Honest discussion of common issues of both Tacoma & Frontier

Sorry for the confusion MT=Manual Transmission.

 

A buddy if mine has a 2005 Frontier that he just shelled out $4,500 for a new transmission and radiator. Apparently he was bitten by the "transmission cooling lines in the radiator allowed coolant into the transmission" issue!

He was on the fence between used Taco's and Frontier's and ended up going with the Nissan since it was a lot cheaper than the Tacomas. Now he's regretting that decision.

 

I came very close myself. On paper the Frontier looks like a clear winner. Unfortunately in person it doesn't translate. And you never really lose the money you spend on the Toyota anyway. These things hold value like no other vehicle on earth.

 

I'm probably in the minority here, but I think for all intents and purposes, the 2 are pretty equal and it comes down to tastes and personal preference. Personally, to me the Nissan 4.0 in my dad's Xterra and roommate's Frontier seem stronger than my Tacoma. My dad has definitely not babied his Xterra (lots of heavy towing, camping, hauling, etc.) and that thing is an absolute rock. Never any issues, and it consistently gets 19-20 mpg on mixed driving. Do they have issues? Sure, but I think we tend to latch onto them and blow them out of proportion here because, well, this is a Tacoma site. All I can say is in my personal experience, Nissan makes a quality product and is a worthy alternative to Toyota. If I didn't prefer a truck, I'd be driving an Xterra Pro 4x right now.

That being said...I prefer the Tacoma to the Frontier. It's more refined, quieter, and Nissan's utility (hard plastic) interior is ugly to me. I personally think it looks better too. On the flip side, my dad prefers his Xterra to my Tacoma. Just different tastes. Now my roommate, he has Tacoma envy...

 

All I gotta say is that when I was stuck choosing between Tacoma and a Chevy, my boss (who drives a Chevy) said to me "You know, they chose the Toyota to go to war in the Middle East, there must be a reason why. Those things just don't die." Then he sent me pics of all these beat up Toyotas that were still in service. LOL

 

Unless you are a M/T junkie, go for the auto trans. everything ive read on this site for the last several years says the auto is the way to go. They also get better mpg.

As for resale, I bought my 2010 taco for 25,000, sold it 3 years later for 22,000 (i could have gotten more but thats what the dealer gave me!)

Ive had two double cab 2wd (prerunner) tacomas. One was a base model and the other was a TRD off road. both were nice trucks. But Im driving a jetta now... I just needed better mpg and lower payment but thats another story.

As for the composite bed, Ive never heard any complaints about it. It makes the truck lighter and its pretty damn tough.
If I was to buy another taco I would get a SR5 long bed 4x4. The short bed isnt even long enough to haul my mountain bike in with both tires on...

 

Your mountain bike doesn't fit? I actually took my road bike down to the dealer and said I was there to see if it fit, fully intending to reject the short bed. It fit perfectly in one they had with a tonneau cover. And everything closed and latched. Granted I need to be able to haul more bikes sometimes. With the tow package, I can get one of those hitch bike racks.

 

I should mention-try to fit it diagonally. It actually doesn't slide around in the short bed like it did in the 72" bed. Very snug.

 

what road bike are you speaking of? when you say fit perfectly, you mean diagonally?

 

Yes, I have a Scott Speedster road bike and a Scott Reflex mountain bike. Both are about 67 inches long from tip of tire to tip of tire. Laying them down diagonally they fit in the short bed. And they don't slide around.

If you want to put them in vertically it probably won't work in a short bed. I'd rather put mine inside with a shell on so I can go ride someplace, then have them secured inside when stopping for lunch, etc.