![Illinois Auto Dealers Sue State Over Rivian’s Direct-Sales Model [UPDATED]](https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/rivian-suv-610x407.jpg)
2017 Nissan Titan Platinum Reserve |
5.6-liter V8, DOHC, (390 horsepower @ 5,200 rpm; 394 lb-ft @ 3,400 rpm) Seven-speed automatic, four-wheel drive 15 city / 21 highway / 18 combined (EPA Rating, MPG) 15.2 city/ 11.1 highway/ 13.4 combined (NRCan Rating, L/100km) 12.7 mpg [18.8 L/100 km] (Observed) Base Price: $35,975 (U.S) / $46,445 (Canada) As Tested: $56,595 (U.S.) / $67,595 (Canada) Prices include $1,195 destination charge in the United States and $1,795 for freight, PDI, and A/C tax in Canada. |
To beat the establishment at the establishment’s game, one needs either to employ a high degree of anti-establishmentarianism or prove to be obviously superior than the establishment.
Recognizing that the establishment is entrenched, with six Detroit brand pickup truck nameplates earning better than four out of every five pickup truck sales in America, two pickup trucks launched in 2016 with markedly different approaches.
Honda, quite evidently, does not believe the world’s eighth-largest automaker can endure a head-on collision with the Ford F-150, Ram 1500, Chevrolet Silverado, and GMC Sierra. The Ridgeline is still a unibody pickup with a V6 engine, a 5,000-pound towing capacity, and a trunk under the bed. Put Honda down in the anti-establishment column.
Nissan, however, clearly wants to be part of the establishment. The second-generation Nissan Titan approaches Detroit’s pickups with ostentatious design, a rumbling V8, full-size dimensions, and a new chrome-laden top-trim level. But remember, Nissan can’t merely match the best trucks — the Titan must demonstrate indisputable superiority.
HISTORY
In the near-term, regardless of whether the Titan jumps over the high bar set by top-tier rivals, Nissan’s problem in the marketplace stems from years of full-size pickup neglect. Launched in 2003 for the 2004 model year, the first-generation Nissan Titan was largely unchanged by the time this regular-duty Titan debuted an astonishing 13 years later. Two all-new Ford F-150s were launched in the interim; two Chevrolet Silverados, as well.
As a result, Titan volume plunged 86 percent between 2005 and 2015, falling to only 12,140 units in its final full year, roughly the number of F-Series pickups sold every six days. The neglect translated to an enormous number of lost sales over the course of a decade. Those lost sales now translate into lost opportunities for Nissan. The very truck buyers who could have remained loyal had Nissan captured them with a re-engineered 2010 Titan (Ram-based, oddly), never became Titan buyers in the first place. Years of potential were ceded to deeply-rooted Detroit dominance.
[Get new and used Nissan Titan pricing here!]
Thus, while Nissan might not be starting from scratch with the second-generation Titan, it might as well be.
POWERTRAIN
Still assembled in Mississippi, the 2017 Nissan Titan still employs a 5.6-liter V8 engine. But rather than producing 317 horsepower and 385 lb-ft of torque as it did when the previous Titan died off, the 5.6-liter is now more competitive thanks to 390 horsepower, 394 lb-ft of torque, and a smooth — and (thankfully) virtually unnoticeable — seven-speed automatic transmission.
You’ll think Nissan must have tasked its quasi-partners at Mercedes-Benz’s AMG division to develop the 5.6’s sound. The rumble is intoxicating, at least until its persistence becomes the only thing keeping the interior from being as quiet as a modern truck’s cabin should be.
For now, the 5.6-liter V8 is standard equipment. There is no economical Titan variant. The EPA’s estimated fuel economy ratings (18 miles per gallon, combined) bore no resemblance to the 12.7 mpg we observed. To be fair, much of our Titan mileage was accrued on short drives in cold weather, and we spent some time in snowy conditions in four-wheel drive with some light offroading mixed in. Then again, the previous occupant of this Nissan Canada-supplied truck, Kevin Harrison of CarDriven, witnessed an even worse 12.5 mpg.
My week-long tests in two F-150s and two GMC Sierras (encompassing a 3.5-liter EcoBoost, 2.7-liter EcoBoost, 5.3-liter V8, and 6.2-liter V8) resulted in an 18.2-mpg average.
None of those engines have the Titan’s terrific throttle response.
CAPABILITY
Everything about the Titan’s engine speaks loudly of a good ol’ American V8: sound, response, power, thirst. But the Titan doesn’t measure up to the best of Ford’s turbocharged V6-powered F-150 in terms of capability.
Nissan, of course, reserves top-notch towing and payload for the Titan XD, a heavier-duty pickup intended to find middle ground between Detroit’s half-ton and HD trucks. Titan towing maxes out at 9,230 pounds; payload at 1,610 pounds. (Titan XDs drive those maximum figures up to 12,314 and 2,091 pounds, respectively. F-150 SuperCrew towing capacity climbs to 11,900 pounds; payload ranges from 1,570 pounds to 2,910.)
Yet it’s the Titan that drives in a decidedly more truck-like manner. On 20-inch wheels, ride quality is lacking, with the Titan Platinum Reserve easily perturbed by poor quality paving jobs. Perhaps worse is the teeter-totter response to bigger dips, as the Titan struggles to get its up-down-up-down motions back into check. Steering is unnecessarily heavy, and the 5,935-pound curb weight feels more like 6,935 when you decide to see if the Titan can handle as well as a Ram 1500.
None of this will seem abnormal to the owner of a 2004 Nissan Titan or even a new vehicle buyer who hasn’t driven the 2017 Titan’s modern pickup truck rivals. The Titan’s dynamic behavior, poor fuel economy, and slightly downgraded capability are were par for the course just a few years ago. Others have advanced farther down a road where maximum pickup truck capability begins to merge with maximum car-like driveability.
CABIN
In Platinum Reserve trim, with four outboard seats heated and the front seats cooled, an impressive 12-speaker Rockford Fosgate audio system, powered tilt/telescope wheel, and Nissan’s around view monitor, the Titan’s lack of road and wind noise intrusion and vibration certainly furthers the aura of luxury.
There’s no available sunroof, however, no park assist or auto-4WD settings. The touchscreen is a hilariously long reach away, and once reached, it’s a modest seven-inch unit with tech that neither impresses nor offends.
In crew cab form, the Titan offers the gigantic rear accommodations we’ve come to expect in familified pickups. Seating three across in comfort, legs askew and extended, is no issue.
Front seat comfort is exceptional on these Platinum Reserve thrones, as well, though forward visibility is marginally constricted by a high cowl and dipping roof.
MONEY
With four-wheel drive and a crew cab, U.S. Titan pricing officially begins at $39,005. The SV trim adds $2,890 and can be optioned up quite heavily. Pro-4X pricing begins at $46,215 but jumps to $52,305 with Utility, Convenience, and Luxury packages. The SL, at $50,655, offers a handful of small packages. Finally, the $56,595 2017 Nissan Titan Platinum Reserve we tested stacks up directly against a 2017 Ford F-150 SuperCrew Platinum, sans options.
Nissan currently shows $4,000 in “Total Savings” on each Titan trim line. The incentive war is not an easy one to win for the lowest-volume builder of full-size pickup trucks, particularly when rival truckmakers offer especially strong discounts to brand loyalists.
FUTURE
If money’s going to be a factor, the potential for disappointing real-world fuel mileage in the 2017 Nissan Titan must be taken into account, based on recent experience. If on the fuel economy front the Titan falls far short, the Nissan’s other shortcomings are largely minor.
Minor, but numerous. The Titan is quiet inside, but not the quietest. It rides and handles and steers tolerably; others now do so impressively.
Its broad range of capabilities, while hosting a family in total comfort, is admirable, if only other full-size trucks didn’t offer an even broader range of ability while also riding and handling and steering more sweetly.
Luxed up in Platinum Reserve form, the Titan offers plenty of features, but it’s not exactly chock full of tech.
If only other full-size pickup trucks had not become so very good, I’d be celebrating the 2017 Nissan Titan’s execution, dancing a jig, placing a Recommended star on its hood, and considering a Titan-sized expenditure of my own.
The Titan, however, does not live in a vacuum. Pickup trucks are not reviewed in isolation. The 2017 Nissan Titan needed to be better than its high-volume rivals. It needed to be better than good enough.
It isn’t.
Nissan must now abandon the neglectful policy that persisted through the previous-generation Titan’s tenure. Nissan must frequently refresh the Titan. Nissan must remember to thoroughly revamp the Titan before Ivanka and Chelsea are on the ballot.
Then, if the leaps forward for the next Titan and the Titan after that are as significant as the improvements made this time around, the story will change.
Timothy Cain is the founder of GoodCarBadCar.net, which obsesses over the free and frequent publication of U.S. and Canadian auto sales figures. Follow on Twitter @goodcarbadcar and on Facebook.
This trim line should come with a nice bottle of Bordeaux RESERVE thrown in.
Sounds to me like the recently discontinued Chrysler 200 – a big improvement on the previous model, but not quite good enough to beat the established players at their own game.
In addtion to blind brand loyalty, the big three pickups have advantages in such as a strong dealer network in remote areas, good suport from vehicle upfitters, etc.
The small group of potential customers who need or want a full size truck, but don’t trust American brands, will likely gravitate towards the Toytota Tundra since Nissan in general, and the Titan in particular, don’t exactly have the best reputation for quality and reliability.
Sometimes “blind” loyalty isn’t a bad thing. Some people buy multiple Accords or Lexus RX’s (many other examples), why switch when you’re happy and completely satisfied each time you buy one- only to find the new version is that much better when its time for a replacement?
Loyalty only goes so far, I’ve known people to get burned, and switch forever (or for a while).
Ask 6.0L PowerStroke victims if they drive a Blue Oval today, or if one replaced the 6.0L truck.
My cousin had one with multiple major engine issues, ending in a head gasket before he dumped it. Today he has a 2014 Silverado 1500 (sold his 5th wheel camper so no longer needed more than a half-ton). I’m actually detailing this very truck tomorrow. He is a specialized welder who works all over the country, so he is in his truck A LOT.
He doesn’t hate Ford, he says he understands the situation with that engine was unique and uncommon. But, loyalty clearly didn’t mean $#¡Г when one burned him big time.
Another cousin had one, but got rid of it after the first $1,500 repair bill. Drives a Ram Cummins today (company truck, but he’s high up enough in the company that he actually picked it). Wifey has a Silverado 1500, his ex wife (who he was married to when he had the F-250) had (still has?) a 2007 Focus, so he was clearly a Ford guy until the six liters of hell came along.
To your point I know more people with blind faith in Ford trucks then anything else. I know several people burned by 6.0 disasters still driving Fords. Not sure why same with a few close friends who had issues with the 5.4. Ford trucks have incredible loyalty.
A long-time friend runs a shop that works almost exclusively on pickups and fleet trucks. His assessment is that the Big 3 and Toyota are close enough in terms of reliability and build quality that you should just pick the one you like the best.
The previous-gen Titan was on his enemies list. Lots of trouble, and very little support from Nissan. Techs get very irate when they have to wait a week for a part.
To your other point, if you *want* a f/s pickup, the Tundra is probably okay. If you *need* a f/s pickup, put your bias in a drawer, suck it up and decide which big three truck you dislike the least.
The Tundra has high reliability ratings, and that has a lot to do with the fact that few of them are worked any harder than a typical Corolla. Oh, but I tow my aluminum fishing boat all the time! Yeah, and my Taurus could pull it as well, lol, so what’s your point?
There are also far, far, FAR fewer being sold. Its easy to get good ratings when building 60k units a year. Its a little harder to hit a homerun every single time when you sell that many in a quarter of the time. The sheer volume of production of F-Series and the GM twins alone creates far more chances that someone, somewhere will end up with a particularly $hiГГ¥ one, dragging down ratings. That doesn’t mean they are all awful, unreliable piles of garbage as Toyotaphiles would have us believe.
When you pile on cargo, tow heavy trailers, and actually //work// your truck, reliability may suffer but you will learn the difference in what Consumer Reports considers reliable and what a contractor or construction worker considers reliable. There is no reason not to trust a GM or Ford truck. The likelihood that you’ll be burned and screwed by it is right up there with the likelihood of meeting Ben Afleck at an Applebees in Kansas. Not impossible, but not a sure bet by any means.
The first gen Tundra was aimed heavily on personal use. The 2nd gen was focused heavily on capability, to the point where the ride etc were compromised in the name of payload and tow rating. I hate the styling of the 2nd gen, but having used them for towing travel trailers hauling building materials and traveling with my Father in law when he tows his 30′ 5th wheel with one they really are good at being trucks.
Utter nonsense John. The Tundra powertrain, electrical system, suspension, etc has rightfully earned a sterling reputation for reliability. The resale reflects that, it’s not just some kind of conspiracy. Ford v8s continue to have cam phaser issues, until recently had exhaust manifold and timing chain issues, and a smattering of electrical issues. Rams are kings of bizarre electrical faults and short lived front ends, with even the factory wiring diagrams being inaccurate when time comes to diagnose and repair. GMs high Chinese part content is catching up to them (minor interior electrical systems), ABS and wheel bearing corrosion issues up north. Tundra isn’t perfect, gen 1 trucks had frame rot issues in northern locales, hopefully gen 2 fixed that. When my brother’s friend in western NY (Eric O from South Main Auto on YouTube) went to buy a new truck, it was no contest, he got a used 5.7 tundra. Personal vehicle as well as scrap metal hauler. This is a guy that lives in a very rural area and the vast majority of his clientele are domestic trucks. Not saying that it’s because they all break down all the time, but he sees how everything’s built and what the pattern failures are, and i think he’s determined that tundras have fewer issues as a whole.
The tundra is definitely a crude old school beast as far as mpg and refinement goes, because Toyota stuck a stiff spring pack out back to handle real payloads without excessive squat, and compensated with a c channel frame to maintain some semblance of comfort in the cabin (hence frame flex that domestic guys love to bring up). The iforce 5.7 is thirsty but a great overall option for power and longevity. Mpg also suffers because Toyota refuses to compromise ground clearance with low hanging air dams. Lastly worth noting, that tundra is neck and neck with the f150 for domestic assembly and parts content.
2nd gens have frame rust issues too for at least the first few years. My indie mechanic who also works on my FIL’s Tundra says they wear brakes fast and the OEM calipers seem to rust and bind prematurely but other then that they seem pretty solid.GM’s have their issues but they would be right up there with reliability with Toyota for me.
Ram has issues like nissan where some trucks will never have an electrical problem and be fine for 300,000 miles and others well won’t.
“2nd gens have frame rust issues too for at least the first few years.”
I saw that as part of a recall for Tundras and Sequoias that covered a very odd spread of years. End of 1st gen into beginning of second gen, but excluding early 1st gen(?) Very strange, I’d be curious to see what the actual engineering reason is for this odd spread.
4th gen 4Runners are known to have caliper binding issues in salty climates as well, and early gen 1 Tundras were recalled for being under-braked (upgraded with beefier rotors and calipers). In fact I upgraded my 3rd gen 4runner with those smaller Tundra brakes (which are of course an upgrade for my smaller 4Runner).
John, if you think that 60K units a year isn’t sufficient sample size to demonstrate reliability or that “that someone, somewhere will end up with a particularly $hiГГ¥ one, dragging down ratings” on something that moves 700K a year, your understanding of statistics is as shallow as your bizarre hatred of Toyota is deep.
Curious if you have anything concrete to backup your assertion that the domestic quarter tons are being used significantly more in towing and hauling and resulting in their lower reliability ratings, or if, as usual on Toyota, your rectum is thinking for you.
It would take an unimaginable shift in public perception for any automaker to get anywhere near the sales presence of the Big Three in this segment. I doubt that is even Nissan’s (or Toyota’s) ultimate goal. They probably just want to make a decent profit even if they only hold 5% marketshare. I’m guessing Toyota has been doing so with the Tundra and this Titan will probably get there too.
I ultimately respect Honda’s approach more of hitting them where they aren’t with a novel product, though.
@30-mile fetch – totally agreed.
For Nissan and Toyota it is more of a “can I cover development costs and make a profit?”
Not – I’M GONNA BE NUMBER 1!
Lol, depressed dad to his kid: “Aim low, son, so when you fail to succeed, it won’t be so disappointing or surprising.”
I reckon you slept through the “unimaginable shift in public perception” about Japanese cars from 1970 to 1985?
Do you really see any parallel here? Are the American trucks falling apart and p*ssing off customers left and right?
My brother’s ’04 Ram was useless after 7 years and 70k miles with electrical and suspension failures. And frame rust-through. He’s looking at Toyota and Ford.
Lol Toyotas are known for rusty frames on both flavors. Good luck with that.
And Ram has easily the least loyal owner group of the 3, for good reason.
@Tosh
That particular shift, as I understand it, came because those Japanese cars represented a marked improvement over what was available to the American consumer at the time. They were cheaper, more efficient, better made, and developed a reputation for being more reliable.
Toyota and Nissan aren’t offering products in the full size pickup segment today that do what their sedans and economy compacts did in the ’70s and ’80s. Rather than being undeniably superior to the domestics, they’re simply competitive to what the Big Three were offering a year or two ago.
Exactly this.
My daily is a 2011 Avalanche – so 6 years behind.
I have rear park assist, I have a 7 inch touch screen, I have an air ride suspension, and not even in the worst of circumstances would the 5.3L V8 under the hood give me 12 MPG and change combined. I have auto-4WD, the GMT900 GM9XX vehicles are well known for being incredibly quiet.
Worth noting the 2011 Avalanche was basically a carry over of the GMT900 trucks post-GM bankruptcy, and was actually decontented from 2007-2008 models.
I can tow 7900 pounds (have the tow package), carry 1200 pounds, and some would argue the Avalanche isn’t even a real truck.
The point being is an American offering, from a bankrupt automaker ticks off the same feature/benefit boxes (don’t have heated rear seats though) 6 years ago.
When Japanese cars showed up, American cars were complete crap – trucks were always competitive (America didn’t really offer many viable mini-trucks and first efforts from GM and Chrysler came from partnerships with Isuzu and Mitsubishi).
Toyota and Nissan don’t offer anything that is head and shoulders better than American fullsizers, and never have – unless American makers go full malaise on their trucks, the grip isn’t going to be broken. Certainly the incoming administration has no interest in killing the chicken tax – if anything they may make it more onerous.
As others have noted, the Honda Ridgeline created its own niche – and doesn’t really compete directly with anything else offered. The problem when you create your own niche is you have to be put somewhere for comparison sake, so the Ridgeline is told to go sit with the midsize pickup trucks.
In my opinion, the Ridgeline’s biggest problem is that it would make much more sense to a large portion of the pickup-buying public if the Toyota Tacoma and GM midsizers either didn’t exist or were much more expensive than they are.
@APaGttH
Actually, all three rebadged Japanese compact trucks at first, as Ford sold a Mazda that vaguely resembled an F-Series called the Courier.
Chrysler never did develop its own compact truck, but Ford and GM did, and they were quite good and very successful, Ford’s Euro-sourced 2.8L/2.9L time bomb engines notwithstanding.
Its also important to remember that Japanese cars didn’t simply show up in the 1960s/1970s as great driving, sexy, reliable and durable cars. Early ones, notably the first gen Civic, were quite underwhelming and fragile. The Honda 1.2L was known for issues like very premature timing belt failure and head gaskets.
The 2.3L “Lima” in a Pinto (not the only I-4 available), admittedly a terrible car, was pretty solid in itself. The Vega’s engine, not so much lol.
Datsun cars of the 70s were horrendously cheap, thin, rust-prone (as all Japanese cars of the era) and obviously built to serve as a decent alternative to walking in the rain. They sold well because gas crisis, and 120 HP big V-8s that struggled to get 18 mpg and weren’t hardly worth the effort of pushing off a cliff.
Styling wise, I don’t find a 1977 B-210 any sexier than a Vega or Pinto, although I am fond of it for what it is, and what it isn’t.
They got better, Honda more quickly than any IMO, but they weren’t all 1990 LS400s to start with.
@blizzardNW
I believe the Ridgeline’s greatest appeal is to those who would probably never would’ve bought a pickup if it didn’t exist. They’d be in a Pilot or Highlander like everyone else.
Its good for what it is, but I doubt few Ridgeline owners seriously considered a Tacoma or Colorado before their purchase. Maybe I’m wrong.
I’m not putting it down, more power to Honda and their own little slice of the pie that they found.
To this point I had a friend who worked as a field rep for Dodge back in the 90’s When the T100 toyota came out and again with the first Tundra came out, he said they were very worried that what had happened with the cars would happen with the trucks, but it never did.
The original T100 was kind of joke. That fact that Toyota built a larger truck with a higher tow rating and offered the exact same 4 banger and 3.0 V6 you could get in the compacts at the time was an absolute disgrace.
My ’93 compact Toy PU had the V6 w/5 speed and I know how that handled 3K pounds hooked to the back of it. I can only imagine close to 5K pounds behind a T100 with the same engine and what a miserable dog that would have been.
I knew a few people who towed around 4k boats with T100 with little issue but yeah not good compared to a full size. I one pulled an 18′ center console with my 22r pickup that was slow. You could get the one ton compact pickup before the t100 with a 5k tow rating as well.
They were certainly underpowered for towing more than a utility trailer but they did have a full sized bed and a reasonable amount of room in the cab.
Keep in mind how tiny and cramped the Tacoma was at the time.
“Keep in mind how tiny and cramped the Tacoma was at the time.”
True, but the extra-cab (which is what I had) in the compact was pretty roomy and a huge step forward over the generation before it. I rode 3 adults pretty comfortably in mine on multiple snowmobile trips from Minneapolis to the UP of Michigan.
I’ve seen more Honda Ridgeline’s on the road in their short time on the market than the number of Titan’s on the road over a years time.
I’d consider a Ridgeline because it doesn’t compete directly against established 1/2 tons. I’d look at it as an alternative to a CUV/SUV.
The Titan on the other hand is a dead duck. If I had to replace my F150 right now Chevy would be my 1st choice. The XD is a bloated wannabe HD. If Nissan made an actual HD with that 5.0 Cummins then that would be a game changer since most buyers don’t need 800 lbs feet of torque to tow 10k.
I drove one of these a couple of months ago, with the Cummins diesel. I thought it was a decent truck, and the engine makes a much more compelling case for buying a Titan, but a couple of problems stood out:
1) it’s supposedly a “tweener” size, bigger than a 150/1500 but not as big as a 250/2500. Yet it’s just as heavy as the (outgoing) F-250, similarly equipped.
2) “tweener” trucks have usually not done very well in the market. e.g. T100, Ridgeline, Dakota (after it got too big,) etc.
Different truck, you drove an XD, this is their updated 1/2 ton version. I can understand the confusion – I read this at first thinking this was an XD review and then thought, “wait, Nissan updated their 1/2 ton too?”
see why I was confused?
Your points on the XD are quite valid, though.
Honestly, I want to like the Titan. I wanted them to build a full-fledged 3/4 ton, but they decided a “heavy half” as the similar big three trucks were known, so in the process, they threw a punch that hit nobody.
I don’t understand what Nissan thought it was going to accomplish with this truck. It’s just too heavy. Everything else that’s bad about it (lack of ride refinement, poor fuel economy, middling payload) is a consequence of its being so heavy. If they had produced a “tweener” truck with “tweener” curb weight, or if the non-XD’s curb weight were competitve with the Ram 1500 (let alone the Silvy or F-150) then they would have had a shot at making a dent. As is, this is going to sell just like the outgoing model.
Part of the premise, is that for “truck guys” doing “truck things”, weight is, in actual day to day use, a good thing. It settles the vehicle down when heavily loaded, with less tail wagging the dog effect.
And that, due to lower truck volumes and more small cars, Nissan could step in to serve those customers (a minority) who would be left behind by the Big3s inevitable need to prioritize lighter and more fuel efficient over all else in half tons.
The NV van is kind of similar. Heavy and old school compared to other vans redesigned since the 60s.
A sub one ton cab chassis built on XD underpinnings, providing a more purpose built alternative to bed deletes, would be a natural development. Still a small market, but not a non existing one to serve if it can be done efficiently.
It’s not the weight. It’s the tuning budget that comes with Nissan amortizing R&D over a run of 300,000 instead of 3 million. The aluminum Ford is far and away lightest in class and doesn’t ride particularly well. The Ram is an even three tons in press fleet trim, even heavier than this one, and they ride like Cadillacs.
The Ram has a unique (coil spring) rear suspension, not fair to compare it to traditional trucks in ride quality without that being mentioned.
A vehicle with a rear suspension setup similar to a Crown Vic will surely ride nicer than one with leaf springs.
You also have to consider the fact that the Ram in a comparable trim to a F150 is down on payload. A truck with a 1200 lb payload should ride better empty than one with an 1800 lb payload.
Good point. If you want what my aunt would call a “play-pretty” (used to describe pretty much a toy, but for a grown-up), the the Ram is fine. Or, hell, a Tundra (i guess, he said softly and without confidence).
But, if you intend on working the truck to within an inch of its life… Which do you live closer to? A Ford or GM dealer? Lol
It would sure be cool if the engine and transmission was put in a car that was priced in the $40k – low $50k range like this truck and the Armada.
Instead the Q70 5.6 starts at $64K.
Buy an old RWD Maxima/810 or Infiniti M30 or J30, then pick up a wrecked but running Titan/Armada/QX?? at an insurance auction. Get to work. ;)
We eagerly await progress reports. Or, at least, I do.
So, I realize these are two very different markets. But if I’m looking at a $57K light-duty Nissan Titan, I can’t help but look at the Ford dealer next door and, for $3K more get a very nicely equipped Raptor that has about the same hauling/towing capability, better mileage, and I can use it to play on the weekend…
I guess what I’m saying is, for a light-duty pickup that doesn’t have some amazing capabilities, I’d expect the price to be well south of the light-duty pickups that do have some amazing capabilities. Sell me this nicely equipped Titan for $40K and I might be interested. But apparently Nissan thinks $40K should get me a stripped version.
You’ll pay around MSRP (or more) on a Raptor. You can already get sizeable discounts on a non-diesel Titan.
Which isn’t good for Nissan, but makes the consumer comparison easier.
I was seeing 14k discounts advertised on the Titan in Canada. That started in the summer which is usually full MSRP season. That is also highly unusual on a new model.
Those were Titan XDs. Regular-duty Titan wasn’t readily available when XD showed $14K discounts.
Timothy Cain – thanks. Correct.
The late release of the “regular” Titan tends to make me think of all of them as one.
For $60k I can walk out with a nicely equipped F250.
Why can’t you drive out?
You win the internet.
You gotta walk out to the truck after signing, right? Lol
For under 50K you can get decent options on a 6.4 2500 ram with a lovely coil spring rear suspension.
Wow. EBFlex only dreams of that kind of anti-Ford satire.
His screen name makes me think EcoBoost Ford Flex, although I’m quite sure that wasn’t his intention.
Or, maybe he had one, somehow it became sentient and killed his best friend? Probably fell into some nuclear waste. That usually does it.
Careful about glass houses and all that. Your Toyota rants come from the same branch of that phylogenetic tree.
I looked at the Titan cuz I like Nissan’s, I have a 16 Maxima. The Titan was higher priced than a F-150 by about $3K and the dealer would budge. F-em.
I got a F-150 Lariat Crew Cab with 2.7 ecoboost and its been great so far. 4000 miles and the 2.7 really pulls hard. Amazing for that small of a motor.
I looked at the Titan cuz I like Nissan’s, I have a 16 Maxima. The Titan was higher priced than a comparable F-150 by about $3K and the dealer would budge. F-em.
I got a F-150 Lariat CC with 2.7 ecoboost and its been great so far. 4000 miles and the 2.7 really pulls hard. Amazing for that small of a motor.
Maybe Nissan should have just re-badged the RAM.
A big selling point for this truck will be the 5 year/100k bumper to bumper warranty. I got to go for the ride and drive event and was impressed with the rear end handling with an empty bed. The domestic brands seemed to bounce a lot in the corners while the Titan stayed very well planted. Put the 5.0 F-150 to shame each time when exiting the corners too.
Its easy to stay planted when you weigh in a lot higher.
Combined with a poor payload for that extra tare weight.
Any word yet on a King Cab model? How about a non-XD crew cab/6.5′ bed model?
“None of those engines have the Titan’s terrific throttle response.”
I noticed this as well when testing out VQ40 Pathfinders/Xterras and V8 Titans. All felt really strong and responsive, likely a mindful throttle mapping decision. At the opposite end of the spectrum is something like a 4Runner, which feels like its in permanent “Eco” mode unless you really bury the throttle. Easier to drive efficiently than the Nissans, but not as responsive feeling.
“4Runner, which feels like its in permanent “Eco” mode”
Yup. It posts the same acceleration stats as the VQ40 Xterras and Pathfinders, but it doesn’t feel like it at part throttle. This is a benefit offroad but around town you have to program your foot to get the acceleration you want.
The early Titans were an absolute blast to drive, at low speed they’d smoke the tires (and blow the rear diff) pretty much at will. That truck had the 2nd highest driver death rate of any vehicle in at least one year of the IIHS statistics for good reason. But Nissan both softened the pedal mapping and torque managed them to death later in the run, the 2WD trucks (read: fleet sales) wouldn’t even give WOT until 40MPH.
I watched local person I know with a then-new (as in all-new *and* just recently purchased) Titan floor it at like 20-25 mph as a friend in a Silverado pulled out to overtake. The rear end broke loose (dry pavement) but when it hooked up, the Nissan was gone. Gone.
The other way to look at this is that Nissans have super jumpy throttles and are hard to drive smoothly.
Some people are just reluctant to put their foot in it. My wife swore up and down that the RX450h was slower than the RAV4 Hybrid. It’s two full seconds quicker to 60. But it has throttle mapping obviously designed for smoothness, and she wasn’t giving it the beans.
I always notice GM vehicles, at least for a long time, had a super aggressive throttle tip-in. So, you barely hit the pedal and Whoah! Easy, fella! But, when you pulled out to pass and floored it, the gutlessness came shining through.
I think this is how they sold Pontiacs. On the test drive, it feels powerful and it sure makes a lot of noise, so it MUST be sporty! All this cladding and useless strakes in the body side sure look fast!
Then, those initially positive impressions become annoyances as ownership wears on. Hard to take off smoothly with grandmother in the car, that annoying noise GM V-6s made (particularly from a Grand Am), the overdone styling. Next thing you know, you’re trading it in on a V-6 Sonata, lol.
Nissan obviously doesn’t have a cost structure that would allow them to profitably offer substantial price advantages relative to competing US brands, and this review suggests the product is not very competitive in terms of performance, capability, or comfort. Nissan also doesn’t have a very competitive dealer network or other marketing advantages. Thus they have no chance to take substantial share in the full-size market and will never make a profit on this investment – in other words it was a stupid management decision to waste development and marketing money on a loser product.
Lol, he does more than suggest its not as good, Tim told it like it is.
I only wish he’d have provided F-150 and Silverado equivalent pricing for comparison. He mentions the Ford, but not its cost.
GOOD NEWS, everyone.
Professor John’sworth has decided this is his favorite current Nissan (now that the Cube is gone)!
Maybe because it doesn’t have a CVT (I found a 6MT Cube last nignt lol, and I wouldn’t buy such a vehicle with any manner of autofail), and the interior doesn’t make you think its a far-newer looking (not feeling) 1991 Pontiac with the wrong badges!
Save for possibly the RWD Infiniti vehicles or the outdated (and financially irresponsible) GT-R, a Titan (might as well get the XD Diesel of course) is likely what I’d grab the keys to if Mr. Ghosen was holding a gun to my head.
*I know the Cube’s interior is cheap, that’s expected on a genuinely cheap subcompact box on wheels.
How is this Nissan off-road? Obviously I want a Jeep if off-road is everything, but to a lot of us it is something. You said you did some light off-roading, impressions?
Excellent question. I did sorta expect to hear something later on in the article about it after reading that, but didn’t realize it was “missing” until you mentioned it.
I can’t believe a basic 4×4 crew cab is $39k. Value proposition? It went out that window over there.
Then again, Lou and others mentioned heavy incentives. Maybe its there if you dig deep enough.
I know MSRP means little or nothing on a non-Raptor F-Series, GM, Ram, etc. They’ll usually knock off a nice-sized house payment if you glance in their direction casually and accidentally lock eyes with a salesman.
A very important feature in my opinion is the selectable rear locker on the Pro-4X. Only the F150 has it as an option out of the other half tons (GM’s G80 auto-locker is similarly useful, but I personally prefer the ability for preemptive engagement).
LOL @ the Nissan banner ads on this article:
“TAKE ON 2017 EVENT
Take on 2017 and take home a new Nissan.
The 2016 Nissan Quest (R) (was Altima before the page was refreshed, still said 2016).”
Why mention the year 2017 twice in the (small) ad while actually advertising 2016 models?
They’re pretty much saying “its now 2017, so buy last year’s leftovers. Please!”
I’d really like to see more highway driving fuel economy stats from, you know, normal weather conditions on these reviews. I just purchased a new F-150 after months of researching, test driving, and reading/watching every review I could find. I ended up getting an XLT SuperCrew with the 2.7 EcoBoost. All the reviews said it wasn’t much better from a fuel economy standpoint than the 5.0 V8 or the 3.5 EB. 19.5-20 is all anyone could muster. I got 19.5 with the cruise set at 80 MPH with two other people, luggage for four days (with a 21 month old), and a bed and cab loaded down with enough Christmas presents and goodies to break Santa’s back. On my regular commute cycle (some stop and go, a lot of two lane state highways with the cruise on 60-65, some interstate) I get 22.3 with regular unleaded. Granted, this is Coastal Georgia/Savannah. The terrain is largely flat, and there isn’t any snow, but these review fuel economies for trucks are all over the place.
If you guys want some “real world, straight highway driving” fuel numbers, hit me up.
Hmmm, sounds very suss.
Sure you ain’t a Ford fan?