When is new, too new?

[xtfritz]

I've seen many folks over on the FJcruiserforums.com mod their FJC's to be fairly kitted expo vehicles. This is great and probably fairly comfortable if their journeys for the most part stay in the US and surrounds. But I'm curious to what others think in using new model vehicles to overland expeditions. Newer vehicles have the charm and elegance that draw banditos to your doorstep (or window) and a multitude of electronic accessories to short out at the least convenient part of a water crossing.

What then is considered too new and not proven enough to make the grade as an internationally useable overlander. Home country use is great, but its the overseas stuff I'm pointing this question to.

Cheers

 

[cruiser guy]

They have FJC's down here in Guatemala as well. I saw one when I went into the dealer today.

Personally, I like my diesel LandCruisers, NO computers or other electronics to leave me stranded.

 

[Hltoppr]

I prefer platforms that, even though new, have been tested at least one model year...to get the kinks out...

...but don't listen to me...my Land Cruiser has a manual hand crank attachment for starting if the batteries die....:sombrero:

:safari-rig:

-H-

 

[xtfritz]

I like my diesel LandCruisers, NO computers or other electronics to leave me stranded.

My thoughts are that THIS is the major set back to say using an FJC for a south america tour. Petrol and computers mean great fancy doo-dads in the 1st world but are next to impossible to replace if they don't learn how to swim or they come into contact with mold of the third kind.

 

[ExpeditionJeep]

I would agree that simple seems better and the older vehicles tend to be easier to repair. That said, mileage breeds inconsistency at which point it doesn't necessarily matter what it is your driving as anything can go wrong at any time, at least in my experience.

My personal feeling is that the vehicle chosen should be one easiest to repair and/or find parts and find someone who can repair it as most people simply lack the skills beyond basic problems in the area you are in. For that I believe you must be prudent. In the US, beyond the big cities Jeeps would seem the logical choice as parts and service are available everywhere no matter how small the town as inevitably the local NAPA will probably have your part or can get it the next day and the local garage won't have a problem working on it. In South America Toyota would same the best choice as they are common. Europe? I think an argument could be made for Land Rover.

Finally, having personal knowledge of the truck is crucial if one is to remain self sufficient. Changing brands after 20 years of using one seems a bad idea right before a long trip....not that ever seems to stop anyone.
Marc

Yes, driving Jeeps, but still respecting the Rovers and Cruisers in the world.

 

[madizell]

I don't see much of an issue. Just as a man has to know his limitations, he has to know the limitations of his equipment, new or old. 25 year old electronics are as vulnerable to water intrusion as brand new.

 

[Martyn]

From your avitar it looks like water may be an issue for you xtfritz

 

[cruiser guy]

Quite frankly, if water is your only concern I wouldn't loose too much sleep over it. Unless you plan to ford rivers you shouldn't really get into water much deeper than axle deep, even off road. Most serious crossings are bridged, remember, folks live here too!!

 

[xtfritz]

From your avitar it looks like water may be an issue for you xtfritz

Nah, I just liked the humor of seeing a 'No swimming' sign posted next to a sunken series III. But water crossings I find to be the most exciting activity in Overlanding. Particularly just trying to get my mind around how they prepared the Camel Trophy vehicles for the abuse they were put through. Understandibly some were never operable post competition, but I'd like to find that limit between vehicle destruction and the absolute deepest most extreme limit of water one could get across and still have an intact overlander capable of finishing 9000km of jungle. I see my FJC and fret at the computer location and just imagine it being the first to perish under a serious amount of water, snorkel already installed. On the other hand, newer vehicles I find are made of more and more plastic and don't hold the abuse as well as older sturdier vehicles. Electronic gizmos don't help if they waterlog in an instant and 'crush' characteristics of a bumper and surrounding side panels and fenders are great if you can replace the parts at your local dealership but is another thing if you're 500km from the next gas pump and you need an operable vehicle NOW.

Cheers

 

[I Leak Oil]

The quality of fuels from around the world would be the only thing I'd worry about. Electronics means you need to bring more spares also. Most of the kitted out rigs won't see much of anything besides a dirt road in the U.S. I've been on trail runs with more than a few people who have a nearly brand new truck with all the catalogue parts on it that do nothing but whine and cry at the first pinstripe they get. I really give credit to someone who has the same new truck with all the equipment that isn't afraid to use it!
Older rigs, easier to fix but will probably break down more...
Newer rigs, more complex to repair, probably won't break down as much...
Jason T.

 

[cruiser guy]

Older rigs, easier to fix but will probably break down more...
Newer rigs, more complex to repair, probably won't break down as much...
Jason T.

I put the breakdown likelyhood more on the quality of preventative maintenance than on the age of the vehicle. I'd take either of my vehicles across the continent tomorrow if needed and the newest one is an '82 with well over 300,000 miles (500,000 kms)!

 

[michaelgroves]

I put the breakdown likelyhood more on the quality of preventative maintenance than on the age of the vehicle.

That's true for an old and well-maintained vehicle. For a vehicle which has not been well prepared and maintained, age is a much bigger issue! I guess what it amounts to is that good maintenance and newness are good substitutes for each other, other things being equal.

 

[BIGdaddy]

I put the breakdown likelyhood more on the quality of preventative maintenance than on the age of the vehicle. I'd take either of my vehicles across the continent tomorrow if needed and the newest one is an '82 with well over 300,000 miles (500,000 kms)!

same with mine, but only cuz its a jeep, and i know it.

Very reliable, very simple.

Its the only newer vehicle i would trust to take me overland. If i was travelling through any other continent it would be a FJ80 or a Hilux.

 

[nickw]

Nah, I just liked the humor of seeing a 'No swimming' sign posted next to a sunken series III. But water crossings I find to be the most exciting activity in Overlanding. Particularly just trying to get my mind around how they prepared the Camel Trophy vehicles for the abuse they were put through. Understandibly some were never operable post competition, but I'd like to find that limit between vehicle destruction and the absolute deepest most extreme limit of water one could get across and still have an intact overlander capable of finishing 9000km of jungle. I see my FJC and fret at the computer location and just imagine it being the first to perish under a serious amount of water, snorkel already installed. On the other hand, newer vehicles I find are made of more and more plastic and don't hold the abuse as well as older sturdier vehicles. Electronic gizmos don't help if they waterlog in an instant and 'crush' characteristics of a bumper and surrounding side panels and fenders are great if you can replace the parts at your local dealership but is another thing if you're 500km from the next gas pump and you need an operable vehicle NOW.

Cheers

But as you already realize, the Camel Trophy was more of a publicity stunt than anything else. What you did not see what the 15 support rigs behind the scenes. They were expected to put on a show, at the expense of the vehicles.

Any competant overlander would not attempt such things unless they had massive support or were in a life or death situation.