I doubt it would have. I had a '98 Dakota extended cab with V-6, really liked it, but found myself needing the bigger back seat and somewhat more tow capacity. Looked at a new Dakota with a full crew cab, but found that in order to get the tow capacity I needed, I would have to go to a V-8 and have dismal MPG, both in town and highway. So looked at all those you mentioned, ended up with a '07 Tacoma, best fuel efficiency and tow capacity in the class (for a V-6). That was when gas was $2.50 or so. Sure glad I chose what I did.
But you're right, Dakotas get very few ad dollars. May go back to the time when they truly had a monopoly in that size range. And the Dakota had no service issues the whole time I owned it just over eight years. It was a good truck. Sold it to a friend and he is very satisfied also, still no major maintenance. Too bad they didn't keep up with what was predictably going to be a hot spot, that is MPG.
Not in the specific case of the Titan to which I was referring. The travails of the Titan have been well documented, and they have finally given up on trying to fix them.
formatting link
more than an economic move, a small amount of research will reveal that assembly problems, rear end problems, and overall quality control problems contributed to this move. Since this is just idle conversation between all of us, I didn't dig around for the specifics that were cited by Nissan, but the gist was that they still wanted to be in the truck market, but were abandoning their own efforts due to the fact they simply couldn't get it right.
Perhaps this is why:
formatting link
ugly scores for a truck that has been in manufacture for some time now, certainly long enough to get the kinks out of design and manufacture.
Interesting too, is that not only will the Titan be built along side the Dodge trucks, but they will drop their own engineering and design for the structure/frame, power train, engine, and finish options. However, Nissan assures it loyal few that "above the frame" it will be Nissan engineered.
My truck has to do it all. It has to function as an office when I am paying my guys, and a comfortable venue for negotiation with subcontractors. I write and negotiate with subs on the spot as needed in the air conditioned comfort of the truck.
It has to look nice enough to drive to the house of a client, nice enough for them to believe they are getting someone that is successful at what they do. As for the amenities, you got me. I like air conditioning. After working in our South Texas heat for several hours or a day, it is nice to get in the truck and crank it up.
The truck has to take me and my tools to the job as I am a hands on guy most of the time. It hauls shingles, plywood, paint, lumber, job site debris, compressors, large tools, smelly/sweaty men (including me!) as needed.
But it needs to cast the appearance of some level of success when I drive up to a potential client's home, beyond one of that appearance being cast by a 20 year old truck that is "dependable". My personal sales persona is not that of the humble craftsman that is grateful to have work.
OK, if you want to break it down that way, I will agree with you all day long that today's vehicles are nothing more than cars without back seats.
I have had three trucks that were real trucks. My '59 Ford 3/4 ton with a six speed manual transmission. You could pull the balls of a rhino with that thing.
#2 would be a '75 GMC one ton dual axle. It had a four speed manual transmission, 2" tube steel framing for ladders and scaffolding welded onto the frame that extended bumper to bumper. Since it had a flat, short dock height float bed instead of a truck bed on it, I had tool boxes welded to the bed behind the cab.
You could carry 4 guys, load it with a lift of sheetrock, add all the tools needed, and still pull a skid steer loader all at the same time. At the end of the day, you took the mats out and hosed out the interior to get out the mud, dirt, spilled coffee and soda, dropped cigarettes, etc. I bought that truck second hand, and it was a beast.
The last really honest to Pete truck I had was a '76 3/4 ton Chevy. I didn't like it at the time because it wasn't as powerful or sturdy as my old '59, which finally just fell apart. In the end, it did everything that was asked of it reliably and with no fuss.
Let me wipe a tear from my eye when talking about the good ole trucks that earned their keep and built america.
Where I grew up, we had a lot of poor farmers and loggers. What we used to do with all kinds of old trucks was to cut of the body and shorten the frame. Put on some big tires, maybe a winch and make ourselves a home made tractor. One of the primary functions of this home made tractor was to pull out our regular tractor when it got into trouble.
Many of them were pretty funky in appearance. We welded on a seat from an old horse drawn wagon onto ours. Big metal leaf spring type affair with a seat that had holes to drain the rain water. Our neighbor just had a big chink of wood for his seat.
Nothing fancy. No cab, no air conditioning. no seats, etc. Often we put some pig iron or other weights on it. Quick and dirty to build. But these things saved our asses and other equipment again and again. And one of the reason why we could get away with it was because we were building it out of something that was quite substantial to begin with.
I can't imagine building anything like this out of the contemporary, pretty boys trucks.
My Ranger gets about that, on a good day. I got about 15MPG from Ohio to Alabama pulling a 5x9 Uhaul (and about the same from Vermont to Ohio last year) loaded with 8 maple 2x10s and about 250bf of Ash. My Ranger only gets about 12-13MPG in the winter though. ...good thing I left those back in Ohio. ;-)
I'm in the market for a new pickup. I'll have to give the Tundra a look (was leaning towards an F150). Did it come with the Walnut? ;-)
Oddly the V6 in the Tundra only gets a mile or 2 better, the small V8 got worse mileage. This mileage I am stating is with the larger V8 with 381 hp and 402 torque so you get plenty of power. Additionally, while the "media" has researched and claim that premium fuel is a waste of money if the engine will burn regular I do indeed get about 10% better gas mileage when burning premium, not a mixture of regular and premium. As long as premium is less than 10% greater in price over regular, that's what I buy. Premium fuels tend to also have better/more additives to keep the engine running clean.
Well, after all the fiddling around with various dealers ... I ended up with ... another Chevy Tahoe. Why? I managed to find what I wanted and they just *gutted* their prices to make the deal too good to walk away. Between the employee pricing and additional cash incentives, the dropped the price something like $11K from sticker. I don't drive a whole lot, so the gas prices were not a huge factor. I traded in a 13 year old Tahoe and - to GM's credit - they've really improved the engineering. Then again, my new car with 20 miles on *insists* that the hood is open when it isn't ... sigh ... it's Warranty Roulette all over again.
What's fascinating about all this is that - having looked at most of the major SUV options out there ... they all get more-or-less the same mileage, regardless of whether they are mid- or full-sized truck frames. Go figure ...
You will probably be happy with that vehicle. My neighbor bouught essentially the same thing 2 years ago but the GMC version. I have no problems with these vehicles as far as comfort are concerned, they have full and comfortabhle back seats unlike the truck extend cabs and their doors fasten securely unlike the truck extended cabs the Gm is currently making.
I noticed the same thing, I was considering down sizing until I noticed that the gas mileage was not that great of savings. Very often the smaller vehicles are simply under powered by compairison to the larger vehicles with the stronger engines. Small engines do use less fuel unless they have to strain more to perform like you want. I had an 87 Isuzu Trooper with a 140 hp 4 cyl engine that got 14 in town, 20 on the highway. I replaced it with a 97 Chevy extended cab with a 230 hp 5.0 liter engine, it got 13-14 in town and 20 on the highway. My 07 Tundra 4 door with 381 hp 5.7 gets 15+ in town and 20 on the highway. Although each new vehicle got larger and had more considerably more hp gas mileage pretty much stayed the same and or improved. I'm sure later technology has a lot to do with this but having enough power is also a factor.
BTY the hood switch is probably a plunge type switch that simply needs to be adjusted, open the hood, locate the switch, and manually press it in while some one else verifies if the warning goes away. If that works you can probably very easily adjust it, if they are still using the older style switch you simply pull it out further as the adjustment is a friction fit. This might save you a trip back to the dealer to get rid of the annoyance.
Without a doubt on the technology. Comparing ten/twenty year old vehicles with what is offered today is not relevant.
As an example, my '07 Tacoma, double cab, 2WD, Auto, V6, regular fuel, which is a relevant comparison gets 19.5 around town and 22.5 on the highway. No estimates here, I've kept nearly two years of data in a spreadsheet, throwing out only those tanks used for towing (about 14 mpg depending on hills). So the manufacturers are using technology to get better MPG across the board with regard to vehicle size.
As an example, I had a 1970 volkswagen beetle. As I recall it only got 23 MPG and it was a U. S. mileage leader. Next car was a 73 Monte Carlo with a 454. I don't want to talk about its MPG, brings back nightmares.
Drop the tailgate and gain about 1/2 MPG. I used a tailgate net for years in my Dodge pick-up. It worked nicely to save the odd gallon here and there. I bought that truck with 32,000 on it and sold it just before it turned 200,000. The only out-of-usual replacement in that time was the water pump. A friend told me he'd seen it the other day, about 4-1/2 years after I sold it, with new ladder racks installed. Slant 6 auto, so it may well last forever.
With out a doubt fuel injection has been the big help followed by the computer controlling everything. Computers have been on GM cars since 1980 IIRC and were used with carbureted engines, not such a good combination. Once the carb was tossed the mileage improved dramatically. My dad's loaded V6 Olds 98 got 32 mpg on the highway all day long. That was really pretty darn good even by today's standards. My wife drives a loaded 2004 Accord and gets no better with a 4 cyl engine. Smaller engines are pretty hard to beat for in town driving but the bigger engines tend to be more efficient on the highway when comparing the cubic inch increase to mileage decrease. I'm only getting 10% less miles per gallon on the highway compared to your 07 Tacoma but in town your Tacoma kicks butt.
BTY I have al my gas receipts and a calculator in the truck for the specific purpose of checking gas mileage with every tank. Are we NERDS? ;~)
Uh huh, thanks to the on board computer, knock sensor and electronic timing advance. Premium used with standard ignition vehicles was not much of a help back in the late 70's and or early 80's unless the vehicle specifically required it. Because premium fuel is less likely to create engine knock than regular fuel the computer will advance ignition timing until it hears engine knock/valve clatter through the knock sensor. With electronically advanced ignition timing you normally should get better performance and gas mileage when burning premium.
By any chance did you drive through the mountains? Oddly I have always gotten better gas mileage when going through the mountains. Thinner air does not require as high of octane from the fuel to prevent valve clatter and if you are burning regular elevation fuel 87 or better your mileage could increase also. Typically gas octane in high elevation regions has an
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.