I love my Titan.  But it is a full sized pickup.  Much bigger than the
Ranger with a lot more capacity and towing power.  IMO, the Frontier is a
better compare to a Ranger.

Early Titans had some teething problems but I believe they are just about
perfect now.  Fuel economy is OK for a 300+ HP truck.  Just don't expect
much better than 16 or so MPG highway unless you are a very conservative
driver.

The 07 has a plus up on HP due to variable valve timing.

I would absolutely buy another but would also give a close look at the new
Toyota full size.

Check out the forums at titan.com.

Butch

I have a 2006 Frontier (King Cab, 4WD, V-6) - the USA Nissan truck that is
closest in size to your Ranger. I am disappointed with the Frontier. We have
a small farm and I purchased the Frontier to replace an older stripped down
F150 (1992, 6 cylinder, 2WD, short box). We also have a 1999 Ranger
(Supercab, 4WD, 4.0L V6). I anticipated that the Frontier would be more
comfortable than the F150 or Ranger, haul more than the Ranger, and have
fuel mileage somewhere in between. I am disappointed on all counts. The
Frontier has the worst seats known to man. The console in the middle
essentially makes the drivers space about the same as a Miata. The rear jump
seats are worse than useless (they keep falling down and getting in the way
and no one can fit in them). The fuel mileage is worse than the old F150.
And despite having a bigger box than the Ranger, if you actually try to load
it down with farm supplies (seed / chemical / etc.), you cannot haul any
more than the Ranger because the rear suspension bottoms out  sooner. Nissan
did an amazing thing, they combined a horrible ride with no load carrying
capacity. The Ranger actually rides better and can carry as much. The old
F150 was much more comfortable and could carry a lot more than the Frontier.
When I was shopping, I narrowed my choices down to the Frontier, Tacoma,
Ranger, and Colorado. I didn't buy a Ranger because I thought they were too
small and we had been buying those for 20 years. I didn't buy the Colorado
because I thought it was under-powered and cheap feeling. I didn't buy the
Tacoma because it costs too much relative to the others. I wish I had bought
another Ranger or maybe bitten the bullet and bought the Tacoma. The Ranger
was thousands less than any of the others, and today, when I am at the farm
and drive the 2006 Frontier back to back with the 1999 Ranger, I am always
struck by how much more comfortable the Ranger is, despite being much
smaller looking. Now if you are interested in drag racing pick-ups, the
Frontier has a clear advantage. Once you get it in the power band, the
Nissan V-6 engine really pulls. However, the low end sucks, and if you are
trying to drive around in soft dirt with the bed loaded, the crappy old OHV
V-6 in the Ranger is better.  Oh yeah, one more complaint - who in the hell
decided to put the oil filter in the center front of the engine and cover it
with a slash shield. They did put an access door in the shield, but it is
too small  and makes changing the oil a pain in the hand. The best things
about the Frontier are the engine and transmission. These would be great in
a car. And if you are just going to ride around town in your truck, they are
a good combination (except the gas mileage sucks). If you get a Frontier,
make sure you get the upgraded seats. The standard seats look good but
really suck on a longer trip. Oh yeah, the Frontier has been back to the
dealer three times in the first 8 months - two recalls, a fix for the jump
seats (fix didn't work), and a misadjusted rear door. Fuel economy over the
first 8 months and 13,000 miles is slightly worse than for my old F150 (I
keep a gas mileage log).

Ed

After asking around and thinking about it, I have decided to get
another Ranger, OR an F150.  Whichever one appears in the newspaper as
a loss leader first, that is where I'll go.  thanks for the replies,
littleberry