Took a test drive on the dark side in a 2017 Armada/Patrol
- Thread starter cc1999
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
this would be my guess also..
Markuson
SILVER Star
Ya, that makes sense. On the other hand...lots of things about the American market call for inferior versions for silly reasons...like ateps on bumpers. 
One thing I like bout the US LC is the split rear hatch with the fold-down tail-gate (although it's the source of my current injury...haha)...but what's cool is you can stand on it...with the upper hatch down...and help load stuff on the roof. From the looks of the Nissan...you either stand on the bumper with the entire rear end closed...on the hitch with the entire end closed...or bring a ladder...because the entire rear opens together. Much hard to to load...
Everything is a trade off...and I LOVE my LC. I am definitely jealous of the CHOICES offered seemingly everywhere BUT the US.
One thing I like bout the US LC is the split rear hatch with the fold-down tail-gate (although it's the source of my current injury...haha)...but what's cool is you can stand on it...with the upper hatch down...and help load stuff on the roof. From the looks of the Nissan...you either stand on the bumper with the entire rear end closed...on the hitch with the entire end closed...or bring a ladder...because the entire rear opens together. Much hard to to load...
Everything is a trade off...and I LOVE my LC. I am definitely jealous of the CHOICES offered seemingly everywhere BUT the US.
- Thread starter
- #44
Like I had mentioned, to me it appears to be more to do with hiding a full size spare and hitch up undernieth all setting behind a IRS setup.
That pic shown of the shorter bumper, IMO is either a sold rear axle setup or the spare is instide the rear hatch in lew of a 3rd row, possibly all of those things. What market is that pic from? Might be able to figure it out with more pic's or specs from that market.
I agree trade offs for tailoring vehicles for different market demands is likely the key to why one market has it this way, and another has it setup a different way. That is in addition to various government regulations from one country to the next. But I just don't think it is a safety bumper thing in this case.
The US market really leans heavy on having features like a 3rd row seat in vehicle this size, and a smooth ride is generally appreciated more with US customers , both of which I believe are what caused the bumper to be the way it is in the US model. The IRS for the smooth ride then relocation of a spare to under the rear to allow for the power fold flat 3rd row, and still leave it as much cargo space as possible. The off road requirements for this market I am sure are not as prominent as they are in other markets. On this forum of Off Road enthusiast, I know its paramount to many on here. But to the mass public I think that might be little a different story. Those other features might draw more potential buyers.
I don't know for fact that the short bumper Patrol pictured is minus the third row or where it's spare is, or which axle is under it. Pure speculation on my part, But just looking at that pic compared to what I have seen on mine. I am having a hard time figuring out how a full size spare could be setting behind a IRS setup and still tuck up under that short bumper. I am not even sure it would fit with a solid rear axle, that is such drastic difference in overhang from what I have in this US model.
That pic shown of the shorter bumper, IMO is either a sold rear axle setup or the spare is instide the rear hatch in lew of a 3rd row, possibly all of those things. What market is that pic from? Might be able to figure it out with more pic's or specs from that market.
I agree trade offs for tailoring vehicles for different market demands is likely the key to why one market has it this way, and another has it setup a different way. That is in addition to various government regulations from one country to the next. But I just don't think it is a safety bumper thing in this case.
The US market really leans heavy on having features like a 3rd row seat in vehicle this size, and a smooth ride is generally appreciated more with US customers , both of which I believe are what caused the bumper to be the way it is in the US model. The IRS for the smooth ride then relocation of a spare to under the rear to allow for the power fold flat 3rd row, and still leave it as much cargo space as possible. The off road requirements for this market I am sure are not as prominent as they are in other markets. On this forum of Off Road enthusiast, I know its paramount to many on here. But to the mass public I think that might be little a different story. Those other features might draw more potential buyers.
I don't know for fact that the short bumper Patrol pictured is minus the third row or where it's spare is, or which axle is under it. Pure speculation on my part, But just looking at that pic compared to what I have seen on mine. I am having a hard time figuring out how a full size spare could be setting behind a IRS setup and still tuck up under that short bumper. I am not even sure it would fit with a solid rear axle, that is such drastic difference in overhang from what I have in this US model.
- Thread starter
- #45
Found some more patrol pics. Its looking more like possibly a difference in hitch designs ?
You can see the 3rd Row seat, you can see a spare tire under it. Looks like the same rear 1 peace hatch and roof rack.
About the only major difference is the hitch. Can't make out the rear axle in this shot.
But I am think I am seeing what looks like an IRS setup hanging out from under these two and without any doubt there is a spare underneath.
I guess I am left with the hitch design for US market, possibly relating to tow ratings. Which that might bring into count some of those safety regulations. I am not seeing anything on the back of these Patrols in the way of a trailer lighting plug in. Mine does have a std round trailer wire hookup with at least a class 4 receiver hitch hiding behind that bumper.
You can see the 3rd Row seat, you can see a spare tire under it. Looks like the same rear 1 peace hatch and roof rack.
About the only major difference is the hitch. Can't make out the rear axle in this shot.
But I am think I am seeing what looks like an IRS setup hanging out from under these two and without any doubt there is a spare underneath.
I guess I am left with the hitch design for US market, possibly relating to tow ratings. Which that might bring into count some of those safety regulations. I am not seeing anything on the back of these Patrols in the way of a trailer lighting plug in. Mine does have a std round trailer wire hookup with at least a class 4 receiver hitch hiding behind that bumper.
So after seeing this post on top of the forum for last few days I decided to go and test drive one also. Months ago, I had hoped that Armada (nissan patrol) would be a LC contender. I went to Nissan dealer tonight and had an ugly experience with the car salesman. The guy was terrified I would offroad the truck while all I was looking to do was hit a few potholes/speed bumps. He was to scared to death to let me even try. I was really surprised that anyone would trade a 2011 LC for another sport ute. I really want another car to love and appreciate but the armada was to soccer mommy and the way the salesman was terrified of hitting bumps made me think it must be a real POS. I didn't feel it being as rugged or reliable as the Nissan Patrols overseas (one of my dream cars). IMHO, I don't feel that it is remotely comparable to the LC. To me the LC's level of reliability, ruggedness, and offroad capability puts it in a completely separate league from all other sport utes. I am never scared to get my LC airborne and always looking to test its limits. The armada was pretty much like all other sport utes that become useless after 100k miles. I had test driven an older QX56/60 a few years back and wasn't inspired. The nissan/infiniti suvs come off as effeminate to me. I am pretty sure they design the bodies to appeal more to women than men.
The armada has better creature comforts, better rear legroom and interior was nicer. The front seats are very comfy. The back row looked completely useless. It definitley drives bigger but very controlled and precise. I don't know how big the rear diff or axles are but judging how scared sh!tless the salesman was I doubt I would be impressed even with upgraded suspension and proper wheels. I have test driven 7 different LC/LXs and all the salesmen encouraged me to hit bumps/potholes as fast as I could (even with 21" rims). In fact they would direct me to places that were extra bumpy and uneven. I took my car through a gravel mud pit at high speed before buying it. It took more than 2 car washes to clean properly.
The armada has better creature comforts, better rear legroom and interior was nicer. The front seats are very comfy. The back row looked completely useless. It definitley drives bigger but very controlled and precise. I don't know how big the rear diff or axles are but judging how scared sh!tless the salesman was I doubt I would be impressed even with upgraded suspension and proper wheels. I have test driven 7 different LC/LXs and all the salesmen encouraged me to hit bumps/potholes as fast as I could (even with 21" rims). In fact they would direct me to places that were extra bumpy and uneven. I took my car through a gravel mud pit at high speed before buying it. It took more than 2 car washes to clean properly.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #48
Interesting.
Sales people can vary a lot, none of the sales people I dealt with really knew a lot about the new Armada much less its true heritage, some knew it was less expensive QX80 that's about it. I have to admit I have never asked or wanted to beat on a new 60 or 90k vehicle like that. I have taken them purposely down rough streets, I didn't ask I just went down them, and went over known rough railroad crossings that sort of thing, So I can't say that I have asked if I could take one through gravel pit . I suspect the answer is no, since they would want to still be able to sell it someone else if I were not interested after the test drive.
So far the main difference between the US version vs Other markets Patrol's are that we have confirmed the US model has different rear bumper and trailer hitch setup.
The rest seems to be about the same for like models. Other then the rear overhang, I would say if you didn't like the Armada, you likely would not like the Patrol either. At least that is what I have discovered so far to be verifiable differences.
The Armada/Patrol by no means IMO is = to a 200 Cruiser in off road capability, not in approach angle, departure angle, wheelbase, turn radius, or overall body width all easily dictating that to be a true statement .
I suspect that is true anywhere in the world where they compete. That said here in the US the Armada/Patrol also cost 20-40K less. I would say it is better then most anything in it's price range for a similar type vehicle. From what I am seeing it has a fit and finish above most vehicle in its price range and many well above its price range. There are a lot of nice touches that I have only seen on my 200s. Not all of them but some of them, IE. the hood is rubber gasket on the lead edge to keep air from getting under it, only other SUV I have seen that on is my 200s. I imagine there are some others out their, I may not have noticed it.
To me for my intended uses for the Armada and the 200s, the main things the Armada/Patrol lacks, is the cool box console, the clam shell rear hatch, the built in mud flaps to protect the body from loose gravel road damage. On a not so functional level, the stereo in the 200s is also substantially better then the Armada's, that said I have not had much time so far to play with all the setting on the Armada's Bose sound system, but in factory settings, it is sub par compared to the 200s. The things I like better about the Armada/Patrol when compared to the 200s is the seats are a slight bit more comfortable, the overall interior is roomier all the way around, the surround view cams are nice, my 200s neither one have that feature, I know the 2016 200s now have it with an even larger high resolution screen then the Armada's have. The ride comfort is also in favor of the Armada. Not that the Cruisers ride poorly at all, just it is a noticeable amount smoother riding in the Armada.
Of all the Full size SUVs on the market, I have driven most of them or a version of it, the Armada to me has the smoothest ride, and the most comfortable seats, which for my application on this one, that was what won me over to at least give one a try. That said I have no intention at this point of letting go of both of my 200's. One of the 200's will likely be for sale soon. That is unless I find something I really don't like about the Armada in the next couple months, then I might drop the Armada will see. For what I am using it for, it should do just fine. Time will tell
Sales people can vary a lot, none of the sales people I dealt with really knew a lot about the new Armada much less its true heritage, some knew it was less expensive QX80 that's about it. I have to admit I have never asked or wanted to beat on a new 60 or 90k vehicle like that. I have taken them purposely down rough streets, I didn't ask I just went down them, and went over known rough railroad crossings that sort of thing, So I can't say that I have asked if I could take one through gravel pit . I suspect the answer is no, since they would want to still be able to sell it someone else if I were not interested after the test drive.
So far the main difference between the US version vs Other markets Patrol's are that we have confirmed the US model has different rear bumper and trailer hitch setup.
The rest seems to be about the same for like models. Other then the rear overhang, I would say if you didn't like the Armada, you likely would not like the Patrol either. At least that is what I have discovered so far to be verifiable differences.
The Armada/Patrol by no means IMO is = to a 200 Cruiser in off road capability, not in approach angle, departure angle, wheelbase, turn radius, or overall body width all easily dictating that to be a true statement .
I suspect that is true anywhere in the world where they compete. That said here in the US the Armada/Patrol also cost 20-40K less. I would say it is better then most anything in it's price range for a similar type vehicle. From what I am seeing it has a fit and finish above most vehicle in its price range and many well above its price range. There are a lot of nice touches that I have only seen on my 200s. Not all of them but some of them, IE. the hood is rubber gasket on the lead edge to keep air from getting under it, only other SUV I have seen that on is my 200s. I imagine there are some others out their, I may not have noticed it.
To me for my intended uses for the Armada and the 200s, the main things the Armada/Patrol lacks, is the cool box console, the clam shell rear hatch, the built in mud flaps to protect the body from loose gravel road damage. On a not so functional level, the stereo in the 200s is also substantially better then the Armada's, that said I have not had much time so far to play with all the setting on the Armada's Bose sound system, but in factory settings, it is sub par compared to the 200s. The things I like better about the Armada/Patrol when compared to the 200s is the seats are a slight bit more comfortable, the overall interior is roomier all the way around, the surround view cams are nice, my 200s neither one have that feature, I know the 2016 200s now have it with an even larger high resolution screen then the Armada's have. The ride comfort is also in favor of the Armada. Not that the Cruisers ride poorly at all, just it is a noticeable amount smoother riding in the Armada.
Of all the Full size SUVs on the market, I have driven most of them or a version of it, the Armada to me has the smoothest ride, and the most comfortable seats, which for my application on this one, that was what won me over to at least give one a try. That said I have no intention at this point of letting go of both of my 200's. One of the 200's will likely be for sale soon. That is unless I find something I really don't like about the Armada in the next couple months, then I might drop the Armada will see. For what I am using it for, it should do just fine. Time will tell
Last edited:
I fully understand where you are coming from. My disappointment was more that such a renowned offroad vehicle not being offroad friendly and at the moment I am very skeptical of its durability. I have had a couple Infiniti QX4's and they were pretty reliable vehicles and I used to love the small compact lifted SUV. After the Land Cruiser everything else is a disappointment. I do like the look of the new Mercedes SUVs but don't believe in the reliability of german vehicles anymore. Reliability has become an issue across all manufacturers thus leading me to stick to land cruisers. It's like playing Russian Roulette and when I was younger I was willing to put up with maintenance and issues but as I have gotten older I don't have time to keep sending my vehicle out for repair.
Markuson
SILVER Star
That seems to be a trend at Nissan...at least in the US...moving away from off-road intent.
In the late 80's? Their Pathfinder was a legitimate off-roader that competed with 4Runner.
Today? The (cough!) "Pathfinder" is pretty much a mini-van-in-disguise that just has a cool name. So sad. Hoping they won't do the same to the Patrol!
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #51
I think that has been the trend here in the US for most all manufactures over the past decade, I have seen quite a few good ole rugged body on frame SUVs get replaced by glorified uni-body car designs just one after another , where all you are really getting now days is a station wagon car, that is simply made to look like an SUV.
But they seem to sell a lot of them, the crossover SUV segment eclipses the full size body on frame segment by a healthy margin these days. Heck even The Range Rover and the GL Benz are nice vehicles, but not real SUVs in my eyes since both are Uni-body designs now.
Toyota is one of the few that seem to take a little different approach and still offer both variations for now. But even Toyota killed off the FJ recently.
Jeep has been confirmed to be sticking with Body on frame construction for the next gen Wrangler, also said to be sticking with solid axles too. That said the rest of the Jeep lineup is all crossover uni-body's now.
I think CAFE regulations is driving a lot of these changes here.
I am really glad to see that Toyota, Nissan, Ford and GM are at least keeping some real SUVs on the market here.
Markuson
SILVER Star
Ya...I am just happy that Toyota is holding out with their 4Runner and Land Cruiser.
But Ford? True off-road SUV's are dying. Look what happened to the Explorer...
It's a nice CAR...but no one will be turning them into off-roaders anymore, now that they are no longer TRUCK-based SUVs. The Ford Expedition...meh...and the gigantic Ford Excursion that used to be truck-based? GONE.Toyota is a hold-out, and I applaud them.
And good on Jeep for keeping the body-on-frame...
But... SHAME on Jeep for slapping vertically-lined grills on the SORRIEST little chick-cars, and then slapping some cool name like "Renegade" and having the gall to market them as off-roaders...or as "Jeeps" at all. Ugh!!
Rant over... But yes. Good on Toyota!
Last edited:
You could have done worse. . . to each his own!
Of course- my fresh from the dealer gloss has yet to come off my 200 so I'm still in the honeymoon phase.
Of course- my fresh from the dealer gloss has yet to come off my 200 so I'm still in the honeymoon phase.
- Thread starter
- #55
That was a good video. Alex always does an excellent job of packing in a great deal details in his video. He is also generally very accurate in his reviews. I spent several hours watching videos like that before I ever even go test drive a vehicle I am interested in. I watched several videos back to back comparing different full size body on frame SUVs, both on road and off road. I find you can Lear a lot about what to expect from a vehicle by doing this.
Ie. watching several 200 videos and comparing things with what I saw and learned watching Armada/patrol/qx80 videos, I knew up front, that the Armada is off-road capable, likely more so than most in its field, but not as capable as the 200s. You can see how rigged the frame is to be able to lift a wheel well off the ground, but you know the extremely suspension articulation you get from a 200, that the 200 is going to be able to muster more traction by keeping its tires on the ground better then the Armada/patrol is capable of. It does however also show just how stout the Patrol is constructed, in particular how strong it's frame is not to twist it's frame in those situation.
Here were some of the videos I felt were informative
Ie. watching several 200 videos and comparing things with what I saw and learned watching Armada/patrol/qx80 videos, I knew up front, that the Armada is off-road capable, likely more so than most in its field, but not as capable as the 200s. You can see how rigged the frame is to be able to lift a wheel well off the ground, but you know the extremely suspension articulation you get from a 200, that the 200 is going to be able to muster more traction by keeping its tires on the ground better then the Armada/patrol is capable of. It does however also show just how stout the Patrol is constructed, in particular how strong it's frame is not to twist it's frame in those situation.
Here were some of the videos I felt were informative
