Originally posted by jadcock Doesn't the truck come with a tool set that includes a crows foot and other weird looking extensions (like a traditional distributor wrench)? I've seen these on eBay and on friend's trucks. They said it came with it so you could change the #6 spark plug I think it was...
Not my Pathfinder and I have had it since new. The rear plugs are not totay easy but a lot easier than the plugs on a Camro or Astro van for that matter!
All cars have some mechanical issues that come about during regular service that are infuriating, but domestics seem to have many more that raise their head even during routine stuff, like the impossible Saturn clutch, the center two spark plugs on an astro van, nearly everything on a late model camaro, Neon brake pads, sheet metal screws holding stuff to the SMC in vettes, the list goes on forever and this is stuff I just have run into lately.
For instance, my z only has the inacessable turbos, knock sensor and EGR valve plumbing, its a complcated car but most of the complication is logical and somewhat easy to deal with. My SE-R's have some plugs on the wiring harness that are a bitch to reach and the drivers side axle can hang up and the pathfinder has been pretty easy to work on.
The oil filters on the SE-R's and pathfinders make a mess when you change them and thats about all the stupid stuff. My experiance with Toyota's and Hondas is about the same.
I am an automotive engineer by trade and it seems like a lot of late model US cars like the Focus, Neon and Saturn use a lot of engineering that is design for assembly, where easy to assemble sub units are installed on the main body on the line. This is efficent and the Japanese pioneered this but often the domestics are diffcult to service or modify because of this. The Saturn and Focus especialy. Like you have to remove a whole assembly to gain access to areas of the car. The Japanese seem a lot better at pulling this off. Ford seems best at this from the domestic side.
These are generalizations but it sure seems that everytime I work on a domestic I get pissed at something and I hardly ever get tweeked or stuck on a stupid thing while working on a car built by the Japanese big three.
Are you sure you could hardly feel a difference with no shocks in your Pathfinder? Its an order of magnitude difference! Look at your bumpstops, if your older pathfinder is on the bumpstops or very close, then your torsion bars have sagged and you basicaly have little wheel travel, hence the harsh offroad ride.
Mike
__________________
There can only be one Icy Hot Stunta, Don't Hate.
Looking at my front suspension ('95 Hardbody), the wishbones are pretty much centered between the bumpstops. There's about an inch of travel between both the top and bottom. The ride height is close to what it seems it should be. I can tell when I hit the bumpstops -- there's a pretty noticeable thud...
There's a pretty severe area of roadway which really tests a car's suspension, and it's optionally on my way home from work. It's a longer way home, but I can drive it any day of the week. The road sinks about 3 or 4 inches in a length of about 5 feet and then there's a big "ridge" in the road that really pitches the vehicle upwards.
Kinda like this (vertical heights greatly exagerated). Ignore the periods -- I had to use them to keep the spacing right:
.....___
__/......\..........._______.......<-- direction of travel
.............\____/
In my Cadillac -- and in the full size trucks at work -- the vehicle attitude stays pretty level as it lets the wheels sink down into the depression and then absorbs much of the vertical movement of the suspension over the rise, and then ultimately returns to flat road. In my Nissan by comparison, as the wheels follow the depression, it seems the body starts to fall already before you hit the rise. So the body is falling as the wheels hit the rise, which sends it straight upward...and as the body is catapulted upward, the wheels fall back over the backside of the rise and the body comes "crashing" down. It seems that in the case of my Nissan, the body is tied very closely to the suspension's movement, and I figured it's because the spring rate is very high to keep the wishbones between the bumpstops. It seems there's much less wheel travel on my truck than other vehicles, and I figured it was because of the design of the suspension. I have a '95 Car and Driver magazine where they tested a '95 SE truck new and they mentioned the suspension seemed to pogo off big bumps -- sending your head into the ceiling. I think "pogoing" is a great description of what the truck seems to do.
When I got the truck, the original shocks were still on it -- or at least they were Nissan shocks. My first set of shocks that I put on it were Monroes. The ride was pretty bouncy after that. Again, pogo is a good description. I figured the shocks weren't strong enough to control the stiff springs. So I "sprung" for a set of Rancho RS5000 shocks for the front and the problem continues, although not as badly. Between the Monroes and Ranchos, I rode around for a day without front shocks at all, and I didn't see much of a difference. Sure, it would bounce a little more after a big bump, and the ride was a touch more unsettled, but it wasn't at all what I would have expected. It was actually very smooth -- the texture of the road was gone and it was a very quiet ride. It wasn't safe in an emergency situation so I knew I'd have to proceed to put shocks back on, but I was pleasantly surprised at how it rode. I did the same trick on an '88 Jeep that we lifted (coil springs there) and the bouncing was much more pronounced and obvious.
Do you have any suggestions? If I wanted to really "fix" it so I like it, my first instinct would be to add a 3" lift with new upper wishbones to gain some more travel -- and install a softer front bar. I think the root of my "problem" is a strong torsion bar. They appear stock, but who knows. The Ranchos seem to be able to control it only a bit better than the Monroes did. The spring rate seems to overpower even the Rancho shocks. It's frustrating, but certainly not unlivable.
Looking at my front suspension ('95 Hardbody), the wishbones are pretty much centered between the bumpstops. There's about an inch of travel between both the top and bottom. The ride height is close to what it seems it should be. I can tell when I hit the bumpstops -- there's a pretty noticeable thud...
There's a pretty severe area of roadway which really tests a car's suspension, and it's optionally on my way home from work. It's a longer way home, but I can drive it any day of the week. The road sinks about 3 or 4 inches in a length of about 5 feet and then there's a big "ridge" in the road that really pitches the vehicle upwards.
Kinda like this (vertical heights greatly exagerated). Ignore the periods -- I had to use them to keep the spacing right:
.....___
__/......\..........._______.......<-- direction of travel
.............\____/
In my Cadillac -- and in the full size trucks at work -- the vehicle attitude stays pretty level as it lets the wheels sink down into the depression and then absorbs much of the vertical movement of the suspension over the rise, and then ultimately returns to flat road. In my Nissan by comparison, as the wheels follow the depression, it seems the body starts to fall already before you hit the rise. So the body is falling as the wheels hit the rise, which sends it straight upward...and as the body is catapulted upward, the wheels fall back over the backside of the rise and the body comes "crashing" down. It seems that in the case of my Nissan, the body is tied very closely to the suspension's movement, and I figured it's because the spring rate is very high to keep the wishbones between the bumpstops. It seems there's much less wheel travel on my truck than other vehicles, and I figured it was because of the design of the suspension. I have a '95 Car and Driver magazine where they tested a '95 SE truck new and they mentioned the suspension seemed to pogo off big bumps -- sending your head into the ceiling. I think "pogoing" is a great description of what the truck seems to do.
When I got the truck, the original shocks were still on it -- or at least they were Nissan shocks. My first set of shocks that I put on it were Monroes. The ride was pretty bouncy after that. Again, pogo is a good description. I figured the shocks weren't strong enough to control the stiff springs. So I "sprung" for a set of Rancho RS5000 shocks for the front and the problem continues, although not as badly. Between the Monroes and Ranchos, I rode around for a day without front shocks at all, and I didn't see much of a difference. Sure, it would bounce a little more after a big bump, and the ride was a touch more unsettled, but it wasn't at all what I would have expected. It was actually very smooth -- the texture of the road was gone and it was a very quiet ride. It wasn't safe in an emergency situation so I knew I'd have to proceed to put shocks back on, but I was pleasantly surprised at how it rode. I did the same trick on an '88 Jeep that we lifted (coil springs there) and the bouncing was much more pronounced and obvious.
Do you have any suggestions? If I wanted to really "fix" it so I like it, my first instinct would be to add a 3" lift with new upper wishbones to gain some more travel -- and install a softer front bar. I think the root of my "problem" is a strong torsion bar. They appear stock, but who knows. The Ranchos seem to be able to control it only a bit better than the Monroes did. The spring rate seems to overpower even the Rancho shocks. It's frustrating, but certainly not unlivable.
Thanks,
It sounds as iff your ride height is correct, my suspension set up is rancho 9000 RSX shocks, Nissan motorsports torsion bars (20% stiffer) rasied just about 3/4 more than stock, nissan motorsports rear springs which raise 1" more than stock, and energy bushings. My ride seems plush and it abosrobs pretty big bumps. Off road it takes a series of 3 or so big bumps to upset the suspension. My friends are suprised on how smooth my truck is off road.
When I hit something really big, I can feel it bottom. Tomarrow I am going to try a long progessive soft foam front bumpstop and a shorter urethane rear bumpstop. I think this will cushion the impact better. I use a simular setup on real low street and race cars and it makes it much harder to feel when the suspension bottoms out. I'll let you know how this works.
The rear bumpstop gives about 2" more rear wheel travel and improves articulation.
Maybe the 5000's don't have enough damping? I swear my bumpy road ride feels plush. Even with my stiffer torsion bars and springs, my ride feels better than stock!
Mike
__________________
There can only be one Icy Hot Stunta, Don't Hate.
Originally posted by morepower2 Maybe the 5000's don't have enough damping? I swear my bumpy road ride feels plush. Even with my stiffer torsion bars and springs, my ride feels better than stock!
I think even the 5000s are a tad too weak. The 9000s were out of my price range -- I was considering the Rancho 5000 or the KYB. I read many review saying the KYBs were stiff, and that's what I think I want. But I myself have had great experience with Rancho before, and I've never heard a bad thing about them, so I tried the 5000 series. These are described by the packaging as a sort of variable damping shock -- meaning it's soft in the middle and hard at the extremes. That over simplifies their description obviously, but I think even they might be too weak to control the spring rate.
My dad had 9000s before on his F-550 truck...are the RSX shocks also adjustable? What setting are you running yours at? I too would like to get some different bump stops on the front -- the lower ones are just huge. Are these the ones you plan to replace with softer foam? I've already removed my front stabilizer bar for more articulation and...you guessed it...couldn't really tell it was gone. If I make an extreme hard turn, I can tell the body is rolling more, but it's really not that much difference.
Originally posted by jadcock I think even the 5000s are a tad too weak. The 9000s were out of my price range -- I was considering the Rancho 5000 or the KYB. I read many review saying the KYBs were stiff, and that's what I think I want. But I myself have had great experience with Rancho before, and I've never heard a bad thing about them, so I tried the 5000 series. These are described by the packaging as a sort of variable damping shock -- meaning it's soft in the middle and hard at the extremes. That over simplifies their description obviously, but I think even they might be too weak to control the spring rate.
My dad had 9000s before on his F-550 truck...are the RSX shocks also adjustable? What setting are you running yours at? I too would like to get some different bump stops on the front -- the lower ones are just huge. Are these the ones you plan to replace with softer foam? I've already removed my front stabilizer bar for more articulation and...you guessed it...couldn't really tell it was gone. If I make an extreme hard turn, I can tell the body is rolling more, but it's really not that much difference.
I think my truck is a freak.
I put the foam front bump stops in and it seems to be pretty good. I was trying to find a bump that could bottom out the car but could not on the street, I was jumping off curbs going 30 mnph and still could not feel bottoming out. The car would just go bloop and soak up the hit. The urethane bump stops didnt fit (I think AC sent the wrong parts) but the Nissan Motorsports springs raised the back up about 3" so I got plenty of travel.
I think all 9000 series shocks are adjustable. I have the front shocks set to 5 and the rear 4 and the ride is very plush and smooth. The car seems to lean a lot less and cornering is a lot better but the front pushes because my alignment is way off. Going to adjust for about 1.2 degrees negative with the higher ride height and about 1/16 toe in. I also have the Rancho in-car remote adjusters and am probably going to put those in next week.
An interesting thing I noticed today is that the idler arm and drag link bushings allow a lot of flex in the steering. I think I wil get the HD spencer lowe parts to fix this now. I added a idler arm brace and a rancho steering damper today as well.
I added energy urethane bushings to the rear swaybar today as well and could feel a nice differene. I'll proably add swaybar quick release end links so I can swtich between on road and off road set ups quickly. I think my road racing background makes me more sensitve to changes, I can't belive you can't feel a difference!
When I took my rear shocks out, I could bottom out the suspension by just bouncing on the bumper without much effort! I can't belive you can bairly feel the difference.
__________________
There can only be one Icy Hot Stunta, Don't Hate.
My first vehicle, and one where I learned much of what I know about suspensions and bushings, was an '84 Olds Cutlass (RWD). It came stock with heavy duty stabilizer bars (32mm front, 20mm rear) and if one of those was missing, you KNEW it. One of the stock endlinks broke on the front bar, and I removed both until I could replace them, and the thing drove like a boat! There was a dramatic difference. I replaced the endlinks and used polygraphite bushings and was happy with the results. Combined with polygraphite bushings in the A-arms, that car handled like it was on rails. But, not having zerk fittings for lubrication, the A-arm bushings seemed to be binding with the mounting bolts or the A-arms or both. Based on that, and from comments from owners of similar cars (like the Buick Grand National), we decided that polygraphite bushings aren't the best choice for rotational applications (like control arm bushings, stabilizer bar bushings, etc.), especially if no grease fitting is provided. We did, however, recognize the improved performance over rubber in compressional applications (like stabilizer bar endlinks, body mount bushings, etc.).
On the Nissan pickup (at least the '95 model), there's only one stabilizer bar (the front) and in my opinion, it's way under-sized to do the job correctly. However, I understand the engineers' desire to salvage at least some front suspension articulation, so I'm sure the bar diameter (and strength) was kept lower to accomplish that. After all, it's a truck, not a Z car, right?! The trucks have a relatively high center of gravity and tend to lean more in corners anyway...and the comparatively puny front bar doesn't make much of a difference (on my truck). I removed it to get the most articulation I could with the stock suspension. On the street, the results are about a wash. Sure, it does lean a bit more, especially if I try to take a corner on two wheels, but on the other hand the ride is noticeably smoother, since a large bump on one side doesn't appreciably affect the other anymore. This extends to off the highway. Whereas before, the stabilizer bar did its best to keep the front suspension travel equal (and made the back do all the articulating); with it gone the front wheels are now allowed to do follow the contour of the land relatively independent of each other and the truck seems more balanced during times of high suspension flex. I didn't find a quick disconnect kit for the front of the Nissan truck during a casual Internet search, so I did the free fix and simply removed the bar. We had a Grand Cherokee that we took on two Jeep Jamborees, and never did get a quick disconnect kit for it, although I think it would have made a whale of a difference. It only RTI'd a 300 or 400, but kept pulling up the ramp due to the stock LSD. I have a picture of it, with the left rear wheel about 2 feet in the air, the left front hanging on for dear life to that ramp!
We did quite a bit of 4-wheeling this weekend in the Nissan and I do recognize that as long as I drive responsibly (ie, keeping the speed commensurate with the trail), the ride is comfortable. I would eventually like to lift it just a little bit...and get a set of torsion bars 20-30% stiffer than stock. I think the Rancho 9000s should be my first move. I have a feeling I should have went with those from the get-go. I think the 5000s are just not valved stiff enough, and unfortunately, there's no apparatus for adjustment with these. Shocks or not, I couldn't dream of bottoming either end of my truck with just my weight (at a paltry 230 lbs.). Of course I have leaves in the back vs. coils, but even so, I've never had a car that I could do that with.
All dimensions are pretty accurate, if the shapes aren't. For instance, the lower bump stop isn't a perfect circle, but mine IS at least 2 inches tall. Having mapped out the suspension's full swing range, I think it's obvious some improvements can be made, and I'm pretty sure the aftermarket wishbones make these improvements. For example, the 3" suspension lifts come with new upper wishbones, and I can see why -- they're probably arced a bit "upward" compared to the stock ones for increased downward travel, after the wheels are already 3 inches farther from the truck frame. According to what I estimated in the diagrams, I only have close to 3.5" of total wheel travel, assuming the bump stops are rock hard. And I know they'll give a little, but it really showed me where improvements can be made. I can see here where the foam stops can help, especially on a sharp upward jounce.
If anyone wants to discuss what I've done, I'm more than welcome to discussion, but it's not really necessary. I like to think out loud and in this case, it's digitally "on paper", so I figured I'd share what I drew and learned. Looks like with any lift I do (either cranking the torsion bars a little bit or getting stiffer ones), I should complement that with new upper wishbones.
wouldnt stiffer torsion bars just increase the compression travel slightly while decreasing the exstention travel slightly. while not effecting the overall travel.
and the diagrams helped alot with visualizing whats going on.
You guys are right on about the 5000's. Great for the street and loads, but on the trail, they just didn't have it. From the AC board, personal experience, and from what I've seen with the local Nissan 4x4 club, the front ends of the Hardbodys and Pathfinders just tend to bounce alot...especially up hills. This usually results in bent tierod ends and a nice worn centerlink. If you have an Idler arm brace, the damage isn't as severe. Those of us with cranked T-bars (front end lifts and tires larger than 31's) and 5000's had the most problems. The 9000 guys (I too should have spent the extra money on the 9000's and saved myself from some hairy moments) were able to keep the front end down, keep traction and safely continue on the trail. A few times I would have to winch backwards down the hill. It also helped out alot when I trimmed my upper bump stops down to give me another .5" of travel. But those were the days of IFS, so no longer a problem anymore.
Good luck on the plans guys.
__________________
'90 Pathy, SAS, Dana44's F/R, 5.38's, Waggy 7 pack fr, Chevy 63"s rr, , 35's, custom F/R bumpers, Warn M8000, and a few other goodies to drive really slow.
All dimensions are pretty accurate, if the shapes aren't. For instance, the lower bump stop isn't a perfect circle, but mine IS at least 2 inches tall. Having mapped out the suspension's full swing range, I think it's obvious some improvements can be made, and I'm pretty sure the aftermarket wishbones make these improvements. For example, the 3" suspension lifts come with new upper wishbones, and I can see why -- they're probably arced a bit "upward" compared to the stock ones for increased downward travel, after the wheels are already 3 inches farther from the truck frame. According to what I estimated in the diagrams, I only have close to 3.5" of total wheel travel, assuming the bump stops are rock hard. And I know they'll give a little, but it really showed me where improvements can be made. I can see here where the foam stops can help, especially on a sharp upward jounce.
If anyone wants to discuss what I've done, I'm more than welcome to discussion, but it's not really necessary. I like to think out loud and in this case, it's digitally "on paper", so I figured I'd share what I drew and learned. Looks like with any lift I do (either cranking the torsion bars a little bit or getting stiffer ones), I should complement that with new upper wishbones.
My front suspension has about 8" of total front wheel travel, about 5" in compression and 3 in droop. I used a ultra thin energy upper bump stop and the foam lower bump stop. I have around 10" in the rear. What I mean about is making some assumptions on how much the bump stops compress.
I swear the ride is plush and it still leans considerably less than stock in the turns. AC in Florida sells Pathfinder swaybar quick disconnects. Most Nissan off road sights are linked to them.
Mike
__________________
There can only be one Icy Hot Stunta, Don't Hate.
Originally posted by BFinlay wouldnt stiffer torsion bars just increase the compression travel slightly while decreasing the exstention travel slightly. while not effecting the overall travel.
and the diagrams helped alot with visualizing whats going on.
Brian
No they don't affect the travel at all, just the wheel rate.
Mike
__________________
There can only be one Icy Hot Stunta, Don't Hate.
Originally posted by mookie You guys are right on about the 5000's. Great for the street and loads, but on the trail, they just didn't have it. From the AC board, personal experience, and from what I've seen with the local Nissan 4x4 club, the front ends of the Hardbodys and Pathfinders just tend to bounce alot...especially up hills. This usually results in bent tierod ends and a nice worn centerlink. If you have an Idler arm brace, the damage isn't as severe. Those of us with cranked T-bars (front end lifts and tires larger than 31's) and 5000's had the most problems. The 9000 guys (I too should have spent the extra money on the 9000's and saved myself from some hairy moments) were able to keep the front end down, keep traction and safely continue on the trail. A few times I would have to winch backwards down the hill. It also helped out alot when I trimmed my upper bump stops down to give me another .5" of travel. But those were the days of IFS, so no longer a problem anymore.
Good luck on the plans guys.
After disasmbling the suspension this weekend when installing the goodies, I noticed that the steering componets of the pathfinder appear to be under built for hard core off road. Domestics are much beefyier. I also noticed that the idler arm bushings and center link end links were shot, surprising considering that I am not a hard core off road guy. I mostly like to play Pro-Rally on dirt roads, not trail drive or bolder crawl. I added a idler arm brace but the amount of play in the center link and idler are were disturbing.
I did a little research and found that most people who are hardcore offoraders find that the steering is the weak link on these vehicles. So I ordered some bronze bushings for the idler arm from Spencer Low Racing and a new center link from Nissan. Spenser Low sells a bullet proof steering system for Pathfinders and hardbodys with extreamly heavy duty centerlinks, tie rods pitman and idler arms but its nearly $1000 and considering the type of off orading I like, I didnt think it was worth it.
Mike
__________________
There can only be one Icy Hot Stunta, Don't Hate.
Yes, even the 720's and the 2WD Hardbodys front end Geometry is much better set up than the 4wd.
That's the only downfall of these W21's series is the weak front end for more heavy 4wd use. Other than that like you describe, it a great ride for moderate trails etc. Calmini also has the new steering set but like slr, very pricey. Not worth it unless you are doing more heavy trails, hardcore. When I had my IFS, I just kept using the old Junkyard centerlinks to get me by. Someone had posted on another board that NAPA had a lifetime warranty on the centerlinks. You can't get that up here, but maybe in your area if that's still available?
__________________
'90 Pathy, SAS, Dana44's F/R, 5.38's, Waggy 7 pack fr, Chevy 63"s rr, , 35's, custom F/R bumpers, Warn M8000, and a few other goodies to drive really slow.
We had a Grand Cherokee that we took on two Jeep Jamborees, and never did get a quick disconnect kit for it, although I think it would have made a whale of a difference. It only RTI'd a 300 or 400, but kept pulling up the ramp due to the stock LSD. I have a picture of it, with the left rear wheel about 2 feet in the air, the left front hanging on for dear life to that ramp! 
