# Should I buy a 1999 Nissan Pathfinder?



## DEMENTED (Aug 31, 2010)

I found a 1999 Nissan Pathfinder LE 4WD with 77,000 miles. 

It looks good, it seems to be in good shape. 

What I am looking for in my car is: a 4WD, reliability, low maintenance cost, and most importantly it must be able to handle snow. 

I live in NYC and my Mustang just does not cut it during the winter. I will also be spending my winters in PA which gets a lot of snow. 

I love snowboarding and skiing so it needs to be able to get up a mountain or at least the base of it. 

So is 1999 Nissan Pathfinder LE 4WD a good choice? 
Should I be aware of any problems with them?


----------



## CCPathfinder (Jul 20, 2010)

*I think it's a great buy*

In live in South Jersey and recently bought a 98 Pathfinder LE with 81,000 4x4. Greatest vehicle I ever bought, I am anxious to see how it handles in the snow but from what I have read is they handle really well. I guess it really depends what type of tires you have. I have all season on mine and being from Alaska, i am satisfied with all seasons.

So I would say you found a good buy


----------



## DEMENTED (Aug 31, 2010)

sweet

I am still looking for more input.


----------



## 01PathfinderLE (Aug 21, 2009)

In my opinion, having owned a 92 Pathfinder, a 99 Pathfinder and now a 2001 Pathfinder.... Look for a 2001 - 2005 Pathfinder with the "all mode" transfer case. The engine, transmission and transfer case are much improved over the previous models. Thats me just being picky though. I have loved every Pathfinder i have owned and you won't be dissappointed with it no matter the year. Good luck!


----------



## ya472 (Feb 10, 2010)

I love mine ! 


But each vehicle has its own personality. Some can be lemons, Dealership repairs are expensive, so find a good reliable mechanic, have him check it out.


----------



## piste (Dec 23, 2009)

Pathy's are great reliable vehicles IMO. HAd my 1997 since then. That 99 is low miles. However, I don't feel they are GREAT in the snow....good but not great. Search to find the thread about how people feel they do in the snow...from earlier this year. Compared to your mustang though it'd be much better.


----------



## C-DUB (Jul 27, 2007)

Love mine, but in a big city they are bad for gas. Extremely great in winter months though, LOTS of traction in 4x4 mode.


----------



## randomhero (Oct 24, 2008)

i have a 97 LE and i love it. never givin me any problems and all i have done to it is oil changes tires and recently did my struts. has 140000 miles on it and is still running strong. drive it about 150 miles every weekend and its reliable. thats my opinion. i9 dont have 4x4 nor do we get snow often is southern cali but i take it off roading and it hasnt let me down yet. hope that helps a little bit.


----------



## denv (Sep 10, 2010)

I bought a used pathfinder in 05 and it hasnt disspointed me yet. Its a very comfortable and reliable SUV with lots of cargo space. Solid reliable transportation, fun to drive, safe, but a little hard on gas. Be sure to get a third party inspection done. Although it might cost a bit of money now, in the end it will ultimately save you from future repairs. A professional inspection company will be able to identify any key problems to look out for and if the car is a good deal. I used aiMmobileinspections.com and my pathfinder is still going strong!


----------



## smj999smj (Jan 1, 2006)

They're a pretty good vehicle, handle okay in snow, but aren't great on gas and not big on power. IMO, the 2001 and up models with the 3.5L were much better. THey run smoother, have a lot more power and no worse, maybe better, in gas mileage.


----------



## westslope (Jun 25, 2008)

A recent vintage pathfinder is a large expensive vehicle for what you want to do.

Get a front-wheel drive sub-compact vehicle with hatchback and call it a day. 

If you want to sincerely and truly go off-road, look at the pre-1996 models or look at a Nissan Xterra.


----------



## piste (Dec 23, 2009)

westslope said:


> A recent vintage pathfinder is a large expensive vehicle for what you want to do.
> 
> Get a front-wheel drive sub-compact vehicle with hatchback and call it a day.
> 
> If you want to sincerely and truly go off-road, look at the pre-1996 models or look at a Nissan Xterra.


11 years old is a "recent vintage"? That's an interesting perspective. 

You can't possibly be a skiier/boarder. 

"Large"? Not for the stated purpose...unless I suppose...maybe if one goes to/from the mountain only by themselves all the time. And ski/board gear can take up some room...and it's nice to have plenty of room if you have the season pass and want to avoid the lodge and park in an advantageous spot and change in your car...and/or tailgate during lunch or apres ski. So I'd say a Pathy is "just right" for size.

"Expensive"? No price was stated by the OP but I gotta imagine one can get a '99 Pathy for a good price these days. Admittedly mileage ain't all that great though. And maint costs will heavily depend on current condition.

The LAST thing a skiier/boarder wants to face is a big dump of powder and can't get to the mountain....The deeper the pow...the more you NEED to get there.....For that you want nothing short of 4WD...with some decent ground clearance.....and heft and power to deal with sloppy road conditions alongside large plows, wind driven snow, etc.


----------



## westslope (Jun 25, 2008)

Piste: I x-c ski. I no longer downhill ski; I do not board. 

Where are you? Colorado? Are you familiar with the conditions in eastern North America? 

Gong to a ski-resort is considered off-road? Seriously? 

I never had any difficulty going to resorts in both eastern and western North America in a FWD car. Driving to a ski resort is not considered going off-road. A 15% grade with a metre of snow on it way back in the bush is off-road.

If the big SUV is required for purposes of social status, well, then I have nothing to add this discussion.


----------



## piste (Dec 23, 2009)

westslope said:


> Piste: I x-c ski. I no longer downhill ski; I do not board.
> 
> Where are you? Colorado? Are you familiar with the conditions in eastern North America?
> 
> ...


Greetings,
At the moment I'm in same neck of the woods as the OP...but am familiar with types of conditions in virtually every part of North America due to the variety of places I've lived or been to in the past handful of decades. 

Neither I nor the OP said anything about "off road".

A Pathy is a "big" SUV? really?

Speaking for myself...if I chose my vehicle for social status I wouldn't be driving a 13 year old Pathy...but I am.

I've been in enough situations (Northeast, Rockies, Sierras) where the only people on the lifts were those who had 4WD to get there. Buy hey...maybe everyone else should get Mini Coopers...more fresh tracks for me!!


----------



## pathfounder (Nov 16, 2009)

westslope said:


> A recent vintage pathfinder is a large expensive vehicle for what you want to do.
> 
> Get a front-wheel drive sub-compact vehicle with hatchback and call it a day.
> 
> If you want to sincerely and truly go off-road, look at the pre-1996 models or look at a Nissan Xterra.


Same bulls**t from you in two different threads. I have no idea why you'd preach all of this anti-SUV rhetoric in the Pathfinder section of these forums.

You are pretty far gone mentally if you think that a front-wheel drive sub-compact has any snow capabilities compared to a Pathfinder. I used to have a Sentra which would get stuck in less than 6 inches of snow, even with chunky winter tires. My Pathfinder rarely needs to go into 4WD to get through 8-10 inches of snow.

Most sub-compacts have open differentials, and don't even have LSD as an option, let alone traction control, meaning that they are one-wheel drive in low-traction circumstances. My Pathfinder has 4WD and LSD in the rear, making it 2.5 wheel drive in the worst case. There is ABSOLUTELY NO comparison. I feel like an idiot for even mentioning this.

Now that I'm done with that guy, on to the OP. Yes, the Pathfinder will meet your needs, easily. In 2 wheel drive, they handle as you might expect, but in 4WD, they pull like tractors, not unlike any other similar vehicle.


----------



## westslope (Jun 25, 2008)

pathfounder: Yes, you are an idiot for mentioning it. I fully understand what you are referring to. There is the issue of cost which you either ignore or apparently does not matter. 

Incidentally, I live within driving distance of some of the snowiest ski resorts in western Canada. Imagine that I have ski-bum friends. I have NEVER heard them once complain about not being able to get to the slopes because x or y didn't have a 4WD. Now, maybe you need your 4WD to get to the slopes back east once a winter, once every two winters? 

Students on loans, eh? Students in other countries walk, run, bicycle, take public transit, work at hard their studies but in America? No! The USA is in a full blown debt crisis and her citizens continue to party like the Chinese lenders will always be there. 

There is a rule of thumb for fiscally conservative folks when it comes to borrowing money. Only borrow money for investment purposes (e.g., an education). Do not borrow money for consumption purposes. A pathfinder strikes me as elevated consumption if only made possible by borrowing money. And of course, y'all might be fiscal radicals for all I know. 

Yeah, I know "Cost YOU!" Cost is a 4-letter word. If you are rich and like to party, well than just bring it on!


----------



## piste (Dec 23, 2009)

westslope said:


> pathfounder: Yes, you are an idiot for mentioning it. I fully understand what you are referring to. There is the issue of cost which you either ignore or apparently does not matter.
> 
> Incidentally, I live within driving distance of some of the snowiest ski resorts in western Canada. Imagine that I have ski-bum friends. I have NEVER heard them once complain about not being able to get to the slopes because x or y didn't have a 4WD. Now, maybe you need your 4WD to get to the slopes back east once a winter, once every two winters?
> 
> ...


So what you are saying is that a Pathfinder is not a good choice for DEMENTED because of excessive US debt with China?? :wtf:

I kindly suggest you take your politics, stereotypes, intolerance, and jibberish elsewhere. The OP states clearly what he's looking for...he loves to ski/board and wants a 4WD and is seeking input if a Pathy is a good choice to meet those needs and info on maint or quality things to watch out for. 

Your "ski bum" friends sound like wannabe's who sit by the fire in the morning sipping latte waiting for the roads to clear....so they go do one run on a beginner trail and be lodge bunnies the rest of the day. And you don't even downhill yourself. There are reasons why it is ILLEGAL in some locations to proceed without chains on your vehicle. People like the OP who are passionate about skiing realize even if they only need 4WD once a year to get to a chairlift...THAT is the exact time they want to get there more than any other. For EVERYONE I know who is truly passionate about downhill skiing......hell on earth is waking up in a house a mere handful of miles from the baselodge after a MASSIVE overnight dump and not having a means to get there.


----------



## pathfounder (Nov 16, 2009)

westslope said:


> pathfounder: Yes, you are an idiot for mentioning it. I fully understand what you are referring to. There is the issue of cost which you either ignore or apparently does not matter.
> 
> Incidentally, I live within driving distance of some of the snowiest ski resorts in western Canada. Imagine that I have ski-bum friends. I have NEVER heard them once complain about not being able to get to the slopes because x or y didn't have a 4WD. Now, maybe you need your 4WD to get to the slopes back east once a winter, once every two winters?
> 
> ...


You crack me up. I live in OTTAWA. You know, in CANADA?

Get this..... I was born and raised on Vancouver Island. Yeee-haw!

You have NO RIGHT to judge other people's economic circumstances. I am a student, and I have a 1997 Pathfinder. Do you know how I make that work? For one, I do ALL of my own repairs, except in the case where it is illegal or not possible without specialized equipment. Second, I drive about 1/3 as much as the average Canadian in a given year. The rest of that time, I cycle, walk, use transit or whathaveyou.

I use the Pathfinder to tow my sailboat occasionally, haul things for people, and you guessed it, to laugh my ass off while I drive to WORK to MAKE MONEY while people in their sub-compacts are stuck in the ditch!

I'm not obligated to defend my decisions or my situation, but in this case it is just too easy. Now if you don't mind, the rest of us would like to answer the OP's question without delving deep into their personal lives or making judgments that simply CANNOT be made based on the info provided.


----------



## 00pathyse (May 18, 2010)

well...that was entertaining! LOL


----------



## 00pathyse (May 18, 2010)

And by the way to answer your question, yes you should buy a 99 if your looking for a reliable versatile vehicle. My 2000 SE is great and never lets me down. You can haul just about anything that you can fit into the bed of a truck when you fold the back seats down. The 4x4 is great in the winter. And the 3.3 V6 is super reliable, although might not have tons of power. But it has enough. 
The only con for me is gas mileage isn't great. But hey it's an SUV. If you want gas mileage get a civic.


----------



## 00pathyse (May 18, 2010)

smj999smj said:


> They're a pretty good vehicle, handle okay in snow, but aren't great on gas and not big on power. IMO, the 2001 and up models with the 3.5L were much better. THey run smoother, have a lot more power and no worse, maybe better, in gas mileage.


More power-yes. Better...I wouldn't say so. There is way more problems with the 3.5 than the 3.3. Just take a look at some of the threads. It is a more complicated engine, and they're were bugs they had to work out over the years of production.


----------

