The 2013 Nissan Titan is the 9th model year for the current truck with very little changes since it was introduced for the 2004 model year. I remember a few years ago there was talk Nissan would be putting their own sheetmetal and engines into Dodge trucks, but that hasn't happened. I can't believe there are still people buying this relic.
I see very few of them, I don't think a lot of people ever bought them.
Always seemed like decent trucks though.
Are they cheaply priced?
Quote from: Catman on November 12, 2012, 05:35:24 PM
Are they cheaply priced?
Not really.
Nissan has announced pricing for its 2013 Titan full-size pickup truck. The 2013 Titan largely carries over from the previous model year, but does offer some styling improvements.
Prices for the 2013 Nissan Titan S will start from $28,820, representing a $ 300 premium over the 2012 model. The price hike for the up-level SV is even more drastic, with the new model commanding $31,250, a $730 increase over last year's model. At $37,040, the PRO-4X model is $970 more expensive than the equivalent 2012 model.
Nissan's Titan SL sees the biggest price jump for the 2013 model year, with the truck's bottom line increasing by a hefty $1,600 to $40,040.
All prices exclude a $995 destination charge.
Although Nissan's 2013 Titan range is significantly more expensive than last year's lineup, you won't be getting much more in terms of content. All Titan models gain a more aerodynamic tailgate and four-spoke steering wheel for 2013, as well as seven new exterior color choices -- Pearl White, Espresso Black, Glacier White, Gun Metallic, Graphite Blue, Java Metallic and Cayenne Red.
Step rails are newly standard for SV and SL models. SL models also gain standard mudguards for the new model year.
The off-road minded PRO-4X model has been updated with revised graphics, satin chrome grille, dark wheel finish and a dark-finish lower radiator skid plate. Inside the PRO-4X gets white stitching accents, a new logo design and an updated radio.
The Titan's lone powertrain ? a 317 horsepower 5.6L V8 backed by a five-speed transmission ? carries over unchanged for the new model year.
An all-new Titan could make an appearance for the 2014 model year.
The 317 hp 5.6L V8 has 11 fewer horsepower than my 3.7L V6 in my Infiniti, and at least 50 hp less than the competitors. Nissan should be embarrassed by this.
I seem to remember the Titan being a beast back when it came out?
Quote from: SVT666 on November 12, 2012, 05:49:59 PM
The 317 hp 5.6L V8 has 11 fewer horsepower than my 3.7L V6 in my Infiniti, and at least 50 hp less than the competitors. Nissan should be embarrassed by this.
As a guy who hauled around a 90,000 lb forklift for a while with a 350 HP Mack- I have to say at this point; who really cares?
Quote from: Soup DeVille on November 12, 2012, 06:17:43 PM
As a guy who hauled around a 90,000 lb forklift for a while with a 350 HP Mack- I have to say at this point; who really cares?
I used to haul around 4000 lbs in the bed of my parents' F-350 with 230 hp, but the Titan's engine is severely outclassed by the competition.
Nissan should have put the VQ40 as the base engine and upgraded the VK56DE to the newer and more powerful VK56VD from the QX56. That or leave the current 56DE as the base motor and offer the 56VD as an upgrade.
I don't see many of these around, but I've always thought it was a handsome truck. Same with the Frontier. Ironically, I always thought of both of these trucks as having a "modern" look compared to the American pickups, which to me always appeared rednecky and pandering to overcompensating males.
The Japanese pickups have always seemed far more attractive to me, especially the Nissans. But no need for that old V8.
I'd look into one if I needed a big truck. Only because all the other trucks are so ugly that they burn my eyes. And I'd never buy a dodge so what can I pick from?
I've always liked Titans.
Even now they don't look dated like some others do.
The engine has plenty of balls, but I'm not convinced about the rear end or the brakes. Used to do warranty brake repairs constantly on those, as well as replace the Dana axles because they'd grenade if you didn't have a sense of mechanical sympathy.
Compared to the competition, the engine doesn't have balls.
Quote from: SVT666 on November 15, 2012, 10:08:42 PM
Compared to the competition, the engine doesn't have balls.
IIRC, the Titan was the quickest half-ton on the road when it came out (despite not being the most powerful even then). I'll wager it still has more getup and go than any competitor's V6 or the base V8s from Toyota (the 4.6), Dodge (the 4.7), or Chevy (the 4.8 and likely the 5.3 as well).
We had 4 adults and a trailer with two jetskis all being moved by a Titan and it certainly didn't seem to have a problem.
Quote from: MX793 on November 16, 2012, 06:06:59 AM
IIRC, the Titan was the quickest half-ton on the road when it came out (despite not being the most powerful even then). I'll wager it still has more getup and go than any competitor's V6 or the base V8s from Toyota (the 4.6), Dodge (the 4.7), or Chevy (the 4.8 and likely the 5.3 as well).
Titan has very short gearing. If the engine is down 50 to 100 hp from the competition then it doesn't have balls. It's all about the gearing in that case.
Quote from: SVT666 on November 16, 2012, 09:22:15 AM
Titan has very short gearing. If the engine is down 50 to 100 hp from the competition then it doesn't have balls. It's all about the gearing in that case.
It's only a 5 speed, gearing can't be too short. And it's not down 50-100 hp from competitors' mid-level or entry level engines, some of which cost just as much as the Titan.
Titan makes plenty of low-end torque (more than Ford's 5.0L and ~800 RPM sooner), which is what you really want for getting going from a stop when hauling heavy cargo. The Titan's biggest failing is that it doesn't breath at higher RPM. It basically hits peak torque early, and then starts to sign off pretty quickly after that while the competitors keep pulling. But who really cares how much pull their truck has at 5500+ RPM? Down in the sub 4000 RPM range, where most drivers spend the vast majority of their time, the Titan isn't far off the mark from the competitor's top-shelf V8s. Down at 3500 RPM, it's within 5-10 hp of the 5.7L Toyota or current 5.7L Hemi.
Not saying it isn't heavily out-gunned, but most drivers, driving normally, are likely not going to notice as much of a difference in the way the truck pulls compared to the competitors as the spec sheets would imply.
Hasn't been touched in 10 years yet it's no slouch compared to the competitions' biggest motors:
Titan (http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/nissan-titan-56se-crew-cab-road-test):
0-60: 6.9 sec
1/4 mile: 15.4 sec @ 91 mph
Tundra 5.7 (http://media.caranddriver.com/files/2007-toyota-tundra-4x4-double-cab-sr5-57l-v-82007-toyota-tundra-4x4-double-cab-sr5-57l-v-8-initial-test-sheet.pdf):
0-60: 6.2 sec
1/4 mile: 14.9 sec @ 94 mph
F150 Ecoboost (http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2011-ford-f-150-fx4-supercrew-4x4-ecoboost-v6-road-test-review):
0-60: 6.1 sec
1/4 mile: 15.0 sec @ 94 mph
Silverado 6.2L (http://www.edmunds.com/chevrolet/silverado-1500/2009/road-test-specs.html):
0-60: 6.6 sec
1/4 mile: 14.9 sec @ 94 mph
Ram 5.7L (http://media.caranddriver.com/files/2009-dodge-ram-1500-slt-crew-cab-4x42009-dodge-ram-1500-slt-crew-cab-4x4-long-term-road-test.pdf):
0-60: 6.7 sec
1/4 mile: 15.2 sec @ 92 mph
The bigger difference is fuel efficiency, as I recall. That's where the modern engines have made bigger strides.
Quote from: GoCougs on November 16, 2012, 01:49:43 PM
Hasn't been touched in 10 years yet it's no slouch compared to the competitions' biggest motors:
Titan (http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/nissan-titan-56se-crew-cab-road-test):
0-60: 6.9 sec
1/4 mile: 15.4 sec @ 91 mph
Tundra 5.7 (http://media.caranddriver.com/files/2007-toyota-tundra-4x4-double-cab-sr5-57l-v-82007-toyota-tundra-4x4-double-cab-sr5-57l-v-8-initial-test-sheet.pdf):
0-60: 6.2 sec
1/4 mile: 14.9 sec @ 94 mph
F150 Ecoboost (http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2011-ford-f-150-fx4-supercrew-4x4-ecoboost-v6-road-test-review):
0-60: 6.1 sec
1/4 mile: 15.0 sec @ 94 mph
Silverado 6.2L (http://www.edmunds.com/chevrolet/silverado-1500/2009/road-test-specs.html):
0-60: 6.6 sec
1/4 mile: 14.9 sec @ 94 mph
Ram 5.7L (http://media.caranddriver.com/files/2009-dodge-ram-1500-slt-crew-cab-4x42009-dodge-ram-1500-slt-crew-cab-4x4-long-term-road-test.pdf):
0-60: 6.7 sec
1/4 mile: 15.2 sec @ 92 mph
That right there is the core problem: A damned full-size pickup tih a 15second 1/4 mile and a 0-60 time of under 7 seconds: and people are whinign that its too slow?
For crissake's people, ALL of those are faster than a normal everyday use pickup has any business being.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on November 16, 2012, 03:19:16 PM
That right there is the core problem: A damned full-size pickup tih a 15second 1/4 mile and a 0-60 time of under 7 seconds: and people are whinign that its too slow?
For crissake's people, ALL of those are faster than a normal everyday use pickup has any business being.
Couple of them are faster than the SHO was.... !
Quote from: ifcar on November 16, 2012, 02:32:51 PM
The bigger difference is fuel efficiency, as I recall. That's where the modern engines have made bigger strides.
By what I can see, not really. All those engines posted are pretty much the same save for the F150 Ecoboost (and as we know, turbos game the EPA test and generally show lower in real world driving). Also note the Titan is the only one slugging it out with an antiquated 5sp AT (city/highway/combined):
Titan:
13/17/14
Tundra 5.7L:
13/17/14
Silverado 6.2L:
12/18/14
Ram 5.7L:
13/19/15
F150 6.2L:
12/16/13
F150 Ecoboost:
15/21/17
Quote from: Soup DeVille on November 16, 2012, 03:19:16 PM
That right there is the core problem: A damned full-size pickup tih a 15second 1/4 mile and a 0-60 time of under 7 seconds: and people are whinign that its too slow?
For crissake's people, ALL of those are faster than a normal everyday use pickup has any business being.
Problem? That's awesome! Think of those poor people elsewhere in the world saddled with diesel crap boxes that struggle to pull single digit 0-60 times...
Quote from: GoCougs on November 16, 2012, 10:36:05 PM
Problem? That's awesome! Think of those poor people elsewhere in the world saddled with diesel crap boxes that struggle to pull single digit 0-60 times...
Just trying to put some perspective on this "problem."
Quote from: GoCougs on November 16, 2012, 10:36:05 PM
Problem? That's awesome! Think of those poor people elsewhere in the world saddled with diesel crap boxes that struggle to pull single digit 0-60 times...
Which are perfectly fine in urban environments where you won't come close to 60 mph anyway...
I've proven that turbocharged engines can get exceptional fuel economy. My 850 T5 routinely got 30-31 MPG highway, and 22-24 around town. My dad's Sonata does around 26 in the city. Highway is 34-37. The 859 was a 1994, Sonata a 2012.
I don't think anything about those number is exceptional by today's standards...
Quote from: Soup DeVille on November 16, 2012, 03:19:16 PM
That right there is the core problem: A damned full-size pickup tih a 15second 1/4 mile and a 0-60 time of under 7 seconds: and people are whinign that its too slow?
For crissake's people, ALL of those are faster than a normal everyday use pickup has any business being.
x2
Quote from: Rupert on November 17, 2012, 01:49:48 PM
I don't think anything about those number is exceptional by today's standards...
For 1994, 30 MPG out of a car with 220 HP (I had a MBC on mine) and capable of 0-60 in the high 6 to low 7 second range, that's not bad. Consider this...my 850 had as much power as a V8 Mustang and got significantly better mileage. My dad's Sonata has 274 HP and is routinely capable of doing 34-37 MPG on the highway. That's outstanding.
Yeah, my SHO had 220hp but got around 20city, 24highway. (I drove that thing with a lead foot EVERY time though..)
Besides, I'm sure that the titan doesnt sell for near MSRP anyway.
Quote from: ifcar on November 17, 2012, 07:38:30 AM
Which are perfectly fine in urban environments where you won't come close to 60 mph anyway...
The literal crime is their governments forbid them the choice.
Drive all those trucks the same way and they're all going to get about the same MPG. Slight differences to be encountered will be attributed more to gearing, weight, and aerodynamics mostly; e.g., than the engine. Any differences attributed to engines will come with specific technologies such as DI outside of turbo charging (which the EB has and none of the other engines do).
Quote from: Soup DeVille on November 16, 2012, 03:19:16 PM
That right there is the core problem: A damned full-size pickup tih a 15second 1/4 mile and a 0-60 time of under 7 seconds: and people are whinign that its too slow?
For crissake's people, ALL of those are faster than a normal everyday use pickup has any business being.
And it's all paid for with credit for hillbillies who can barely afford the gas.