1999 or 2001? Advice

[inqydesu]

I am looking to buy a newer pathy for my wife. The choice is between a 1999 LE Special Edition or a 2001 LE. Both are 4wd and auto (for my wife). I know the 2001 has the larger 3.5 liter engine which would be nice. But the 1999 is 2/3 the price ($10500 - 50k miles, 2001 is $15800, 36k miles)

 

Any thoughts, pros or cons to each one?

 

Thanks.

[vengeful]

Other than the different motors, the only difference between the two is they changed the geometry of the rear suspension to allow the shocks to be directly vertical, instead of at a slight angle.

 

If you're looking at a 1999, instead of a 1999.5 (newer body style (same as the 2001), then there are quite a few differences, however they are all cosmetic.

 

Some newer models have a knob for the 4wd instead of a lever.

 

Between the two vehicles, there isn't really a distinct advantage to go with the newer one except for the engine. I'd probably go with the 99 due to the price. Also, I'm a little biased cuz I have a 99...haha.

[XPLORx4]

On the 2001, you're not paying just for the engine, you're paying for a 2-year younger vehicle with 14,000 fewer miles on it. Since it's an LE you're also getting dial-selectable all-mode 4WD system, which can be easier for a novice to operate than the transfer case lever. And finally, you're getting the newer cosmetic enhancements that were introduced in the 99.5 model.

 

On the other hand, there were a few minor issues introduced on the 01's, namely the 6-disc in-dash CD changer, which has had problems ejecting CD's (player reports "ERR2").

 

What does your wife drive now, and why does she want a Pathfinder?

Edited May 9, 2005 by XPLORx4

[inqydesu]

She is swapping from a passat wagon. Her car was totalled last week, and is looking for a replacement. She wants something about the same size for all the baby gear. I am pushing for the pathy because of the frequent camping we do.

 

Obviously the age is a factor, as is the lower mileage. I do think the 1999 is actually a 1999.5. It has the squarer grill in front.

 

One advantage to the 2001 is that i think it has the AWD as well as the 4wd. This isn't super useful for us in Vegas, but would have been nice when we were in Utah.

 

I didn't know that about the shocks. That is good to know.

 

Any other year specific problems? Any other thoughts

[Flyer]

Having that Auto AWD or Auto "4WD" is nice- you can utilize it at any speed and any surface, especially slick highways. Other than that and the 3.5L engine, the differences are cosmetic with the newer one looking more updated. I have a 2002 and wanted a newer one though I drove several others. Then again, I'm big on comfort and nice features- if I just wanted an exclusive "play" vehicle, I would not have bought a Pathfinder.

 

If the extra $5K isn't a real issue, I'd go for the new one, with the AWD option and the bigger engine being the major deciding factors- no brainer for me

[XPLORx4]

I don't mean to pooh-pooh your preference to get a Pathfinder, but have you considered a Subaru Outback or Forester? Compared to the Passat, you will be disappointed with the fuel economy of any Pathfinder. The other mini-utes (CRV, RAV4, etc.) may also fit your needs.

[Flyer]

A Subaru will fit the bill though have less space. I like Subarus though I've never owned one. I actually looked at them before I bought the Pathy and since I have a big dog who likes space, the Pathy won out. I would say you will average 14-16 mpg on the Pathfinder and 21-23 mpg on the Subaru. There's a big difference there. I went from a 24 mpg Accord to a 15 mpg Pathfinder last September and it STILL hurts pssd

 

However, my dog loved sleeping back there with the back seats folded flat so that's that.

[XPLORx4]

The things we do, the money we spend... all for the love of our dogs...

[inqydesu]

The CRV and rav 4 are too small for us. I am 6'2" 260, so that's not going to work. I have thought about the Subie. I tried an outback and it didn't work, I like the forester, but She WHo Must be Obeyed won't hear of it. Somehow she has bad associations with the subaru. The pathy is a good choice as far as size etc. We have also looked at a ML320 (around 17k for a 1999-2000 with 40-50k), Isuzu Trooper (wife has bad associations from an accident), sheep grand cherokee (to chintzy for me), 4runner etc. It seems like the choice has come down to a pathy (cheaper and good looking, reliable, etc) and the ML320 (prestige, nice riding, good offroad)

[taff]

Gas is getting mighty expensive these days. Don't forget that 1999 Path takes regular fuel while 2001 must use premium fuel.

The 3.5 liter engine in 2001 would also had higher stress life as it is capable of putting out more horsepower.

[XPLORx4]

The 3.5 liter engine in 2001 would also had higher stress life as it is capable of putting out more horsepower.

That's an educated statement. An engine with more horsepower isn't under more stress than an engine with less horsepower. If anything, the opposite would be true- the smaller weaker engine would have been stressed more since it has to pull the same weight as the more powerful engine.

 

Anyway, the 3.5L does prefer premium fuel but the engine will run on 87 octane.

[taff]

That's an educated statement. An engine with more horsepower isn't under more stress than an engine with less horsepower. If anything, the opposite would be true- the smaller weaker engine would have been stressed more since it has to pull the same weight as the more powerful engine.

 

XPLORx4 - Thank you for reading my post and sharing your view. Maybe I should have further elaborated to get my point across. Yes 3.5L is larger and more powerful engine than 3.3L, but it is only larger by 2 liter(6%). Yet, it puts out 72 more horses(43%). It puts out these additional power not because of the engine size, but because 3.5L breaths better, higher compression, advance timing, etc. There is not much size difference in pistons, rods, cylinder and crankshaft between these two engines, and they are pretty much made out of same metal. Therefore, 3.5L short block will endure higher stress when running its max at 240HP than 3.3L that can only reach 168HP. At times I come away dissatisfy with 168HP on my 1999 SE when I floor the gas, but I know this is good thing for keeping my Path for long run. If it had 240HP, I would access that power more often. I would rev harder, burn more gas, and basically beat the Path because it can take off quicker. If I were to buy a used car, I would buy one that was less beat on. If I take the example to the extreme, would you buy a 3.5L that had a supercharger and put out 500HP, while reliability is your highest priority? Even though I wish I had 3.5L, I keep saying to myself 168HP limitation is a good thing for me as I plan to keep this car forever. I know this maybe a conflicting view for some, but I just wanted to present my view.

[Flyer]

Well, the Hayabusa 1300 cc (Suzuki) engine that cranks out around 160 hp stock is far understressed and last longer than smaller motors that crank out less hp (like the GRSX 750 even or the ZX-7 Kawasaki, for example). The reason is that at 100 mph it is using half its "muscle" while at 100 mph, a 750 cc bike is using 70-80% of its muscle. I think that's what the previous poster is saying and I agree with that. At 80 mph, my 305 is probabaly much less strained than a 3.3 or smaller at the same speed. Since I drive on the highway a LOT, that's a good thing.

 

However, I see what you're saying though I think there is a misunderstanding about the term "under-stressed". In real life terms, the 3.5L engine, even with a high compression ratio, is still very understressed. These motors are known to last as long, if not longer than any other motor that we see in Nissans. The 3.5 is shared among many vehicle for its power, reliability, and tunability for torque and horsepower.

 

The new 4.0L Nissan motor is the 3.5L that has a longer Stroke (not Bore) so in theory, it could be even more of a peach than the 3.5L. We have to wait and see.

Edited May 11, 2005 by Flyer