4 Vehicle Choice for Budget SUV

[calicamper]

So my mental struggle is MPG vs strength/ upgrade options.
The montero sport and blazer get the best mpg based on epa and fuelly numbers. The ford and jeep get about the same but that's about 1-2 mpg less on avg. The pathfinder gets the worst by epa and fuelly numbers.

The Izuzu Rodeo/Honda Pasport also fall into the mix with what seems like a good blend of mpg vs strength but about the same aftermarket as the montero

Mileage is a tough one given all of those 90's SUV's were pretty close in real world mileage given there was only so much you could do with a boxy profile and they all pretty much had the same type of engine technology and running gear in play.
That was Subaru's claim to fame and when they really started to go big with the Tough looking Legacy Wagon which got better mileage than the SUV's and could do all your super light duty basic dirt road and snowy pavement stuff just as well etc. Granted it wasn't a trail machine which those SUV's were actually quite capable of rugged trail use.

My dads 99 Explorer typically was a 16-17mpg machine. I borrowed it a few times for trips and we never saw better than 17mpg and it had a small tank which I found pretty annoying. I had a Subaru Legacy at that time which had a 16gallon tank and would typically average 25mpg on road trips with a roof rack or small trailer etc. Again it was no trail machine but it saw lots of dirt roads and epic snow ski trips.

 

[calicamper]

I also think that generation SUV's the 5spd Manual's were returning better mileage than the 4spd AT's.

I think that looking for the very rare 5spd Hard body Pathfinder which is lighter weight than the newer 97ish body style which is heavier and has the more modern crash standards etc. Will be the best mileage options you can find.

 

[Madmaxwell87]

From a purely numbers perspective the Grand Cherkoee wins. This is comparing 1997 models of pathfinder, rodeo, grand cherokee, and montero sport based on weight, interior dimensions, exterior dimensions, cargo area dimensions, engine, brakes, steering, and mpg.

Grand Cherokee has the lowest curb weight, best second row leg, shoulder, and hip room(important for friends and car seats), best front row hip and shoulder room, and best passenger volume. Biggest torque (220), rear disc brakes with 4 wheel abs.
Pathfinder has the best turning radius, cargo volume to front row seats, and the best front row head room.
Rodeo has the longest wheelbase and best ground clearance, largest second row width, and highest horsepower(190).
Montero Sport has the best cargo dimensions behind the second row, most front leg room, and best mpg by a good margin.

Final numbers with ranking based on a 1-4 system with 1 the best and 4 the worst gives the gc a 15, ms a 21, rodeo a 22 and pathfinder a 24 with the lowest score being the best. Granted these are really more street oriented numbers but for a vehicle that will spend 90% of its life on pavement that's important. This doesn't make up my mind but it pushes my priority back to the ZJ with the Rodeo/Passport tied for second with the montero sport because of availability and condition at this price point. Thoughts?

 

[jonnyquest]

Bought a 95 Pathfinder 4WD with 110k miles for $1300. One of the best buys I've made. Changed the timing belt. Put on some new tires. Changed the fluids. Misc minor repairs. Runs great and gets a solid 21 mpg on the hwy empty. 19 mpg loaded for camping. 15 mpg loaded for camping towing a trailer w/motorcycle.

 

[USN X]

I picked up my 00 Xterra 4x4 in San Diego for 3300 completely bone stock, super clean and extremely reliable.

Not the best in gas but Definitely a good trail rig.

 

[Madmaxwell87]

Interesting update- I added a 97 explorer to my comparison chart.
Highlights-
heaviest, most second row room, longest wheelbase and overall length, most torque, biggest brakes and 4 wheel abs.
With my rating system it won by 1 point over the GC. Most categories the true measurements were very close to each other with both vehicle excelling over the other in 5 categories each.

Takeaway- I could get a 94-96 explorer for cheaper than the rest. That leaves me more money for maintenance and upgrades. It has a decent enough aftermarket support for my needs (more go fast multi-purpose vehicle than rockcrawler). Those years means I don't have to deal with OHC or 5 speed issues but still get the more modern look of the 95-01 body style. They sold so well initially that parts are cheap and easy to get. It will never be a hardcore off road machine but that's not what I need. If a great deal on a GC or Montero sport or any of the vehicles mentioned comes up I'll definitely take a look but the explorer seems to fit my needs best right now.

 

[east_tn_81]

The early explorers had a strong front axle easy to lift and the 4.0 is bullet proof. I say go with the early models.

 

[D-R0CK]

WJ all the way!

If you can, find a Jeep WJ gen grand cherokee with the notorious failed heater core. You're looking at about 10 hours of driveway DIY time to pull the whole interior apart (c'mon chrysler, why do I need to remove the friggin' transmission tunnel covers just to change a heater core!?) but it saves easily $2K off asking price because it's such a hassle. Most shops charge about $700 to do the job, and a replacement heater core (get aluminum!) is only $50 or so.

I got my '02 WJ already lifted and professionally modified with less than 145K miles for under $5K.

- It's the last gen of GC to have a solid front axle
- Selec-Trac is amazing
- Aftermarket support finally exists
- Before my roof rack I was getting 16 MPG city & 20 highway. Much better than an XJ.

And a $200 auto-locker later, you're in business.

 

[Ivan]

Interesting update- I added a 97 explorer to my comparison chart.
Highlights-
heaviest, most second row room, longest wheelbase and overall length, most torque, biggest brakes and 4 wheel abs.
With my rating system it won by 1 point over the GC. Most categories the true measurements were very close to each other with both vehicle excelling over the other in 5 categories each.

Takeaway- I could get a 94-96 explorer for cheaper than the rest. That leaves me more money for maintenance and upgrades. It has a decent enough aftermarket support for my needs (more go fast multi-purpose vehicle than rockcrawler). Those years means I don't have to deal with OHC or 5 speed issues but still get the more modern look of the 95-01 body style. They sold so well initially that parts are cheap and easy to get. It will never be a hardcore off road machine but that's not what I need. If a great deal on a GC or Montero sport or any of the vehicles mentioned comes up I'll definitely take a look but the explorer seems to fit my needs best right now.

Crazy thought: what about a diesel 2 door Tahoe?

 

[Madmaxwell87]

I have looked into those a little. There's two problems- 1. The diesels are getting expensive with the recent craze going on pushing them outside my budget. 2. Ideally I'd like a 4 door for general ease of using the back seat. If a two door would work I'd probably buy a Bronco and just live with the MPG (haven't 100% ruled this out).

 

[Martinjmpr]

Have you considered a GMT400 Tahoe? 1992 - 1999 or 2000 I think. Lots of them available in your price range. I've heard the 5.7 is easy to work on but I don't know. MPG isn't stellar but nothing in that price range is going to have decent MPG. I had a 1990 Montero with the anemic 3.0 and the best MPG I ever saw on the highway was 17. 13 - 15 was common around town. A Tahoe in good condition should give you the same MPG but with a lot more power and a bigger tank.
.
If you shop Tahoe's don't forget to search for GMC Yukon as well. For some reason the GMC's seem to sell for even less than the Chevies, not sure why, since GMC is supposed to be GM's "Luxury" truck brand.

 

[4x4x4doors]

I think with your budget and stated usage, any of the ones you've mentioned would fit the bill. I'm partial to the Blazer for a couple of reasons, including the clamshell rear gate arrangement and interior room. (I'm 6'4", my primary rear seat passenger is 5'10"+. The Jeep SUVs wouldn't allow her to sit behind me driving.)

Agreed on little aftermarket support. Wheel choices include all rear drive GM cars. I ran mid 80's Firebird 16x8s for several years and the backspacing worked great.

Weak front ends come down to three things: 1) Ball joints: the zerk fitting is in an odd place, the shade tree mechanic doesn't see it so doesn't lube it. The tech at the shop needs a grease gun with a flexible hose and usually skips it. I quit having problems when I did it myself. 2) Idler arm: An issue with oversize tires and rock crawling. If you want to do that, there is a K2500 part that is heavier and will interchange, you should be able to find it on the forums. 3) The diff itself will grenade in the twisties because of limited flex and a heavy accelerator foot that has the tire spinning and suddenly slamming torque to it when gaining traction. I did it once in 200K+ miles of driving three of them.

Engine and running gear are available at every AutoZone/O'Reilly's/NAPA. You wisely exclude the 95 with its weird OBD1.5 setup.

The Izusu/Honda twins are solid performers but also lacks aftermarket. I "think" the Honda was only AWD.

In the age/budget you're talking, I really think I would look for the best condition/mileage/price combo as any would suit your needs.

I know the S10s didn't fare well in crash testing which may become more important to you after the backseat passengers arrive so check into those as well.

 

[Madmaxwell87]

Have you considered a GMT400 Tahoe? 1992 - 1999 or 2000 I think. Lots of them available in your price range. I've heard the 5.7 is easy to work on but I don't know. MPG isn't stellar but nothing in that price range is going to have decent MPG. A Tahoe in good condition should give you the same MPG but with a lot more power and a bigger tank.

The epa numbers are around 12/16/12 and fuelly says an avg of 13. At that mpg I would get a expedition like my last one. It was perfect except for the cost of going anywhere. The vehicles I'm looking at should average around 15-17.

 

[Madmaxwell87]

I would say that my choices are narrowed down to either the explorer or a full size montero. The explorer is common and with the aftermarket support has the potential to make a great long lasting adventure truck with the right mods. The montero is a strong, dependable vehicle right out of the box. It would only really need a nice set of tires to be as capable as a explorer with a lift and tires. That means more bang for the buck. It's also a little bigger, I like the not so common looks, and the EPA and Fuelly numbers have it slightly ahead of the explorer.

As you can see I have vehicle ADD (the option to get a v8 rwd coupe or sedan is always lingering in my mind) so it wont be an easy choice. My current car should be going for sale some time this month so maybe by the end of this month or early next I'll have a new ride.

 

[Buddha.]

I like my 2002 Blazer well enough. $3500 for good body and 130k. It was one of the nicest and expensive ones I found in my area, they're getting up there in age now. Tons of rusty cheap ones around. 30" tires fit stock, four wheel disk brakes are nice, peak torque at 2800 rpm gets it moving fine. 15-19mpg, 20-22 if I set the cruise at 55 but who does that? Very common truck, you can find them everywhere.

My biggest gripes are that it feels slow and handles like a boat but my biggest comparison is my other DD, my Mustang GT so it's hardly fair.

there is a K2500 part that is heavier and will interchange

good to know