Edmund's Pathfinder Review - it's no 4runner
- Thread starter Michigan_t4r
- Start date
The interior was fine but attention to detail was bad, my 96 was of a higher lever then my 00, the 00 was in the cost cutting stage of Nissan and the floor had air pockets in it that you could push down, the front under the dash was not perfectly cut.
The previous Pathfinder is probably higher quality then the current US made 1.
I traded my 00 cause of minor issues I did not want to deal with, overall it was a good vehicle that I like but the new Pathfinder seems no bigger then the older 1, I test drove the 05 and was no impressed
The previous Pathfinder is probably higher quality then the current US made 1.
I traded my 00 cause of minor issues I did not want to deal with, overall it was a good vehicle that I like but the new Pathfinder seems no bigger then the older 1, I test drove the 05 and was no impressed
bulldog-yota
New member
I would like to see performace figures of the 2005 Pathfinder from a real testing mag and also the 2005 V6 and V8 4Runner reults. I'm willing to bet the Pathfinder will get spanked by both. It weights too much. Also keep in mind when it comes to daily driving you need torque at reasonable RPMs, go see at what RPM the Pathfinder makes TQ vs the V6 or V8 4R 
:
Other than that I notice a trend that the next gen 4R will probably also be IRS as well
:Other than that I notice a trend that the next gen 4R will probably also be IRS as well
Hitman
New member
EDGE said:
If you put 3 of the same exact year/make/model of car on a dyno, you'll most likely get different results out of each. That's because there are a number of variables and tolerances to consider.
Just because the 240 HP '02 model and the 245 HP '03 model and the 250 HP '05 model put down around the same numbers doesn't mean that the HP ratings are bogus. There's only a 10 HP spread between the three of them, so of course the numbers will be close.
Hell, if you dynoed the same exact car three different times (with proper cool down periods each time) you're still likely to get numbers that are different.
My point with the VQ engine is that although they used the same basic block and engine architecture, the Pathfinder had 4 liters of displacement, compared to most other VQ engines which are 3.5 liters. It may be the same engine, but it is not the same size.
I know what your saying, I've driven certain models that felt like they had more power, I understand that all the engines are tuned differently for different purposes especially the 3.5 to 4.0
During my 05 Pathfinder test drive I felt the truck was overweight, a magazine article I read said the same thing, good power but it's kinda heavy
During my 05 Pathfinder test drive I felt the truck was overweight, a magazine article I read said the same thing, good power but it's kinda heavy
Hank
New member
here's my 2 cents: In a recent FOUR WHEELER issue, they tested a FRONTIER & TACOMA (basically same platform as the PATHFINDER & 4RUNNER). Although they didn't test 0-60 times, the TACO spanked the FRONTIER in the QUARTER MILE ([email protected] vs. [email protected]). The TACO consistently beats the FRONTIER in both the 1/8mile & 1/4mile with or w/o a load by .4 to .5 seconds. Both V6s were mated w/5speed autos. Braking performance was no contest. TACO stopped 40ft shorter than the FRONTIER in 60-0mph (TACO has REAR DRUMS vs. FRONTIER'S rear discs!). So my point is that the performance figures for the 4R & PATH can be derived from these numbers and it probably wouldn't be too far off either. Besides, edmunds.com didn't test the V6 PATH & V8 4R side by side and there are many factors that may affect performance figures.
Secondly, it's better, IMO, to bore than stroke an engine (assuming that the cylinder wall isn't too thin & can handle the additional stress). Over-stroking an engine that is capable of high rpms can potentially snap the piston rods. It's safer to over-bored an engine since the pistons has a shorter travel distance and is less likely to suffer from a broken piston rod. The 4R's V6 is almost "squared".
Secondly, it's better, IMO, to bore than stroke an engine (assuming that the cylinder wall isn't too thin & can handle the additional stress). Over-stroking an engine that is capable of high rpms can potentially snap the piston rods. It's safer to over-bored an engine since the pistons has a shorter travel distance and is less likely to suffer from a broken piston rod. The 4R's V6 is almost "squared".
bulldog-yota
New member
Hank said:
Is that info online too?? That would be a nice reference to refer too.
TeryT
New member
I have the precursor to the Nissan VQ, the VG in my 1988 Pathfinder. This truck now has 217k on it with no major anything going wrong, and the thing seems to have just the same power it did 9 years ago when I got it. (And the ole Pathy was built on a very solid truck frame.)
I can only imagine what the VQ is like, seeing that it has won a spot in Ward's top 10 engines longer than any other engine - 10 years. If Nissan has such a solid world-beating engine, why not modify it & put it in everything!?
I love my 03 V8 4Runner, but the 88 Pathy has been an absolute workhorse towing & off-roading with extremely low maintenance. Best vehicle I've owned thus far!
I can only imagine what the VQ is like, seeing that it has won a spot in Ward's top 10 engines longer than any other engine - 10 years. If Nissan has such a solid world-beating engine, why not modify it & put it in everything!?
I love my 03 V8 4Runner, but the 88 Pathy has been an absolute workhorse towing & off-roading with extremely low maintenance. Best vehicle I've owned thus far!
Koz
New member
I read the comparison that Hank is referring to, the Tacoma won everything. It was the biggest, longest, lightest, had the smallest turning radius, stopped in the shortest distance, smoked the others in acceleration (even whooped the V8 Dakota), It had the biggest bed, was only 1mpg less then the best gas mileage (Canyon).
I also agree with Bulldog-yota about the 05 T4R and 05 Path, I think the V6 T4R will surprise the Path in acceleration do to the weight difference, and the V8 T4R will outrun the Path.
The main difference between Toyota and Nissan in engine development is that when Toyota needed more power they completely developed a new engine 3.4V6 to the 4.0V6 where Nissan enlarged their existing proven engine. Toyota could have punched out the V8 to make the extra 35hp but instead refined and developed the existing proven 4.7.
We are starting to see the differences between these vehicles, and soon there will be a shootout between the top 05 mid-sized SUVs. I predict the VVT-i V8 equipped T4R will take the top spot (no-brainer).
Bottom line is, Toyota is the measuring stick by which the industry uses to compare. Toyota is knocking on the door of GM and Ford for market-share. It's a LONG horse race!
Koz
I also agree with Bulldog-yota about the 05 T4R and 05 Path, I think the V6 T4R will surprise the Path in acceleration do to the weight difference, and the V8 T4R will outrun the Path.
The main difference between Toyota and Nissan in engine development is that when Toyota needed more power they completely developed a new engine 3.4V6 to the 4.0V6 where Nissan enlarged their existing proven engine. Toyota could have punched out the V8 to make the extra 35hp but instead refined and developed the existing proven 4.7.
We are starting to see the differences between these vehicles, and soon there will be a shootout between the top 05 mid-sized SUVs. I predict the VVT-i V8 equipped T4R will take the top spot (no-brainer).
Bottom line is, Toyota is the measuring stick by which the industry uses to compare. Toyota is knocking on the door of GM and Ford for market-share. It's a LONG horse race!
Koz
TeryT
New member
The V6 just won't pull what I need it to. Plus I really wanted something that was awesome off-road. The old Pathfinder was a decent off-roader, and in some respects was heavier built than the 4Runner. (Some may remember the old 1st generation Pathfinders also being Consumer Reports highest rated SUV.) But the Pathfinder was changed. In the newest model it has gone back to some of its tougher roots, but is still no match for a V8 4Runner.EDGE said:
Plus I wanted to experience that impeccable Toyota quality for myself!
CardsFan
New member
I'm not a techie, but I do know this. For the SUV application, more torque is BETTER! Lower RPMs equals much longer engine life, lower oil consumption and increased fuel efficiency. However, I like Nissan's 5.6, and I would have considered the Armada if it would have fit in the garage.
