Japes,
I was in a somewhat similar situation as you find yourself. My job has tanked to the point where my working hours have been slashed. So buying a new vehicle to replace my aging Volvo wagon, just wasn't going to happen.
The Volvo was a 760 2.3L turbo model. The very best highway milage I got was 22.3mpg. The average was 20mpg. It did not have much ground clearance when loaded down and that was with Nivomat self leveling, rear shocks. Driving on dirt roads was ok, if they were flat. Any kind of uneven terrain and you could easily get hung up. I would not recommend the Volvos as they are $$$ to repair and the early ones have electrical issues. It is said that they have biodegradable wiring.
I researched just about anything that rolled and could be used for camping or expedition type traveling. Use the EPA's website to see what kind of mpg you can expect to get from a "stock" vehicle. Just remember that adding roof racks, adding a lift kit or larger tires, can reduce your mpg.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.shtml
I settled on an older Ford Ranger 4X4 extra cab, with the 4.0L engine and manual 5 speed. I like the fact that it has a full frame underneath it, vs a unibody design. The highway mpg is rated at 20mpg, about the same as the Volvo wagon. The Ranger with the 4 cylinder 2.3 is rated at 22mpg, so I would rather have the V6. It came with a fiberglass shell, which I plan on adding some insulation and making some lightweight storage compartments. For camping I plan on using a tent attachment to the camper shell.
http://www.sportsmansguide.com/net/cb/texsport-lodge-truck-tent.aspx?a=187164
My second choice would have been a Suzuki Sidekick with the small 4 cylinder.
I was in a somewhat similar situation as you find yourself. My job has tanked to the point where my working hours have been slashed. So buying a new vehicle to replace my aging Volvo wagon, just wasn't going to happen.
The Volvo was a 760 2.3L turbo model. The very best highway milage I got was 22.3mpg. The average was 20mpg. It did not have much ground clearance when loaded down and that was with Nivomat self leveling, rear shocks. Driving on dirt roads was ok, if they were flat. Any kind of uneven terrain and you could easily get hung up. I would not recommend the Volvos as they are $$$ to repair and the early ones have electrical issues. It is said that they have biodegradable wiring.
I researched just about anything that rolled and could be used for camping or expedition type traveling. Use the EPA's website to see what kind of mpg you can expect to get from a "stock" vehicle. Just remember that adding roof racks, adding a lift kit or larger tires, can reduce your mpg.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.shtml
I settled on an older Ford Ranger 4X4 extra cab, with the 4.0L engine and manual 5 speed. I like the fact that it has a full frame underneath it, vs a unibody design. The highway mpg is rated at 20mpg, about the same as the Volvo wagon. The Ranger with the 4 cylinder 2.3 is rated at 22mpg, so I would rather have the V6. It came with a fiberglass shell, which I plan on adding some insulation and making some lightweight storage compartments. For camping I plan on using a tent attachment to the camper shell.
http://www.sportsmansguide.com/net/cb/texsport-lodge-truck-tent.aspx?a=187164
My second choice would have been a Suzuki Sidekick with the small 4 cylinder.
. I bought a 4 door Sidekick for 750, it got 27 mpg on a my 100 mile rt daily commute for two years. Love the 16v motor. Hooked up a hitch and hauled a small trailer when I needed it to be a truck. I sold it to my daughter, and it kept her happy and safe until she was t-boned by a drunk - no injuries for her. And she now has a 97 (the old one was a 93) with a 1.8 16v. NIIIiice little car. She loves it.