 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / 4x4 Cars / October 2004Buying 4X4, and trying to understand 4wd terms and types, advice requested.
A few weeks ago, I started shopping for a 4X4, and was a bit confused so decided to do some research. Well, I'm no longer a bit confused, I'm now totally confused. I'm trying to get an understanding of a few things, such as All-wheel drive Vs. low range part-time 4wd. Which is better (and is there a big difference?) for ice and snow, such as trying to go up steep hills in snow? I'm looking for a small SUV, and there are a lot of rough dirt roads and trails in my area so I would like high clearance. Some SUV's seem to have very poor ground clearance, and I've seen very little in vehicle reviews that actually get into off-road or rough-road capabilities. I'm a realtor, so I sometimes need a 4-door, so I've ruled out the Jeep Wrangler. I've also ruled out the Subaru Forrester and Outback due to what looks to be poor ground clearance. I'd also like to stay under 25k. So far, my list of candidates is Toyota rav-4 and 4-runner Honda Element Chevy tracker Suzuki Vitara Any vehicles I should add to this list? My only absolute requirements are 4 wheel drive and decent rough-road capability, plus non-disasterous rollover ratings. I'm also open to used vehicles, but I've always been a bit wary of used vehicles due to potential mechanical problems hidden by the seller. Any advice appreciated... I've spent several days looking around dealerships, and so far all I've done is raise my blood pressure and confusion level. >So far, my list of candidates is >Toyota rav-4 and 4-runner [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Any vehicles I should add to this list? Mitsubishi Shogun Pinin. Small but perfectly formed, and will go where the others won't.  SignaturePaul (Watch this space) >>So far, my list of candidates is >>Toyota rav-4 and 4-runner [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Mitsubishi Shogun Pinin. >Small but perfectly formed, and will go where the others won't. Never heard of it! OK, just did a search, and found it. It looks small, which is what I've been looking for. It's got low range 4wd, and great gas milage. Trouble is, I neglected to mention that I'm in the US; Northern Arizona. This appears to be a UK model. Mitsubishi does not appear to have anything like it in the USA. However, I've bought vehicles in Europe before and shipped them over. So, if it's available in left-hand drive in Europe or Asia, I may get one. I've definitely added this to my "must see" list, and I'll be in Europe in a couple of weeks so I'll have a chance to look at it. Thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Chris J. proclaimed: >>>So far, my list of candidates is >>>Toyota rav-4 and 4-runner [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Europe in a couple of weeks so I'll have a chance to look at it. > Thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Check out the Mitsu Montero Sport. It is a bit more trucklike than the Toyota 4-runner, but is a genuine rough trail vehicle. With their current financial woes you might get a fairly good deal. > >So far, my list of candidates is > >Toyota rav-4 and 4-runner [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > >Any vehicles I should add to this list? Chevy Tracker's are the worst if you get into a roll-over, or any crash for that matter. My sister got in one and there was nothing to protect her. Luckily she just walked away with a broken clavical. With the way the car looked, she should have been DEAD. It was the best vehicle on hot summer days because we had a rag-top but there is no roll-cage what so ever. >> >So far, my list of candidates is >> >Toyota rav-4 and 4-runner [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >best vehicle on hot summer days because we had a rag-top but there is >no roll-cage what so ever. Ugh, not good., I'm not getting a rag top, but if there is no roll cage, I'd not be interested, unless I could add one without too much cost. Thanks! I suggest hang with one of the local clubs for a while ... see what works for them (assuming there's a club nearby). > A few weeks ago, I started shopping for a 4X4, and was a bit confused > so decided to do some research. Well, I'm no longer a bit confused, [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > dealerships, and so far all I've done is raise my blood pressure and > confusion level. >I suggest hang with one of the local clubs for a while ... see what works >for them (assuming there's a club nearby). Great idea!!!!!!!!! I'll check the local library (which serves as a central point for a lot of clubs) and see if there are any. > I'm trying to get an understanding of a few things, such as All-wheel > drive Vs. low range part-time 4wd. Which is better (and is there a big > difference?) for ice and snow, such as trying to go up steep hills in > snow? AWD is generally meant for car-like vehicles on slippery streets (ice, snow) or mild offroad conditions. Traditional low range 4wd is vastly more effective in BAD conditions because the low gearing lets you move slowly with high torque. This is usually coupled with a truck frame that is much tougher. An AWD system has more potential if someone would put low gears in them, but they generally don't. > I'm looking for a small SUV, and there are a lot of rough dirt roads > and trails in my area so I would like high clearance. Some SUV's seem > to have very poor ground clearance, and I've seen very little in > vehicle reviews that actually get into off-road or rough-road > capabilities. They'd break them and have to fix them! Read 4x4 magazines instead of car magazines. Quick Googling: http://www.landroverclub.net/Club/Links/magazinesonline.htm http://www.4wheeloffroad.com/ http://www.4x4i.com/ > I'm a realtor, so I sometimes need a 4-door, so I've ruled out the > Jeep Wrangler. How about the Jeep Liberty? > So far, my list of candidates is > Toyota rav-4 and 4-runner 4-Runner will do the job, but not for under $25K. > Honda Element AWD system, if that's good enough. > Chevy tracker > Suzuki Vitara These 2 are the same vehicle. Built on a frame, probably more capable than most in the price range. NOT a good reputation for quality or satisfaction. > Any vehicles I should add to this list? > My only absolute requirements are 4 wheel drive and decent rough-road > capability, plus non-disasterous rollover ratings. Jeep Liberty? By a copy of Consumer Reports car guide for the rollover figures. > I'm also open to used vehicles, but I've always been a bit wary of > used vehicles due to potential mechanical problems hidden by the > seller. The Toyota 4 Runner would do the job, it would have to be used for your price range. > Any advice appreciated... I've spent several days looking around > dealerships, and so far all I've done is raise my blood pressure and > confusion level. It depends on how rough the rough roads are. If you've got significant rocks or ditches in the roads then I'd certainly go for a 4-low vehicle. Your comment about ground clearance hints that you need a true 4-low vehicle rather than an AWD. >> I'm trying to get an understanding of a few things, such as All-wheel >> drive Vs. low range part-time 4wd. Which is better (and is there a big [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >AWD is generally meant for car-like vehicles on slippery streets (ice, snow) >or mild offroad conditions. >Traditional low range 4wd is vastly more effective in BAD conditions because >the low gearing lets you move slowly with high torque. This is usually >coupled with a truck frame that is much tougher. >An AWD system has more potential if someone would put low gears in them, but >they generally don't. Thank you. I can now rule out AWD without low range. >> I'm looking for a small SUV, and there are a lot of rough dirt roads >> and trails in my area so I would like high clearance. Some SUV's seem [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >http://www.4wheeloffroad.com/ >http://www.4x4i.com/ Thanks!!! I'll check out all these tonight. >> I'm a realtor, so I sometimes need a 4-door, so I've ruled out the >> Jeep Wrangler. > >How about the Jeep Liberty? I forgot that one when I posted. I've looked at it, and like it. I don't like it's 3-star rollover rating or insurance premium or 13 mpg, though. But, if I don't find anything I prefer, that's probably what I'll go with. >> So far, my list of candidates is >> Toyota rav-4 and 4-runner > >4-Runner will do the job, but not for under $25K. Looks like it's around 30k MSRP, which would be ok if I really like it. Haven't driven it yet, as it seems a bit large for my tastes, but it's definitely a possibility. >> Honda Element > >AWD system, if that's good enough. Nope; thanks to your info, I'm steering clear of AWD, as it would be a huge mistake for my needs. >> Chevy tracker >> Suzuki Vitara > >These 2 are the same vehicle. Built on a frame, probably more capable than >most in the price range. NOT a good reputation for quality or satisfaction. I have driven both and never noticed they were the same! But now that you mention it they were the same underneath and under the hood from what I recall, and at least similar inside. I found that they did not ride that well. >> Any vehicles I should add to this list? >> My only absolute requirements are 4 wheel drive and decent rough-road >> capability, plus non-disasterous rollover ratings. > >Jeep Liberty? By a copy of Consumer Reports car guide for the rollover >figures. I've been getting my rollover and safety figures from safercar.gov which has been very useful. But I'll definitely get consumer reports, too. > Any advice appreciated... I've spent several days looking around >> dealerships, and so far all I've done is raise my blood pressure and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Your comment about ground clearance hints that you need a true 4-low vehicle >rather than an AWD. Clearance is definitely a need. I'm talking mountain roads, very steep, plenty of gullies and rock outcroppings, plus stream beds, etc. Basically what would be called a jeep trail if it was a bit less rough. I also have a concrete driveway that's 200 ft. long, and slopes at over 30 degrees. That's a pain in the neck when covered in snow. > Thank you. I can now rule out AWD without low range. One more thing, car-based AWD vehicle bodies tend to bend and crack on bad roads. The truck frame keeps the stress off the body. > >Read 4x4 magazines instead of car magazines. Quick Googling: > >http://www.landroverclub.net/Club/Links/magazinesonline.htm > >http://www.4wheeloffroad.com/ > >http://www.4x4i.com/ > Thanks!!! I'll check out all these tonight. Google is your friend. You may find better ones on your own. > >> I'm a realtor, so I sometimes need a 4-door, so I've ruled out the > >> Jeep Wrangler. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > though. But, if I don't find anything I prefer, that's probably what > I'll go with. Maybe your expectations are set a bit wrong. A traditional 4x4 will ride high and bouncy. It will be more likely to roll than most AWD vehicles. A traditional 4x4 will usually get lousy gas mileage. For years and years the classic Jeeps (CJ series--before Wrangler) were known for rolling. They are built narrow and tall for going down the worst possible roads. Everything is a trade-off. > >4-Runner will do the job, but not for under $25K. > Looks like it's around 30k MSRP, which would be ok if I really like > it. Haven't driven it yet, as it seems a bit large for my tastes, but > it's definitely a possibility. Truck based, Toyota standards. You might also consider the Nissan Xterra--trucky and crude though. > >> Chevy tracker > >> Suzuki Vitara [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > what I recall, and at least similar inside. I found that they did not > ride that well. All the truck based vehicles will ride worse than car based ones. To some extent you just have to live with it--side effect of the body on frame design. Furthermore, many off road 4x4s have solid axles, and while these are tough they tend to bounce over rough spots. > >Jeep Liberty? By a copy of Consumer Reports car guide for the rollover > >figures. > I've been getting my rollover and safety figures from safercar.gov > which has been very useful. But I'll definitely get consumer reports, > too. Try edmunds.com and http://auto.consumerguide.com. > >It depends on how rough the rough roads are. If you've got significant > >rocks or ditches in the roads then I'd certainly go for a 4-low vehicle. > >Your comment about ground clearance hints that you need a true 4-low vehicle > >rather than an AWD. > Clearance is definitely a need. I'm talking mountain roads, very > steep, plenty of gullies and rock outcroppings, plus stream beds, etc. > Basically what would be called a jeep trail if it was a bit less > rough. I also have a concrete driveway that's 200 ft. long, and slopes > at over 30 degrees. That's a pain in the neck when covered in snow. In my usage a 'jeep trail' is as bad as it gets! Keep shopping, something will be right. -John >Maybe your expectations are set a bit wrong. A traditional 4x4 will ride >high and bouncy. It will be more likely to roll than most AWD vehicles. A >traditional 4x4 will usually get lousy gas mileage. I drove a Liberty yesterday. Loved the ride, far better than I expected. It also had a on-pavement 4wd setting AND it has low-range, so to me it looks to have the advantages of both AWD and true 4X4. >> >4-Runner will do the job, but not for under $25K. >> Looks like it's around 30k MSRP, which would be ok if I really like [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Truck based, Toyota standards. You might also consider the Nissan >Xterra--trucky and crude though. Looked at it; it's too large. >> Clearance is definitely a need. I'm talking mountain roads, very >> steep, plenty of gullies and rock outcroppings, plus stream beds, etc. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >In my usage a 'jeep trail' is as bad as it gets! Keep shopping, something >will be right. A Jeep Liberty looks to be the main contender right now. It was better than I expected, and that on-pavment 4wd mode plus low range is a real plus in my mind. I'm also adding a Jeep Jimmy to my list, as it's small, and I'd be less concerned taking an older vehicle into the tough places. I have a new Chrysler 300M for on-pavement, so the 4X4 is a second vehicle, but I do need it to be able to carry customers so it can't be too "rough". > >Maybe your expectations are set a bit wrong. A traditional 4x4 will ride > >high and bouncy. It will be more likely to roll than most AWD vehicles. A [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > expected. It also had a on-pavement 4wd setting AND it has low-range, > so to me it looks to have the advantages of both AWD and true 4X4. Yeah, I've driven one too. They ride somewhere in between a traditional 4x4 and an AWD like the Ford Escape. The biggest issue with traditional 4X4s is the solid axles. The Liberty has one at the rear, so you can feel a bit of wheel hop on bumps. The front has independent suspension, which smooths the ride but softens the vehicle. > >> >4-Runner will do the job, but not for under $25K. > >> Looks like it's around 30k MSRP, which would be ok if I really like [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Xterra--trucky and crude though. > Looked at it; it's too large. Seems about the same size as the 4 Runner. Much cheaper too (and much cruder). > >In my usage a 'jeep trail' is as bad as it gets! Keep shopping, something > >will be right. > > A Jeep Liberty looks to be the main contender right now. It was better > than I expected, and that on-pavment 4wd mode plus low range is a real > plus in my mind. I'm also adding a Jeep Jimmy to my list, as it's Confirm that the system is TRULY equal to the off road only system. I doubt the salesdudes would know. -John >> >Maybe your expectations are set a bit wrong. A traditional 4x4 will ride >> >high and bouncy. It will be more likely to roll than most AWD vehicles. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >wheel hop on bumps. The front has independent suspension, which smooths the >ride but softens the vehicle. I just wish they made something akin to the old Eagle cars; those had high clearance, 4X4, but were smaller. I have no idea how their suspension systems were, but they sure looked to be a good concept to me, and it's too bad they died out. I still see plenty of them on the road (they were and are very popular in my area). >> >Truck based, Toyota standards. You might also consider the Nissan >> >Xterra--trucky and crude though. >> Looked at it; it's too large. > >Seems about the same size as the 4 Runner. Much cheaper too (and much >cruder). I disliked the 4-runner based on it's large size, too. As for "cruder", what do you mean? Inferior 4x4 or highway characteristics? If it's just an issue of trim, style, and luxury stuff, I'd much prefer to save the $$$. >> >In my usage a 'jeep trail' is as bad as it gets! Keep shopping, >something [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Confirm that the system is TRULY equal to the off road only system. I doubt >the salesdudes would know. I fully intend to do so. My rule with salespeople is "if they say it, it's probably a lie, but it just might be true so check.". BTW, a note to anyone thinking of buying any sort of vehicle; DO NOT let the salecritter put you in his office and play the "wait here while I ask the manager" game. They do this on purpose; the idea is to wear down the customer with waiting. If they try this, either say "no thanks" or "fine, I'll go with you to the manager, or I'm out of here". > >> I drove a Liberty yesterday. Loved the ride, far better than I > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > me, and it's too bad they died out. I still see plenty of them on the > road (they were and are very popular in my area). Those were famously unreliable but held on for years in a niche before SUVs broke into the mainstream. Modern crossover SUVs like the VW Toureg / Porsche Cayenne and Nissan Murano aim for a similar use. Something like the Dodge Magnum with 4 wheel drive... The modern versions don't seem to care about serious off road use though. > >> >Truck based, Toyota standards. You might also consider the Nissan > >> >Xterra--trucky and crude though. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > characteristics? If it's just an issue of trim, style, and luxury > stuff, I'd much prefer to save the $$$. Crude ride, not as luxurious. The Xterra ranks poorly on user satisfaction, but I think that's because the style (roof line and roof rack) induces a lot of city people to buy it. They get an off road vehicle with lousy gas mileage and a truck ride. > >> A Jeep Liberty looks to be the main contender right now. It was better > >> than I expected, and that on-pavment 4wd mode plus low range is a real [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I fully intend to do so. My rule with salespeople is "if they say it, > it's probably a lie, but it just might be true so check.". Check out http://jeep.com. They've got a 'build your vehicle' system and lists stuff like axles and gear ratios. [I had a Ford Escape sales jock give me the hard sell on the Escape, saying "None of the Wrangler models except for the Rubicon are more capable off road." Right.] > BTW, a note to anyone thinking of buying any sort of vehicle; DO NOT > let the salecritter put you in his office and play the "wait here > while I ask the manager" game. They do this on purpose; the idea is to > wear down the customer with waiting. If they try this, either say "no > thanks" or "fine, I'll go with you to the manager, or I'm out of > here". I do a pile of on-line research and USUALLY know more about the vehicle I want than the sales person. You can find the inventory for most dealers on line so find exactly what you want, but compare it with prices all over your area. I play dumb during their sales routine and act like I'm not sure even though I know precisely what I want. If/when they try old-hat sales tricks I can grab a bundle of info on their products from my car. -John >> >> I drove a Liberty yesterday. Loved the ride, far better than I >> > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >Dodge Magnum with 4 wheel drive... The modern versions don't seem to care >about serious off road use though. Ugh, glad I missed the Eagle, then. Same with the "crossover" SUV's; I have no need of one that does not have real offroad capability. >> >Confirm that the system is TRULY equal to the off road only system. I >doubt [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Check out http://jeep.com. They've got a 'build your vehicle' system and >lists stuff like axles and gear ratios. Thanks!!! > [I had a Ford Escape sales jock >give me the hard sell on the Escape, saying "None of the Wrangler models >except for the Rubicon are more capable off road." Right.] ROFL!!! Heck, even I was able to see the Escape as a very poor offroader in about 10 seconds! >> BTW, a note to anyone thinking of buying any sort of vehicle; DO NOT >> let the salecritter put you in his office and play the "wait here [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >line so find exactly what you want, but compare it with prices all over your >area. My area has a problem; exactly ONE dealership for just about everything. Hence, I've always ended up going to Phoenix (200 miles) to actually buy. On the 300M I bought a couple of years ago, doing so saved me over 2k over the same ordered vehicle here. >> Thank you. I can now rule out AWD without low range. If you really need a 4x4 that's true. OTOH, if you really need one, I wouldn't expect to see the Honda Element on your list. The Outback (the 2005 has excellent clearance for a softroader) or Forester that you eliminated, are far better in bad conditions. FWIW, I had a family member in a similar position to you. Considering softroader and 4x4 wagons. She wasn't sure something like a sube would handle her rutted dirt requirements. I sent her photos of mine on ruts, and on rock, and she bought one right away. Does everything she needs, and more pleasant on the highway than her old wagon or the 4x4 she was considering. OTOH, if you do need a 4x4, with your budget constraints (or with my own), I guess I'd lean towards a Frontier pickup, or possibly an Xterra or Rodeo. Probably used. The Frontier is plenty capable, although a bit slow, and it's cheaper than a Toyota. In your position, I guess the first thing I would do is determine if I needed a 4x4 or if a soaftroader would do. Some people take these vehicles to the dirt on test drives. That might tell you all you need to know... Oh, and if you want handling as well as rutted dirt capability, Subaru may be the only choice. I have a 4WD Glossary and other basic information and links on my page: http://www.4crawler.com/4x4/index.shtml#GeneralInfo SignatureRoger >I have a 4WD Glossary and other basic information and links on my page: > http://www.4crawler.com/4x4/index.shtml#GeneralInfo Thanks!!! Great info!!! >>> Thank you. I can now rule out AWD without low range. > >If you really need a 4x4 that's true. OTOH, if you really need one, I wouldn't expect >to see the Honda Element on your list. It's not on my list anymore. I didn't know it didn't have low range. > The Outback (the 2005 has excellent clearance >for a softroader) or Forester that you eliminated, are far better in bad conditions. I liked both the Forester and outback. They are smaller and more car-like, which was a plus for me. But their underneath layout seemed far inferior to, say, Jeeps, and they don't have low-range. >FWIW, I had a family member in a similar position to you. Considering softroader >and 4x4 wagons. She wasn't sure something like a sube would handle her rutted dirt >requirements. I sent her photos of mine on ruts, and on rock, and she bought one >right away. Does everything she needs, and more pleasant on the highway than >her old wagon or the 4x4 she was considering. >OTOH, if you do need a 4x4, with your budget constraints (or with my own), >I guess I'd lean towards a Frontier pickup, or possibly an Xterra or Rodeo. The Frontier pickup won't work; it's big. It's also not suited to carrying passengers. I need a 4-door, or at least a 3-door, with comfortable rear seats. >In your position, I guess the first thing I would do is determine if I needed a 4x4 or if >a soaftroader would do. Some people take these vehicles to the dirt on test drives. >That might tell you all you need to know... A friend took me out with his Outback and Jeep, and i drove them both in rough conditions. The Jeep had it easy where the Subaru almost got stuck in the mud and sand. The Jeep also had far better ground clearance. Another factor for me is that I used to have an ancient 1976 Jeep Wagoneer 4x4. I loved the places it could go, and I live in an area (northern Arizona) with plenty of trails to explore. So, though it's not a practical reason, if I need a 4X4 anyway, I'd like one I can have some fun with. Chris J. proclaimed: > A few weeks ago, I started shopping for a 4X4, and was a bit confused > so decided to do some research. Well, I'm no longer a bit confused, > I'm now totally confused. It means you are paying attention. > I'm trying to get an understanding of a few things, such as All-wheel > drive Vs. low range part-time 4wd. Which is better (and is there a big > difference?) for ice and snow, such as trying to go up steep hills in > snow? Problem is that comparing one drive system to another isn't much use. The entire vehicle is what matters. For example, for ice and snow a full time 4WD or AWD will usually be better--but that alone can't turn a poor handling vehicle into an Audi Quattro or Jensen Interceptor FF. The part time 4wd with low range option will usually be more for hard core offroading. However, not having the front wheels driving all the time can add mileage or make for less wear and tear on the system--however that doesn't mean that a full time 4wd will be less reliable. A full time 4wd or AWD [4wd usually implies low range available] will tend to be better for slippery roads...presuming your tires and driving skills are good enough. Going up steep hills in snow should be no problem for any 4wd, awd, unless that hill is so steep you need low range, in which case you'd better be a really good offroad driver--particularly if you want to come *down* in one piece. Some of the smart 4wd systems such as Land Rover's hill descent control can help, but nothing can break the laws of physics and traction. > I'm looking for a small SUV, and there are a lot of rough dirt roads > and trails in my area so I would like high clearance. Some SUV's seem > to have very poor ground clearance, and I've seen very little in > vehicle reviews that actually get into off-road or rough-road > capabilities. Rarely mentioned because so many so-called SUV's are just dolled up minivans or station wagons. An adult male should be able to easily slide under a real SUV with no jacks... you can usually tell just by squatting down and looking underneath for expensive pieces just waiting for their first encounter with a rock. Most Cute Utes will have far too many of these. Worse, many cute utes have higher center of gravity [and worse wheelbase] than real off road SUV's and will flip over even faster. If you combine highway and rough trail, think about ride height control. Dunno of any really small SUV with it, is available on such as the Land Rover LR3, the Volkswagen Touareg, Porsche Cayenne, etc. Can be lowered to help with highway handling and raised to keep the bits off the rocks. > I'm a realtor, so I sometimes need a 4-door, so I've ruled out the > Jeep Wrangler. I've also ruled out the Subaru Forrester and Outback [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > So far, my list of candidates is > Toyota rav-4 and 4-runner Go 4-Runner if you want a real SUV. Can hold its own with even models like a Jeep or Land Rover. The RAV-4 is a cute ute. > Honda Element > Chevy tracker > Suzuki Vitara All easy flipper cute utes. > Any vehicles I should add to this list? The Jeep Liberty perhaps, but most jeepers would probably recommend a used Cherokee, or for a bit nicer interior, a used Grand Cherokee. Both will go places that will dig a grave for any cute ute. > My only absolute requirements are 4 wheel drive and decent rough-road > capability, plus non-disasterous rollover ratings. The best rollover prevention is a big sign on the dashboard with a picture of a Porsche and a picture of your SUV...so you can tell the difference. You honestly may not need an offroad vehicle. If you do, you'll want something with the ground clearance of something like a working pickup truck. Of your list, only the 4-Runner is gonna handle rougher trails. A cheaper model of the VW may also be in your price range. Used 4-Runners tend to be rather pricey. >Chris J. proclaimed: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > It means you are paying attention. ROFL!!! Well, I've learned more from the people in this group than several months of looking on my own. I'm now back to just somewhat confused. :-) I'm going to do a google search of this group and see what I can find on any candidate vehicles. >> I'm trying to get an understanding of a few things, such as All-wheel >> drive Vs. low range part-time 4wd. Which is better (and is there a big [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > full time 4WD or AWD will usually be better--but that alone can't turn > a poor handling vehicle into an Audi Quattro or Jensen Interceptor FF. I've basically decided that low-range is a must-have. I took a friend's two vehicles (a Subaru Outback and a Jeep Wrangler) through the same bit of mud and sand creekbed. The difference was astounding. > The part time 4wd with low range option will usually be more for > hard core offroading. However, not having the front wheels driving > all the time can add mileage or make for less wear and tear on the > system--however that doesn't mean that a full time 4wd will be less > reliable. The Jeep Liberty (one model, at least) has both low range, and an on-pavement 4WD (and 2wd) settings. This, in my tentative opinion, gives me the best of both worlds? > A full time 4wd or AWD [4wd usually implies low range available] will > tend to be better for slippery roads...presuming your tires and > driving skills are good enough. I'm at 7000 ft in northern arizona. Snow and ice are quite common, and also prone to be sudden, severe, and unforcast. This can be very hazardous when back in the mountains on forest service roads, where there is no cell coverage. So, I'd like a vehicle that can get me out of trouble. > Going up steep hills in snow should be no problem for any 4wd, awd, > unless that hill is so steep you need low range, in which case you'd > better be a really good offroad driver--particularly if you want to > come *down* in one piece. Some of the smart 4wd systems such as > Land Rover's hill descent control can help, but nothing can break > the laws of physics and traction. Well, I'm probably not going to be able to get a 4X4 up my driveway in snow, now that I think about it, because I can't get a car with ABS down it under control. I just put the left wheels against the curb and take what I calll the two-ton toboggan ride. It's about 150 ft, 35 degree slope. >> I'm looking for a small SUV, and there are a lot of rough dirt roads >> and trails in my area so I would like high clearance. Some SUV's seem [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Rarely mentioned because so many so-called SUV's are just dolled up > minivans or station wagons. And frankly, this has been ticking me off. I'm really sick of salesmen trying to claim that a vehicle is "good offroad" when even I can tell it's no such thing. > An adult male should be able to easily > slide under a real SUV with no jacks... you can usually tell just by > squatting down and looking underneath for expensive pieces just > waiting for their first encounter with a rock. Most Cute Utes > will have far too many of these. I tend to crawl under every vehicle I look at, before doing anything else. This has saved me a lot of time. For example, I looked at the Hyundai Santa Fe. IMHO, the most dangerous and vulnerable place for anything to be hanging down unprotected is near the middle of the wheel base. The Santa Fe has it's GAS TANK hanging about 1/3 of the way between the front and rear axles, right under the rear seats. It hangs down unprotected, like a darn cliff face! It also appears to be made of plastic. Needless to say, that was as far as I got with looking at that vehicle. > If you combine highway and rough trail, think about ride height > control. Dunno of any really small SUV with it, is available on > such as the Land Rover LR3, the Volkswagen Touareg, Porsche Cayenne, > etc. Can be lowered to help with highway handling and raised to > keep the bits off the rocks. That sounds like a great idea. But, I don't know of any small vehicles with it. But, I've seen it added on, I think? >> I'm a realtor, so I sometimes need a 4-door, so I've ruled out the >> Jeep Wrangler. I've also ruled out the Subaru Forrester and Outback [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Go 4-Runner if you want a real SUV. Can hold its own with even models > like a Jeep or Land Rover. I've looked at it. It's a bit big, which is why it's a fallback choice at the moment. > The RAV-4 is a cute ute. Definitely off my list; AWD. >> Honda Element >> Chevy tracker >> Suzuki Vitara > > All easy flipper cute utes. All have been excluded, for one reason or another. >> Any vehicles I should add to this list? > > The Jeep Liberty perhaps, but most jeepers would probably recommend > a used Cherokee, or for a bit nicer interior, a used Grand Cherokee. > Both will go places that will dig a grave for any cute ute. How does the Liberty stack up against the Cherokee? The Cherokee and grand Cherokee are too large so I haven't looked at them. I'm seriously thinking of looking at some non-US models, such as the Mitsubishi Shogun Pinin, because many of them are smaller than their US counterparts. But, what are their real 4X4 capabilities? >> My only absolute requirements are 4 wheel drive and decent rough-road >> capability, plus non-disasterous rollover ratings. > > The best rollover prevention is a big sign on the dashboard with a > picture of a Porsche and a picture of your SUV...so you can tell > the difference. ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > You honestly may not need an offroad vehicle. I've decided I do. Some of the trails I go on are really severe, and so are conditions (incline, ice, snow, sand, mud). > If you do, you'll > want something with the ground clearance of something like a working > pickup truck. I tossed out the Subaru outback and forester for that reason (otherwise, I loved them). > Of your list, only the 4-Runner is gonna handle > rougher trails. A cheaper model of the VW may also be in your > price range. Used 4-Runners tend to be rather pricey. I'm split on the new/used issue. If I go new, I can order exactly what I want, and have fewer concerns over buying something with major problems. But going used saves $$$, plus I'd feel more at ease taking it into the fun places and not worrying about getting it scratched or dented. I think if I found what I wanted used, I'd be happier, but that's not easy. There are all of two 4X4's in the newspaper this weekend, so local selection is slim. I'd have to shop in Phoenix, 150 miles away, to have a good used selection. That's doable, but it means finding a mechanic I trust down there to check the vehicle out. >>Chris J. proclaimed: >> [quoted text clipped - 173 lines] > miles away, to have a good used selection. That's doable, but it means > finding a mechanic I trust down there to check the vehicle out. Go buy yourself a used older wrangler, put some good tires on it and drive it for a year, that will tell you what you need. >"Chris J." <chris@noadress.com> wrote in message >> I'm split on the new/used issue. If I go new, I can order exactly what >> I want, and have fewer concerns over buying something with major [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Go buy yourself a used older wrangler, put some good tires on it and drive >it for a year, that will tell you what you need. My preference, due to the fact I have a car for pavement, would be to do exactly that and have an older 4X4 for "having fun". Unfortunately, due to being a Realtor who now has a lot of clients for mountain cabins and raw land, I need a vehicle that will carry four or five people comfortably, and given that many are elderly a 4-door is a requirement. I also need it fairly soon. >>"Chris J." <chris@noadress.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > people comfortably, and given that many are elderly a 4-door is a > requirement. I also need it fairly soon. I know you said you've ruled out the Suzuki Vitara, but you might want to look at a new or used Suzuki XL-7. Both the Grand Vitara and the XL-7 are build on truck frames, and have transfer cases and low range. Since you mentioned that you will be transporting elderly customers, the XL-7 may be worth consideration. The rear seat entrance is pretty good (the rear doors are large). The engine is a V-6, though you won't be winning any 0-60 contests with it's 183 hp, but the mileage is pretty good for a real 4WD SUV. We're on our third Suzuki (wife had a Grand Vitara and traded it at about 50,000 miles for an XL-7 with the 3rd row seat to carry grand kids), and I liked her GV so well, I bought one new in 2002. All three have given excellent service. The only thing we did to her GV was a brake job and new tires. Same with her XL-7. The Bridgestone Duelers wear out fast, and so do the front brake pads. Other than that, these are great vehicles. We don't use 4WD often (usually only to get up a hill that never gets plowed in the snow), but they both get the job done. We just recently took the XL-7 on a trip from Kentucky to Texas and back, and we averaged about 22-23 MPG driving at or sometimes a few miles above the posted speed limits (usually 70-75 mph). The ride was pretty decent for a truck (better than my Grand Vitara, since the XL-7 has a longer wheel base). Anyway, it might be worth a look... >>>"Chris J." <chris@noadress.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >look at a new or used Suzuki XL-7. Both the Grand Vitara and the XL-7 are >build on truck frames, and have transfer cases and low range. Took your advice and went and looked at both. Liked them, especially that, used, they cost about 14k less than a new Jeep. >Since you >mentioned that you will be transporting elderly customers, the XL-7 may be >worth consideration. The rear seat entrance is pretty good (the rear doors >are large). I find it a bit big, plus the 6 seater is not an advantage for me; the only times I "need" that are when clients have kids, and I prefer not to carry kids. They distract both me and the clients, so it's better for everyone not to have the capability. > The engine is a V-6, though you won't be winning any 0-60 >contests with it's 183 hp, but the mileage is pretty good for a real 4WD >SUV. Does the rear differential lock in 4-low? > We're on our third Suzuki (wife had a Grand Vitara and traded it at >about 50,000 miles for an XL-7 with the 3rd row seat to carry grand kids), [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Vitara, since the XL-7 has a longer wheel base). Anyway, it might be worth >a look... Definitely. I liked them both, thanks! I'm just trying to figure out the details on the 4WD system and the ABS, due to not trusting the dealers. ----- Original Message ----- From: Chris J. Newsgroups: rec.autos.4x4 Sent: Monday, October 04, 2004 6:45 PM Subject: Re: Buying 4X4, and trying to understand 4wd terms and types, advice requested. On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 17:04:11 -0400, "HCA" <hca@sorry2muchspam.com> wrote: >I know you said you've ruled out the Suzuki Vitara, but you might want to >look at a new or used Suzuki XL-7. Both the Grand Vitara and the XL-7 are >build on truck frames, and have transfer cases and low range. >>Took your advice and went and looked at both. Liked them, especially >>that, used, they cost about 14k less than a new Jeep. >>Does the rear differential lock in 4-low? No, it doesn't have a locking rear differential. However, see the email from Mike Romain about locking diffs and using the brakes to regain traction. >>Definitely. I liked them both, thanks! I'm just trying to figure out >>the details on the 4WD system and the ABS, due to not trusting the >>dealers. Not sure what you mean about figuring out the ABS. If you mean determining if the vehicle has one, just look at the dashboard when you start the engine. ABS is optional on some of the Zukes, and there is a yellow caution light that says ABS and lights for a few seconds when you turn the ignition on. Chris J. proclaimed: > I'm going to do a google search of this group and see what I can find > on any candidate vehicles. If you are going to be taking customers around in the vehicle, does your situation allow enough tax write-off to move up to something like a Grand Cherokee or Land Rover LR3? The Jeep Liberty is a nice modest priced entry level SUV, but if you look at a Grand Cherokee Overland [or even Limited] in the 2005 edition with the 4.7 HO V8 or even the Hemi, there is no comparison in not only interior appointments but also in true all-conditions ability to keep moving. Electronically controlled differentials to keep you going. Displacement on Demand [hemi] to keep the drain on your wallet down. Smart ABS to help you stop. The Land Rover R3 with the bored out and ruggedized Jaguar engine also has very nice interior appointments plus fully electronic drivetrain controls even moreso than the Grand Cherokee. And a hill descent control that really helps on slippery downslopes. > I've basically decided that low-range is a must-have. I took a > friend's two vehicles (a Subaru Outback and a Jeep Wrangler) through > the same bit of mud and sand creekbed. The difference was astounding. If you are doing a lot of hilly work, avoid the cute utes and glorified station wagons and mini-vans. You want an engine that has a modified oil system that works under prolonged driving at highly tilted angles... e.g. the modified Jag engine in the Land Rover.... You'll also want very good low end torque that has predictable onset. > The Jeep Liberty (one model, at least) has both low range, and an > on-pavement 4WD (and 2wd) settings. This, in my tentative opinion, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > there is no cell coverage. So, I'd like a vehicle that can get me out > of trouble. In my personal opinion, full time 4wd is superior to part time for most owners--e.g. not rock crawlers. Particularly when combined with limited slip differentials and transfer cases. The benefit is mostly when you are driving on good surface and unexpectedly hit a poor traction one...or just driving in mountain ice and snow conditions. Plus the 4wd is always there...hopefully keeping you *out* of that trouble in the first place. > Well, I'm probably not going to be able to get a 4X4 up my driveway in > snow, now that I think about it, because I can't get a car with ABS > down it under control. I just put the left wheels against the curb and > take what I calll the two-ton toboggan ride. It's about 150 ft, 35 > degree slope. With decent tires, any 4x4 that can't get up the driveway should be scrapped. However, if you have a lot of icy snow, you might consider a second set of wheels and specialty severe duty artic tires and a good set of the S style cable chains. Using slightly undersize artic tires helps with adding chains. e.g. the Grand Cherokee recommends chains only for the smaller tire size and only type S with a very low speed limit. For tires, ones with lotsa tread void and heavily siped tend to be better for deeper snow. Ones with less tread void and even more heavily siped tend to be better for icy roads and packed snow. Never really needed to add chains even when driving a Grand Cherokee in the northern Sierra, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado--but always carry them. > I tend to crawl under every vehicle I look at, before doing anything > else. This has saved me a lot of time. For example, I looked at the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > made of plastic. Needless to say, that was as far as I got with > looking at that vehicle. Look for skid plate equipped packages for any SUV. They pay for themselves at the first unexpected rock. > That sounds like a great idea. But, I don't know of any small vehicles > with it. But, I've seen it added on, I think? Never heard of true ride height control for SUV style use as an aftermarket. The entire suspension must be designed to maintain handling at the various ride heights... e.g. the old Citroen. > I've looked at it. It's a bit big, which is why it's a fallback choice > at the moment. Try a Grand Cherokee if the 4Runner is in your range. The Grand is a bit smaller...actually mine is smaller than a Honda or Toyota sedan. > How does the Liberty stack up against the Cherokee? The Cherokee and > grand Cherokee are too large so I haven't looked at them. Neither is as large as they look. Park them next to a Toyota Camry and note which is longer. The Grand Limited and Overland models would be close to your Chrysler 300 in the interior..yet still have formidable offroad capability. The Cherokee is more rough road capable than the Liberty, but most owners will never need to know the differences. Is only available used. The new Grand Cherokee has independent front end... the 2004 and older models are still hardcore solid axle, but with highway driving capability well above that of the 4Runner, Mitsu Montero Sport, etc. However you can't get a hemi in the older units. > I'm seriously thinking of looking at some non-US models, such as the > Mitsubishi Shogun Pinin, because many of them are smaller than their > US counterparts. But, what are their real 4X4 capabilities? Dunno. I'd be more worried about being able to get service as compared to a Toyota, Jeep, etc. > I've decided I do. Some of the trails I go on are really severe, and > so are conditions (incline, ice, snow, sand, mud). Jeep, Land Rover, Toyota 4Runner or Land Cruiser, Mitsu Montero Sport, Nissan Xterra, VW, Porsche. Go for full time 4wd so you don't get in trouble in the first place. Limited slip or even better electronically controlled. And good tires. Since you appear to be out in the enviable middle of nowhere, I'd still strictly to models where you can get qualified local service. Any 4x4 needs regular maintenance [of course so does any vehicle] with the added complication of the extra drivetrain components. If you expect them to get you home, either keep them well maintained or carry a set of mini-bikes for you and your clients. The bad news about real 4x4 vehicles is just how far they can get you from civilization if they were to break down. >Chris J. proclaimed: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > your situation allow enough tax write-off to move up to something > like a Grand Cherokee or Land Rover LR3? Based on the tax situation, even a Hummer is possible, due to the huge tax bonus of it (used for a business). This will be a second vehicle, so will be entirely deductible for my due to my business. But, they (that you list) and especially the hummer are large vehicles. >> I've basically decided that low-range is a must-have. I took a >> friend's two vehicles (a Subaru Outback and a Jeep Wrangler) through [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > You'll also want very good low end torque that has predictable > onset. Great points! I forgot about the oil system and inclines!! I'm also very foolish not to have remembered that; I took my old ford Probe on some 45-degree inclines on some trails the other day (mainly rock) and it had both oil and coolant warnings come on. >> The Jeep Liberty (one model, at least) has both low range, and an >> on-pavement 4WD (and 2wd) settings. This, in my tentative opinion, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > always there...hopefully keeping you *out* of that trouble in > the first place. If I get a new vehicle, I'm probably not going to be taking it truly offroad, but I will be taking it on some very rough trails. Have you ever been on a Jeep tour in a place like Sedona? That's the kind of trails I'm talking about; lot's of washouts, gullies, rocks, inclines, and sand and mud (plus snow and ice). Some of the land I've been selling is old mining claims back up in the mountains, and the roads, such as they are, are truly bad. I've been stuck in sand in an AWD before where a jeep had no trouble, but it wasn't a limited-slip differential (I had one rear and one front wheel spinning.). I got it out by jacking it up and putting brush under the wheels, but it's not something I'd want to do often. >> Well, I'm probably not going to be able to get a 4X4 up my driveway in >> snow, now that I think about it, because I can't get a car with ABS [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > recommends chains only for the smaller tire size and only type S with > a very low speed limit. Quite a few of my neighbors have Hummers, and one wants to try my driveway the next time it snows, so I guess I'll see. The problem is it's usually ice overlain by snow, and the 35 degree slope, which makes it difficult. > For tires, ones with lotsa tread void and heavily siped tend to be > better for deeper snow. Ones with less tread void and even more > heavily siped tend to be better for icy roads and packed snow. Thanks... I think I should get a second set of tires for the winter season? I have room to store a second set of tires and rims, and I can easily change them on myself. > Never really needed to add chains even when driving a Grand Cherokee > in the northern Sierra, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado--but always carry > them. I carry chains in my cars, and will with a 4X4 too. I've had to use them several times. I don't bother if it's just for the driveway; too much trouble. >> I tend to crawl under every vehicle I look at, before doing anything >> else. This has saved me a lot of time. For example, I looked at the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Look for skid plate equipped packages for any SUV. They pay for > themselves at the first unexpected rock. Totally agreed, BUT; on some SUV's the skid plate from the dealer/manufacturer is fiberglass. Am I wrong in thinking that this is of little use? I much prefer steel. >> That sounds like a great idea. But, I don't know of any small vehicles >> with it. But, I've seen it added on, I think? > > Never heard of true ride height control for SUV style use as an > aftermarket. The entire suspension must be designed to maintain > handling at the various ride heights... e.g. the old Citroen. AH! I've driven older Citroen's in Europe, and now know exactly what you mean. That was one great system! >> I've looked at it. It's a bit big, which is why it's a fallback choice >> at the moment. > > Try a Grand Cherokee if the 4Runner is in your range. The Grand is > a bit smaller...actually mine is smaller than a Honda or Toyota > sedan. Still rather on the large size. I looked at it from the outside when looking at the Liberty, but it does look smaller than the 4-runner. >> How does the Liberty stack up against the Cherokee? The Cherokee and >> grand Cherokee are too large so I haven't looked at them. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > would be close to your Chrysler 300 in the interior..yet still > have formidable offroad capability. Interior stuff isn't much of a concern, as long as the seat is halfway comfortable. The only other thing I like is an FM radio with a CD, but I can put that in myself. I do like the compass-thermomiter console, but I can easily add one myself. I probably need to do that anyway as most don't come with an altimeter, which is something I find very useful here. > The Cherokee is more rough road capable than the Liberty, but most > owners will never need to know the differences. Is only available > used. How about the Jimmy? It';s smaller than the Cherokee as I recall? >> I'm seriously thinking of looking at some non-US models, such as the >> Mitsubishi Shogun Pinin, because many of them are smaller than their >> US counterparts. But, what are their real 4X4 capabilities? > > Dunno. I'd be more worried about being able to get service as > compared to a Toyota, Jeep, etc. That's a big issue. I've bought cars in from Europe before, non US models, and had headaches in that regard (plus insurance trouble). These were Lotus Elites (1975 and 1980 models), which did have a US model, but my mechanicals were entirely different. A major headache I'd rather avoid. However, some of the forign-only SUV's look much smaller than their US counterparts, so I'm tempted. I'm interested in smaller vehicles due to personal preference; I've driven everything from 18-wheelers to earth-moving equipment, but I just prefer smaller vehicles. I ignored that preference when I got the 300M and regret it a bit; it's a nice car with plenty of power, but I just find a smaller car nicer to drive. As a result, I often end up driving my beat-up wreck of a ford probe (the vehicle the 4x4 will replace) instead of the 300M around town. (but the 300M is definitely my choice for long distance). >> I've decided I do. Some of the trails I go on are really severe, and >> so are conditions (incline, ice, snow, sand, mud). [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > get in trouble in the first place. Limited slip or even better > electronically controlled. And good tires. > Since you appear to be out in the enviable middle of nowhere, I'd > still strictly to models where you can get qualified local service. Good point. That rules out land rover, Porsche, Mercedes, etc. (200 miles to the dealer, each way!) > Any 4x4 needs regular maintenance [of course so does any vehicle] with > the added complication of the extra drivetrain components. If you > expect them to get you home, either keep them well maintained or carry > a set of mini-bikes for you and your clients. > The bad news about real 4x4 vehicles is just how far they can get you > from civilization if they were to break down. ROFL!!! Maintenance such as belt, hose, and oil changes I do myself, but I'm not competent to work on drivetrain stuff. There are decent mechanics in the area, but as I learned with the Lotus; it's a pain finding one for an oddball or rare vehicle, and finding parts can be a pain when there is no dealer in the area. Chris J. proclaimed: >>Chris J. proclaimed: >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > so will be entirely deductible for my due to my business. But, they > (that you list) and especially the hummer are large vehicles. Before you classify the Grand Cherokee as a large vehicle, go drive one. The physical dimensions are pretty close to a Cherokee. Is smaller than a Dodge Durango, Ford Explorer, and Toyota 4Runner with more interior room than the 4Runner. Make sure it is a limited or better model with the leather trim, etc. > If I get a new vehicle, I'm probably not going to be taking it truly > offroad, but I will be taking it on some very rough trails. Have you [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > out by jacking it up and putting brush under the wheels, but it's not > something I'd want to do often. I haven't been around Sedona in a Jeep tour, but am familiar with the area. Have spent lotsa time crawling around Nevada mountains and desert. Watch out for "traction control" on some models in bad footing, some vehicles like the Cadillac will get you stuck rather than allow a wheel to spin. If you want max body stiffness, plan to pay for the weight in the gas mileage and go for body on frame like the Touareg, Cayenne, Land Rover, Mitsu Montero, etc. If you want rough trail capability, all of those will do, but vehicles like the Grand Cherokee, Liberty, etc. are also worth considering and are smaller and lighter with enough room for 4 adults. 5 gets a bit cozy in even a Grand Cherokee and downright incestuous in a Liberty. If you are married, don't let the wife drive either a Land Rover LR3 or a Grand Cherokee Limited... > Quite a few of my neighbors have Hummers, and one wants to try my > driveway the next time it snows, so I guess I'll see. The problem is > it's usually ice overlain by snow, and the 35 degree slope, which > makes it difficult. Thats why they make sand. Never had a bit of trouble even around Kalispell Montana where there is some serious snow. > Thanks... I think I should get a second set of tires for the winter > season? I have room to store a second set of tires and rims, and I can > easily change them on myself. If you regularly drive in deep snow, buying a second set of rims and tires that are the smallest OEM size makes it easier to add chains. And in the summer, you can go to the max OEM tire size and get just slightly better mileage...but you'll still want to stick to at least an all-season tire or even a fairly dense tread pattern in a mud and snow. e.g. the Michelin LTX M+S which actually is better on wet roads than the Michelin all season as fitted on the Ford Explorer. > How about the Jimmy? It';s smaller than the Cherokee as I recall? There is no Jeep Jimmy. You may be thinking of the GMC which is usually called a Jimmy. The GMC Envoy is bigger than the Grand Cherokee and would have great difficulty keeping up with the Grand, particularly with the Quadradrive II electronic limited slip. > I'm interested in smaller vehicles due to personal preference; I've > driven everything from 18-wheelers to earth-moving equipment, but I [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > replace) instead of the 300M around town. (but the 300M is definitely > my choice for long distance). 300M? Oh, sorry, thought you had the 300C, which is a poor man's Mercedes with a Hemi. Entirely different beast. I prefer small vehicles too, have even used an MGB on trails around Moab and Green River that really should have been a Jeep...lost a few mufflers doint so. However, it is really really difficult to beat a Jeep for rough trails...unless you are driving a Land Rover or perhaps a Mercedes G-Wagon. > ROFL!!! > Maintenance such as belt, hose, and oil changes I do myself, but I'm > not competent to work on drivetrain stuff. There are decent mechanics > in the area, but as I learned with the Lotus; it's a pain finding one > for an oddball or rare vehicle, and finding parts can be a pain when > there is no dealer in the area. You can get parts mail order...a bit tougher to get a mechanic that way. If you are near Sedona [you lucky devil] I would think that you should have no trouble getting Jeep service... or GMC Envoy, or Ford Explorer. However both the Jimmy and the Exploder are bigger than any current Jeep. >Chris J. proclaimed: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > more interior room than the 4Runner. > Make sure it is a limited or better model with the leather trim, etc. OK, I've now driven one; I liked it, but it does, to me, feel more like a truck or van than, say, the Liberty. I found it a bit large. Same with the 4-runner. Is there much difference in real 4x4 capability between the liberty and the Grand Cherokee? >> before where a jeep had no trouble, but it wasn't a limited-slip >> differential (I had one rear and one front wheel spinning.). I got it [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the area. Have spent lotsa time crawling around Nevada mountains > and desert. > Watch out for "traction control" on some models in bad footing, some > vehicles like the Cadillac will get you stuck rather than allow a > wheel to spin. Thanks! I've heard the Mercedes has a similar situation, but both that and the Cadillac are out of my range for both price and size (too big on both) > If you want max body stiffness, plan to pay for the weight in > the gas mileage and go for body on frame like the Touareg, Cayenne, I've not seen those last two yet. If they aren't too big, I'll add them to the list. > Land Rover, Mitsu Montero, etc. If you want rough trail > capability, all of those will do, but vehicles like the Grand > Cherokee, Liberty, etc. are also worth considering and are > smaller and lighter with enough room for 4 adults. 5 gets > a bit cozy in even a Grand Cherokee and downright incestuous > in a Liberty. If I need to carry 5 people, it's darn rare, and only for a short ride, so no big deal. > If you are married, don't let the wife drive either a Land Rover LR3 > or a Grand Cherokee Limited... ROFL! Actually, I'm not, but I am at risk anyway; the reason I want automatic is that I want to be able to lend the vehicle to my Mother, who lives nearby, during bad weather. I have a suspicion I might have trouble getting it back. <G> >> Quite a few of my neighbors have Hummers, and one wants to try my >> driveway the next time it snows, so I guess I'll see. The problem is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Thats why they make sand. Never had a bit of trouble even around > Kalispell Montana where there is some serious snow. Sand makes it hard to get up the driveway when it's dry, unfortunately. >> Thanks... I think I should get a second set of tires for the winter >> season? I have room to store a second set of tires and rims, and I can >> easily change them on myself. > > If you regularly drive in deep snow, buying a second set of rims and > tires that are the smallest OEM size makes it easier to add chains. > And in the summer, you can go to the max OEM tire size and get just > slightly better mileage...but you'll still want to stick to at least > an all-season tire or even a fairly dense tread pattern in a mud and > snow. e.g. the Michelin LTX M+S which actually is better on wet > roads than the Michelin all season as fitted on the Ford Explorer. Thanks!!!! I'll get two sets of rims and tires. >> How about the Jimmy? It';s smaller than the Cherokee as I recall? > > There is no Jeep Jimmy. You may be thinking of the GMC which is > usually called a Jimmy. The GMC Envoy is bigger than the Grand > Cherokee and would have great difficulty keeping up with the Grand, > particularly with the Quadradrive II electronic limited slip. I did see a Jimmy (GMC) yesterday; looked a bit like a blazer. My one big gripe; it had the exhaust line near the engine running laterally for a couple of feet, and hanging below everything else. that would be trouble IMHO. >> I'm interested in smaller vehicles due to personal preference; I've >> driven everything from 18-wheelers to earth-moving equipment, but I [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 300M? Oh, sorry, thought you had the 300C, which is a poor man's > Mercedes with a Hemi. Entirely different beast. Yep.. I'd never heard of the 300C until your post, and I looked it up. Looks interesting, but that variable-cylinder engine sounds a bit too much like the Cadillac 4-6-8 of a long time ago. > I prefer small vehicles too, have even used an MGB on trails around > Moab and Green River that really should have been a Jeep...lost a > few mufflers doint so. However, it is really really difficult to > beat a Jeep for rough trails...unless you are driving a Land Rover > or perhaps a Mercedes G-Wagon. I've been looking at the Jeep Liberty (my favorite so far) and also a used Suzuki Vitara. The Vitara is over 15k cheaper, so that's a plus, but I'm a bit skeptical. On the other hand, I don't think I'd feel comfortable taking a 26k new Jeep offroad; I'd stress over every scratch. >> ROFL!!! >> Maintenance such as belt, hose, and oil changes I do myself, but I'm [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Ford Explorer. However both the Jimmy and the Exploder are bigger > than any current Jeep. I'm in the high mountains outside Prescott, about 40 miles from Sedona. There is, however, a Chrysler/Jeep dealer just a few miles away from me, in Prescott. Same with most major makes, except the high-end stuff or rare stuff like Mercedes. > A few weeks ago, I started shopping for a 4X4, and was a bit confused > so decided to do some research. Well, I'm no longer a bit confused, > I'm now totally confused. Check out the Kia Sorento. Positives: 1) Compact to midsized 2) Real 4x4 off road capabilities 3) Real 4x4 low gear 4) Body-on-frame construction 5) Solid driving feel 6) Well appointed interior (take it off road, then to dinner! :-)) 7) Priced lower than competition 8) Excellent warranty Negatives: 1) Gas mileage is less than the unibody SUV pretenders. 2) Still new (1st model year was 2003, introduced Dec. 2002 I think) I have 10,000 Kms and one year on the car with no problems. I live in the snow belt so I've seen the advantage of 4x4 traction first hand. Put good winters on the Sorento and you can go anywhere. SignatureTim Lapin timl@sympatico.ca >> A few weeks ago, I started shopping for a 4X4, and was a bit confused >> so decided to do some research. Well, I'm no longer a bit confused, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >2) Real 4x4 off road capabilities >3) Real 4x4 low gear Does that mean locking differentials? >4) Body-on-frame construction >5) Solid driving feel >6) Well appointed interior (take it off road, then to dinner! :-)) >7) Priced lower than competition >8) Excellent warranty >Negatives: >1) Gas mileage is less than the unibody SUV pretenders. >2) Still new (1st model year was 2003, introduced Dec. 2002 I think) I'll add this to the list, thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > >> A few weeks ago, I started shopping for a 4X4, and was a bit confused > >> so decided to do some research. Well, I'm no longer a bit confused, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Does that mean locking differentials? The Sorento has a limited slip differential. From all accounts, the system works well. > I'll add this to the list, thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Read the reviews and comparisons from: Motor Week: http://www.mpt.org/motorweek Motor Trend: http://motortrend.com/roadtests/suv/112_0404_suvs/index.html Motor Trend: http://motortrend.com/oftheyear/suv/112_0212_suv/ Edmunds: http://www.edmunds.com (look for editors most wanted) I've tried to find reviews that highlight the off-road capabilities. I'm sure you could find others. Also, please let us know what you finally pick. I think I speak for all of us here in rec.autos.4x4 in saying we'd love to know. >So far, my list of candidates is >Toyota rav-4 and 4-runner >Honda Element >Chevy tracker >Suzuki Vitara I haven't read all the replies, so forgive me if someone already recommended this vehicle. A friend of my wife bought a new Kia Sorento. Not a bad little vehicle. V6, 4WD, 4 door, etc. Neil |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.