2010 Nissan Armada

Written by Eric Peters

January 19, 2010

The Nissan Armada SUV I drove last week felt like a machine from another time - even though that time was just two or three years ago. Not because it isn't fully modern - it is. Rather, it felt out of place because the environment it was created for - middle class prosperity, stable (and low) gas prices - no longer exists. Very probably, the Armada (and others like it) won't exist for much longer, either.  Not because it's in any way a bad vehicle.  It's just no longer an economically viable vehicle.  WHAT IT IS The Armada is a full-size, traditional SUV with body-on-frame construction, a huge V-8 and three rows of seats. It competes against similar models such as the Chevy Tahoe/GMC Yukon, Ford Expedition and Toyota Sequoia. Prices start at $37,120 for the base 2WD SE and run to $52,190 for a top-of-the-line Platinum edition with automatic 4WD.  WHAT'S NEW Mid-trim Titanium and top-of-the-line Platinum trim packages have been added, along with standard side-impact airbags for front seat passengers on all versions. The Titanium package includes a self-leveling rear suspension, tow package and other upgrades. Platinum adds GPS navigation with 9.3 gig music hard drive, DVD player and numerous luxury upgrades.  WHAT'S GOOD Hulking and powerful; mighty 9,100 lb. tow rating. Dominates the road. Drives beautifully. Base SE is actually priced a few hundred bucks less than the more or less identical '09 SE. A base Armada SE also costs about two grand less than the base model Toyota Sequoia ($39,030).  WHAT'S NOT SO GOOD Titanic appetite for fuel (single digits in real-world city driving; 12 mpg "best case" city rating by the EPA; 18 on the highway). Driving a large SUV these days feels a lot like wearing a mink coat to a PETA fundraiser. New top-of-line Platinum trim costs about six grand more than last year's top-of-the-line LE 4WD - and about two grand more than a top-of-the-line Ford Expedition King Ranch edition with 4WD ($50,740).  Many middle class people can no longer afford to buy - or feed - vehicles like this.  ENGINES & PERFORMANCE The Armada's standard and only available engine is a 5.6 liter V-8 that produces 317 hp and 385 lbs.-ft. of torque. It comes with a five-speed automatic and either 2WD or 4WD (the latter with an "automatic" mode that engages 4WD as necessary without any input need from the driver).  When the current generation Armada first came out back in 2004, its standard 300-plus horsepower engine made it one of the most powerful large SUVs available. And it is still powerful (with one of the highest max tow ratings in its segment) but competitors like the Chevy Tahoe (5.3 liters, 320 hp) and Ford Expedition (5.4 liters, 310 hp) have achieved par, while Toyota's Brobdingnagian Sequoia, with its available 385 hp 5.7 liter V-8, outclasses all of them - at least as far as horsepower is concerned.  0-60 takes about 8.5 seconds for the 2WD Armada and 8.8 or so for the slightly heavier 4WD version. This performance is about dead even with the Chevy Tahoe - and sightly better than the Ford Expedition.  All three are left in the dust by the 385 hp Sequoia, which can do the 0-60 run in just 6.7 seconds (quicker than some sports cars).  The Armada's gas mileage, as mentioned previously, is ruinously poor - or rather, will make you ruinously poor: 12 city, 18 highway.  It's the worst of the bunch.  To compensate somewhat, Nissan fits the Armada with a huge 28 gallon tank. But at current prices of around $2.60 per gallon for regular unleaded, a fill-up will cost you about $72. Do it once a week and your monthly gas bill will be around $300 - or about what you'd pay to buy something like a current mid-sized family sedan like the Chevy Malibu or Toyota Camry. And, Elvis help you if next year gas prices rise to $4 or $5 per gallon - a possibility surely gnawing at many potential buyers' minds.  In the Armada's defense, its main competitors are only marginally less profligate. Ford's Expedition registers a similarly dismal 14 city, 20 highway; the Toyota Sequoia - with its smaller 4.6 liter standard-issue V-8 - achieves an equally meager 14 city, 19 highway. The pick of the litter, gas mileage-wise, is the Chevy Tahoe. A 2WD version can manage 15 city and 21 on the highway - but this is all of 3 mpg better than the Armada's highway number and 2 better around town.  Any of these machines will drive you directly to the poorhouse unless you're flush enough with cash to nonchalantly burn through $300 each month just for fuel.  DRIVING IMPRESSIONS It's easy to understand why large SUVs were so popular when fuel was cheap - and credit/financing so easily obtained. You feel like you're in command of one of those Walkers from "The Empire Strikes Back," other vehicles mere fleas to be crushed underfoot. The 5.6 liter V-8 throbs comfortingly; all that metal surrounding you makes you feel invulnerable. And you are - to everything except a collapsing economy and the evil prospect of either losing your job or having to spend $100 to fill-up next summer.  Nothing beats body-on-frame construction for tamping down Noise, Vibration and Harshness (NVH). The engine, transmission and suspension are all mounted onto a heavy steel frame. Rubber biscuits sit on top of the frame and the body is lowered onto this, isolating the cabin from all the machinery - and much of the outside world, too.  It's the way they used to build 'em - when weight didn't matter because no one cared about gas mileage and all you needed was a bigger, stronger V-8 to pull it all.  The Armada's ride is smooth as a sofa - quiet and heavily padded.  Though the Armada's rated power output is almost dead even with the Expedition and Tahoe, it feels stronger than both. One reason for this is that while the horsepower numbers of these SUVs are all very evenly matched, the Nissan has a lot more torque - 385 lbs. ft vs. 335 lbs. ft for the Tahoe and 365 lbs.-ft. vs. the Expedition. In a big, heavy vehicle with an automatic transmission, torque output can be more determinative when it comes to acceleration (especially from a standstill) than horsepower. In addition to having more torque, the Nissan's 5.6 liter V-8 also produces its maximum torque output at lower engine speed - 3,400 RPM vs. 3,600 for the Expedition and 4,000 RPM for the Tahoe. This means it pulls harder, sooner - making it feel stronger than its competitors - even if the hp numbers are very close.  On handling: Despite the bad rep SUVs have been hit with for their supposedly tipsy tendencies, the truth of it is you've got to be pushing it well past legal (and reasonable) speeds to unsettle the beast. And even if you do, the electronic stability control will save you nine out ten times anyhow. If anything, it's the deceptively stable handling feel of big SUVs like the Armada that have inadvertently encouraged some people to drive these things faster than they ought to.  The Chevy Tahoe's a bit more nimble-feeling (in part because it's shorter and weighs a lot less) while the Expedition rides a bit softer.  The Sequoia is just overwhelming (more on this below).  The main potential large SUV Danger Zone is probably on the highway - where it's easy to rack the thing up to 80 and hit the cruise control. But if you need to slow down suddenly, watch out. Though it's got good brakes, 5,400 pounds of steel and plastic sloshing around nearly 10 inches off the ground requires space and time to deal with.  So leave yourself an extra car length - or three.  STYLING & UTILITY The Armada is big but not freakish looking like the bulging, bulbous Toyota Sequoia (the Andre The Giant of SUVs). It has a handsome, manly - but not too macho - Tonka Truck appearance that still looks current even after nearly six years on the market in more or less the same form.  Still, it is a massive vehicle - five inches longer stem to stern than the relatively stubby in comparison Chevy Tahoe (207.7 inches vs. 202 inches) and wider across the beam (79.3 inches) than all except the Sequoia (79.8 inches). It also boasts the second-highest ground clearance (9.8 inches) with the Sequoia barely edging it out by literally a fraction of an inch (9.9 inches). Its exterior dimensions can be a little off-putting if you're not fairly large (and long-limbed) yourself. For example, as a 6 ft. 3 man, I had no trouble opening the big, heavy doors (and rear lift gate) and heaving myself in and out. But my wife - not nearly as tall - did. Running boards help some but large SUVs are often not ideal for women or older people, so if you have those in your family, check with them before you buy.  The upside is there's plenty of room inside for 6-7 adults - and eight is doable though not especially comfortable. The Armada actually has nearly three inches more front seat legroom than the class biggie, the Toyota Sequoia - and more headroom, too.  What's surprising, though, is that despite being the second longest and widest of the big 'utes, the Armada has the lowest total cargo volume - 97 cubic feet vs. 108 cubic feet for the Expedition, 109 for the Tahoe and a swallow-you-whole 121 cubic feet for the Sequoia (now you know what happened to the Toyota's front seat leg and headroom). Another surprise - this time, in favor of the Nissan: It has the second-highest max tow rating, 9,100 lbs. The Expedition is numero uno here, with a class-best 9,200 lb. rating and the Tahoe third at 8,400 lbs. But that's not the real surprise. The real surprise is how weak the Sequoia is, towing-wise.  Despite having a 64 horsepower advantage (when equipped with its optional 5.7 liter, 381 hp V-8) its max tow rating is just 7,800 lbs. This matters - or should - not only to those who actually need to pull a trailer that heavy but to anyone who wants a tough frame/chassis as well as a strong engine. Clearly, the Toyota's weak link is not its engine - so its modest max tow rating must be a reflection of less toughness in the bones. The fact that the Armada (and the Expedition) have such impressive tow ratings despite having a lot less engine underhood (relative tot he Sequoia) is a reflection of the basic sturdiness of their frame and chassis and other key parts. That would make me feel good about owning either vehicle - even if I never pulled anywhere near the max load. QUALITY & SAFETY The 2010 Armada is proven technology - it's an older design than any of its major rivals, all of which have been updated significantly in the past two or three years. So, it's not the latest thing - but the upside is that we have a track record of generally reliable service going back to 2004. Since its introduction, Nissan hasn't changed the Armada all that much - and with six years of real-world data now available, it's safe to say that it is a "good truck."  A three year, 36,000 mile basic warranty is standard - identical to the coverage you get with any of the Armada's main competitors. In addition, there's a a five year, 60,000 mile powertrain warranty, same as the Expedition and Sequoia.  The Chevy Tahoe is the only large SUV that offers a longer powertrain warranty - five years/100,000 miles.  For 2010, all Armada trims come with front-seat side-impact air bags (formerly optional). Traction control, stability control, ABS with Brake Assist and full-length head/curtain airbags are included. The main safety options are a back-up camera (bundled with GPS) and parking sensors that beep if you're about to bump into something.  THE BOTTOM LINE The Armada is like its namesake - something that's impressive and cool to have around - if you can afford the upkeep. Comment?

 

< Prev		Next >