Consumer Reports

**** PLEASE USE SUBTOPICS BELOW FOR NEW TOPICS ****

Moderator: volvite

User avatar
NVSteve
Sponsored Member
Posts: 1987
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 11:27 am
Location: Salt Lake City

Consumer Reports

Postby NVSteve » Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:19 pm

I have no faith in any of their vehicle testing, but some of their small product stuff is pretty good. But only when they test every bit of the competition, which they never do. Anyway, they had the following "Lows" rating for the current PF:

"Stiff ride, second- and third-row seats, turning circle, rear access, fuel economy."

My thoughts:

1. Stiff ride. Uh, which model PF did they test? From all the postings everywhere, "stiff" does not seem to fall into the OEM vocabulary. Are they, as usual, comparing everything to a car?
2. Second row isn't roomy, but I've had large adults in the back for up to 300 miles at a time and it's all right. 3rd row is a joke & only a marketing item.
3. I've never really cared. The streets where I live are gigantic. If I can't make a U turn in one motion, then I'll have to stop and back it up a bit & then complete the turn. I wonder how it really compares to other vehicles?
4. Rear access. Not sure what the con is with that. I love the pop up door. I love the rear hatch access even more when the back is full of crap. It isn't a side swing like the FJ or my old Trooper (both of which are fine in my book), so I'm wondering why the rated that low. Is it because the door doesn't fold up like an accordian?
5. Fuel economy. This annoys me to no end. The PF is classified as an evil SUV, and compared to other SUVs, it isn't bad at all. Compared to a car or wannabe crossover type vehicle, obviously MPG will look worse. It should go without saying that an SUV will, by definition, get poorer MPG than a car (at least most cars).

Feel free to voice your opinion, good or bad.


User avatar
geoffstgermaine
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 4:17 pm
Location: Winnipeg, Canada

Postby geoffstgermaine » Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:38 pm

1. Yep, they're comparing it to a car. This seems to be the most common "fault" amongst SUVs.
2. I think the second row seating is fine. My third row is permanently folded down. I wonder what car they're comparing it to ;).
3. Turning circle isn't great. It's not much worse than our '00 Integra though.
4. By rear access they may mean access to the third row, which is difficult (see my #2 anyway). If they mean the cargo area through the cargo door then I don't know what to tell you... I think it's great though I suppose if you were really tall. I'm 6'0 and I have no problems.
5. Again, they're comparing it to a car.

User avatar
guinnessjim
Posts: 245
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 7:58 pm
Location: Newport, OR

Postby guinnessjim » Mon Mar 03, 2008 8:41 pm

#4: that rear door was LOW near the truck when open (until i put i the OME on). i could see it getting a poor rating if one of the testers knocked their head on it.

User avatar
NVSteve
Sponsored Member
Posts: 1987
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 11:27 am
Location: Salt Lake City

Postby NVSteve » Mon Mar 03, 2008 10:57 pm

guinnessjim wrote:#4: that rear door was LOW near the truck when open (until i put i the OME on). i could see it getting a poor rating if one of the testers knocked their head on it.
What SUV isn't low? If it was just right, then they'd complain that the PF was too tall of a vehicle. Can't win with them. I agree about the OME though-I was happy to be able to stand under my rear door without hitting my head, although I still stoop a bit out of habit.

User avatar
Fofiddy
Moderator
Posts: 422
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 6:40 pm
Location: New England

Postby Fofiddy » Mon Mar 03, 2008 10:57 pm

Yet again another publication that doesn't grasp the differences between cars and trucks... I keep a copy of Car and Driver in my BR in case I ever run out of toilet paper. In this month's Issue of Non Absorbant TP they did their "top 5 Sucks", I mean Trucks article. In those top 5 there was only one Truck (Silverado), everything else was a CUV. My personal favorite is the "Best Large SUV" the Mazda CX9 (last year the Pilot took it). In the nominees the Path V8 was listed... funny last time I checked those were all Midsized ute's. Of course the article was biased to judgments that reflect the thoughts of Re-Re's that buy a truck for car duty. Where 3000lbs is an adiquate rating for towing capacity...
Hoorah for LCD media publications aimed at the QVC crowd. :roll:

User avatar
08Datsun
Posts: 244
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:51 pm
Location: Santa Barbara, CA

Postby 08Datsun » Tue Mar 04, 2008 12:36 am

Most of their lows are what I consider highs on the PF.

1. The PF rides nicer than my Maxima and on it's first road trip, we all couldn't believe how it ate up the old concrete freeway in the Salinas Valley that made our Grand Wagoneer pitch up and down.

2. We use all three rows all the time. We have kids, 9 and 6, and they fit in the third row fine. I'm 6'4" and I fit in the 2nd row fine if my wife(5'6") is driving. I think it's decent considering the size of the vehicle we're talking about.

3. It's just the same as the Maxima, which seems just fine.

4. How much more access do you need? The whole back opens up and the glass open too to fill it all the way to the top. If they are talking about access to the third row, the second row tumbles and the people that can fit(meaning kids) seem to have no trouble scampering back there.

5. Our last four by, the Grand Wagoneer, got 13 on the highway and now we're getting 20. I'm absolutely jumping for joy at the gas mileage, especially since 87 has recently jumped to $3.65 here.

User avatar
00void
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 10:48 am
Location: Holmdel NJ

Re: Consumer Reports

Postby 00void » Tue Mar 04, 2008 9:09 am

i too saw this over the weekend and my thoughts are:

1. totally agree with you... have no clue what they're talking about and i figure they're comparing to a car or car based SUV/CUV
2. the second row is so-so in terms of roominess. compared to my T4R it's small, but the Pathy is on par, if not slightly larger than my fiancée's '07 Jeep GC. haven't used the 3rd row so no comment.
3. compared to my T4R the turning radius is definitely larger but it's not to a degree that makes me frustrated or really care.
4. again, have no idea what CR is talking about. i think it's just fine. again, compared to my T4R, it would be nice to have a sliding rear window instead of a pop-up but it's just fine.
5. fuel economy will never be great for a truck this size. i mean, the V6 Pathy has an almost identical 0-60 time to my old V8 T4R but gets the same (or close to the same) mileage of the V6 T4R (according to what i've read). the Pathy w/ a V8 is a different story however, haha. especially if you've got a heavy foot like myself.

User avatar
socal4x
Posts: 112
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 7:40 pm
Location: southern california

Re: Consumer Reports

Postby socal4x » Tue Mar 04, 2008 9:10 am

NVSteve wrote:I have no faith in any of their vehicle testing, but some of their small product stuff is pretty good. But only when they test every bit of the competition, which they never do. Anyway, they had the following "Lows" rating for the current PF:

"Stiff ride, second- and third-row seats, turning circle, rear access, fuel economy."

My thoughts:

1. Stiff ride. Uh, which model PF did they test? From all the postings everywhere, "stiff" does not seem to fall into the OEM vocabulary. Are they, as usual, comparing everything to a car?
2. Second row isn't roomy, but I've had large adults in the back for up to 300 miles at a time and it's all right. 3rd row is a joke & only a marketing item.
3. I've never really cared. The streets where I live are gigantic. If I can't make a U turn in one motion, then I'll have to stop and back it up a bit & then complete the turn. I wonder how it really compares to other vehicles?
4. Rear access. Not sure what the con is with that. I love the pop up door. I love the rear hatch access even more when the back is full of crap. It isn't a side swing like the FJ or my old Trooper (both of which are fine in my book), so I'm wondering why the rated that low. Is it because the door doesn't fold up like an accordian?
5. Fuel economy. This annoys me to no end. The PF is classified as an evil SUV, and compared to other SUVs, it isn't bad at all. Compared to a car or wannabe crossover type vehicle, obviously MPG will look worse. It should go without saying that an SUV will, by definition, get poorer MPG than a car (at least most cars).

Feel free to voice your opinion, good or bad.
Spot on.....

Yes, you can bet they are comparing it to a car...It always irks me when they put MPG as a low...

Compare MPG of the following vs. what is offered standard horsepower engines (how much power you get for your MPG):
1. Nissan Pathfinder
2. Toy 4 Runner (If you want the Pathy's power, need a V8, then MPG is low)
3. Dodge Durango (When its running)
4. Jeep Cherokee (Std. 235 horse V8, are you kidding?)
5. Land Rover LR3 (9 mpg for the V8, personally attested)

And the winner is?

Also, the ride is less "stiff" than the wifes Volvo S60r, and also less "stiff" than my mountain bike if that means anything...

User avatar
guinnessjim
Posts: 245
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 7:58 pm
Location: Newport, OR

Postby guinnessjim » Tue Mar 04, 2008 12:12 pm

08Datsun wrote:I'm absolutely jumping for joy at the gas mileage, especially since 87 has recently jumped to $3.65 here.
ughh! :(

that is one of the funny things i hear since i moved to vegas...that things are expensive here. i just point west and laugh (lived in LA for 3 years...very few things here, incl. gas, are anywhere near soCal prices)

User avatar
00void
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 10:48 am
Location: Holmdel NJ

Postby 00void » Tue Mar 04, 2008 8:49 pm

regular is $2.89, premium $3.09 and diesel is $3.55 where i live.

sveintore
Posts: 100
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 12:41 am
Location: Molde, Norway

Postby sveintore » Tue Mar 04, 2008 10:42 pm

regular is just above $10 here in norway. Diesel a little bit lower..

User avatar
NVSteve
Sponsored Member
Posts: 1987
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 11:27 am
Location: Salt Lake City

Postby NVSteve » Wed Mar 05, 2008 9:58 am

00void wrote:regular is $2.89, premium $3.09 and diesel is $3.55 where i live.
Utah currently has the cheapest gas in the nation...for the moment. I take no stock in that because many months of the year see us as the most expensive in the nation. When everyone else has lower prices, everyone here is up in arms as to why ours is so damned expensive. The reasons that the oil companies give are ridiculous. The whole topic just makes me ill to begin with. If I notice I need to fill up, I stop at the next gas station and fill up. No price hunting. No driving all over the place to save $.02 per gallon. I honestly couldn't even tell you how much gas is, as I just don't pay attention to it. I know people who drive way out of their way just so they can buy the cheapest gas in town, yet those are the same people who drive little 4 bangers & spend more on gas each month than I do simply because they drive around far too much.

User avatar
BMXPath
Posts: 361
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 7:55 am
Location: Texas!

Postby BMXPath » Wed Mar 05, 2008 10:38 pm

I saw the Consumer Reports issue today with the write up about the Pfinder. I agree that the list of "lows" is questionable.

Stiff ride? I hope so! I dont want an SUV that handles like grandmas ol' land yacht station wagon.

I personally think the turning radius is fine. Especially compared to the long wheel base Chevy Silverado that I used to drive. That thing couldnt U-turn in a shopping center parking lot.

As for the gas mileage being bad, I can understand their concern based upon their 15 mpg claim. I imagine C.R. had a new Pfinder as a test vehicle. Maybe it just wasnt broken in yet. I did think their findings were low. My personal results are better, and I drive pretty agressively.
Five days a week I commute back and forth thru rush hour traffic. On the weekends, I drive a good combo of highway, city, and recreational driving. I never average less than 18 mpg... and that is the average of everything.

Now, NOT mentioned in the start of this topic were the "high" points of the C.R. review of the Pathfinder...
"Acceleration, powertrain, cargo room, and towing capacity."

ALSO, the Pfinder is a Consumer Reports "recommended" vehicle! There are alot of vehicles in C.R. that did not get the "recommended" symbol at the top of the photo. :wink:

User avatar
Fofiddy
Moderator
Posts: 422
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 6:40 pm
Location: New England

Postby Fofiddy » Thu Mar 06, 2008 2:09 am

BMXPath wrote: I never average less than 18 mpg... and that is the average of everything.
I do alot of short commutes / city driving and trip off the VDC quite often.
I'm lucky to see 15mpg as an avg with considerable highway travel (60-80miles of it). That may be due to the fact my Path is 4x4 and has 31.5" tires but their numbers line up to my experience.

Billy T.
Posts: 92
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 2:46 pm

Postby Billy T. » Thu Mar 06, 2008 8:14 am

BMXPath wrote: I personally think the turning radius is fine. Especially compared to the long wheel base Chevy Silverado that I used to drive. That thing couldnt U-turn in a shopping center parking lot.
I came from a 99 Chevy crew cab dually... I am amazed every single time I have a trailer hooked up about where I can turn this thing around... all my buudies just watch with dropped jaws when I get thing turned around in the shop parking lot...

Once the suspension is sorted out, it'll just about be the best compromise of tow rig and daily driver I have ever owned. LAst time out, at 65, I got a tick under 13mpg with a 3100 pound car on an 1800 pound trailer. And with diesel costing as much as 3.75 around here, cost per mile is way better than running one of those trucks.


Return to “2005-2012 Pathfinder (R51)”