Re: field-worthy SUV
I would echo the comments of Mr. Aney. Ironically, the older Subaru's (i.e., 1987) get better mileage, and have the option of dropping into 4-low, which is lost on newer models which don't even have real 4WD. I would qualify this statement by saying that I have owned 4 different Subaru wagons spanning the ages of 1987-1996, and by whatever reason, the 1987 wagon with real 4 WD and the horizontally opposed 4 cylinder engine got the best mileage and did the best in the field (opposed to newer models with AWD which only engage when rear has lost traction and it is too late, and you're already slipping...), in all manner of field situations (believe me... I tested them!). In ideal monetary situations, I would recommend remodeling a fleet of '80's Subaru Brats for field work (that's a partial joke, I hope you enjoy the partial humor), but since that is unreasonable, the newer Subarus seem to work OK, but I would highly recommend a vehicle with real 4WD (a light duty truck) for light hauling in unstable terrain, deep mud, snow greater than 15", or ice (if you don't have chains on all fours). The weight placement in the Subarus seems to be adequate (in the front), but the AWD engagement in newer models has often gotten me in trouble in situations with snow, ice, or mud. This probably isn't news to most, but that's my $0.02 Please feel free to ask me any questions about my experiences (though I'm not a mechanic by any means). -Evan > Some questions and suggestions based on a long experience with off-highway > travel for professional purposes: > > Are you going to be driving on snow-covered or muddy roads? If so, then > you > need something with higher road clearance such as a compact 4WD pickup or > 2WD pickup with chains -- some of the smaller pickups get fairly good > mileage (approaching 20 mpg) especially the 2WDs, and the most reliable > brands are Toyota and Nissan. King cabs give you some cab cargo or > passenger > space. Canopies give you lots of protected cargo space. Resale value is > usually quite good. > > Is your off-highway driving mostly on dry gravel or dirt roads with > occasional steep, sandy or rocky stretches? Then a small SUV such as the > Subaru Forester is a good choice -- fair ground clearance, all wheel drive > when needed, and some cargo space. The Honda SUV is good but does not > have > very much ground clearance -- more of an improved road vehicle. These all > get around 25 mpg if driven conservatively. > > Interestingly, the older models of these vehicles (up to around 2001) get > better mileage than the newer ones, but these are very hard to find. > > Warren W. Aney > Senior Wildlife Ecologist > Tigard, OR > Phone: 517.353.2953 Michigan State University Dept. of Plant Biology
Re: field-worthy SUV
Hi Robert- I've got about 160,000 miles on my 1991 Trooper and it's still going strong. Although a bit hard to find on the used market, they're still out there. Truck body, true 4WD, and rugged sheet metal and fabric interior hold up well for equipment and messy field assistants! Since I work with small mammals in southwestern deserts it's also been nice to have an air conditioned enclosed cabin for temporary transport. -- James E. Biardi, PhD Assistant Professor Fairfield University Biology Department - BNW 206 1073 North Benson Road Fairfield, CT USA06824 Phone: 203-254-4000, ext. 3465 Fax: 203-254-4253 -- Please consider wise use of resources prior to printing this email > From: Robert Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 08:23:34 -0400 > 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 > > _ > Robert Long > Research Ecologist > Western Transportation Institute, Montana State University > _
Re: Field-Worthy SUV-- horse is dead!
I agree with John. There is also a difference between usinig a 4WD in day to day and using it only in the field. If the vehicle is used rarely in th= e field, and even more rarely the 4wd is actually used, then it would be better to own a fuel-economic vehicle, and rent a 4wd on those days it is absolutely needed. I have also worked in some pretty slippery places in Panama, Costa Rica, Brazil - but have never had a 4WD to use, and so, got b= y without it. In Montana, on the other hand, I had to use one in the snow, only. For the guys I worked with and me, getting around without 4WD even though it was available was a point of honor! If you had to lock the hubs, you were (in good fun) considered inferior (as a joke, as well all know tha= t there are no options at times. Once here in Brazil, I stopped my VW van to look at a puddle to see if I could cross without getting stuck, Little did I know, I was already stuck! Had to get a friend with 4WD to get out, and even then it wasn't easy. And, for those who wish to say a VW van is a gas guzzler too, I had natural gas installed just for that reason). And finally, this discussion seems to have little to do with ecology and a lot to do with anecdotes (I myself am now guilty as charged). Cheers, Jim On 8/13/07, John F Pagels/FS/VCU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I have found some of the comments on this thread to be condescending and > boorish. When I was a graduate student I too got around well without a > 4WD vehicle. Pretty easy in New Orleans and nearby. As time goes by, > some of us end up in research programs/situations that require 4WDs, > others don't. For many years I worked at/near the highest elevations in > Virginia in pursuit of the northern flying squirrel and selected other > boreal species. Yes, there is snow, spring thaw and mud, and very > slippery leaves on steep roadways at some time or another even in > Virginia. Most of the time 4WD is not needed, especially on the > Interstate, it's just the last 15-20 K or so. So, whippersnappers and > other flatlanders, carry 60 Tomahawk traps on your back 5 miles through > snow or mud, along with your tent, supplies, a ladder for checking nest > boxes, bait and the like. Have your graduate student(s) rent pack horses > to help with that. We've done that also. > > John Pagels > > > John Pagels, Ph.D > Professor, and Director Graduate Program in Biology > Department of Biology > Virginia Commonwealth University > 1000 West Cary Street > Richmond, VA 23284-2012 > (804)828-0076 Fax (804)828-0503 [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > Wayne Tyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent by: "Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news" > > 08/13/2007 12:29 AM > Please respond to > Wayne Tyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To > ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > cc > > Subject > Re: Field-Worthy SUV > > > > > > > Eric: > > I have more than a little sympathy for your point; I used to backpack > at one point in my life too, and have only had a 4wd for a few > years. There's no doubt that they can do a lot of damage in the > hands of fools. > > But they help us crips get to where we otherwise could not go. I > have a mountain bike and trailer for gear, but am prohibited from > using many trails because of the misbehavior of recreational mountain > bikers--that means I just can't go there. If there's water, I can > use my fold-up kayak. Maybe you would donate a foot or a tendon to > replace my busted one? And one for my busted biceps tendon too? And > oh, I almost forgot, a nerve bundle for my thumb and a couple of > phalanges for a calcified middle finger? Just joking, of > course--hoping to be informative . . . We all have one kind of > limitation or another. So if you need a guy with my limitations, let > me know . . . I just might volunteer. > > Keep up the good work. Glad you use your "frickin" legs. Wish mine > were as frickin good as yours. You could probably get a helluva book > deal telling about that trip to Michigan. > > WT > > PS: When I graduated from high school, a friend hiked with me several > miles on crutches up some Sierra Nevada rivers--he had had polio and > was "wasted" from the hips down. But he could do a thumb stand and > fold over beer-bottle caps with one hand. I took him along for > protection--if he ever got those hands around a neck . . . even a > grizzly bar would be in trouble. > > At 01:26 PM 8/11/2007, Eric North wrote: > >I have to concur with the idea of 4 wheel drive being unneccessary for > field > >work. It tends to make one go where they shouldn't. If you're using 4wd, > you > >probably degrading a road
Re: Field-Worthy SUV
I respectfully disagree with Eric on most points in his post. In my job we are constrained by time and other budgetary matters not to hire enough porters to carry our stuff into every site in the field, although I have clambered down enough talus slopes with sixty pounds on my back AFTER a twenty mile drive on what BLM calls roads. One of the benefits of 4WD is that it can be easier on road surfaces when you aren't spinning the tires, especially on steep slopes, where a low range can be really helpful. David Baker, Ecologist Central Oregon Interagency Ecology Program Deschutes National Forest 1001 SW Em Kay Dr. Bend, OR 97702 (541) 383-5424
Re: Field-Worthy SUV
Eric: I have more than a little sympathy for your point; I used to backpack at one point in my life too, and have only had a 4wd for a few years. There's no doubt that they can do a lot of damage in the hands of fools. But they help us crips get to where we otherwise could not go. I have a mountain bike and trailer for gear, but am prohibited from using many trails because of the misbehavior of recreational mountain bikers--that means I just can't go there. If there's water, I can use my fold-up kayak. Maybe you would donate a foot or a tendon to replace my busted one? And one for my busted biceps tendon too? And oh, I almost forgot, a nerve bundle for my thumb and a couple of phalanges for a calcified middle finger? Just joking, of course--hoping to be informative . . . We all have one kind of limitation or another. So if you need a guy with my limitations, let me know . . . I just might volunteer. Keep up the good work. Glad you use your "frickin" legs. Wish mine were as frickin good as yours. You could probably get a helluva book deal telling about that trip to Michigan. WT PS: When I graduated from high school, a friend hiked with me several miles on crutches up some Sierra Nevada rivers--he had had polio and was "wasted" from the hips down. But he could do a thumb stand and fold over beer-bottle caps with one hand. I took him along for protection--if he ever got those hands around a neck . . . even a grizzly bar would be in trouble. At 01:26 PM 8/11/2007, Eric North wrote: >I have to concur with the idea of 4 wheel drive being unneccessary for field >work. It tends to make one go where they shouldn't. If you're using 4wd, you >probably degrading a road or trail, and aren't we all here to protect >resources?? I've worked in temperatures and environments from Northern >Michigan at -20F to the Grand Canyon at 123F, carrying all my own gear, and >I've found that the most reliable SUV you can use are your own frickin' >legs!! If you can't haul all your own stuff, then HIRE SOMEONE TO HELP YOU! >Lots to drink, plenty to eat, and the right clothing. > >Hopefully Informative- >Eric > > > >Eric North >Department of Biological Sciences >Northern Arizona University >P.O. Box 5640 >Flagstaff, AZ 86011 >Office: 928.523.7247 >Cell:928.607.3098 >FAX: 928.523.7500 >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >_ >A new home for Mom, no cleanup required. All starts here. >http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us
Re: Field-worthy SUV
I still contend that most of us using 4-wheel really do not need it. Unless you are actually going off road, there is essentially no need for it. yet, I see tons of biologists who never leave the pavement driving these things around. Its a status symbol, or it provides a sence of atmosphere but thats about it. IF you are regularly going off road, yes you need it. Otherwise, why are we driving them??? On Sat, August 11, 2007 6:20 am, Tom Mosca III wrote: >> ... a differential lock in the rear differential ... would >> make the truck nearly as capable as a 4WD. > > This is not really true. My truck has Detroit automatic locking > differentials front and rear, and the rear differential does make a > substantial contribution. But without the front axle engaged, it is not > nearly as capable. Also, without 4WD one has no low-range gearing, which > is critical to off-road driving. In addition, locking differentials have > quirks that can be dangereous on the highway; this can be overcome by > practice or by using a manual-engagement type. And by the way, the remark > someone made to the effect that "4WD only gets you stuck farther away" > only applies to unskilled drivers. > > Malcolm L. McCallum Assistant Professor of Biology Editor Herpetological Conservationa and Biology [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Field-worthy SUV
> ... a differential lock in the rear differential ... would > make the truck nearly as capable as a 4WD. This is not really true. My truck has Detroit automatic locking differentials front and rear, and the rear differential does make a substantial contribution. But without the front axle engaged, it is not nearly as capable. Also, without 4WD one has no low-range gearing, which is critical to off-road driving. In addition, locking differentials have quirks that can be dangereous on the highway; this can be overcome by practice or by using a manual-engagement type. And by the way, the remark someone made to the effect that "4WD only gets you stuck farther away" only applies to unskilled drivers.
Re: Field-worthy SUV
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: > >> 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]
Re: Field-worthy SUV
We probably don't need 4WD very often, but in my experience, finding out you need 4WD when you are out in the remote field in a 2WD proves very inconvenient. Safe driving! david David Baker, Ecologist Central Oregon Interagency Ecology Program Deschutes National Forest 1001 SW Em Kay Dr. Bend, OR 97702 (541) 383-5424
Re: Field-worthy SUV
"How often do you actually need to put it in 4-wheel???" Take it from a old desert rat, it isn't how often you shift into 4WD, it is how often you get stopped or stuck in a short patch of sand or a single deep rut on an otherwise fine 2WD road. Cheers, Jim -Original Message- From: Malcolm McCallum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 4:33 pm Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] 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: >> 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] AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.
Re: field-worthy SUV
Robert (and listserv members), Here is my two cents worth after years of working (and playing) in the western US. My recommendation is that if you need to move mainly people with little gear over good dirt roads with little actual 4WD use, get a hybrid SUV and try to stick to a Japanese brand.? (Jeeps?may also be a good choice.)??While these SUVs have better gas mileage, they will never have the all-around usefulness of a 4WD pickup. If you need a stouter vehicle that can handle any manner of field gear (think gassy chainsaws or predator bait) and is?capable off road, then you need a 4WD pickup truck.? I know many will disagree, but gas mileage is not at the top of the priority list, field worthiness is.? (Choose a fuel efficient daily driver if you are worried about gas mileage-it is where you can make the most impact.)? In my mind the optimal field vehicle would be a 2003-2004 Toyota Tacoma 4 door with 4WD.? The bed is short, but with a topper can hold quite a bit and you can always attach a roof rack.? Nissan makes a similar 4 door pickup.? Sadly, the 4 door Tacoma was only offered as an automatic transmission, but this really isn't an off road?problem unless you need to roll start the vehicle.? Stay away from older Toyota LandCruisers etc unless you are prepared for them to need lots of maintenance and?fail emission controls (if you have them in your community).? A 4 cylinder engine is more fuel effi! cient that a 6, but with a serious loss of power.? You need to ask yourself if you will ever need to tow a trailer or if a 4 cylinder can handle mountain grades with a loaded bed and 4 adults inside. Another option if you think you would be willing to sacrifice 4WD for gas mileage (I never would), and can find a 2WD 4 door pickup, is you could have a differential lock installed in the rear differential.? This would add negligible weight and would make the truck nearly as capable as a 4WD. Sincerely, James James P. Riser II Plant Biologist 330 SE Gladstone Pullman, WA 99163 AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.
Re: Field-worthy SUV
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: >> 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]
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: >> 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]
Re: Field-worthy SUV
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: > > 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
Re: Field-worthy SUV
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: > 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
Re: field-worthy SUV
I have worked in the field both in the US and in Central and South America. Of all the vehicles I have used, the Toyota Tacoma would be the best option. Small truck, reliable the engine is not that big so mileage is not that bad and excellent in the mud> I have made the diesels go trough stuff that I was 100% percent sure I would have to winch myself out of. The Subarus are ok but if you want cargo capacity you should consider the Tacoma. The 4WD double cab, diesel would be my choice. This is work horse. Cheers, Naikoa
Re: field-worthy SUV
A side note on this is that Evan's problem may be related to the US market. I bought a Kia Sorento when they first came out, and while there is basically only one model (except for a sun roof and some trim), the one model sold in Portugal is quite different from the one in the US. Mine is a four-cylinder diesel with reduction gearing and standard shift, the US version is a V-6 automatic without the low gearing. I recall that when Honda first came out with an SUV, I asked a salesman what it would cost with standard shift. He told me it only came with automatic (again, not the same in Europe). When I asked him how one drove an automatic 4x4 off road, he informed me that if I took this 4x4 SUV off the road it would void the warranty! Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: "Evan Kane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 6:52 AM Subject: Re: field-worthy SUV >I would echo the comments of Mr. Aney. Ironically, the older Subaru's > (i.e., 1987) get better mileage, and have the option of dropping into > 4-low, which is lost on newer models which don't even have real 4WD.
Re: field-worthy SUV
I would echo the comments of Mr. Aney. Ironically, the older Subaru's (i.e., 1987) get better mileage, and have the option of dropping into 4-low, which is lost on newer models which don't even have real 4WD. I would qualify this statement by saying that I have owned 4 different Subaru wagons spanning the ages of 1987-1996, and by whatever reason, the 1987 wagon with real 4 WD and the horizontally opposed 4 cylinder engine got the best mileage and did the best in the field (opposed to newer models with AWD which only engage when rear has lost traction and it is too late, and you're already slipping...), in all manner of field situations (believe me... I tested them!). In ideal monetary situations, I would recommend remodeling a fleet of '80's Subaru Brats for field work (that's a partial joke, I hope you enjoy the partial humor), but since that is unreasonable, the newer Subarus seem to work OK, but I would highly recommend a vehicle with real 4WD (a light duty truck) for light hauling in unstable terrain, deep mud, snow greater than 15", or ice (if you don't have chains on all fours). The weight placement in the Subarus seems to be adequate (in the front), but the AWD engagement in newer models has often gotten me in trouble in situations with snow, ice, or mud. This probably isn't news to most, but that's my $0.02 Please feel free to ask me any questions about my experiences (though I'm not a mechanic by any means). -Evan > Some questions and suggestions based on a long experience with off-highway > travel for professional purposes: > > Are you going to be driving on snow-covered or muddy roads? If so, then > you > need something with higher road clearance such as a compact 4WD pickup or > 2WD pickup with chains -- some of the smaller pickups get fairly good > mileage (approaching 20 mpg) especially the 2WDs, and the most reliable > brands are Toyota and Nissan. King cabs give you some cab cargo or > passenger > space. Canopies give you lots of protected cargo space. Resale value is > usually quite good. > > Is your off-highway driving mostly on dry gravel or dirt roads with > occasional steep, sandy or rocky stretches? Then a small SUV such as the > Subaru Forester is a good choice -- fair ground clearance, all wheel drive > when needed, and some cargo space. The Honda SUV is good but does not > have > very much ground clearance -- more of an improved road vehicle. These all > get around 25 mpg if driven conservatively. > > Interestingly, the older models of these vehicles (up to around 2001) get > better mileage than the newer ones, but these are very hard to find. > > Warren W. Aney > Senior Wildlife Ecologist > Tigard, OR > Phone: 517.353.2953 Michigan State University Dept. of Plant Biology
Re: field-worthy SUV
Some questions and suggestions based on a long experience with off-highway travel for professional purposes: Are you going to be driving on snow-covered or muddy roads? If so, then you need something with higher road clearance such as a compact 4WD pickup or 2WD pickup with chains -- some of the smaller pickups get fairly good mileage (approaching 20 mpg) especially the 2WDs, and the most reliable brands are Toyota and Nissan. King cabs give you some cab cargo or passenger space. Canopies give you lots of protected cargo space. Resale value is usually quite good. Is your off-highway driving mostly on dry gravel or dirt roads with occasional steep, sandy or rocky stretches? Then a small SUV such as the Subaru Forester is a good choice -- fair ground clearance, all wheel drive when needed, and some cargo space. The Honda SUV is good but does not have very much ground clearance -- more of an improved road vehicle. These all get around 25 mpg if driven conservatively. Interestingly, the older models of these vehicles (up to around 2001) get better mileage than the newer ones, but these are very hard to find. Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, OR
Re: field-worthy SUV
There was a hybrid produced by chevy I think. All the SUVs get crappy mileage. You might be better to get a light pickup as they will get better mileage. Throw on a camper shell and you are set. Unless you need 4 wheel, two wheel small trucks get average to poor mileage. The fact is, all current vehicles are getting poor mileage. my 1983 escort station wagon got 40-50 mi/gal. I belive the car companies just threw the crap out there from the 70's to raise oil consumption and make a buck off of their oil futures. Just my vibe! :0 On Tue, August 7, 2007 7:23 am, Robert Long wrote: > 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 > > _ > Robert Long > Research Ecologist > Western Transportation Institute, Montana State University > _ > Malcolm L. McCallum Assistant Professor of Biology Editor Herpetological Conservationa and Biology [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: field-worthy SUV
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: 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
