How much off-road capability is enough?

[Lynn]

Somewhere on Stephen Stewart's site there is a 'lessons learned' page, that I can't, for the life of me, find again.*

Anyway, he has traveled exetensivly in 'regular' motorhomes, and in a Mog-based camper that he designed himself. According to his site, he has sold the Mog and is looking for his next ride.

One comment on his 'lessons learned' page said that paying extra for the 4x4 version of an on-road truck is worthwhile, but paying extra for a true off-road truck is not. That comment surprises me, coming from someone who has put a Mog-based camper through it's paces.

From his comments on 'Agent Orange.' I suspect part of his rational is based on the fact that higher cruising speeds are possible with a 4x4 on-road truck v. a true off-road truck?

What are your thoughts?

*Sorry I can't find a link to the page I'm referencing. If you have it, please post it.

 

[Martyn]

For most non-North American expedition vehicles apart from the mods like RTT, water tanks, long range tanks, and possibly minor underbody armor the rest of the vehicle is stock. Limited slip differentials are also popular.

Most of the modifications to vehicles in North America have more to do with "Bling" in my opinion, or the need to identify to some group or other.

There seems to be a lot of cross over from Rock Crawling to Expedition in North America but I think people will tell you that 90% of all the add on's they have get used 10% of the time.

My ideal expedition vehicle would be basically stock, or with a very moderate lift, a winch (possibly removable), sump and diff guards. I'd also go for dual batteries. The vehicle would of course have to have a trailer hitch!

 

[DaveInDenver]

I think this is a great subject. I know in the case of my truck I have to go out of my way to use it fully. It seems for our purposes it's got lots of capability that isn't used often. But that's sort of the rub. Like 95% of the time you don't need anything more than a stock Subaru to get some place, but that 0.5% of the time that conditions require it you are sure glad you have lockers or winch or whatever. I've always thought that having a built up truck can defeat some of the reason for going into the backcountry. I mean what's wrong with stopping, parking and walking a bit? But when you frame it in terms of getting some place, then having that extra capability is really marginal unless you are specifically going rock crawling or whatever. There's generally options, by-passes, different roads or routes that all achieve similar goals. But the journey can be better the hard way. I mean take getting from Wenworth Springs to Lake Tahoe. One way is paved and gets you there through surely pretty land and the other is the Rubicon trail, which is more remote, challenging and fun.

 

[Martyn]

Dave

I though "Trail Rated" on a stock Jeep meant it was capable of going over the Rubicon?

While I don't believe the vehicle would come over unscathed I do believe a lot of stock vehicles are very capable.

 

[sami]

I sport an '85 4runner with 5" springs, 37's, dual cases, bla bla bla built for rockcrawling clearly... (for sale)

The most fun i've had wheeling i'd have to say was in a stock Samurai, my first vehicle.

I agree that stock vehicles can be very capable from the factory, which is why i love older Toyotas in most cases.

-Jason

 

[Rhode Trip]

Somewhere on Stephen Stewart's site there is a 'lessons learned' page, that I can't, for the life of me, find again.*

Anyway, he has traveled exetensivly in 'regular' motorhomes, and in a Mog-based camper that he designed himself. According to his site, he has sold the Mog and is looking for his next ride.

One comment on his 'lessons learned' page said that paying extra for the 4x4 version of an on-road truck is worthwhile, but paying extra for a true off-road truck is not. That comment surprises me, coming from someone who has put a Mog-based camper through it's paces.

From his comments on 'Agent Orange.' I suspect part of his rational is based on the fact that higher cruising speeds are possible with a 4x4 on-road truck v. a true off-road truck?

What are your thoughts?

*Sorry I can't find a link to the page I'm referencing. If you have it, please post it.

Lynn, I think you are thinking of the "what Van?" article here:
http://www.xor.org.uk/silkroute/index.html

He says: "In my opinion the extra cost of a 4x4 version of an on-road truck (if available) is worthwhile, but the extra cost of a true "off-road" vehicle is not.

Having said that I also think that if an otherwise suitable vehicle is available with 16 or 17 inch wheels, rear wheel drive and a departure angle of 15° then the fact that it is only two wheel drive should not exclude it from consideration."

 

[haven]

Stephen Stewart reference

The article in question is located here
http://www.xor.org.uk/silkroute/equipment/choosevan.htm

This is a "must-read" piece for people thinking about long-term overland travel. Stewart talks about vehicles for travel on unimproved roads in remote areas. The advice doesn't necessarily apply to weekend rock hoppers, who may wish to test their skills over very rough terrain, where there is no road at all.

Stewart's article is written for members of the Silk Road Motorcaravan Club, for journeys that last weeks, if not months. Stewart writes: "In my opinion the extra cost of a 4x4 version of an on-road truck (if available) is worthwhile, but the extra cost of a true "off-road" vehicle is not."

This is not to say that long-term travel is impossible in a true off-road vehicle. It depends on the level of comfort and convenience you require during a journey of several weeks or months. Everybody's different in this regard.

Chip Haven

 

[Funrover]

Well.. I guess I am one tring to dabble in both sport with one 4x4. I try to make everything totally functional, and I keep away from bling.

That being said I do enjoy the nice flowing trails and expedition style set ups.. but I am also a fan of rockcrawling!

My 1992 Range Rover has a 3" lift and 33.5" tires. and I am set, I see no reason to go larger. Was I able to do a lot with my 2" lift and my 32" tires. But I often found myself in trouble.. only by an inch or 2.

Here I am now:

Sliders are being redone currently, so they are not pictured.

Now with all of that being said my parents have a stock 97 Rover, it does great for them... takes them on all the trails they want to do and gets them around safly in the city!!

I think it depends on what type of person you are. I am into the rockcrawl scene some so for me the few extra mods are worth it!

 

[DaveInDenver]

I though "Trail Rated" on a stock Jeep meant it was capable of going over the Rubicon?

Never knew that. I'd be genuinely surprised to hear that a showroom fresh Jeep Liberty could make it through the Rubicon solo, though.

While I don't believe the vehicle would come over unscathed I do believe a lot of stock vehicles are very capable.

I think that was my point. Just about any stock 4WD car is going to be fine for a lot of things. But I've had my rear saved a few times by having lockers, mostly in the winter. So I dunno, I think to say you absolutely don't need modifications is a fairly limiting constraint on where you go.

 

[FusoFG]

From his comments on 'Agent Orange.' I suspect part of his rational is based on the fact that higher cruising speeds are possible with a 4x4 on-road truck v. a true off-road truck?

What are your thoughts?

I suspect it's because aside from maybe the sahara desert, there aren't that many places to visit that require a true 'off road' vehicle.

For the places we travel in north america, I would be happy with a high clearance vehicle with low range and a 6,000 to 8,000 pound payload.

There are lots of unimproved roads on the way to remote lakes, camping, etc. that require high clearance and good approach, breakover and departure angles.

And when you are driving a 10,000 plus pound truck carrying all your living needs for 2 or more months a good low range is essential to keep the wine glasses from breaking.

The only time 4wd is required ( aside from using low range ) is in poor traction caused by mud, snow, etc.

 

[efuentes]

My take on a "couple of weeks at a time expedition truck" (The usual for most of us)

Modify the truck as much as you want/need while keeping the original reliability and handling intact.

Or to put it another way, increase departure angles, tire size, suspension travel and capacity without altering dependability and CG.

Or just get a LC 80, slap some dual batteries and volvo portal axles and be done with it.

Saludos

 

[Scott Brady]

Dave

I though "Trail Rated" on a stock Jeep meant it was capable of going over the Rubicon?

Trail rated is a series of "trail" attributes as tested by the Nevada test center. Like fording depth, tractive ability, articulation, ground clearance, etc.

The Rubicon requirement was before "trail rated" and a legacy (and a fine one at that) of Le Iococa (sp?)

 

[Scott Brady]

Never knew that. I'd be genuinely surprised to hear that a showroom fresh Jeep Liberty could make it through the Rubicon solo, though.

It can... I drove it/spotted it through.




No failures and could still drive under its own power back to Reno.

(looking for pictures, will post)

 

[Scott Brady]

Some
What are your thoughts?

Lynn,

This is a great post, but really begs the question of where you want to explore. Remote Mayan Temple through the jungle, then MAJOR 4wd and driver capability is required.

My trip to the Arctic (minus the Peel River) could have easily been done in a Subaru (still pulling the trailer).

So it depends on what your objectives are, which will define the vehicle specification.

 

[DaveInDenver]

It can... I drove it/spotted it through.

Well I'll be. No straps or winches, then? Here I've been all worried about taking my double locked, 2" lifted, ARB'd, 33" tired, hopefully eventually fitted with sliders/Marlin/BudBuilt Hilux through it. And I could have just been driving a Liberty all these years.