Nissan-Navara.net banner
1 - 8 of 8 Posts

popsdosh

· Banned
Joined
·
1,468 Posts
Discussion starter · #1 · (Edited)
Heres a practical review of the NAV as conducted by Farmers weekly in a group test . I have copied the text as it is protected access if I linked to it! Needless to say they just about summed up the claimed fuel economy. There were 5 other pick ups on the test and if anybody would like to see their results I will do my best to get them to you.
Heres a summary of the test results and comparisons and please bear in mind the NAV was the only Manual which actually is even more damming of the economy figures as Nissan could or would not supply an Auto http://assets.fwi.co.uk/sites/1/Pickup-comparison-table.pdf

Pickup test: Nissan Navara Tekna
Oliver Mark
Thursday 18 January 2018 6:05
With the ÂŁ3,300 hardtop and garish savannah yellow paint extras removed, the Navara slots in around mid-table when compared with the rest of the candidates.

The engine is strong enough and the spec is good, but it’s hard not to be disappointed with the manual gearbox and cramped-feeling interior.

Price as tested: ÂŁ35,749 (OTR excluding VAT).

Nissen Navara
© Jonathan Page

Read all our other pickup tests
Volkswagen Amarok
Ford Ranger Limited
Mitsubishi L200 Barbarian
Toyota Hilux Invincible X
Isuzu D-Max Blade

The scores (out of 5)
Engine 3.5
Transmission 2.5
Interior 3
Screen and controls 3.5
Ride and comfort 3.5
Total 16
Engine and transmission
The most recent Navara facelift saw a 2.3-litre engine fill the hole of the old 2.5er.

The bigger of the two models (160hp v 190hp) gets an extra turbo and is pokey enough, but dishes out its maximum power at a slightly strained 3,750rpm, so it has to be worked hard to get the best out of it.

The 450Nm of torque puts it middle of the road and comes at just 1,500rpm, which is pretty similar to the bigger blocks of both the Amarok and Ranger and means it pulls hard at low revs.

It will get to 62mph in 10.8secs – about the same as most of its rivals – and claims a stonking combined consumption of 44.8mpg.

However, it flattered to deceive and we only managed a fraction of that on our test route – 31.16mpg – which left it in second place but miles from the rather audacious-looking spec sheet promises.

Nissen Navara engine
© Jonathan Page

On the plus side, its 167g/km carbon emissions make it pretty climate friendly and it also goes about its endeavours relatively quietly, particularly once it has settled at a steady pace.

Although Nissan no longer offers a V6-powered model, that could be about to change.

The company has agreed a deal with Mercedes-Benz that will see the Germans use the Navara platform for its new X-Class pickups and it intends to launch a V6 version – a move that could benefit Nissan buyers in the future.

Unfortunately, our test truck arrived with a six-gear manual transmission, which was a real let-down.

It can’t be compared to the auto boxes of the rest, but the baseball-bat-in-a-barrel-of-coconuts feel caused by the long throw and sloppy gates would be a disappointment to anyone shelling out the thick end of £30k.

The company does offer an auto-shifting seven-cogger, but it wasn’t supplied for the test.

Interior
The exterior dimensions are big, but the bulbous dash area, low ceiling and small windows make the inside feel dingy and too cosy.

It doesn’t help that the front windscreen is heavily raked and the bonnet has Batmobile-style bulges either side that make the views out pretty poor compared with the likes of the D-Max.

Nissen Navara interior
© Jonathan Page

Likes
In-cab controls well laid out
Ride comfort
360deg cameras
Gripes
Long gearstick throw and sloppy gate
Feels unnecessarily cramped
Uncomfortable for back row passengers
Material choices are decent, with leather wrapping around a smallish steering wheel – not helpful when the steering is pretty heavy – as well as the gear knob and handbrake.

There are also a handful of 12v power sockets and a crisp, clear 7in screen that was ranked second only to the Ranger.

Its party piece is the pop-up 360deg view provided by front and rear cameras and super-wide-angle lenses tucked underneath the wing mirrors on either side.

Add to the package keyless start, heated door mirrors, 18in alloys (if that’s your type of thing) and a few USB charging ports and – like the Ranger – the Navara begins to look fairly enticing.

Passengers (particularly those in the back) are less likely to warm to its virtues, though – the rear seats are low and quite cramped, leaving occupiers assuming a tuck position with their knees up around their ears.

Towing and off-road
The as-tested price is far less nasty once the Truckman hardtop with lockable windows – a £3,300 indulgence – is removed.

Of particular interest is the new five-link suspension arrangement with coil springs at the back, which replaced the old-hat leaf set-up still employed by all of the others contenders.

It does a sterling job of ironing out the worst of farm track potholes, particularly at higher speeds, but it sits on a standard ladder chassis, so still suffers from a jittery tail on the road without any weight in the back.

It will also tow 3.5t and has a respectable payload limit, while C-channel tie-down points are as good as it gets for strapping down loads on modern pickups.

Nissen Navara from the back
© Jonathan Page

Notable spec sheet perks include hill descent control – handy for negotiating slippery grass slopes – and hill start assist. It also gets a limited-slip diff if things get really gnarly.

Despite its canal boat reputation, the Navara wasn’t actually the longest pickup – the Ranger took that particular prize – and its 12.4m turning circle wasn’t the worst, either.

Rest of the range
The popular Navara comes with six spec options, starting at the entry level Visia from ÂŁ24,825 (inc VAT) for a six-speed manual version with the smaller 2.3-litre dci with 160hp.

The Acenta+, N-Connecta and Tekna all have the more powerful 190hp 2.3-litre engine and the option to change the manual six-speeder to a seven-speed auto box, while toys such as dual-zone climate control and a rear colour camera are now standard fodder.

Nissan build a flashy top speccer, which has limited appeal for any kind of serious work, but is great for showing off in the showground car park.

The Trek-1deg doesn’t come with a huge number of extra toys and uses the same engine as the Tekna, but some helpful Trek-1deg stickers, bigger 18in alloys and roof-mounted LED lights will constantly remind you of what you paid the best part of £3,000 extra for.

Vital stats
Engine 2.3-litre dci
Power 190hp
Torque 450Nm
Transmission Six-speed manual
Weight 1,998kg
Payload 1,047kg
Towing capacity 3,500kg
Turning circle 12.4m
Read more on: 4x4sMachinery
Related in-depth
Ford Ranger Limited
Pickup test: Ford Ranger Limited

Mitsubishi Barbarian
Pickup test: Mitsubishi L200 Barbarian

VW Amarok pickup
Pickup test: Volkswagen Amarok V6
 
"but it sits on a standard ladder chassis, so still suffers from a jittery tail on the road without any weight in the back."

This has nothing to do with a "ladder chassis". Any monocoque of the same size and weight distribution, would be just as "jittery" and might even need to be heavier to get the same chassis strength.

These reviewers should stick to "look and feel". Or maybe what colour is the best.
 
"but it sits on a standard ladder chassis, so still suffers from a jittery tail on the road without any weight in the back."

This has nothing to do with a "ladder chassis". Any monocoque of the same size and weight distribution, would be just as "jittery" and might even need to be heavier to get the same chassis strength.

These reviewers should stick to "look and feel". Or maybe what colour is the best.
Every reviewer wants to be Clarkson, referencing the batmobile and having your knees around your ears aren't exactly objective.
 
Well here goes another review, stating the Amarok & Ranger as the winners, no surprise there, since that is the conclusion of every review.

However I fail to see how the Navara Np300 can come behind a L200. Looks aside, because it really looks horrible from every angle, it has a lower towing capability, a lower power output, an oldschool 5 speed with paddle shifters, higher fuel consumption and a lower warranty.

So I wonder, is this review based on preference of the reviewers, because if it is, it's useless. Next time, stick to the facts!
 
Discussion starter · #6 ·
Well here goes another review, stating the Amarok & Ranger as the winners, no surprise there, since that is the conclusion of every review.

However I fail to see how the Navara Np300 can come behind a L200. Looks aside, because it really looks horrible from every angle, it has a lower towing capability, a lower power output, an oldschool 5 speed with paddle shifters, higher fuel consumption and a lower warranty.

So I wonder, is this review based on preference of the reviewers, because if it is, it's useless. Next time, stick to the facts!
Actually for what its worth the people carrying out the review are very experienced testers some of whom I know personally. Dont forget they are assessing it for its suitability within the agricultural sector.I would argue its a sector that is pretty important to the pick up market . Lets face it if they were aiming at a more urban market why have 4wd in the first place.
Perhaps the more realistic answer would be that even with its shortcomings the L200 still came out better.
 
I picked up a copy this morning. I’m in the early stages of finding a new pickup for the farm, so this review is useful. Current trucks are D40 kcab & a 11reg Ford Ranger thunder, which does the main farming duties & which is due for replacement.

As always reviews can’t help being subjective, so here is mine. Not having yet driven any of these vehicles.

Amarok V6
The boot is too small to fit a silage bale in the back.
Too thirsty, livestock farmers spend most time tootling around fields, which is thirsty work.
Ground clearance looks poor
No low box.

Ranger 3.2
looks to be a waste of a big engine, when you compare to the output of the Nissan.
Again too thirsty. Only reason to go 3.2 is if you often pull the biggest livestock trailer (easily 4t fully loaded), can the 2.2 handle the same trailer, I don’t know. Most farmers buy the 2.2.
It’s huge. Reaching in to lift a bag out would look to be a big pain.
Manoeuvring through muddy gates, would be a worry, my D40is bad enough. Our Ranger is lovely & compact.
Most Rangers are over 2T so legally limited to 50mph, no one mentions that.
The 3.2 is begging for a remap or chip giving a choice of economy setting or full beans.

L200
Ugly

Tekna
I don’t understand the price quoted, especially compared to the Ford (which, is the other one I’m most interested in) on websites I’ve seen, the Ford is far more expensive, in 2.2 & 3.2 guise
Stupid mistake not supplying an auto gearbox. If it was a mistake.
I don’t like the steering wheel. ?

Hilux
How the mighty have fallen ?. We had a pre-turbo version Years ago. Tough as nails, drove through an electric pole, meh.
Weak engine, move on.

D-max
1.9 are you having a laugh.?
Would have been a contender with a decent engine. Compact shape, ideal.

A few comments on the group test:

It’s a farming truck test. Stick a 12ft trailer on the back, load it up to 3.5T then test them, nearly all livestock farm trucks will have to pull 3.5T (legally or not, loads of D40s are pulling 4T trailers) that is the weight of the most common trailer. Test the ride (uphill & down), the fuel consumption & drive it through some gates, can you get off a lane through a 12 foot gate. Meat and drink on a farm.

Lift a hay bale or a heavy bag in & out over the side of the back, L200 looks easy, Ranger more hernia inducing.

Why were the better models tested, most Farmers couldn’t afford them, if not the price, the running costs of the bigger engined trucks. Basic crew/king cabs would probably be more appropriate, with their improved carrying capacities. If less exciting.

Moan ends.
 
Discussion starter · #8 ·
As stated in the article they tried to compare like with like and the VW does not come in pauper spec. Seriously if you are using it on a farm the Navara is very prone to knocks and scrapes others glance off ,it has been my biggest disappointment. we have a NP300 and 3 D40s and the 130k D40s look better than the 22month NP300 (45K) I have a VW on extended test at the moment on the farm and its fuel economy is equal if not better than the Nav and I really do pull full 14ft ifor stock trailers with it. Told VW it needs to be 3.5t legal for us to buy them not sure its going to happen though! I think its to do with its unladen weight more than anything making it impossible to put a 3.5t limit on it and keep it within the maximum permissable mass figure for the vehicle type ,they have agreed it can handle it but not legally.
To be totally honest on price and nissans pricing policy you would be mad not to buy the Tekna you can still pick a new one up for under 20k thats of course assuming Nissans the way to go.
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts