Mike: I always wanted one of these, but the very best I ever had was a 1968 Ford Bronco. I gave it to a friend in CO USA because I didn't want to comply with CA smog alterations.
I now have a Ford 3/4 ton diesel with a pop-up camper. Terribly expensive, but so far I have been happy with the compromise. If I had it to do over again, I'd get the short-bed diesel and a shorter camper, but I no longer sleep on granite boulders and my wife insists on the bathroom. I like it too, not to mention the other creature-comforts. Got a recipe for switchgrass diesel? Dubya hasn't answered my emails. And where do you find the stuff? I suppose that when the Bushes are all replaced by switchgrass it will be easier, but then when the Peak Oil phenomenon hits the fan, where will we get our special greases and micropressors when the go kaput? I think I'll start raising mules . . . Thanks to everyone for their interesting inputs on this subject . . . WT PS: I take it you are a wetlands ecologist. I'm collecting names of folks that line up with their professions. The king of 'em all remains Grady Clay, editor of Landscape Architecture some years ago. At 01:33 PM 8/9/2007, Mike Marsh wrote: >Robert, if you don't mind something old, find (with difficulty nowadays) >a pre1985 Toyota land cruiser, also known in Australia as a "troopie". >these are instantly recognizeable by the completely box-like cabin, and >the long-wheelbase model was designed to carry a squad of 8 soldiers in >the rear sitting sidewise on two parallel benches, with a bench seat in >front. The chassis and suspension is mor reminiscent of a locomotive >than a truck completely solid. There is a manual, low-hi range >transmission. You have to get out to lock or unlock the front hubs for 4 >wheel drive. A diesel model will chug down the road at 55 mph forever, >cross rivers, tow less bush-worthy vehicles, etc. >We went to Australia in 2001 to cross the continent with local friends >from Sydney to the Kimberleys. We bought a used long wheelbase 1984 >troopie, had oil leaks in the front hubs fixed, and set out on a 3 week >expedition. We covered 10,000 kilometers, perhaps 1/3 of it on unsealed >(unpaved) roads of various degrees of roughness, had no breakdowns (well >,the clutch was slipping the last 600 km), one flat tire, and came away >loving our vehicle, which we sold to a friend. You must not need to go >fast, as the fuel economy drops. With 2 fuel tanks you have 400+ mile >range. >Mike Marsh > > Subject: > > Re: field-worthy SUV > > From: > > William Silvert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: > > Tue, 7 Aug 2007 18:16:59 +0100 > > > > > > I'm no expert on this, but colleagues who have worked in Africa swear > > by the Toyota pickups. They run circles around Land Rovers and the like. > > > > Bill Silvert > > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Long" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU> > > Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 1:23 PM > > Subject: field-worthy SUV > > > > > >> Hi folks, > >> > >> This is a fairly general question, but I'm looking for a small- or > >> mid-sized > >> SUV to serve as a field vehicle. It will be used extensively both on- > >> and > >> off-highway, although need not be capable of truly ruggged > >> off-roading. A > >> good amount of rear cargo space would be best (which eliminates some > >> of the > >> smaller SUVs like the Honda CRV), and decent gas mileage will be a > >> strong > >> plus. > >> > >> Can anyone recommend a few makes and models based on personal > >> experience in > >> the field? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Robert
