Open source 4x4 concept

[Toasty]

(This is a repost from my thread on 4x4wire.com) I want your opinions too Expo wheelers.

I haven't said much about my recent projects with MMNA, trying not to botch things i'm working on (or reveal things i shouldn't and loose my friends trust). Anyway the short story is that I made some suggestions and had some ideas, these things got mentioned to some people. At that point it was requested that i put my ideas into writing to be presented in Japan, it seems an interest has been sparked.


The Pajero is what it is and having said that there is no going back, the Pajero has it's own path of evolution that cannot be changed. The push now is for a rebirth or successor to the 4wd market. The plan is to "build" an open source concept 4x4 to be presented to MMC directly, the sky is the limit on this but the chances of getting something going is greater if certain guidelines are followed. For example "Well it has to have pro rock 60's, V8 and monster diesel options, 11" LCD with android capability, 4 wheel steer, be able to max out the RTI ramp stock while still driving like a car on road" is not the goal. Motor's and gizmos are better left out, it's better to just to take on what's currently available and being produced (there's plenty).


The other thing is choosing a platform to work from; Second Gen Pajero/Type 73, Fourth Gen L200/Second Gen Challenger. These utilize something already in production and are obviously IFS/Live axle setups. Otherwise there's designing a whole new frame in order to have real axles front and rear, this would require all new tooling and more R&D on MMC's end which they might not want to do but on the other hand they need the change.
The ultimate goal is a new bodystyle, detailed specs about the suspension and drivetrain minus motor all in a base configuration as in just the core truck.

I'm going to start an actual "thing" a little later but it will be a sandbox for building the concept. I'll put together some guidelines, a parts/equipment compilation and get the ball rolling. The proposed bodystyle is retro modern with hints of Gen 1&2 Pajero and the Second Gen Type 73, so kind of boxy with round headlamps and aggressive body lines.
We'll make sketches and full drawings of body designs, these things will be used as keys for a real concept drawing.

I already have plenty of ideas to go by but I am a firm believer in open source everything so I want every piece of input you guys can come up within reason without adding negative comments or whacky space ship stuff. I don't think any corporate automakers have ventured into this territory before so it will be interesting to see what unfolds. The probability of having this concept made is very remote BUT it does serve a purpose and that is planting a seed.

 

[Toasty]

Some examples are; convertible top, roof gutters for hardtops, hose out interior, easy removable rear seats ect.

 

[Imnosaint]

Snorkel built in to the A pillar with the ability to adjust flow source from the cabin.

 

[low_49]

I like the washable interior idea and the built in snorkel!

As far as platforms go, I would suggest utilizing the Triton platform. It's a existing platform, proven and sold in other parts of the world and comes with a live rear axel and factory option of a locker. So that would be a good and realistic place to start.
Other things that would be nice and realistic would be a usable modular roof rack system akin to the Frontrunner, large wheel wells to accommodate 33" tires, highly (or at least moderately) articulate front IFS, nice factory armor like what the Gen 2's had, steel front and rear bumpers with good approach/departure angles I think would be a must, usable recovery points. Since these items represent the first things people usually change out/add, the option of those on a solid factory platform would really turn my head.

 

[Toasty]

You're the first to suggest the Triton Platform, they are way light duty compared to the Montero. Everyone else thinks the new truck should be tougher than the Gen 2.
Keep them coming

 

[Mudrunner]

To me a baseline for Toughness must be established before you start. I mean what do you mean toughness because that is vague to me.

 

[off-roader]

...what do you mean toughness...

gen 2 has a full box frame and the drivetrain is more than capable of supporting 37x14.5" mud tires in the field on tough rock crawling trails.

I can't think of any similarly classed American SUV/4x4's that has the same drivetrain capability from the factory with the exception of the Jeep rubicon which is built by the factory for wheeling. Not sure a bout other Mitsu offerings but I always though the Montero was mitsu's top tier 4x4 and the triton, Montero sport (built using a triton frame), etc, are lesser 4x4's in terms of off road prowess.

Bear in mind that unlike many of its competitors, instead of making the Montero more trail worthy, it was "upgraded" to make it more civilized with things like leather seats, a gasoline engine (versus a Turbo Diesel), etc.

 

[Mudrunner]

But where is the quantifiable data to determine this. That I guess is my real question. I mean I could make a frame out of titanium and that would make it tougher right? That is the question to me. How does the Montero stack up to the Land Crusier and then what about the H1. The variables are immense, and then sheet metal and road worthiness too. So many thoughts. I wouldn't ever dream of spending a ton of cash on a dedicated off road vehicle unless I was rich. I mean I am just trying to determine fact from opinion.

 

[Toasty]

The framework on the Montero is overbuilt and a bit heavier than the Sport. Not that the Sport is bad by any means but to give you an idea, Sports that get wheeled hard break body mounts and develop cracks near the suspension stress points. This is unheard of in the Montero world.

For those who need something to compare it to think of this Gen 2 Montero is on the level with the 100 series Landcruiser then Sport is to the 4 Runner.

Back on topic, we all agree that F/R locking diffs need to be a factory option and thats a given but to up the ante we're talking about a better T-case option. Any opinions? Think planetary gears in the transmission tail housing or dropping the viscous coupler in favor of a gear driven 3 speed case...

 

[Mudrunner]

The framework on the Montero is overbuilt and a bit heavier than the Sport. Not that the Sport is bad by any means but to give you an idea, Sports that get wheeled hard break body mounts and develop cracks near the suspension stress points. This is unheard of in the Montero world.

For those who need something to compare it to think of this Gen 2 Montero is on the level with the 100 series Landcruiser then Sport is to the 4 Runner.

Back on topic, we all agree that F/R locking diffs need to be a factory option and thats a given but to up the ante we're talking about a better T-case option. Any opinions? Think planetary gears in the transmission tail housing or dropping the viscous coupler in favor of a gear driven 3 speed case...

Just out of curiosity does the same thing happen to the Tritons? I ask only because the Sport has a modified Wheel base from the Triton and also weighs more. Meaning this could be a simple case of changing too much to compete in a market.

T-case I would go gear driven over chain or anything else. Simple is best for trail repairs and also creating a small number of spares needed on a trip. With that said maybe finding a way to make things more interchangeable too. Less different parts so only a few spares may be needed to fix a large number of problems.

 

[off-roader]

Just out of curiosity does the same thing happen to the Tritons? I ask only because the Sport has a modified Wheel base from the Triton and also weighs more. Meaning this could be a simple case of changing too much to compete in a market.

Not sure if it does but the lighter weight may make it less of an issue.

 

[Sabre]

Given current manufacturing practices, I'd be surprised to see a regression from the monocoque chassis to a body-on-frame vehicle. Of course, it really depends upon the target market; what subset of the buying public will be targeted, and can such a vehicle be affordable unless it appeals to the widest share of consumers?

In any case, mechanical and electronic simplicity is desirable. Of course, we're back to fighting the trend here, not to mention consumer expectations.

 

[Mudrunner]

Given current manufacturing practices, I'd be surprised to see a regression from the monocoque chassis to a body-on-frame vehicle. Of course, it really depends upon the target market; what subset of the buying public will be targeted, and can such a vehicle be affordable unless it appeals to the widest share of consumers?

In any case, mechanical and electronic simplicity is desirable. Of course, we're back to fighting the trend here, not to mention consumer expectations.

I agree with this, I feel like if it is being entertained it will be more of a "concept" car to get the ball rolling. Somethings might be sent into production. I think the best option for any company looking at this idea would be to offer an off-road package. Like Mitsubishi designing a live rear axle swap from the factory for the Pajero and Sport to give the option to those who might want something. But the 4x4 market has gone from backwoods to suburbia and when the market is 70% suburbia you can't make money on something that doesn't fit.

 

[vectorsc]

I will give it a go:

1. The jeep wrangler rubicon is immensely popular...so this isn't a stupid market segment.

2. Advanced 4wd is a need. Think "lock anything" philosophy. CVT maybe? It would allow for a massively slow crawl.

3. Hard lines. This crap about mistaking your car for a suppository isn't a key point.

4. Advanced suspension. It should be road worthy and trail worthy. None should feel it needs upgrades.

5. Interior should support extremely easy removal and washing. Recaro seats. Optional roll bar and harnesses. Or leather comfort seats. Marketing should indicate that both are available to the same buyer....add $800 for the race seat package and bar...keep your leather seats.

6. The body should support full contact rock crawling as part of the factory metal. Example - built in rock sliders and fender guards. Painted in truck bed lining for easy touch ups. Note that these guards are not an exo-skel but part of the body line.

7. Factory multiexit point winch with synthetic line, dash controls, and buttons on the keyless remote.

8. Full uhmw bottom protection or similar full vehicle weight skid.

9. High center recovery system.

10. Fording capability with extreme sealing and snorkel.

11. High capacity roof rails.

12. Refrigerator rated 12v receptacle in rear.

 

[Ryanmb21]

They should make a montero for the US market, don't need to change a whole lot (the last ones were awesome). I'd hire a new ad man. And it has to get 20mpg highway and have a good stereo.