|
|
Post by silverdragon on Feb 1, 2016 9:34:24 GMT
Due to the demise of the Land-Rover citadelofmyths.freeforums.net/thread/1760/rip-land-roverI have a question. Soft-roaders, any good?.. Can todays "4x4's" that are sold as what in UK we call "Chelsea tractors" be any good at all off tarmac?. Reason I ask, the newest version of the Range-rover Discovery is "All bling", and, by looking at the ultra-luxury you get with it, would the owners ever be happy ankle deep, let alone axle deep, in the mud. There is a Myth that "I could if I wanted to" that I need to bust, so this is a myth that is not just another car discussion thread, its one we can all bust, so, lets to it guys, tell me what you think... I know some of you own true off road vehicles, and use them as designed... But... Jeep versus Jeep Rubicon?... Think of the evolution of the original Jeep that was once sold as a farm utility vehicle complete with power take off that ran farm implements, even ploughs. THAT was a true utility vehicle designed for off road use every day. The newer versions of the Rubicon?... The land-rover and its luxury version Range rover.... Land rover went everywhere you could, up mountains, through wilderness. The original Range-rover was an answer to the Japanese Lend Cruiser... As in a Land rover with better seats and suspension, more comfortable, that also went everywhere. But todays?.. when your spending upwards of 100 to 200 thousand on a vehicle, do they want it covered in mud?.. And then I have to mention the Porsche Cayenne. I have no recollection of anyone ever thinking that as even a muddy drive to a farm vehicle let alone off road... These vehicles were originally designed to go where there were no roads, so why are they forever now earthbound to tarmac. You can include Pickup trucks if you so wish, anything that soccer moms take kids to school in, that was originally designed to tackle rough terrain that is now exclusively ON road use... My question is, if it was bought as an on-road vehicle, could it be used effectively as off-road without some modifications. (Like Mud tyres for example) Shouldnt it be sold with off road capabilities straight off the forecourt?. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Feb 1, 2016 11:47:53 GMT
I have no doubt that the Jeep Rubicon, or any of the wrangler line would do just fine off roading. But many of these newer models sporting the Jeep name remind me more of rollerskates.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 1, 2016 15:34:22 GMT
the Rubicon option package is actually a mechanical upgrade, not just cosmetic.
however, it is somewhat distinctive in that. a lot of American made soft roaders are in the group where the more expensive the option package, the less off road capability it has.
A lot of American soft-roaders are essentially not-minivans instead of off road vehicles their four wheel drive systems are more suited to wet asphalt than anything else.
a newspaper columnist some years back wrote an amusing column referring to the fact that for many of the soft road SUVs in Oregon, the only off-road they ever saw was the grass parking lots at the state fairgrounds.
|
|
|
|
Post by wvengineer on Feb 15, 2016 14:40:42 GMT
I owned a Subaru Outback for several years. That is supposed to be one of the gold standards when it comes to winter weather driving. It is sold as a street car that has some off road capability. That is probably the poster child for a soft road car.
In my time with it, I had driven it in several snow storms and some muddy conditions. Overall, I was not very impressed with it. When it came to snow, I found that my FWD, Toyota Carola did as good or sometimes even better than the Outback did when it came to climbing the hill of my driveway in snow. It really came down to the tires on the car. The better the tires (sometimes even snow chains), the better the car did. The only thing the Subaru tended to do regularly is cost more. Even today, I am working in one of the places known for some of the worst weather in the Mid-atlantic, I can get by just fine with a FWD Ford Fusion and Snow tires and sensible driving. I have commonly gone right though some areas that people with large SUV's were sliding around on (combo of poor tires and giving it too much gas).
That being said, I like SUV's more for hauling ability. Of course, then you start looking at minivans that are even better for cargo room. As much as I despise the "mom car" look, when you can get 4 adults, a twin size mattress, a bunk bed frame (unassembled) and a bunch of smaller bags of groceries in there all at the same time, a minivan does have its usefulness.
For me, I find that in most cases, 4WF/AWD is something that they sell to people to convince them that they are not as bad as a driver as they really are. AWD is severely overrated. What benefits it has can be had on any car with the proper choice of tires and careful driving.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Feb 16, 2016 7:35:08 GMT
On the wrong vehicle, yeah, sure, its no bonus.
On the RIGHT vehicle, you know you got it?.
Recently I had a drive of a Skoda Yeti, because a friend has one, and I would chose that over some extremely expensive alternatives.
Its a 4/5 seater, seats can fold or remove to make mini-van, acres of space, and the 4wd versions hold the road a lot better than some off roaders can.
But its not sold as an off-roader, its sold as a tall MPV 5 seater that can handle any weather?...
I have also driver Subaru WRX, Audi Quatro, and other off-road 4wd type vehicles, you do notice they have "better" abilities.
But that type of car was designed that way?.
Tyre choice is important.
Road tyres are bloody useless off the black sticky stuff, Off road tyres are bloody uncomfortable when the big blocks start rattling your fillings out, and the in-between has been the holy grail by many companies for many years, but getting a right balance is always a compromise.
Then you have the permanent 4wd with locked diffs... you need to be able to turn that off for proper ability to turn corners on a road.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 21, 2016 16:19:52 GMT
On the wrong vehicle, yeah, sure, its no bonus. On the RIGHT vehicle, you know you got it?. Recently I had a drive of a Skoda Yeti, because a friend has one, and I would chose that over some extremely expensive alternatives. Its a 4/5 seater, seats can fold or remove to make mini-van, acres of space, and the 4wd versions hold the road a lot better than some off roaders can. But its not sold as an off-roader, its sold as a tall MPV 5 seater that can handle any weather?... I have also driver Subaru WRX, Audi Quatro, and other off-road 4wd type vehicles, you do notice they have "better" abilities. But that type of car was designed that way?. Tyre choice is important. Road tyres are bloody useless off the black sticky stuff, Off road tyres are bloody uncomfortable when the big blocks start rattling your fillings out, and the in-between has been the holy grail by many companies for many years, but getting a right balance is always a compromise. Then you have the permanent 4wd with locked diffs... you need to be able to turn that off for proper ability to turn corners on a road. the final analysis is: one size does not fit all. the subaru outback is NOT the world's first sport utility wagon. the Jeep Wagoneer was. I read a 1970s review when AMC released their first generation wagoneer that specifically referred to it as a station wagon for sport and utility use. it was basically built for farmers to use for a daily driver.  yep, I learned to drive in that. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Feb 22, 2016 7:29:40 GMT
Go Back further, the original jeep was the first American all round utility vehicle?...
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 22, 2016 15:47:58 GMT
Go Back further, the original jeep was the first American all round utility vehicle?... but the jeep was just a utility vehicle, not a station wagon. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Feb 23, 2016 7:54:23 GMT
Go Back further, the original jeep was the first American all round utility vehicle?... but the jeep was just a utility vehicle, not a station wagon. And the only difference is size?.. Take a look at how much difference there is in a landrover. Same as the difference between ducks, one of the legs is both the same, but, in that, ducks come in different sizes?.. As in, just because it got bigger, does that make it a different vehicle?.. A Stretch body long wheelbase landrover with cover may be a "station wagon" size, but its still a land rover, doesnt matter how many defender badges you cover up?... If it looks like a duck, drives like a duck, and snorts like a duck?.. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 23, 2016 15:38:41 GMT
but the jeep was just a utility vehicle, not a station wagon. And the only difference is size?.. Take a look at how much difference there is in a landrover. Same as the difference between ducks, one of the legs is both the same, but, in that, ducks come in different sizes?.. As in, just because it got bigger, does that make it a different vehicle?.. A Stretch body long wheelbase landrover with cover may be a "station wagon" size, but its still a land rover, doesnt matter how many defender badges you cover up?... If it looks like a duck, drives like a duck, and snorts like a duck?.. if it looks like a duck, drives like a duck, and snorts like a duck, it doesn't qualify as a sport utility wagon. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Feb 24, 2016 5:55:56 GMT
So in your estimation, what is the qualifier for your S-U-W that isnt the same as other similar vehicles?...
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 24, 2016 15:20:24 GMT
So in your estimation, what is the qualifier for your S-U-W that isnt the same as other similar vehicles?... to be a sport utility wagon, it must be a wagon. - since this is about Subaru claiming to have the world's first sport utility wagon. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Feb 25, 2016 6:45:15 GMT
Means different things.
If by "Wagon" you mean estate?...
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 25, 2016 14:47:46 GMT
Means different things. If by "Wagon" you mean estate?... yes, you call it an estate wagon. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Feb 26, 2016 6:38:17 GMT
We just call them "estates", which sort of means flat back bigger than a hatchback but not a van but still the size of a car....
An estate off road capable is SUV to us, we dont make the difference of "wagon" as anything more, because our first Off-Roaders were sort of estate shaped, being they were designed for Farm use and you need to throw sheep in the back etc?.. most of them already had tail gate or hatch?... or both?.. Land-rover style.
Bigger than four/5 seater, we just call "long wheel base."
Some were 6 wheel....
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 26, 2016 15:41:38 GMT
We just call them "estates", which sort of means flat back bigger than a hatchback but not a van but still the size of a car.... An estate off road capable is SUV to us, we dont make the difference of "wagon" as anything more, because our first Off-Roaders were sort of estate shaped, being they were designed for Farm use and you need to throw sheep in the back etc?.. most of them already had tail gate or hatch?... or both?.. Land-rover style. Bigger than four/5 seater, we just call "long wheel base." Some were 6 wheel.... the development of the hatchback kind of blurred the line between wagon and SUV. essentially, a wagon has a lower roofline than an SUV, which has a lower roofline than a minivan. here, a wagon has sedan (saloon) type seating, but the roofline goes straight back to the back of the car a SUV has more upright seating. originally, SUVs were on pickup chassis, and wagons were on sedan (saloon) chasses. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Feb 27, 2016 7:56:53 GMT
[quoe]originally, SUVs were on pickup chassis, and wagons were on sedan (saloon) chasses.
[/quote]
We gave up on that idea many generations ago and went all monocock body to save weight and add strength.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 27, 2016 8:04:49 GMT
[quoe]originally, SUVs were on pickup chassis, and wagons were on sedan (saloon) chasses. We gave up on that idea many generations ago and went all monocock body to save weight and add strength. [/quote] monocoque doesn't turn out well on pickups. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Feb 27, 2016 8:38:08 GMT
[quoe]originally, SUVs were on pickup chassis, and wagons were on sedan (saloon) chasses. We gave up on that idea many generations ago and went all monocoque body to save weight and add strength. monocoque doesn't turn out well on pickups.[/quote] Why?..because no one has tried it successfully?... I admit that there may be a structural problem with open-top body, but, I have no idea why a monocoque hasnt been developed for pickups, after all, all F1 cars are, and they got HUGE powerplants at the back. Lots of weight. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 27, 2016 8:45:21 GMT
We gave up on that idea many generations ago and went all monocoque body to save weight and add strength. monocoque doesn't turn out well on pickups. Why?..because no one has tried it successfully?... I admit that there may be a structural problem with open-top body, but, I have no idea why a monocoque hasnt been developed for pickups, after all, all F1 cars are, and they got HUGE powerplants at the back. Lots of weight. [/quote] tell you what. next time you go out with a rigid truck, strap the load to the cab. see how it works out. the only pickups we have where the bed is part of the cab are the extreme light duty ones, like the Honda Ridgeline and the El Camino. - and I suspect the ridgeline IS a monocoque. media.caranddriver.com/images/media/51/2017-honda-ridgeline-artists-rendering-top-inline-photo-657896-s-original.jpgor as I refer to them: a sedan with the trunk lid missing. |
|
