Nissan Pathfinder Forum banner

1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,066 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I posted this on Piloteers.org, one of our AutoGuide sister sites, but thought those looking at the Pathfinder may find it useful, so am reposting it here:

I recently traded my 2010 Pilot EX-L on a 2013 Nissan Pathfinder. A number of members have asked me to write up my impressions on the Pathfinder, so here goes...

Let me start this off by saying that I am a big Honda fan, and in fact, a big fan of the Pilot. I've owned two now, both the 2010 EX-L and a 2005 EX before it. In general, I think the Pilot is a great family truckster - but I did have one big problem with it that didn't seem to improve between the two models - that's gas mileage. My daily commute is about 6 miles one-way, up and down hills in a semi-rural area, so I realize that is a big factor in the mileage of this vehicle - which during its stay, came out to about 16.5 MPG total (and that included a number of family vacations, where I did 21MPG for entire tanks). I use the iPhone app, 'Gas Cubby' to track mileage and was always very conscious of how I drove the Pilot - in fact, the Pilot's real-time mileage indicators were how I developed my "hyper-miling" skills for the first time - and I pretty much attribute that to the 16.5MPG overall I achieved during the time the vehicle was in my possession. I suspect it would have been in the 14-15 range had I driven it like I would have any other car.

So, when the lease came up on the Pilot, I was looking for something that was roughly equivalent to the Pilot in terms of capability, a little more refined in terms of interior and exterior styling (never liked the cheesy plastics in the Pilot, nor the exterior design), and significantly better mileage. I looked at the Ford Explorer, the Edge, the Highlander and the Nissan Pathfinder. In general, I was looking for something a bit smaller and more nimble overall.

I had read about the Pathfinder several times in passing and I was intrigued by the CVT, as well as the mileage claims. Let me say here that yes, I do like CVTs. We had never owned one until we purchased my wife's Subaru - and we love it. I have heard quite a bit of fuss over "CVT whine" or "drone", but it's nothing that we've ever noticed - and the tradeoff in terms of smoothness, instant power delivery and mileage is a huge plus for us.

As it turns out the Nissan dealer was quite accommodating - and we ended up leasing the Pathfinder for about the same as what we paid for the Pilot, despite a $5K higher sticker price. Our Pathfinder is the SL Premium model, which is very well equipped, including 4WD, dual sunroofs, an auto open/close hatch, remote start, Bose audio and a generous 7" LCD screen on the dash.

Comparing it to the Pilot is really hard, because the Pilot is such a different vehicle despite the fact that these are both in the "large crossover" class. The Pilot definitely feels larger and more truck-like, but it clearly has more space than the Pathfinder - particularly in the cargo/third row area. I also felt like I sat taller in the Pilot, whereas the Pathfinder is a lot more like sitting in a normal car. Ride quality is vastly better in the Pathfinder. The 2010 Pilot always had a bit of a harsh ride, even compared to the 2005 model. It also felt a bit clumsy to me, particularly maneuvering in a parking lot at slow speeds.

One big shortfall for the Pilot (and I'm not sure if this has improved for the revised 2012 model) is the interior - particularly the cheesy plastics used throughout. This is where the Pathfinder shines. Soft touch materials, particularly on the door sills (where one would naturally rest their elbow) are more evident - and even where they aren't - they don't look cheap. For example, I had to knock on the dash top to know that it was hard plastic. Additionally, the quality of the leather is much better. Overall, the Pathfinder's interior design leans toward the luxury end of the segment, where the Pilot is a bit more comparable to what one would find in a Civic. When you compare the Pathfinder to its cousin, the Infiniti JX, you can see a lot of parallels in the interior design. So, it's clear that Nissan didn't go on the same kind of cost-cutting mission that Honda did with the Pilot in differentiating it from the MDX.

Out on the road, I've already mentioned that the Pathfinder is very smooth and much more car like. It definitely feels more maneuverable, and it absorbs the bumps better overall. However, I think the Pilot definitely had better steering feel - the Pathfinder's feels a bit numb and over-boosted and there seems to be a bit more body roll. It has taken some time to get used to the way it corners, where the Pilot, despite being more truck-like overall, felt more natural to me. Perhaps at least some of that is due to the fact that I've been driving Hondas for so long - and the Pilot had a lot of the Honda characteristics of being taut and well-tuned. The CVT definitely seems to be tuned for economy as initial tip-in is a bit lethargic. But given a heavy foot, the Pathfinder steps out quickly and feels every bit as swift as the Pilot. With the way the CVT is tuned, I find that I can get underway quickly and get off the gas sooner - whereas in the Pilot, I felt that I had to be on it more in order to build and conserve momentum.

On the highway, the Pathfinder is hands down quieter than the Pilot. I always felt like the Pilot was just pushing around a lot of air - despite the acoustic windshield, there was always a lot of wind rushing noise that I attributed to its bull-nosed design. In fact, one of my pet peeves with the Pilot was cruise control accuracy. The Pilot always struggled to stay set at a given speed, particularly if the terrain was hilly, as it struggled to stay in overdrive unless the highway was perfectly flat. The Pathfinder is in general, a far more relaxed highway cruiser and suffers none of these faults.

As far as interior amenities go, the Pathfinder wins hands-down. I had an aftermarket iPod integration system that made the Pilot bearable for me. The Nissan has this built-in, and with the large display, you can much more easily control the iPod's behavior. I suspect the Nissan's system is more like the system in the Touring model of the Pilot, but it's worth commenting that Nissan bundles this into its lower-end models, as it should have been in the Pilot. The Bose stereo beats the Pilot's unit as expected. Additionally, Nissan integrates a second full-color, high-res display in the instrument cluster, where you can adjust vehicle settings, see real-time tire pressure, fuel economy stats and a variety of other vehicle information. All of this is controlled via the steering wheel. You can toggle through it with the steering wheel controls while driving, though much of it can't be manipulated unless the vehicle is stopped (as it should be). In general, Nissan seems to include a lot more amenities, particularly in the electronics department, that Honda didn't in lower trim levels.

I wanted to weigh in a bit about gas mileage here, even though I've only been through two tanks thus far - as this is one area where the Pathfinder really shines over the Honda. I've found that my overall fuel economy is about 18.5 thus far - and that's with very little highway driving. For the most part, I've made no special accomodations other than to keep the vehicle in "2WD" mode (the Nissan allows you to select whether you want to be in 2WD, 4WD automatic, or 4WD lock) and the A/C off. I'm pleased with that result, considering that in the first few weeks of owning the Pilot, we noted about 15.7. That might not seem huge to a lot of people, but when you consider the Pilot's 21 gallon tank (the Nissan is 19.5), it means you can easily get 350 miles to a tank in the Nissan, whereas I felt like I was constantly at the gas station with the Pilot.

In summary, we are very happy with the Pathfinder thus far. It's a better fit overall for our family of four, despite being a bit smaller. For those that need to use the third row regularly, I can see how the Pilot might be the better choice, but our use is limited to the odd event that we have to go somewhere with the in-laws and kids in tow. Even my wife, who was too intimidated to drive the Pilot based on size, really likes driving the Pathfinder (and with the memory seats, it's a lot easier for her to do so). Given the size, performance, value and quality, I think Nissan really has a winner here. I'll be interested to see if any other Piloteers end up making the switch.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,206 Posts
Very glad to hear your opinion. I think it was unbias and understandable. I am a fan of the pilot as well so it's good to hear you love the Pathfinder. I do think Honda needs to step up the interior quality of their cars. The new Accord seems to follow a new trend so I am hoping it trickles down to the other cars.

2013 accord interior

Not bad for an accord.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,066 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Very glad to hear your opinion. I think it was unbias and understandable. I am a fan of the pilot as well so it's good to hear you love the Pathfinder. I do think Honda needs to step up the interior quality of their cars. The new Accord seems to follow a new trend so I am hoping it trickles down to the other cars.
I've owned two Accords now - a 2002 and a 2007 - both had very good interiors. However, both of the Pilots were far more "plasticky" (if that's even a real word). Certainly better than the Rubbermaid interiors of GM vehicles, but not up to snuff with most mass-market mid-sized vehicles. The 2005 Pilot was much better than the 2010, but still lacked much in the way of soft-touch materials. The 2010 in particular had a weird "grain" to the plastic that made it very obvious it was just cheap plastic.

This latest Accord does seem to signal a change for Honda in terms of engineering excellence and innovation. I'll be curious to see how the next Pilot shapes up in the face of heavy competition. In my opinion, the only thing the current Pilot has going for it is Honda's reputation for reliability. Otherwise, it's pretty mediocre - particularly compared to some of the newer competition like the Pathfinder and Ford Explorer. Should be interesting to see how the new Highlander shakes out too.... I would have probably opted for the Highlander if the mileage and handling was a little better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
I've owned two Accords now - a 2002 and a 2007 - both had very good interiors. However, both of the Pilots were far more "plasticky" (if that's even a real word). Certainly better than the Rubbermaid interiors of GM vehicles, but not up to snuff with most mass-market mid-sized vehicles. The 2005 Pilot was much better than the 2010, but still lacked much in the way of soft-touch materials. The 2010 in particular had a weird "grain" to the plastic that made it very obvious it was just cheap plastic.

This latest Accord does seem to signal a change for Honda in terms of engineering excellence and innovation. I'll be curious to see how the next Pilot shapes up in the face of heavy competition. In my opinion, the only thing the current Pilot has going for it is Honda's reputation for reliability. Otherwise, it's pretty mediocre - particularly compared to some of the newer competition like the Pathfinder and Ford Explorer. Should be interesting to see how the new Highlander shakes out too.... I would have probably opted for the Highlander if the mileage and handling was a little better.
I always found honda interiors to be like that, full of plastic. But because of how reliable their cars are and the quality honda puts into them i wouldn't care. Plus it's plastic that looks okay and feels solid.

We have a 2012 Civic it's full of all the plastic you talk about, but at the same time, it's a SOLID interior. Rest of the car is just awesome.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,206 Posts
I've owned two Accords now - a 2002 and a 2007 - both had very good interiors. However, both of the Pilots were far more "plasticky" (if that's even a real word). Certainly better than the Rubbermaid interiors of GM vehicles, but not up to snuff with most mass-market mid-sized vehicles. The 2005 Pilot was much better than the 2010, but still lacked much in the way of soft-touch materials. The 2010 in particular had a weird "grain" to the plastic that made it very obvious it was just cheap plastic.

This latest Accord does seem to signal a change for Honda in terms of engineering excellence and innovation. I'll be curious to see how the next Pilot shapes up in the face of heavy competition. In my opinion, the only thing the current Pilot has going for it is Honda's reputation for reliability. Otherwise, it's pretty mediocre - particularly compared to some of the newer competition like the Pathfinder and Ford Explorer. Should be interesting to see how the new Highlander shakes out too.... I would have probably opted for the Highlander if the mileage and handling was a little better.
Both the Highlander and Pilot will have to step it up eventually. It'll be interesting to see what they come out with in the coming update.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,259 Posts
Another area where the Pathfinder should shine over the Pilot is towing. Have you ever had to tow anything with your pathfinder?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,066 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Another area where the Pathfinder should shine over the Pilot is towing. Have you ever had to tow anything with your pathfinder?
Nothing other than a hitch-mounted bike rack. I'm sure the PF will be every bit as capable as the Pilot in that regard ;)

Seriously though, both are rated for 5000lbs. I think the PF might have the upper-hand, just because it seems to have better low-end torque than the Pilot.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,206 Posts
They can both tow. I'd be interested in how the newer non truck frame Pathfinder does in towing compared to the old one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
63 Posts
Nothing other than a hitch-mounted bike rack. I'm sure the PF will be every bit as capable as the Pilot in that regard ;)

Seriously though, both are rated for 5000lbs. I think the PF might have the upper-hand, just because it seems to have better low-end torque than the Pilot.

I had a 2010 Pilot Touring and it was only rated to tow 4500. Did they up the rating?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,066 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
I had a 2010 Pilot Touring and it was only rated to tow 4500. Did they up the rating?
Not sure, I could have sworn it was rated for 5000 lbs. I might be getting it confused with my 2005, which had a different rating as I recall.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
186 Posts
Very glad to hear your opinion. I think it was unbias and understandable. I am a fan of the pilot as well so it's good to hear you love the Pathfinder. I do think Honda needs to step up the interior quality of their cars. The new Accord seems to follow a new trend so I am hoping it trickles down to the other cars.

2013 accord interior

Not bad for an accord.
Sidebar question. How do you put up a post with a resized picture like you did here? I am only able to add thumbnails. Can you please share your web prowess with me? thanks!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,259 Posts
Sidebar question. How do you put up a post with a resized picture like you did here? I am only able to add thumbnails. Can you please share your web prowess with me? thanks!
you have to copy the image link from the image once it's hosted online somewhere by right clicking on the image, click on "copy image link" and then pasting that link inbetween the image code, like this...

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
Thank you cwa107 for your comments. We traded our 2009 Honda Pilot EL last fall. Was happy with the mileage that we got, most of travel was interstate, usually around 21-22 mpg, however any traveling in town was very low, 15-16. Engine was solid, ride was very rough and loud, much louder that my Ford FX4 F150. The F150 also has a much softer ride than the Pilot. We had leather seats (heated) and leather center counsel. After 40,000 miles the leather started bubbling up on the center counsel. We are very happy with our Pathfinder, very smooth and quite ride. Believe the interior of the Pathfinder is higher quality than the Pilot. Overall mpg for our Pathfinder is 23.4 with a 60 highway 40 city split. Mileage continues to improve, as of today we have 1643 miles.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
98 Posts
The real competitors for the Pathfinder are, in order:

A) Chev Traverse (and Acadia twin to a lesser extent)

B) Ford Flex

C) Ford Explorer

D) Dodge Durango

E) Honda Pilot

The Traverse and Flex are tops in interior room, Explorer and Durango are close behind. ALL of these have excellent reliability and build quality equal to or better than the Pathfinder, and equal to the Pilot.

I am curious to hear from Pat owners who compared the competitors that I listed above, because other than fuel efficiency and price there doesn't seem to be any other areas where the Pat would excel, perhaps 2nd row design but the Traverse has a very similar system although less promoted than the often-mentioned Nissan system.

I'm concerned that the Pat just hasn't kept up with the options that the Traverse offers, the 2013 MyInfotainement system is awesome, and 2014 Durango will have the latest touch-screen system as Chevy with full Smartphone integration and an 8-spd tranny - Nissan offers an old system without any of the latest tech options that are a must-have.

3rd row is not even a competition, the Traverse and Flex are much larger and better than the Pat, and the Explorer too has more 3rd row room. The Pat has a little better effiency, but not enough to make you choose it over the competion, not to mention you have to live with a CVT tranny to achieve the marginal efficiency gains and have less power and torque (the lowest power/torque numbers of any competitor, BIG trade-off, in my opinion), and you get much less useable space than those that I listed above.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not putting down the Pathfinder, I'm just stating the common facts, and asking for more input and opinions on things that I may have missed. Obviously there must be many things I'm missing, becasue based on my information there is no reason to even consider purchasing the Pat with the stellar competition. Perhaps perception of Nissan quality is an issue?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
249 Posts
I've owned two Accords now - a 2002 and a 2007 - both had very good interiors. However, both of the Pilots were far more "plasticky" (if that's even a real word). Certainly better than the Rubbermaid interiors of GM vehicles, but not up to snuff with most mass-market mid-sized vehicles. The 2005 Pilot was much better than the 2010, but still lacked much in the way of soft-touch materials. The 2010 in particular had a weird "grain" to the plastic that made it very obvious it was just cheap plastic.

This latest Accord does seem to signal a change for Honda in terms of engineering excellence and innovation. I'll be curious to see how the next Pilot shapes up in the face of heavy competition. In my opinion, the only thing the current Pilot has going for it is Honda's reputation for reliability. Otherwise, it's pretty mediocre - particularly compared to some of the newer competition like the Pathfinder and Ford Explorer. Should be interesting to see how the new Highlander shakes out too.... I would have probably opted for the Highlander if the mileage and handling was a little better.
Being an ex CRV owner the way i see it is that Honda just cookie cuts their interior and slaps them in especially using a lot of plastic that is hard and eventually start to rattle and make sounds. That is honda for you. But after attending a couple auto shows and seeing the new hondas in person I think they are "slowly" starting to catch on what we have to say. But in this case they are a little too late We have a pathfinder now ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
186 Posts
The real competitors for the Pathfinder are, in order:

A) Chev Traverse (and Acadia twin to a lesser extent)

B) Ford Flex

C) Ford Explorer

D) Dodge Durango

E) Honda Pilot

The Traverse and Flex are tops in interior room, Explorer and Durango are close behind. ALL of these have excellent reliability and build quality equal to or better than the Pathfinder, and equal to the Pilot.

I am curious to hear from Pat owners who compared the competitors that I listed above, because other than fuel efficiency and price there doesn't seem to be any other areas where the Pat would excel, perhaps 2nd row design but the Traverse has a very similar system although less promoted than the often-mentioned Nissan system.

I'm concerned that the Pat just hasn't kept up with the options that the Traverse offers, the 2013 MyInfotainement system is awesome, and 2014 Durango will have the latest touch-screen system as Chevy with full Smartphone integration and an 8-spd tranny - Nissan offers an old system without any of the latest tech options that are a must-have.

3rd row is not even a competition, the Traverse and Flex are much larger and better than the Pat, and the Explorer too has more 3rd row room. The Pat has a little better effiency, but not enough to make you choose it over the competion, not to mention you have to live with a CVT tranny to achieve the marginal efficiency gains and have less power and torque (the lowest power/torque numbers of any competitor, BIG trade-off, in my opinion), and you get much less useable space than those that I listed above.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not putting down the Pathfinder, I'm just stating the common facts, and asking for more input and opinions on things that I may have missed. Obviously there must be many things I'm missing, becasue based on my information there is no reason to even consider purchasing the Pat with the stellar competition. Perhaps perception of Nissan quality is an issue?
First to say that the old and tired looking models by Pilot, Traverse, and Flex are stellar competition begs the question what exactly where you looking at? I can think of a more generic boring looking car than those three. To say that there is no reason to look at Path compared to these models means you have largely ignored what a lot of folks and media have said about the new Path.

This is why my wife and I choose the Pathfinder over all the vehicles listed and others considered extensively over a 3 month period.

1- Best actual MPG not just EPA Ratings. Fully loaded car still gives me 25 hwy mpg cruising at 70.
2- Bang for the buck is high: A fully loaded vehicle for any of these models is higher than the Pathfinder Platinum Premium and often lacks some of the features found on the Path. Was able to get best discount from MSRP with Path
3- Luxurious Look and feel to interior: Traverse, Flex, and Pilot are boring and tired looking vehicles inside and out. The Traverse and especially Acadia Denali was an explosion of cheap plastic and feel. It was frankly insulting that a Denali would want 50K for an interior that even my 13 Sentra SR looks more premium.
4- Cooled Seats is must have for leather and most other models do not offer
5- The EZ folding seat with car seat installed is the best of any SUV out there period! Having two young kids in car seats and regular use of third row for seating and access to rear storage this makes life much easier for us. 6- Large Panoramic Sunroof
7- Third row with Recline offer enough room for avg size adult and very easy to get into and out. I am 5-10 and was fine on a 2 hour trip sitting back there. Sure the Knees maybe a little higher than normal but this is fine since its not everyday. Adults under 5-6 would be comfortable.
8- Quiet Comfort: I found the Path to be very quiet at highway speeds. The front seats are very comfortable and we liked the large easy read dials and touchscreen. However the knobs for seat climate controls are located in bad spot and nearly impossible to see setting without leaning over.
9 5k towing capacity was a must
10- We really liked the exterior styling and the 20 inch wheels where sharp. We regularly get random compliments and buyers remorse statement from friends and family that recently purchased other vehicles.
11- Nav/Radio interface is fairly easy and straightforward to use compared to others and especially over the Explorer which was in the final cut.
12 - Since my wife is the primary driver and she is short, the slightly lower height is ideal.
13- easy fill tire alert is such a nice convenience and should be standard in any car.
14 - in the end we kept a JX and a Path over a weekend. Aside from technology and marginally better leather, we found the two to be identical and now way shelling another 13K for such close siblings. The JX owners wont admit it but the media does:D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
98 Posts
Old and tired competition? The Traverse and Flex were both refreshed for 2013 and offer upscale interior with much better tech Infotainment content than the Pat, in particular Chevy's MyLink touchscreen with Smartphone integration recieves very high marks from reviewers, as I described in my earlier post and won't rehash. If you like the looks and styling of the Pat better that's great, just say it, but saying that the competition is old and tired is very inaccurate. The Flex has probably the least boring styling, very risky and in-your-face, but I understand those who do not care for it. Pathfinder styling is not one of its most complimented aspects, its ok but they didn't really shock anyone with their basic crossover exterior design.

Thank you for the list of specifics that you felt were Pathfinder advantages over the competition, it is really helpful when trying to make a purchase decision.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
186 Posts
Old and tired competition? The Traverse and Flex were both refreshed for 2013 and offer upscale interior with much better tech Infotainment content than the Pat, in particular Chevy's MyLink touchscreen with Smartphone integration recieves very high marks from reviewers, as I described in my earlier post and won't rehash. If you like the looks and styling of the Pat better that's great, just say it, but saying that the competition is old and tired is very inaccurate. The Flex has probably the least boring styling, very risky and in-your-face, but I understand those who do not care for it. Pathfinder styling is not one of its most complimented aspects, its ok but they didn't really shock anyone with their basic crossover exterior design.

Thank you for the list of specifics that you felt were Pathfinder advantages over the competition, it is really helpful when trying to make a purchase decision.
First I will say that when comparing the overall package and all personal considerations the Path was the best car for us. The great thing about having choices is that there is car out there for everyone as we all may have specific priorities that may drive us from one vehicle to the next. My comments apply to a wide range of competing vehicles and not every comment may apply to a particular model. Between Ford and Chevy and would say that Ford interiors are nicer for sure and more closely rival the Path but I found Ford Tech to not be so user friendly. However having owned an 07 Equinox I can say that chevy/GMC interiors have not really evolved that much at all IMO. The Refresh you speak of is a step in the right direction but still not there for me. My biggest turnoff for the Traverse was the fact that the same exact antiquated steering wheel found on chevy vehicles from at least 10 years ago is still there on the 2013 model:confused: I also think that price and MPG are arguably one of the most important considerations when buying a vehicle and carry a lot of weight which you are quick to dismiss. Truth be told is that NONE of the competitors vehicles can be fully loaded like a platinum premium path and even come close to the price. The value argument is very strong as is when comparing luxury vehicles to infinity brand. As far as technology when compared to a platinum trim the Chevy screen is smaller and essentially has all the same tech options with exception of Stitcher option. While the Path has good tech already Nissan does have a revised version that is really awesome and found on my 13 sentra but somehow missed the Path. I am sure it will be there for 2014 which includes Full Google Integration, maps and send directions to car, live search of points of interest, onscreen full pandora integration, and also Text messaging which reads incoming texts and lets you respond with voice along with better smartphone voice control. These changes can be done with a simple software update on the 13 path and word on the street is that this may be offered for early adopters.

Lastly I am curious as to what is parked in your driveway in the interest of full disclosure and why you choose it over others? I have a feeling its not a Pathfinder:rolleyes: by your comment "i am curious to hear from Pat owners"
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,066 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
Old and tired competition? The Traverse and Flex were both refreshed for 2013 and offer upscale interior with much better tech Infotainment content than the Pat, in particular Chevy's MyLink touchscreen with Smartphone integration recieves very high marks from reviewers, as I described in my earlier post and won't rehash. If you like the looks and styling of the Pat better that's great, just say it, but saying that the competition is old and tired is very inaccurate. The Flex has probably the least boring styling, very risky and in-your-face, but I understand those who do not care for it. Pathfinder styling is not one of its most complimented aspects, its ok but they didn't really shock anyone with their basic crossover exterior design.

Thank you for the list of specifics that you felt were Pathfinder advantages over the competition, it is really helpful when trying to make a purchase decision.
Personally, I was trying to downsize a bit and fuel economy was a top priority. The Pathfinder feels smaller to me and more nimble than the Pilot, even though it can still comfortably seat 6, 7 in a pinch. That's pretty much all the space my family needs as the third row isn't used all that often (unless we're going somewhere with the in-laws or kids other than our own).

I can't really directly compare the Traverse/Acadia/Enclave. Visually, they look to be about the same size as the Pilot (or maybe a bit bigger), and as I said before, we were looking for something smaller and that my wife would be comfortable with driving (to her, the Pathfinder doesn't feel as overwhelmingly large as my Pilot did). I've also never been a fan of GM products, though in honesty, I've never owned one. My dad has always been a "Ford man" and I guess some of that spilled over into me.

As to the Ford Flex... well, let's just say it invokes images of "The Family Truckster" from National Lampoon's Vacation. I didn't drive it. To me, the Explorer is more competitive in the Pathfinder's segment. I did look at the Explorer and it simply didn't feel as nimble as the Pathfinder - and it wasn't price competitive.

The real players we were seriously considering this time around were the Highlander, the Edge and the Pathfinder. The Highlander just couldn't touch the Pathfinder in terms of features and the mileage was substantially lower for the V6/4WD version - it was also much more expensive in comparison. I really liked the Edge, but the dealer was awful and that turned me off right from the get-go, so we didn't get very far in talking about options and pricing. When I looked at the Pathfinder, it just "felt right", the dealer experience is phenomenal and the pricing was excellent.

So, that's my admittedly unscientific opinion. Though the Pathfinder has a few flaws, we are confident that Nissan will address them, and so far, we have no regrets. We're doing around 18.5MPG around town. It jumps up immediately on the highway, though I haven't done any major trips yet. Next weekend, we'll be taking her down to Florida and I'll be interested to see how we do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,206 Posts
Lots of great opinions in here. Personally I think you should just go with what makes you happy. Everyone is different in needs and preferences as well as wants.
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top