its great to see almost perfect score for the next generation xterra.... gives us peace of mind on our purchase and support for nissan.

Awesome.

Xterra deserves another SUV of the year award!

I don't suppose there's a public link to their report on the X? Or do you need a subscription so see this glorious report?

That's cool. But when I bought my X in 05, the review from Consumer Reports was hardly better than luke warm.. Are the 06+ that much better than the 05's? Or did it just take some time for them to warm up to the new X's?

I'm shocked they liked something other than a Camray

CU seems to hold over their opinions on new models from the prior ones...and all in all, does a bad job of testing products quite often.

They typically pick the wrong criteria, and then pick the wrong way to compare them.



If they like it now...that's good, as they will now like it at least until the year after the next model change.

Linky?

Consumer distorts...Reports magazine is good at evaluating microwaves and vacuum cleaners.

I tried their website.
No free link that I know of.
Did I miss something?

They even suck at vacuum cleaners....for example....they were evaluating if it was worth it to get a HEPA filtered vacuum cleaner vs a regular one...

They spilled wood flour, and cleaned it up with the vacuums they were comparing...measuring their exhaust for dust...to see if the HEPA filtered one's exhaust was cleaner.

They concluded that they all did a fine job, and the HEPA filtered vacuum's exhaust was no cleaner than the others.



Because they used wood flour, which is an enormous particle compared to say dust mite poop, or a mold spore...say ~200 microns in diameter for the flour particles, and 2 microns for the mold spore.

SO - its like they poured bowling balls onto a chain link fence, and onto a screen, had no bowling balls go through, and concluded that chain link fences and screens filter the air the same.



Stuff like that.

They suck.

I think the point, there, TJ, was that in fact some of the "bowling balls" DID go through the vacuum cleaners, and not necessarily through the filters. The point of the emission testing is to see how much wood-flour sized dust gets out of the machine while the motor is running or while actually vacuuming. A HEPA-filtered machine should not be releasing any dust of that size, just as you say. But some were no better at retaining the wood flour than their conventionally-filtered counterparts, hence the doubts about the usefulness of HEPA-filtered vacuums.

I've subscribed to CR for many (30+) years, but the reason I'm not screaming in their defense is that they really will try to rate products about which they know nothing (for me, cameras come to mind).I've found over the years that they can rate some things well, such as cars, but only in the context of certain kinds of consumers. As you guessed, that's not off-road types. Their testing does have the great advantage of usually trying to be objective, or at least performed the same way on each kind of vehicle.

If you understand what they're doing and why, and for whom the review is aimed, they can be very useful. But they don't know everything about everything and you have to use your own judgement, too.

Punny.

My father has a subscription to cr and also the website. Here's a copy/paste of the vehicle test info. Kinda hard to copy their tables but I'll give it a shot. Looks like a scale of 1-5.

In the article, they use symbols, not numbers but they translate to:

5-excellent
4-Very good
3-good
2-fair
1-poor

New Car Prediction Better than average 4

Trouble Spots Nissan Xterra
97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06
Engine Major 4 4 4 5 5 5 5
Engine Minor 4 4 4 5 5 3 5
Engine Cooling 4 3 3 5 4 5 5
Transmission 4 4 5 5 5 4 5
Drive System 5 4 3 5 4 4 5
Fuel System 4 4 4 5 4 4 5
Electrical System 4 4 4 5 5 3 4
Climate System 1 1 1 3 4 4 5
Suspension 4 4 3 5 3 5 5
Brakes 3 4 4 5 3 3 5
Exhaust 1 2 5 5 5 5 5
Paint/Trim/Rust 2 1 2 4 3 4 5
Body Integrity 3 2 4 4 1 2 5
Body hardware 4 4 5 4 4 3 5
Power equipment 4 2 3 5 2 4 5
Audio System 3 4 4 3 4 4 5
Used Car Verdicts 4 4 4 5 3 3 5
New Car Prediction Better than average 4

Nissan Xterra
Road test
Recommended

Tested model: 2005 S 4-door SUV 4WD, 4.0-liter V6, 5-speed automatic
Tested tires: BFGoodrich Radial Long Trail T/A, size P265/70R16 111T



Highs: Powertrain, acceleration, interior room, off-road ability, towing capacity, quietness.
Lows: Ride, access, fuel economy.

The redesigned Xterra shares components with Nissan's Frontier pickup and Pathfinder SUV. Some improvements over the first generation model include a refined engine and responsive, secure handling, thanks to the optional electronic stability control (ESC). Off-road capability is still excellent.

THE DRIVING EXPERIENCE

The ride is stiff and rubbery, with impacts felt as hard kicks. Ride motions are abrupt, even on the highway. Aside from some wind buffeting, noise levels are well-suppressed. The Xterra has responsive handling with limited body lean. The steering is quick, but overall the Xterra doesn't feel as agile as car-based SUVs. On our track it understeered predictably but was kept in control by the optional ESC. It posted a respectable speed in our avoidance maneuver. The punchy 261-hp, 4.0-liter V6 is one of the most powerful in the class, but returned just 17 mpg overall. The five-speed automatic is quite smooth. The Xterra easily pulled our 5,000-pound trailer to 60 mph in 18.4 seconds. Off-road, the Xterra was impressive, even when scaling our challenging rock hill. Overall braking performance was very good, but the pedal felt soft. Headlight performance was good.

INSIDE THE CABIN

The rugged-looking interior is nicely finished. The hard plastics have contrasting textures and colors, and all panels fit together nicely. Drivers sit up high and have a very good view out. The tilt steering wheel and pedals are well-placed, providing a good driving position. The firm seats are comfortable and feature adjustments for cushion tilt and driver lumbar support. Rear passengers sit up high in well-shaped, supportive seats and have good visibility, but the rear is a squeeze for three adults. Front access is easy, but requires a tall step up over the small and useless running boards. The rear doors are narrow and wheel wells impede access. The door handles are placed up high, making it difficult for children to reach. Most controls are easy to use and the gauges are legible. The cruise controls mounted on the steering wheel aren't illuminated at night. Cabin storage is generous. The front has sturdy cup holders and bottle holders in the doors. Folding the 60/40-split rear seats expands the cargo area to 45.5 cubic feet. Payload capacity is 920 pounds and the towing capacity is 5,000 pounds. The cargo floor has a rail system for securing objects and a storage space underneath. A full-sized spare tire sits under the vehicle.

SAFETY NOTES

Side-impact air bags, which extend from the front seatbacks, and curtain-style head-protection air bags that extend to protect the heads of the front- and rear-outboard occupants, are available as an extra-cost option. The curtain air bags deploy in either side-impacts or rollovers. These air bags supplement required front air bags and three-point seatbelts for all occupants. The front seatbelts have adjustable anchors for improved fit and pretensioners, which reduce belt slack in the event of a crash. Front seatbelts also have sensors in the buckles to detect belt usage and influence the safest level of deployment of the front air bags. Though children are always safest riding in the rear seats, an occupant classification system in the front passenger seat detects the weight of the occupant seated there and, in conjunction with seatbelt tension sensors, turns off the front air bag automatically if it detects a child seated there. A comfort guide for the rear-center seat can help to position the ceiling-mounted shoulder portion of that belt correctly and more comfortably. There are adjustable and locking head restraints in the outboard seating positions. The front versions are tall enough for adequate protection (even when lowered) and move slightly forward from the force of the occupant's body against the seatback in a rear impact to further reduce rearward head travel. The rear outboard versions need to be raised to provide enough protection against whiplash for taller passengers. The rear-center seat lacks a restraint and is too low to offer protection. Driving with kids: Rear-facing seats may be susceptible to tilt when installed using the seatbelts in the rear-center seat. Some models may also tilt in the outboard seats but should prove secure when installed using the LATCH system. The LATCH anchors in the outboard seats are easy to access. Front-facing child seats should prove secure and there are tether strap anchors for each rear seat on the rear seatbacks.

RELIABILITY

We expect reliability to be better than average, according to our latest subscriber survey.

One thing I find interesting is the discrepency between 05 & 06 using their excellent - poor scale. What gives?

For instance, 'Engine Minor' for 05 is 'good' but 'excellent' for 06.

Another biggie, "Body Integrity" is 'fair' for 05 and 'excellent' for 06. Aren't the bodies identical?

Once again harsh bottoming out takes a toll on a review. Why cant Nissan figure it out They would get alot more praise without the crash bang.....Nearly perfect it appears!

My rule is never listen to CR. Most of the cars and products that they review target soccer-moms who can confused if a camera has too many buttons or do not like stiffer suspension because it is not comfortable. I have been reading this magazine on and off for about past five years (I am not subscribed, by my family is) and I am convinced that this magazine is for people who know absolutely nothing.

CR is G-A-R-B-A-G-E.

Anybody who tells you otherwise isn't paying very close attention.

They have pulled crap like that for years. Totally biased.

OK, OK, OK...I'll stick to using them for my next washing machine

to be honest, I actually bought into their whole image. You know, "we at CR don't take money from advertisers so all of our tests and results are objective, unbiased, etc."

However, the more I think about it, I seem to recall the tests of a small SUV many yrs ago (Suzuki samurai or similar) where they *tried* to get the thing to tip. It took several tries. When it finally tipped during an intentional hard turn, they reported it as unsafe.

Anybody remember that one?

The deal with the difference in ratings for '05 and '06 has to do with their Owners' Survey, which asks owners to rate the vehicle based on their experience. What it's saying is that some owners of the earlier model vehicle have reported problems in these areas, whereas the newer ones have not. If the components are identical, it may be an indication of a long term problem. But, one of the problems CR has in these surveys is that you never know how many owners actually replied and/or had a particular problem. Nonetheless, this rating system has helped me out quite a bit over the years in selecting used cars. At least the real lemons stand out.

The rollover experience had to do with two vehicles--Suzuki Samurai back in the mid '80s and the Isuzu Trooper in 1995. The Samurai had a high center of gravity (just "how high" still provokes argument). CR had a very critical report, which resulted in a lawsuit by Suzuki that wasn't settled until 1996, I think. The article just about killed sales of the Samurai. While the the report is controversial to this day, about 1989 one rolled on its side in front of me just turning left at a traffic light. So, I thought that one was a good call. The Trooper was another story. CU had one test driver among several who, under just the right circumstances, could get the Trooper to lift a wheel in a collision avoidance manuever. No one else, at CU or the NHTSA, could get the truck to do this. CU rated the vehicle "not acceptable" and the Trooper was forced out of the market. I owned a '95 Trooper and it was, if anything, quite a lot less rollover-prone than the earlier, 1st-gen Troopers. That one I thought was unfair.

Makes perfect sense to me. Older cars develop more problems. Of course the 05 is going to have worse body integrity than an 06. As cars get older, more rattles and squeaks develop, right? In general, if you look at any car models (esp where they haven't redesigned it,) the older ones tend to be less reliable. Isn't this just common sense? Where's the "discrepency"?

At the time of the 05 "review," which is not a review but more of a 'first impression' type write up. In regard to the 05, they can't really provide a full or more accurate review of an all-new model until they've had at least a few more months to spend with it.

By the time the 06 model came out, CR had spent plenty of time to with the new X so obviously, the 06 review will reflect a more accurate assessment of the 2nd gen X.

i was just pleased to see current information on the xterra, when i purchased mine in 10/05 there was no data. I rather have an suv that has no solid black marks and feel at easy of making the right decition purchasing the xterra without any technical data to support my decition at my purchase time. with 67,000 miles, i am very happy with my xterra

Well, the DO "correct" the ratings to reflect that older cars SHOULD have more complaints than newer ones...so 2 complaints about an '06 might be the same rating as 4 complaints about an '05...and and 8 complaints about an '04, etc...so all might get the same rating, even though the older ones have more problems...so that its apples and apples across the model years.

Of course...garbage in/garbage out....who are the people filling out and returning these surveys?

Here you go. I printed the article to a pdf. I pay for the online subscription every year.

Xterra Comsumer Reports

The body integraty makes sense. The Gen Is had no body integraty, yet the Gen II clearly needs help, especially on the front clip. But perfect for suspension! WTF?

thanks Hype8912. When we traded in our Rubicon, the '7 Xterra OR w/auto was chosen over the 4dr. Wrangler hardtop Sahara w/auto. Taking the comments about CR into account, I'll bet the 4dr Wrangler gets a lot lower rating than the Xterra. For 90+ % of our driving, on country two lanes, dirt and mountainous Interstate(up to 8,600+ feet), the OR is sooooo much better than the 4dr. JK. The JK does look good however. Off pavement the OR is still better for our needs. Although, we did manage to get stuck this last weekend while driving a little too fast(fun) on a Forest Service trail at around 7500 feet in the snow. As my wife so delicately put it, as we were attempting to free our high centered X sitting on an ice shelf that had been hidden by the snow, if doesn't matter what kind of differentials or gears you have if all four wheels are off the ground.