 10 years ago and it’s only worth $5-10k. it’s in fine shape, with recent remodeling done inside, but that’s just how the depreciation curve is on it. A well maintained used one should be a good value.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      @Sobro – you have to watch pin weight with the Titan XD. I talked about this earlier on. A 30 foot trailer is around 10,000 lbs. 15-20% pin weight means you can’t use a Titan XD. Nissan shot themselves in the foot on this one. It doesn’t have the cargo ratings to effectively tow its trailer ratings. A bumper pull trailer at 10k is marginally better since tongue weight is usually 10-15%. Who buys a crewcab pickup to tow but leaves the box and passenger compartments empty?

      • 0 avatar

        You can pull some lightweight 5th wheels in the 29 and 30′ range but it would be the limit. Alot of the half ton towable 5th’s would work well. Some of the new ones run much lower pin weights. My inlaws weighs 8,000 lbs with 1,200 on the pin. They pull it with a Tundra, they have looked at the Nissan but would prefer something with more payload.
        And I agree with Lou Nissan shot them selves in the foot with not at least offering a high payload option. It doesn’t matter much in the boat towing market or even the guys who pull their race cars and jeeps but the RV market has become very aware of payloads and overloading in recent years thanks to a few safety crusaders and CHP cracking down on overweight fifth wheels a few years ago. look on any RV towing forum and it will come out, I don’t think I have even seen it mentioned over at the boating sites.
        The really odd thing is the RV market is the fastest growing outdoor recreation that requires a truck and it seems short sighted that Nissan did not research it better.

        • 0 avatar
          RobertRyan

          Here in Australia, although 5th Wheelers are not very popular, due to other considerations, rather than towing., people use Japanese Pickups to tow quite happily 26ft, some lightweight 28ft US 5th Wheelers. They also use European Cab Chassis Vans to tow up to 34ft 5th Wheelers.as well as US Pickups.
          Real Problem in the US people do not like owning or towing 26-30ft 5th Wheelers

      • 0 avatar
        Sobro

        Good point Lou_BC. Maybe it will be “brodozer” F-250 Supercab and fifth wheel for us. Which would still be a lot cheaper than buying and maintaining a motorhome plus give the flexibility to more cheaply get a new RV in 5-10 years without the aforementioned huge loss of value.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al From 'Murica

      But nothing is cheap on a motorhome. I was camping this weekend around Augusta and some dudes came in in a beautiful rig for the Masters. They signed in and then it wouldn’t start. Tried to jump it with the Wrangler they were towing and nothing. I asked him what he was going to do and he said call Visa and raise his limit since no shop visit had ever cost him less than a grand.

    • 0 avatar

      My wife and I just completed your plans. We pull a KZ Durango 281LRT with the 2016 Nissan Titan XD. The dry weight of the 5er is 8500 lbs and it tows like a dream. I use the TOW mode and it keeps the engine from lugging. We bought the Titan just for the 5er and it performs as expected.

  • avatar
    Kyree S. Williams

    This is the truck that a lot of people *should* buy, but won’t. Practicality and reason don’t sell in the truck world. “F-250 King Ranch” does.

    Alex, please tell us what happened to the Jag…haha

    • 0 avatar
      gtemnykh

      Thirded on the jag!

      Having spent Saturday helping my brother diagnose the vagaries of a customer’s 146k mile ’08 X5, I’m in the mood for tales of more depreciated Euro-sleds.

      • 0 avatar
        CoreyDL

        Q: What’s the problem with my 146K miles X5?

        A: You still own it.

        • 0 avatar
          gtemnykh

          Typical badge-obsessed Russian guy, lives in Brighton Beach (Russian part of Brooklyn). We were diagnosing but one of the car’s multitude of issues, namely it stalling out on off-ramps. That ended up being a faulty MAF sensor, short term solution was to simply unplug it and let the car use the default map (not sure how cold starts will go though).

          Off the top of my head, the other things that were wrong:

          Massive valve cover gasket leak, smoke pouring out from under the hood
          Wheel bearing going bad, noisy struts (not terrible considering the mileage and NYC roads)
          Catalyst efficiency error (could possibly just need an O2 sensor)
          A litany of electronic faults including the adaptive headlights, parking sensors, brake wear sensor, something do to with the power seat module, and on and on. A few interior bits were broken or cracked (wood trim on door panel, rear window visor latch).

          My honest opinion is that this thing should go in the junkyard as soon as the CPO warranty runs out. But good luck convincing this type of customer to buy something with a less ostentatious badge. To be fair, the engine and transmission seemed to work just fine and the car went down the road very well aside from the smoke pouring out from the hood and intermittent jerky/stalling engine due to the MAF.

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            Land sakes, that’s thousands of dollars in issues. CPO won’t cover any of that? What was he doing in Indiana anyway!

          • 0 avatar
            gtemnykh

            This was in PA actually, I was visiting my bro preemptively changing lower balljoints out on the 4Runner(old ones with 20 years and 128k still felt totally fine).

            The car wasn’t CPO, he bought it at 60k miles 3 years ago (probably third owner after 2nd owner had it through CPO), and ran it up to 146k driving back and forth to NYC visiting a GF-now-wife.

            Now, to a certain person, one that doesn’t mind wrenching and hunting down good prices on parts, one of these E70 X5s might be an okay fit. But you have to have that mindset with being okay with constantly having something on the docket to be fixed, and in the mean time driving around with it beeping and shouting error messages at you. For example, the temporary fix with the MAF of unplugging it, a new OEM one is a not-unreasonable $189 from AutohausAZ and is a quick 1 minute swap to replace.

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            But going on dates with a beepity-beep BMW featuring Christmas Tree Dash (TM) isn’t very prestigious!

          • 0 avatar
            Kyree S. Williams

            In my own experience with the E70, I find it hard to believe that any of them ever make it over 100K miles.

            And which engine did the customer’s car have, the 3.0-liter I6 or the 4.8-liter V8?

          • 0 avatar
            gtemnykh

            Kyree it was a 3.0si.

      • 0 avatar
        RHD

        I’m looking forward to the Jag article, too.
        I have towed a Volvo V70 on a tow dolly with my Volvo V70 on more than one occasion… and a Honda Accord. You get a lot of stares when a car is towing another of the same model! The maximum tow capacity is supposedly 3500 lbs… other than slow acceleration and longer braking times (requiring planning ahead), there were no problems with my daily driver.
        Only slightly kidding, when owning old Jaguar, a truck for towing and a trailer are practically required accessories!

    • 0 avatar
      JimZ

      Kyree,

      I’m not sure I see your point. This thing weighs more than a 4×4 F-250 Crew Cab diesel (7,480 lbs vs. 7,462.) what makes this truck more “Sensible” than a full-fat 3/4 ton?

  • avatar
    shaker

    Tough or not, the grilles on today’s trucks are the equivalent of a guy stuffing a sock down his pants.

    It gets old.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    Alex, you noted mileage at around 5:15 in your video review but I don’t see it listed in the article. If this was a ploy to get viewers into the video, well played, but I feel some indication at the end of the written article would be helpful. Just my .02.

    Edit: I’m a fool, carry on.

    Additional: The reason I bring up mileage is Toyota is supposed to introduce a Cummins V8 to the Tundra for MY17 and I am mildly interested. If one could crack 20 mpg on average in a truck that size and install aftermarket fuel tanks while having the availability of diesel torque (found 50 gal gas ones online), it might be worth a serious look, emissions stupidity notwithstanding.

  • avatar
    laserwizard

    I still see nothing special about this cheap Chinese looking clone of a Ford.

    You’d be better off with the Ford of your choice.

    This is just another third rate full-sized truck like all of Total Recall Motors and Toyoduh.

    The only real trucks are now made by Ford and Ram.

  • avatar
    JohnTaurus_3.0_AX4N

    As much as I despise Nissan cars, I do like their trucks. I hear Tundra will also offer the 5.0L Cummins in the near future, but Id go with the overbuilt Nissan without question (in a race between those two only). Tundra has enough issues with its gasoline engines, adding this diesel wont solve the weak frame issues, itll make them worse.

    Why Toyota even bothers with the Tundra, Ill never know. Its only real market is that of Toyota fan boys to (try to) look cool and tough. As a truck, though, it just plain sucks. I heard a Toyota fan boy on another site refer to the less than $2k difference in price to a comparable Silverado or F-150 as an “extrodinary value” in the Tundra’s favor. Just goes to show how little these guys know about the full sized truck market. Walk into any Ford, Ram, or GM dealer towards the end of the month and they will knock $2k off if you sneeze in their direction, much more if you really start haggling. They know that nobody pays MSRP, its just designed to make the customer feel like they got the best deal on the planet, when the five guys who bought before him got the same or better.

    Toyota’s arrogant dealers, by contrast, think their $#¡Г doesnt stink and therefor they wont discount as much. As such, they will always be an “also-ran” (also due to the underbuilt nature of the truck which turns serious truck buyers away). As I said, really most of those that consider a Tundra just want a big, “badass” truck that isnt from an American company. So, they spend more money for less truck, and parade around acting like they made the “smart move” when in reality, theyre totally clueless. Tundra has no innovation, no new ideas, nothing to make it stand out in a positive way. They built that huge factory in Texas just for Tundra, and the demand they anticipated never came about, forcing them to relocate Tacoma production there to justify keeping the lights on. They just dont get it.

    Ford took risks with EcoBoost engines and now with aluminum, thats why they stay on top. They refuse to play second fiddle to anyone. If you dont do it better, somebody else will and then youre left behind. This concept seems totally lost on Toyota.

    Nissan is now taking risks by introducing a truck that has no direct compeditor, a truck with specific strengths and abilities, something quite unique. I believe they will do well, and I hope they knock Tundra down to last place in sales, where it belongs. They need more variations of cab sizes, etc, which is probably coming down the line.

    • 0 avatar
      gtemnykh

      Did a Tundra run over your dog?

      “Tundra has enough issues with its gasoline engines, adding this diesel wont solve the weak frame issues, itll make them worse.”

      I’d like to hear more about these supposed engine problems and weak frame issues. There’s a very good reason Tundras have the resale that they do (better than the domestics).

      • 0 avatar
        SC5door

        He’s referring to the “bed bounce” that was reported when the Tundra first came out (along with associated video from Ford and owner reports of bounce from the rear end over expansion joints). I never did hear if Toyota came up with a solution for that and the weak tailgate.

        • 0 avatar
          gtemnykh

          Using a C-channel frame (as seen on many commercial trucks and Ford’s very own SuperDuty) and that flex that was upsetting folks allows for the use of a stiffer (ie higher load bearing) leaf pack in the rear suspension and avoid squat, while retaining an acceptably comfortable ride and saving weight. Yes Ford claims some obnoxiously high payload ratings, but I would be curious to see all the half-tons lined up in a now with 2000lb of gravel in the bed, and how they would look in terms of suspension sag.

          Short of the gen 1 Tacoma and gen 1 Tundra Dana Corp. rust proofing debacle, I haven’t seen any evidence to suggest that these C-channel frames are an issue in terms of durability or longevity. Ford made a video of the bed moving relative to the body due to the frame flex over an offset speedbump course and made a big stink out of it. I don’t see how any of that translates to a substantiated issue in the real world.

          Elsewhere, John has made a big stink about Toyota trucks moving over to 5 lug wheel hubs (instead of 6 as they used to have). Same sort of foaming at the mouth about supposed issues with durability. One need only to point out that the total strength of the new thicker 5 stud design is greater than that of the older, thinner 6 wheel studs. But don’t let engineering and numbers get in the way of a good rant.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            gtemnykh – that bed bounce video did make the Tundra look bad but in the real world I have never heard it to be an issue. I don’t know anyone who have had any issues with the Tundra.
            Typically Tundra buyers are not Toyota fanboys but guys totally pissed off at “domestic trucks”. I know a guy that had nightmare experiences with 2 Ram Cummins HD’s. He bought a Tundra and beat the crap out of it. The only reason he did not get another one was that he needed more cargo capacity.
            I won’t buy a Tundra but that has more to do with price i.e. they tend not to budge from MSRP and secondly, they do not offer me what I want in a pickup.

      • 0 avatar
        SSJeep

        Agreed, the Toyota 32v 5.7l Tundra powerplant is stellar for towing. When I had one, I could pull 8000lbs of boat without a blink, and never had a powertrain issue. Things I didnt like about the Tundra were that it was very thirsty (averaged 14.5mpg over ownership) and that it felt (and drove) like a 3/4 ton truck.

    • 0 avatar
      Sigivald

      http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2011/01/toyota-tundra-sales-figures.html

      120k units a year.

      That’s why Toyota “bothers” with the Tundra.

      I think the question you meant is “why do people BUY the Tundra?”

      (Well, the only reason I can think of is “my old Toyota had no serious non-wear issues to 280kmi, and my Ford 5.4 blew up at 130kmi”.

      That’d make me think twice about another Ford when the SuperDuty finally wears out its new engine, eh?

      “Serious” truck buyers are a pretty small segment, honestly – and a new Tundra extended cab longbed is the same basic configuration as my ’07 SuperDuty, has more power and torque, and equally as much never-to-be-used tow capacity.

      I mean, I’d probably look at a Chevy before a Tundra, but the idea that they’re incapable seems baseless.)

      • 0 avatar
        Drzhivago138

        The Tundra deserves at least a second look because aside from the F-150, it’s the only half-ton pickup available in an extended cab/8′ bed config, which is the most practical if space is not an issue.

    • 0 avatar

      Depends on your part of the country for dealing I know several people here in the north east who paid less for a Tundra then the local dealers offered up on F150’s.

      The bucking syndrome on the Tundra was subject to much debate they did issue a TSB for new bed mounts in 2010. I have driven my inlaws Tundra quite a bit and never noticed but most of the time it was loaded or had a cap on it. When they first got it I drove it unloaded on the highway to check it out and it was fine. I know the silverado I drove last year had a little annoying bed bounce unloaded at about 68 mph but nothing really annoying.

      My inlaws Tundra is a 2009 they bought for hauling their camper. First a 5,000 lbs travel trailer and now an 8,000 lbs fifth wheel. I have towed the travel trailer with 3 people in the cab and a bed full of camping gear and a generator (cap on the truck) thru the hills of West Virginia pretty effortlessly. I will admit I haven’t driven a new F150 but I have driven the older one and plenty of super duties. I think for half tons my choice would be Ram (I have to look at my screen name) Toyota then a tie between Nissan and Chevy.

  • avatar
    RobertRyan

    “With a GVWR over 8,500 pounds, this means the Titan XD is exempt from pesky EPA fuel economy estimates.”
    Strange, you are a different weight and you do not have to comply to fuel economy rules. Can see this a real non starter outside NA. What leniency if any , is given to emissions for Heavier, HDT Diesels compared to ” light duty ” SuperDuties?

  • avatar
    sirwired

    I’ve always wondered this: When we say a truck is a “1/2 ton” or “3/4 ton” truck, what is that measuring? Because it doesn’t appear to be the bed capacity or tow capacity, much less the weight of the truck itself.

    • 0 avatar
      RobertRyan

      An old now superseded model classification. They used to represent weights theoretically carried

    • 0 avatar
      mason

      When pick ups first became available to the public they were (accurately) categorized as half ton, 3/4 ton, 1 ton trucks. It was a measuring stick for farmers to compare trucks capabilities.

      Fast forward 60-70 years, payload has significantly increased but the marketing terms have stayed consistent.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      @sirwired – an old outdated tradition.

      The first number in the designation tends to be more accurate of their weight classification.
      At one time we had trucks like the F100, C/K1000 which were basically class 1 trucks. Currently most of the small trucks like Colorado and Tacoma are class 1. 1/2 tons i.e F150, Ram and GM 1500’s are class 2a. 3/4 tons are 2b.i.e. F250 and Ram GM 2500. Class 3 are your one tons i.e 350/3500. Class 4 is your 450/4500’s.
      Weight ratings initially were upped by manufacturers to get out of having to comply with CAFE/Emissions ratings.
      Now they are a PR ploy.

  • avatar
    Jagboi

    This kind of seems neither fish nor fowl. The payload capacity is very close to a basic F150, and the F150 weighs a lot less and will have better fuel economy.

    Obviously higher towing capacity than an F150, but then why not buy an F250/350 and have payload as well as towing capacity? The F250 4×4 has a lower curb weight too. The Titan gets worse fuel economy than an F150 for the people who haul stuff, and doesn’t have the torque of the Ford / Chev for the people who need to tow stuff. Seems either over or under built depending on the quality you want (haul vs tow).

    Thinking about it, it actually sounds like a parts bin special kind of chassis/powertrain. They just threw together whatever they had, didn’t really matter if it was appropriate to the job or not.

  • avatar
    Jagboi

    ” I’m also no stranger to trailer sway. (snip) sometimes it feels like the trailer is driving the tow vehicle, not the other way around. ”

    Do you have a weight distribution sway control hitch with the stabilizer bars? You should, it makes the tow vehicle /trailer combination behave more like one vehicle than two, and will greatly improve the straight line tracking. That won’t compensate for improper tongue weight, but will make towing much easier.

  • avatar
    Carlson Fan

    “Versus a comparably equipped F-250 or Silverado, the Titan XD will be at least $5,500 less expensive. ”

    Based on what MSRP? Sorry but a completely meaningless number unless you can tell me how much I can get off MSRP on the Titan. With a Sierra or Silverado, 20% EASY! Best to take that misleading statement completely out of the review.


Recent Comments

  • Inside Looking Out: “why is a German companies involvement necessary”? Because of the white man’s...
  • dal20402: Yes, they do die eventually, and one hopes they will all be recycled. It’s physically not a problem...
  • chris724: Do lithium batteries ever actually die? They seem pretty good to me.
  • phxmotor: If Bolivian lithium is easily mined… why is a German companies involvement necessary one way or...
  • Jeff S: Would have been better for Chevy to do what Dodge did with the Challenger and made it more like the 69 Camaro...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Timothy Cain, Canada
  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States