Why is the Suzuki Equator rated so much lower than the Nissan Frontier??

My understanding is that the only difference between the two (besides minor styling differences) is that the Equator has a better/longer warranty.

So why do US News and Consumer Reports rank it so much lower than the Frontier???

"If you’re looking at the Equator, you also need to look at the Nissan Frontier. The Equator is a rebadged Frontier. Only cosmetic differences, a slight price difference and Suzuki’s longer warranty differentiate the two. They’re even built side-by-side in the same factory. Being a Frontier in different clothing doesn't hurt the Equator any, as the Frontier is a well-liked compact truck. In general, reviewers recommend the Equator over the Frontier, mainly because the two trucks cost about the same, but the Equator has a much longer warranty."

...yet in the end they rank the Frontier well ahead of the Equator. Doesn't make any sense.



http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/cars-trucks/Suzuki_Equator/

 

i must've been living under a rock or somethin, cuz i've never heard of that truck before

 

They test the vehicles independently from one another and give them completely different scores, even though they are the same vehicle.

Makes me trust anything US News, Consumer Reports, etc, says even less.

 

the only thing different between the two are cosmetic. they are essentially the same truck like you said.

i never trust consumer reports. they simply do not know how to test vehicles correctly and or are just plain stupid or being paid off.

i think consumer reports named the ridgline and the avalanche best pickups of the year. even if the ridgline isn't even a truck, and the avalanche is just stupid. they've also been one to complain about the "harsh ride" in a one ton dually pickup. absurd.

 

was that a diss towards me?