Which 4WD SUV?

[Attitude]

Ford Chevy

[Ursa_Eagle]

Subaru seems to be the *only* major car company that doesn't have an Obnoxiously Large Vehicle out there. With the Pilot, even Honda fell prey to Americas greed. Also, Audi, VW, and Volvo are all coming out with their own SUKs. I really hope this is a trend like chrome trim, which will go away when people finally get their heads out of their asses and realize how stupid they really are driving to the mall and commuting in a SUK.

[BURP]

yur stupid!

[lummox]

scooby sherpa

now that's a real 4wd!

[Eastsider]

Ursa_Eagle said:

Subaru seems to be the *only* major car company that doesn't have an Obnoxiously Large Vehicle out there. With the Pilot, even Honda fell prey to Americas greed. Also, Audi, VW, and Volvo are all coming out with their own SUKs. I really hope this is a trend like chrome trim, which will go away when people finally get their heads out of their asses and realize how stupid they really are driving to the mall and commuting in a SUK.

 

Remember, GM owns 25% of Fuji Heavy Industries (i.e. Subaru) so just think of it as GM's small-vehicles-for environmentalists-and-other-natural-types division.

[A7U]

Yeh, Subarus etc. are all down with the small-is-good scene but they have a fraction of the ground clearance you might need to get up our local logging roads.

 

More importantly, a car (Subaru for example) is built on a unibody. That's a spot-welded sheetmetal box to which all the parts---engine frame, transmission carrier, etc.---are spot-welded. That construction is OK for going down the highway but it is not even close to durable enough for bumping along a logging road.

 

Even at very low speed the welds eventually become brittle if you roll the car over uneven surfaces a lot. Also, the many torsions on the unibody tweak it so over the unit's service life, things go out of whack, become misaligned, start to rattle.

 

One feature of most cars these days is front wheel drive. FWD is the primary drive system on any unibody car even if it has 4WD or AWD. Going off road is murder on FWD systems because they're built to take only highway bumps & stresses, no matter what the ads tell you. The parts are too lightweight. Year after year, late in the season, I roll slowly along the washboard up the Cascade River Road and am passed by FWD Hondas, Audis, Jettas, etc., all flying along at 30 mph. The drivers are fools, they're beating the crap out of their car's front suspensions/drive components.

 

The right vehicle for getting to our local trailheads is one built in the old-fashioned way, on a frame or chassis made of stout steel rails on which is bolted the body and all the other parts. That's a truck or an American car built no later than about the early 70's.

 

I drive a 2001 4WD Ranger with a limited slip differential and skid plates. I used to have an AWD Explorer but it was too heavy for its suspension and handled dangerously off road.

 

If I had to get rid of the Ranger, my 2nd choice would be a truck of any age. 3rd choice, if I had to drive a car to the trailhead, it'd be something like a '68 2-door or a station wagon. No way in hell would I ever rely on a unibody vehicle---a Subaru, any FWD car, or any of the truck-lookalike import SUVs which are all unibody-built.

 

It's right to be concerned with the impact your choice has on the immediate world right now but considering how much energy goes in to building a car/truck, you also need to consider how long it will last under the use you intend. A vehicle that makes the hippies happy now may last a fraction of its normal useful life if you use it in a way that ruins it. Beware of the car company ads.

[Sphinx]

Wow, finally someone who knows (or sounds like they know) what they are talking about. Your points are valid, but I am wondering: why do manufacturers use this "unibox" construction for vehicles that are ostensibly designed for rough-road driving (eg subaru)?. Can't you use truck technology to build a subaru-type vehicle with enough clearance to do everything a SUV can do with less gas-guzzling, a lower center of mass, etc, etc?

[Attitude]

A7U said:

Yeh, Subarus etc. are all down with the small-is-good scene but they have a fraction of the ground clearance you might need to get up our local logging roads.

 

More importantly, a car (Subaru for example) is built on a unibody. That's a spot-welded sheetmetal box to which all the parts---engine frame, transmission carrier, etc.---are spot-welded. That construction is OK for going down the highway but it is not even close to durable enough for bumping along a logging road.

 

Even at very low speed the welds eventually become brittle if you roll the car over uneven surfaces a lot. Also, the many torsions on the unibody tweak it so over the unit's service life, things go out of whack, become misaligned, start to rattle.

 

One feature of most cars these days is front wheel drive. FWD is the primary drive system on any unibody car even if it has 4WD or AWD. Going off road is murder on FWD systems because they're built to take only highway bumps & stresses, no matter what the ads tell you. The parts are too lightweight. Year after year, late in the season, I roll slowly along the washboard up the Cascade River Road and am passed by FWD Hondas, Audis, Jettas, etc., all flying along at 30 mph. The drivers are fools, they're beating the crap out of their car's front suspensions/drive components.

 

The right vehicle for getting to our local trailheads is one built in the old-fashioned way, on a frame or chassis made of stout steel rails on which is bolted the body and all the other parts. That's a truck or an American car built no later than about the early 70's.

 

I drive a 2001 4WD Ranger with a limited slip differential and skid plates. I used to have an AWD Explorer but it was too heavy for its suspension and handled dangerously off road.

 

If I had to get rid of the Ranger, my 2nd choice would be a truck of any age. 3rd choice, if I had to drive a car to the trailhead, it'd be something like a '68 2-door or a station wagon. No way in hell would I ever rely on a unibody vehicle---a Subaru, any FWD car, or any of the truck-lookalike import SUVs which are all unibody-built.

 

It's right to be concerned with the impact your choice has on the immediate world right now but considering how much energy goes in to building a car/truck, you also need to consider how long it will last under the use you intend. A vehicle that makes the hippies happy now may last a fraction of its normal useful life if you use it in a way that ruins it. Beware of the car company ads.

This is pretty funny.

[fleblebleb]

Funny? That's a pretty cool post.

[jordop]

Any early 90s Pathfinder testamonials? Thousands cheaper than 4Runners and way more common with way less miles on average, they seem like a good buy. Dumbasses made all the SEs auto with big tires while all the 5spd XEs have small tires

?

 

(was about to hand over the $$ for a $runner last week when the guy tells me, "oh yeah, I forgot to mention that I replaced the dash a few years ago and got a new odometer. There's another 80'000kms on it."

[minx]

jordop said:

Any early 90s Pathfinder testamonials? Thousands cheaper than 4Runners and way more common with way less miles on average, they seem like a good buy. Dumbasses made all the SEs auto with big tires while all the 5spd XEs have small tires

?

 

(was about to hand over the $$ for a $runner last week when the guy tells me, "oh yeah, I forgot to mention that I replaced the dash a few years ago and got a new odometer. There's another 80'000kms on it."

 

In addition to my 95 jeep which i love, i also regularly drive a 93 pathfinder. It's a 5spd SE. It's got 30" tires on it now. It's been a solid vehicle. It has 110K on it with minimal problems. Handles pretty well off road and great in the snow.

[JoshK]

A7U said:

Yeh, Subarus etc. are all down with the small-is-good scene but they have a fraction of the ground clearance you might need to get up our local logging roads.

 

More importantly, a car (Subaru for example) is built on a unibody. That's a spot-welded sheetmetal box to which all the parts---engine frame, transmission carrier, etc.---are spot-welded. That construction is OK for going down the highway but it is not even close to durable enough for bumping along a logging road.

 

Even at very low speed the welds eventually become brittle if you roll the car over uneven surfaces a lot. Also, the many torsions on the unibody tweak it so over the unit's service life, things go out of whack, become misaligned, start to rattle.

 

One feature of most cars these days is front wheel drive. FWD is the primary drive system on any unibody car even if it has 4WD or AWD. Going off road is murder on FWD systems because they're built to take only highway bumps & stresses, no matter what the ads tell you. The parts are too lightweight. Year after year, late in the season, I roll slowly along the washboard up the Cascade River Road and am passed by FWD Hondas, Audis, Jettas, etc., all flying along at 30 mph. The drivers are fools, they're beating the crap out of their car's front suspensions/drive components.

 

The right vehicle for getting to our local trailheads is one built in the old-fashioned way, on a frame or chassis made of stout steel rails on which is bolted the body and all the other parts. That's a truck or an American car built no later than about the early 70's.

 

I drive a 2001 4WD Ranger with a limited slip differential and skid plates. I used to have an AWD Explorer but it was too heavy for its suspension and handled dangerously off road.

 

If I had to get rid of the Ranger, my 2nd choice would be a truck of any age. 3rd choice, if I had to drive a car to the trailhead, it'd be something like a '68 2-door or a station wagon. No way in hell would I ever rely on a unibody vehicle---a Subaru, any FWD car, or any of the truck-lookalike import SUVs which are all unibody-built.

 

It's right to be concerned with the impact your choice has on the immediate world right now but considering how much energy goes in to building a car/truck, you also need to consider how long it will last under the use you intend. A vehicle that makes the hippies happy now may last a fraction of its normal useful life if you use it in a way that ruins it. Beware of the car company ads.

 

LOL. Yes, you are right, this applies to cars...built in the 1970s that is. What you fail to mention is that manufacturing techniques for unibody vehicles have improved immensly due to the fact that every manufactuer uses them now. You should definitely give Subaru and Audi a call and tell them that their world rally championship cars are crap and cant handle the rigors of being driven balls out over crappy terrain at 100+ mph. But I'm sure that's nothing compared to the stresses of rolling slowly down the cascade river road.

[j_b]

It's right to be concerned with the impact your choice has on the immediate world right now but considering how much energy goes in to building a car/truck, you also need to consider how long it will last under the use you intend. A vehicle that makes the hippies happy now may last a fraction of its normal useful life if you use it in a way that ruins it. Beware of the car company ads.

 

1) The overwhelming majority among us (let's not even talk about the average car user) does the overwhelming majority of our driving on the highway, 2) the energy expanded for the manufacture of a car is about 10% of the total energy it uses over its average lifespan (note this percentage will rise for fuel-efficient cars).

 

You can do the math but it's pretty obvious that a fuel-efficient car (unibody or not) is much easier on the environment than a guzzler built yesterday or 30 yrs ago (both in terms of pollution and energy consumption).

[Smoker]

JoshK said:

A7U said:

lots of good shit deleted

 

LOL. Yes, you are right, this applies to cars...built in the 1970s that is. What you fail to mention is that manufacturing techniques for unibody vehicles have improved immensly due to the fact that every manufactuer uses them now. You should definitely give Subaru and Audi a call and tell them that their world rally championship cars are crap and cant handle the rigors of being driven balls out over crappy terrain at 100+ mph. But I'm sure that's nothing compared to the stresses of rolling slowly down the cascade river road.

 

I cant believe I read this thread/waste of time this am.

 

If Audi were sellin us their rally cars then we would not have a need for this thread.

 

A7u's observation is spot on in reguards to frame/unibody construction.

 

What I dont get is why folks seem to be so "pleased" with their rigs that go 100k mi? USED to be considered that a rig was just broke in then. I got 300k+ out of a 74 Pinto!

and 275K out of an S-10 (i did have to rebuild the eng once

cause S-10's are crap)

 

How many of you have even kept a rig on the road over 200K?

It doesn't much matter what you drive if your getting a new rig every 100k or so, 100k aint shit

[fleblebleb]

JoshK said:

LOL. Yes, you are right, this applies to cars...built in the 1970s that is. What you fail to mention is that manufacturing techniques for unibody vehicles have improved immensly due to the fact that every manufactuer uses them now. You should definitely give Subaru and Audi a call and tell them that their world rally championship cars are crap and cant handle the rigors of being driven balls out over crappy terrain at 100+ mph. But I'm sure that's nothing compared to the stresses of rolling slowly down the cascade river road.

 

Come now Josk, although rally cars survive some serious abuse they hardly set any records in turns of the miles that are put on them?

[lummox]

i used to work at a ranch in new mexico, and the 4wd ford trucks we used lasted about 40,000 miles. hard driving will screw up any vehicle. so what if the unibody cars are disposable. their cheap and built to stay that way. haha

[erik]

a7u

 

don't forget to address independent suspension systems!

 

 

 

 

[Eastsider]

JoshK said:

 

LOL. Yes, you are right, this applies to cars...built in the 1970s that is. What you fail to mention is that manufacturing techniques for unibody vehicles have improved immensly due to the fact that every manufactuer uses them now. You should definitely give Subaru and Audi a call and tell them that their world rally championship cars are crap and cant handle the rigors of being driven balls out over crappy terrain at 100+ mph. But I'm sure that's nothing compared to the stresses of rolling slowly down the cascade river road.

 

There is also a significant difference between race-prepared cars and stock. Tube-frame chassis, welded-in roll cages and highly modified suspensions are a few of the features that make race vehicles hardy enough (and different from their road-going counterparts) to stand up to the rigors of racing on any surface, let alone non-track conditions.

[lummox]

Eastsider said:

There is also a significant difference between race-prepared cars and stock. Tube-frame chassis, welded-in roll cages and highly modified suspensions are a few of the features that make race vehicles hardy enough (and different from their road-going counterparts) to stand up to the rigors of racing on any surface, let alone non-track conditions.

that's true for the pros, but lots of amatur drivers don't do anything to the frames yet they seem to hold together pretty well.

[Fence_Sitter]

yes...but amny of us do...and knowing that you have that need necessitates making an informed decision on which car/truck/whatever to buy rather than just forking over the dough to subaru because they showed a car doing the things you need it to do on the TV...

[Fence_Sitter]

as a follow up note...i have done some 4WDing and i know that if you take the average SUV out for a spin a few times...you are gonna be fucked up unless you do some mods to it... i have seen numerous explorers/blazers/exped...whatever out far and this happens because the car companies show these cars in terrain that a stock car would be destroyed in... but if you are just driving up to paradise...why not just buy a hybrid? i think that many just want to buy a subaru because they conform to their hippy 'dirtbag' climber steryotype...but how can you be a dirtbag with a $30,000 SUV? just a question...

[Sphinx]

Buy used of course!

[erik]

my car cost $800

 

 

[Eastsider]

lummox said:

Eastsider said:

There is also a significant difference between race-prepared cars and stock. Tube-frame chassis, welded-in roll cages and highly modified suspensions are a few of the features that make race vehicles hardy enough (and different from their road-going counterparts) to stand up to the rigors of racing on any surface, let alone non-track conditions.

that's true for the pros, but lots of amatur drivers don't do anything to the frames yet they seem to hold together pretty well.

 

Pro or amateur will make all the mods that they can and still fall within the rules of the governing body and class that they are racing in. Some rules don't allow many mods, but generally you will not be competitive if you don't take advantage of all allowed modifications.

[JoshK]

A bunch of my friends race in amatuer rally races. Their car of choice, for the most part is mid 80s Audi 4000s. You'd be hard pressed to convince them that they don't stand up to off road abuse considering they have hundreds of thousands of miles on them and still beat them up in rallys.