Back when all the state would provide for us biologists was 2WD pickups, my first field supervisor said tire chains were to get you out of trouble, not to get you farther into trouble. When he got one of the first 4WD Dodge Power Wagons (the 1960 counterpart to today's SUVs), he then said 4WD was nice but it just got you into trouble even farther away from help.
Warren W. Aney -----Original Message----- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Malcolm McCallum Sent: Thursday, 09 August, 2007 16:34 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: Field-worthy SUV Doesn't it strike anyone kind of strange that this discussion about which SUV to choose popped up right amidst a discussion about wastefulness? I suggest that 90% of us using 4-wheel drive SUVs for research really don't need them. How often do you actually need to put it in 4-wheel??? Just stoking the fire here! On Thu, August 9, 2007 3:33 pm, 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 > Malcolm L. McCallum Assistant Professor of Biology Editor Herpetological Conservationa and Biology [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
