I have some pretty serious issues with the description of the impact of a lift on suspension travel. He's assuming lift is only gained by adding spring rate/height paired with a stock limiter on travel (generally the shock). Any "good" lift kit is going to retain stock-levels of down-travel via increasing the overall travel limit (longer shock) where the situation allows (i.e. balljoint & CV angles allow in an IFS application) or producing the lift via other means (lift achieved by altered hub-placement in a spindle, lift achieved via different control arms with a different relationship between pivot points and balljoints, lift achieved via subframe drops, etc, etc.). The rest of the article seems reasonable, but the dubious start of the article still concerns me.
Anyway, yes that method "in general" can be applied to a lot of vehicles. It's a level of work most aren't willing or able to take on, which is why you so rarely see it done. That said, it's not a "one size fits all" situation that is guaranteed to be possible on every platform. You have to figure out what is behind the sheetmetal at the back of the wheelwell (you know, like your feet ;) or perhaps important components that may or may not be able to get relocated). On top of that, at full lock it's often the frame-rail itself that is the limiting factor. It all may be possible on your Xterra, but then again, maybe not?
I guess I'd ask the same question I ask myself - why 35"s? For me, 35"s start a snowball where the front axle really isn't fit for duty (even beefed up with axle-tube-sleeves, gussets, a truss, chromo axle shafts, etc. a Dana 30 isn't really the best axle for 35"+) so it opens up an expensive can of worms. I also have potential clearance issues with 35"s that even the big cut-out style fender flares from Notch Customs I want *might* not take care of at my current lift-height. I don't really want to go much taller, if at all, so I internally debate going 35" or not daily. In my case, whether I go 33" or 35" I'll be re-gearing (I'm currently still on the 3.73s that were stock in my WJ when it was produced on ~29" tires). I'm not sure if you're re-gearing yours regardless? If you're staying with 3.69s I think 35"s are way too tall regardless.
It's like I was saying in another thread about 37"s vs. 35"s: it's actually only 1" or difference in radius, which means ~1" more ground clearance. The same could be said for 35"s vs. 33"s. How often do you think you'll find that "perfectly wrong" obstacle that exactly 1" more ground clearance would make do-able, but just is impossible without it? It seems like it'd be "the perfect storm" and you're way more likely to find something that you can't/won't do on either 35"s or 33"s than you are to find something that is fine on 35"s but impossible on 33"s. Of course, all of that said I still want 35"s myself, and as I said above I think about what it'll take to do them right every day. :p
-TJ