Rating and selecting a vehicle: A guideline

[Scott Brady]

I am often amazed at what people will post in a forum, or say on the trail about another vehicle. Like "Jeeps suck" or "____ is a piece of junk", etc. What they are really saying is that the vehicle in reference does not meet their needs, or has a different design or value target.

The key is to understand the ENGINEERING behind a vehicle, and the criteria they satisfy. That is why there are over 100 different trucks and SUV's available.

As OHV travelers we have a basic set of requirements that are required for extended, vehicle dependent travel. We are looking for specific functionality that adds VALUE to the vehicle as an OHV choice.

WHAT DOES NOT ADD VALUE:

1. Luxury: Leather, heated seats, DVD players, power folding seats, etc. Luxury content reduces payload.
2. Big HP: Don't be fooled by this ploy... Big HP is not needed, and is in fact a liability. Reduced range, greater chance of broken parts, etc. However, torque is important, if matched with economy. That is to say, displacement without efficiency is not a value add. Excessive HP reduces efficiency and durability.
3. Capability by electronic intervention: Traction control, stability control, brake for distribution, etc. is not a substitute for locking differentials, long travel and big brakes. Complexity reduces reliability.

CRITICAL DECISION/EVALUATION POINTS

CAPACITY: The ability to carry weight in the vehicle. This is measured by payload statistics.

Capacity, or payload must be the first consideration given to vehicle selection, as little can be done to safely improve its rating after purchase.

DURABILITY:
The ability of the vehicle to travel rugged terrain, fully loaded without chassis or drivetrain failure with years of continual use.

RELIABILITY:
The ability of a vehicle to perform over long distances and after years of service in rugged terrain without drivetrain, electrical and support system failure due to component malfunction.

CAPABILITY:
The ability of the vehicle to traverse rocky, muddy, crossed axle terrain including deep water crossings, severe side slopes, hill climbs and descents.

EFFICIENCY:
Fuel efficiency as it relates to payload, which provides the greatest opportunity for range. Payload as a percentage of vehicle weight is a key indicator.

VALUE:
This is a persons budgetary constraints. Very few can afford a Unimog, despite its performance in the above categories.


So, even though a Hummer H2 might perform well in the Capability category, it performs less admirably in efficiency, value and reliability. A Jeep Wrangler Rubicon is probably the most capable high volume production vehicle available today, but it has minimal capacity, etc. The key is to strike a the best balance.

How does your vehicle rate?

[offroad_nomad]

I think the 4Runner is under-rated. However since I purchased my used '01 4Runner, this is a question I frequently ponder . . . did I make the right choice?

Honestly, probably not. Not do to the make or model, but the year of my 4Runner. I should have done additional research and I would have learned:


The optional rear E-locker was no offered in 2001+ 4Runners. Now I'll probably have to drop a large amount of change purchasing and installing a rear ARB locker and compressor.

I don't know what the Toyota engineers were smoking when they decided to eliminate the manual hubs on late models 4Runners for the new ADD system. With ADD, if I break an axle or related part I'm screwed if I'm not carrying a spare. With manual hubs, I could unlock that wheel and continue in 3W drive.
Current Toyota SUVs seem to be losing thier utility and morphing into [a loud scream] MINIVANS!

I used to harbor similar sentiments as Scott mentioned like "Jeeps Suck." I was even going to put one of those stickers on my 4Runner. Then I realized it just may be a Jeep that pulls me out of a ditch or mud hole and passed on the sticker. I also don't think all Jeep owners are conseated and obnoxious - just proud truck owners.

[offroad_nomad]

Scott,
I don't know if this would be another point to consider, but many or most of our vehicles are also daily drivers, so should we also consider onroad v. offroad capabilities and try to find a balance between the two?

[gjackson]

This is one of my favorite topics! ;-) But it has always been a very personal one. I spent a good 3 years researching different trucks, and then realized I was actually looking for excuses not to buy anything but what I wanted. Then, of course, because they never imported the truck I wanted, I had to go to extraordinary lengths to get it. It isn't perfect, and there are aspects of other vehicles that I prefer, but overall it is everything I wanted.

As far as comparing SUVs and trucks, Tom Sheppard did an excellent job of that in his VDE book. Compares all by payload capacity to vehicle weight. Some surprising contenders in there! Chris Scott does a good job of just rating different vehicles in Sahara Overland. He is a bit biased to TLC (as Tom Sheppard was to LR), but that's fine.

One thing I love about my Defender is that I can run it off a 9v battery if I need to. Also, it is so simple (ie such an ancient design) that I can fix just about anything on it myself. That was a very significant factor in choosing that model. That and the payload / interior space capacity. Being very boxy, it is easy to build stuff for. Not much plactic moulding to get in the way.

Reliability has to have been the most disappointing aspect. The transmission shredded all of its synchros by 19,000km from new, and was working hard on chewing up all the gears when I had to replace it. I think it was a manufacturing defect and they didn't put the drive key in for the transmission oil pump. Given that, it did 19,000km with no oil being pumped through the galleries which is pretty good! Too bad the factory wasn't interested in helping me with that! :(

It certainly isn't a high HP engine! Puts out about 115bhp and about 195lb/ft of the good stuff!! Slogs through everything even when heavily loaded.

Hmmm, maybe a 78 series TLC troop carrier next??! ;)

cheers

Graham
www.africaoverland.org

[BajaTaco]

Hmmm, maybe a 78 series TLC troop carrier next??! ;)


Yea, but how to get one and use it here?

[Scott Brady]

I used to harbor similar sentiments as Scott mentioned like "Jeeps Suck." I was even going to put one of those stickers on my 4Runner. Then I realized it just may be a Jeep that pulls me out of a ditch or mud hole and passed on the sticker. I also don't think all Jeep owners are conseated and obnoxious - just proud truck owners.

I own a Jeep Wrangler, and have been told that before. It kind of made me chuckle.... Then I asked the person why they thought my Jeep sucked. After being told they were unreliable, I informed them my Wrangler has 140k and had never broken down. Some Jeep's are much less reliable than the Wrangler though.

[The BN Guy]

Something to chew on...parts availibility and economical replacments. Finding replacement parts for an H2 in Mexico or anywhere not within 50 miles of a Hummer dealer might be difficult. Jeep on the other hand...parts could be found just about anywhere since they tend to be mechanically more simplified.

Plus computers. Vehicles with computers will probably be less likely to be trapsing through the Rainforest Challenge in Malaysia.

[MaddBaggins]

Ah yes , the "my truck blows yours away" syndrome. As for me, I love older boxy looking Rovers, Nissan Patrols are awesome, The new Rubicon Jeep is VERY capable right off the lot, always liked Dodge trucks.
Honestly the only one I hold a bad opinion of is the H2/H3. I guess it's because I have run into more than a few jackhole owners, thus my low opinion.
For me, I chose the vehicle with the best capacity to do what I want to do with my family and one I could afford. Finding an old model Rover for sale is like squeezing blood form a stone, I have heard the reliability of the new ones is suspect(no personal experience). The Rubicon is not big enough and a little more $$ than I had at the time. Just try to find a Patrol in or around Tucson. It boiled down to a Cruiser for me, then I talked the wife into it. She hates the 60 series and it's difficult to get a 70 series, so I have an 80 series. :victory:

BTW my 3 most common wheeling partners drive 2 Cherokees and an old K5 Blazer.

[Scott Brady]

Graham,

I often make concessions on reliability if the vehicle is serviceable. That is also why I don't hesitate to recommend Defenders and series one Disco's to those capable of servicing them. Even though they are less reliable than a Land Cruiser, they are much easier to service.

If you look at a 110 based on the criteria I mention, it is easy to see why there are many of them running through the bush.

Capability: Long travel, great clearance, solid axle, good approach and departure

Capacity: High payload ratings


These criteria is what I used to buy my truck with. No luxury pinnings, no electronic intervention, etc. The Tacoma has excellent capability, high payload for the size, good economy, reasonably priced, class leading reliability and durability, etc. That is why there are so many of them used for expedition work. It is the closest we can get to a workhorse Land Cruiser anymore...

[Scott Brady]

Honestly the only one I hold a bad opinion of is the H2/H3. I guess it's because I have run into more than a few jackhole owners, thus my low opinion.

I have found the same to be true. The H2/H3 is actually a VERY capable vehicle in stock form. Few factory SUV offerings can compete (from an OHV perspective). What I have found is that most HUMMER owners have migrated from luxury sport sedans, not upgraded from other 4wds.

HUMMERS had a short lived pop culture appeal. These owners went from driving a car, to driving something the dealership told them was unstoppable. Most have no OHV driving skills (having not learned the hard way). Many also happen to be highly charged ego types. So it is not hard to see why some of them are destroying trails, pissing other OHV users off and getting the middle finger from all of the Prius drivers :p

[flyingwil]

Not only all the above are true, but the amount of aftermarket products aplicable to the vehicle is important as well. Sometimes it is best to be able to buy a well thought out and engineered upgrade part (suspension, skids, ect.) than fabricate your own and learn the hard way. I selected my rig based upon the upgradability and the stock performance. Since the stock performance of the vehicle is adequate to get to many i thought i couldn't, stock will do as I save up to upgrade certian aspects of the vehicle. Many rigs as mentioned above are highly capable right off the lot, as you fabricate and upgrade, the capabilities slow increase as well.

However, I disagree with Scotts pos't in regards to DVD players... in fact I have one on my list of wants, due to the inputs and posibilty of a self spotting system. This could also benefit the passengers, old or young, since most units can opperate independantly. For example, you could have an in dash unit displaying your rear view camera, and could be playing a children's DVD in the back with headsets (so you don't end up singing Barney songs all day) and you could still be listening to the radio. Infact, some DVD players have built in GPS, and vehicle monitoring systems, because of this I believe this technology is befitial and has a value to an expediton vehicle... But this is depending upon the set up of the system.

Wil

[Scott Brady]

However, I disagree with Scotts pos't in regards to DVD players... in fact I have one on my list of wants, due to the inputs and posibilty of a self spotting system. This could also benefit the passengers, old or young, since most units can opperate independantly. For example, you could have an in dash unit displaying your rear view camera, and could be playing a children's DVD in the back with headsets (so you don't end up singing Barney songs all day) and you could still be listening to the radio. Infact, some DVD players have built in GPS, and vehicle monitoring systems, because of this I believe this technology is befitial and has a value to an expediton vehicle... But this is depending upon the set up of the system.

Wil

Good point Wil. It was more of a general comment on luxury options and accessories. They take payload capacity from the vehicle, and add complexity (reduced reliability) which are both things of critical importance.

[flyingwil]

Good point Wil. It was more of a general comment on luxury options and accessories. They take payload capacity from the vehicle, and add complexity (reduced reliability) which are both things of critical importance.

While on thetopic of payload, if you were to have your frame strengthened what impacts does this have on the vehicle's payload? One, it is going to add weight to the vehicle, but because it is strengthened can the payload be increased? Also what about galvanized frames does this increase the payload?

I guess the root of the above questions is what determines the payload capacity of the vehicle? Is it the point where abrupt manuvers are no longer safe, or it where the frame fails, ect...?

[goodtimes]

The frame really isn't the limiting factor of your payload capacity. The frame is constructed to support the vehicle and load which is carried by the axles, and ultimately the wheel bearings. Of course, it isn't realistic to "upgrade" the wheel bearings without "upgrading" the axles.

There is alot more that goes into determining the payload and gross vehicle combined weight rating (maximum weight of vehicle, load in the vehicle, and total trailer weight all combined), but everything is engineered based on what the wheel bearings will put up with....they are basically "the bottom line".

[flyingwil]

The frame really isn't the limiting factor of your payload capacity. The frame is constructed to support the vehicle and load which is carried by the axles, and ultimately the wheel bearings. Of course, it isn't realistic to "upgrade" the wheel bearings without "upgrading" the axles.

There is alot more that goes into determining the payload and gross vehicle combined weight rating (maximum weight of vehicle, load in the vehicle, and total trailer weight all combined), but everything is engineered based on what the wheel bearings will put up with....they are basically "the bottom line".
.

Thanks GT!

[Jonathan Hanson]

Goodtimes, you're correct about payload and the vehicle frame . . .mostly. Historically, certain vehicles have suffered from serious frame issues even when not loaded to capacity. Mid-1980s General Motors trucks were notorious for frame cracks and broken motor mounts. The Arizona Game and Fish Department had something like 75 percent of their Chevrolet trucks certified as unsafe at one point. One truck was found with only a single mount holding the engine in. This was back in the days when Chevrolet told its customers "Oh, the frames are designed to flex."

So I consider proper frame design a bedrock foundation for an expedition vehicle. Toyota has been boxing the frames on Land Cruisers and trucks for decades, something American truck builders only recently adopted. (And even Toyota had some issues with the rear parts of frames on some Tacomas, I understand.) The Land Rover frame is a work of art in its intricately welded box section design (unfortunately of thin gauge steel and prone to rusting). Modern hydroforming techniques are making frames stiffer at no weight penalty.

Only a very few vehicles, such as the Unimog, are truly designed with frames that flex in a controlled manner.

[goodtimes]

Jonathon, you are correct. There are concerns with frames of certain vehicles, particularly for off hiway travel. 73 - 87 GM trucks and blazers (full size) tend to crack around the steering boxes when used heavily (big tires, etc). Most compact and mid size trucks seem to have rigidity issues right above the rear axle. This is where the MFR's tend to cut back on material...most go from a boxed design back to a C-channel, as they assume there wont' be a whole lot of stress on the frame in that last 2 or three feet. Of course, us OHV travellers then install tow hooks, etc., and once we use them, we end up bending the frame. Hard pulls from one side of the frame can also bend things....better to pull strait from a properly designed attachement point centered between the frame rails, IMO.

There really aren't too many non-custom solutions to fixing these areas. DeMello sells a frame stiffining kit (basically some 1/4" steel plate that gets welded to the outside of the frame, right above the rear axle) for the tacoma's...apparently this is a big enough issue to have some aftermarket support. Several companies sell a steering box brace for the GM vehicles...basically a stamped piece of steel that fits over the steering box mounting location and gets welded on. A reciever hitch will help stiffen up the back end of the frame on pretty much any vehicle, and provide a attachment point for pulling. But none of these items will actually increase your payload. That is still governed by the wheel bearings (and brake system, etc).

There are alot of reasons that a really rigid frame is a good thing, but it really doesn't affect your ability to carry a heavy load. My concern with poorly built frames would be with a heavy vehicle that gets used on very technical trails on a regular basis...you will lose the fit of the body panels, get waves in the sheet metal, latch and hinges will get loose, you develope squeaks, rattles, and thumps......and eventually you will start breaking things like motor mounts, suspension mounting points etc. For the type of trails that most of us spend time on, over working a frame probably isn't a huge concern. Now if you like playing on the extreme rock crawling trails, yea, frames do crack, link captures break off, etc. Which is one of the things that is spurring on the huge number of buggies that are being built. You are able to build a chassis that will hold up to the abuse of rock crawling, where you won't find a suitable frame to accomplish the same.