First time snow and ice, very impressed

Any topics related to 2005-2012 R51

Moderator: volvite

Barjrob1972
Posts: 35
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 9:34 am
Location: Forney, Texas

First time snow and ice, very impressed

Postby Barjrob1972 » Fri Mar 06, 2015 9:26 am

Just a general observation - being a die-hard Jeep guy, this time around I opted to buy the 2012 Silver, instead, due to the usable 3rd row so I can haul around the family when needed. It's my DD and our family hauler. I was unimpressed with the rear end characteristics which necessitated the installation of the air bags and cured the "jack hammer" issue the vehicle had. Being from Texas, I don't get much time to play in snow and ice but we have had two snow/ice events in as many weeks and much to my surprise, I was greatly impressed with the capabilities of the Pathfinder. With the vehicles weight balance, the 4WD and the aggressive traction control, it put the vehicle on par with my Wife's Cherokee Trailhawk and I even found myself parking my lifted and tuned F-150 and using the Pathy as my main inclement weather driver. The truck wasn't really set up for this type of stuff anyway, requiring a bit more "finesse". This little buggy was incredible on the slippery stuff and inspired much confidence. Being EH&S where I work and the plant's First Responder, I was even able to use it to help out the other employees who were struggling, easily getting to where they were stuck and helping them get moving again. I was considering biting-the-bullet and getting myself another Rubi but the Pathy's performance has changed my mind and I think I will keep her.
When I wasn't helping, putting the Pathy in 2WD and turning off the TC made for some entertaining times on a large, snow covered parking area at our warehouses. That's what it's all about.
Now, if the Pathfinder was modifiable like the Rubi, it would be ideal. After reading on here, though, I don't see a lift kit, gears, 35's and lockers in the future. That's okay as it will give me more money to keep building my truck.
Kudos to Nissan. This little thing really is a mountain goat.

Of course there is a drawback. When nobody else was able to get to work, I still kept showing up, like a sucker.


User avatar
AZ_Path
Posts: 420
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 12:03 pm
Location: Phoenix, AZ

Re: First time snow and ice, very impressed

Postby AZ_Path » Fri Mar 06, 2015 12:09 pm

Barjrob1972 wrote:Of course there is a drawback. When nobody else was able to get to work, I still kept showing up, like a sucker.
:lol:

The Path really is a great all around SUV. As you said, with the usable (for kids) 3rd row it is a good family vehicle, has good towing capability, and good off-road characteristics. A jack of all trades in my opinion. It does most everything well and not just one thing great.

User avatar
NmexMAX
Posts: 796
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 2:35 pm
Location: Northern New Mexico

Postby NmexMAX » Fri Mar 06, 2015 4:08 pm

Sounds like a great positive story.

What kind of tires do you have on that thing?

All my friends have Rubi's, those are some mean suckers, but you already knew that.

Me and this fellow Rubi guy were leading the pack that day.


Image

Barjrob1972
Posts: 35
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 9:34 am
Location: Forney, Texas

Postby Barjrob1972 » Fri Mar 06, 2015 4:24 pm

NmexMAX wrote:Sounds like a great positive story.

What kind of tires do you have on that thing?

All my friends have Rubi's, those are some mean suckers, but you already knew that.

Me and this fellow Rubi guy were leading the pack that day.


Image
Mine is bone stock - minus the running boards - with the factory Long Trails which is one reason I was surprised it gripped so well. I've been itching to get some new shoes, even talking about them on here, but I'm just trying to delay that cost.
Plus, it seems I always put on new tires right before I trade off a vehicle and I'm trying to break that habit. :)

not on the rug
Posts: 250
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 11:00 am

mods

Postby not on the rug » Fri Mar 06, 2015 4:52 pm

Glad you like it.

You can certainly push an r51 to the limits. Many of the members here have relatively tame pathys, but if you venture over to thenewx.org you'll see what can be done to a pathy/xtexterra/frontier. a titan swap or suspension lift, with a small body lift and a little trimming can make 35s doable. Heck, a lot of guys run 33s here with nothing at all but a little fender liner melting in the front. gear changes aren't difficult or uncommon either. The r51 is a very capable platform indeed. Good luck and enjoy

skinny2
Sponsored Member
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 10:07 pm
Location: BFE, Ohio

Postby skinny2 » Fri Mar 06, 2015 7:50 pm

Barjrob1972 wrote: Mine is bone stock - minus the running boards - with the factory Long Trails which is one reason I was surprised it gripped so well. I've been itching to get some new shoes, even talking about them on here, but I'm just trying to delay that cost.
Usually highway tires like the Long Trails perform better in light snow/ice than many AT's. Most AT's just don't have the proper tread for ice but they do dig better in deep snow. I do a lot of mild off-roading for work (mainly fire trails, rutted back roads, construction roads) and I run a highway tire. I drive with a heavy foot and don't like the handling of most AT's. It's always a compromise of some sort when buying tires.

Firestone Destination AT is a good all around tire though.

Barjrob1972
Posts: 35
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 9:34 am
Location: Forney, Texas

Postby Barjrob1972 » Sat Mar 07, 2015 7:54 am

[/quote]Firestone Destination AT is a good all around tire though.[/quote]

Those are what I'll be switching to in a 245/75-17. Those came stock on my wife's Trailhawk (type not size, the TH runs a 245/65-17) and so far, have been a very decent tire.

not on the rug
Posts: 250
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 11:00 am

Postby not on the rug » Sat Mar 07, 2015 9:48 am

Barjrob1972 wrote:
Firestone Destination AT is a good all around tire though.[/quote]

Those are what I'll be switching to in a 245/75-17. Those came stock on my wife's Trailhawk (type not size, the TH runs a 245/65-17) and so far, have been a very decent tire.[/quote]

Pizza cutters, huh?

Barjrob1972
Posts: 35
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 9:34 am
Location: Forney, Texas

Postby Barjrob1972 » Sat Mar 07, 2015 2:13 pm

not on the rug wrote:Pizza cutters, huh?
Yeah. It's a family hauler and my DD. The Pathfinder has already less-than-stellar fuel mileage, rarely even hitting 20 MPG on the highway. I don't need to make it worse.
My truck makes up for it @ ~12.5 MPG.

skinny2
Sponsored Member
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 10:07 pm
Location: BFE, Ohio

Postby skinny2 » Sat Mar 07, 2015 3:11 pm

I don't think you're going to see the results you think with that odd size change. First and foremost, the narrower tire and taller sidewall will be less safe, which for a family hauler doesn't make sense. Secondly, going with an inch taller tire is going to offset any mpg savings you might see from the narrower tire. It will also reduce performance and braking as well.

not on the rug
Posts: 250
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 11:00 am

tires

Postby not on the rug » Sun Mar 08, 2015 8:38 am

skinny2 wrote:I don't think you're going to see the results you think with that odd size change. First and foremost, the narrower tire and taller sidewall will be less safe, which for a family hauler doesn't make sense. Secondly, going with an inch taller tire is going to offset any mpg savings you might see from the narrower tire. It will also reduce performance and braking as well.
I tend to agree. If you're concerned with mpg and safety, stick with factory size tires. a skinny tire will give you a smaller contact patch with the road, which for an suv full of family isn't ideal whatsoever. And a tall, squishy sidewall seriously affects handling. And a larger diametet tire will negatively affect fuel mileage as well.

Barjrob1972
Posts: 35
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 9:34 am
Location: Forney, Texas

Postby Barjrob1972 » Sun Mar 08, 2015 9:03 am

The difference between the two tires is minimal. Comparing both sizes of Destination A/T's, factory and upsized, the upsized tire is 4 lbs heavier, .6" more narrow and .9" taller increasing size to 31.5". The slightly more narrow tread section width with reduce the sidewall bulge on the factory skinny wheels. As far a worsening fuel mileage, the only thing the slightly larger tire will do is bring my speedo closer to accurate since it registers 2.5 mph under. If fuel mileage were to "go down" it is because it would be more accurately registering the correct miles, now.
I have no problem with the tire size I have chosen. With that being said, if I find some name brand 265/70-17's at decent price, I will get them as balancing quality tires with my wallet is paramount.
You guys are way over thinking this since the differences are in tenths of inches.

skinny2
Sponsored Member
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 10:07 pm
Location: BFE, Ohio

Postby skinny2 » Sun Mar 08, 2015 2:14 pm

Barjrob1972 wrote:The difference between the two tires is minimal. Comparing both sizes of Destination A/T's, factory and upsized, the upsized tire is 4 lbs heavier, .6" more narrow and .9" taller increasing size to 31.5". The slightly more narrow tread section width with reduce the sidewall bulge on the factory skinny wheels. As far a worsening fuel mileage, the only thing the slightly larger tire will do is bring my speedo closer to accurate since it registers 2.5 mph under. If fuel mileage were to "go down" it is because it would be more accurately registering the correct miles, now.
I have no problem with the tire size I have chosen. With that being said, if I find some name brand 265/70-17's at decent price, I will get them as balancing quality tires with my wallet is paramount.
You guys are way over thinking this since the differences are in tenths of inches.
First of all, the OEM size is a 265/65-17.

I think you're under thinking the difference "tenths" will. These changes are pushing 10% which is substantial in the tire world. Maybe it won't make a huge difference in handling for the type of driving you do, but it will impact your pocket which seems to be the real factor here.

I'm not just talking theory either. I've made the switch from a 265/65-17 to a 265/70-17 on my previous V8 Tundra. That change keeps the width the same but increases the sidewall .5" and the total diameter by 1". It was a very noticeable change. I lost acceleration and about 1mpg. Hills I could climb in OD now required a downshift. The handling decreased as well simply from the additional sidewall flex. I did it to save a few bucks because the 265/70 is a little cheaper than the 265/65, but I didn't realize the overall impact. At the next tire change, I went back to the stock size and it was like I added 20hp. Considering how dissatisfied I was just with the handling change due to the sidewall, I can't imagine what it would be like to lose 1/2" in width as well. Regardless of anything else I've said here, one other piece of considerable math here: You might save $100 on the tires, but if you lose 1mpg, you'll spend an extra $450 in fuel over 35k miles.

It may make your speedo more accurate, but that doesn't change fuel burn. It just tricks the calculation and makes you think there was no change. Without re-gearing your differentials, increasing the tire diameter reduces performance and economy.

I don't really care what you do, but I fuct up doing this and hate to see someone else do the same if they're just trying to save a few bucks.

not on the rug
Posts: 250
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 11:00 am

jeez

Postby not on the rug » Sun Mar 08, 2015 4:57 pm

It's funny when people confuse "thinking" with "over-thinking." Do what you will buddy, but 10% is significant no matter what you're talking about. If your boss offered you a 10% raise would you tell him that he was overthinking how well you are doing and refuse? if car dealership told you that you're family is 10% more likely to die in a horrible crash if you buy the red car, would you still buy it?

Barjrob1972
Posts: 35
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 9:34 am
Location: Forney, Texas

Postby Barjrob1972 » Sun Mar 08, 2015 5:02 pm

skinny2 wrote:First of all, the OEM size is a 265/65-17.
I know what the factory size of the tires are for my vehicle. I mentioned the 265/70-17 in my above post as it will be closer in equivalence to 245/75-17's as far as overall diameter and include the additional tire width which some seem to think is necessary.
I've been playing the tire game for a long time having many Jeeps and other off-road vehicles. I'm good with my decision and I disagree that tenths of an inch will be significant although, for the sake of argument, I have not calculated how much the final drive ratio will change. If I'm wrong, I'll owe you a Coke. If I were going to 32's or 33's then yes, I would be in agreement with most of the arguments on here. For running up-and-down the road and the type of use my Pathfinder sees, 245's will be satisfactory. Unsprung weight will be a small issue since I am adding 4 lbs. per wheel, on average, but that's the way it is. I remember going from a 30" tire to a "skinny 32" tire on my stock 05 Unlimited and it dropped almost 4 mpg. Been there, done that. That's why I'm usually pretty big on gear changes with tire size increase to get the final drive ratio back to as close to original, as possible. I did that on my truck as my most recent example. Although on the highway it see's 12-13 MPG, in stock form, the best it ever got was 14.9, hand calculated. I'm okay with losing 2-3 MPG's considering I went with 4.56 gears and a 34.4"x9.5" (315/70-17) tire which weigh about 63 lbs. each and a custom tuned Edge programmer with 3" of lift. It was expected. The final drive ratio is a little higher than factory - as well as drag coefficient obviously - but since I will eventually go to a 6" lift and a real 35" tire, the slightly higher RPM's will be necessary to keep it from bogging down. Besides, now it pulls my 14.4GVWR trailer like butter.


Return to “R51 General Chat”