Nissan Nismo Frontier King CabIf this test were strictly about improvement, the Nissan NISMO Frontier would win this year's competition hands down. The Nissan Motorsports (NISMO) package was designed to go head to head with the Tacoma TRD. It's by far the finest Frontier ever, and ready to hunt down loyal Tacoma buyers and take a bite out of Toyota's market.
The new truck is based on the fullsize Titan architecture so it's larger and more robust-feeling in every way than its predecessor. It's motivated by an all-new 4.0L V-6 engine that outpowered both the Toyota 4.0L V-6 and the Dodge 4.7L V-8! The new engine got such rave reviews from our judges that we've almost forgotten about the disappointing supercharged V-6 that the previous Frontier relied on. When coupled with the firm-shifting five-speed automatic transmission in our test vehicle, this package made for a green-light bandit-even with the 265/65-17 tires and 3.36 axle gears.
Inside, the Frontier was ranked quieter and the instrument panel scored higher in our judging than the Tacoma's latest design. It's probably just a coincidence, but the seats in the Tacoma and Frontier look like they've come from the same supplier. The coarse mesh weave in both trucks was thought too rough on the legs if you were wearing shorts-or a skirt. Unfortunately the Frontier's seats didn't have the cozy side bolsters that hold you in position in the Tacoma, nor did it have anywhere near the usable rear seat room of the Tacoma, Dakota, or Power Wagon.
Behind the wheel of the Frontier a few judges labeled the ride too firm for California freeways. But around town the Bilstein shock-tuned truck was ranked easier to drive and park in the city than Dakota and Tacoma. Off-road the Frontier really started to show how well matched it was to the Tacoma. With better throttle modulation, a comparable electric locker, and a smoother ride on the hillclimbs, the Frontier was easier to take up some extreme lines than the Tacoma, which required fiddling with the clutch to prevent stalling. The five-speed auto and extra horsepower were enough to win over most of the judges in the sand too. If there was a clear difference between the Tacoma and the Frontier off-road it was with breakover angles. The larger frame on the Frontier made it easier to high-center than the Tacoma when cresting over obstacles. The Toyota also exhibited better suspension tuning front to rear than the Frontier. We also managed to do a number on the Frontier's front mud flaps which started to rub on the tires after we tweaked them in the rocks.
Specifications
| GENERAL | |
| Manufacturer | Nissan |
| Model | NISMO Frontier King Cab |
| Base Price | N/A |
| Price as Tested | $27,000 |
| Options as Tested | Bilstein shocks, skid- |
| | plate package, 16-inch alloy wheels, P265/75R16 tires, electronic locking rear differential, spray-in bedliner |
| ENGINE |
| Type | DOHC 24-valve V-6 |
| Displacement (liters/cubic inches) | 4.0/241 |
| Bore & Stroke (inches) | 3.76x3.62 |
| Compression Ratio | 9.7:1 |
| Induction Type | Sequential, multiport |
| | fuel injection |
| Fuel Req. (octane)/Capacity (gal.) | 91/21.1 |
| SAE Peak Horsepower | 265 @ 5,600 rpm |
| SAE Peak Torque (lb-ft) | 284 @ 4,000 rpm |
| TRANSMISSION |
| Type | Five-speed automatic overdrive |
| Model | Nissan |
| Ratios | First: 3.84:1; Second: 2.35:1; Third: 1.53:1; Fourth: 1.00:1; Fifth: 0.84:1; Reverse: 2.76:1 |
| Transfer Case |
| Type | Two-speed part time |
| Model | Nissan |
| Low-range Ratio | 2.63:1 |
| Axles |
| Front Type | IFS |
| Rear Type | Dana 44 w/electronic locker |
| Hubs | N/A |
| Ratio | 3.36:1 |
| SUSPENSION |
| Front | IFS w/upper and lower A-arms and coilover shocks |
| Rear | Live axle, longitudinal leaf springs |
| Steering |
| Type | Power rack-and-pinion |
| Turns Lock-to-Lock/Ratio | 3.5/20.4:1 |
| Turning Radius (feet) | 39.16 |
| Wheels |
| Size (inches) | 16x7 |
| Material | Cast-aluminum |
| Tires |
| Size | P265/75R16 |
| Brand | BFGoodrich Rugged Trail T/A |
| Brakes |
| Front | 11.65-inch discs with ABS |
| Rear | 12.12-inch discs with ABS |
| 60-0 (feet) | 132.50 |
| ACCELERATION |
| Standing 11/44-mile | |
| (seconds @ mph) | 17.39 @ 79.39 |
| Weight (pounds) |
| Curb Weight | 4,502 |
| Advertised GVWR | 5,600 |
| Mileage |
| EPA Estimate (city/hwy. mpg) | 15/20 |
| As Tested (mpg) | 14.8 |
| Dimensions (inches) |
| Wheelbase | 126 |
| Overall Length | 205.5 |
| Overall Width | 84 |
| Overall Height | 69.5 |
| Front/Rear Track | 61.5/62 |
| Front/Rear Overhang | 32/48 |
| Min. Front Ground Clearance | 8.25 |
LikesA return to body-on-frame constructionCargo space that lets you carry long itemsVery quiet interior
DislikesCheesy-looking A/C controlsNeeds a limited slip or locker to compete with this crowdWorst climber on the loose hillclimb test
VerdictTotally inoffensive to drive on the street, but not our first choice for the trail.