hawairish

Yes, but the Econ mode is for heating. Says so in the owners manual, as well as to not set the temperature below the outside temp while in Econ mode. You want non-Auto, non-Econ, non-recirculation if you want fresh, cool, non-AC, outside air.

Turn the system off then hit the fan speed up button. That's it!

I'll preface things with these: There are many ways to do the same thing Impedance has nothing to do with sound quality (at least not directly) The absolute biggest constraint to answering any of these questions is the fact that we have no specs about the Bose components or system; we just have a system description, some diagrams, and some assumptions No reason it shouldn't. Nothing stops you from replacing the amp. The harness has everything you'd need...however, you'll rarely (er, never?) see anyone re-using factory wires for an aftermarket amp for a few reasons (fire being one of them). You calling me a liar?! Kidding. For the same reason above, you have the signals you need. I can't think of why this wouldn't work. If you choose to not use the amp, all you have to do is take the amp circuitry out of the equation. You could re-use the amp...but again, we don't know what its specs are. Keep in mind, too, with stereo installs, it's not uncommon to need to splice, solder, and crimp things. The big question. The answer: entirely subjective and/or difficult to know! Impedance is irrelevant in terms of "what's better", unless you're asking, "what's better for the power source". Amps (amplifiers or headunits) have their own levels of efficiency at different power outputs. You manipulate the impedance (or really, the perceived impedance by the power source) to get different power outputs. There are numerous ways to do this: speakers in parallel or series; speakers with dual voice coils (DVC); speakers with different impedances; bridging channels; resistors, etc. The decision to do any is largely based on the design of the system (how many amps, how many subs, etc.) and the specs/features of each component. Specifically for amps, some can handle different impedances better than others. Personally, I'd keep the amps, keep the speakers, and upgrade the headunit at this point. I think that provides the next best step in improvement, requires the least amount of work, and provides the most new features. Even the most basic headunits have great features, including pre-amps should you decide to add some amps down the line. Not to drone on as I usually do, but take a look at the features on the most generic and inexpensive stereos at Crutchfield. A 13-yo Bose radio can't even remotely compare.

If longer studs are necessary, they'll be included with the hubs. Warn includes new studs. Not sure about the ones in Totriz's pic. My truck is the one in the thread, which came with the hubs and spacers. I don't know if the OE studs were used (doesn't look like the RR hubs include studs), but I replaced the wheels studs solely to allow for the 1/4" spacer.

You talking longer wheels studs, or longer studs for installing the hub?

This. Paid $150 for lifetime alignment through Firestone when I got the truck; the cost of two alignments there. Had the 3rd alignment just the other month...gave them a $0 bill and a free handshake. (Of course, I had actually eyeballed the alignment after lifting it again, before dropping it off and was spot on...so technically I did all the work.)

No sweat. Sorry the answers are pretty generic...it's because of the unknowns (specs) about the Bose system. I'm familiar with it; I have it in my truck. Bypassing the amps is easy: the audio signal both enters and exits each amp, so you can just unplug its wiring harness and jump the input wires to the corresponding output wires. The wiring harness stays unplugged, and the amps collect dust. You'd only do this with an aftermarket headunit, while running all speakers at 4Ω (typical for aftermarket radios). The front speakers are easier...you just wire the input and output signal to the new crossover. In your current setup with cassette adapter, you're introducing noise. The amp is just amplifying a bad message. Garbage-in, garbage-out. With an aftermarket headunit (let's ignore the Scosche unit for a moment), you get better sound because you'll have more ability to control it. Not only are you maintaining a much higher signal-to-noise ratio (a good thing) by using some other input method (USB/AUX/BT), but you can control the frequencies to each channel. This allows each speaker to only reproduce frequencies that it should (or can) handle. You want that sort of separation. And that's the advantage of 2-way, 3-way, and component speakers...when you send them a full-range signal, they're already configured to break up the frequencies so that each individual speaker covers a certain range (compared to stock where a single speaker is trying to reproduce all frequencies it receives and can handle). Again, the amp is just the messenger...but it's no longer garbage-in, garbage-out. The signal going into the amp is far more important than the signal coming out of the amp...and far more sensitive. That's why you get higher volt pre-amps, better insulated RCA cables, running cables away from other electrical sources...all things that produce and keep a clean signal. The purpose of the Scosche is ensure the signal between the aftermarket headunit and OE amp is at a sufficient level so the amp can maximize volume and minimize distortion. The unfortunate catch is that none of this really explains why your rear speaker volume is low. The JBLs are spec'd at 2.3Ω, which could be enough additional load (15%) to reduce volume (by 15%), but that assumes that the OE speakers are really 2Ω. More resistance, less watts, less volume. If you haven't already, I would also confirm the polarity at the speaker...according to the FSM, the + feed some be coming from an orange factory wire, and — to a black/pink wire. Without hearing it, one or both of those things could reduce volume. If the slightly higher resistance were the problem, you could run a 15Ω resistor with a high enough wattage (10W?) rating in parallel with the speaker to bring load back down to 2Ω. You'd need to know how many watts the amp produces to know how many watts the resistor needs, but according to one online calculator, a 50W amp would send <7W to the 15Ω resistor. 50W is just a guess, and a higher wattage resistor doesn't hurt anything.

Chrome? That seems like an odd place for a decorative piece, and doesn't sound stock. The nylon on mine were always destroyed...I got tired of replacing them and just stopped turning to full lock when backing out of the driveway (SCReEEeEEEEEch!)

You've got a couple things going on in there, so to tackle those first: --I think you're talking about line-out converter that takes a speaker level input and converts to a pre-amp output. I guess that's essentially what the Scosche unit does, though its description is a little vague. I have the unit, and quality seems fine to me (as fine as can be expected from stock speakers, anyway). --A cassette adapter will definitely introduce noise and degrade audio quality. --Not sure how new front speakers would react. In all honestly, there are a few variables that can influence things. You'd expect things to be plug-and-play, but when other non-standard components exist in a system, it could easily be apples and oranges. The BOSE system is exactly that: a system. Without knowing the specs of the amp, though, it's hard to know what's going on. Perhaps it has a LPF that was suitable for stock speakers, but now you've added 2- or 3-ways that are being under-utilized. Not saying that's the case here, but a possibility. IMO, the gains from changing the headunit on a stock system far exceed those of changing speakers on a stock system. A new headunit with built-in EQ settings, custom EQs, a loudness setting, and adjustable ranges and cut-offs can liven up even the most basic speakers simply by filtering (HPF/LPF) frequencies and focusing sound where it belongs. New speakers are only going to take the same stock signal and...well, hopefully expand on it if they have better frequency response, and integrated cross-overs. I wouldn't even be surprised if a new headunit has a more powerful internal amp than the BOSE amp(s), so you might get better results just by bypassing it (which is easy to do). Plus, with features like USB, AUX, and BT, those are 3 ways for music playback without degrading sound quality. Out of curiosity, what speakers did you buy? Maybe there's something we can determine from their specs. Are your OE speakers stamped with a 2Ω?

It's something I'd have to hear, but sounds like distortion. Perhaps the amp is failing? When you turn the volume up, do you get any other noises/pops/static, or does audio quality degrade sharply? Yes. The Scosche unit is a passive line leveler; you can set the gain for the speaker-level output going to the amp, and you can set each channel independently. There's nothing that would prevent you from using with the stock radio, either, but I don't think it'd be much different than using the fader setting on the radio (which btw, have you played with that and the balance to see if one speaker sounds better than the other?)

If the steering stops are anything like my 98 Frontier, underneath the nylon cap is a hex shaped head with a slight dome top on it. Try popping off the nylon cap.

Very possible. I think 02 was the first year LATCH was mandatory for auto manufacturers, so maybe the logo's presence evolved shortly after. Perhaps try sliding your fingers between the seat crease to see if there are points there? Watch out for 10 year old M&M's and crackers! Exactly, don't confuse the cargo tie-down points with the anchors. Glad you posted this topic up, too!

I agree, for the most part. For my MT scenario, if the increased load at low RPM is causing the clutch to slip or the engine to work too hard (truck is slowing down with more throttle), then absolutely. But that goes hand-in-hand with knowing when to downshift. But for the AT scenario, we're replacing load with heat, which can't be good for wear and tear either, even if mechanically the systems are running more efficiently from the downshift. In my case, I've seen the coolant temps jump 20° in a matter of seconds, and some inclines have taken over a minute to pass. Revving at 3500-4000 RPMs for a prolonged period can't be good. Again, sounds like this is all normal, and that's what I wanted to be sure of. No bad shift solenoids, controller, etc. I don't have any surging or clunking in gears, so the transmission seems great otherwise. I just have concerns that this may not be best for the transmission, and I've not really ever experienced it before on any other vehicle. I'd feel a whole lot better if it hovered closer to 3000 RPM on inclines and not 3500-4000.

I would think that prolonged use at higher RPMs would be detrimental to the transmission's life span, as well as the engine's. That's why I'd prefer it to stay at a lower RPM (or rather, return to a lower RPM ASAP), but there are also mileage benefits. I just stays locked too long for my liking, but I accept that at it sometimes needs to do it in the first place. With an MT, it was always easy to determine whether a downshift was necessary to climb. At some point, you could upshift, maintain speed, and get a low RPM. That's what I want to replicate. I'd rather struggle a little going uphill (or at least going up slower) than having the engine race. But in order to do that, I would need it to stay in OD I would think. This all gets me thinking about an MT swap!

Just for reference, anywhere you see these icons (in a Pathfinder, or similar in any other vehicle), you've got LATCH points. They're on the seat backs near the crease. The point itself is inside that opening; others are accessible by opening a fabric flap. On other vehicles, it may be between the cushions underneath the logo. I have 4 points on mine, but the middle two are too close, and the outer two too far apart, for safely securing a single seat in the middle. However, as mentioned previously, the arrangement moves both seating positions closer to the center. Also note that unless the vehicle's owners manual states otherwise, you should not attach more than one connection to a single point. All anchors are designated with a similar logo: This logo is often seen on the plastic covers; open the cover to expose the anchor point. Here it's just under a carpet flap in the cargo area.

Ah, right...sorry, forgot you mentioned middle seat. Yeah, it's probably safer, though I've noticed that when using the LATCH system in the truck, the seats are already placed a more towards center than if using the seatbelt. Two toddlers and two seats means using the center isn't an option for me, but they're rarely in my truck anyway.

If the VIN plate is still on the transmission, you can use it determine the year, engine, and drivetrain. That should be enough info to determine if it's the right one.

Your car seat's owners manual should specify an acceptable amount of play. For mine, it's less than 1" in any direction. I wasn't able to always do that with the LATCH system (at least not easily), but I can always get that with the seatbelt pretty easily by putting a knee on the car seat while feeding the seat belt back into the retractor. Of course, when using the seatbelt method, you must always remember to fully extended the seatbelt to engage the locking mechanism on the retractor.

Yeah, those anchor points that AkP mentions weren't used on my truck either, but they are there. I had been looking for whatever tie-down piece was supposed to be there, but could never find a part number for them. It wasn't until the other week while pulling a newer style rack for Kyle (ferrariowner123) that I realized that they were only included with the cross bars on the older R50s. Though, I measured the bolts as being M6x1.0. I pulled the crossbars from the junkyard and installed them on the truck, too.

This is easily one of those topics where it's "to each their own"... I've stopped using the LATCH systems in any vehicle because I've always been able to get the right tension from the seatbelt alone. And frankly, nearly all LATCH systems I've tried (a little over a dozen to date) have some sort of hassle or inconvenience. One particular incident with a rental Dodge Avenger at Chicago-Midway in the dead of winter was the last straw. NHTSA says both methods are equally safe, yet LATCH is deemed the "easier" way. I don't get how the easier system requires 150% more work to attach (three attachments and two tensions for LATCH vs. one attachment and one tension for seatbelt), and 400% more work to detach (loosen twice and detach thrice for LATCH vs. unclick the seatbelt). If there is no difference in safety, then my next preference is to be able to quickly remove the car seat from the vehicle in case of emergency, which only the seatbelt can reasonably afford. I find the R50 a particular hassle because you need to reach/climb into the vehicle from both the rear and cargo areas to attach and tension everything if using LATCH. And when used, the rear tether straps render half of the cargo area obsolete (at least it does if you have two kids).

That's what I found odd...there were times when starting to go downhill (say, right after peaking on an uphill climb), that the RPMs would still stay high, even at low throttle. It's as if just by maintaining some throttle (very little, albeit), it just didn't want to shift. I actually cleaned my TB a few months ago when having some idling issues, as well as it stalling once the engine was warmed up. I got all that sorted, though. I do have a scanner setup (described previously) that I usually keep up and running when driving on longer trips. In fact, the first 7500 ft elevation climb the other month was really the first extended drive I've taken in the truck, so I had general concerns about the trip and was watching the readouts constantly. All seemed fine, though. Mine also didn't come with a cooler, so I've been thinking about adding one for safe measure, at minimum to offset whatever extended use the higher RPMs have been doing to it.

Yeah, there's definitely a delay on mine no matter how I spin it, except if I'm off the throttle. I don't mind having the power/efficiency when I need it, but once the objective is met (getting up the hill, or getting back to cruising speed), that's when I want it to subside. Any other AT I've driven has been fine in this regard...but perhaps it's a 4-speed vs 6-speed transmission thing.

Ha...I got mixed up because of the broken apart threads...I thought you had changed speakers and headunit, but kept the amp. Not a big deal to keep the posts together, but it you want more comprehensive answers, it's best to keep them all together so that details aren't getting missed (case in point here). But yes, the radio would not affect impedance seen by the amp from the speakers. Changing the radio would change the line-level signal going to the amp (that's what that Scosche unit corrects). Did you end up using aftermarket wiring harnesses to connect to the speakers? Are the polarities correct? The harness connectors to the speaker may only have fit one speaker tab, but that doesn't mean they're connected to the factory wiring correctly at the plug.

Well, I have lift and larger tires, but I've also re-geared. Stock is 255/65/16 (29") with 4.363, but I bought it with 245/75/16 (30.6") and 4.363. This is about a 5% increase in load over stock. Never drove it stock, but also never did any hilly highway driving, so no baseline. Changed gears to 4.636 on the same tires, which is about a 1% decrease in load over stock. My experience is from a pair of trips to/from 7500 ft, as well as Saturday morning on lower-grade short climbs between 1K and 2K ft in elevation. This should have made slight grades a tiny bit easier at low RPMs. On Saturday night, went to 265/75/16 (31.6"), which is about 2% increase in load over stock. Did the return drive from the morning, pretty much same experience. So really, I'm not too far off from stock load, even with larger tires. But I think the throttle position and load is probably the best answer. But man, I was barely even touching the throttle...any less and I was off it. I have a wifi OBDII dongle and the DashCommand app, and I was watching both throttle percentage and load, and it just didn't seem reasonable for it to be revving that high. Plus, I'm not sure the load value corresponded with a mechanical load. That's what I found myself doing, actually, but with varying results. Sometimes I could get it to drop down a little sooner than normal by switching OD, but for the most part still needed to completely let off the gas and coast a bit before giving it throttle again. But usually, this would still rev a little high (lower than 3500) before dropping back to cruising RPM. I'm sure there are a number of factors that play into this, though. But it's already sounding like this is normal...

Lately I've been taking a few longer highway trips with the truck, and my transmission has been keeping higher RPMs under certain uphill conditions that seem odd to me. I'm trying gauge whether my observations are normal. For starters, this is the first AT I've owned personally. Always an MT guy. But over the years, I've also driven about a hundred or so various AT cars (business travels), so I'm no stranger to different vehicles and transmission types, but what I'm experiencing seems more reminiscent of a CVT, and I'm not okay with that. So here's what's happening... At 65-75 (speed limit here is 75), I can keep my RPMs between 2500 and 3000 on flat surface. When I start an incline and if I'm attempting to maintain speed (manually or with cruise control), it downshifts and revs to about 3500-4000, which is not entirely unexpected. The problem is that once the road starts to level off, it doesn't upshift and return to a lower RPM unless I completely back off the throttle or cancel cruise. Even then, I sometimes have to very very gently touch the throttle to avoid it spiking to a high RPM again. It seems too sensitive to some load, mechanical or throttle, but at that point, I can't see how there's additional load. Most of the time, I am deliberately trying to keeping RPMs down by going 5-15 mph slower on inclines. I'm certainly not gunning it uphill. If I've got cruise control on, it just stays at a higher RPM for longer than I feel is necessary, so I've been canceling it. I feel I could make it up the hill at a lower speed and RPM, if it would just let me. So I believe the problem is that I can't get it to just stay in overdrive (or return to OD when I think it should) at low throttle response. I don't know if that's a problem per se, or just normal. Everything else about the transmission feels excellent, though I honestly feel like the throttle is just too sensitive. Over the weekend while off-roading, I had a similar observation...while in 4L, it just seem to surge more than I expected. Perhaps it's just the shear brute of the VQ? Any suggestions?