Thaiboxer Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 Does anybody on here have any experience with either the Mitsubishi Triton or Nissan Frontier? Both look like solid trucks with similar pricing/options. I haven't seen any threads on Frontiers. Fire away folks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terdsak_12 Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 The Frontier is a well old model. I'm surprised anyone buys them. I'd go for a Mitsu if I were you, brand new models. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary A Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 I have a 2004 Nissan Frontier And am very pleased with it. Solid and no rattles. It drives well and has a 3.0 liter diesel. It gets an honest 13 kilometers per liter. I have had a thousand kilos on it and it handled it well. I have no knowlege of the Triton other than I think it is VERY ugly. LOL! Does anybody on here have any experience with either the Mitsubishi Triton or Nissan Frontier? Both look like solid trucks with similar pricing/options. I haven't seen any threads on Frontiers.Fire away folks! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plus+ Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 Frontier will be replaced next year, why bother now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thaiboxer Posted December 9, 2005 Author Share Posted December 9, 2005 If Frontier will be replaced next year, won't that make them good buys? As long as parts will still be available which I'm sure they will be, it may be a good deal. The Triton looks funny but it's supposed to be a good truck. Mitsubishi trucks have a good reputation for reliability. I'm interested in a non-turbo model. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thetyim Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 The new Nissan is already available in the UK. Navara I think it is called, and get this 174bhp One of our members has been for a test drive, lets see if he posts here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamdomChances Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 My other pick-up is a Nissan, and to be honest it's not a patch on the Isuzu, nothing wrong with it it's just the Isuzu is better in all respects, then again neither are a patch on my brother-in-laws new vigo. As for the new mitsu, i'm with the others, dont know anything about it except that it's ugly, Oh I think it's actually the most powerful out of all of them. RC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary A Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 Isuzu and Nissan are number one and two here in Loei. That said Toyota MUST have done something right with the Vigo because I am seeing more new Vigos than any other brand. My other pick-up is a Nissan, and to be honest it's not a patch on the Isuzu, nothing wrong with it it's just the Isuzu is better in all respects, then again neither are a patch on my brother-in-laws new vigo. As for the new mitsu, i'm with the others, dont know anything about it except that it's ugly, Oh I think it's actually the most powerful out of all of them.RC <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billd766 Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 I have a 2001 Ford Ranger with nearly 120,000 on the clock. I have just replaced the tyres with another set of Michelins, and apart from a steering problem that required replacement parts about 50,000 km ago it is still going strong. I have looked at the new Triton and the Toyota Vigo and I think that they are both ugly pick ups. There was a bit in yesterdays Nation about the Bangkok car show and a couple of pictures of possibly the new Ford and that looks ###### ugly too. Do all the car manufacturers design computers talk to each other to see which can make the ugliest cars nowadays? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamdomChances Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 I have a 2001 Ford Ranger with nearly 120,000 on the clock.I have just replaced the tyres with another set of Michelins, and apart from a steering problem that required replacement parts about 50,000 km ago it is still going strong. I have looked at the new Triton and the Toyota Vigo and I think that they are both ugly pick ups. There was a bit in yesterdays Nation about the Bangkok car show and a couple of pictures of possibly the new Ford and that looks ###### ugly too. Do all the car manufacturers design computers talk to each other to see which can make the ugliest cars nowadays? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Next time your down have a drive of the Vigo, it's nice...then again I might speak nice to my BiL and bring it up with me next week I did'nt like the looks at first ...they sort of grow on you after a while and I can see the outside when I'm driving it RC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thaiboxer Posted December 10, 2005 Author Share Posted December 10, 2005 The Vigo is based off the Toyota Tacoma, which is common in the US nowadays. Having ridden in a Vigo, I can say it's a nice truck. Plenty of room and comfortable seats. I couldn't say the same about the Mitsubishi Strada. Even the cab in the Vigo was pretty roomy. I'm interested in a four door truck now that my family has grown a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thetyim Posted December 10, 2005 Share Posted December 10, 2005 ThaiBoxer, I do not understand why you want a non turbo model. Can you tell me why ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thaiboxer Posted December 10, 2005 Author Share Posted December 10, 2005 Good question...One of the main reasons I am interested in a non-turbo truck is that they're cheaper and the mileage is a little better. Turbo charged engines operate at much higher temperatures and are more sensitive to the type of oil used; petroleum based oil would simply cook inside a turbo charged engine unless used for a very short time. The turbo does have an advantage in acceleration over the non-turbo however I think that the non-turbo trucks will still have acceptable acceleration for both in town and highway use. I have an old Toyota that weighs a ton and has a little 2 liter engine but it does fine on both the highway and around town. I assume a new truck will be as good or better. Some will argue that the tubro charged version will allow you to pass a long string of vehicles on the highway, which a lot of khamikazi drivers attempt to do, but that kind of passing is dangerous no matter what you're driving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbowman1993 Posted December 10, 2005 Share Posted December 10, 2005 I know the Mitsubishi is powerful, and is a "bold new vision" for the companies pickup design, but the thing is just butt ass ugly. I couldn't never feel manly driving a truck with a rounder butt than me. Peace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary A Posted December 10, 2005 Share Posted December 10, 2005 The main reason I bought my Nissan is because of the NON turbo 3.0 liter diesel and the fact that it LOOKS like a pick up truck. I couldn't get a Vigo without a turbo and besides that both the Vigo and the Isuzu front ends remind me of a Volkswagon Beetle. I am satisfied with the power and the fact that my friend's Toyota 3.0 liter can't keep up with me. LOL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thetyim Posted December 10, 2005 Share Posted December 10, 2005 Good question...One of the main reasons I am interested in a non-turbo truck is that they're cheaper and the mileage is a little better. Turbo charged engines operate at much higher temperatures and are more sensitive to the type of oil used; petroleum based oil would simply cook inside a turbo charged engine unless used for a very short time. I agree with your objections but the advantages of a common rail turbo outway the disadvantages. I actually went from a D4D to a 2L engine for exactly the same reasons as you mention and I regret it now and want to change back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thaiboxer Posted December 10, 2005 Author Share Posted December 10, 2005 Did you find the non-turbo too slow in accelerating? Diesels are well-known for being a bit on the slow side without being either big or having a turbo charger. I recall an old, non-turbo Mercedes my mom had in the US and she sold it because it just couldn't get going quick enough to make a safe transition onto the highway from the on ramps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thaiboxer Posted December 10, 2005 Author Share Posted December 10, 2005 I've heard that the Nissan Frontier with the 3 liter engine is a decent accelerator in the non-turbo version. Not sure about the 2.7 liter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thetyim Posted December 10, 2005 Share Posted December 10, 2005 Did you find the non-turbo too slow in accelerating? Yes after the D4D it seemed slow. Once it gets going it pushes along quite nicely and gives better mpg, but I want my D4D back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now