First, the rationale for using 4wd for ecological research is that "we" are in a race to the top in a world that is racing to the bottom (but doesn't know it). So, "it's relative."
4wd is primarily valuable as a safety feature. As one who once drove a USFS 2wd pickup over logging roads and firebreaks in deep dust, gravel, rocks, boulders and snow for uncounted miles, I can say that a lot can be done with 2wd, snow tires, and a few sacks to fill with dirt--combined with a Handyman-type jack, strong cable, shovel, axe, Pulaski, and McCloud for when the 2wd (or the driver's) limitations were exceeded. 4wd is safer because of the traction, but it also can get one into a lot of trouble because it leads one to go where you probably wouldn't venture in a 2wd. The driver again. One time I drove out a little too far (testing the traction in reverse every few feet) on the breaks of the Feather River's Middle Fork (squaw mat growing in scree on top of granite) until there was no traction. The grade transitions seductively gently along a classic (inverted) exponential curve to the vertical. I had the sense to walk the crew out (20 or more miles to any hope of help), but we luckily found some engineers with a radio, and all I suffered was the embarassment of having to be winched out by a fire truck hours later. In a 4wd, I might have been able to back out (particularly if I had the sense to drive IN with 2wd, leaving the 4wd to get me OUT), or I might have foolishly gone on until I slid several hundred feet to the river. The real answer is, I rarely use the 4wd, but when 2wd can't cut it, 4wd can get me out. But it will not save a fool from his folly. WT At 04:33 PM 8/9/2007, Malcolm McCallum wrote: >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]
