2022 Nissan Frontier unveiled

Highlander

The Good Shepherd
All the video reviews are surprisingly good.
Even if some of them are paid shills still the others seems to honestly be liking the truck.
The qualities the all notice are quite a few such are the very good pairing of the 3.8 and the 9 seeped, soundproofed cabin, the ride quality, and simplicity.
 

Grassland

Well-known member
For anybody waffling about going full size or mid size, here are one **************** rambling thoughts.

Pretty sure I'm stuck with an F150 as a platform, certainly my current one, and likely another one when it's time because of various reasons.
But as a current full-size owner thinking about a midsize and looking at the current Pro-4X Frontier, I managed to find one at the local Nissan lot to park beside. Yes somebody owned it because the lot was bare except for Sentras Rogues and the odd smaller cross over so I didn't go to town with measurements and closer pics.

This trucks is smaller than I expected in person. It may be called a midsize, and may be larger than the 1998-2012 Ranger, but it's not an "almost full size" truck.
The crew cab seems to be about the size of my "extended cab" and the box is just tiny, and also shallow.
The ground clearance didn't seem that high, but to be fair my truck is lifted and on larger than stock tires.
With a 1.5" lift all around even on stock tires it would be pretty comparable. The truck just seems.. not that high/clearanced.
The biggest benefit to off road travel is being slightly narrower, and a shorter wheelbase as compared to full size.
Performance wise the numbers put this truck on par and better with my current naturally aspirated V6, being somewhat lighter and packing 3 extra gears along with a super low ratio first gear. How this will stack up when towing a 7'x16' trailer remains to be seen.
The question is, does the higher manoeuvrability and better break over offset the lack of space when compared to a similar full size?

One major benefit I see is that a 265/70R17 looks proportional to the truck. Even with 1.5" lift all around the tires wouldn't seem small. And this size of tires is a lot cheaper than 33-34" tires.
 

Attachments

Todd n Natalie

Observer
For anybody waffling about going full size or mid size, here are one **************** rambling thoughts.

Pretty sure I'm stuck with an F150 as a platform, certainly my current one, and likely another one when it's time because of various reasons.
But as a current full-size owner thinking about a midsize and looking at the current Pro-4X Frontier, I managed to find one at the local Nissan lot to park beside. Yes somebody owned it because the lot was bare except for Sentras Rogues and the odd smaller cross over so I didn't go to town with measurements and closer pics.

This trucks is smaller than I expected in person. It may be called a midsize, and may be larger than the 1998-2012 Ranger, but it's not an "almost full size" truck.
The crew cab seems to be about the size of my "extended cab" and the box is just tiny, and also shallow.
The ground clearance didn't seem that high, but to be fair my truck is lifted and on larger than stock tires.
With a 1.5" lift all around even on stock tires it would be pretty comparable. The truck just seems.. not that high/clearanced.
The biggest benefit to off road travel is being slightly narrower, and a shorter wheelbase as compared to full size.
Performance wise the numbers put this truck on par and better with my current naturally aspirated V6, being somewhat lighter and packing 3 extra gears along with a super low ratio first gear. How this will stack up when towing a 7'x16' trailer remains to be seen.
The question is, does the higher manoeuvrability and better break over offset the lack of space when compared to a similar full size?

One major benefit I see is that a 265/70R17 looks proportional to the truck. Even with 1.5" lift all around the tires wouldn't seem small. And this size of tires is a lot cheaper than 33-34" tires.
Interesting. I wonder how it would compare to a new Ranger size wise? I did read the new Ranger is supposed to grow a little bit over the current version.
 

rruff

Explorer
The question is, does the higher maneuverability and better break over offset the lack of space when compared to a similar full size?
It's always nice to have more space, but... I went from a '86 Toyota to a Tundra... which is hugely bigger and >2x the weight. That was 5 years ago and I'm still not used to the immense size; it's ridiculous for driving around town, IMO. Poor visibility of the road, despite being 6ft off the ground, too wide, too long, hard to park, etc. Unless you have a specific need, I think the midsizes are plenty huge; much larger than the old small trucks. The old Frontier was a better size IMO... that was my other option at the time.
 

Chorky

Observer
For anybody waffling about going full size or mid size, here are one **************** rambling thoughts.

Pretty sure I'm stuck with an F150 as a platform, certainly my current one, and likely another one when it's time because of various reasons.
But as a current full-size owner thinking about a midsize and looking at the current Pro-4X Frontier, I managed to find one at the local Nissan lot to park beside. Yes somebody owned it because the lot was bare except for Sentras Rogues and the odd smaller cross over so I didn't go to town with measurements and closer pics.

This trucks is smaller than I expected in person. It may be called a midsize, and may be larger than the 1998-2012 Ranger, but it's not an "almost full size" truck.
The crew cab seems to be about the size of my "extended cab" and the box is just tiny, and also shallow.
The ground clearance didn't seem that high, but to be fair my truck is lifted and on larger than stock tires.
With a 1.5" lift all around even on stock tires it would be pretty comparable. The truck just seems.. not that high/clearanced.
The biggest benefit to off road travel is being slightly narrower, and a shorter wheelbase as compared to full size.
Performance wise the numbers put this truck on par and better with my current naturally aspirated V6, being somewhat lighter and packing 3 extra gears along with a super low ratio first gear. How this will stack up when towing a 7'x16' trailer remains to be seen.
The question is, does the higher manoeuvrability and better break over offset the lack of space when compared to a similar full size?

One major benefit I see is that a 265/70R17 looks proportional to the truck. Even with 1.5" lift all around the tires wouldn't seem small. And this size of tires is a lot cheaper than 33-34" tires.
Interesting to see the side by side. Its one thing to look at numbers, totally different to see actual pics. Considering a Ranger myself still. Especially since their price point for 'equial' outfitting is lower than a 150 - but of course because its less truck.


der how it would compare to a new Ranger size wise? I did read the new Ranger is supposed
Oh man I sure hope not!! The whole point to a ranger is bringing the compact pickup back.
 

Buddha.

Finally in expo white.
I switched from a 2500hd Chevy to a ranger last week.
26k for a three year old 4x4 truck that’s rated to tow 7,500lbs.
Getting 20mpg in mixed winter driving.
The 2500 was like driving a house compared to this. I like the little turbo engine.
Just got 235/85r16 (32”)winter tires delivered via Amazon(no one local had snow tires in this size) Stock tires are 30”. These should fit without any modifications.
The crew cab is just big enough for me to sit in the back behind where I like my drivers seat but it’s tight, I’m 5’10”.

Hoping it’ll tow a modest 4K lb travel trailer while getting better than 10mpg. The 18 gallons of fuel won’t last too long at that rate.
 
Last edited:

Grassland

Well-known member
Ranger comically small fuel tank basically leaves me with Frontier and GM twins as viable options for a midsize, but I'm not even sure what the fuel tank size is on those.

Need to tow our 5000# trailer. I can't imagine the Nissan will be any better on fuel when towing, but hoping empty it knocks a couple liters per 100 off the tab compared to my F150 if we go that way
 

Buddha.

Finally in expo white.
Ranger comically small fuel tank basically leaves me with Frontier and GM twins as viable options for a midsize, but I'm not even sure what the fuel tank size is on those.

Need to tow our 5000# trailer. I can't imagine the Nissan will be any better on fuel when towing, but hoping empty it knocks a couple liters per 100 off the tab compared to my F150 if we go that way
GM and Ranger have the highest tow capacity.

GM twins are 21 gal.
EDIT: Frontier is 21 gal.

The Colorado diesel will allegedly get almost 30 mpg empty and 20 towing. I considered it for a minute but decided against for reliability issues. Mostly sensors and emissions crap.
 
Last edited:

Grassland

Well-known member
Neither of those have stellar tanks either but that's 12 more liters of fuel. If I average 18 liters per 100 when towing (unless it's windy) that's an extra 60km of range.
Pretty spoiled with my 136 liter tank right now.
Not at all interested in a diesel.

In my case, the majority of KMs are while towing. Thanks to work, I seldom drive my truck. I put on 10k a year on average and 6-8 of that are towing. I'm assuming that trucks of similar weight and performance will get similar fuel economy when towing.
With the weight of the mid size trucks, I wonder if sticking with an aluminium F150 accomplishes most of the same things by being lighter.
 

rruff

Explorer
With the weight of the mid size trucks, I wonder if sticking with an aluminium F150 accomplishes most of the same things by being lighter.
Ya, F150s are pretty light... and you can get it with a NA 3.3L v6 if you want. According to Fuelly they are getting near 20 mpg vs 18.5 for the 2.7 Eco, and 16 for the 3.5 Eco and 5.0 V8. Towing I think it might be even better (relatively) for mpg since the turbos aren't very efficient when the boost is on. A small engine running further into it's power band has always been most efficient. Get a high ratio diff, and I think you'll get around fine towing. That's if mpgs are a high priority...
 

Todd n Natalie

Observer
Need to tow our 5000# trailer. I can't imagine the Nissan will be any better on fuel when towing, but hoping empty it knocks a couple liters per 100 off the tab compared to my F150 if we go that way
This is what keeps me in a 1500 / 150. I know a Ranger /Frontier / Gladiator / Tacoma / Colardo would be rated to tow my 3,900 lbs dry trailer.

But at 23' long hitch to bumper and with payload running out with the WDH, Firewood and 4 people in the truck, I think it's more than a midsize could handle in the real world.
 

Grassland

Well-known member
That's what I mean it's a 3.3 or 2.7 F150 Supercab or do I go midsize?
There are pros and cons to each. Midsize is more useful around town, offroad, maybe better fuel economy in town and on highway when not towing.
Full-size is more payload and more room. 🤷
 

Grassland

Well-known member
Crazy!
I'd lean towards a 1.5-2" sort of level/lift and call it good. Be around the same clearance I have now but better break over. But if it's getting six inch lifts it should get some aftermarket support.
 

Chorky

Observer
Neither of those have stellar tanks either but that's 12 more liters of fuel. If I average 18 liters per 100 when towing (unless it's windy) that's an extra 60km of range.
Pretty spoiled with my 136 liter tank right now.
Not at all interested in a diesel.

In my case, the majority of KMs are while towing. Thanks to work, I seldom drive my truck. I put on 10k a year on average and 6-8 of that are towing. I'm assuming that trucks of similar weight and performance will get similar fuel economy when towing.
With the weight of the mid size trucks, I wonder if sticking with an aluminium F150 accomplishes most of the same things by being lighter.
150 certainly is a good option. but it's also heavier and wider than the mid sized trucks so trails would be more difficult. But a 150 or similar does seem to be a good mid way compromise.

This is what keeps me in a 1500 / 150. I know a Ranger /Frontier / Gladiator / Tacoma / Colardo would be rated to tow my 3,900 lbs dry trailer.

But at 23' long hitch to bumper and with payload running out with the WDH, Firewood and 4 people in the truck, I think it's more than a midsize could handle in the real world.
Yeah but the mid size trucks (ranger, frontier, tacoma, etc..) aren't designed to handle a work truck load of firewood, people, and gear... thats a task for a full size. It doesnt, IMO, do the ranger or tacoma's any bit of justice trying to expect them to haul like a work truck. Theyre made to be a small truck - occasional hauling, or towing a small caper trailer.
 
Top