did the real pf die in 96

[**DONOTDELETE**]

i think so whats left is a stationwagon pf
and a transposed pickup xtera
i recently looked under the 2001 and was amased at how cheap it is compared to my 89
my 89 had fat rectangular rear traction links
the new one has small round ones
i really think they killed the pf in 95-96
as far as off road ability goes i hope im wrong could anyone add anything to this
and if its cheaper why is it more expensive
thats why they dont have to change the msrp this year its completly out of line to start with

[TitaniusMaximus]

A drive in a new Path might help you understand how obsolete the 89 Path is... not only is it rated as the best off-roading midsize SUV on the market, mostly do to the chassis design, but the 90% engine's torque comes in at under 2000 rpms, where you need it the most when offroading... not to mention the body structure, the monoframe, 3 times stronger than any other chassis configuration... stronger body provides better offroad capabilities, allows for a softer spring rate for a superior ride, and it's the #1 SUV rated in crash tests... and for that rear traction thing being small... maybe over time the technology have gotten better and shrunk in size???

[TitaniusMaximus]

Talk about price??? The Pathfinder's main competition, the Toyota 4Runner tops out at uhh... $41k??? that's out of whack... not the Pathfinder... and please test drive before you make any assumptions... test drives are free... http://forums.freshalloy.com/forum//images/icons/grin.gif

[Max Ima]

The Pathfinder died around 1996. However, there is good news. It has been resurrected and re-named...Xterra.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

it may ba true that the new one is better off
road but could a strut front suspension handle the rigors of an all out pounding off road I have my doubts I know that the truck
is probably a better compromise thats why I intend to buy one still I doubt its better
than the old one which was if you never owned one a blast to drive. My old 89 has only 146
h.p. but at 3600 pounds it has the same weight ratio to h.p. as the 2000
Im going to buy a se full load awd im canadian

i

[**DONOTDELETE**]

where did those big 31x10.5x15 tires go
they were real off road tires
where did the 9 inch clearance go no
noones going to make me believe the 2001 is
better off road what I do believe is that its a better compromise and alot more street savy but with enough off road prowess left
to allow you to do some rough trails once in awhile

[TitaniusMaximus]

See... most SUV buyers are females... comprising of more than 60% of the SUV sales... so they had to make it female friendlier than the previous Path... therefore a lower step in height... so in that sense the macho-ness was taken out, and the macho Path died... but I believe the Path ground clearance is 8.8 inches... they should just bring the Nissan Patrol over to the states... now that's a offroad vehicle if I ever saw one http://forums.freshalloy.com/forum//images/icons/grin.gif

[**DONOTDELETE**]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial[/img]quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by skullker:
where did those big 31x10.5x15 tires go
they were real off road tires
where did the 9 inch clearance go no
noones going to make me believe the 2001 is
better off road what I do believe is that its a better compromise and alot more street savy but with enough off road prowess left
to allow you to do some rough trails once in awhile<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i totally agree. Nissan needs to start offering 31" tires on all their 4x4 vehicles--frontier, xterra, pathfinder. i believe Nissan was first to offer 31" tires as an option on the old Hardbody, they even beat Toyota.

oh yeah, the original Pathfinder was basically a covered Nissan Hardbody, just like the Xterra is a covered up Nissan Frontier. not anything wrong with that. the xterra is great offroad, looks good, and has a good price http://forums.freshalloy.com/forum//images/icons/smile.gif

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Personally,I think Nissan is taking (finally) the right steps to compete in the SUV world.The Pathfinder has the looks (99.5 and up),and the power (2001) to fight properly.The Xterra slaughters everything in its class from the "WannaSUVS:..(Rav4,CRV,)to the Antique Cherokees and Rodeos and Blazers(oh my). And hey Im sure some Ford "Exploder" sales were lost to the Xterra too.People buy enough of these and Nissan can bring back the sports cars!!!!! (SUVs=profit).

[**DONOTDELETE**]

But I miss those signature 3 pillars on the Pathfinder....they had to replace it with a big grill just like all the other SUV'S http://forums.freshalloy.com/forum//images/icons/frown.gif

I'm a perfectionist http://forums.freshalloy.com/forum//images/icons/cool.gif

[**DONOTDELETE**]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial[/img]quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fairlady Z:
But I miss those signature 3 pillars on the Pathfinder....they had to replace it with a big grill just like all the other SUV'S http://forums.freshalloy.com/forum//images/icons/frown.gif

I'm a perfectionist http://forums.freshalloy.com/forum//images/icons/cool.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

the new pathy grille bears a little resemblence to the skyline GT-R's. it pulls it off pretty well, it think. now the truck grille i liked was the last nissan hardbody grille, with the slanted pillars and the 3 little black grilles. that was an aggressive looking grille in my opinion. the frontier's was similar, but it just didn't look aggressive, too small I guess. the new Patrol has a similar grille too

[**DONOTDELETE**]

To me, the Pathfinder died in '96 with the addition of MacPherson strut front suspension. This is what makes them a boulevard grocery getter instead of an SUV. I don't care how many horsepower they put under the hood, as long as they have those struts, I'm keeping my '91 or buying a Toyota.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

what are some of the differences between the first pathfinder and the Xterra? does it have a similar suspension setup?

[**DONOTDELETE**]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial[/img]quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Knife Party at the Niko:
what are some of the differences between the first pathfinder and the Xterra? does it have a similar suspension setup?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The front suspension on the Xterra is virtually identical to the original PF. The Xterra has leaf springs in the rear while the original PF used a five link, coil spring rear which provides a better ride on the highway and more articulation for off-road terrain. Even though the original PF was based on the Hardbody truck frame and running gear, Nissan exchanged the truck's leaf springs for the five-link setup on the PF. I don't get why they didn't do the same for the Xterra.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

nissan probably did it to save money..

if i were to rate the xterra up against the first pathfinder, i'd have to give props to the xterra. mainly for its unique styling and more powerful engine. everytime i see an xterra it always turns my head. not many SUV's do that for me at least.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Got a glance of the article in Car and Driver about the new Pathfinder in the news stand today. They gave it an overall positive review, including a quote which I like-There's nothing wrong with the previous Pathfinder that can't be cured with 250 horses http://forums.freshalloy.com/forum//images/icons/smile.gif

They also think the Nissan have a potent lineup right now with the hotselling Xterra and Maxima, the more powerful Pathfinder/QX4, plus the Altima and new Sentra.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial[/img]quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Knife Party at the Niko:
nissan probably did it to save money..

if i were to rate the xterra up against the first pathfinder, i'd have to give props to the xterra. mainly for its unique styling and more powerful engine.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I, too like the styling of the Xterra but when I'd be getting a cheaper-looking (and IMO flimsy seat bolstering) interior, primitive leaf springs, and a power increase that may show up on paper but not during my test drive, I'm left wondering why I would go back into debt to buy one. Of course, I still turn my head to look at 87-95 Pathfinders.

I'd charge through the Nissan dealer door to buy an Xterrs with the five-link rear, better quality interior and, say, a 4.0 litre, SOHC, normally aspirated (no superchargers) V6. Yeah, I know. Dream on.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial[/img]quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mike:
I, too like the styling of the Xterra but when I'd be getting a cheaper-looking (and IMO flimsy seat bolstering) interior, primitive leaf springs, and a power increase that may show up on paper but not during my test drive, I'm left wondering why I would go back into debt to buy one. Of course, I still turn my head to look at 87-95 Pathfinders.

I'd charge through the Nissan dealer door to buy an Xterrs with the five-link rear, better quality interior and, say, a 4.0 litre, SOHC, normally aspirated (no superchargers) V6. Yeah, I know. Dream on.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


but the purpose of the Xterra was to be back to basics. a cheaper alternative to rav4's and even luxury SUV's like the explorer. a leatherlined interior and advanced suspension would drive the price way up, defeating the original purpose of the vehicle. but i do agree Nissan should go to larger displacement V6's for their trucks, especially the Frontier. 4.0+ Liters would be excellent

[**DONOTDELETE**]

I traded in a 87 Pathfinder for a 00 X. Both were/are 5-speeds, hi-trim level.
Power - the additional torque of the 3.3 below 3,500 rpm's makes a real difference. While the PF would just hold a hill in fourth, the X will accelerate in fifth on the same hill.
Interior - the rear seat, circus tent shifter and the umbrella hand brake of the X are poor designs compaired to the PF.
Suspension - as already noted, the front is about the same. The rear of the PF is more sophisticated - but only a factor under extreem conditions IMHO.
Style - the X stands out vs. most of the SUV's out there.

dave - who saved the alloy wheels and 31 in. tires from the rustfinder http://forums.freshalloy.com/forum//images/icons/cool.gif

[**DONOTDELETE**]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial[/img]quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Knife Party at the Niko:

But the purpose of the Xterra was to be back to basics. A leatherlined interior and advanced suspension would drive the price way up, defeating the original purpose of the vehicle. But I do agree Nissan should go to larger displacement V6's for their trucks, especially the Frontier. 4.0+ Liters would be excellent<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm all for the back-to-basics thing but it seems to me that Nissan has had the five link rear suspension in their parts bin since 1987 so I don't see how that could impact the cost that much if any. I don't care if the interior has leather-- properly bolstered cloth would be just fine. My test drive had me wondering how long I'd want to sit on those thin, soft pads (as in long trip). I think that Nissan just didn't want to cut into Pathfinder sales, which I can sort of understand except that I don't think that Xterra and Pathfinder buyers have much common ground anymore. Those MacPherson struts (expensive, impact sensitive, difficult to replace and no aftermarket) on Pathfinders are problematic, according to another Pathfinder board and I think took the vehicle off of a lot of customer's shopping lists.

[ChuckH]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial[/img]quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DaveDatsun:
I traded in a 87 Pathfinder for a 00 X. Both were/are 5-speeds, hi-trim level.
Power - the additional torque of the 3.3 below 3,500 rpm's makes a real difference. While the PF would just hold a hill in fourth, the X will accelerate in fifth on the same hill.
Interior - the rear seat, circus tent shifter and the umbrella hand brake of the X are poor designs compaired to the PF.
Suspension - as already noted, the front is about the same. The rear of the PF is more sophisticated - but only a factor under extreem conditions IMHO.
Style - the X stands out vs. most of the SUV's out there.

dave - who saved the alloy wheels and 31 in. tires from the rustfinder http://forums.freshalloy.com/forum//images/icons/cool.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree on the shifter and the parking brake. I have to get out of the vehicle to pull the parking brake all the way; otherwise, my leg gets in the way. Out of curiosity though, what's your beef with the back seat? I think it's quite good and I'm 6'2" tall. My only problem is the short rear door makes getting out a little tricky. Oddly, I actually think the front seats are OK too, which is not what most think. They could use a little more adjustability and firmer padding (more support) in the butt section, but they're better than most SUV's.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

On my 87 PF the seat cushion would swing foward then the seat back would fold flat with the cargo floor. In addition, you could adjust the angle of the seat back.
With the X, you have to fuss with the loose cushions. Could be there was a design restriction or just cost cutting. Not as good as the PF design tho.

dave - are the cushions rated as flotation devices http://forums.freshalloy.com/forum//images/icons/rolleyes.gif

[ChuckH]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial[/img]quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DaveDatsun:
On my 87 PF the seat cushion would swing foward then the seat back would fold flat with the cargo floor. In addition, you could adjust the angle of the seat back.
With the X, you have to fuss with the loose cushions. Could be there was a design restriction or just cost cutting. Not as good as the PF design tho.

dave - are the cushions rated as flotation devices http://forums.freshalloy.com/forum//images/icons/rolleyes.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now I understand! I thought it was pretty odd too that the cushions had to be removed, but didn't think about that when you posted. I'm sure it is a cost cutting measure. I did think of a good use for them though (aside from flotation!) that is only possible since they can be removed. If you were to sleep back there, they could be used as pillows. Probably not comfy, but better than nothing! http://forums.freshalloy.com/forum//images/icons/smile.gif

A friend of mine had an older PF and didn't even know the rear seat could be adjusted until about 5 years after buying it. The whole time it was reclined too much and he just thought that was the way the were. Nice feature if you know it's there.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

i just bought a 2001 pathfinder se full load
and its as refined as it gets
but in comparison to my old 89 pf well off road its not as good in the rough stuff in my opinion the pre 95`s were the best off road
trucks going bar none the new one beats the old hands down on the pavement
the reason is the 31 inch tires on the old model although if you dont go in the real rough stuff you wont see a differance
the new one is awesomme in that it handles the hyway like a good sedan and can handle the rough stuff 99% as good as the old model
with alot less shake ,rattle,roll than the old model

[**DONOTDELETE**]

I totally agree with you there man. I think the new Pathfinder is years ahead of the old one as far as highway ride is concerned. Only thing it really needs (now that it has 240hp) to be better off road is a better set of tires. 31x10.5R15 tires like the ones offered on the older model would be great if they would fit on the new models 16" alloys. Best compromise would be a 265/75R16 mounted on the factory wheels or wheels of a similar size and offset. Key to finding a good set of wheels and tires with a new Nissan (or any Nissan) is finding wheels with the right amount of offset to fit inside the fenderwells and prevent rubbing. Aside from the tire problem I think the new Pathfinder is light years ahead of the Old one.

As to the arguement of the MacPhearson strut front suspension, I dont see why this is such a problem. They have been in use for years on their cars without a problem and I dont see why they would be now that they've installed them on the Pathfinder. Toyota uses a similar setup on its small trucks and nobody seems to complain about those.