Rubicon: Expeditions West Tacoma and EarthRoamer XV-JP
- Thread starter Scott Brady
- Start date
driving experience
I'd love to hear comments from the team about how the driving experience differed between the two vehicles. The Earthroamer Jeep is short and tall, the Expeditions West Tacoma is long and (relatively) low. Each vehicle should have advantages and disadvantages on the Rubicon and White Mountains trails.
Chip Haven
I'd love to hear comments from the team about how the driving experience differed between the two vehicles. The Earthroamer Jeep is short and tall, the Expeditions West Tacoma is long and (relatively) low. Each vehicle should have advantages and disadvantages on the Rubicon and White Mountains trails.
Chip Haven
BajaTaco
Swashbuckler
I'll let Scott comment on the ER, since he drove it. After driving the Expeditions West Tacoma through there, I can say that although the wheelbase and rear overhang made some particular sections of the trail slightly more challenging, it wasn't enough to complain about in the slightest. The high clearance rear bumper and the tall tires made all the difference in the world in that respect. The tires were also tall enough that the corners of the front ARB bumper weren't an issue either. The rock sliders were definitely mandatory and were used often. Scott did a great job designing this truck to be very stable, despite the high GVW. Stability instills confidence, and I always felt very in control of the vehicle. Thousand Dollar hill and Cadillac hill were a walk in the park. The heavy weight of the truck did prove to be a bit of a challenge when negotiating abrupt drop-offs while delicately working on boulder obstacles. I had the brake pedal maxed out and the truck would still drop fairly abruptly, but these were isolated events with fairly short drops, so nothing too dramatic. Use of the parking brake to supplement the pedal brake helped. This was a TIGHT trail and even the Tacoma barely squeezed through some spots (but keep in mind that we left the shovel holder mounted to the side of the bed). The wheelbase length made some of the squeezes a little more challenging. I was glad we had the ARB front locker on-board. Although I resolved not to use it as a rule (with preservation of the half-shafts in mind), there were a couple of spots along the trail where it came in handy to get the truck past a tricky spot without having to spend the time to reposition or take a yank from a strap. Comparing this truck with mine, the taller tires, lower gearing, and automatic transmission went a long way towards performance in these conditions. So that was nice.
Perhaps one of the greatest things about the Tacoma was the comfort. This is something you may not really consider as a top function of performance on a trail like this, but when you think about it - being comfortable reduces stress and fatigue, which allows you to have more presence of mind and physical energy to stay focused on driving correctly and deliberately. In the end, it really means less mistakes and less damage.
Perhaps one of the greatest things about the Tacoma was the comfort. This is something you may not really consider as a top function of performance on a trail like this, but when you think about it - being comfortable reduces stress and fatigue, which allows you to have more presence of mind and physical energy to stay focused on driving correctly and deliberately. In the end, it really means less mistakes and less damage.
Scott Brady
Founder
The XV-JP
I had just come off of nearly a month of driving JKs and other Jeeps through the Rubicon, so it was an interesting contrast to drive the XV-JP. Overall, it performed better than a stock Jeep because of the additional ground clearance from the mild Tera Flex lift and larger tires. EarthRoamer also upgraded the gearing to 5.13 in the axles. The gearing with the 4:1 was awesome, and you could NOT stop or stall the vehicle with the brakes mashed. I enjoyed the gearing, and while a manual is more challenging to drive in technical terrain, I enjoyed it, and would prefer the 6-speed for ALL conditions except extreme terrain.
The suspension also had excellent flex. It was in the early stages of refining, so Bill and I discussed some design changes, including increased spring rate, lowering the bump stop slightly and increasing the shock valving on rebound. All of which will be reflected in the production units.
Another impressive attribute of the Jeep was the tight turning radius. Much better than the Tacoma, which helped in several areas. I drove most of the trail with the saybar connected, which allowed perfect control over sway. I even preferred it connected in all but the most level of rock gardens where maximum articulation was necessary.
The one consideration with the Jeep is the 4th dimension, which is height. While the top is light and the CG is very good (lots of the weight is mounted very low), it was still a clearance issue at times, mostly in the tight trees. But nothing an SUV with a roof rack or roof mounted tent wouldn't need to look out for.
In reality, by the end of the trail, I was falling for the XV-JP pretty hard. It started to feel comfortable and quietly begging for me to turn it south and to the border...
Oh, and I still maintain my dislike for the MTR, they slipped more the BFG AT's on the Tacoma and we lost an MTR side wall. I guess it is just something I will never work out with those tires...
I had just come off of nearly a month of driving JKs and other Jeeps through the Rubicon, so it was an interesting contrast to drive the XV-JP. Overall, it performed better than a stock Jeep because of the additional ground clearance from the mild Tera Flex lift and larger tires. EarthRoamer also upgraded the gearing to 5.13 in the axles. The gearing with the 4:1 was awesome, and you could NOT stop or stall the vehicle with the brakes mashed. I enjoyed the gearing, and while a manual is more challenging to drive in technical terrain, I enjoyed it, and would prefer the 6-speed for ALL conditions except extreme terrain.
The suspension also had excellent flex. It was in the early stages of refining, so Bill and I discussed some design changes, including increased spring rate, lowering the bump stop slightly and increasing the shock valving on rebound. All of which will be reflected in the production units.
Another impressive attribute of the Jeep was the tight turning radius. Much better than the Tacoma, which helped in several areas. I drove most of the trail with the saybar connected, which allowed perfect control over sway. I even preferred it connected in all but the most level of rock gardens where maximum articulation was necessary.
The one consideration with the Jeep is the 4th dimension, which is height. While the top is light and the CG is very good (lots of the weight is mounted very low), it was still a clearance issue at times, mostly in the tight trees. But nothing an SUV with a roof rack or roof mounted tent wouldn't need to look out for.
In reality, by the end of the trail, I was falling for the XV-JP pretty hard. It started to feel comfortable and quietly begging for me to turn it south and to the border...
Oh, and I still maintain my dislike for the MTR, they slipped more the BFG AT's on the Tacoma and we lost an MTR side wall. I guess it is just something I will never work out with those tires...
cshontz
Supporting Sponsor
Awesome trip! Thank you for sharing your pictures! 
I know automatics are popular, and often preferred by rock crawlers, but I'm curious about your preference for extreme terrain. With that gearing, I'd expect to favor the manual in extreme terrain for predictability, controlled descents, and for idling slowly over the terrain. What advantage do you feel an automatic would provide - particularly at a crawl speed?
I currently drive an automatic, and aside from easier transitions from stop to go, which no doubt reduces wear and tear, its less predictable (mine at least) and I feel some lack of control on difficult terrain. It especially scares me during steep, loose descents!
:Wow1:
This is also a little surprising. I know that the connected swaybar would help provide stability during off-cambers. However, when I drive off-pavement with it connected, my vehicle pitches and throws at even the smallest terrain variations. I'd expect this to be especially true in a tall vehicle such as the XV-JP. Your seat bolsters must have been getting a workout! Weren't you uncomfortable?
:safari-rig:
expeditionswest said:
I know automatics are popular, and often preferred by rock crawlers, but I'm curious about your preference for extreme terrain. With that gearing, I'd expect to favor the manual in extreme terrain for predictability, controlled descents, and for idling slowly over the terrain. What advantage do you feel an automatic would provide - particularly at a crawl speed?
I currently drive an automatic, and aside from easier transitions from stop to go, which no doubt reduces wear and tear, its less predictable (mine at least) and I feel some lack of control on difficult terrain. It especially scares me during steep, loose descents!
:Wow1:
expeditionswest said:
This is also a little surprising. I know that the connected swaybar would help provide stability during off-cambers. However, when I drive off-pavement with it connected, my vehicle pitches and throws at even the smallest terrain variations. I'd expect this to be especially true in a tall vehicle such as the XV-JP. Your seat bolsters must have been getting a workout! Weren't you uncomfortable?
:safari-rig:
Scott Brady
Founder
For technical terrain, there is no match for an automatic for smoothness and control. I use left foot braking and a fine transition between reduced braking and increased throttle. On descents, a manual certainly has the advantage, but good brakes and experience with modulation and threshold braking are nearly as good. Most importantly though, the automatic's torque converter is a dampener to driveline wrap and stress, saving components.
Again, my preference would always be to a manual for control and durability and expedition use, but on a trail like the Rubicon, the automatic rules the rocks. But that doesn't mean I don't prefer a manual for the technical stuff too, but that is BECAUSE it is more of a challenge, and I like that.
Regarding the anti-swaybar, it's namesake is the reason I preferred it being attached on many all-coiled vehicles, especially ones without a captured coil (like the Wranglers), where the axle can droop without limitation. It limited sway and controlled the Jeep better, providing increased stability on side slopes and better control in tight confines (like trees). For my Tacoma, I prefer it off. There are far too many variables at work here to allow for a standardized recommendation. In the case of the Jeep, the suspension modifications that EarthRoamer has planned with make the connected anti-swaybar less necessary. This is the reason permanent and adjustable anti-swaybars like the Currie units are so effective on coiled vehicles.
Again, my preference would always be to a manual for control and durability and expedition use, but on a trail like the Rubicon, the automatic rules the rocks. But that doesn't mean I don't prefer a manual for the technical stuff too, but that is BECAUSE it is more of a challenge, and I like that.
Regarding the anti-swaybar, it's namesake is the reason I preferred it being attached on many all-coiled vehicles, especially ones without a captured coil (like the Wranglers), where the axle can droop without limitation. It limited sway and controlled the Jeep better, providing increased stability on side slopes and better control in tight confines (like trees). For my Tacoma, I prefer it off. There are far too many variables at work here to allow for a standardized recommendation. In the case of the Jeep, the suspension modifications that EarthRoamer has planned with make the connected anti-swaybar less necessary. This is the reason permanent and adjustable anti-swaybars like the Currie units are so effective on coiled vehicles.
Andrew Walcker
Mod Emeritus
Scott and Chris, way cool comparison of the two vehicles, enjoyed reading it!
p1michaud
Expedition Leader
Tire issues
Scott,
I'm currious to read a bit more about this. If I recall, your BFG AT's are made of a prototype rubber (i.e. not the same rubber a consumer would get today if he would walk up to the counter and pay for a set of BFG AT's). Is that correct? Have you had the chance to compare the differences between the two rubber compounds? I'm asking because I was considering the BFG AT's as are replacement for my MTR's.
By the way, great comparisson between the two vehicles.
Cheers :beer:,
P
expeditionswest said:
Scott,
I'm currious to read a bit more about this. If I recall, your BFG AT's are made of a prototype rubber (i.e. not the same rubber a consumer would get today if he would walk up to the counter and pay for a set of BFG AT's). Is that correct? Have you had the chance to compare the differences between the two rubber compounds? I'm asking because I was considering the BFG AT's as are replacement for my MTR's.
By the way, great comparisson between the two vehicles.
Cheers :beer:,
P
Scott Brady
Founder
People get highly opinionated about tires, just like they do with trucks. The greatest truck and the greatest tires are always the ones they just paid money for, . I have never had a BFG get a sidewall failure in any of my vehicles. That is 15 years of heavy fourwheeling.
I have been half-tempted to do a controlled puncture test on the two to put the silliness to bed.
Even if the MTR is stronger, the factor would have to be minimal by the simple limits of radial carcass design at a given load rating.
I have been half-tempted to do a controlled puncture test on the two to put the silliness to bed.
Even if the MTR is stronger, the factor would have to be minimal by the simple limits of radial carcass design at a given load rating.
p1michaud
Expedition Leader
Tire comparison
That would be very cool test. Personally I don't have a preferance as long as the tire performs well in my application.
A bit off topic for this thread but the MTR vs. BFG MT debate was raging on a recent club run. The funny thing is that on two separate runs exaclty one year appart, on the same obtacle and with new tires in both cases we punctured a sidewall on both an MTR and BFG on the same pointy root! I've got a picture here somewhere...
Here it is:
Photo credit: S. Adamson of Fundy Crawlers
Back on topic, my question was more directed towards you BFG tires. From here they are:"Extreme snow rated BFGoodrich AT KO with low glass rubber and 60 durometer tread blocks. 295/75 R16 (34x11.5)".
Would their resistance to sidwall punctures be any different than a regular tire or is sidewall puncture resistance dictated by current industry design (i.e. radial carcass design at a given load rating that you previously mentionned.). I'll admit, I don't know the first thing about tire design.
Cheers :beer:,
P
Willman said:
That would be very cool test. Personally I don't have a preferance as long as the tire performs well in my application.
A bit off topic for this thread but the MTR vs. BFG MT debate was raging on a recent club run. The funny thing is that on two separate runs exaclty one year appart, on the same obtacle and with new tires in both cases we punctured a sidewall on both an MTR and BFG on the same pointy root! I've got a picture here somewhere...
Here it is:
Photo credit: S. Adamson of Fundy Crawlers
Back on topic, my question was more directed towards you BFG tires. From here they are:"Extreme snow rated BFGoodrich AT KO with low glass rubber and 60 durometer tread blocks. 295/75 R16 (34x11.5)".
Would their resistance to sidwall punctures be any different than a regular tire or is sidewall puncture resistance dictated by current industry design (i.e. radial carcass design at a given load rating that you previously mentionned.). I'll admit, I don't know the first thing about tire design.
Cheers :beer:,
P
Scott Brady
Founder
Puncture resistance is mostly a characteristic of the carcass design, material and thickness (number of plies), but the tread design, depth and sidewall tread structure also plays a role.
I hear a lot of Jeep Rubicon (TJ) owner say that their MTR's never had a puncture, but then they switched to BFG's and had a puncture. My question is always. What load rating are the BFG's? Invariably, they will say C, or maybe D. Of course, the factory fitment MTRs were E, and also narrower, thereby less likely to get flat due to less track width and a stronger carcass from the load rating.
I hear a lot of Jeep Rubicon (TJ) owner say that their MTR's never had a puncture, but then they switched to BFG's and had a puncture. My question is always. What load rating are the BFG's? Invariably, they will say C, or maybe D. Of course, the factory fitment MTRs were E, and also narrower, thereby less likely to get flat due to less track width and a stronger carcass from the load rating.
Jacket
2008 Expedition Trophy Champion
expeditionswest said:
Case in point - your single line addendum to the Earthromer review has sparked a page-worth of discussion. :REOutArchery02:
Any unbiased analysis of tire performance would draw a huge audience, especially one that put BFG (AT or MT) against MTR's and some of the other popular radial trail tires (Cooper, Pro Comp, etc.).
Bajataco - Great review of the Tacoma performance on the Rubi. Your attention to detail was fantastic. SOunds like you weren't dependent on the front locker, but without it you may have needed to winch/tug out of some sections? The debate over whether or not a front locker is a requirement for the trail seems to go both ways...