What is the greatest overland vehicle ever sold new in the US?
- Thread starter Scott Brady
- Start date
ExpoScout
Explorer
Oh man, this is definitely an open-ended discussion. Problem is that it's very subjective.
For me, when I think of the "perfect overlanding vehicle" I think diesel (for reliability/mpg), not micro but not full size, range, simplicity, among other things. Of course the best for a particular area may very well be a gas vehicle if there's not a station with diesel. Not to mention many other factors.
One to add to the list is the International Scout. I may be biased becuase I have two of them. But something to consider. Both '80 model years with the turbo diesel. They came with a stout power plant from Nissan. The gas versions would be lower on my list due to mileage, but were reliable in thier own right. The positives for the '80 model turbo diesels were many. Dana 44 axles front and rear, good mileage, good reliability, Dana 300 TCs, T19 transmissions, mechanical injection, spacious interiors (esp on traveler models with longer wheelbase), shared running gear components with many other domestic vehicles, etc. My traveler has the optional 33 gal fuel tank. That coupled with the nearly 25mpg I can eek out gives it good range.
The negatives are poorly designed sheet metal that produces rust faster than most thought possible, scarcity of parts for the Nissan power plant here in the states, and some other things that made them so unique that parts/repair weren't as easy as some other vehicles.
I'll go ahead and say that legit full size vehicles aren't on the list for me. Especially most domestic full sizes and even the new tundras. They just feel too big...but that's personal preference and isn't meant to disparage thier capabilities.
It's nothing more than a give and take. I think this goes for most vehicles mentioned here. I don't think there is a clear champion, as all could've have done one thing or another better, but I will say that some of the toyotas are about as close as you can get. Jeeps obviously have a lot going for them. Toyota just offers a wider variety of options. It's one of the reasons I just picked up a first gen tundra. It's not FULL size, has everything I want and not much of what I don't. The only ways it could be better would be a Diesel engine, but even that wouldn't be a huge leap except for maybe mileage. The 4.7 has ample power and is reliable. The Toyota reliability is a breath of fresh air compared to some vehicles like the rovers I've had. This discussion might be quite different if diesel rovers were brought here in numbers.
But neither my scout nor my tundra does everything I want. I'll keep both and use them for different type trips.
This discussion is so multi faceted its not even funny. If the parameters were tightened a bit it might be easier. There really are a ton of good options despite the fact that the US gets the short end of the stick when it comes to quintessential overland autos. Just gotta find what works. A single guy can come up with a different list than a family of five.
For me, when I think of the "perfect overlanding vehicle" I think diesel (for reliability/mpg), not micro but not full size, range, simplicity, among other things. Of course the best for a particular area may very well be a gas vehicle if there's not a station with diesel. Not to mention many other factors.
One to add to the list is the International Scout. I may be biased becuase I have two of them. But something to consider. Both '80 model years with the turbo diesel. They came with a stout power plant from Nissan. The gas versions would be lower on my list due to mileage, but were reliable in thier own right. The positives for the '80 model turbo diesels were many. Dana 44 axles front and rear, good mileage, good reliability, Dana 300 TCs, T19 transmissions, mechanical injection, spacious interiors (esp on traveler models with longer wheelbase), shared running gear components with many other domestic vehicles, etc. My traveler has the optional 33 gal fuel tank. That coupled with the nearly 25mpg I can eek out gives it good range.
The negatives are poorly designed sheet metal that produces rust faster than most thought possible, scarcity of parts for the Nissan power plant here in the states, and some other things that made them so unique that parts/repair weren't as easy as some other vehicles.
I'll go ahead and say that legit full size vehicles aren't on the list for me. Especially most domestic full sizes and even the new tundras. They just feel too big...but that's personal preference and isn't meant to disparage thier capabilities.
It's nothing more than a give and take. I think this goes for most vehicles mentioned here. I don't think there is a clear champion, as all could've have done one thing or another better, but I will say that some of the toyotas are about as close as you can get. Jeeps obviously have a lot going for them. Toyota just offers a wider variety of options. It's one of the reasons I just picked up a first gen tundra. It's not FULL size, has everything I want and not much of what I don't. The only ways it could be better would be a Diesel engine, but even that wouldn't be a huge leap except for maybe mileage. The 4.7 has ample power and is reliable. The Toyota reliability is a breath of fresh air compared to some vehicles like the rovers I've had. This discussion might be quite different if diesel rovers were brought here in numbers.
But neither my scout nor my tundra does everything I want. I'll keep both and use them for different type trips.
This discussion is so multi faceted its not even funny. If the parameters were tightened a bit it might be easier. There really are a ton of good options despite the fact that the US gets the short end of the stick when it comes to quintessential overland autos. Just gotta find what works. A single guy can come up with a different list than a family of five.
casioqv
Dr. Diesel
I'm pretty much on the same page as you...
For my purposes an expedition vehicle MUST be simple, reliable, fuel efficient, and as field serviceable as possible. This means it must have:
- mechanically injected diesel
- 4 wheel drive
- mid-size chassis (not a full size truck)
- manual transmission
In the United States that makes the list of possible choices extremely small, and basically limited to what you can find. I think perhaps the Isuzu Trooper, Isuzu PuP, and International Scout diesels are the only vehicles fitting this criteria sold here?
Amazingly, in many countries stickshift turbo diesel vehicles are the norm... it's very frustrating that they're virtually unobtainable here.
ExpoScout
Explorer
Oh, you're right...frustrating is putting it mildly. The diesel trooper is another good one. My uncle has one actually. Newer diesels don't have the charm of older mechanical engines. The simplicity, sounds, smells....it's all very good.
Just curious, why is the manual trans a must? I agree with all other points. I'm 21, so manual trans haven't been as popular in my generation and am pretty unfamiliar with them. My father, younger brother, and I are the only ones in my household or in our group of friends that can drive a stick.
I currently have a 100 series Land Cruiser and an 06 Subaru Impreza wagon with 5spd. Good fun to a drive stick, especially a subaru that feels like it's running on rails. Super solid.
I currently have a 100 series Land Cruiser and an 06 Subaru Impreza wagon with 5spd. Good fun to a drive stick, especially a subaru that feels like it's running on rails. Super solid.
ExpoScout
Explorer
I wouldn't say they are necessary, per se, but they have some advantages. Less parts to break, easier to service, you can pop the clutch to start if batt is dead. Of course with newer transmissions even manuals are more complicated than they used to be.
ExpoScout
Explorer
I have one of each nowadays. There are merits to both. I like them both but for different reasons.
casioqv
Dr. Diesel
It's a must for me but probably not everyone, I think it depends on exactly how you plan to use the vehicle.
Manuals are lower maintenance, more reliable, more fuel efficient, and you can push/pull/roll start a mechanical diesel and keep it running in the event of a total electrical system failure. Personally, I also enjoy driving a manual more.
Automatics have some benefits also- they can creep much slower on rough terrain, and can generate much greater torque from a total stop (for pulling, etc.). I'd say if you don't have a very low range transfer case, an automatic is better because it can make up for that somewhat.
I was unaware as well....I think it's because automatics are now overing 6-8speeds in some vehicles versus what a manual will. Still, I'd love to have a newer 2.7litre 4x4 Tacoma, currently on the hunt. There don't seem to be many. Just nice to row my on gears.
4x4junkie
Explorer
I've seen nothing to support anything but possibly a CVT transmission being as efficient as a manual (even in spite of some EPA sticker ratings I've seen say otherwise).
Consumer Reports magazine (yeah I know... But when they test cars, I tend to believe them) regularly pits identical cars (usually small or sporty cars) with automatic and manual transmissions and the manual model is nearly always 1-4 MPG ahead of the auto.
Biggest reason (among other things) is because of engine power lost as heat within an automatic's torque converter.
Couple of my own observations: my dad's '07 Honda Civic LX w/auto trans gets about 2-4 MPG less than the '86 Accord w/stickshift he had before (and it was carbureted too! not even EFI).
My 23-year-old Ford (w/stick) got 25-26MPG hwy before I lifted it... How many of today's SUVs with all their technicological junk and auto transmissions get much better than that? Many are far worse. Those that do beat it are nearly all car-based 'utes.
Last edited:
Viggen
Just here...
Modern automatics are doing away with torque converters. Modern autos are neck and neck, and in some cases, ahead, of manual transmissions. They can handle more power now AND deliver more forward gears and a much faster shift.
Also, your examples are pretty poor in choice. Your old cars, and most old cars in general, deliver better fuel mileage not because they are more efficient. They usually do it because there is less emissions equipment and less overall weight. Your Honda Accord weights 2500 pounds. The Civic is about 100 to 200 pounds heavier.
Comparing older cars 'efficiency' to newer cars 'efficiency' is not effective. A manual transmission does not guarantee more mileage than an auto does.
Theres a lot of Tacoma love, especially earlier ones. I am not too sure I would call something whose frame has a habit of rusting out from underneath it as "the greatest overland vehicle ever sold."
Last edited:
Similar threads
