2005 Nissan Pathfinder Preview

Maximus96

Diamond Member
Nov 9, 2000
5,388
1
0
i didn't read thru the whole thing, is it just a bigger armada?

edit: nevermind
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
I love it. It would be the truck I would get. The last gen has been around for a long time and still scores good in comparos.
The engine is probably underrated.
3.5L pathfinder had 265 lbft of torque. That would put the 4L at 302 and not 292 based on displacement.
But it does mean good things for VQ's future. The 3.5L started with pathfinder and then made it's way into everything else.
I wouldn't be surprised if there was a G40 and 400Z in not too distant future with 340 hp or so ;)
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
67
91
Looks very appealing. IIRC the concept 2005 Pathfinder looked like ass, but I think this is the best-looking of the new Nissan trucks (the Armada, Frontier and Titan being the others).
 

Childs

Lifer
Jul 9, 2000
11,313
7
81
This looks like something Mitsu or Izusu would make. The two previous generations looked better IMO.
 

arcas

Platinum Member
Apr 10, 2001
2,155
2
0
4x2 models have been given a 16 city, 23 highway rating from the EPA, while 4x4 models are expected to be a mpg lower in each.

Christ. Looks like I'll be marking the Pathfinder off my list of candidates. My 1997 Honda Passport 4x4 is rated for 16/19 (but in reality gets 17/23). I would have hoped that 8 years of development would have resulted in something with better fuel economy. Looks like it's actually worse. It looks like Nissan has bought into the "bigger is obviously better" mindset that has given us such abominations as the Excursion and H2.

Taking Nissan as an example, if a car company can boost engine size from ~160HP to 270HP over 8 years and maintain roughly the same fuel economy, why can't they make those same improvements to a 190-200HP engine and possibly result in 20/28mpg? I don't care for or need 270HP. Give me a mid-sized SUV with a 200HP engine and I'll be fine. Apparently I'm in the minority.