Moderator: volvite

User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 2807
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 9:02 am
Location: Winnipeg, Canada


Postby disallow » Thu Jun 24, 2010 11:15 am

Have been mulling over an upgrade from the 05 pathy to an Armada. Drove an 06 SE the other day, it was really nice. It did not have the towing package though, and based on my reading, that limits the towing capacity to 6500lbs, not too far off of the Pathy max of 6000lbs.

Considerations are:

1. Better towing capacity.
2. More powerful engine (better for towing).
3. Similar (though undoubtedly lower) highway fuel economy when not towing.
4. Bigger inside, more space to lug stuff.
5. Price seems right. 06-08 Armadas seem to be going for about $20-24k up here. We bought the Pathy 2 summers ago for $19k.

Can anyone speak to the towing package issue? Apparently its a differential gearing issue, towing package has 3.36:1 (same as the pathy, right), and non-towing has 2.93:1.

I tow about 5500lbs of humungous camper. A bit of a stretch for my v6 pathy. I'm wondering if it would be a big deal for a non-towing package equipped Armada....

Any other thoughts?


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

Postby skinny2 » Thu Jun 24, 2010 11:35 am

If you're not towing all the time, I don't think I'd sweat the gearing. It's going to work harder but you'll get better mpg all the other times that you're empty. I probably would have been happier with the Armada and sometimes wish I had bought that, but I do get pretty good mpg out of the PF and that's really the reason I switched from my Tundra. I'm driving 20k/year but still need a real 4x4 so choices are slim in the "decent" mpg category. Armada is going to feel a lot more stable when towing as well.

Posts: 136
Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 6:42 am
Location: Ontario, Canada

Postby asgard » Thu Jun 24, 2010 6:27 pm

Nothing to do with the towing or even an Armada but Canadian driver did a used review of the QX56 which you might have seen and if might be helpful - if you rate anything these motoring buffs say.

http://www.canadiandriver.com/2010/06/0 ... 4-2009.htm

User avatar
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun May 23, 2010 4:24 pm

Postby hmatiak » Thu Jun 24, 2010 11:55 pm

Towing all the time or not, there is no way i would want a gear that tall in a truck that big.

If you are going to upgrade, dont skimp, get the towing package. A lower gear set (higher numerically) is the best performance/towing upgrade you can make on a truck.

3.36 is still a considerably tall gear for a truck.

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

Postby skinny2 » Fri Jun 25, 2010 5:40 am

Keep in mind the final axle ratio (3.36 for tow package) also has the factor of the transmission gear ratio. In the case of the Armada the 1st and 2nd gears on the transmission are quite low (3.83 & 2.37). 5th gear is also lower than normal (.83 compared with .70 on many other OD's). It's geared almost identical to the PF so even with the taller gears of the non-tow package model...the V8 will still pull much better than the PF.

Depending on the torque curve of the engine, taller gears may work just fine. I made a mistake when buying my current Ram. I bought the 4:10 gears because my trailer is so heavy (15,000# empty....20,000# loaded) but I would have been happier with the 3.73. The transmission gears are low enough that 4.10 is complete overkill even for these loads.

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

Postby 08Datsun » Fri Jun 25, 2010 9:23 am

When the Titan came out, Nissan explained that, due to the extra low 1st gear of our 5 speed automatic, the 2.94 gears are equivalent to 3.73 gears with a 4 speed automatic and the 3.36 gears are equivalent to 4.10's. This is along the lines of what Skinny was saying above.

Return to “2005-2012 Pathfinder (R51)”