Aron9000

Actually the original 2 door Pathfinder from back in the 80's had a conventional all steel body/roof, which IMO was a step up from the 4Runner(and Blazer), which shared the same body stampings as the pickup with a fiberglass lift off rear roof. Instead of that goofy power roll down rear window like the 4Runner and Blazer had that broke all the time, it had a swing up rear glass and drop down rear tailgate. Most of those early Pathfinders were very well equipped(in Japan due to tax regulations the Pathfinder was expensive, so it was marketed as a luxury vehicle) and had back seats FYI.

I've had some seat time in a couple of the 1st gen Pathfinders(buddy had an 1988ish 2 door back in high school), IMO they were way more plush inside than the 1st gen 4Runner, even in SR5 trim. Also the Nissan VQ V6 was a way more reliable engine than Toyota's crap 3.0 SOCH V6 which liked to blow headgaskets.

Anyways, I wish they'd get away from this poorly made mommy-mobile crap and introduce a legit off roader again(and not the Xterra, build quality on those was crap as well and had a lot of ugly plastic cladding)

Fizzboy7

It's a blurred line nowadays. Most I know who have shopped for these SUV's are not choosing which one to get based on any of that. They either like the styling of one or they do not. The Explorer and the Flex drive nearly the same, accomplish nearly the same, but have different seating options. Same goes for the Murano and Pathfinder.
The Xterra's appeal narrowed due to that off-road market shrinking (as you listed), but also because Nissan did little to keep the Xterra going since it was introduced. It could have continued on serving it's niche market, a lot how the 4Runner does. Not big numbers, but at least an alternate.

chromedome

The Nissan Patrol aka Armada still competes against the Landcruiser in the giant SUV category. I've seen these on the road, they're huge and make an LC/LX look small. I don't know if Nissan has a viable GX/Prado competitor though.

mmarshall

Yes, that's correct.....what I meant to say was that the original American-market Pathfinder had a simple roof covering. From what I remember of American-spec versions, some of them didn't even have rear seats. But even that was one step up from the 4Runner's camper shell.


The main problem today, though, is that, with the exception of the Jeep Wrangler, very few of American SUV owners actually go off road in a traditional sense any more....indeed, I mentioned previously that many insurance policies won't cover it, either. That's why most American-spec SUVs are dumping BOF design for unibody, and becoming more like sedans inside. Indeed, the smooth, quiet road manners of the last Kia Sorento I sampled (admittedly a top-line version) were akin to some luxury sedans I've driven.

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

toyota sold over 8k 4runner last month in u.s. I was shocked too when i just looked it up.

Toys4RJill

And I believe that was a best ever month for the 4Runner in the history of the nameplate.

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

amazing since it still has a 5 speed auto.

maybe more are seeing as an urban combat vehicle to be in during anarchy.

97-SC300

iTrader: (17)

I do not understand why people bother purchasing cars like this Pathfinder or Chevy Traverse.

Why not just set your "ego" aside and buy a minivan like a Sienna or Odyssey?

These so called SUVs are essentially glorified minivans with slightly bigger tires, but a crapload less practical, horrible cargo room compared to a minivan and worse gas mileage. You cannot take this pile offroad unless offroad to you means parking it on the grass for a baseball game barbecue.

If I am getting an SUV and I am sacrificing the gas mileage and cargo room vs a minivan, I will make sure it's something that's got an aftermarket support for offroading, otherwise, why do it at all? It's gotta be a real BOF platform, no exceptions. Can probably narrow it down to 2 vehicles, 4Runner/Landcruiser or their Lexus brothers. Wranglers are cool too but they are so slow and cheaply built/unreliable in comparison.

Hoovey689

iTrader: (16)

AWD would be a good reason

The Sienna does offer an AWD option, but the vast majority of minivans on the road do not have this system.

Sulu

Fashion cannot be logically explained. Minivans are no longer fashionable but high-riding station wagons are fashionable.

Toys4RJill

Well,

1. a Toyota Sienna has the same size footprint as a Toyota Sequioa, so for some people they would not want such a large vehicle. The track is 4 inches wider than a 4Runner and a Honda Odyssey is wider than the Sequioa.

2. A Toyota Sienna also has a payload capacity of 1100lbs, load up 5 adults (or seven) and where does all of the gear go. Compared to a Toyota 4Runner which has a 1625 lbs payload
and you can see why some might need or want a 4Runner. That is 525 more lbs of extra payload that the 4Runner offers.

3. Combined MPG of an AWD Sienna is just 1 mpg better than the combined MPG of a 4X4 4Runner. Both weight 4700 lbs give or take a few.

There are some compelling reasons as to why someone would want and SUV over a minivan.

mmarshall

But how are the owners actually using those 4Runners? In most cases, I'd bet pretty much the same as with less-rugged unibody SUVs.

mmarshall

I agree, especially with an AWD version of the Sienna. But I'm not one of those who see any stigma attached with minivans. As I see it, one does not have to "set ego aside" to get a minivan...they make perfect sense for a lot of folks. If others don't like it, or think minivans are for sissies........well, too bad....they show their own ignorance.

Fizzboy7

Let's throw into the crowd the lamented Hummer H3. That thing sold like mad in the beginning, and it was going to all moms dropping off kids at elementary school. These odd trends pop up from time to time. Gotta look a certain way, with the pressure of the kids hearing it from their schoolmates. I am sure the 4Runner serves a very similar roll.

JDR76

This thread is getting way off the topic of the Pathfinder, but...

When we bought our crossover (RX350) we also looked at the Sienna. We chose the RX because, while both the RX and Sienna offer the AWD we were looking for to support our frequent winter trips to the mountains, the Sienna's interior did not appeal to us. Now we are looking again and pitched the Highlander against the updated Sienna and are likely to again avoid the Sienna. The interior still felt cheap to us, so we're leaning towards the Highlander.

Our decision has nothing to do with image.