Nissan Pathfinder

Reply

  #1  
Old 03-27-09, 11:49 AM
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Iowa!!!!!
Posts: 3,673
Nissan Pathfinder

How is the Nissan Pathfinder - 1997, manual tranny, 4X4, 68,000, 6 cylinder 3.3 rated by the pros here?

I've never had to do anything with one and am looking for something for the kid in the family (not my wife).
 
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 03-27-09, 12:07 PM
chandler's Avatar
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 39,968
Not sure about the newer one, but I had a predecessor, the 86 1/2 hardbody with the same configuration, and it couldn't be beat. I only got rid of it after 150K because I thought I needed a bigger truck. Wish I had the hardbody back.
 
  #3  
Old 03-27-09, 03:16 PM
HotxxxxxxxOKC's Avatar
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 8,044
I got my wife a 2008 Pathfinder with the 4.0 and it's been a dream. The 3.3 is a good motor and you shouldn't have any problems with her.
 
  #4  
Old 03-27-09, 05:33 PM
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Iowa!!!!!
Posts: 3,673
Thanks for the responses.

Is the 3.3 (as in the one in 1997) still a current engine in Nissan or is it upgraded to the 4.0? Also, is the Pathfinder like described good for 200,000 with good care? Just generally speaking - I know there's no guarantee.

Also I'm hearing about poor fuel economy. With the 3.3 and manual transmission what is the best a 4 X 4 would get?
 
  #5  
Old 03-27-09, 06:48 PM
HotxxxxxxxOKC's Avatar
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 8,044
Pathfinders come standard with the 4.0 now and there is a 5.6 V8 option. It's not that great on gas, about 20-23mpg highway. With standard maintenance, it will last forever.
 
  #6  
Old 03-27-09, 08:58 PM
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Iowa!!!!!
Posts: 3,673
Thanks for the information Mark. I think I could live with the 20+ mpg.
 
  #7  
Old 03-28-09, 06:12 AM
Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: New England
Posts: 9,808
Currently driving a 97 and previously had a 93, same setup and love them, but you will never see 20+ unless you are coasting down hill. I traveled all over the state doing service work so had to keep electronics warm inside and be able to go in snow so didn't much care about fuel economy. When new maybe 18 to 20. Currently at 150,000 and getting 15 to 18 at best. I'm in salt country so body will not go much past 10 years, just put $3,000 into bodywork so it will look good for another year, but will sell next year.

If the price and body are good, it would be a real reliable vehicle for kids, but if gas prices go back up $70 a tank hurts.

Bud
 
  #8  
Old 03-28-09, 12:16 PM
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 8,629
Originally Posted by marbobj View Post
Thanks for the information Mark. I think I could live with the 20+ mpg.
I second that, considering I have driven trucks and vans, from the early to late 70's, that get from about 9-12 mpg (with a load in them, that is). 20-23 seems excellent, relatively speaking.

What are some off-road/SUV type 4 x 4's that get much more than 23? I wonder how they do it with all that weight?
 
  #9  
Old 03-28-09, 12:54 PM
chandler's Avatar
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 39,968
That's unbelievably poor gas mileage for a light truck. I would think it to be better. Heck, I'm driving a 2001 Dodge Ram Cummins 4x4 dually and get a consistent 16 mpg. And not on flat land, either.
 
  #10  
Old 03-28-09, 01:04 PM
Gunguy45's Avatar
Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 20,801
I don't think its that surprising. I had a '98 Dakota with a 318 and it was lucky to do 16-18. And the previous one with a V-6 wasn't much better.

A lot depends on the weight and frame..isn't the Pathfinder a full frame (vs unibody)?

Even looking at the newer small trucks (Nissan, Toyota, Chevy, GMC,etc) unless you get a 4 banger regular cab you won't get much more than 20-22..if that. Just going from memory..don't have the facts in front of me.
 
  #11  
Old 03-28-09, 02:11 PM
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 8,629
Originally Posted by chandler View Post
That's unbelievably poor gas mileage for a light truck.
I don't want to hijack the thread as issue is with poster's gas mileage. But just to respond, the light truck weighed about 6,000 pounds with the work load inside. Engines were V-8, carbureted 305 or 350's.

9 mpg in winter below 0 degrees, and idling included. 12.5 mpg in summer.
 
  #12  
Old 03-28-09, 02:30 PM
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Iowa!!!!!
Posts: 3,673
Back to the 18 - 20 mpg for the Pathfinder - that really is pretty good. Our Rav4 with the I4 is rated at 26 mpg, but we usually run about 23 - 25. It's a lot lighter than a Pathfinder, but it's with an automatic where this one I'm looking at is a manual.

It was quite a while before a half ton 2wd saw 18 mpg. I still don't know of a lot of them that do.
 
  #13  
Old 03-28-09, 03:17 PM
Unclediezel's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Northeastern PA.
Posts: 2,230
Before you Buy it.......

Look carefully under and around the rear Bumper.......They have a really nasty habit of ROTTING AWAY to nothing.......

The Mud Guards did absolutely Nothing........
 
  #14  
Old 03-28-09, 06:32 PM
HotxxxxxxxOKC's Avatar
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 8,044
 
  #15  
Old 03-28-09, 07:48 PM
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Iowa!!!!!
Posts: 3,673
Ok, that's pretty good for an Okie. How do you do that?

Say... is that a Bowtie on that little sign ?
 
Reply

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Display Modes
'