What does the Xterra have that we don't ?

Blaze One · Post by **Blaze One** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:25 pm

So , I have been contemplating buying a new/used suv or small pick up for some time , the only thing holding me back is that i almost have this one paid off in a year . Point coming up >

But .... I look around at other "manufacturer" websites/ Owner Forums , and I see way more offroading adventures being talked/posted about , when compare to the S10/Blazer/CrewCab sites , So what does a n Xterra have as far as offroad capability goes ,compared to the S-series ? Or even the Tacoma Vs. S-series ? I see the same suspension setup , IFS w/Solid rear axle , besides the regular BL and maybe Supension Lift . there is not much separating the 3 . So why Do i feel that my S-Series Blazer is not as capable ? and why is the over all "impression" i get when browsing that the feeling is mutual ?? am I missing somethin ?

http://www.xterraownersclub.com/forums.html
damn cool pics though

jeff024 · Post by **jeff024** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 3:14 am

details on all 3 I would say some of the ground clearence is gained by there larger tires

Compare all 3 here

chumley · Post by **chumley** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 3:45 am

I was seriously looking at the Xterra when I found my Blazer. 3" bl plus 3"sl and 35's

I just couldn't find one for under 10k. Got the Blazer for less than that already lifted. I was hoping to find an Xterra SC lifted with some goodies for @10k but that just didn't happen

Cool trucks though IMO

jeff024 · Post by **jeff024** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 3:54 am

Im a bit fond of this 1

2006 NISMO Frontier Crew Cab

chumley · Post by **chumley** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 6:15 am

Thats not a bad looking truck! I guess it comes with the 260 or 270- something HP V-6 also?

jeff024 · Post by **jeff024** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 6:36 am

yes it has the same 265hp motor
same motor in the 350Z just geared diffrent for the trucks I guess

Post by **HenryJ** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 6:58 am

For a SUV the Xterra would be the top of my list. Front and rear locking diffs, hill holder mode, clutch break hill holder, long arm kit available, utilitarian interior.
There quite a few things it has going for it, and I really haven't looked into it.

I still have a hard time with buying a renamed Datsun though.

Post by **Walt** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 10:42 am

jeff024 wrote:Im a bit fond of this 1

2006 NISMO Frontier Crew Cab

Just by looking at those pics, I wonder if the front tires would hit the top of the fenders in extreme articulation situations.... doesn't look like much room.

Pauleo · Post by **Pauleo** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 4:10 pm

I hate to say it, but my next vehicle is going to be a Nissan. I REALLY like them! I am leaning towards the Xterra. I don't think I really need a pickup anymore since I have a decent trailer now. Trouble is, I really like the full size Titan too for the towing capacity. But then again, I like that Nismo Frontier as well!!!

Oh well. I have decided to keep my s-10 for 2 or 3 more years and by then, I'm SURE I'll have changed my mind again!!! lol

quickbiker · Post by **quickbiker** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 7:19 pm

quickbiker · Post by **quickbiker** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 7:20 pm

Oh, that's just for the Titan, I've always thought the Xterra's looks kewl, although the new Xterra's are also

BobbleSmitty · Post by **BobbleSmitty** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 9:07 pm

The 4x4 supercharged Frontier eats up just about the same amount of gas as the 5.6L V8 in the 4x4 Titan. In my opinion, I'd go full size if the fuel economy was nearly the same. My neighbor had the Frontier before he traded it in and got the Titan. He had no problems or complaints about either of them just that the fuel economy sucked on the Frontier for it's size. But I think that they're both nice trucks, no complaints here other than they're Nissans! I liked the crewcab Frontier's stock built in Sub-woofer behind the back seat, gave me the idea to build the one I have in mine! If I remember correctly, the leg room in the crewcab Frontier's back seats were kinda cramped though. I am 6' tall and probably wouldn't want to sit back there for a half hour. On my 7 hour drive down to TN, my buddy who is 6'3" sat in the back of the S10 with no problem. The Titan has plenty of room though, and it's a fairly decent ride for a truck it's size.

BobbleSmitty · Post by **BobbleSmitty** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 9:09 pm

What do you think about the new Mitsubishi Raider??

I like the looks of it alot, haven't really looked into what it has to offer though.

04crewvt · Post by **04crewvt** » Sun Dec 11, 2005 4:10 am

Based solely on looks that"s one nice truck

jeff024 · Post by **jeff024** » Sun Dec 11, 2005 4:54 am

04crewvt wrote:Based solely on looks that"s one nice truck

its just a Dodge Dakota with a new nose

kermit · Post by **kermit** » Sun Dec 11, 2005 11:10 am

jeff024 wrote:
04crewvt wrote:Based solely on looks that"s one nice truck
its just a Dodge Dakota with a new nose

that means it has an available V8

F9K9 · Post by **F9K9** » Sun Dec 11, 2005 11:21 am

kermit wrote:..............that means it has an available V8

And from the same folks that brought us the Japanese "Zero" that hit Pearl just a few days over 64 years ago

04crewvt · Post by **04crewvt** » Sun Dec 11, 2005 11:21 am

2006 Raider Double Cab DuroCross V8 4WD
MSRP* $ 31,883

Comes with: a 4.7-liter V8 with 290 lb-ft of torque, a five-speed automatic transmission with heavy duty transmission cooler, part-time four-wheel drive transfer case, air conditioning, power windows/locks/mirrors, auto-dimming rear view mirror, Mitsubishi CD audio system with four speakers, Bluetooth® hands-free phone interface, six-way power adjustable driver's seat, 60/40 split rear seating with fold-up cushions, six-passenger seating, cruise control, heavy duty power-steering cooler, rear privacy glass, fender flares, mudguards, tubular side steps, fog lights, 16-inch machine-finished alloy wheels with LT265/70 BF Goodrich all-terrain tires, DuroCross-tuned heavy-duty shocks, skid plates (front suspension/fuel tank/tow hooks), four-wheel anti-lock brakes, full-sized spare wheel/tire, cargo bed liner, heavy-duty towing package, advanced front air bags†, 750-amp battery, chrome exhaust tip, silver front bumper fascia, heavy-duty towing package (Class IV trailer hitch and receiver with 7-pin wiring harness with 4-pin adapter, limited-slip differential, 3.92 rear axle ratio) and more.

$31,883 OUCH !!!!
I would go full size before I spent that kind of cash for a mid-size truck

Post by **HenryJ** » Sun Dec 11, 2005 11:35 am

f9k9 wrote:... the Japanese "Zero" ...

Didn't Howard Hughes design that plywood airplane, and the US government reject it?

F9K9 · Post by **F9K9** » Sun Dec 11, 2005 11:48 am

HenryJ wrote:
f9k9 wrote:... the Japanese "Zero" ...
Didn't Howard Hughes design that plywood airplane, and the US government reject it?

The "Spruce Goose"? Yes, he designed it.

Post by **HenryJ** » Sun Dec 11, 2005 12:17 pm

The Spruce Goose was wood also. I am referring to the Zero.
I thought that was Howard's design as well. Didn't he race it, offer it to the US government, and eventually the Japanese ended up with it? The US rejected saying no one would fight a war in a wooden airplane any more.

Time for a little research....

Hughes submitted a pursuit plane version of his design to the Army Air Corps and felt confident that after his demonstration of his trans-continental flight the army would be interested because this airplane was definitely faster than any military aircraft anywhere in the world - pursuit plane, bomber, or anything else. . . However the Army Air Corps did not accept this design. Right here I don't know exactly what reason to give. I don't want to indict the Army Air Corps for passing up the airplane so a little thought should be given to this. I have my own ideas as to why they didn't accept it but after all I'm doing a lot of business now with the Air Force and let's not generate any ill-will here.

Now regarding the Japanese Zero . . . The Japanese Zero was a shock of the utmost magnitude to the United States because it had been thought up to that time that the Japanese were far inferior mechanically, I should say in point of aircraft design and mechanical aptitude, to the United States and nobody expected the Japanese to have an airplane that would be at all competitive. Well, in any event, when one of these Japanese Zeros was finally captured and studied and analyzed it was quite apparent to everyone that it had been copied from the Hughes plane which has been discussed earlier here. That is the only relationship between the Japanese Zero and the Hughes H-I design. I had no dealings with the Japanese or any other foreign government for the plane and to the best of everyone's knowledge the Japanese had no other access to it except through whatever espionage they may have had or through seeing photographs of it which naturally were published all over the world.

Bill Utley: (attending the meeting as the Hughes company publicist, recounts how before the war a delegation of Japanese air force generals had seen the H-1 in a hangar in New Jersey) "They were late for a banquet in New York where they were being toasted and they saw your airplane and I have been told by Al Ludwick I think, that they couldn't drag them away from it, that they climbed all over it, that they examined it from head to toe, and that was the start of their interest in your airplane"

Hughes: Oh, really?

Utley: Yeah.

Hughes: Well, I don't think we better bring that in because there might be some question as to why the hell they were let in the hangar.

Utley: They had been invited here by the United States Government

Hughes: I know, but you can't explain all those things without going into too much detail

. . . There were photographs all over the place and I don't think the Japanese would have to see it to copy it - they could copy it from the pictures.

Ok, so maybe it was just a copy

Had the US accepted the design, perhaps the design secret would have been a little closer guarded.

F9K9 · Post by **F9K9** » Sun Dec 11, 2005 2:10 pm

I have never heard of any link between Hughes and the Zero but, that is not to say that there wasn't one.

To the best of my knowledge the Zero did not have many wood components. One would think that if the the Zero's design had been turned down by the US that they would have kept a copy of it and would not have taken so long to get the Corsair, Thunderbolt and the Lightning into the fracas. I could be wrong, it has been many years since I was an enthusiast.

GNandGS · Post by **GNandGS** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 8:23 pm

jeff024 wrote:details on all 3 I would say some of the ground clearence is gained by there larger tires

Compare all 3 here

Apples and oranges?

Look at the torque ratings and at what RPM. Just doesnt seem right to concern myself with HP in a 4x4 or to have something that cant pull itself without gearing.

adrenalnjunky · Post by **adrenalnjunky** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:34 pm

Short story - Mitsubishi's job in that day was to build airplanes - and to that point in time, the US was lacking in a good Zero killer.

It was a great flying aircraft that excelled in 1 on 1 dogfights. For the first full year of WW2, we didn't have much to throw at it other than tactics that went against the Japanese thinking. Our planes were slower and less maneuverable - so we designed group fighting tactics that could dispel the Japanese's intention that we would be fighting in singular dogfight. They were still better planes, simply through design and purpose.

Eventually planes like the P-38 Lightning, F4U Corsair, and the P-51 Mustang were brought out, and were very successful against the Zero. We were so successful that the front line versions of the plane (A6M3 by that point) were used for air support and superiority, while it was the older models of the Zero (A6M1 and A6M2) were used in the Kamakaze runs.

How they were used has little to do with Mitsubishi's design. Honestly if it were the intention of the manufacturer to build a plane to be flown into a ship- then better, more-effective designs could have been created. It was a last ditch tactic that proved eventually futile.

Very few museum-piece Zero's of any version exist today - Allied forces wiped the map of them that well. Even less are flyable - and it's hard to even confirm that, but I believe there might be 3 total that are still flying.

But I'll quit hijacking the thread, and state that I work across the street from the local Mitsu dealer, and the Raider looks much better in pictures than in person - the nose of the truck seems overly bulbous and long - like an anteater or something.