You want to know why Nissan has run a distant number two to Toyota for almost ever? Here’s just one of very many reasons: inconsistency. The “Hardbody”Pathfinder arrived in 1986, and was a tough off-road capable 4×4 sitting on pickup frame. As such, it squared off directly against the Toyota 4Runner that had preceded it by two years, with the same concept. But the Pathfinder was better styled; in fact is was as good-looking as it got for vehicles in its class. And it was a genuine hit; these were everywhere. I don’t have sales stats, but I bet this gave the 4Runner a serious run4 the money. I wouldn’t be surprised if it outsold it some of the time during its long run (1986-1995).
When it was finally replaced in 1999, it was with a rather softer looking and feeling vehicle, and with a unibody. Nothing wrong with that in principle, but these just didn’t appeal to the hard core offroaders. Have you aver seen one lifted a bit and kitted out for the real thing? Meanwhile, an Infiniti version (XQ4) didn’t enhance that new rep.
In 2005, the Pathfinder found itself back to being based on the Frontier pickup. Again, I don’t have stats, but it seems to me these never got much traction either. By this time the 4Runner, which stayed true to its genuine 4×4 roots, despite getting bigger and more comfortable, had carved out a niche pretty much all to itself.
I could not have told you what the current Pathfinder, or what it looks like. Not surprisingly, it’s just another CUV, based on Nissan’s D platform, shared with the Murano, Altima, Maxima and a host of other Nissans, Renaults, Samsungs and a Venucia (China). Is this Nissan’s Highlander competitor? Or is that the Murano? Nissan has no less than five CUVs in its lineup, so the overlap seems a bit thick at times.
In any case, this is not a 4Runner competitor in anyone’s wildest dreams (what is?). And now I know what the current Pathfinder looks like, but I’m not too likely to see one around here anytime soon. Or just not likely to notice.
But I did notice this veteran, sporting a bit of colorful redecorating. These were very popular here, given the outdoorsy nature of a significant percentage of our inhabitants.
Looks like it’s sporting a BandAid from an encounter of some sort. Even hardbodies can get injured.
To be fair, the spiritual successor to the Hardbocy Pathfinder was the Xterra, which became perhaps even more popular (at least as a percentage of sales) with off-roaders than the 4Runner. And the second generation unibody, even in AWD Infiniti form, has its appeal; after all the classic XJ Cherokee and Grand Cherokees, and even later non-CUV Explorers were unibody, so that’s not an inherent flaw. But the current one is just awful, in every way. Not even as daring as the Juke ,,, just bad.
I’m not sure what you mean by later non-CUV Explorers. If you are referring to the 2002-2010 they are BOF and that frame is 100% unique to the Explorer, Mountaineer and Aviator. The current one, which Ford maintains is a SUV, not a CUV is unibody.
Ford can insist all they want, just as Mercedes insists they make 4-door “coupes”, but the current Explorer is a CUV, albeit a large one.
But what about the upcoming model? Its going to be the first application of the new CD6 platform and they originally planned to make cars out of it, but it appears they won’t.
Seriously in the past the generally accepted definition of a CUV was that it was built on a car platform and with platforms designed for both purposes from the get go and the cars going away where does that leave the line between CUV and SUV?
I would argue the current Explorer is definitely CUV if only for its FWD underpinnings and lack of ground clearance, but the new RWD-based unibody model, like the Durango, may straddle the line between CUV and SUV.
I see nothing wrong with calling a 4-door model a coupe if it has a cut-down roofline compared to a sedan. If 2-door sedans exist, why not 4-door coupes? M-B’s only sin is not using a special name for their models like Gran Coupe or Sportback.
where does that leave the line between CUV and SUV?
As fodder for endless and meaningless internet debates. 🙂
The next Explorer isn’t in question, but the current one is based on the D3/D4 car platform, the previous iterations of the taller D4 immediately prior to the current generation Explorer was the Freestyle/Taurus X and Flex crossovers(and were marketed as such)
@Drzhivago138 If it was an altered roofline on an E class body below the beltline, fine, that fits that criteria. But the cars they market as coupes are completely different bodies alltogether. If being a rakish 4 door is all that it takes then pretty much every current sedan on the market is a coupe is as well.
I’m afraid I don’t see what the unique body has to do with it. Something like a 4 Series is the coupe version of the 3 Series, no? So any vehicle built on the 4 Series, though it has a unique body from the 3, is automatically a coupe, regardless of door number.
And many people are baffled by BMW’s current naming system in no small part because few see the compelling difference between a 3 series and a 4 series four door. Outside of BMW’s marketing do you ever hear actual people refer to 4 door BMW 4 series as coupes?
“Hey valet, it’s the white BMW coupe”…
“All officers be advised, be on the lookout for a blue BMW coupe”…
“Did you see Bill got a new BMW?” No, which one? “ A black 3 or 4 series sedan.”
Here’s a question for you. Is a 1959 Impala 4 door a coupe because the 1959 Bel Air 4-door has a different roofline?
I’ve never heard anyone refer to BMWs as anything but the series of which they’re a part, if I ever hear BMWs mentioned at all. Mostly because an aspirational vehicle in my area is not a luxury sports sedan but a high-trim pickup.
I didn’t say different roofline, I said cut-down (“couper”=to cut), as in lower. On the ’59 Chevy, the 4-door hardtop’s roofline was about the same height as the pillared sedan.
My bad, I thought the first IRS Explorers were unibody also. No argument from me that the current Explo is a CUV. Sorry for accidentally kicking off a meaningless debate. 🙂
The Xterra was quite a bit smaller than the 4Runner. I wanted one back then until I went to the dealer and sat in it.
I also looked at the ’99 gen Pathfinder and it was nicely refined for its class and fairly roomy, but I couldn’t get over the fact that it got worse gas mileage than BOF SUVs. In my mind that defeated the purpose of a unibody CUV. I ended up with a 4Runner.
Right, imo Xterra was the best of it’s, now gone, unfortunately time, we’re on our 2nd one, daughter has one, her husband had a 1st gen one, youngest son has one. If they still made one we’d buy another, as it is the ’05 at 190k serves beater duty to keep the miles down at 41k and the salt off of the newer one… we LOVE Xterras, it goes anywhere, in any weather, and pulls our 23′ boat too!
I’d have to disagree with the Pathfinder being better styled than the 4Runner. The Hardbody front end is ugly with those stupid plastic bits in the overly tall leading edge of the hood and the side window treatment on the Pathfinder looks like it is trying to hard to be cool and presumably give the look of a roll bar.
I had a 1997 Infiniti QX4 followed by a 2003 Pathfinder SE. The 3.5 was a huge improvement. I miss these boxy Pathfinders. When these were new, it seemed like every upscale family in my area traded up from a sedan to one of these (probably helps that the Nissan and Infiniti dealer were the closest dealerships to the community). The one after 2004 lost all its charm and characteristics that attracted me to this in the first place. The one now is a disappointment … just another generic CUV minivan type thing. Nothing appealing about it anymore, or for Nissan for that matter.
The current Pathfinder is definitely Nissan’s Highlander/Pilot competitor (mid-size 3-row CUV). Nissan is currently one of the few brands to offer both a 2-row (Murano) and a 3-row mid-size CUV. But the overlap between those two isn’t as bad as the overlap between Nissan’s two compact CUVs, the Rogue (X-Trail) and Rogue Sport (Qashqai). Why the Rogue Sport is even sold here is a mystery to me.
I have always appreciated the quirkiness of the rear door handle on the C-pillar of the 4-door models. I had a friend in high school (mid 90’s) who had one. She was from a family of considerable means and was gifted a red ’95 4 door for her 16th birthday. I remember when entering the rear door I would instinctively reach for the handle on the side of the door and each time be surprised at grasping nothing but air.
I remember a time riding along when we had to execute a u-turn on a narrow street. She was 3 or 4 motions into a 27 point turn when I reminded her she drove a 4×4. Although hesitant (she was from a “good” family, after all) she managed to gun the thing up over the curb and spun her tires in the mud for a brief second. I’m pretty sure it was her first and last experience off-roading.
LOL theres a four door Terrano/Pathfinder at a place I regularly work the disguised rear door handles get me every time I use them admittedly not often, horrible thing to drive it wallows all over the road and the 2.7 non turbo diesel engine is gutless, but it keeps going so its kept on the fleet, it always starts, that particular employer has little brand loyalty in utes and there are Toyota Isuzu/Holden Mitsubishi and late model Ranger utes plus the old Terrano wagon, the best choice is the one with keys in the ignition and fuel. There was a Navara/Hardbody flat deck dropsider hanging around diesel with 5 speed column change but its gone last time I worked there.
The problem with those door handles is that kids couldn’t reach them. That’s a pretty big flaw in a family vehicle, one that Consumer Reports made sure to point out year after year.
I dislike that they have two Rouges, differing sizes, and very confusing. Just as when Hyundai had two different size Santa Fe’s, which is now rectified.
I had to explain a few times to non-car enthusiasts friends when shopping for UV’s. Whenever car/truck names change or move to a different size/class, it throws buyers off.
Old Pathfinder did have a following, when it was a truck-based vehicle, but then the Xterra took some buyers. Now, just a shopping cart.
They should have never called the LWB version the Santa Fe and the SWB the Santa Fe Sport. It should’ve been Santa Fe for the 2-row and Santa Fe XL for the 3-row for the entire time, like in Canada.
I had an Explorer Sport, which was the 2 door version at the time. I didn’t find it confusing.
The Rogue Sport appears to be an entirely different model, which is another thing altogether.
Wasn’t the first gen 4Runner basically just a regular pickup with a pass through and topper, à la Bronco/Blazers of the same time? The Pathfinder was ahead of Toyota in being a full bespoke SUV (hard)body. The next gen 4Runner with the full body and 4 doors is the one that I remember eclipsing these in numbers, but among the 80s 2 doors the Nissans actually seemed more common in my memory banks, and better looking.
Correct, 1989 was the first model year of the fully integrated body in the 4Runner. I still see a lot of those ones running around, but it has been quite some time since I’ve seen a Pathfinder of this generation.
“To be fair, the spiritual successor to the Hardbody Pathfinder was the Xterra”
Which only reinforces Paul’s inconsistency argument- The Xterra should have used the Pathfinder name to help guide the SUV fans over to it, while the CUV they labeled a Pathfinder could have gone with “Xterra” or some other made up word from the marketing department.
It’s truly pathetic what has happened to the Pathfinder.
These boxy first gen Pathfinders were a key feature in the auto landscape of my youth. The SUV craze was in full swing. The parents of a weller-to-do friend in elementary school had 4-door Pathfinder and Mitsubishi Montero. I thought they were very cool and still do. 4Runner as well. Explorer not so much; it was a more rounded and mature vehicle but lacked the bravado of the others.
The Monteros are gone. The Explorers are nearly gone. Haven’t seen a Pathfinder in a long time. 4Runners are getting thinner as well. The Old Guard is passing…
A fun throwback comparison test of the soccer-mom SUV heydays:
https://www.caranddriver.com/archives/1991-ford-explorer-eddie-bauer-vs-gmc-s-15-jimmy-slx-isuzu-trooper-ls-jeep-cherokee-laredo-mitusbishi-montero-ls-nissan-pathfinder-se-and-toyota-4runner-sr5-archived-comparison-test
Looking at the performance stats and general unapologetic truckishness of these vehicles makes me wonder how they ever became popular as commuter vehicles in the first place. But it does explain why the CUV craze is in full swing. For most, they carry the vague aura of the tough 90s utes, but with the handling and civility of the sedans they thought weren’t cool anymore. People.
If the vast majority of BOF SUV buyers during their heyday never used their truck’s off-road or towing abilities, then what’s so bad about those vehicles becoming car-based unibody vehicles that are better on gas and ride and handle more like cars?
Becoming car-based unibody crossovers isn’t necessarily bad. Dull and compromised, perhaps, but not necessarily bad. The Pathfinder in particular, though, is bad. Nissan swiped the nameplate from a durable, once class-leading vehicle and put it on one with poor reliability, poor owner satisfaction, and the sole exceptional attribute being how good it makes the Pilot or Highlander look in comparison.
Its status as a CUV is secondary.
I found these quite attractive. Actually I thought the entire Hardbody line was quite attractive but those original Pathfinders seemed like a worthy match for the equally-attractive 1st-gen 4-Runners.
I had a 2002 Pathfinder, purchased used with 60,000 kms and traded in at 180,000. I used for my forestry business and it was very capable. Skid plate, trailer hitch to protect the rear bumper and proper tires, it went everywhere I asked it to go. Was rattle free and solid when I got rid of it, but my work was changing and I could not justify the gas use (not called Pumpfinders for nothing lol) so replaced it with a 2009 Forester. Was very active on the Pathy forum and there actually were a fair number of those R50’s that got built up. But the WD21 had more off road cred for sure.
We checked out one of the current version Pathfinders a few years ago when they were new. High points included excellent access to the third row, second row could fold WITH booster seats in place/latched and decent power/comfort etc. Zero pretensions of off-roadyness but plenty fine in the snow. We were not looking at it to conquer the Rubicon Trail.
We ended up not going that route at the time and tthen when we (several years) later ended up with a Highlander, the Pathfinder wasn’t even on our radar, mainly due to the first couple of years turning out to again apparently having lots of CVT issues.
Used they tend to be a very good value compared to Highlanders and are more spacious than the Highlander, especially in the third row. As a “car” the newer versions are likely to be perfectly fine.
The first generation was unashamedly trucky but cool, the second softer in every way, then the third was sort of a blend with very chiseled and attactive looks but a far better ride etc than the first generation. I’d buy a third-gen if I needed one, it seems like they are fairly rugged and long lasting, the original ones are nowadays mostly used up.
Wasn’t the gen-2 Pathfinder BOF?
At this point I’m not sure what the point of having both the Pathfinder and the Murano in the Nissan line is, likewise the Kicks overlaps with the Rogue Sport (Qashqai outside the US) on one end and the Note on the other, and the Altima and Maxima have been awfully similar for an awfully long time.
Nissan’s next direction once they’ve pushed out Ghosn and (hopefully) cast away Renault should be towards fewer models that are better in their segments.
No. As I said in the post.
The Hardbody and Pathfinder were among the first models to come out of Jerry Hirshberg’s NDA center in California. Tom Semple was the lead designer, I believe. Mr. Hirshberg spoke to our Industrial Design class when I was at Georgia Tech right around the time the Pathfinder was introduced – both these vehicles elicited quite a bit of excitement in the ID world at the time, and one of the designers at the ID firm at which I worked bought a first-year Pathfinder to replace his Le Car (really!). The original Quest minivan, also from Semple, won a Gold Award in the consumer products category in the annual Design Review of ID Magazine.
I notice towards the end of the article Paul alludes to the fact there is no direct competition to the current 4Runner. Seems as though he is correct, which amazes me considering that model’s popularity. It may have waned a bit as the more civilized CUVs have come into fashion, but somewhere I read that 4Runners are starting to become in vogue, again.
The inventory manager at the Chevy dealership I work at once mentioned a year or two ago that a SUV variant of the Colorado could likely be easily engineered. We both agreed that would be an excellent idea that would likely sell like hotcakes, in our opinion. Ford coming back out with the Ranger would be an excellent candidate for such a re-engineering, also. All I can think of halting such a project would be safety ratings and possibly CAFE standards.
The 4Runner was down to about 40k annual sales for multiple years during the recession. I’m half surprised the plug wasn’t pulled, but looks like the current generation was nearing launch then and maybe they just went for it. Probably helps that the platform is used overseas as well so the US market is just one of several. It took until 2014 to climb out and now they sell 150k of an 8 year old model. Puzzling, they are a bit crude for commuting and errands compared to CUVs but apparently some like that.
I’m a little surprised no one has fielded a competitor, but then I look at the Xterra’s ten year impact vector with the sales ground. The Grand Cherokee is the one to beat, they’ve nailed the semi-premium SUV used-as-a-station-wagon formula. Not as capable as a base 4Runner off road unless you reach obscene MSRPs and equip it with breakable components, but a far nicer on road experience and it looks expensive for those who want that.
What I want to know is when a new 4Runner will arrive.
I’m mortified by the thought that Toyota will “update” the 4Runner with that gutless 3.5L from the Tacoma. I just had a TRd Offroad Tacoma as a rental this week surprisingly enough, came away with mixed feelings. The Bilstein setup turns pockmarked pavement into velvet and the interior is reasonably well laid out, but the motor and gearing are just thoroughly mediocre in every way. 19 mpg indicated over mostly 74mph-ish highway cruising, barely 1 mpg more than my 4Runner with its ancient iron block 3.4L with the old 4spd Aisin would get. And my 4Runner doesn’t need to downshift for every tiny little “hill” in the Midwest.
A good point about Nissan’s inconsistencies through the decades. In recent times one problem I see is that Nissan has spoken Japanese with varying degrees of a French accent. For whatever reason, the French approach to vehicle design has had a tough time finding an audience here. I think the unfortunate result has been that Nissans have lacked the durability traits of the big Japanese companies and also have lacked the style and drama of the better European entrants. A guy may as well just buy a Ford.