The Nissan Path

Greetings all! Been lurking for a bit, great site and content.

Not sure if I should just piggy-back on a similar thread or start new, opted for start new as this is fairly specific to my situation, my apologies if this is incorrect. Also put in Misc. because none of the others seemed appropriate.

Need some towing advice: We have a 2005 and are looking for a camper that will fit our family of 6 without changing vehicles. We found two with quad bunks, basically identical, one a little heavier than the other, and wondering if they would be too much to safely pull with the Pathfinder. Every site I've seen related to the campers listed people are using full size trucks and SUVs at it appears these trailers would be pushing the limit. I see a few on here pulling trailers that look to be somewhat similar.

Patfhfinder:
Max Towing: 6,000

Trailer: (Forest River) Rockwood Roo 26RS or (Keystone) Outback 26RS
UVW: 4300-4780
H2o and LP: 435
CCC: 1265-1559 (I think we would use every bit of this...)
GVWR: 6000 (eek)

Also taking into account combined weight:

Pathfinder CGVW: 11,133
Trailer weight: 6,000 (worst case)
Pathfinder weight: 4,376
Remaining Pathfinder payload: 757
Minus combined weight of family of 6: 480
Leaves 277lbs below limit, again, eek.

We are in the flat midwest and don't plan on heading to the mountains or anything, primarily short (50-150 mile) trips to campgrounds/family with some interstate travel.

Only current mod is a K&N air filter, not sure if that even counts. Mods I would make to the Pathfinder would be the airlift 1000 air bags in the rear coils and conversion to 7 pin wiring and brake controller. Would also use a weight distributing hitch and anti sway (not sure how that works or what to buy). Brakes are in excellent condition, I replaced all the rotors and pads recently with premium parts. Also, would look into mirror extensions.

I see where some have recommended bypassing the transmission cooler but didn't find why? Sounds odd to me.

Any advice or input is greatly appreciated.

On 9/16/2013 I entered a post on my experience of a 21’ long, 7.5’wide: http://www.thenissanpath.com/viewtopic. ... &start=150

Perhaps I tend to have feelings for what a vehicle goes thru & therefore tend to minimize the stress I put to it. I know it’s just an impersonal piece of steel but yrs ago the family car was given a personal name. Don’t hear that no more.

Brakes: The trailer brake system is designed to stop you.
Radiator: You need all the cooling power. In fact, using 4th instead of OD WILL increase the temp. The torq converter is not programmed to lock up. I used a ScanGuage2 to monitor water temp. Gauge on dash would hardly move. Excessive trans temp kills the trans oil life. May want to idle at a rest stop to allow it to cool down before shutdown..
Midwest Flats still has those rolling hills to climb. Campers have larger frontal areas that resemble a “brick” & the Owners Manual refers to that fact. I know I will get flamed for saying this as some do 70 & lots of weight, but my observation was to go slower to reduce engine temp and improve MPG.

Could a smaller unit serve the family just as well? EX: Eat outside under the awning on the provided picnic table.

For the past 12+ yrs, I have thought small, otherwise I’d be wishing for a diesel truck to pull it. So for me < = >.

Those specs are similar to my setup. I am pulling it about 100 miles this weekend for our last outing of the season.

If you take your time, I don't think you will have an issue. But don't expect to win any races. And WDH is a must.

disallow wrote:If you take your time, I don't think you will have an issue. But don't expect to win any races. And WDH is a must.

How fast do you go up a 3% and 6% grade hill? Back in 1993 pulling a 4800 pound dry weight 30 foot travel trailer with a 1993 Chevy Suburban I could only go about 45 to 50 MPH and only got 10 MPG while towing.

Thanks for the feedback, both trailers we were looking at sold before we pulled the trigger. Nothing else on the market around here so I'm going to keep on the look out and probably wait until next season.

My guess to:

Calicajun wrote:

disallow wrote:If you take your time, I don't think you will have an issue. But don't expect to win any races. And WDH is a must.

How fast do you go up a 3% and 6% grade hill? Back in 1993 pulling a 4800 pound dry weight 30 foot travel trailer with a 1993 Chevy Suburban I could only go about 45 to 50 MPH and only got 10 MPG while towing.

is that the Pathfinder would do better, engines have come a long way since '93.

A 1993 Suburban with the 5.7 had 210 hp and 300 ft-lbs torque, the R51's have 270 hp and 291 ft-lbs torque, 60 more hp and 9 fewer lbs foot of torque and the pathfinder weighs 1400lbs less.

tonyb wrote:A 1993 Suburban with the 5.7 had 210 hp and 300 ft-lbs torque, the R51's have 270 hp and 291 ft-lbs torque, 60 more hp and 9 fewer lbs foot of torque and the pathfinder weighs 1400lbs less.

I have to agree that the 4.0L has a lot of guts. It’s the trans that worries me. My former 98 Tahoe with the 5.7L cost me ~$1600 to rebuild at a shop when it was around the 100K mark. The PF has a very sophisticated $5K trans. If it hasn’t been contaminated, what is it going to run me for a basic rebuild? I’m at 94K now… worrisome.

Does the Pathfinder have the same tranny as the Titan/Armada? If so, then you know life should be good...

tonyb wrote:Thanks for the feedback, both trailers we were looking at sold before we pulled the trigger. Nothing else on the market around here so I'm going to keep on the look out and probably wait until next season.

My guess to:

Calicajun wrote:

disallow wrote:If you take your time, I don't think you will have an issue. But don't expect to win any races. And WDH is a must.

How fast do you go up a 3% and 6% grade hill? Back in 1993 pulling a 4800 pound dry weight 30 foot travel trailer with a 1993 Chevy Suburban I could only go about 45 to 50 MPH and only got 10 MPG while towing.

is that the Pathfinder would do better, engines have come a long way since '93.

A 1993 Suburban with the 5.7 had 210 hp and 300 ft-lbs torque, the R51's have 270 hp and 291 ft-lbs torque, 60 more hp and 9 fewer lbs foot of torque and the pathfinder weighs 1400lbs less.

I'd say it would do better, but it might scream alittle more than the chev would. But she likes it...

is that the Pathfinder would do better, engines have come a long way since '93.

A 1993 Suburban with the 5.7 had 210 hp and 300 ft-lbs torque, the R51's have 270 hp and 291 ft-lbs torque, 60 more hp and 9 fewer lbs foot of torque and the pathfinder weighs 1400lbs less.

Well, all sounds good on paper, guess I'll find out for sure after we buy the trailer. Thanks for posting the spec's on my old Subruban. I couldn't remember what they were on that car.