# Most Off-Road Capable Stock Vehicle



## EC Transplant (Aug 27, 2005)

I'll post this to see how it will float here: 

What is the most capable, stock, street-legal off-road vehicle that you can purchase in the past 5 years? Since a lot of you will probably ask what "capable" is, for this case, let's just say that capability will be defined as being able to drive the most trails in Moab. 

-Stock 
-Street Legal 
-Less than 5 years old 
-No mods other than tires 
-No cap on cost 

Post up what you think would be your choice, a pic would be nice, and tell us why (features etc...).


----------



## gtivr4 (Sep 22, 2000)

Are you limiting this to regular commercial vehicles only (Jeeps etc)? Otherwise you are opening a whole big can of what fits your definitions.


----------



## Turbio! (Feb 21, 2005)

I'm gonna go with the Wrangler Rubicon.


----------



## Turbio! (Feb 21, 2005)

gtivr4 said:


> Are you limiting this to regular commercial vehicles only (Jeeps etc)? Otherwise you are opening a whole big can of what fits your definitions.


 I don't see how there's a lot of ambiguity. New, stock, street-legal, available for sale in the last 5 years.


----------



## CBJ (Sep 16, 2000)

EC Transplant said:


> I'll post this to see how it will float here:
> 
> What is the most capable, stock, street-legal off-road vehicle that you can purchase in the past 5 years? Since a lot of you will probably ask what "capable" is, for this case, let's just say that capability will be defined as being able to drive the most trails in Moab.
> 
> ...


 From my perspective, based on where I live, I'd like either of two vehicles. A Ford Raptor or a 200 Series Land Cruiser. Over all types of terrain, for comfort and durability I'd give the LC the edge. 

That said if we are specifically talking Moab, I'm going to guess that a Rubicon/Wrangler due to it's short wheel base and off road capability would probably be the best choice. A late H3 with three lockers shouldn't be overlooked either, especially in Alpha, V8 form. 

At any price, LC200, most comfort everyday and the equal of most any off-road vehicle available.


----------



## robbyb413 (May 12, 2002)

I guess I'd just go with a Wrangler Rubicon. Solid front and rear axles, locked front and rear, good 4low for crawling, small enough to take most places, lots of cheap replacement parts on the market for when you bang it off something on the trail.


----------



## Jory (Apr 29, 2005)

this would be my choice:


----------



## EC Transplant (Aug 27, 2005)

gtivr4 said:


> Are you limiting this to regular commercial vehicles only (Jeeps etc)? Otherwise you are opening a whole big can of what fits your definitions.


 If anyone can purchase it without needing a speical license to drive, and/or permits to operate and drive it home on the street to your home or to the trailhead, then it's fair game.  (that should take care of tracked vehicles and quarry machines right?).


----------



## Turbio! (Feb 21, 2005)

Jory said:


> this would be my choice:


 Too old.


----------



## EC Transplant (Aug 27, 2005)

This would be my choice. Good low range t-case with a low 4.1:1 axle ratio, locking diffs front and rear, electronic swaybar disconnects, fits 32" tires stock. All for a hair over $30k. 

FYI, I have JK Unlimited in Sport/X trim and have had it out on "mild" trails in Moab, Sedona, and Ouray. Been very happy with it off-road so far, stock 30" street-oriented tires and all. Quite competent with all four wheels on the ground, but have been in situations where a locked front and rear diff would have been nice and wishing on getting the Rubicon instead. I've got some wheels and tires (32") coming so I'm sure that will be an improvement for sure.


----------



## Sporin (Feb 17, 1999)

robbyb413 said:


> I guess I'd just go with a Wrangler Rubicon. Solid front and rear axles, locked front and rear, good 4low for crawling, small enough to take most places, lots of cheap replacement parts on the market for when you bang it off something on the trail.


 This. 

Various Land Cruisers are certainly better on road but now where near as suited for the trails (too big, too much shiny sheetmetal). 

I'm a Toyota guy through and through but for what the OP is asking for, a Wrangler Rubicon is the only choice i*m*o.


----------



## CreeperSleeper (May 29, 2003)

Unimog

Sent from my DROID2 using Tapatalk


----------



## fighters_of_foo (Jan 4, 2004)

CBJ said:


> A Ford Raptor


 This is what i was going to say


----------



## Amsterdam087 (Dec 31, 2007)

fighters_of_foo said:


> This is what i was going to say


 its full size is going to limit the trails you can use it on. 
rubicon for the win :beer:


----------



## Turbio! (Feb 21, 2005)

fighters_of_foo said:


> This is what i was going to say


 The Raptor is a very specialized, niche offroader optimized for high-speed desert running. I'd sooner walk than take it on a tight forest trail or crawl slickrock in Moab with it. Its overall level of capability is severely limited by its size and mechanical setup. It's the best civilian desert-runner there is, but it's nowhere near the most capable stock offroader, because it's not especially versatile. 

A Wrangler Unlimited, however, could do just about anything _but _high speed desert running. And I'd LOVE to see a Baja Wrangler, personally.


----------



## Gitcha Sum (May 27, 2008)

The only things I'd put in front of the Wrangler Rubicon, with electronic sway bar disconnect and 2 locking axles, are the Dodge Ram with the package that gives you the winch, and has an LSD, or any LR/RR that comes stock with a winch, and has the 2 e-lockers (not sure if there is one). Although, if the winch doesn't play, because it's an add on, the Jeep has to take the prize.


----------



## BIGNICKSGTIS420 (Apr 16, 2006)

dodge power wagon


----------



## Turbio! (Feb 21, 2005)

BIGNICKSGTIS420 said:


> dodge power wagon


 Doubtful. Just too big. Mechanically magnificent, but too big for Moab.


----------



## robbyb413 (May 12, 2002)

...stock for stock out performed in pretty much every variable that would be valuable off road by the Rubicon: Approach angle, departure angle, axle clearance, break over angle, gas mileage, covered storage area (dust in you gear sucks).... the list goes on. 

At least it's got a SFA unlike some ideas mentioned in this thread. It's got that going for it. :thumbup:


----------



## CBJ (Sep 16, 2000)

fighters_of_foo said:


> This is what i was going to say


 I only mentioned it the context of my environment which is desert bisected by gravel roads in a country the size of texas and oklahoma combined. It makes little sense in any slow rock intensive area.


----------



## EC Transplant (Aug 27, 2005)

Looks like everyone is thinking along the same lines as I am. Question: So in what situations will the modern (independent suspension) Rovers be more capable than the solid axle vehicles? 










Obviously not here (just kidding--sorry LR fans, just had to post this pic).


----------



## CreeperSleeper (May 29, 2003)

Maybe I needed to be more specific... Unimog U20 :thumbup: 










U20 site


----------



## Turbio! (Feb 21, 2005)

CBJ said:


> I only mentioned it the context of my environment which is desert bisected by gravel roads in a country the size of texas and oklahoma combined. It makes little sense in any slow rock intensive area.


 I get a little lightheaded and giggly when I think about driving a Raptor through the south African deserts.


----------



## Turbio! (Feb 21, 2005)

EC Transplant said:


> Looks like everyone is thinking along the same lines as I am. Question: So in what situations will the modern (independent suspension) Rovers be more capable than the solid axle vehicles?


 Sorry, I've just got to laugh at this pic - it's obviously taken at an angle. Look at the dirt in the corner of the frame. You could drive a Rav4 on that. :laugh:


----------



## Jory (Apr 29, 2005)

CreeperSleeper said:


> Maybe I needed to be more specific... Unimog U20 :thumbup:


----------



## Amdek (Jan 5, 2004)

pretty hard to beat a stock wrangler IMO 









This is my Dads 01 4.0 up by crown king. We took the back way up that day ( lake pleasant @castle rock - crown king) 


*NOT my video* but this shows the back road. 14+ miles of relatively punishing terrain, lots of vehicles meet their demise out there but our wrangler was tough as nails and did just fine in 100% stock trim, we didn't use spotters or even take our time :laugh: 


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24hci6bQTb0


----------



## EC Transplant (Aug 27, 2005)

Turbiodiesel! said:


> Sorry, I've just got to laugh at this pic - it's obviously taken at an angle. Look at the dirt in the corner of the frame. You could drive a Rav4 on that. :laugh:


 Yup. First pic I found that had a Rover that looked somewhat good.


----------



## robbyb413 (May 12, 2002)

EC Transplant said:


> Looks like everyone is thinking along the same lines as I am. Question: So in what situations will the modern (independent suspension) Rovers be more capable than the solid axle vehicles?


 The situation where you've got to haul your family to soccer practice and you need the quietest ride possible to talk on your cell phone? If you can find a map of "Neverland" you'll see all the trails that an LR3 is suited for. :laugh:


----------



## Pool Runner (Aug 17, 2009)

Why has the G-Wagen not been posted? OP said no price cap so here you go....


----------



## Amdek (Jan 5, 2004)

Does MB even sell these without 20" rims and a "sporty" ride height anymore?


----------



## Amsterdam087 (Dec 31, 2007)

Pool Runner said:


> Why has the G-Wagen not been posted?


 it hasn't been mentioned because it is not the most capable. not even close.


----------



## Gitcha Sum (May 27, 2008)

Turbiodiesel! said:


> Doubtful. Just too big. Mechanically magnificent, but too big for Moab.


 Factory winch. 
Arguably, a rear LSD and winch gets you further than a pair of lockers.


----------



## Quinn1.8t (Oct 8, 2006)

Amsterdam087 said:


> it hasn't been mentioned because it is not the most capable. not even close.


 I would disagree and say it is pretty close to what has been mentioned so far. Solid front and rear axles and selectable lockers.


----------



## robbyb413 (May 12, 2002)

Lockers and axles don't do anything if the vehicle can't get it's tires to the obstacles to begin with. The gwagen is still bested by the Wrangler Rubicon for Approcah/Breakover/Departure angles, axle clearance, and flex. Stock it's only 9 inches of axle clearance and pulls 36/25/31. vs a stock Wrangler coming in at 10 inches pulling 44/25/40. 

Stock for stock the Wrangler Rubicon really isn't going to be bested by anything that is capable of the OP's criteria in the 1st post. 

Here's a list of common competitors and their stats: 

Jeep Wrangler Rubicon 4x4 (2-Door) (JK) 
Ground Clearance: 10.2" 
Approach Angle: 44.3 degrees 
Departure Angle: 40.4 degrees 

Land Rover LR3 
Ground Clearance: 9.5" (off-road mode) 
Approach Angle: 37.2 degrees (off-road mode) 
Departure Angle: 27.9 degrees (off-road mode 

HUMMER H2 (with optional air suspension) 
Ground Clearance: 9.7" 
Approach Angle: 42.8 degrees 
Departure Angle: 40.0 degrees 

Toyota 4Runner Limited 4WD 4.7L V8 
Ground Clearance: 9.1" 
Approach Angle: 30 degrees 
Departure Angle: 26 degrees (w/o tow hitch) 

HUMMER H3 Alpha (with optional 33" tires) 
Ground Clearance: 9.1" 
Approach Angle: 39.0 degrees 
Departure Angle: 36.5 degrees 

Nissan Xterra Off Road 
Ground Clearance: 9.5" 
Approach Angle: 33.2 degrees 
Departure Angle: 29.4 degrees 

Jeep Grand Cherokee Overland 4x4 
Ground Clearance: 8.3" 
Approach Angle: 35.0 degrees 
Departure Angle: 27.0 degrees


----------



## Quinn1.8t (Oct 8, 2006)

robbyb413 said:


> Stock for stock the Wrangler Rubicon really isn't going to be bested by anything that is capable of the OP's criteria in the 1st post.


 I agree. The Wrangler Rubicon is still more capable than all vehicles posted thus far.


----------



## Gitcha Sum (May 27, 2008)

robbyb413 said:


> Lockers and axles don't do anything if the vehicle can't get it's tires to the obstacles to begin with.


 Which is why, even though I'd love to own a Wrangler Rubicon, you can't overlook the performance benefit of a stock winch.


----------



## Amsterdam087 (Dec 31, 2007)

the one im looking at right now has one installed from the jeep dealer. :beer:


----------



## Sporin (Feb 17, 1999)

In my 10 years of offroading, it is my opinion that 2 solid axles, both locked, makes a vehicle _*far*_ "more capable" offroad then a winch. Winches are primarily for extraction. They don't make a rig "more capable," they are there as a safety valve for when you get in over your head. 

Besides, you can get a winch for your Rubicon right from the dealer. A buddy of mine got his Rubi with a MOPAR branded winch bumper and MOPAR branded WARN winch right out of the parts catalog. 

As for size... Moab makes overall size less of an issue, but to this NEw England boy, used to tight forest trails and trees everywhere, the idea of wheeling a Dodge Powerwagon instead of a Wrangler just seems nonsensical.


----------



## Quinn1.8t (Oct 8, 2006)

Sporin said:


> In my 10 years of offroading, it is my opinion that 2 solid axles, both locked, makes a vehicle _*far*_ "more capable" offroad then a winch. Winches are primarily for extraction. They don't make a rig "more capable," they are there as a safety valve for when you get in over your head..


 I don't necessarily disagree, but I think the point they are trying to make is a winch can still get you through obstacles that even a f/r locker equipped vehicle gets suck on, therefore making a winch equipped vechicle "more capable."


----------



## Gitcha Sum (May 27, 2008)

Sporin said:


> They don't make a rig "more capable," they are there as a safety valve for when you get in over your head.


 That's a contradiction man. A winch makes an offroad rig more capable, way more capable. It's about the best tool you can have if you're stuck. Which, in 10 years experience, I'm sure you know a lot about recovery. (generalizing) Most times winching out is easier, safer, faster, than strapping up and pulling. Look at the KOH cars, winching is part of the course, doubt you're finishing the hammers without one. 

BUT... The fact that you can get a Mopar stickered Warn straight from Jeep, makes my argument pointless. *It makes the 2 door Rubicon the winner hands down. * 

Your last point about tight trails, I agree, and was only playing devils advocate for the winch. On that note: 2006 Rubi > 2010 Rubi. 
Do we go there though? The thread limits this to 5 years, which makes the TJ a contender...


----------



## Quinn1.8t (Oct 8, 2006)

deucestudios said:


> On that note: 2006 Rubi > 2010 Rubi.
> Do we go there though? The thread limits this to 5 years, which makes the TJ a contender...


 This is a tough call. Jk's have 1" larger tires (I think ?) and a sway bar disconnect from the factory. TJ's are obviously smaller, which is nicer for tighter trials, but JK's would probably be able to do the same tight trails, albeit not as easily and with possibly some body damage. On the other hand, the longer wheelbase of the JK would be better for hillclimbs. 

Tough call.


----------



## Sporin (Feb 17, 1999)

I think a winch is a HUGELY important thing, don't get me wrong. 

But when I think of how "capable" an offroader is, I think of it moving on under it's own power, taking you places(and back) that less "capable" rigs can't. To me, that does not mean pulling cable to drag it another 12' before turning around. Which is why I don't weigh a winch so heavily when deciding what rig is "most capable."

Just my opinion though, and I absolutely get what you guys are saying. :beer:


----------



## robbyb413 (May 12, 2002)

deucestudios said:


> Which is why, even though I'd love to own a Wrangler Rubicon, you can't overlook the performance benefit of a stock winch.


 The winch will do nothing if the vehicle can't physically approach/break over/depart an obstacle without destroying it's body/drivetrain/running gear. Stock vehicles don't have beefy skid plates made to let you drag them over things with winches, even if the approach angle permits you to drag it up the obstacle safely in the first place. You're also assuming you have perfect winch points at any given time AND you're using the winch in a manner other than as directed. it's not supposed to be your go-to move to get through things as you are proposing. It's something to use in a pinch when you have no other option. 

What do you drive on the trail? Have you ever had to go down the trail with full sized rigs? Do you notice how they can't handle even the smallest of obstacles with the same agility as a smaller rig? How exactly is a winch going to solve all those issues they have? You'll just break more stuff when you put a winch on a big truck and drag it over things.


----------



## EC Transplant (Aug 27, 2005)

Sporin said:


> I think a winch is a HUGELY important thing, don't get me wrong.
> 
> But when I think of how "capable" an offroader is, I think of it moving on under it's own power, taking you places(and back) that less "capable" rigs can't. To me, that does not mean pulling cable to drag it another 12' before turning around. Which is why I don't weigh a winch so heavily when deciding what rig is "most capable."
> 
> Just my opinion though, and I absolutely get what you guys are saying. :beer:


 My train of thought is along the lines of this.


----------



## npleshek (Feb 2, 2011)

I would have to say it is the jeep TJ rubicon. If you count factory options you can get a lift and I believe a winch already...


----------



## robbyb413 (May 12, 2002)

There are a LOT of things the Jeep dealer will install - lifts, winches, body armor, a matching expedition trailer... 

Is it fair to include that stuff in the discussion though? Some of it comes right from the mopar catalog but some of it doesn't, and the things that will be installed vary be dealer. It might be more reasonable to just look it as 100% stock and exclude "dealer installed options". 

But I mean really if we're adding the dealer install options from the mopar catalog the Wrangler Rubicon is literally unstoppable. It's the only one you can roll an Expedition Trailer into the initial purchase price. I mean look at it - Dealer installed lift kit, dealer isntalled skids/body armor, dealer installed winch, dealer installed expedition trailer - give it to her, son!


----------



## Gitcha Sum (May 27, 2008)

robbyb413 said:


> What do you drive on the trail? Have you ever had to go down the trail with full sized rigs? Do you notice how they can't handle even the smallest of obstacles with the same agility as a smaller rig? How exactly is a winch going to solve all those issues they have? You'll just break more stuff when you put a winch on a big truck and drag it over things.


 I've had a Cherokee for the past 5 years, started having fun with YJ wrangler in '98. I know exactly what you mean, there's lots of trails that even a Cherokee is too big for, but that's Northeast wheelin. Take that to the soft sand of North Carolina, size is a non issue. Never wheeled, or even been to the PNW, but from what I've seen, it's at least similiar to the north east, as far as tight trails go. South west? Full size truck all day, for 9 out of 10 trails. Are you gonna inevitably eat the 6' rear driveshaft in the power wagon? sure. And that's why I'm agreeing that the Wrangler wins. I'm not up on all the goodies you can get new from Mopar, that's above my pay grade. 

I'm just playing devil's advocate. A nod to the Power Wagon, and Disco for having that as part of their "stock" gear was all I wanted. Put the Power Wagon against the Raptor... say which is more "capable", and don't ask "for what".


----------



## dbreid (Jan 29, 2003)

The 5 years thing kills it a bit, but the D90 Rover is the actual answer to this question. I adore Wrangler Rubicons, and agree that if you cannot get a D90, then it is the clear answer. However, a stock D90 is a purpose built truck for exactly this. V8, solid axles, roll cage, the works. They even have sealed electronics and are serviceable with a flathead screwdriver. 

But they weren't sold in the US in the last 5 years.


----------



## CBJ (Sep 16, 2000)

dbreid said:


> The 5 years thing kills it a bit, but the D90 Rover is the actual answer to this question. I adore Wrangler Rubicons, and agree that if you cannot get a D90, then it is the clear answer. However, a stock D90 is a purpose built truck for exactly this. V8, solid axles, roll cage, the works. They even have sealed electronics and are serviceable with a flathead screwdriver.
> 
> But they weren't sold in the US in the last 5 years.


 Wait, the only thing differing between a D90 and a Wangler is the V8. A V8 that, I might add, is only slightly more powerful then the unit in the Jeep and is 10x less dependable. 

Also Defenders have a tendency to purposely unbuild themselves at the most inappropriate times. In short, they are junk.


----------



## npleshek (Feb 2, 2011)

I feel you also have to look into cost too... The jeep wrangler costs a substantial amount less for something that has an almost endless amount of aftermarket parts for it, because we all know that no one wheels a stock vehicle for very long.


----------



## unimogken (Jan 19, 2005)

Based on my real world offroading I have another vote for the G-Wagon. 

There's a reason that many countries use the G-Wagon as a military vehicle.


----------



## robbyb413 (May 12, 2002)

deucestudios said:


> Take that to the soft sand of North Carolina, size is a non issue. Never wheeled, or even been to the PNW, but from what I've seen, it's at least similiar to the north east, as far as tight trails go. South west? Full size truck all day, for 9 out of 10 trails.


 The OP qualified his statement with "able to run the trails in Moab". Long way between that and what you're talking about. Hence the reason the Full size rig and Disco are just right out. You have to play within his rules.


----------



## robbyb413 (May 12, 2002)

dbreid said:


> The 5 years thing kills it a bit, but the D90 Rover is the actual answer to this question. But they weren't sold in the US in the last 5 years.


 So then it's NOT the actual answer to the OP's question at all. :laugh: D90 rovers are nice, but If I were choosing between one of those at what they cost, and a wrangler rubicon at what they cost I'm going Wrangler all day every day even if the 5yr restriction is removed from the equation. 

Stock for stock over the same obstacles I've never seen a STOCK d90 do anything spectacular that a STOCK Rubicon can't do as well, at least not around here in the northeast. Plus when you ride with rovers you spend a lot of time sitting around. They really do break. A Lot. And they are less fuel efficient than the Rubi. 

There's just no benefit to paying the premium, other than the fact that d90s are darn sweet rides.


----------



## CreeperSleeper (May 29, 2003)

robbyb413 said:


> The OP qualified his statement with "able to run the trails in Moab". Long way between that and what you're talking about. Hence the reason the Full size rig and Disco are just right out. You have to play within his rules.


 Other than BFE, most of Moab is easier to wheel in a full size. The width and length tends to be a benifit (within reason) IMO... 

One the the OP didn't say was that it had to be a US vehicle. I choose a 70 series Land Cruiser! They are available brand new right now with a turbo diesel, manual trans, solid (and locked) axles, coil suspension front and rear, etc. That gives you all the benifits of the Rubicon but with stronger axles, frame, engine, trans... Hell, it's a better, stronger rig. It is also availible in different wheelbase lengths (even a pickup) and you don't have to drive a J**p!  

This one is an '07 but the new ones look the same: 









Oh (almost forgot) these come with winches as an available option as well.:wave:


----------



## Sporin (Feb 17, 1999)

70-series is my do-all dream rig. :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## CreeperSleeper (May 29, 2003)

Sporin said:


> 70-series is my do-all dream rig. :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:


 I will import an older Austrailian one once I get a few things paid off. I want to find a clean 1FZ version just for parts availability.


----------



## EC Transplant (Aug 27, 2005)

CreeperSleeper said:


>


 This looks cool and I like the options available. :thumbup:


----------



## robbyb413 (May 12, 2002)

CreeperSleeper said:


> One the the OP didn't say was that it had to be a US vehicle.


 He said street legal, and he lives in the US. The implication there would be that it needs to be an EPA certified vehicle. Can you bring that series 70 into the US? 

The Land Rover Defender is older than 5 years as a US model, but they still make it in other markets. If the series 70 gets a seat at the table then so does the Defender. And if you put them head to head it's defender all the way! Then you don't have to drive "T****a". 

I'm still sticking to the Wrangler Rubicon, IMO there's never a benefit to a full size rig on the trails. They have their place, but it's in wide open spaces with long easy inclines that make having the big long wheelbase a nice thing. All the rest of the time they're just bigger, burn more gas, and break more stuff because they have too much overhang to get up to an obstacle or off of one, and they're too long in the belly to get over things when they're on top. If you need a little more wheelbase get the off-road minivan Rubicon Unlimited.


----------



## CBJ (Sep 16, 2000)

robbyb413 said:


> The Land Rover Defender is older than 5 years as a US model, but they still make it in other markets. If the series 70 gets a seat at the table then so does the Defender. And if you put them head to head it's defender all the way! Then you don't have to drive "T****a".


 The market says otherwise. Both are priced roughly the same in South Africa and Namibia and the LC outsells the Defender by more then 2 to 1 (as station wagons). If we throw in the dual cab pick-up versions and pick-ups it is probably more like 3 to 1. 

I'll put it more succinctly, head to head a 76 makes a D90 look like a retarded purpose made only by North Americans who want to buy into some fantasy about what Defenders are, and believe their something to their supposed pedigree.


----------



## robbyb413 (May 12, 2002)

Sales figures in South Africa have nothing to do with the most capable stock off-road vehicle for Moab. People buy Toyota off-road vhicles because they're cheap and have easy access to repair parts, not because they're built like tanks or capable out of the box. The guy who just finished driving around the world in a Land Cruiser talked about that alot. he wanted a Rover. He weighed in a bunch of factors and decided that he had to go with a Toyota because toyota has a larger presence in the undeveloped countries he was traveling through. He thought he could cut downtime because he could find mechanics familiar with the brand and could also find parts easily. IMO after following the whole process he ended up losing out on a lot of days because every time he looked at his truck wrong it broke. Looking at his repair list it seemed like silly stuff that broke and he should have just gone with the Rover and enjoyed it. 

And IIRC he's French. Not North American.


----------



## Sporin (Feb 17, 1999)

Every vehicle is a trade off. Taking a Rover certainly was no guarantee that he wouldn't break things also. While I'm sure the Land Cruiser round the world guy might like to imagine that a Rover wouldn't have broken anything, that's simply just not realistic. 

Much of it comes down to personal preference and having owned both a Rover and Toyota's I can say that BOTH will happily break parts big and small when used for long periods in rough conditions. The idea that one or the other will magically not break is simply a fairy tale. 

Some historical perspective.... most of Africa was under the British Crown for a century, thus the initial toe-hold by Rover in those parts of the world. They weren't driving a Series land Rover in "The Gods Must Be Crazy" because it was the "better" choice, they were driving it because it was the "only" choice. 

Toyota has since built a giant dealer and parts network there (as well as other places obviously) and in many respects take over the "#1 Choice" role in the desert. 

While marketers and competing marquee-fans will argue them to death, on a mechanical level, they both come with their pluses and minuses.


----------



## Turbio! (Feb 21, 2005)

dbreid said:


> The 5 years thing kills it a bit, but the D90 Rover is the actual answer to this question.


 I tend to disagree. They're capable, but the D90 is, to be frank, just not a very good rig. I've heard horror stories about the axles, the V8 is an outdated horrorshow, and they don't really have any mechanical advantage over a Rubicon.


----------



## MCTB (Dec 30, 2005)

dbreid said:


> The 5 years thing kills it a bit, but the D90 Rover is the actual answer to this question. I adore Wrangler Rubicons, and agree that if you cannot get a D90, then it is the clear answer. However, a stock D90 is a purpose built truck for exactly this. V8, solid axles, roll cage, the works. They even have sealed electronics and are serviceable with a flathead screwdriver.
> 
> But they weren't sold in the US in the last 5 years.


As a Rover guy, the D90 is not the actual answer. If you want a truly simple vehicle, you want a diesel power, BJ40. The D90 wasnt sold in the US in large numbers and you are right, its hasnt been done in years. The D90 is also NOT as easily serviceable as you might think. To remove panels, you will need a full set of metric and standard since its a mix. The electrical systems are no more simple that a Toyota of that era, and by that era I mean the late 1980's. The Defender hasnt changed much since its inception in 1984. The one thing that Rover has going against it is that it is built entirely of car parts. The Land Rover is a parts pin truck. Motors, transmissions, etc... are all taken from road going cars. The build quality is crap and dont even think about ergonomics. They have the look but not much else.

In the terms of the last 5 years, I would go with an XTerra Offroad package or a JK Rubicon. A Power Wagon is a joke as they are just too damn big. 

I went back in time to find my most capable, perfect rig. It has a rear locker and a winch up front. The rear locker added the capability and the winch is just there for extraction and will probably never get used. Its all in how you look at it. I dont mind using the winch. Some people will build a truck that is so insane as to avoid using the winch. I will go as far as I can without taxing my drivetrain and then use the winch for the rest of that section. I see no shame in that. Others do. Its wheeling mentality really. I try to save my mechanical bits whereas some just go out to break things. That being said, I agree that in definition, a winch adds to capability. It allows you to go through obstacles and complete them. At the same time, does it actually add to the capability since you are no longer relying upon your actual vehicle but on an aftermarket piece of equipment? Thats your call to make. 

Me, I run all terrain tires. Not great in the mud but will get me far enough. When forward momentum has stopped, I hand throttle to about 1600 rpm, hook up the winch line to a tree and go from there. Its all in your mentality. To some, I just failed. To others, I took the smart, less abusive way out. That way out might have saved my u joints some unneeded wear and tear and get me further down the line than the guy with dual lockers, ripping it up, bouncing off the limiter and beating the piss out of his truck yet going nowhere. There is fun to be had with both options, thats for sure.


Modern, straight out of the box vehicle: JK Rubicon, it pains to say. In an ideal world, you would look at all options, past a present and you would more than likely come up with a Toyota. I was a Land Rover owner and am still a Land Rover guy. I love them for some reason but after going Cruiser, I dont really see myself going back. Well, with one exception. When the 60 rots away, the motor, trans, axles, etc... might find their way into a Series III 109. Just a thought though.


----------



## Sporin (Feb 17, 1999)

morecarsthanbrains, Well said.

Nothing worse then being on a trail ride with a guy who refuses to pull cable when he's clearly just spinning tires and digging holes.... sadly the "skinny pedal" crowd more often breaks something then not.

One other thing to point out, is that when the D90 hit US shores, it WAS a bit better then the Wrangler since it was coil sprung, sat taller from the factory, etc. The Wranglers of that era where still leaf sprung and didn't have the heavier-duty axles, the lower transfer case, and lockers that the modern Rubicons have.

The TJ's closed the gap (move to coils), with the Rubicon clearly outpacing the old D90's thanks to modern everything and a ton of offroad specific goodies previously not available from the factory in the US.


----------



## Gitcha Sum (May 27, 2008)

robbyb413 said:


> and could also find parts easily.


This is the main reason I take a Cherokee into the woods and beat it, when there's other "better" options out there. If it says "wrangler" or "Jeep" on it, or in the name, it's costing a pretty penny. Wranglers and (the good) Rovers, are in similiar condition in junkyards picked clean, with 10 complete cherokees sitting next to them. 
Capable from the factory comes 1 time, and will take you into the woods, but even with the best equipment, it's never guaranteed to bring you out. Then you're replacing broken parts. For me, to pay to play on something like a JK, or a LR/RR, or hell a G-wagen, well it just isn't in the cards. Now, if I lived in Germany, and could go to a u-pull-it, and they had G500's in various stages of decay, I would rock one in a heartbeat. No question about it. Chero-what? 
I'm not saying that Cherokee would satisfy the answer to this thread at all, just a mini-tangent on how parts availability is a real good point to bring up. 

Also this:



Sporin said:


> morecarsthanbrains, Well said.


----------



## CreeperSleeper (May 29, 2003)

FYI, you can import in 70-series Land Cruisers... There is one that is daily driven in Tualatin, OR I see every once in a while and a handful of TLCA members in the states have them. :thumbup:


----------



## rcr_x (Apr 21, 1999)

deucestudios said:


> This is the main reason I take a Cherokee into the woods and beat it, when there's other "better" options out there. If it says "wrangler" or "Jeep" on it, or in the name, it's costing a pretty penny. Wranglers and (the good) Rovers, are in similiar condition in junkyards picked clean, with 10 complete cherokees sitting next to them.
> Capable from the factory comes 1 time, and will take you into the woods, but even with the best equipment, it's never guaranteed to bring you out. Then you're replacing broken parts. For me, to pay to play on something like a JK, or a LR/RR, or hell a G-wagen, well it just isn't in the cards. Now, if I lived in Germany, and could go to a u-pull-it, and they had G500's in various stages of decay, I would rock one in a heartbeat. No question about it. Chero-what?
> I'm not saying that Cherokee would satisfy the answer to this thread at all, just a mini-tangent on how parts availability is a real good point to bring up.
> 
> Also this:


This is the truth. They built Cherokees continuously from 1982 to 2001? or something. several million were built. Lots of cheap parts around. I have a 1996 Discovery and for some reason there are tons of cheap used ones around Portland here. I'm tempted to pick up some extra axles just in case!


----------



## npleshek (Feb 2, 2011)

The smart wheeler is the one in the cherokee that wheels it to the breaking point and then limps back to have it fixed the next day. I do agree with that, but it really all depends on what kind of trail you are running. If you were to hop through a small rock garden or up a decent incline, the xj will perform great with a good set of tires. But as soon as it becomes a little more technical, the tj is hands over heels better...


----------



## robbyb413 (May 12, 2002)

deucestudios said:


> This is the main reason I take a Cherokee into the woods and beat it, when there's other "better" options out there. If it says "wrangler" or "Jeep" on it, or in the name, it's costing a pretty penny. Wranglers and (the good) Rovers, are in similiar condition in junkyards picked clean, with 10 complete cherokees sitting next to them.


That's a very interesting thought process you have, considering that so many Jeep Wrangler, Cherokee, and GC parts in the running gear department, the stuff you're going to break while wheeling, is interchangeable or can be adapted to work and all cost about the same from the vendors anyway. 

Really though, an XJ has no bearing on this since the OP set forth the 5 year rule and they're not going to meet anyone's criteria of being the "most capable" in stock form with only a tire change. If you were to put 30" mud tires on there you'd be running at it's max it will fit without lift, and those won't have the ability to let your axles play about without rubbing. That's a disadvantage out of the box that you can't get around. 

Mod for Mod the XJ costs more than TJs and JKs as well because you just have more work and dump more cash into mods to do to keep up with the TJ or the JK. It takes twice as much lift to clear the same tires with the XJ, and that creates extra cost and extra labor at each stage of your build. They're not the smart move for wheeling at all, really.


----------



## Quinn1.8t (Oct 8, 2006)

robbyb413 said:


> Mod for Mod the XJ costs more than TJs and JKs as well because you just have more work and dump more cash into mods to do to keep up with the TJ or the JK. It takes twice as much lift to clear the same tires with the XJ, and that creates extra cost and extra labor at each stage of your build. They're not the smart move for wheeling at all, really.


If one is considering each 4x4 vehicle soley by the amount of money and work to make it more capable, than no, an XJ would not be a good choice. But an XJ has wayy more interior space for gear and luggage than a TJ, and I think that's the reason why most go with an XJ.


----------



## EC Transplant (Aug 27, 2005)

I'm glad for the discussion that is going on here and I have learned a lot so far, being an off-road newbie. Definitely a good mature discussion regarding the overall driving approach to driving off-road.

The XJ discussion, while being quite informative and ultimately is one approach when building a dedicated/dual-purpose rig, is outside the bounds of what one can get in the past five years. It definitely has given me some insight on what to do/build for a more trail capable rig in the future, because it is a somewhat similar approach to building my previous track/auto-x '91 civic si.

Carry on :thumbup:


----------



## CBJ (Sep 16, 2000)

CreeperSleeper said:


> FYI, you can import in 70-series Land Cruisers... There is one that is daily driven in Tualatin, OR I see every once in a while and a handful of TLCA members in the states have them. :thumbup:



Are you sure they aren't old Prados instead of newer 76s. I can't see why new LCs wouldn't be restricted like cars of similar vintage.


----------



## CreeperSleeper (May 29, 2003)

CBJ said:


> Are you sure they aren't old Prados instead of newer 76s. I can't see why new LCs wouldn't be restricted like cars of similar vintage.


Yes, I'm sure. All cars are restricted but there are ways around it. You probably couldn't license a new 70-series but I know I could get a late 80's one here with OR plates and title!


----------



## Sporin (Feb 17, 1999)

There's definitely a few in the states, gray-market trucks. Some states are easier then others to get (and keep) them registered legally in.

1985 is the year anything we want can be imported, you're starting to see some of the legal, 25-year old BJ70's hit the market now.

Of course, in Canada, it's only 15 years so there are a lot more choices up in the land of poutine and bagged milk.


----------



## Gitcha Sum (May 27, 2008)

robbyb413 said:


> That's a very interesting thought process you have, considering that so many Jeep Wrangler, Cherokee, and GC parts in the running gear department, the stuff you're going to break while wheeling, is interchangeable or can be adapted to work and all cost about the same from the vendors anyway.
> 
> Really though, an XJ has no bearing on this since the OP set forth the 5 year rule and they're not going to meet anyone's criteria of being the "most capable" in stock form with only a tire change. If you were to put 30" mud tires on there you'd be running at it's max it will fit without lift, and those won't have the ability to let your axles play about without rubbing. That's a disadvantage out of the box that you can't get around.
> 
> Mod for Mod the XJ costs more than TJs and JKs as well because you just have more work and dump more cash into mods to do to keep up with the TJ or the JK. It takes twice as much lift to clear the same tires with the XJ, and that creates extra cost and extra labor at each stage of your build. They're not the smart move for wheeling at all, really.


Since we know have the blessing of the OP to continue this, and the Yota/Rover guys are looking the other way, on their own separate tangent...

It was never my intention to propose Cherokee as a contender in this thread. I was just reinforcing the point you were making about parts availability. If you're gonna play, you're gonna break stuff. If you want to play cheap, weekends you're not trail riding, you're junkyard diggin. 

On the wrangler/cherokee debate. Stock for stock? There is no debate that the wrangler is better than the station wagon. I wouldn't even go there. 

Cost? You brought up cost? :laugh:
Sure... it could be done similiarly, if you ignore purchase price completely. :laugh:
4.0L, AX-15 trans, np231 with 100k
Cherokee? $1000-$2000
Wrangler? $4000-$8000

A lot of the parts interchange, a lot more than you'd think don't. 
Axle shafts do, but the carrier is different, and gear sets are different. Some TJ guys upgrade to the high pinion 30 from the XJ, which is slightly better than the low pinion 30 in the TJ. 
Driveshafts, totally different. 
Rear axles, totally different. If you're gonna change coil buckets to leaves, or vice versa, you're not using something out of an XJ, unless you find an 87 with a D44, and even then, you'd get more for it with leaf perches than you would with coil buckets. 
Most GC's are 5 on 5, and have D44A. I'd take the knuckles and lower control arms, but that's about it. Axle width ain't the same. ZJ Grands (93-98) had a lot more parts that can be used, they were a lot more XJ back then, but they're getting sparse in the yards I go to.
Springs? different widths & rates. Sure they can be swapped, but a 3" front spring kit for a TJ does not equal 3" on the front of a Cherokee. 
Putting an XJ 4.0L in a Wrangler? Think again, unless you don't really need an alternator.

eace:


----------



## robbyb413 (May 12, 2002)

deucestudios said:


> Cost? You brought up cost? :laugh:
> Sure... it could be done similiarly, if you ignore purchase price completely. :laugh:
> 4.0L, AX-15 trans, np231 with 100k
> Cherokee? $1000-$2000
> Wrangler? $4000-$8000


You drink the JeepForum XJ Kool Aid Deep don't you? :laugh:

Good luck finding someone other than an XJ owner trying to tell themselves they made the right choice in vehicle selection to believe that price differential! Sure Suzy Soccer mom overpays, but that's not the buyer to put into play when you're trying to make a point as it pertains to this thread about people who are buying them to take off road. TJs with less mileage and some light mods are $5k all day. You can grab 97 and 98s for $2500-3k with those specs and mileage at this point. 

Dream on with that XJ being the better choice friend! :laugh:

Tell you what though, find me someone who's willing to spend that on a TJ with 100k and I'll sell them one all day long for profit with all the cheap jeeps on CL. Heck, I didn't even pay that much for one that's only a few years old with under 40k on the odometer. And it came with 4" of lift, 33" tires, adjustable track bars, adjustable control arms, 4.10 gearing, and a s35 with an OX, among other things. The most Jeeps were going for other than the dealerships was $5k. :laugh:


----------



## Quinn1.8t (Oct 8, 2006)

robbyb413 said:


> Tell you what though, find me someone who's willing to spend that on a TJ with 100k and I'll sell them one all day long for profit with all the cheap jeeps on CL. Heck, I didn't even pay that much for one that's only a few years old with under 40k on the odometer. And it came with 4" of lift, 33" tires, adjustable track bars, adjustable control arms, 4.10 gearing, and a s35 with an OX, among other things. The most Jeeps were going for other than the dealerships was $5k. :laugh:


Really? At least in the western part of the state, Wranglers hold their value MUCH better than Cherokees.

And if you did pick up a TJ that was well modded with under 40k miles for around $6k, than you definitely got a deal and that is not the norm.


----------



## MCTB (Dec 30, 2005)

Sporin said:


> There's definitely a few in the states, gray-market trucks. Some states are easier then others to get (and keep) them registered legally in.
> 
> 1985 is the year anything we want can be imported, you're starting to see some of the legal, 25-year old BJ70's hit the market now.
> 
> Of course, in Canada, it's only 15 years so there are a lot more choices up in the land of poutine and bagged milk.


There are a few 70s in the States. Most are in under the 25 year law. Problem is finding a good one. Just about everything, with rare exception, coming out of Canadia are buckets of rust. Finding a good one is tough. True, in Canadia they can get their hands on diesel 80s but they cannot come into this country and from everything that I have read, that is under fire too. 

As for the Cherokee argument. I had one. It was okay. 4.7 stroker with lift and 33's. It was pretty damn fast and did alright on the trail but I really didnt like it. Are they pretty capable? Sure they are and they are definitely much cheaper than a similar condition Wrangler but the Wrangler has its advantages of coils all around (TJ ->) and a frame (not getting into unibody v. frame debate). The plus to any Jeep is that you can find parts ANYWHERE. Others, not so much. Its all in the market availability. Its like taxis. In Europe, Mercs are taxis. Here, they are luxury cars. If I need a part for my BJ60, I might find one or two 60s in the junkyard (and they wont be diesels) for every 50 Jeeps. 

If you have the money (I cant be the only one who thinks that Rubicons are crazy over priced), I would go the the Jeep dealer and plunk down on whatever style you want. If you dont like them, go to the Nissan dealer and get an XTerra with the Off Road package. If you dont like that, find a diesel powered WK Jeep Grand Cherokee (the Quadratrac II, or whatever, works really really well). 

G Wagons are okay but overpriced, undersupplied and spares are strictly controlled by Mercedes so forget dealer alternatives for new parts. Leg humpers will expound the advantages of a Power Wagon or a Raptor but will never mention that the damn things are just too wide for most trails (depends on where you live though). Land Rovers are great but I wouldnt be caught dead on a trail with a new one. Forget it. Did a Rover event and a guy showed up with an LR3 with every bit of kit on it. He took the entrance road at Rausch, bypassed the first trail and then decided to turn around and go back to the lot. I have a few pictures of a guy who had an LR3. He was in Moab, way out in the middle of nowhere and had a suspension failure. It fell flat onto its right front wheel and was not drivable. That was an expensive tow.


----------



## addictedtogum (Sep 20, 2005)

robbyb413 said:


> Good luck finding someone other than an XJ owner trying to tell themselves they made the right choice in vehicle selection to believe that price differential! Sure Suzy Soccer mom overpays, but that's not the buyer to put into play when you're trying to make a point as it pertains to this thread about people who are buying them to take off road. TJs with less mileage and some light mods are $5k all day. You can grab 97 and 98s for $2500-3k with those specs and mileage at this point.


i don't know the market on the east coast, but there is not a chance in hell i could get into a wrangler (TJ, YJ, CJ, what have you) for what i have in my XJ ('95, 155). I have $2k in my XJ, sitting on 31s and 3in lift. That includes the maintenence i have done on it (new calipers, brake lines, fluids, waterpump, diff fluid, spark plugs, recovery points, etc, etc)

You cannot get a solid good running wrangler for $2k, trust me. my buddy just bought a barely running '88 wrangler for $2.8k and even that was a good deal.

I'm not arguing that an XJ is better than a wrangler, but to get on the trails on the cheap, an XJ is a no-brainer.....


----------



## Gitcha Sum (May 27, 2008)

robbyb413 said:


> You drink the JeepForum XJ Kool Aid Deep don't you? :laugh:
> 
> Good luck finding someone other than an XJ owner trying to tell themselves they made the right choice in vehicle selection to believe that price differential! Sure Suzy Soccer mom overpays, but that's not the buyer to put into play when you're trying to make a point as it pertains to this thread about people who are buying them to take off road. TJs with less mileage and some light mods are $5k all day. You can grab 97 and 98s for $2500-3k with those specs and mileage at this point.
> 
> ...


It's cheaper to wheel a Cherokee than it is to wheel a Wrangler. You think I'm wrong, then prove it. That's the only point I'm making, and I'm starting to feel like an ass for talking about it in this thread, because defending the XJ was never my intention. Stock, it's not an extremely capable offroader, it does well, but not amazing. If you add a few bits, it can be a very cheap way to have some fun.
*The TJ Wrangler is better off road than the Cherokee*, but less common and typically picked clean in junkyards. 

Yours was 4.10? axle swap or 2.5L? 
You might want to check out Boston's craigslist, you may be surprised by the numbers. 
If you could find that TJ for $3000, then I'd be doing a 4 coil lift for my old man this weekend, instead of 2 coils and 2 leaves. We looked since around thanksgiving last year for that bargain wrangler you're talking about, and couldn't find one worth buying for 3 or 4 grand, so he settled on a Cherokee. Yes, settled. Because the wrangler would have been the better choice for what he's going to use it for, but price ended up being the determining factor. 
I'm on JeepForum, but I'm speaking from 5 years experience in a XJ, 3 years in a TJ, and 4 years in a YJ wrangler. Not trying to boast, or talk down to anyone, all I'm saying, is I'm speaking from personal experience, I'm not just spewing BS I read online. 



morecarsthanbrains said:


> Did a Rover event and a guy showed up with an LR3 with every bit of kit on it. He took the entrance road at Rausch, bypassed the first trail and then decided to turn around and go back to the lot.


Running over the little rocks as you cut through the comp course is serious business. :laugh:


----------



## MCTB (Dec 30, 2005)

deucestudios said:


> Running over the little rocks as you cut through the comp course is serious business. :laugh:


Absolutely is. He got out of his truck with a Nautica jacket, a salmon Polo shirt, some sort of footwear like topsiders and one of those leather/ fabric belts with little sailboats sewn on it. Went perfectly with the truck. It was all kind of comical really. I wouldnt wish one of those new Rovers on an enemy.


----------



## Quinn1.8t (Oct 8, 2006)

morecarsthanbrains said:


> I wouldnt wish one of those new Rovers on an enemy.


Meh. If you got the money to wheel one, why not?


----------



## MCTB (Dec 30, 2005)

Quinn1.8t said:


> Meh. If you got the money to wheel one, why not?


Thats not you and Ive seen that before. Its not so much about the money its about the likelihood of failure when you need it most. It could be the most capable truck on paper with every traction and electronic aid known to man but if they wont work together, why bother? 

GWagens are expensive to wheel but you know what? They will get you there and back. The same cannot be said about the LR3/ LR4/ LQ series Range Rovers.


----------



## Quinn1.8t (Oct 8, 2006)

morecarsthanbrains said:


> Thats not you and Ive seen that before. Its not so much about the money its about the likelihood of failure when you need it most. It could be the most capable truck on paper with every traction and electronic aid known to man but if they wont work together, why bother?
> 
> GWagens are expensive to wheel but you know what? They will get you there and back. The same cannot be said about the LR3/ LR4/ LQ series Range Rovers.


I never said that was me. It's just a random picture I found. I would never wheel a newer Land Rover because of the reasons you just mentioned.

But like I said, if you have the money to buy one, fix it when it breaks, and for an expensive tow, then why the heck not? If going wheeling did not have any risks, than it would not be nearly as fun.

EDIT: If you were going on a trip across South America where a major breakdown would be catastrophic, than of course an LR3/4 would be an awful choice. But most trails in the US are not very far from civilization and cell service, and most people wheel in groups anyway.

EDIT 2: I don't disagree with you, but basically what I am trying to say is that it's a fine vehicle for someone who has money and is doing light-duty off roading. But saying "I wouldn't wish it on my enemy" is taking it a little too far IMO :thumbup:


----------



## unimogken (Jan 19, 2005)

It doesn't surprise me that this thread went the Jeep route because these threads always head that way.

So i'm going to retract my vote for a G-Wagon and/or a Unimog and i'm going to vote for a Crown Victoria!


----------



## [email protected] USA (May 17, 2007)

robbyb413 said:


> You drink the JeepForum XJ Kool Aid Deep don't you? :laugh:............
> 
> 
> .... TJs with less mileage and some light mods are $5k all day. You can grab 97 and 98s for $2500-3k with those specs and mileage at this point.
> ...



I see both your points (aside from the XJ not fitting the bill here personally for me its better).

I had a GC, sold that for a ram 2500 cummins since full sizes are coming up, sold that got an XJ, traded that for a parts mk4 jetta and currently dailying my GFs TJ with the cummins swap I did. 

The only one I have truely taken off road and not just some fireroads or mud is the TJ. Even 2wd (still haven't regeared front after cummins swap) it was very very capable as long as I bypassed the mud the torque got me up and over anything else . But from what little I have done in any vehicle and anythign I would want to do the XJ would be better for me. I like the space i like the wheelbase being a little longer. 

Around here though price wise you can buy 10 Xjs for the price of one early TJ and just going on CL you can find them 40:1. I can also see the poitns about parts, even though they interchange its not always just about drivetrain. At the pull apart they have over 20XJs right now and in the 2+ years I have been going have had maybe 5 ZJs and never a single wrangler (They do currently have a rolling frame for an FJ40 and a roofless fairly beatup FJ40 as well). The TJs someone slaps on a 2" spring spacer lift from ebay on it and they want 2grand over a stock one. 


The XJs around here are beat but they didn't rot through like they did in the Northeast. TJs are fun but its not like they are some fantastic winter vehicle. Yet a convertible in the south is in high demand, especially when we get into the summer with no rain you don't have to put the top up for months. 

PA off-roading mentality I Think is closer to GA mentality which differs from Northeast so what is there and what people want is going to vary slightly.

Going with what the OP set my vote goes for JK rubicon as well, despite having a hard time thinking about spending 30grand on something I plan to go bang up.

If it was 10 year though I'd go XJ personally...Capabilities will be similar (as people have said drivetrains are the same) with slight favor to the TJ in 100% stock , saying TJ because I am assuming same year for the vehicles. The increased interior volume would make it overall a more capable vehicle for me. We have to keep the rear set out in the TJ to fit the 4 dogs, we can fold down the seat in the XJ if we want or keep them all in the back it stays up.


----------



## robbyb413 (May 12, 2002)

We're so far off the original point. Good to see a busy thread in here.

I'm not going to address the XJ vs TJ thing line by line - we're debating "best" here from two different perspectives. The XJ is being called "best" because it's cheap. The TJ is called "best" because it's more capable. We're talking about off-roading performance here though so who cares if the TJ costs a little more? At the end of the day you want a rig that can finish the trail and the TJ is more likely to put you in that position for your spend. It's price vs. value. A good price is only good if there's value to it, otherwise you're a fool.

The TJ can go harder out of the box than the XJ. It has superior approach, departure, and break over angles. This matters. It means that of the two stock rigs the TJ is more likely to drive over the same obstacle with ease and without beating itself up. As you put money into the rig the TJ will always be starting from a better baseline. Saving money on the XJ doesn't look so good when the TJ drives home at the end of the day and the XJ is all wonky because you hit something when you approached an obstacle. You now have to pay money to fix that. 

Then as you dump money into mods, it's going to take more to get the XJ to the point that the TJ starts from. When you have to install twice as much lift to fit the same tire under the XJ as you do under the TJ there is a cost to that. What are you really saving when you spend more to make it ready for the trails you want to take it on?

Just looking at the things that commonly go on the trail - axles, u-joints, steering components, shocks - there really isn't any advantage to the XJ because those parts are interchangeable or cost the same either way. That's the stuff that breaks all the time, run in and run out. It's not magically more expensive for the TJ over the XJ. So you're not gaining anything by trying to sub in the XJ for a TJ as if those parts are somehow easier/cheaper to obtain.

Plus as you look at all the little things with the way the TJ was built its even more apparent that is the better move. 

Take the tail-lights for instance. If I squeeze the back of a TJ past a tree it can scratch the corner of the tub, maybe push it in a little. It's fine, just pop it back out or put corner guards on it. If I bust the tail-light in the process, which isn't really that likely, I can go to any auto parts store and replace it for $5. If you do the same with the XJ you're going to destroy the tail light housing, which is more than $5 to replace, and then you're going to be beating at the corner to try to make the thing fit in there. And you're gong to bang that light off a rock again - it's just sitting out there at the corner of the rig. Enjoy doing that over and over again!

Or let's talk about driving through water. Get you cabin filled with water. Not a big deal on the TJ. It has nice big drain holes and since the carpet is made to come out the owner probably wasn't running it to begin with so the water is out and he's dry before he makes it home. In the XJ the holes aren't so good, and your carpet doesn't come out without removing trim and IIRC seats. You're full of water all the way home. Sure, you can rhino-line either and not deal with that at all, but most people don't. Who wants a rig that smells like a mud hole 2 weeks removed from a trail ride? Not me. 

Or let's say you want to add a winch to your rig. For a TJ owner it takes 10 minutes to add a winch. You literally remove 4 bolts, put the winchplate/winch down, and put the 4 bolts back in. Hook up power and ground which takes seconds since it's easy to pass those through the TJs wide open grill Done. The XJ owner however, in addition to purchasing the winch, needs to go buy an expensive off-road bumper . You need to pull off your stock bumper. You need to install the new bumper. You need to bolt the winch to it. You need to find a way to work the power and ground through the tight grill, and then you're finally done. That's way more cost and effort for that one mod.

Are those things huge? Not really, but they add up. When everything about the TJ was built with more intentions of the thing being easy to take offroad and repair there are little bits of time and cost savings all around that really make add up. You saved a few bucks when you bought the XJ, but it's a short term gain long term loss. All those little things they didn't do on the XJ come back to bite you. 

Call my crazy, but my stance is that a lower price of admission really does not equate to "better" here. TJ has much more value. :screwy:


----------



## [email protected] USA (May 17, 2007)

If I said the XJ was better at all in my post in regards to anything but my personal needs i didn't mean it that way.

Only about half what you listed there as interchangeable is actually interchangeable, similar in design but not actually interchangeable. So 20:0 ratio of junk yard parts is appealing to some knowing it will be there and a direct fit. 

Better availability of parts, lower entry price, can for some make it a better choice, so i 100% see the logic in someone feeling an XJ is better without ever having a sip of any sugary beverage.


Now I do need to question your sanity in regards to your comment on the tailights.. So what you are telling me is that body damage requiring saying a 150+ buck bolt on overlay and a 5 dollar tailight is better than 30 bucks shipped for a pair of replacement XJ tailights? I get the XJ could also result in some body damage and require repair, for 150 bucks I can buy another entire XJ though.. and it probably comes with tailights .

IF I bust a corner on a 5K TJ or even worse a newer more expensive JK I'm going to be pissed and fix it for real or actually buy that cover panel at the very least. If I bust a corner on a 500 buck XJ I'll laugh and kick the other side to match. Not condoning reckless and intentional damage, but there is value in not caring if it does occur that can make a beat up stock POS more capable than a minty brand new one if you don't even have the balls to try something with it.


all that is hypothetical and of course nothing in that comparison fits the 5year thing, but yeah it is a good discussion and I don't think anyone can come up with an answer better than a jk rubicon at this point so unless the argument is going to be 2 or 4 doors might as well discuss other things or end it 

I it was 10 years though and comparing similary spec'd wrangler vs cherokee I think it would come down to needs of the person to tip which is more capable, yes nod to the wrangler mostly likely but my needs would put me in an XJ


----------



## auburnjosh (Mar 4, 2004)

I think the Rubicon but what are the FJ Cruiser's w/trail teams package like?


----------



## EL_3grab (Mar 25, 2006)

We can get this here










*+*


----------



## Quinn1.8t (Oct 8, 2006)

auburnjosh said:


> I think the Rubicon but what are the FJ Cruiser's w/trail teams package like?


A fine off road vehicle no doubt, but still not up the level of a Rubicon as it is IFS and does not have a front locker.


----------



## Sporin (Feb 17, 1999)

EL_3grab said:


> We can get this here
> 
> 
> 
> ...


:drool:


----------



## 01tj (Nov 8, 2005)

You can't beat a Rubicon, it can't be done at least in my area. You could not get a power wagon (or anything bigger than a Wrangler) down 90% of the trails in my area.


----------



## MCTB (Dec 30, 2005)

EL_3grab said:


> We can get this here
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wouldnt mind this in a slightly longer package. So very nice.


----------



## robbyb413 (May 12, 2002)

[email protected] said:


> If I said the XJ was better at all in my post in regards to anything but my personal needs i didn't mean it that way.


I wasn't responding to you really, rather the string of general XJ posts I missed out on by taking a few days off from the board.



> Only about half what you listed there as interchangeable is actually interchangeable, similar in design but not actually interchangeable. So 20:0 ratio of junk yard parts is appealing to some knowing it will be there and a direct fit.


Interchangable or not, the stuff all costs the same. It's not like the little bits you break off road differ in cost between the various jeeps. Most runs you go on don't result in someone exploding their d30/d35/d44. Someone usually busts a u-joint on a driveshaft. Someone comes down too hard on their steering and has to replace a drag link or tie rod. Etc etc. That stuff is all cheap and/or the same between them. My neighbor has a HP d30 from an XJ in his TJ. It pretty much just bolted in there. In my TJ I have the steering box from a Durango and while the pitman arm is stock TJ everything else attached to it to turn my wheels is from a Grand Cherokee. Chrysler is all about cutting costs and making parts easy to interchange to keep costs down. And the stuff that doesn't swap isn't because one is special and thus priced at a higher level, it's just a different part at around the same cost.



> Now I do need to question your sanity in regards to your comment on the tailights.. So what you are telling me is that body damage requiring saying a 150+ buck bolt on overlay and a 5 dollar tailight is better than 30 bucks shipped for a pair of replacement XJ tailights? I get the XJ could also result in some body damage and require repair, for 150 bucks I can buy another entire XJ though.. and it probably comes with tailights .
> 
> IF I bust a corner on a 5K TJ or even worse a newer more expensive JK I'm going to be pissed and fix it for real or actually buy that cover panel at the very least. If I bust a corner on a 500 buck XJ I'll laugh and kick the other side to match. Not condoning reckless and intentional damage, but there is value in not caring if it does occur that can make a beat up stock POS more capable than a minty brand new one if you don't even have the balls to try something with it.


If you bust a corner on a XJ you're exploding the light and it's not going to ever bolt back in again because the sheet metal will be too screwy. You may bust your glass, and you also might have your tailgate not able to close. That's going to be much more repair time and cost than the TJ... If you hit the corner on a TJ chances are nothing happens. It might get scratched. It might pop the $4.99 tail light off. It may bend in a bit. No big deal. If it bends, you just bend it back out and all things are well. If you think it's ugly corner guards cost nothing. If they cost you $150 I'll sell you mine and replace them at a profit. You're also not taking into account all the work you'd need to go through to bring a $150 XJ back to road worthiness and then swap your gear over to it. :laugh:

The TJ is made to take down the trail and bang off stuff. It's built in such a way that casualties are conveniently minimized and repair time is shortened vs the XJ.

If your wheel slips and you hit the bumper on a TJ you've maybe bent a stamped metal throwaway bumper. If you do the same on an XJ you've just cost yourself a bumper cover, a headlight, a grille, a fender, and all the stuff that makes the front end of the XJ so finished. It's labor to pound all of that back into shape and costs money to replace the plastic you broke.

If the truck in front of you tosses a rock that hits your TJ's grill you might have a rock chip or a bend. If the truck in front of you tosses a rock that hits your XJs grill you now have a custom front grill and maybe some bent fins on your radiator. The touch up paint for the TJ is cheaper than the replacement grill you now need to buy.

You can go on with more of those - all sorts of little trail scenarios where the TJ puts you on top.

Plus do we want to get into the drawbacks of the XJ being unibody when we're comparing it to the TJ's body-on-frame construction? :screwy:

The XJ just doesn't hold up long run next to the TJ. They're cool. I'd take one over some other options, but when you're talking about running twice as much lift, having to strengthen the body F/S/R, and doing all the work of putting a long arm on an XJ just to make is do the same thing some schlub in a TJ is doing with just a 3" lift kit and some 33 inch tires it just doesn't make sense to save money on the cost of admission for a trail rig. And on the them of the original post they just don't hold up stock XJ vs stock TJ from a performance perspective. The TJ has shorter overhangs and a shorter chassis, which all mean it's going to be more capable for trail obstacles. The TJ can also run at least a 1" bigger tire than the XJ without any other mods which adds to the hole that the XJ starts from. 

Plus TJs can go topless and doorless without being illegal to run on the streets, violating any offroad club rules, or needing to do any welding to account for the loss in structural rigidity when you DIY those on an XJ. More visibility off road is never a bad thing, and neither is spending more time wheeling and less time in the garage welding! :laugh:


----------



## addictedtogum (Sep 20, 2005)

robbyb413 said:


> If your wheel slips and you hit the bumper on a TJ you've maybe bent a stamped metal throwaway bumper. If you do the same on an XJ you've just cost yourself a bumper cover, a headlight, a grille, a fender, and all the stuff that makes the front end of the XJ so finished. It's labor to pound all of that back into shape and costs money to replace the plastic you broke.
> 
> If the truck in front of you tosses a rock that hits your TJ's grill you might have a rock chip or a bend. If the truck in front of you tosses a rock that hits your XJs grill you now have a custom front grill and maybe some bent fins on your radiator. The touch up paint for the TJ is cheaper than the replacement grill you now need to buy.


:screwy: have u seen the bumper on an XJ. Its POS stamped metal, stupid cheap and easy to replace. Have u seen a XJ grill? It has better coverage than the TJ, and its a cheap POS plastic piece, $5 at a pick and pull. Custom front grill :screwy:

Dude, we know a TJ is better all around than an XJ, but your said arguements are weak IMO.


----------



## addictedtogum (Sep 20, 2005)

should we get into the arguement of a stock $5k TJ (relative market value), compared to a stock $1K XJ with $4k of work into it, and which one would perform better? :laugh:


----------



## [email protected] USA (May 17, 2007)

So what you are saying is that the same hit on an XJ that would bust the panel, glass, tailight and cause the hatch not to close would just scratch TJ?

What are you on?

You have a valid point that in some cases more damage may happen but don't make it sound like hte TJ is bullet proof there is a reason that those repair panels exist and that is because people smash the crap out of them and they must be repaired. 

You can bang it up so the hatch won't close. Yeah it might not have glass but you can smash the area where the window locks in so you can't get the rear side panels back in. 

As for the tailights themselves I couldn't find single lights for less then I bought pairs of new XJ lights for. 


As someone else already responded to the grill comments are beyond comical. I reach my hand through the stock TJ grill to tighten the bolts on my intercooler which sits where the stock radiator/condensor would be.


----------



## cred05 (Jun 21, 2008)

morecarsthanbrains said:


> The same cannot be said about the LR3/ LR4/ LQ series Range Rovers.


I've got an LR3 with 120K miles that begs to differ. Regularly taken offroad, daily driven.


----------



## Sporin (Feb 17, 1999)

Can you _please_ take the XJ vs TJ discussion to another thread please? The XJ does not apply to this topic even remotely.
:beer:


----------



## EC Transplant (Aug 27, 2005)

cred05 said:


> I've got an LR3 with 120K miles that begs to differ. Regularly taken offroad, daily driven.


So I've searched the LR forums regarding the modern Land Rovers and Range Rovers, here's probably the one of the responses that best explains the differences between the Rovers and it's solid axle counterparts:

*I copied the below text out of a post on the Land Rover National Rally thread I started here on the LR4 forum. nwoods is the poster:

"A Note About Modern Rovers
Modern Rover is an IFS suspension version, such as the LR3, Range Rover Sport, or MkIII Range Rover. I do not include Freelanders or LR2's because they do not have Low Range transfer cases nor adjustable suspension (off road height).

I call them Modern Rovers because their origin is with BMW and Ford, unlike the drivetrain from the Disco II and Disco 1, which are directly carried over from the Classic, and before that, the precursor to the Classic, which I can't recall the name of...starts with a V? (Velar?)

I single out Modern Rovers because their electrowizardry turns ordinary trail rating system into mush. Traditional trail ratings are all about lockers and tire size. An LR3 for example, can out climb just about any locked vehicle on the planet through it's phenomenal traction control, amazing 13" long travel suspension, and incredibly tight turning radius. However, it has very limited clearance. Which means obstacles that challenge even the stoutest of traditional solid axle rigs are a piece of cake for a Modern Rover, but if the rocks get too big, the Modern Rover will never have a chance due to limited clearance.

It makes picking trails that you are not familiar with very difficult when you own a Modern Rover. You really need to know why a trail has earned a given rating. If it's big rocks, bad news and don't bother. If it's anything else beside big rocks, pretty much no problem for a Modern Rover. 

My point is not that the Modern Rover is "better", it's that their capabilities are very different, making the trail rating system almost useless. The nature of the obstacle is the deciding factor, not the difficulty level. In the past few years, the LR3's have mastered trails that "old school" participants thought the LR3 would never ever make it through.

However, I think there are dozens of trails you will never see an LR3 on, because of the size of rocks and ledges. Pritchard Canyon is one good example. An LR3 will fail big time there."*


----------



## Sporin (Feb 17, 1999)

Everything I've read about the modern Rovers agrees with that.

Same can be said for the modern Land Cruisers. The newest ones have some brilliant electronic 4x4 wizardry and can tackle _really_ challenging terrain *if* it can keep it's painted bits off the rocks.


----------



## MCTB (Dec 30, 2005)

cred05 said:


> I've got an LR3 with 120K miles that begs to differ. Regularly taken offroad, daily driven.


But what type of terrain is it? My Disco would tackle anything and could make it through where an LR3 couldnt dream of going. The above quote about the LR3+ line of Rovers is true. You have sensors and suspension travel (which I believe is a LOT more compression than droop) but you lack clearance. I have seen a few LR3s that have sat their front or rear ends on the top of their tires due to suspension failures rendering them inoperable. I just cannot wheel an electro wizard truck with confidence. Every obstacle contains unknowns and those unknowns could easily render a sensor useless. Take your LR3 through a muddy hole, hook an ABS/ wheel sensor and voila, no more fancy traction control. Your truck can no longer judge wheel speed and will not be able to tell if that wheel is spinning and lock it up. Air bag sensors fail very often and results in an immovable object. Every truck can potentially break a suspension component but a spring is much harder to break than a sensor. I could not wheel, with any sort of confidence, a modern Rover. Talk all you want about advanced traction aids. There are just too many drawbacks and potential failures. One of the most capable SUVs out there is a GWagen and they have crap for suspension flex. They do, however, have selectable lockers front, center and rear to make up for it. 

All of this though hinges upon your definition of off road. Fire roads? Easy. Middle part of the US? Easy. Most trails in the West? Easy. Mid Atlantic/ New England and Pacific Northwest? Forget about it. For me, I will stick to the old school lockers, lift for clearance and better angles and a winch to help me out with anything else.


----------



## cred05 (Jun 21, 2008)

New LR's might have independent suspensions, but don't let it fool you.

"Land Rover developed 'cross-linked' air suspension to solve this problem – when needed, the suspension mimics the action of a beam axle (as one wheel drops, the other rises). If the chassis of the vehicle contacts the ground when the suspension was at its 'off road' height, the system senses the reduction in load on the air springs and raises the vehicle an extra inch."


----------



## cred05 (Jun 21, 2008)

morecarsthanbrains said:


> But what type of terrain is it? My Disco would tackle anything and could make it through where an LR3 couldnt dream of going. The above quote about the LR3+ line of Rovers is true. You have sensors and suspension travel (which I believe is a LOT more compression than droop) but you lack clearance. I have seen a few LR3s that have sat their front or rear ends on the top of their tires due to suspension failures rendering them inoperable. I just cannot wheel an electro wizard truck with confidence. Every obstacle contains unknowns and those unknowns could easily render a sensor useless. Take your LR3 through a muddy hole, hook an ABS/ wheel sensor and voila, no more fancy traction control. Your truck can no longer judge wheel speed and will not be able to tell if that wheel is spinning and lock it up. Air bag sensors fail very often and results in an immovable object. Every truck can potentially break a suspension component but a spring is much harder to break than a sensor. I could not wheel, with any sort of confidence, a modern Rover. Talk all you want about advanced traction aids. There are just too many drawbacks and potential failures. One of the most capable SUVs out there is a GWagen and they have crap for suspension flex. They do, however, have selectable lockers front, center and rear to make up for it.
> 
> All of this though hinges upon your definition of off road. Fire roads? Easy. Middle part of the US? Easy. Most trails in the West? Easy. Mid Atlantic/ New England and Pacific Northwest? Forget about it. For me, I will stick to the old school lockers, lift for clearance and better angles and a winch to help me out with anything else.


This type of terrain: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnUQkm0d8zI

I had a Disco 2 before I had the LR3, so I am aware of the differences, but the LR3 seems to do it with greater ease. There are also a lot of "what-ifs" in your argument, but they are valid concerns to you, just not to me. Like I said, it's going on 5 years old now with 120K miles, reliability has never been a problem.

BTW, the Disco doesn't meet the OP's criteria, it's not new enough.


----------



## MCTB (Dec 30, 2005)

cred05 said:


> This type of terrain: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnUQkm0d8zI
> 
> I had a Disco 2 before I had the LR3, so I am aware of the differences, but the LR3 seems to do it with greater ease. There are also a lot of "what-ifs" in your argument, but they are valid concerns to you, just not to me. Like I said, it's going on 5 years old now with 120K miles, reliability has never been a problem.
> 
> BTW, the Disco doesn't meet the OP's criteria, it's not new enough.


Ohio. That would be in the middle of the country and where I said the LR3 would do well. Not a whole lot of difficult stuff in that video. Off roading, even if its driving down a tractor trail on someones farm, is full of what ifs. Its all about what you think is an acceptable risk and what is not. Whille the OP be regularly taking it off road or will it only be at rallies in fields like what youve posted? If its the latter, an LR3/4 would do well but I would still steer towards a Jeep or XTerra with the Off Road package. 

I am glad your LR3 has treated you well. Thats great. You are, however, in the minority though. There are so many people who have had issues with their LR3s, especially those from MY05-07. For me, there are just too many things that can fail and cause you real problems with real expensive tows. For me, its not worth it. My off road driving involves remote camp sites far away from towns and off of, at the tamest, unmaintained fire roads. Its just not worth the risk to me to depend on a multitude of sensors and miles of wiring with 5+ different computers to get me out.

Like I said, its a difference in what you use the truck for.


----------



## Sporin (Feb 17, 1999)

That video is exactly the type of wheeling where trucks with brilliant electric traction aids excel without damaging their shiny painted parts.

It is also 180 degrees from Northeast wheeling (rock, ledges and woods)… and a damn site different then Moab wheeling (open like that, but far rockier and ledgier.)

I don't want to sound like a hardcore douche, because I swear I'm not, but that video showed cake walk mud tracks and some grassy hills. My local Subaru place has a track much like that in the field behind their dealership to show off the Outback.


----------



## Gitcha Sum (May 27, 2008)

Even with the obvious differences in brand preference & pay grades, this has been a really civil discussion with tons of good info. 
Sorry for semi-derailing it there on the last page, that wasn't my intention. 
Keep it coming guys. :thumbup:


----------



## Quinn1.8t (Oct 8, 2006)

deucestudios said:


> Even with the obvious differences in brand preference & pay grades, this has been a really civil discussion with tons of good info.
> Sorry for semi-derailing it there on the last page, that wasn't my intention.
> Keep it coming guys. :thumbup:


x2, I was thinking the same thing. Good arguments from all parties :thumbup: even though it is not exactly on the original topic.


----------



## MCTB (Dec 30, 2005)

Sporin said:


> That video is exactly the type of wheeling where trucks with brilliant electric traction aids excel without damaging their shiny painted parts.
> 
> It is also 180 degrees from Northeast wheeling (rock, ledges and woods)… and a damn site different then Moab wheeling (open like that, but far rockier and ledgier.)
> 
> I don't want to sound like a hardcore douche, because I swear I'm not, but that video showed cake walk mud tracks and some grassy hills. My local Subaru place has a track much like that in the field behind their dealership to show off the Outback.


I didnt want to say it but you summed up what I was thinking. Thats why I qualified my remarks geographically. Its not necessarily being a "hardcore" wheeler but it all depends on where you live.


----------



## robbyb413 (May 12, 2002)

Sporin said:


> Can you _please_ take the XJ vs TJ discussion to another thread please? The XJ does not apply to this topic even remotely.
> :beer:


Now now Sporin, don't get all upset because you like Toyotas and nobody's talking about those being capable. :laugh:


----------



## Sporin (Feb 17, 1999)

robbyb413 said:


> Now now Sporin, don't get all upset because you like Toyotas and nobody's talking about those being capable. :laugh:


It's not that (as I'm sure you know  ) but 2 pages of debate about a truck that doesn't even meet the OP's qualifications (near new or new) is a waste. It's a fine discussion (XJ vs TJ) it deserves it's own thread. eace:

I'm a Toyota guy through and through and I recommended the Jeep Wrangler Rubicon. Nothing Toyota currently makes new for the US market qualifies as the "Most Off-Road Capable Stock Vehicle" imo.


----------



## Amsterdam087 (Dec 31, 2007)

Sporin said:


> It's a fine discussion (XJ vs TJ) it *deserves it's own thread*. eace:




not really, 

tj > xj


next question. 




:laugh:


----------



## robbyb413 (May 12, 2002)

We could debate _which_ Rubicon for a bit. The OP's 5yr rule allows for a TJ or JK Rubicon. They both have their pros and cons.

Anything but more talk of LR3s. I thought we took care of those on the first page?


----------



## MCTB (Dec 30, 2005)

robbyb413 said:


> We could debate _which_ Rubicon for a bit. The OP's 5yr rule allows for a TJ or JK Rubicon. They both have their pros and cons.
> 
> Anything but more talk of LR3s. I thought we took care of those on the first page?


I vote LJ Rubicon


----------



## robbyb413 (May 12, 2002)

I guess that idea didn't work, kind of killed the thread. Forget I mentioned that debate. Debate something else.


----------



## e30_miata_lowerit (Dec 12, 2009)

The Bowler Nemesis seems to fulfill all the criteria


----------



## Sporin (Feb 17, 1999)

How does a purpose-built race truck qualify as a "stock" vehicle?


----------



## MCTB (Dec 30, 2005)

e30_miata_lowerit said:


> The Bowler Nemesis seems to fulfill all the criteria


Why stop there? Why not keep going?











Oh, because this is about realistic as the Bowler.


----------



## e30_miata_lowerit (Dec 12, 2009)

I figured since it was rebranded as a Bowler it would count, guess not, sorry.


----------



## psykokid (Apr 2, 2002)

Hummer H1 Alpha Wagon- 2006 last model year so it fits under the 5 year cap. No price cap so why not. Civilianized military vehicle ftw...


----------



## SolbergWRCFan (Sep 29, 2005)

CreeperSleeper said:


> Maybe I needed to be more specific... Unimog U20 :thumbup:


Portal axles FTMFW. :beer:


----------



## unimogken (Jan 19, 2005)

Blah they're over rated.....


----------



## mbkicks10 (Dec 18, 2008)

Take a look through this thread 
http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthre...-rubicon-2-4-dr-gt-which-to-choose&p=70846297 

seems like it depends on what you are looking for

ripping through a desert = raptor 
everything else = jeep


----------



## CreeperSleeper (May 29, 2003)

unimogken said:


> Blah they're over rated.....


I was the one who suggested it, so that is probably the majority on this forum thinks! LOL



mbkicks10 said:


> Seems like it depends on what you are looking for
> 
> ripping through a desert = raptor
> everything else = jeep


So close... Except for the Jeep part. :wave:


----------



## unimogken (Jan 19, 2005)

CreeperSleeper said:


> I was the one who suggested it


I know and that was on the first page of this thread! Hehe



CreeperSleeper said:


> So close... Except for the Jeep part. :wave:


Hehe I usually just sit back and laugh at how pretty much any thread talking about 4x4's always turn into Jeep fanboy threads. Just like the how the $100k+ SUV Gwagen and Rover thread went that way. Oh well what can ya do?


----------



## SolbergWRCFan (Sep 29, 2005)

unimogken said:


> Hehe I usually just sit back and laugh at how pretty much any thread talking about 4x4's always turn into Jeep fanboy threads. Just like the how the $100k+ SUV Gwagen and Rover thread went that way. Oh well what can ya do?


That is called a Jeep complex, you wouldn't understand. :laugh:


----------



## RaminGTI20 (Sep 16, 2006)

Duh...the most obvious one!


----------



## robbyb413 (May 12, 2002)

Anyone want to suggest the H1 a 3rd time to see if maybe something changes and somebody cares? :laugh:


----------



## Sporin (Feb 17, 1999)

robbyb413 said:


> Anyone want to suggest the H1 a 3rd time to see if maybe something changes and somebody cares? :laugh:


iirc the OP does mention Moab, and maybe out there you'd get the use out of a Hummer, but anyone who's ever sat in an H1 and then stood on a forest trail of any sort, will know why it's not even close to the "most capable" for anything short of a wide open space without technical rock crawling.

1. it's way too damn big, that should be obvious. 
2. H1's really don't flex much at all due to their IFS/IRS. 

They are designed to carry extremely heavy loads at a good clip across the dessert (and not the fun, Baja-style desert, the IED-infested Middle East war zone desert).

The fact that they have a lot of ground clearance (16" from the bottom of the center chuck, 11 from the lowest point under it: A arms.) obviously has some translation to recreational offroading but their enormous size can be a progress-impeding hindrance.

Not to mention they are extremely loud, crude, machines that are not very pleasant places to spend time in.


----------



## robbyb413 (May 12, 2002)

That's the long version of what I was getting at. I just didn't really want to encourage H1-related conversation in a thread that is mostly sensible otherwise.


----------



## MCTB (Dec 30, 2005)

Sporin said:


> 2. H1's really don't flex much at all due to their IFS/IRS.


True, they dont flex much but neither do GWagens. Lockers, gearing and tires can compensate for the lack of flex.


----------



## robbyb413 (May 12, 2002)

Flex is only half the battle. The other half is the advantage that will always go to vehicle with the solid axles - solid axle will drive the opposite tire down, so that it can give you traction and stability by keeping all 4 wheels on the ground or as close to the ground as possible. How exactly is a locker or gearing going to be truly effective if the truck is putting half as much tire to the ground? Sure, the two touching earth are going to be moving the vehicle, but that's not going to do a lot for you as you slide sideways into a void in an obstacle because the vehicle is teetering and spinning.


----------



## Quinn1.8t (Oct 8, 2006)

The first time I went down to Rausch Creek, there was a group of 3 or 4 H1's. They were absolute BEASTS. We were crossing Rock Creek, taking our time, spotting each other, etc. These Hummers just drove down Rock Creek like it was a dirt road. No spotters, hell the driver was barely even paying attention to his lines. We were all amazed.

Here's a picture of Rock Creek for those who aren't familiar with it:


----------



## MCTB (Dec 30, 2005)

robbyb413 said:


> Flex is only half the battle. The other half is the advantage that will always go to vehicle with the solid axles - solid axle will drive the opposite tire down, so that it can give you traction and stability by keeping all 4 wheels on the ground or as close to the ground as possible. How exactly is a locker or gearing going to be truly effective if the truck is putting half as much tire to the ground? Sure, the two touching earth are going to be moving the vehicle, but that's not going to do a lot for you as you slide sideways into a void in an obstacle because the vehicle is teetering and spinning.


The GWagen just does it. The suspension design is such that it doesnt flex at all really and it is always putting a wheel in the air. The advantage is that it is triple locked and can keep forward momentum. The teetering and spinning comment doesnt make too much sense to me. If you are going to be sliding sideways, youll be doing it whether there are two or four wheels on the ground. If its that slick, youre sliding no matter what.


----------



## robbyb413 (May 12, 2002)

This is basic science. We learned about levers and fulcrums in 1st grade and it explains exactly why Solid axles have an advantage for wheeling, and exactly why a vehicle with independent suspension can slide off a rock and end up in a ditch in a situation where a solid axle vehicle would be much more likely to stay put. Since you're in here participating in this forum I have to assume you've wheeled before so you've seen it happen with plenty of rigs with independent suspension and how they bob, dive, and teeter and get themselves stuck in places where solid axles just plod through so you're feigning dumb on the topic to try to support some pro-independent suspension by saying my comment makes no sense.


----------



## MCTB (Dec 30, 2005)

robbyb413 said:


> This is basic science. We learned about levers and fulcrums in 1st grade and it explains exactly why Solid axles have an advantage for wheeling, and exactly why a vehicle with independent suspension can slide off a rock and end up in a ditch in a situation where a solid axle vehicle would be much more likely to stay put. Since you're in here participating in this forum I have to assume you've wheeled before so you've seen it happen with plenty of rigs with independent suspension and how they bob, dive, and teeter and get themselves stuck in places where solid axles just plod through so you're feigning dumb on the topic to try to support some pro-independent suspension by saying my comment makes no sense.


Haha, feigning dumb. Thats funny. I have wheeled before, in IFS and solid axle rigs and coil sprung and leaf sprung. So, with your argument in mind, how about this: I have seen a locked IFS rig make it through where an unlocked coil sprung or leaf sprung rig didnt. How does that sit with our argument? You list a TJ so Im assuming that you dont just mall crawl with it. Traction isnt always about being able to put tires on the ground. If its as slick as you claim it is, whether the rig is coil sprung, leaf suspended, or IFS, you are going to slide. I am definitely not pro independent suspension but will be the first to admit that a well thought out IFS system can perform VERY well and can do just about everything an IFS rig can. I prefer a solid axle over an IFS rig for simplicity, not for flex because lets face it, if we are being 100% honest with ourselves, unless you are hardcore rock crawling, an IFS system can tackle it. Lockers are great equalizers. Case in point, Mercedes Gelandewagen. Coil sprung on all four corners, triple locked from the factory and due to its suspension and frame design, straight up crap when it comes to flex but a more sure footed, factory capable truck you will NOT find. Check out this solid rear axle flex (the front doesnt flex much more either). Youll notice its hardly there but you know what? Itll continue its forward progress. 

















For comparison, a Toyota 70 series pickup (probably with factory cable actuated lockers) with a less advanced leaf sprung rear design. Theres slightly more flex there but not more any more forward progress (and you will be the first person to ever say a Cruiser is not capable). 









Will a solid axled rig do it less clunky and a little bit more gracefully? Sure. But will it make it further just because its solid axled? Absolutely not.


----------



## Quinn1.8t (Oct 8, 2006)

morecarsthanbrains said:


> Haha, feigning dumb. Thats funny. I have wheeled before, in IFS and solid axle rigs and coil sprung and leaf sprung. So, with your argument in mind, how about this: I have seen a locked IFS rig make it through where an unlocked coil sprung or leaf sprung rig didnt. How does that sit with our argument? You list a TJ so Im assuming that you dont just mall crawl with it. Traction isnt always about being able to put tires on the ground. If its as slick as you claim it is, whether the rig is coil sprung, leaf suspended, or IFS, you are going to slide. I am definitely not pro independent suspension but will be the first to admit that a well thought out IFS system can perform VERY well and can do just about everything an IFS rig can. I prefer a solid axle over an IFS rig for simplicity, not for flex because lets face it, if we are being 100% honest with ourselves, unless you are hardcore rock crawling, an IFS system can tackle it. Lockers are great equalizers. Case in point, Mercedes Gelandewagen. Coil sprung on all four corners, triple locked from the factory and due to its suspension and frame design, straight up crap when it comes to flex but a more sure footed, factory capable truck you will NOT find. Check out this solid rear axle flex (the front doesnt flex much more either). Youll notice its hardly there but you know what? Itll continue its forward progress.


So basically what (I think) you are saying is that what IFS looses in flex, can be made up with installing a locker, which I agree with.


----------



## MCTB (Dec 30, 2005)

Quinn1.8t said:


> So basically what (I think) you are saying is that what IFS losses in flex, can be made up with installing a locker, which I agree with.


Not 100% made up with but yes, basically. Its something that robbyB doesnt seem to agree with so sorry for the long winded explanation. I thought it was required. Yes, an IFS design will lift a wheel more often BUT, with the right set up, itll still continue on. There are even IFS kits that yield serious flex when asked of them.


----------



## koko12 (May 3, 2003)

I think these 4 just about covered the most off-road capable vehicles in stock form today. Personally I would give my left nut for the Landcruiser as it is not just extremely capable offroad, it is probably the toughest and a true work horse in every sense of the word


----------



## Lawrider (May 16, 2010)

2 Door Jeep Wrangler Rubicon is the all around choice because size matters off-road. As others have said, D44's and lockers from the factory, the ability to run 33s stock, or 35s with just a budget boost, and an extremely good aftermarket to cater to your wildest or mildest dreams. Comes available with a stick or auto, so if you want a manual you are in luck, and the optional hardtop is 3 pieces of awesomeness that lets you take off just the front portion for open air fun.

Easy and common parts availability is important. A defender 90 looks cool, but who's going to have parts when things go bad?

The JKs also have infinitely better on-road driveability of the TJ, so the sucker will even be more pleasant when you commute or run around during the week.

The only weakness is the subpar engine, but at least the gearing is there to support 33s cleanly since the factory setup is already 32s...and of course you can regear.

Just a great package. Want a little more light, you can put off-road light housing where the sideview mirrors are. Easy to put on a winch friendly bumper. Being body-on-frame it can be repaired easier.


----------



## 1FastB5 (May 30, 2005)

i know its older than 5 years old, but i'm a big fan of my P38 Range Rover that i picked up for $1500 










i wouldn't take it rock crawling, but overall i still think the LRs are among some of the best out there, and make for a great all-round vehicle to have around if you can afford to feed it.


----------



## Sporin (Feb 17, 1999)

whitemore55 said:


> Are you crazy. How anyone may be so careless?


 That's not careless, that's offroading. :screwy:


----------



## Tokyosmash (Mar 11, 2007)

Lawrider said:


> 2 Door Jeep Wrangler Rubicon is the all around choice because size matters off-road. As others have said, D44's and lockers from the factory, the ability to run 33s stock, or 35s with just a budget boost, and an extremely good aftermarket to cater to your wildest or mildest dreams. Comes available with a stick or auto, so if you want a manual you are in luck, and the optional hardtop is 3 pieces of awesomeness that lets you take off just the front portion for open air fun.
> 
> Easy and common parts availability is important. A defender 90 looks cool, but who's going to have parts when things go bad?
> 
> ...


 What makes you say JK's are so much better on road, just out of genuine curiosity.


----------



## gtibobvr6 (Dec 21, 2000)

How did this post get to 5 pages and no one has yet mentioned a Touareg. With Air-Suspension you get 11.8 inches of ground clearance in Off-Road mode optional locking center and rear diffs.


----------



## CBJ (Sep 16, 2000)

gtibobvr6 said:


> How did this post get to 5 pages and no one has yet mentioned a Touareg. With Air-Suspension you get 11.8 inches of ground clearance in Off-Road mode optional locking center and rear diffs.


Which means it has one less locker then a Wrangler, has a longer wheel base, no aftermarket and no one trusts an air-suspension . It is also fairly big. An LC200 is a better choice at that price point and it isn't going to be as good in the rocks as a Wrangler.


----------



## MCTB (Dec 30, 2005)

True that the Touareg isnt as capable as a Wrangler but if you are soft roading, it could handle it. I would love a TDI powered one with coil suspension at the highest position. If it wasnt for the fact that they command TOO much money, I think I would own one.


----------



## Astroboy (Jan 4, 2000)

*How does Hummer H2 fare?*

I think H2 is equipped very well from the factory, there's not much one would need to modify if he decides: add winch, HD tierods (known weakspots), ability to run 37' tires without lift.

Pros (in stock form):

- skid plates, rock slider rails, and underbody protections
- rear Easton locker
- minimum overhangs
- 2500HD differential pumpkins
- room for passengers and lots of gear (2000 lb load capacity)
- D-rings at 4 points

Cons:

- size (I see how it can be too big at narrow forest trails, but is it so in Moab?)
- visibility, big blind spots
- 12~14 mpg

I think it's not difficult to find many decent ones that have not been abused.


----------



## MCTB (Dec 30, 2005)

Astroboy said:


> I think H2


Just stop right there.


----------



## Astroboy (Jan 4, 2000)

Besides silliness and political correctness arguments with which often surrounds H2 

Am I mistaken to think that H2 is just as well equipped as Rubicon? Perhaps just as capable, no? I've never done actual offroading, so I don't know much. But I'm curious and here to learn.

Thanks.

(I am biased, because I currently own H2 and love it... Yes, I've crossed to the dark side. This is contrary to how I used to loath every SUVs in the city when I only drove GTI with boy-racer mentality. My excuse: I needed tow stuff)


----------



## MCTB (Dec 30, 2005)

Astroboy said:


> Besides silliness and political correctness arguments with which often surrounds H2
> 
> Am I mistaken to think that H2 is just as well equipped as Rubicon? Perhaps just as capable, no? I've never tried offroading, so I don't know much. But I'm curious and here to learn.
> 
> ...


No and no. Youve got a Tahoe with a different body on it. Its a lumbering thing that really is only supposed to give off that off road, close to Hummer look. Just because you can fit big tires on it doesnt mean that its good off road. You have so many things going against you than you do for you. As a tow rig, itll work.


----------



## Gitcha Sum (May 27, 2008)

Astroboy said:


> I've never done actual offroading, so I don't know much.


Your Hummer is far from superior offroad. 
There's probably a dozen rigs I'd prefer to it. 

H2 weighs 6600lbs, Rubicon weighs 3700lbs. 

Great for towing, not that great for bouncing around on trails... BUT, it's not going to explode the minute it leaves the pavement. 

I seriously mean this, go wheel your H2. It's going to do fine on sand, fire roads, and other simple things. Don't go alone, and bring a shovel & tow strap. You'll learn more driving your truck in 1 day than you can reading words on the internet. Go have fun, don't tear stuff up & give off roaders a bad name, just go enjoy it. :thumbup:


----------



## Astroboy (Jan 4, 2000)

H2's ladder frame chassis is actually made from the front half of 3/4-ton Silverado frame and rear half of 1/2-ton Tahoe frame, and it's boxed and extensively reinforced. Its track and the wheelbase are also significantly different from Tahoe, much wider and longer, yet vehicle is shorter overall. 

Just like I don't dismiss the performance of GTI R32, Beetle RSi, or Audi TT solely because all share the same chassis and components with entry-level Golf, I can't categorically dismiss H2.

It's offered from the factory arguably very capable with one of the best clearance, approach angles, and axle components. There's a skid plate for the front, another skid plate for the gas tank, and underbody cage protection which run the whole length and wraps the transmission, the transfer case, and the exhausts. I was sold.

But I understand H2 is heavy and cumbersome.


----------



## Astroboy (Jan 4, 2000)

When I bought it, I was looking for a tow truck that could go affroad: I had 2 choices: Buy F-150 and go thru the trouble of lifting and swapping the axles, drive shafts, tires and adding bumpers and bits and whatnot, or just pay up for H2 and leave it mostly stock. I use H2 to tow my bikes and camper. I like having fun with my offroad bikes in California parks. I just haven't gotten to the point where I want to risk my truck in the trails.

I know, it's silly of me for wanting to defend and justify my purchase 

Thanks all.


----------



## Astroboy (Jan 4, 2000)

deucestudios said:


> You'll learn more driving your truck in 1 day than you can reading words on the internet.


Agreed.


----------



## VapedTalon (Jan 17, 2008)

The steering components make for a fun day on the trail when they snap on a H2. Thats a definate must to upgrade before going anywhere.


----------



## shadylurker (Dec 24, 2005)

I'm surprised the FJ hasn't been mentioned, i have seen some stock ones go through some CRAZY stuff in AZ it was more rock crawling, no mud but it truly was amazing to see a bone stock vehicle with all seasons just crawling up that stuff. A true Billie goat in the right hands.


----------



## Sporin (Feb 17, 1999)

shadylurker said:


> I'm surprised the FJ hasn't been mentioned, i have seen some stock ones go through some CRAZY stuff in AZ it was more rock crawling, no mud but it truly was amazing to see a bone stock vehicle with all seasons just crawling up that stuff. A true Billie goat in the right hands.


It's been mentioned multiple times in this thread, but it's IFS, fat body, and low visibility sets it behind the Wrangler Rubicon.

Basically, there are a number of really, really good off-the shelf 4x4's on the market now, pretty much every one has been mentioned. But at the end of the day, the Jeep Wrangler Rubicon still seems to trump each of them in some respect. The level of offroad-equipment just can't be beat. I'm not even a Jeep guy and I can see that.


----------



## fendrjgstng94 (Sep 20, 2010)

wrangler rubicon. and its not very expensive. compared to hummer or land rover


----------



## Gitcha Sum (May 27, 2008)

In the spirit of honesty...

I found and bought a Wrangler. It's a '98 with 140k, the 2.5L 4 banger, and it's got some cosmetic and mechanical issues. But.

It totally nullifies any argument I had for this entire thread. The foundation for any argument I was making was based around price, and that my friends, is no longer a factor. TJ Wrangler has dropped to the price point of the XJ...

I won't be getting rid of my XJ, but I am starting to dabble around in the TJ realm now.


----------



## wRek (Apr 28, 2004)

Mostly because I have one... But, a stock 85' 4runner with some 33's on it will go almost anywhere. The 85 is fuel injected and straight axle, and the 33's will fit in the fenders with stock suspension. The 4 cylinder puts out decent power and gets awesome fuel economy for a 4wd. Not to mention it has enough space for multiple passengers + gear in the back. It's also narrow enough for heavily wooded trails in the PNW.

This one isn't mine. But appears to be stock height with 33's.









I've ridden in an H2 off-road and will honestly say that I was thoroughly disappointed. I would easily take an H3 over an H2 offroad, and I can think of dozens of SUV's and trucks I would buy before either of those.


----------



## robbyb413 (May 12, 2002)

deucestudios said:


> In the spirit of honesty...


Welcome. I hope you enjoy it, after all that. 


--[Tapatalk/Nexus One]--


----------



## robbyb413 (May 12, 2002)

wRek said:


> Mostly because I have one... But, a stock 85' 4runner with some 33's


I'm on my phone so can't easily flip back and forth to lookup figures. I'm thinking the stocck wrangler still has a shorter wheelbase and shorter overhangs so on the tires you can get from the factory or fit.on stock suspension its got better off road performance capabilities. Does anyone have the numbers and calculations for BOA, Approach, and Departure on a 4runner to compare to a wrangler?

--[Tapatalk/Nexus One]--


----------



## boost is better (May 26, 2007)

Even though im a jeep nut and think the rubicon is sweet i vote for UNIMOG!!! nothing else even comes close. taken from wikipedia. Ground clearance: 476 mm (18.7 in) (varies with tyre)
Approach: 44 degrees
Departure: 53 degrees

Climb: Max.45 degrees
Descent: Max.45 degrees


----------



## wRek (Apr 28, 2004)

robbyb413 said:


> I'm on my phone so can't easily flip back and forth to lookup figures. I'm thinking the stocck wrangler still has a shorter wheelbase and shorter overhangs so on the tires you can get from the factory or fit.on stock suspension its got better off road performance capabilities. Does anyone have the numbers and calculations for BOA, Approach, and Departure on a 4runner to compare to a wrangler?
> 
> --[Tapatalk/Nexus One]--


I missed the part in the original post where it said no cost cap. In that case, I will agree with you on the Wrangler. If I needed to haul other people and extra gear, I would definitely put up with the little extra overhang of the 4runner.


----------



## skates (Mar 30, 2007)

I still love my land rover discovery series 1 it goes every where I tell it to. It's small. Over 1000lb capacity for my gear. Seats 7 with the jump seats. Great visibility. There really isn't a down side to the truck. And it doesn't matter what you own there will be a down side to it in some way. That's what makes it it's own. And I couldn't find a jeep of the same age for the same money that wasn't a rusted out clunker. My disco was cheap and ever at a stock ride height with street tires it keeps up with my brothers 87 4runner with 33's


----------



## unimogken (Jan 19, 2005)

boost is better said:


> Even though im a jeep nut and think the rubicon is sweet i vote for UNIMOG!!!


Those suck! Hehe


----------



## Sporin (Feb 17, 1999)

I've owned, 'wheeled, and loved 2 different '85 4runners, and they are *great* trucks, but if the question is _"Most Off-Road Capable Stock Vehicle"_ then they pale in comparison to a new Wrangler Rubicon. They also cannot take a 33" tire stock, mine barely took a 31" on the stock springs.

RUBICON = Short wheelbase, low-geared Tcase, standard big, aggressive tires, coil-sprung, SOLID axles front & rear, selectable LOCKERS front & rear. There's nothing that comes close imo.

There are LOTS of trucks that are GREAT offroad, even stock, but none offer the combination of size and equipment that the Rubicon does.

And I'm not a Jeep guy at all.


----------



## wRek (Apr 28, 2004)

Sporin said:


> They also cannot take a 33" tire stock, mine barely took a 31" on the stock springs.


They actually can. I have a 4" lift going on it later this month, but right now it's on stock suspension. A little hammer work to the fender wells and it barely rubs. The fender gap looks a little bigger than it actually is in front because I'm parked in a weird spot on the side of my driveway. I'm contemplating going up to 35's later this year after the lift is on, as I need more ground clearance than articulation.


----------



## Sporin (Feb 17, 1999)

wRek said:


> They actually can. I have a 4" lift going on it later this month, but right now it's on stock suspension. A little hammer work to the fender wells and it barely rubs. The fender gap looks a little bigger than it actually is in front because I'm parked in a weird spot on the side of my driveway. I'm contemplating going up to 35's later this year after the lift is on, as I need more ground clearance than articulation.


I stand corrected! :beer: Your stock springs must be in great shape. I was rubbing lugs with 3" MT's on mine flexed up (stuffed).


----------



## wRek (Apr 28, 2004)

Sporin said:


> I stand corrected! :beer: Your stock springs must be in great shape. I was rubbing lugs with 3" MT's on mine flexed up (stuffed).


The fronts are in pretty good shape, but the rears are saggier than a 90 year old. By the end of this month it should look much better! :beer:


----------



## CreeperSleeper (May 29, 2003)

I think you guys forgot about the less than 5 yrs old part... I still vote Unimog.


----------



## roccostud (Jun 7, 2002)

some of you guys completely missed the point of this thread. opcorn: LR still makes very capable rigs :thumbup: but because I am practical I would give my vote to the Jeep Wrangler right out of the show room is quite impressive, even if it has grown a little large in its later years. :laugh:


----------



## Gitcha Sum (May 27, 2008)

Oh crap. 

It's 2012.

2006 TJ Wrangler isn't 5 years old anymore. It no longer counts...


----------



## Real Gone Cat (Mar 17, 2007)




----------



## R32 802 (Sep 6, 2011)

First choice would be a Mog, followed by a Rubicon.
Land Rover discontinued the Disco II after the 04 model year, unfortunately, or it would still be my choice. The LR4 can mimic solid axles with the air suspension and has the capability of anything else out there- but lacks the simplicity and durability.
The Disco II would be my choice if the time restriction wasn't in place. Mine has done border to border on 31 countries, mostly 3rd world sh*tholes, and still going strong.


----------



## wRek (Apr 28, 2004)

...When they run.

I had a well taken care of Discovery with a 5-speed transmission for probably 6 months. It ran for about half that time, and not consecutively.


----------



## R32 802 (Sep 6, 2011)

wRek said:


> ...When they run.
> 
> I had a well taken care of Discovery with a 5-speed transmission for probably 6 months. It ran for about half that time, and not consecutively.


You must not be good at basic mechanical skills. They are dead simple and crazy reliable when maintained properly. I've put hundreds of thousands of miles on them and only had one breakdown which was the starter bendix freezing up in subzero weather.


----------



## Dennis Caelian (Oct 25, 2011)

Stock? That's an easy call.

9 years and hasn't let me down yet. But the fact that 99.9% of Hummer owners have chrome spinners and never taken them offroad, it never gets a fair shake.


----------



## R32 802 (Sep 6, 2011)

I used to teach at an offroad driving school and was unfortunate enough to be forced to use H2's. It's just a road-going Tahoe underneath. Weak steering, weak axles, and unrealiable. We constantly had huge repair bills for the school vehicles- they cleaned them up and took them to NJ to an unsuspecting dealer and traded them all in. The broken diffs, axles, and even the skid plates breaking- it was almost comical how bad they were.


----------



## Dennis Caelian (Oct 25, 2011)

R32 802 said:


> I used to teach at an offroad driving school and was unfortunate enough to be forced to use H2's. It's just a road-going Tahoe underneath. Weak steering, weak axles, and unrealiable. We constantly had huge repair bills for the school vehicles- they cleaned them up and took them to NJ to an unsuspecting dealer and traded them all in. The broken diffs, axles, and even the skid plates breaking- it was almost comical how bad they were.


Key word, you "Used to" meaning you were a ****ty teacher to begin with. Obviously you have no clue if you were to look underneath a Tahoe and H2 you would see much beefier parts on the H2 and that they have a mid frame similar to the Tahoe but 60% thicker and boxed in.

I've owned an Jeep, Rover, H1 and presently an H2. In my experience, off the show room, I'd say H2.

Only an enviro wackooccupywallstreetwelfare case would quote propaganda straight from Hollywood.:laugh:


----------



## Sporin (Feb 17, 1999)

R32 802 said:


> I used to teach at an offroad driving school and was unfortunate enough to be forced to use H2's. It's just a road-going Tahoe underneath. Weak steering, weak axles, and unrealiable. We constantly had huge repair bills for the school vehicles- they cleaned them up and took them to NJ to an unsuspecting dealer and traded them all in. The broken diffs, axles, and even the skid plates breaking- it was almost comical how bad they were.


Were you at the Equinox in Manchester VT? I did a half day in a Discovery there over a decade ago. It's what kicked off the hobby for me.


----------



## R32 802 (Sep 6, 2011)

Yeah- real world experience with them breaking constantly and not performing well doesn't apply because it's not what you want to hear. It's a horrible machine. Yes, it must be because I'm a sh*tty instructor that other instructors broke diffs and axles on the H2's but not the other vehicles in the fleet. Yup, that's it. Come to think of it, in 24 years of off-road driving the H2 is the only vehicle I've had to get towed off a trail because of broken driveline.


----------



## Dennis Caelian (Oct 25, 2011)

R32 802 said:


> Yeah- real world experience with them breaking constantly and not performing well doesn't apply because it's not what you want to hear. It's a horrible machine. Yes, it must be because I'm a sh*tty instructor that other instructors broke diffs and axles on the H2's but not the other vehicles in the fleet. Yup, that's it. Come to think of it, in 24 years of off-road driving the H2 is the only vehicle I've had to get towed off a trail because of broken driveline.


Tell us the truth of why you hate them.:laugh:

I've pushed all my rigs to the limit. Never broken anything on the H2. Not even a tierod.

Thought about going JK last year but with the thought of upgrading the Dana, lifts and all sorts of crap just to get up par with the H2, I changed my mind. The h3 I test muled for GM in Moab a year before it came out and that was a deciding factor why I wouldn't buy that. I loved my H1 but that was always in the service bay. Land Cruiser, Range Rover, G-Wagen are also excellent stock rigs. It all depends on your preference or budget. 

And with offloading, it's 90% driver and 10% vehicle. In your case, maybe the H2 was too much rig for you. Did you know how to engage the 4 wheel drive combinations? Drive a rig that size? Choose your lines? Some just aren't capable especially when they're experienced in basic vehicles and an advanced rig was trusted upon them. I think this might be your case.

Like a VW Golf driver being asked to drive a Ferrari. Might be above your element.


----------



## R32 802 (Sep 6, 2011)

Dennis Caelian said:


> Tell us the truth of why you hate them.:laugh:
> 
> I've pushed all my rigs to the limit. Never broken anything on the H2. Not even a tierod.
> 
> ...


Yeah, I'm sure all the instructors who include former Camel Trophy competitors just weren't manly enough for the H2.  
The H2 is too "too advanced" for anyone who drives anything else, that's it. :screwy:


----------



## Dennis Caelian (Oct 25, 2011)

R32 802 said:


> Yeah, I'm sure all the instructors who include former Camel Trophy competitors just weren't manly enough for the H2.
> The H2 is too "too advanced" for anyone who drives anything else, that's it. :screwy:


I just find it highly stupid business wise to have a offroad training school train noobs with high end rigs. 

Like trying to teach a new driver in a stick shift Porsche or a Peterbuilt truck. :laugh:

An offroad school would want to teach the basics of offroad, not distract an inexperience driver with a schoolbus. Ofcourse it's bound to break. 

I find you story highly suspicious and made up.


----------



## Sporin (Feb 17, 1999)

What the hell happened here? :screwy:


----------



## R32 802 (Sep 6, 2011)

Sporin said:


> What the hell happened here? :screwy:


The H2 is apparently like a Porsche or Ferrari. I did not know this. :laugh:
Someone can't accept that other people don't like his ride.


----------



## Dennis Caelian (Oct 25, 2011)

R32 802 said:


> The H2 is apparently like a Porsche or Ferrari. I did not know this. :laugh:
> Someone can't accept that other people don't like his ride.


I admit I may have overly defended my rig.


----------



## Zinhead1 (Nov 10, 2003)

Based on the OP list, I would have to say a Jeep Rubicon, in either two or four door guise. It is hard to beat two straight axles, three diffs and stock MTs. 

However, those bashing the LR3/4 as not being off-road worthy are wrong. Just because in America it is marketed towards wealthy moms moving up from a minivan doesn't that the rest of the world doesn't us them they way they are meant to be. See the following: 





 




 




 
The LR4 was also Peterson's 2011 4x4 of the year, beating out the Ford Raptor, Jeep Grand Cherokee and Lexus GX (Land Cruiser). 

http://www.4wheeloffroad.com/featur...4x4_of_the_year_land_rover_lr4_hse/index.html


----------



## wRek (Apr 28, 2004)

R32 802 said:


> You must not be good at basic mechanical skills. They are dead simple and crazy reliable when maintained properly. I've put hundreds of thousands of miles on them and only had one breakdown which was the starter bendix freezing up in subzero weather.


 I do just fine with basic mechanical skills, but nice assumption. Dead simple makes me think that you may not have any idea what you're talking about. Shoddy soldering jobs along with other poor electrical is one of the biggest flaws I've seen in Land Rovers. Why would you need an entire "window lift computer" when there are easier ways to control power to the windows?


----------



## Dennis Caelian (Oct 25, 2011)

Zinhead1 said:


> Based on the OP list, I would have to say a Jeep Rubicon, in either two or four door guise. It is hard to beat two straight axles, three diffs and stock MTs.
> 
> However, those bashing the LR3/4 as not being off-road worthy are wrong. Just because in America it is marketed towards wealthy moms moving up from a minivan doesn't that the rest of the world doesn't us them they way they are meant to be. See the following:
> 
> ...



Very cool!


----------



## JLJetta (Nov 24, 2001)

For "off-road" I always first differentiate between narrow trails and rock crawling, and other terrain.

The places where I would want a 40 Land Cruiser, others where I would want a Range Rover. Am I looking at 5 miles, or 500? 

But since you did not specify sold in America, I would go with the 2007 Defender I-4 turbodiesel.


----------



## unimogken (Jan 19, 2005)

Mercedes-Benz Unimog receives "Off-road Vehicle of the Year 2012" award!


----------



## 01tj (Nov 8, 2005)

Dennis Caelian said:


> Key word, you "Used to" meaning you were a ****ty teacher to begin with. Obviously you have no clue if you were to look underneath a Tahoe and H2 you would see much beefier parts on the H2 and that they have a mid frame similar to the Tahoe but 60% thicker and boxed in.
> 
> I've owned an Jeep, Rover, H1 and presently an H2. In my experience, off the show room, I'd say H2.
> 
> Only an enviro wackooccupywallstreetwelfare case would quote propaganda straight from Hollywood.:laugh:


I guess it depends on what your idea of off roading is but we had a few H2's and an H3 on the trail with us a few years back and they didn't hold up very well at all. One owner who was an H2 nut said he loved his vehicle but didn't like that he always had to bring along spare tire-rods and stuff because they broke so often. The size of them also makes them less capable IMO. 20 minute trails always seemed to take hours because of the 15 and 20 point turns it would take to get them through.


----------



## LindsayLowhan (May 29, 2010)

These....









































& even the little Evoque can hold its own with the brand name....


----------



## davedave (Feb 20, 2001)

Quinn1.8t said:


> The Wrangler Rubicon is still more capable than all vehicles posted thus far.


except the unimog :beer:


----------



## AnAgentOrange (Jul 14, 2011)

Depends on what I'm doing. Defender 90, Disco, Dodge Power Wagon, FJ40, FZJ80, new Rubicon, as far as vehicles offered stateside.. I've had too many Jeeps and snapped things that shouldn't break that easily, however the new Rubicon I drove felt pretty stout in comparison to any other Jeep.


----------



## Kevin RS (Apr 20, 2003)

AnAgentOrange said:


> Depends on what I'm doing. Defender 90, Disco, Dodge Power Wagon, FJ40, FZJ80, new Rubicon, as far as vehicles offered stateside.. I've had too many Jeeps and snapped things that shouldn't break that easily, however the new Rubicon I drove felt pretty stout in comparison to any other Jeep.


best off road vehicle period is the rubicon. You can not beat it for the value, reliable, readily available that it offers= jeep tj or jk rubicon. Now if you have a bit more money, don't mind the extra expense of ownership/lack of comfort(it's not really a comfortable rig for daily driving ). A mbenz unimog is the way to go(i want one like this).


----------



## AnAgentOrange (Jul 14, 2011)

The Dubsta said:


> best off road vehicle period is the rubicon. You can not beat it for the value, reliable, readily available that it offers= jeep tj or jk rubicon. Now if you have a bit more money, don't mind the extra expense of ownership/lack of comfort(it's not really a comfortable rig for daily driving ). A mbenz unimog is the way to go(i want one like this).


Heh, I drive a 69 FJ40 with no top and doors and it's middle of February. Never minded the lack of comfort. Money, well that's a totally different thing.


----------



## Kevin RS (Apr 20, 2003)

AnAgentOrange said:


> Heh, I drive a 69 FJ40 with no top and doors and it's middle of February. Never minded the lack of comfort. Money, well that's a totally different thing.


The old fj40 and fj60's are great rigs! I commend you sir (i've done it with my lj - no fun in colorado - even with a space heater plugged into the cig lighter lol) 

Any pics of said fj40?


----------



## 01tj (Nov 8, 2005)

Unimog

http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.j...e=b&num_records=25&cardist=240&standard=false


----------



## VeeDub_L_U (Feb 3, 2003)

Want:











http://www.autoblog.com/2011/11/11/toyota-releases-extra-tough-land-cruiser-gx-for-australia/


----------

