your hair splitting makes no sense and is still wrong.
And if poshness is your only SUV qualifier it is still owned by years by a wagoneer.
Printable View
your hair splitting makes no sense and is still wrong.
And if poshness is your only SUV qualifier it is still owned by years by a wagoneer.
Poshness isn't the only criteria...Quote:
Originally Posted by lemon boy
But SUV in this side of the pond is different from a 4WD.
New Disco, CRV, RAV4 and the likes are SUV... Ie. looks like a 4WD, but is not that good at actual offroading.
Lifted Ford F150, CJ8, Defender and the likes are real 4WDs, and are at home offroading even in difficult terrain.
I got an old Disco.Quote:
Originally Posted by hemas
Wouldn't change it for the new one.
But I believe new Disco is a 4WD too. Don't know why you say is not.
Hemas- But it's only recently that rover has been putting out ute's that are not basically capable (freelander and the late 90s on RR + new disco).
they're fine, I have no beef with Rovers but they're not the "original" anything.
Ford Bronco
Jeep Wagoneer
Chevy k5 Blazer
Chevy Suburban
all predate anything from Rover in the sport/utility market. These are all proper SUVs instead of crossover vehicles like you're mostly listing.
Tony- He's calling out (rightly so) the new discos for being pansy ass imitators of their heritage suitable for grocery runs on the tarmack not the Camel races of their forefathers.
http://www.autointell.com/nao_compan...totype-390.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by lemon boy
1947
dude, try to pay attention that's a series rover, which puts it in the pure utility class of vehicles putting it well behind the util jeep (prototyped in 1940):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...iki_jeep_1.jpg
Quote:
Originally Posted by lemon boy
Though it wasn't a Jeep... It was Willy's :biggrin:.
Sorry LB. Didn't know there were so many sub catagories to keep track of.
Will try harder in future.
Hemas- if you want to get that fine about it then it's really a "Bantam." Which is beside the point.
PNWB- It's just that we already went over that ;) ;)
Early December there was a guy parked at the base of chair 1 with a Celica that he must use for racing. Roll cage, 5 point harnesses, 4 light cluster, names and blood types on the window, etc. It was pretty cool.Quote:
Originally Posted by BakerBoy
Disco 3 is fancy
but still 4WD.
I tested a 2007 Subaru Outback with the standard 2.5i 4cyl. engine. The price was a little over $24K and was decently equiped. No leather and it didn't sound like a premium radio but it did have heated seats. Anyway the engine is rated at 175 Hp (don't know at what rpm though) and it had plenty of power for intown driving. It got up to highway speeds without too much effort, but I was disappointed with passing ability at highway speeds.
The dealer did say the vehicle has the ability to have a trailer hitch attached, which is a must for me, but I wonder if it would have enough power for passing on a highway with a trailer attached.
Overall the vehicle was a comfortable to drive especially for the price, but not terribly spirited or crisp. The seats worked well for me being a shorter guy (5'6"). I found the view in rearview mirror to be a little cramped, but that could be because I'm not used to the vehicle. The AWD is nice and the true ground clearance was something I noticed right away. Nothing hanging down below the axls. I'd guess it has better ground clearance than my SUV.
Moving up to a larger engine or a turbo greatly increases the price tag and of coarse decreased the mpg.
If I didn't have a need for a trailer hitch I think this vehicle would work fine for me.
That's just silly. If you have enough power to maintain speed on a highway uphill with a trailer at or under the rated weight, you have enough power.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grange
My forester with the 2.5 could easily maintain 80mph with a UHAUL, and I wouldn't take a trailer on a 1.5" hitch any faster. I never remember passing being a problem in 600 miles with it.
See spats post #22
If you really think you need that extra power look at the 2007 RAV4 with the 6 cylinder engine. Comparably equipped to the Subie you looked at it's probably around $27K. The mileage figures are 21 city, 28 highway with that engine (269 hp, 246 lb-ft torque).Quote:
Originally Posted by Grange
Quoted for good advice. You'd be amazed where you can get with clearance, 2wd and creativity. The remaining trailheads require a real truck with 4wd and good clearance - an Outback won't cut it.Quote:
Originally Posted by char
If you find you really need 4wd, you can get a used LandCruiser for cheap now and just use that on weekends.
Right, I've drove several FWD's that performed quite well. However not sure how they'd like old forest service roads.
Any FWD recommendations that would take the off road abuse?
Well call me a poseur or a gaper then, because I drive one. Of course, I don't have a cell phone antenna, or a rocket box, but I'm thinking maybe I need do something about that?Quote:
Originally Posted by uncle crud
advice:
Get a 4 cyl. wagon in 4wd.
If you want budget, go subaru.
If you want middle end, go VW.
If you want higher end, audi.
If you get the audi a4 avant or VW passat wagon, get one from 2003-up, and make sure you get an extended warranty. It will pay for itself.
But they drive way better than japanese cars, are way fun to drive, and YES, they get better gas mileage.
Get an old beater pick up, a mutt dog and a cowboy hat.
A couple of statistics mentioned in the videos:
- 70% of ALL LAND ROVERS built up to date are still on the go.
- The ONLY CAR SEEN by 60% of the worldwide population is.....a Land Rover.
Land Rover Defender, the greatest car of all time:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSh9uwITqVM
For all the wankers here that said that Disco 3 is not AWD (albeit Jeremy is not a great off-road driver):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5sDhlKG77I
New Range Rover Sport vs. Challenger Tank (guess who wins?):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIGbypgFtVc
Drag Race: Range Rover Overfinch on grass vs. Mercedes SLK 320 on pavement:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70WsEdliSrA
Range Rover vs. "TOP American SUVs" (this is a good one!):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pTSk9IzD_I
I live in Wyoming, where it REALLY IS -20º on a regular basis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony
I drive a Ford.
It keeps me plenty warm.
It is quite comfortable.
It was far cheaper than a Land Rover and I have plenty of money left over.
I have 4 wheel drive.
And I am quite happy.
I have a 98 legacy gt wagon and a 99 forester. The forester is the best choice for clearance and value in my opinion. Can't go wrong with a Subbie.
FYI. A british mag, I think it was "Land Rover Monthly," did a test with the new Range Rover vs Defender, in a strictly off-road test. Guess who came on top? Yes, the Range Rover.
Modern electronics go a long way! The defender is still super capable, but give me a break - you're comparing the flagship land rover to the cheapest car they make. Don't get me wrong, I still love the defender b/c its a very purist 4x4.
Yes, the new LR3 is limited off road due to the rear towing package - but remove it and its much better than the 2 previous discoveries. Again, electronics at work.
Check out this website:
http://consumerguideauto.howstuffwor...car-search.htm
this one is good: http://www.carsurvey.org/
Try to find more like them. Do some research. Educate yourself, my brother.
Defender as greatest car of all time is not my appreciation. It was Top Gear's opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by serge944
I guess they were talking regarding Defender's ability to go anywhere. But I agree, the Range Rover is a better car. Even the Disco II is a better car.
Nevertheless, if you are in the middle of nowhere you don't want a car with a ton of electronics but a more mechanical one that you can repair easily. That's what the Defender is good for. This is not the case of the majority of people (including me) that spend most of his time on pavement.
They were talking from a global explorer perspective. Not from the mindset of yuppie that buys a comfortable SUV.