Lightweight Expedition Options (Element, RAV4, Suzuki)

[UncleChris]

I just picked up a Rav4 as a daily driver(taking a load off of the Tacoma).

Mine is a 2wd, although the 4wds would probably be wanted. Besides the lack of payload, small tire size, lack of low range, it would be a great vehicle for Alpine style trips to the trail head, or general exploring within limits. Throw a backpack and a cooler in the back and there you go.

Plus, OME makes a lift for it.

I took a Cal 4wheel drive trip this last fall and there was this 80 year old guy riunning around in his CRV. He had been 4 wheeling since he was a kid and was quite experienced. He was able to do everything the jeeps could. Kind of proves the worth of the driver.

 

[datrupr]

Just froma little experience, the grand Vitara is a great little truck. Fairly economical, pretty versitile, and highly capable. Solid rear axle, low range, and decent gearing. Every time we take it out, we push it harder on the trail difficulty level and it continues to impress us. Short wheelbase, good approach and departure angles, and narrower than larger utes it has proven to be quite capable. If I remeber right, my gets about 19-20 MPG around town going to and from work. I really like the styling of the new GV's, and speaking with the sales man at the auto show, he informed me that it can be had with low range, and also a locking rear diff. All for under $25K I think it is a steal. the 06's are also a bit wider and longer than the model it replaces, but still seems to me to a pretty capable little truck, and still body on frame, not unibody. I would go that route if it were me. I am also in the same party as Carl, as I do not care much for the styling of the element, but I think I will warm up to it a bit with the body colored plastic trimmings.

 

[paulj]

Is this the new RAV4 (4.3) or an earlier generation? The latest is supposed to have lot more space, and more power while still getting good gas mileage. The new AWD system also has more bells and whistles. I am aware of a RAV4 forum (http://www.rav4world.com/) but haven't paid attention to new owner's reactions.

My second car is a 97 RAV4. To give a sense of how it compares to the Element, its recommended tires pressures are 28/26 v 32/34 for the same size tire - the RAV4 is quite a bit lighter.

Given all the talk by RAV4 owners about Honda's 'too late' reactive AWD system, I was surprised to find that the Element handled an icy hill better than my RAV4. It was one of those cases where it was best to apply just enough power to get moving, but not too much to spin the tires. I suspect the Element did better because the automatic transmission does not downshift to 1st when in '2'. Weight distribution and tires could also have made a difference, as well as subtleties in shifting power between front and rear wheels.

paulj

 

[Scott Brady]

The key with these smaller vehicles is the fuel economy, lower cost to purchase, etc. Some models can also fly pretty low under the radar when south of the border, allowing you to meld into the towns.

I have been considering one to use for running around town, hauling the mtn bike, trips to the office in CA, etc.

Great picture of the boulder over the trail Paul.

 

[paulj]

I had hoped to take of picture of the Element under that rock, but there was too much 'traffic'. That is, about the time I took the picture of the rock, a pickup came behind me, so I drove on through the rock and parked a bit further down. I first drove down this road in 1988 toward the end of my Alaska trip. The rock was not there. (Long Canyon drops from Dead Horse Pt State Park down to the Colorado River.)

Then I was driving my S10 pickup, and was quite happy to have low range for crawling down this road, especially at point where it makes a bend with a full view of the canyon below. In the Element I had to pump the brakes quite a bit. But by then I had enough experience with steep hills to have some confidence in its brakes, even without low range.

My baptism with fire, so to speak, in long steep down hills was High Bar Road, which drops down to the Fraser River in British Columbia. The sign at the top warns of 23% grade. In 3 miles it drops 3500 ft. Even with a photo stop at a switchback part way down, I was smelling my brakes near the bottom. I have attached some pictures from that drop.

Latter in that British Columbia trip, at the bottom of 'The Hill' on the Bella Coola road, I saw a pickup with a front brake fire.

paulj

 

[paulj]

What has your real world MPG been?
How did the Element do in your snow run?

While there are frequent 'MPG' threads on Element forums, my impression is that most drivers find the EPA numbers to be realistic - provided you understand how they are measured.

I think the best day averaged around 25 mpg; that was crossing Montana from Billings to Glacier, and mostly involved 50-55 mph highway driving. The previous day across North Dakota was more like 20, with a head wind and near 75mph speeds.

Around home, with short trips, suburban traffic and some hills, I am running around 20. A day spent in 1st and 2nd on backroads could drop it further.

Incidently, on my Alaska trip, I got some of my best mileage on gravel roads like the Dempster. Steady gravel in 40-50 mph without too many hills seems optimal for many cars.

If by 'snow run' you mean the picture labeled Icicle Creek, I got stuck. I described this experience on EOC
http://www.elementownersclub.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11431

At the point where I took that picture, I had turned around since the tracks in the snow had dwindled down to one set. On the way back I was playing in the deeper stuff beside the road, and got stuck with the right front wheel in 8 inches. With some traction mats under the rear wheels I was able to backup a few feet, and then switch the mats to the front, and pull onto the center of the road.

My tires at the time were a poor choice for snow use - GY Integrity (minivan tires). I haven't had occasion to give my Coopers a good snow test.

paulj

 

[paulj]

My attachment below is the WonderRunner down on this lower trail heading back to "John's Canyon"

Is that Johns Canyon road a through road? As best I can tell from the maps its an in and out drive. While at Muley Pt I heard and saw a truck of some sort down on that road.

When we drove through this area, the remnants of a tropical storm had soaked things, leaving picturesque ponds on the rocks. I had hoped to drive the Burr Trail, but a mud flow across the road at Bullfrog Ck blocked that way, so we took the long way around, through Capitol Reef and over Boulder Mtn to Escalante.

paulj

 

[Scott Brady]

More excellent feedback Paul.

One more question. How does the gearing do on steep decents like you described (the 23% one)? In first gear (or is selecting first gear possible?).

Thanks

 

[upcruiser]

Great thread idea Scott. Funny thing was, last night I had this same thought for a thread and was thinking about posting it today. Ya beat me to it though. haha

Another vehicle I'd throw into here would be the Ford Escape/Mazda Tribute. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe they share the same chasis and suspension fundamentals with the Land Rover Freelander. These vehicles seem to have a bit more clearance then other's in their class, likely at the expense of mileage though. Just curious as to the popular opinnions about these. I'm a pretty big Toyota Fan boy and wouldn't mind finding a nice 5 door manual trannied older Rav 4 for a daily driver.

I've always had an appreciation for doing more with less. Ever since I was younger and bouncing around offroad in my dad's VW Thing (which subsequently became mine when I was 16) the idea of light weight offroad vehicles, especially non traditional ones has been appealing. Good discussion here.

 

[zimm]

i always thought the little fords were a decent design for off road. just no low range :-( i like the element for a cheap utility vehicle, but the angles in it are horrible. a dirt road gutter would rip off body parts.

 

[paulj]

Another vehicle I'd throw into here would be the Ford Escape/Mazda Tribute. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe they share the same chasis and suspension fundamentals with the Land Rover Freelander.

I believe the Escape/Tribute came out (around 2000) before Ford bought LR. I've never read of an Escape/Freelander connection. A quite look from the back might give some indication of a similarity or difference. The lower suspension control arms are quite visible on the Escape.

For more info on the Freelander look at
http://www.landroverclub.net/Club/HTML/Freelander_main.htm
Here's a picture of the rear suspension of the Freelander. It looks quite a bit different from the Escape's.

It is possible, though, that in recent years there has been some technology sharing between the Escape and Freelander. I haven't looked at those cars in a couple of years.

paulj

 

[upcruiser]

hmm, interesting. I can't remember where I had heard that. The suspension does look different. The vehicles themselves look remarkably similar though in size and general layout. The Freelander predates the Tribute and Escape, as it was sold oversees for several years before the US introduction.

 

[upcruiser]

A friend of mine worked for a Land Rover dealership as a mechanic and told horror stories of the Freelander's quality control problems, I can't recall exactly what they were, but I recall it having to do with the suspension. Anyone heard anything in that department?

 

[paulj]

One more question. How does the gearing do on steep decents like you described (the 23% one)? In first gear (or is selecting first gear possible?).

I have the automatic transmission, and use the lower gears regularly on backroads. The Honda transmission is different from some others in that in the '2' setting, it does not downshift, a feature which useful in snow when you want to apply power gently to avoid wheel spin.

As a rough estimate I'd say 1st provides enough engine braking to keep the car at about 20 mph on steep roads. At this speed the engine is reving in its maximum torque range (4000 rpm). Where road roughness, curves and dropoffs dictate a slower speed I have to use the brakes.

So on the High Bar Rd at 23% I used the brakes heavily. On the other hand I did not need any special brake use on California Sonora Pass, which has grades up to 26% but is paved.

The manual transmission for the Element is geared lower, so it would have better engine braking (in addition to enherent advantage of manual transmissions in this use). On the other hand, when crawling up hill, the manual is easier to stall.

transmission ratios
manual: (1) 3.533, (2) 2.042, (3) 1.3555, (4) 1.028, (5) 0.825, (R) 3.583, (diff) 4.765
auto: (1) 2.684, (2) 1.535, (D) 1.081, (OD) 0.738, (R) 2.000, (diff) 4.438

(If you want to plug these numbers into an rpm v roadspeed calculator, the stock tire size is 215/70/16.)

My 97 RAV4 (automatic) has a lower 1st gear than the Element, and hence better engine braking.

The Freelander is supposed to have a very effective braking mode for downhill crawling, as compensation for its lack of low range. I don't know, though, how well it would handle a long downhill such as at High Bar.

paulj

 

[Scott Brady]

I have used the Freelanders off-road on several occasions (loaners for my sick Discovery II), and I liked them. They have a 5 speed automatic with a very low first gear. Helps to compensate for the lack of low range.

The greatest hindrance to its off-highway ability if the lack of articulation, though that issue plagues most IFS smaller 'utes.