Talk:Nissan Xterra

First generation

The fact that the first generation is listed twice is confusing. Maybe the first gen with round lights should be listed as a refresh.

I cleaned up the article, revised to WP:NPOV, and made the Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Layouts conform to standards followed by other articles. Freshened models DO NOT get their own infoboxes NOR do they count as a generation. This page still sounds like an advertisement, further clean up would be appriciated. 142.58.83.73 01:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't say I agree with all your changes. Although to you they sound like a commercial, I think the text that was there added some valuable information. Sure, perhaps it could have been worded a little better, but I think cutting it out completely was the wrong move. Also, your use of the 2002-2004 model in the top model box is wrong. If you're going to add a picture to the model box it's suppose to be either the newest generation or the one that defined the model. The 2002-2004 had its own box below just to show the refresh and had been cleaned up to where it didn't make it seem like the 2002 was another generation. I'll let these changes stand for a few days to see if anyone else chimes in with comments. In addition, any chance you could actually register on Wikipedia? Making changes as just an IP isn't the most ideal way of doing business. --Brownings 11:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's a compromise about the infoboxes. Why not put the photo of the Square headlights, and the Round headlights photo in the same infobox. Bok269 03:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

That's basically what we had before 142.58.83.73 changed things. You can see how it was here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nissan_Xterra&oldid=56437235 . Is there a way to get both pictures in a single box though? --Brownings 21:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a way to do that actually, by placing two images like so "| image=[ Image:2001Xterra.JPG|250px|2001 Xterra SE]]<break>[[Image:2002Xterra.JPG|250px|2002 Xterra SE ]" (br, not break) will result in two images in a single infobox. Remember to remove any "| thumb | right/left |" from the line or the image will not fit the infobox and look ugly, as seen in Brownings's last edit. The reason I moved the freshened 1st generation model up was becasue it's currently the most popular model on the road today (by that I mean saleswise), and seemed suitable as a representation as of the Xterra at the moment.

The reason I removed some material such as "The Xterra's first two years were all about making a no-nonsense SUV that was capable off-road, yet provided some of the refinements of cost comparable SUVs to attract the casual off-roaders," is in accordance to NPOV. That line sounded like something straight out of Nissan's press release. One could just as easily site some members of the automotive press saying "The 1st generation Xterra was a crude truck-based SUV based on the outdated Frontier platform, clearly outclassed by its competitors." That line would not be suitable for this article for the same reason that I sited for removing some of the POV material. Nothing against the Xterra, just trying to be fair.

Lines such as "Base XEs were so bare bones that not many were sold. If you've ever seen one, then you understand why, they didn't even look like the typical Xterra, thus turning most interested in the Xterra against them," are simply personal opinion and deserve no place on this page. This is no fansite. Perhaps if this article can be cleaned up further and slightly reorganized, some of the removed material can then be recycled into an "Advertising" section covering Nissan's marketing campaign, utilizing some of the removed details. 142.58.83.73 02:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

And what is your opinion on the design cues? There were several aspects that Nissan focused very hard on in the redesign to keep. Items that made the Xterra an Xterra and not a Ford Escape. Wouldn't you say that was worth mentioning? As for the fansite comment, well no one has to be a fan to see the huge diffrences in the models. Advertising or not, it's worth stating. The base XE compared to the SE wasn't even close, not like a base Ford Mustang compared to the GT. Perhaps you should take a look at the material and find a way to incorporate it, not just cut things out that you seem to be the only one against. Oh, and how is that registering process going? You're still showing up as your college IP. --Brownings 04:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Just as an FYI... the first gen Xterras in the first styles are identical in almost every way with the exception of, grills, head lights and some minor body style changes. Most notably is the bump on the hood to make room for the Super Charger in the 02-04. The engines are all basically this same with the exception of the god awful 2.4l design other than that engine you can pull cams, pulley, headers, sensors from 00-04 and it will work in any model. Same goes for the transmissions, T Cases, Axles & Drive lines. As a matter of fact the frame is almost identical to a 720, early Pathfinder, short bed Frontier & Hardbody. The only difference being body mount locations. --12.175.230.39 22:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Commercial claim

"Every single Xterra commercial depicts someone driving it though the mud, unloading mountain bikes out of the back to go hit the trail, or packing up their surfing gear." This just seems not to be fact. Could someone find a source? Maybe start with "Most commrecials feature..."

I like it. I've added it to the text. I think it would be impossible to find written justification of thier marketing tactic, but what are the chances we'll ever see a commercial featuring the Xterra at the mall with a soccer mom and kids? I'd bet almost never. --Brownings 03:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Images and recent reverts

I'm not sure what's spawned the recent changes and shuffling of images around. There seems to be 3, maybe 4 people invloved, myself included. What exactly is/was wrong with the images and layout before this started? If you're unsure of what original layout I'm talking about, view it here. It's also the most current version of the article, that is till Bull-Doser & IFCAR troll through again and start making/reverting changes. Oh, and Karrmann, my changes were to start putting it back in the state you have it in, IFCAR reverted those changes back to Bull-Doser's version. --Brownings 21:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I put it back to my own version. It has the first two of these three pictures illustrating the first generation instead of the third, in Brownings's version:

• 
• 
• 

IFCAR 22:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The first two are alright looking, but the third picture is way too busy. Thank you for contributing the two photos that are shown on Karrman's current version of the page, but why do we need the third? Is there a problem with Karrmann's current version that we should possibly discuss? Seems to me that you're really pushing your photos to be used on the article and no one else's. Perhaps a compromise would be to add an Xterra gallery to the bottom of the page. Then everyone could add photos and we could get a wide variety of colors, years, and generations. --Brownings 22:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Karrmann's current version IS the version that I put up, that you reverted to the version with the third picture which I agree is inferior in quality to the other two. IFCAR 22:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, perhaps all this was a mistake. So, I'm saying I like Karrmann's version, you're saying you like Karrmann's version, and obviously Karrmann likes Karrmann's version. I guess my revert (I didn't actually use the Undo button) where it didn't take out all of Bull-Doser's changes is the source of confusion. Anyway, Karrmann's version is where I'd like to see the article stay at. Of course I'd still like to put a gallery at the bottom. After all, what could it hurt? --Brownings 23:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The sequence of events was that a month or two ago, I put up the images as they are now. They were recently changed from that, and I reverted the changes. Then you reverted me, then Karrmann reverted you to put it back the way I originally had it, the way it is now. I don't see the need for a gallery though, unless there are some great images that aren't already somewhere in the article. IFCAR 23:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, well guess there was just some confusion there. My bad. Anyhow, the reason I suggest the gallery is that it would be nice to have pics of the backsides of the X (both Generations), maybe the engines, and the interiors. With the current article layout there is no way to add them. It'd just be too cluttered. --Brownings 03:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Second Gen Looks Smaller

It's mentioned in the article that the 2nd gen model looks smaller, but it actually larger. Who says that it looks smaller? I always thought it looked bigger, which it is. Azrael Renegades 12:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Since nobody has defended the comment about the 2nd gen looking smaller, I'm gonna go ahead and remove that comment from the article. Azrael Renegades 02:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it really possible that it could explode?

If this car was left running on top of dried leaves, ALA The Sopranos? Tarabyte 09:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It's true of any car, given the right situation. It's been awhile, but at one time just about every car company was issuing reminders not to park on dry leaves, at least not a huge mound of them. In the case of last night's episode, a few things were taken to the extreme. First off, the pile AJ parked on wasn't that large. Second, earlier in the episode we saw heavy flurries, which snow, just like rain, would have made the leaves damp. You've just got to remember, HBO is TV, so they tend to blow almost everything out of portion for the effect of the situation. --Brownings 10:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

So really, the scene had nothing specific to do with this vehicle in particular, just a general condition that could occur with any vehicle given the right set of circumstances...of course, notwithstanding dramatic effect for TV. -Tarabyte 04:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

External links & the pissing contest

As you've probably seen, I've pulled all the descriptions from the External links section. Honestly, it's gotten rather out-of-hand with the labels and wars between non-regs changing their club's descriptions back and forth with things like "Largest Xterra resource.." or "Biggest owner community." While I have no problem with providing links on Wikipedia to club or fan pages, I do have a problem with penis measuring contests. As a result, I zapped all the descriptions. I did not however alter any of the links themselves. Anyone else have an opinion on this matter? --Brownings 13:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The links do need some type of description to help guide individuals. It looks as though most of the major sites are covered. I dont think any of it as a pissing contest. --12.175.230.58 22:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

So who is the douche that got rid off all the links... this is why Wiki SUCKS!!! Go use Google and functional websites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.175.230.39 (talk) 22:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Removing Class Action Lawsuit section

Under the Second Generation section, there is a section added about a lawsuit pertaining to the vehicle's transmission. The section seems to be pulled word for word from the website of the law office who sued Nissan. Regardless, given that, according to the source link, all available claims have been made, this section no longer applies anyways ("The settlement will provide various benefits to all current and former owners and lessees...").

I am removing it. It seems more of an ad than useful information. Owners are typically individually notified of these things, anyways. MastrCake (talk) 19:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)