Find Reviews by Make:
That soon-to-be-launched Nissan truck we showed you a few days ago? Apparently, this isn’t it.
Even though the Nissan Navara, sold in world markets (including Thailand, where these pictures were apparently taken), is basically the same as our Frontier, Nissan’s PR team has apparently disavowed any link between this new truck and the next Frontier. We’ll see on June 11th, when Nissan takes the wraps off their new truck.
55 Comments on “Are You The Next Nissan Mid-Size Truck...”
Read all comments
Though it’ll be insanely expensive, I can’t wait till TESLA is able to build an EV Truck (MODEL T?) and equip it with 1000 miles worth of range.
Perhaps make a Triple charger to charge it faster.
Proliferate rechargeable batteries till they get cheaper so we can have clean-Trucks.
Have you heard of clean coal?
#1 There is no such thing as clean coal.
#2 CO2 IS NOT A POLLUTANT
#3 If any IDIOT tries to say: “well if CO2 isn’t a pollutant then lock yourself in a garage with a running car and see what happens…”
…remind the idiot that OXYGEN will FREEZE the human lungs in its pure form and the only reason that doesn’t happen to us is because our “air” is mostly Nitrogen.
#4 “Clean Coal” is a “lie”.
When coal burns, oxygen from the air combines with the carbon in the coal in an exothermic reaction. Because of the addition of O2, the waste CO2 weighs more than the C alone. Each lb of coal produces about 2.5lbs of CO2. Keeping CO2 out of the atmosphere requires a process known as Carbon capture and sequestration. They force the exhaust from a power plant through a liquid solvent that absorbs the CO2. Later, the solvent is heated to free the CO2. The CO2 is then compressed well beyond normal atmospheric pressure and sent away for storing.
“Clean Coal” is basically “bottling the CO2 and storing it deep in the Earth”.
THAT’S F’ING STUPID.
It takes MORE ENERGY than using “regular coal” and requires GOD KNOWS HOW MUCH energy to transport it – with gas powered vehicles mind you.
Tell those Greeener liberals that any time they wanna have a real debate on energy, on LIVE TV, I’m READY.
Especially Rachel Maddow…
Interesting rant, BTR
#1: True.
#2: Partially true. However, above a certain value it becomes a MAJOR pollutant.
#3: Off topic, since the gas under discussion is CO, NOT CO2.
#4: True. The exhaust from burning coal has to be severely treated in many different ways to eliminate the harmful pollutants. That’s why coal needs to be shut down as a primary energy source. But until renewables and other technologies can replace it, there’s little that can be done–for now.
Carbon capture and sequestration is how the earth has handled methane in the permafrost. Global warming is slowly releasing that methane (carbon) into the atmosphere. C02 is not the only problem. BTW, Rachel Maddow would take your lunch and eat it in front of you. I think Hidden Account Name was being sarcastic. At least I hope so. The problem with coal and Natural gas is the amount of water it it takes to get it out of the ground. There are alternative fuels, some don’t fit in the automobile culture, but there is no alternative water.
I would destroy Maddow because she ISN’T a scientist and all she can do is read talking points from cards. I can anticipate her every reply and SHUT HER DOWN on live TV.
I’d challenge her but GLAD would stop it from happening once they figured out who I was.
Who are you, again?
Bigtruck, your like that embarrassing uncle that the family just agrees with to not ruin holidays. Entertaining stuff. But, man you need to read a non-fiction book and stop drinking the a.m. radio kool-aid.
Yes! And he loses me every time he mentions ‘Hemi’ which Chrysler/Dodge hasn’t built in years and their last one was probably Mitsu sourced.
The faux C/D Hemi of today is a copyrighted marketing tool, it has nothing do with an actually hemi cumbustion chamber in a C/D product, but it sure sells product to the neanderthals.
pure oxygen will not freeze your lungs but free radicals will do a ton of damage if exposure is long enough.
The odds are unlikely unless you own a GM and the ignition fails and you crash without airbag protection and end up on a ventialor in ICU and for some odd reason they give you 100% O2.
Divers maybe………
It’s not “pure oxygen”
But don’t take my word for it…
http://www.howstuffworks.com/question493.htm
“Have you heard of clean coal?”
Says Phoebe Snow
about to go
upon a trip to Buffalo
“My gown stays white
from morn till night
Upon the Road of Anthracite.”
@bigtruckseriesreview – I’ll take your word for it when you have more medical education than I do.
Have you heard of Cold Fusion? An intelligent Republican? A Fiat that didn’t rust?
Yes, yes and yes, in that order. But each one was conditional.
– a midsized Ford in Alaska
– Elizabeth Warren
– 500 encased in giant Tupperware, in an oil bath
Yes, Yes, and define Fiat. Does a new Dodge count ;-)
Have you heard of Cold Fusion? – Yes, in the context that no one has figured it out.
An intelligent Republican? – Abe Lincoln
A Fiat that didn’t rust? – No, but that goes for all steel cars. 21st century Fiats are no more rust-prone than other makes, and old Fiats were no worse than Toyota Corollas and Chevy Vegas.
Do I get a prize?
I’ve yet to hear of an intelligent politician.
COLD FUSION in my opinion – until science proves otherwise – is a pipe dream.
You wanna see FUSION?
Look up at the SUN.
Natural Fusion – where the MASS of the SUN creates enough gravitational pull to crush Hydrogen atoms into HELIUM, and HELIUM into larger elements such as Be.
The reason we can’t create Fusion using less energy than we get out of it is because:
#1 That would violate the laws of thermodynamics and
#2 There isn’t enough “mass” on Earth to create the conditions needed for fusion.
Using Lasers to fuse atoms in a gas requires more energy than it puts out.
SORRY.
Until science proves me wrong, that’s my Opinion.
And It ain’t humble.
It’s also correct as far as I’m concerned. You’d do us better than most politicians.
“Gas in every tank and a Chrysler product in all garages.” We could do worse.
HEMIs for me.
EV for you.
@BTR
Boy, you are a chameleon.
Yesterday it was a Pentastar, today a Hemi?
Big AL…
I specifically said I’d skip the 5.7-L and that the Pentastar would fit all my needs in an AWD Charger.
The larger vehicles such as the Durango – I’d probably stick with the 5.7-L AWD.
There is absolutely no practical or logical reason to have the 6.4-L unless you are shipping things in a RAM truck.
“The reason we can’t create Fusion using less energy than we get out of it is because:
#1 That would violate the laws of thermodynamics and
#2 There isn’t enough “mass” on Earth to create the conditions needed for fusion.”
#1 – Wrong, it won’t. If it did, the sun (or a thermonuclear bomb) wouldn’t work. Fusion reactions are exothermic because they liberate energy stored in the nucleus of atoms. There is no violation of the second law because the energy required for ignition happens to be high. It’s no different than using the spark plug to ignite the fuel-air mixture in your beloved hemi.
#2 – Again, see the thermo-nuclear bomb. A conventional fission bomb (which liberates energy stored in the nuclear bonds and mass) provides the necessary ultra-high temperature for ignition. A star simply has enough mass to allow gravity to provide the pressure (and resultant temperature) needed for ignition. There’s more than one way to reach the temperature of ignition. In fact, we’re already doing it using lasers.
Were you sleeping in high school chemistry class (where I learned this stuff)?
A controlled, sustained fusion reaction is really nothing but an engineering question. Conceptually, it’s simple: use a laser to ignite the fusion reaction and then add more deuterium or tritium to keep the reaction going. The laser just has to be just about as big as we can make, and the containment vessel has to withstand temperatures typically found at the center of the sun. Hey, that’s just a few million more degrees than found inside your hemi. That should be easy, right?
Bunkie
If a fusion reaction requires more energy than it produces, then it’s a WASTE.
The sun is an uncontrolled fusion reaction.
If you are so quick to claim I’m wrong…
BUILD ONE.
I’ll come over and film it for my Youtube.
“If a fusion reaction requires more energy than it produces, then it’s a WASTE.”
I agree, but that’s not exactly what you said. I remember some claim about a violation of the second law of thermodynamics. If you’re going to argue science, it’s important to get things like that right lest your credibility suffer.
As for building one, I’m a software guy. But, like all good software guys I do my best to understand the hardware.
” I remember some claim about a violation of the second law of thermodynamics”
I purposefully leave my comments open-ended so I can’t be misquoted by your typical internet quote-nazi.
Show me where I said “second”.
Could be a refreshed D40 to take the place of the D22 in markets that sell both the D22 and D40 trucks when the next generation Frontier comes out. Mexico has the D22 as the NP300 alongside the D40 Frontier and some markets sell the D40 as the Navara along with the D22 as the Frontier.
You can tell it’s not for the NA market, because the front looks the same as the Dacia Sandero.
Great News!
Dear TTAC,
Please do not go down the route of using auto-playing video ads. They are popping up lately and are the first sign of a decline into Spamville. And they slow down the speed with which the rest of the page loads, as well.
That is all.
Regards,
Concerned Reader
They’ve got an auto-play video ad? Where? I haven’t seen one yet! (Then again, I use an add-on called Ad Block which is pretty effective for that purpose.)
It’s called “Viewster.”
And this time around it’s a 1:10 video of Harrison Ford getting into his Merc wagon. You see 20 seconds of video, an ad, and then the rest of the video.
Heh. Glad I have Ad Block running then. I got sick of those a long time ago.
Oh, and disabling Flash helps too. Look for an add-on called “Click to Flash”. It helps to stop a number of the flash-based ads.
Corey,
Can you tell me the date/time/location and ISP you are using? You can email me, derek at ttac dot com.
Also, if you can screencap it next time and send it along, that would be a big help.
Certainly, will do.
Sent.
Any site that uses auto play adds or endless pop-ups, is immediately eliminated on my puter. Its the main reason I don’t access a lot of sites these days. Its a business model that eventually will fail as we all are pretty tired of intrusions in our space and time consuming slow page loads for what usually amounts to dubious content.
Put your ads up in the page margins and let them earn our click.
I at least like the shape of the nose and grill. Not nearly as pretentious as the rest.
At least the front end is ugly. Can’t they make the whole truck ugly???
It’s as if midsize pickup designs are trying too hard to cheat the wind. I say they shouldn’t fight it. MPG is going to be ‘full-size’ regardless.
DiM,
I don’t know of any midsizer with a the cd of a Fiat Ram.
It seems the US are trying to make bricks slipperier.
Ford says the Ranger has the best cd of the midsizers. However, there are versions of the F150 that have about the same cd as the Ranger. I would expect versions of the next F150 to trump the Ranger.
Cd is only half the equation. Drag equals Cd multiplied by frontal area. The F150 has a frontal area like the arse end of an elephant.
Check out the old Volkswagen Kombi (bus). It had quite a low coefficient of drag -Cd – but a very large frontal area.
@BAFO – The midsizers have to reach further as fulsize trucks are making greater progress in improving MPG. It’s starting to get embarrassing for the midsize segment. So their ‘looks’ may have to pay the price.
The Ram must be the worst offender of CD, in the name of style. Midsizers don’t have that luxury anymore.
@DiM
WTF, again?
DiM can you re-write your comment.
Maybe if you use dot form it will be easier for you.
@DiM
Hmmmmm…………..are you incorrect again?
Steel truck, diesel, best in class mpg?
Yeah, you are obviously incorrect;)
Read up also on Fiat Ram’s best in class cd also?
Now, we’ll get some out of context, lateral move in the discussion.
Am I right or wrong?
Maybe you should at least do a quick search every now and then on what you comment on.
http://www.jacksondodge.ca/2014-ram-1500-ecodiesel-mpg/
@BAFO – If it’s less aerodynamic than the Ram and let’s say, all full-size pickups, then you and the Small Pickup Mafia have my sincerest apologies.
Point is, this truck is hideous and it must be for aerodynamic reasons. If it’s just hideous for the sake of being hideous, again, my sincerest apologies go out to yourself and the rest of SPaM!
The headlights wrap around the sides like it’s for seeing around corners. Not a good look on cars either.
But if it’s as aerodynamic as it looks, I see it as a desperate attempt to squeeze out every last drop of MPG with the increasing pressure from the gains fullsize trucks are having in fuel economy, while midsize trucks are struggling to make any appreciable gains.
A diesel engine might help midsize trucks improve FE, but fullsize trucks can do as well or better with diesel economy.
First off, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Fine, you don’t like it; yours isn’t the ONLY opinion. Besides, aerodynamic adds to the ‘sporty’ impression that many drivers like. It makes the truck just look fast.
Those headlights wrapping around the sides do serve a functional purpose–it lets other vehicles see YOU from a broader angle. It’s for your own safety, though I’m certain you don’t care about that as you have been very vocal against safety design before.
But yes, it’s primary purpose is aerodynamic, as the typical nose of a pickup truck is little better than trying to push a brick wall against the wind. Try it sometime and tell me how easy it is. Desperate? No. Sensible? Yes. For too long trucks have tried to ignore the laws of aerodynamics and now it’s biting them in the tailgate. And too many of these “common sense” aerodynamic workarounds–like dropping the tailgate–simply do not work. Science, and visible proof, have demonstrated that every one of those “common sense tricks” actually have the opposite effect; lowering fuel economy rather than improving it.
And yes, simply being physically smaller CAN improve highway economy.
http://thecarguys.my/wp-content/uploads/navara.jpg
What I’m hoping for is the 2.8 ISF Cummins to be available in the Navara with the 7 spd auto or the 6spd manual.
I do hope the off road capability of the Navara has been improved, as the D40 or actually all Navara’s have been relatively weak off road performers.
The 720 Nissan pickups and D20/22s with their torsion bar suspension, and D40 (Americanised Nissan pickup) have been lacking in the off road arena compared to the Hilux and other compacts/midsize pickups.
If the next Nissan is built for the global market and not LA, then it should be a good performer.
By the Navara’s launch in Thailand I’m hoping this is a global truck, not a ‘detuned and dumbed down’ US idea of a midsizer.
The looks are not that bad, but the dark brown color is retro 70’s. Next they will bring back burnt orange and pea green.
@Jeff S,
I’m really looking forward to the Navara release on Wednesday.
Hopefully it isn’t like the Colorado here, a new vehicle that a little subpar.
I want Nissan and Toyota to lift the bar a little.
I do know the Ranger, BT50 and Amarok can be bettered.
I’m also hoping for the little Cummins diesel.
If it comes out with the Cummins I bet the Cummins will be around 195hp and 380ftlb, which is normal for that size diesel.
The FE will be the most significant. With the up and coming EuroVI for use it will be important to see what Cummins (if we get it) has in store.
Neither the brown nor the burnt orange would bother me. In fact, being a bit of a fox hound, I’d actually like one in a foxy color–maybe have some graphics or paint work done to enhance the foxy impression. Me? I’m sick of red, black, blue, grey, gray, white and silver. But at least they finally brought blue back; we didn’t even have that available for quite a few years.