Why do folks say, "Jeeps aren't expedition vehicles?"

[maximumrob]

I don't understand when forum members write that the expedition industry has forgotten Wranglers as expedition vehicles. There are more racks, bolt-on parts, bolt-in parts, upgrades, and stick-on stuff for Wranglers than anything else. What gives? Hell, one can even order up a larger gas tank for $1,000 if he so desires. A freakin' gas tank of all things.

Show me another rig outside of a pickup that has an aftermarket gas tank available for it.

Show me another rig that has so many options for outside storage available for it.

Show me another type of rig that gets more off-road miles driven and I'll bow down (no horses or dirt bikes, please). NOTHING gets off road more than a Jeep. Go to the Rocky Mountains or any off-road park and you'll see. Go to a beach, even. Hell, go to the mall and look who's illegally climbing the big grassy hill in the parking lot...usually some kid with a cheap lift and mud tires!

When I think "outside," I think top-down-doors-off-pack-my-tent adventure, not man-this-thing's-a-tomb-with-the-windows-up.

Why, pray tell, do folks here claim that Wranglers have been left in the dust as expedition vehicles? I just don't see any support for that comment in the real world.





.

 

[Scott Brady]

The Jeep was the first readily available expedition vehicle.

The Jeep was the first to cross the Darien Gap

The first Land Rover was built on the chassis of a Jeep

This is not to say that a Jeep is superior to a Land Cruiser or Land Rover, only that they are certainly peers, and not that far from the same tree.

 

[ExpoMike]

My guess is due to the world market more then the US market. In the last 50 years there are not many places in the US that can not be driven to via a paved road. Even on dirt roads you are likely to hit some paved road within a 100 miles or so, that is if it is even legal to drive on the dirt road and it's not part of some military property.

Now go to Africa or Australia and you most likely will drive hundred, even thousands of miles and never hit a paved road. Even today much of it is still like this. I think these areas are where Land Cruisers and Land Rovers made their mark which has a lot of loyalty today. These companies built for these markets while Jeep built for the US market. It's hard to change peoples opinion based on the past.

Well, at least that's my .02 worth. :safari-rig:

 

[Martyn]

I think it boils down to the definition of Expedition. If you follow the "classic" definition most Jeeps would be pushed to fit enough camping gear and food for a month long self supporting excursion. But if you use a more "modern" definition the Jeep fits right in.

I ask myself “How the Long Range Desert Patrols would fit either definition?”. After all they used Willys Jeeps that had less storage than a backpack?

Of course a Jeep with a trailer would fit into both classic and modern definitions. Funny how that happens

 

[bmonday]

I think they are traditionally passed up in favor of the larger vehicles, mostly due to storage space.

The Unlimited, which I have (and note that you do as well) is changing that. But many people see "Wrangler" and don't understand that our Unlimiteds have more interior space than a Liberty, and even some Cherokees.

I would also argue that some of the Jeep's favorite features (topless, doorless, etc) are not benefits on expeditions. You generally are trying to keep the environment (and noise) out of your vehicle, for various reasons.

I will go out on a limb and say that the Wrangler is the most versatile vehicle in its class. We can go from an expedition loadout to a rock-climbing loadout quicker than anything else (mid-trip, even, if properly equipped).

My 2 cents, for what it's worth.

Oh, and I looked at that Gentech tenk, but I can't justify spend a grand to expand the fuel capacity 11gals when i can get the same thing from a pair of $40 gerry cans. But then, I have a trailer, and don't have to worry about where to carry a bunch of fuel cans.

 

[JeepinBear]

Now you're talking Martyn

 

[BIGdaddy]

My guess is due to the world market more then the US market. In the last 50 years there are not many places in the US that can not be driven to via a paved road. Even on dirt roads you are likely to hit some paved road within a 100 miles or so, that is if it is even legal to drive on the dirt road and it's not part of some military property.

Now go to Africa or Australia and you most likely will drive hundred, even thousands of miles and never hit a paved road. Even today much of it is still like this. I think these areas are where Land Cruisers and Land Rovers made their mark which has a lot of loyalty today. These companies built for these markets while Jeep built for the US market. It's hard to change peoples opinion based on the past.

Well, at least that's my .02 worth. :safari-rig:

agreed, mike. I think if jeeps were seen mostly on dirt here in the U.S. rather than the costco parking lot, there would be a more mystic "land-rover-esque" feel when one see's one.

by the way, mike and I are working hard to change that stigma....wanna be like mike!

 

[Alaska Mike]

• Because for the most part Jeep is a North American brand. Parts and other support in Africa and Asia (classic expedition stomping grounds) are still easier to find for brands like Toyota or even Land Rover.
• Because Jeep build it's mystique around short, hardcore trails instead of longer trips. It's marketing, but it affects perception.
• Because Jeep has never made interior space a priority. For instance, my Series III Land Rover has an 88" wheelbase and can seat 7 people. A comparable CJ-7 is 5" longer, yet seats fewer people. The engine compartment in the Series rig is tiny in comparison. It's about how they used the available wheelbase.
• Because until recently Jeep has never tried to get into the diesel market.
• Just because the aftermarket for other vehicles seems small in the states, doesn't mean it's that way for the rest of the world. Pick up a British 4x4 magazine sometime. Larger or additional tanks are nothing new in the automotive world. Much of the functional Jeep aftermarket is geared towards those short, hardcore trails. Other brand aftermarkets focus on expedition-style travel a little more.

I'm not saying that Jeep is not a suitable expedition vehicle. I got really excited when Scott told me about the new rig, and I think it's a great small-footprint platform. Just about any rig can be a good expedition platform with varying amounts of modifications and money.

However, I will say this: I've owned my CJ-5 for 15 years (I like the short wheelbase rigs), but when it came time to build an expedition rig I decided to go with the mystique of Land Rover. Noisy, leaky, underpowered, unreliable Land Rover. What can I say? I'm a sucker for marketing.

By the way- Didn't Land Rovers cross the Darien before Mark Smith?
http://www.geocities.com/landroverpty/trans.htm
http://www.4wdonline.com/LandRover/RR1/Darien.html

Admittedly, the first expedition had a Jeep truck in addition to the Land Rover.

At any rate, run what ya brung and keep exploring.

 

[cruiseroutfit]

The Land Cruiser has all of your requirements IMO, commercially available long range fuel tanks from several manufactures. Plenty of companies constructing exterior storage, with manufactures all over the world. And plenty of miles in the dirt. It would be virtually impossible to figure out which vehicle has the most "dirt time", but really it doesn't matter, its neither here nor there. The same argument could be waged for the Series Land Rover, the Nissan Patrols, etc.

IMO you need to quit worrying about the definition others give your choice of vehicle and use the thing.

Edit: Regarding Jeeps and expedtions. I just finished reading about the recreation boom on the popular Hole In The Rock Trail in SE Utah. The groups spent days and days on the trail (commuting from Blanding in war surplus Jeeps) in an attempt to reach the Colorado River during the 50's and 60's, in every case a Jeep was used. Says enough for me

 

[Scott Brady]

Exactly...

It is the person behind the wheel, and there decision to venture further that makes it an expedition vehicle. There are countless awesome Land Cruisers that have never left the state they were purchased in.

 

[RoverMack]

I ask myself “How the Long Range Desert Patrols would fit either definition?”. After all they used Willys Jeeps that had less storage than a backpack?

The Long Range Desert Group used Chevrolet 30cwt trucks loaded with 3 weeks supply of food and water and with a range of over 1,100 miles. David Stirling did use jeeps to great effect, but they depended on support vehicles (Chevrolet 30cwt trucks) and re supply points because of the limited payload and range of the Willys Jeeps.

 

[grahamfitter]

When you see Jeeps on TV they're usually being blown up by the A-Team or transporting the cast of Mash in reruns. And playing in a sandbox on a commercial. Whereas the LR and LC are transporting UN officials through Sudan right now on CNN. Or at least chatting with a giraffe under an acacia tree on Discovery.

Cheers,
Graham

 

[highlandercj-7]

Yeah and JEEPS won WWII! What's a bigger feat.

 

[Desertdude]

It is interesting that generally most folks, not in the sport/passion/hobby, call every vehicle out in the woods a "Jeep"


:::

 

[BigAl]

It is interesting that generally most folks, not in the sport/passion/hobby, call every vehicle out in the woods a "Jeep"


:::

So true, I think it drives the FJ guys nuts:iagree: