Just curious. I don't want one and I won't get rid of my 93 Runner, but I was just wondering if it's as "bad ass" as Nissan has touted it to be. Any thoughts fellas?

 

I dunno...I haven't seen any stats on paper but it looks the same as the old one...not a whole lot of ground clearance...

If it had to be a Nissan I'd take the Xterra over the Pathfinder...

 

I meant to say Xterra. Sorry. Oh well, screw this post! Who gives a rat's ass anyway. I blew it when I said Pathfinder when I meant to say Xterra.
Guess I'll have another one ----

 

You'd better catch up Whitey, I'm draining all the Guiness in the US!

I like the Xterra, They weigh 4100 pounds so they have to be solid. The suspension is almost identical to a first gen IFS 4Runner (torsions front/leafs rear) and there are a ton of cool aftermarket parts out for them already. search for the Calmini site.

They are a basic, tough SUV designed for wheeling and they cost a lot less than the 2003 4Runner (which is still unproven). It ain't no soccer mom mobile. They do need a better choice of engines though, I don't like superchargers that make you buy super unleaded.

 

Thanks for the input Greg. I tend to agree with you about the 2002 / 2003 Xterra versus the 2003 4Runner (so far).

 

Plastic is Kewl!

Only gears are Nissan Racing and extremely expensive. No lockers.

Plenty of cheesey lifts though.

 

Personlly I think the entire IFS torson bar set up if awful. No comarison to the shock/coil setup of the late model 4Runners/Tacomas/Tundra.

Spend a day in Ace's Mini and you will understand.