Titan Doomed?

[ARTSBEST]

Reported: Chrysler and Nissan Considering Vehicle Tie-up By: Mike Levine Posted: 12-14-07 08:10 PT
© 2007 PickupTruck.com
Page: [1]
Update #2: 12-17-07 08:30 PT
Asked to comment about the Newsweek story, Nissan spokesperson John Schilling tells PickupTruck.com, "We have no plans to do anything of this nature."
Update #1: 12-15-07 21:24 PT
Newsweek is reporting that Nissan's CEO, Carlos Ghosn, recently hinted at killing the Titan because of slowing sales.
From the Newsweek story:
"Ghosn stresses Nissan's recent success with small cars, and hints he may kill the slow-selling Titan pickup (though Nissan officials say there are no such plans yet). "The name of the game is going to be more fuel-efficient cars," he says. "And when you make your product plans for the future, you can't say, 'I've always had a pickup truck, so I'll just keep improving it.' If you can't make it profitably, you have to get out.""
End Newsweek excerpt.
Connecting Ghosn's statements, above, with recent news, below, about an alliance with Chrysler, and it looks like the odds may have increased for the next Titan to be tied in some manner to the new Dodge Ram.
60,961 Titans have sold year-to-date, through November. That number may not be economically worth a dedicated production line at Canton, Mississippi, where the Titan is built (along with the Armada and Infiniti QX56 full size SUVs), but it's still large enough to consider keeping the truck alive if economies of scale can be leveraged elsewhere to reduce development and manufacturing costs. Cerberus Chrysler is sure to want to squeeze every unit of production it can out of its truck plants, by all avenues possible, to recoup its costs and build profits.
Now, if we carry this line of speculation out further, the real loser here could be Navistar - Nissan's long rumored partner for a diesel V8 for the Titan.
Navistar's current feud with Ford likely means we'll never see another Navistar produced Power Stroke engine again after the current 6.4-liter V8. Nissan could have picked up some of the slack from the end of that relationship. But if Nissan were to tie-up with Chrysler, it's likely that many, if not all, of the same engines used in the Ram would also power the Titan. That means a future Titan could receive a Cummins-sourced diesel motor, like the upcoming light duty Cummins V8 diesel expected for the Ram.
Whether the Titan is killed by Mr. Ghosn or there's an agreement between Chrysler and Nissan, it sounds like bad news for Navistar diesel fans.

Bloomberg and the Detroit Free Press are reporting that Chrysler LLC and Nissan Motor Company are in discussions to share each other's expertise building small cars and sedans (Nissan's specialty) and pickup trucks (Chrysler's specialty). An agreement between the two auto manufacturers could lead to the exchanging of vehicles and engines with each other.
For over a year it's been reported that Nissan's CEO Carlos Ghosn has been interested in a tie-up with a U.S. vehicle manufacturer, to split supplier and production costs. Last year Mr. Ghosn held resource sharing discussions with General Motors that didn't pan out.
Nissan introduced the Titan in 2004. It's the only U.S. full size truck with fewer than 100,000 sales a year. Titan sales are about about one-third the volume of its next-biggest rival, Toyota's Tundra.
The Dodge Ram is ranked third in sales, behind Ford's F-Series and GM's Chevrolet Silverado. An all new 2009 Dodge Ram will debut next month at the North American International Auto Show and is expected to go on sale in late 2008.
By the end of 2008, the Nissan Titan will be the oldest full size truck in the segment, with all other models having undergone major revisions or received all new designs. A new Titan is expected for the 2010 model year.
Leveraging production economies of scale, similar to Nissan's agreement with Suzuki to produce the upcoming Equator midsize pickup, leads to speculation that the next Titan could be based on the all new Ram

[EchoHoLiK]

Oh noes, and I actually quite like the Titan (after the Tundra of course ).


The bad news to me will be that, despite this news, Honda won't be axing the horrid of a pickup they called Ridgeline, yet

[nikita]

Sales of the "mini-Avalanche" aka Ridgeline have also fallen off a cliff recently.

[eurohazard]

The Titan's problems was never the "trucks'" problem from the start. Corporate Nissan themselves are to blame for the Titan's failure in sales. The truck itself is great.....in fact essentially a segment leader until the New Tundra and GM twins came out. The 5.6 V8 blew the doors off of all comers when equipped the same way (Hemi Dodge, Ford 5.4, GM 5.3, and matches their 6.0, and old/new Tundra 4.7). The "problem" is what Nissan doesn't offer potential buyers:
- regular cabs
- V6
- depowered small V8
- manual transmission
- long bed (until late 2008 models arrived)
- Lack of NISMO products like how Toyota uses TRD.

Besides when was Nissan a real powerhouse when it came time to tally up sales? They have almost always been the 3rd ranking Japanese company, then there's the big 2.5......I don't remember a Nissan leading any one segment in sales. Did the brass at Nissan really expect the Titan to sell so well without my listed items?

[mhadden]

Originally Posted by nikita

Sales of the "mini-Avalanche" aka Ridgeline have also fallen off a cliff recently.

I think a lot of this has to do with the fact the thing doesn't get much if any better gas mileage than similarly or bigger sized trucks with that smaller, dinky motor. I always thought of the Ridgeline being a fad thing...some of the features are cool, but other than that, it's a "truck" for those who live in the city, would would like a "truck" to haul furniture and other large items that can't be had in a smaller car/wagon.

[dtacow]

I'm not a big fan of Nissan (can't get past the way their trucks look), but at least they've stuck to their guns and still offer Americans fully boxed frames and steel beds, something Toyota does not (excepting the Tundra's steel bed).

[mhadden]

Originally Posted by dtacow

I'm not a big fan of Nissan (can't get past the way their trucks look), but at least they've stuck to their guns and still offer Americans fully boxed frames and steel beds, something Toyota does not (excepting the Tundra's steel bed).

Who's to say a fully boxed frame is better than a C-channel? Hell, even Ford doesn't use boxed frames (they use C-Channel) on their 3/4ton+ models. Only the 150 has a boxed frame. Boxed frames are good on the road and not hauling heavy loads and that's about it. A frame that can't flex will cause stress fractures.

[EchoHoLiK]

Originally Posted by mhadden

Who's to say a fully boxed frame is better than a C-channel? Hell, even Ford doesn't use boxed frames (they use C-Channel) on their 3/4ton+ models. Only the 150 has a boxed frame. Boxed frames are good on the road and not hauling heavy loads and that's about it. A frame that can't flex will cause stress fractures.

Well the domestic guys will argue that Ford doesn't use "tinfoil" gauge metal for the C-Channel.

I still don't see what the big fuss is about, but I suspect the next Tundra will have FBF simply because that's what the consumers want/demand

[dtacow]

Originally Posted by mhadden

Who's to say a fully boxed frame is better than a C-channel? Hell, even Ford doesn't use boxed frames (they use C-Channel) on their 3/4ton+ models. Only the 150 has a boxed frame. Boxed frames are good on the road and not hauling heavy loads and that's about it. A frame that can't flex will cause stress fractures.

You can't have a great truck if you don't start with a good design. A good design means a stiff frame, usually achieved by boxing it. Actually a boxed frame is very good for offroad as well. Stress fractures? Tell me, why is the Hilux different from the Tacoma / Tundra in frame design? It's because people around the world will beat the piss out of their trucks and Toyota knows the boxed frame is best for this situation. Toyota feels Americans don't/won't subject their trucks to the same abuse so they can get away with the frames they are using now. You just don't like what I'm saying because your forking out hefty dough on your Tundra every month.

[mhadden]

Originally Posted by dtacow

You can't have a great truck if you don't start with a good design. A good design means a stiff frame, usually achieved by boxing it. Actually a boxed frame is very good for offroad as well. Stress fractures? Tell me, why is the Hilux different from the Tacoma / Tundra in frame design? It's because people around the world will beat the piss out of their trucks and Toyota knows the boxed frame is best for this situation. Toyota feels Americans don't/won't subject their trucks to the same abuse so they can get away with the frames they are using now.

You are not comparing apples to apples on the frames. A Hilux is the same size as the Tacoma, but the Tundra is full size. I will agree that I am disappointed to see that the Taco doesn't have a fully boxed frame, which would give it some more strength in offroad conditions (which is seems that the Hilux does day in and day out for a lot of people). But yes, Toyota does use the TT frame to provide a blend of on-road manners with off-road strength, because it seems like people want a truck to act like more of a car and less utilitarian. Why not get the best of both worlds, though? You still haven't answered my overall question; who's to say one frame is better than the other? In the instance of towing, a C-channel is better. In the case of off-road rigidity, boxed frame is better (so it won't be dogwalking down the road in a couple years)

You just don't like what I'm saying because your forking out hefty dough on your Tundra every month.

WTF does this have to do with this conversation I was very happy with my Tacoma and it's TripleTech frame and I'm just as happy with this truck.

[dtacow]

Originally Posted by mhadden

You still haven't answered my overall question; who's to say one frame is better than the other? In the instance of towing, a C-channel is better. In the case of off-road rigidity, boxed frame is better (so it won't be dogwalking down the road in a couple years)

To me this says a lot: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWjTbiYo3x0

Any towing advantage is due to power/weight. C-channel frames will be lighter---> towing advantage (and mpg) ----> Truck looks good on paper.

Originally Posted by mhadden

WTF does this have to do with this conversation I was very happy with my Tacoma and it's TripleTech frame and I'm just as happy with this truck.

Of course you will not be completely objective-- you have invested in a Tundra. That's what it has to do with the conversation. You and I can agree to disagree. If you are happy with your truck, that's great.

[mhadden]

Haha, that Ford propaganda is a joke...what jackass would take their truck at 38mph on a badly washboarded road like that? Not me... and I bet after that, the Ford rattles like marbles in a tin can. But we digress.

You're right about saying I won't be complete objective since I bought a Toyota...I heart my Toyota's. My parents and I have owned our share of the Big 3, both cars and trucks. My parents say they love my truck over what they've had in the past. I bought it because it is "the best 1/2 ton" on the market. But as you said, we will have to agree to disagree, because both of us aren't going to convince each other

[dtacow]

First, the video says that the speed is 28 mph. I'll take them at their word. Second, you've just bought in to Toyota's theory that Americans won't/don't take their trucks "to the limits" of what a truck should be able to do. How else are you going to test a truck-- on road? BORING, you'll never see a products limits if you don't push the envelope. When you do, different products will separate themselves from others. I've learned not to develop blind loyalties to companies and their products.

[mhadden]

Originally Posted by dtacow

First, the video says that the speed is 28 mph. I'll take them at their word. Second, you've just bought in to Toyota's theory that Americans won't/don't take their trucks "to the limits" of what a truck should be able to do. How else are you going to test a truck-- on road? BORING, you'll never see a products limits if you don't push the envelope. When you do, different products will separate themselves from others. I've learned not to develop blind loyalties to companies and their products.

But why would I want to push the limits in a $38,000 truck. I was more willing to do this with the Tacoma, but even then, I work to hard for my shit just to destroy it. It'll be a different case when the truck is 10 or 15 years old, has served its purpose on-road and I want to use and abuse it offroad...Even then, I wouldn't take this truck anywhere but the Dunes, the wheelbase is too long and great breakover weren't designed into this truck.

[TOYOtacoma07]

i agree with mhadden. i paid over 26g's for my truck. i use it for what is for, hauling, off road, work, and carrying larger items my 4runner cant handle. but that doesnt mean i abuse the truck to its limits.