Nissan Titan XD road test

Fast Mopar wrote:

kw/00 wrote:
In the article their still saying its a 3/4 ton? I don't get it... I just figured it was a heavy half ton truck because of the payload being where its at....Regardless u wont see one in my driveway...

I looked at one at the Houston Auto Show. The payload sticker showed 1,377 lb, which seemed low for a supposed HD pickup. But, I assume they must have it officially classified as a 3/4 ton, because it is not required to have official EPA fuel economy numbers posted on the sticker like every other 1/2 ton pickup does. I asked the Nissan rep about this, and she had absolutely no clue. She just wanted to talk about how nice the paint was.

I don't recall seeing a manufacturer use the 1/2, 3/4, 1 ton description. That just seems to be a convenient description to use since it is easier to say than 1500/150 etc. I have to agree that most reps and salespeople don't know much about what they are selling. My experience has been that most could be replaced by a mannequin with a recording saying "This truck comes in 8 colors and they are all gorgeous!"

While I would definately prefer a vehicle that handles its payload well I try to stay within the numbers given since I want to believe that the people that made the truck know more about it than I do and have a good reason for the rating. I don't know if anyone has gotten in trouble for having a truck loaded beyond the factory ratings but it sure seems to me that a lawyer could make a big deal out of it if it might have contributed to an injury.

In addition to miles per gallon I would have like to see a rating for dollars per mile factoring in the cost of the recommended fuel and DEF if required. Also not mentioned and maybe it is just my problem but my wife hates the smell of diesel and I have to take a few minutes to was thoroughly after pumping diesel fuel.

proxim2020 wrote:

RinconVTR wrote:

And regarding payload of the XD, I have not yet seen any numbers posted that show it has a 1,750 or better payload cap. Yet that's what they threw in the back and tested with. Am I missing something?

The same thing was done to the RAM and the Toyota. The RAM was overloaded by 500 lbs and the Tundra was overloaded by 600 lbs. You can't get a good comparison when half the field is running overloaded.

I think keeping the payload standardized, even though it was technically over their limits, is the only way to provide the information we are all looking for. Especially people like me, who are not afraid to push those factory limits once in a while.

womps wrote:

They didn't test the Nissan with this group of trucks shown in the link.

They did. They didn't want to include the results from the Nissan with that original article since it was technically outside of the segment of trucks they were testing. They created a separate article showing the results of the Nissan.

RinconVTR wrote:

And regarding payload of the XD, I have not yet seen any numbers posted that show it has a 1,750 or better payload cap. Yet that's what they threw in the back and tested with. Am I missing something?

The same thing was done to the RAM and the Toyota. The RAM was overloaded by 500 lbs and the Tundra was overloaded by 600 lbs. You can't get a good comparison when half the field is running overloaded.

goducks10 wrote:

ROBERTSUNRUS wrote:
:) Hi, for some reason they didn't mention the engine in the Ford. From the horse power and torque numbers, I will say that they used the 5.0 V-8 instead of the Ecoboost. An earlier test comparing the Nissan to a Ford they also used a 5.0 V-8 to make the Nissan look better. I will assume that the Dodge and Toyota had their 5.7 V-8's I saw a Nissan at the car show; It was a nice looking truck, but I'm not impressed with it's performance numbers or payload numbers. This is one heavy truck.

It was the 3.5 EB.
http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2016/01/texas-truck-showdown-2016-max-towing-overview.html

They didn't test the Nissan with this group of trucks shown in the link.

ROBERTSUNRUS wrote:
:) Hi, for some reason they didn't mention the engine in the Ford. From the horse power and torque numbers, I will say that they used the 5.0 V-8 instead of the Ecoboost. An earlier test comparing the Nissan to a Ford they also used a 5.0 V-8 to make the Nissan look better. I will assume that the Dodge and Toyota had their 5.7 V-8's I saw a Nissan at the car show; It was a nice looking truck, but I'm not impressed with it's performance numbers or payload numbers. This is one heavy truck.

It was the 3.5 EB.
http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2016/01/texas-truck-showdown-2016-max-towing-overview.html

:) Hi, for some reason they didn't mention the engine in the Ford. From the horse power and torque numbers, I will say that they used the 5.0 V-8 instead of the Ecoboost. An earlier test comparing the Nissan to a Ford they also used a 5.0 V-8 to make the Nissan look better. I will assume that the Dodge and Toyota had their 5.7 V-8's I saw a Nissan at the car show; It was a nice looking truck, but I'm not impressed with it's performance numbers or payload numbers. This is one heavy truck.

Why aren't the usual Fiat bashers calling this thing a Renault?

Just asking. ;)

The conclusion was one of the more interesting parts of the article. While they state plainly that the truck handled a 10,000 trailer very well they point out that it would have scored second to last in their comparison with other max tow half tons (they did not use the max payload Ford in the test). This calls into question the value of many of these metrics when making a truck buying decision for a tow rig.

Of course the other interesting comment was their use of the term 'schizophrenic' to describe the truck regarding the HD nature of the drive train, brakes, etc. and the relatively low payload and towing numbers. I tend to run within spec so if I drove this truck I would not put more than a 7k trailer behind it. It should certainly handle that well but the small fuel tank would be a hassle.

Good luck,
Stu

Fast Mopar wrote:
I looked at one at the Houston Auto Show. The payload sticker showed 1,377 lb, which seemed low for a supposed HD pickup. But, I assume they must have it officially classified as a 3/4 ton, because it is not required to have official EPA fuel economy numbers posted on the sticker like every other 1/2 ton pickup does. I asked the Nissan rep about this, and she had absolutely no clue. She just wanted to talk about how nice the paint was.

That has to do with GVWR. Vehicles over 8500 don't have EPA fuel economy ratings. Nothing to do with "1/2 ton", etc. My old "3/4 ton" Chevy had a GVWR of only 7200. 20 years ago a "1 ton" F350 had a GVWR of 9000, virtually the same as the Titan XD.